The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-04-13AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1999 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: Ail items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacred by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and core:idered in normal sequence. 1. OPF. aN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 2. APPROVE AGENDA. 3. *CONSENT AGF3~IDA *A. APPROVE, THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 23, 1999 REGULAR MEETING .............................. 1060-1067 *B. APPROVE, THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 30, 1999 SPECIAL MEETING. 1068 *C. SET EXECUTIVE SESSION TO BE HELD DURING THE COMMI'UITEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, APRIL 20, 1999 TO DISCUSS THE WOODLAND POINT MATFER. PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY 1-2, 1999 AS MARCH }'OR PARKS WEEKEND IN THE CITY OF MOUND ..... 1069-1071 *E. SET BID OPENING DATE FOR 1999 SEALCOAT PROGRAM. SUGGESTED DATE: APRIL 28, 1999, 11 A.M .............. 1072-1073 *F. RESOLUTION APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (LOGIS) HEALTH CARE GROUP (GROUP) ...................... 1074-1089 *G. RESOLLYIION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING ELECTRONIC PROPRIETARY GEOGRAPHICAL DIGITIZED DATA BASE (EPDB) AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT .......... 1090-1098 *H. R,ESOLU~ION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT FOR (HMEP) HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY PROGRAM MONIES ................ 1099 1056 4a. 4b, e 6e *J. *K. POOL TA:BLES, BOWLING, AMUSEMENT DEVICE AND RESTAURANT .................................. 1100 APPROVAL OF LICENSE RENEWALS: TRANSIEIWI' MERCHANT, TREE REMOVAL, SET-UP LICENSE AND PUBLIC GATHERING PERMITS ....................... 1101 CASE 99-0_$i MINOR SUBDIVISION, TO READJUST PROPERTY LINES TO CREATE TWO PARCELS, MARVIN NELSON, 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 4, 5 & 6, BLOCK 1, SHADYWOOD POINT 61980, PID #18-117-23 32 0011 & 18-117-23 32 0012 ............................... 1102-1115 *L. PAYMEnt OF BILLS ............................... 1116-1141 4 a & b will be e~:plained together. The Minor Subdivision(4a) would have to be approved in order for the Council to consider the Conditional Use Permit (4b). PUBLIC HEARDIG CASE 99-06: MINOR SUBDIVISION, TO READJUST PROPERTY LINF3 TO CREATE TWO PARCELS TO CONSTRUCT A TWINHOME AT 2541 WEXFORD LANE, FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, INC., LOTS 1, 2, 3, 14 & 15, BLOCK 7, SETON, PID #24-117-24 11 0019. PUBLIC HEARING:CASE 99-07: REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALI,OW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TWINHOME LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 SINGLE OR TWOFAMILY ZONING DISTRICT AT 2541 WEXFORD LANE, LOTS 1, 2, 3, 14 & 15, BLOCK 7, SETON, PID #24-117-24.. 11 0019 .................................. 1142-1188 CASE 99-03:CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A HARD COVER VARIANCE AND TO VACATE A UTILITY EASEMENT IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION TO CONVERT A 1 1/~ STORY DWELLING INTO A 2 STORY AND ADD AN ADDITION WITH AN A'I'FACHED GARAGE, AT 4844 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 1 & 2, BLOCK 5, DEVON PIDS 25-117-24 11 0047 & 25-117-24 11 0046. ................... 1189-1217 PUBLIC HEARING: NORWOOD LANE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. ao RESOLU'IION AMENDING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE HARDSHIP FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ............................. 1218-1220 be RESOLWI'ION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR THE NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ....................... 1221-1226 RESOLLYI'ION AWARDING THE BID AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT FOR THE NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. ..................................... 1227-1233 1057 7. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 10. FURTHER DISCUSSION RE: POSSIBLE CITY OF MOUND PARTICIPATION IN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CON SOLIDATED POOL, HENNEPIN COUNTY OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT STAFF ....... 1234-1235 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON FENCE/TRELLIS ISSUE ............................................. 1236-1247 INFORMATION ~CELLANF.~US: A. Department Head Monthly Reports for March 1999 ............. 1248-1268 Be Letter from Kiki Sonnen, Executive Director, WeCan requesting financial ~tssistance in relocating their offices from the Westonka Community Center to some other location. I did not put this on the action part of this agenda because the Council has previously stated that it did not believe it had a financial obligation to relocate the community tenants except for the public access studio which it now controls with Chanhassen ..................... 1269-1270 C. Dock and Commons Advisory Commission Minutes of March 18, 1999. 1271-1274 Memorandum from Jim Strommen, Suburban Rate Authority, on the are~. code decision ............................. 1275-1278 Letter from the National League of Cities (NLC) regarding the five federal priorities of the NLC ........................ 1279-1284 Fo Summary of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Roundtable held with City Managers, Administrators and other city official~85-1288 Notice from MCWD regarding a public meeting on the operation of the Gray's Ba5 Dam Control Structure. Meeting is scheduled for April 22, 1999, Minnetonka Community Center, Council Chambers at 6:30 p.m ...................................... ' .... 1289 He Notice frown the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) regarding vacancies on the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and on the AMM Board .................................... 1290 Public Hearing Notice from LMCD regarding Pelican Point Homeowmx's Association variance application. Public heating is scheduled ::or April 14, 1999, 7:00 p.m., Tonka Bay City Hall ......... 1291 Notice from the Mound City Days Committee regarding participation in the parade. Please send in this notice to the Committee if you intend to be in the parade ............................. 1292-1293 1058 ge Councilmember Brown attended the joint planning commission meeting with Minnetrista on March 29 at Minnetrista. He may want to comment on the results of that meeting. Copy of the survey requested by the City Council on the Roanoke Access. You will note that there is a change in the numbering of the individual dock sites. This is due to survey crew using two bench marks noted on the cunent Dock Location Map. They were #42052 at the Roanoke Lane access and #41631 at the point in front of Lot 14. In order to locate the dock sites as directed by the City Council, (see the City Council minutes of January 12, 1999 and February 9, 1999), the numbering had to be adjusted. Questions should be directed to Jim Fackler, Parks Director or John Cameron, City Engineer ................................... 1294--1310 EMI I?,R: Committee of the Whole Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 20, 1999, 7:30 p.m. REMINDF. aR: HRA meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 13, 1999, 7:00 p.m. We have n~ceived a resignation/retirement letter from Judy Bryce, part-time Fire Department Secretary. She will be leaving at the end of April. Judy has been with us for nine years in this capacity. We will be having coffee and cake for her on Friday, April 30, 3 p.m., City Hall. Pe Notice of SRA (Suburban Rate Authority) Quarterly Meeting, April 21, 1999, 4:30 P.M. at th Roseville Skating Center, City of Roseville Park and Recreation, 2661 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, MN. (Map Attached) ........................ 1311-1333 1059 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 23, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Tuesday, March 23, 1999, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens and Bob Brown were absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City l~anager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark, Assist~mt City Planner Loren Gorden and the following interested citizens: Cathy Bailey and Leona Peterson. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Cou~urilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Conser, t Agenda and considered in normal sequence. Councilmember Weycker asked that item *D be removed from the Consent Agenda because there was no name insert~xl for Assistant Weed Inspector. Councilmmber Hanus asked that item *E be pulled from the Consent Agenda for a clarification. The City Manager stated that there is one Add-On item for the Consent Agenda. This is to set a date for a Public H~'ing. APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agerula has been approved. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to approve the Consent Agenda, as amended above. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *CONSENT AGENDA *1.0 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 10. 1999. SPECIAL MEETING. MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. *1.1 '1.2 '1.3 '1.4 '1.5 MrNUTE$ MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 23, 1999 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 9. 1999 REGULAR MEETING. MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unani mously. SET SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR TUESDAY. MARCH 30, 1999, FOR PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE WOODLAND POINT MATTER. SUGGESTED START TIME IS 7:30 P.M. MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unani mously. APPROVE ENDORSE31ENT OF SCOTT THOMAS TO FILL VACANCY ON MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD. MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. PAYMENT OF BILL~ MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. ADD-ON: SET APRIL 13, 1999. FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TWINHOME LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 SINGLE OR TWO FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT AT 2541 WEXFORD LANE, LOTS 1, 2, 3,14 & 15. BLOCK 7, SETON. PID//24-117-24 11 00]~9. P & Z CASE//99-07. MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. MINUTES MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 23, 1999 1.6 APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT WEED INSPECTOR. The City Manager advised thai: the Park Director lim Fackler's name should have been inserted as the Assistant Weed Inspector. Weycker moved and Hanus s~zonded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g99-25 RESOLUTION APPOINTING PARK DIRECTOR, JIM FACKLER AS THE ASSISTAN~I WEED INSPECTOR FOR 1999 Motion carried. The vote was unanimously in favor. 1.7 PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR WILLIAM DAHLEN, 4555 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. Councilmember Hanus pointed out that this item needs a 4/5's vote and there are only 3 Councilmembers present. MOTION by It anus, seconded by Weycker to take this up at the Special City Council Meeting on March 30, 1999. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 99-03: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A HARDCOVER VARIANCE AND TO 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 l&2. BLOCK 5. DEVON PIDS 25-117-24 11 0047 & 25-117-24 11 0046. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to continue this item to the April 13, 1999, Regular City Council Meeting because a vacation requires a 4/5's vote and only 3 Councilmembers are present tonight. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 REPORT ON DISCUSSIONS WITH WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT RE: CONTINUED USE OF WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER FOR COMMUNITY TENANTS. The City Manager reported that since the last Council Meeting he has had some discussions with the School District regarding the continuation of leasing the Westonka Community Center property. He asked if they would consider leasing it to us so the community tenants could stay in the building until a communit) center is built and the tenants had another place to go. He asked for a two year lease. The School Board considered this request and have responded in a letter M. tNUTE8 MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 23, 1999 dated, March 15, 1999, as follows: "TO: Ed Shukle, Jr., City Manager, City of Mound FROM: Pamela J. Myer,, Ph.D., Superintendent, 612-491-8001 RE: Westonka School Board's plans for the Lynwood site At its retreat on Saturday, Ma:ch 13, the Westonka School Board discussed at length its facility goals, needs, and plans. The School Board's goal is to provide adequate space for school district programs and offices. After examining the pros and ex)ns of lease arrangements, the School Board members determined that they need to sell this site as soon as possible, in order to have funds to provide space to house the district offices, which are temporarily moving into classroom space in three school buildings. Therefore, the School Board is not interested in developing a lease with the City of Mound for the Lynwood site. The School Board is ready to sell the Lynwood site, and is willing to offer it for sale first to the City of Mound. I've asked Kevin to research whether the school district can offer the property to one buyer, without putting the property up for public sale to all possible buyers. The asking price is the 1996 appraised value plus the percentage increase in commercial property value In the City of Mound since that date, which you researched from the County Auditors office, at 6%. This amount is $1,180,840. In addition, the School Board is ready to sell the ball field property. The Board is willing to offer it, also for sale first to the City of Mound, if we are allowed to do this.. The Board is proceeding to call for appraisals of this sile. The School Board is proceeding to call for bids for demolition of the Lynwood site in preparation for sale of the property as a buildable site, in order to receive the highest possible value for this property. If the Mound City Council is interested purchase of the Lynwood site, the School Board has authorized me to negotiate a pjrchase agreement., with you, on their behalf, with a deadline of April 24,1999, for a signed pt:rchase agreement and receipt of earnest money. Please respond at your earliest convenience. C. Bill Pinegar, Chair, Westonka School Board" The City Manager reported that since this letter he has spoken with Dr. Myers and she has been authorized to negotiate a purc~.ase agreement if the City wishes to purchase the property. There is also the possibility that the City could consider an option to purchase the property over a period of time. As stated in the memo the answer to leasing the property is a definite "no". The City Manager asked for d irection from the Council on what the City would like to do now. M. rNUTES MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 23, 1999 Hanus asked if the price quoted is cleared or as is? The City Manager stated the price quoted is including the demolition of the building. He further explained that in 1996 the School District had two appraisals done by two different firms. These came in about the same. The purchase agreement the School District had with the developer was for $600,000 and then they had about $500,000 for demolition of the building. Hanus stated he thought the de molition numbers from a couple of years ago were more like $800,000. The City Manager suggested that the City get their own appraisal of the property. Hanus asked about the new telecommunications tower at the football field. He is under the impression from what he was able to ascertain from documents at that time, that if the School District sells the property and the tower cannot stay, they would have to pay back all the money U.S. West spent on the lights ~hat were put up. He asked if the School District is aware of that? The City Manager did not know. The Council discussed the cosl of an appraisal. The City Manager estimated $3,000 to $5,000 depending upon what properties are included and whether the building is left there or gone. The Council discussed wanting, just land value because the building would have to go. The City Attorney stated there is an appraisal approach that can be used, called a development cost approach which would assume that the building is a negative value, so they would come up with a figure that a prudent buyer would spend to buy the property for an anticipated development, bearing in mind the costs to tear down the building. They can come up with a net number using this approach. The Council discussed the fact that this could come up zero or negative. The Council again expressed concern regarding what the current tenants future is and where they will go. The Council discussed having an appraisal on the entire parcel including the ball fields and the extra lot. The Mayor stated she would like separate appraisals on each of the pieces of property. The Council also discussed the fact that the ball fields are very low. An appraiser would have to be aware of the poor soil conditions of the property. The Council decided they would like to have a current appraisal of the property before going further. MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Hanus to authorize the City Manager to secure current appraisals on the Community Center property, the ball field property, and the house properly, not to exceed $5,000 for the appraisals. If the appraisals are going to exceed $5,000, the City Manager will come back to the Council for approval. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MWUTE$ MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 23, 1999 COMMENTS AND SUGGF~qTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were noDe. 1.10 REQUEST FROM HI2VNEP~ COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT RE: PROPOSED CHANGE TO COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING JANUARY 1. 2000 AND DECEMBER 31, 2002. The City Manager explained that he has been contacted by Mark Hendrickson of the Hennepin County Department of Planning and Development regarding the feasibility of raising the threshold on consolidated pool money fcr Hennepin County for CDBG funds to $75,000. It is currently at $50,000. There are 27 cities in Hennepin County that receive less than $50,000 in CDBG allocation. These cities have ~. consolidation pool where they share in the resources for funding all their programs. He explained that most of the cities that are involved in this do put it toward public service programming, i.e.: senior center, etc., and they also devote funds to single family home rehabilitation. He state~', that Mr. Hendrickson is trying to sell us on the benefits of joining the consolidated pool. The City Manager stated his first reaction was negative. However, after talking with Mr. Hendrickson and understanding that the current public service programs would continue to get funded as well as the single family home rehabilitation programs, he became more interested. In addition, the opportunity to apply for other project funds seemed attractive. The purpose of the consolidated pool is to utilize lhe resources of 27 cities which provides more opportunity. The Council asked if joining in this would give us more flexibility as to what we can use the funds for or will it be the same? The City Manager stated that it would give the City the same opportunity that we have, plus some flexibility. The City of Mound is currently at $64,646 and that is strictly for rehab and the public service programs. If we go into the pool, we would be able to do all of those things i)lus some other things like the project funding he refers to in his letter of March 17, 1999, as fi)llows: The Joint Cooperation Agreement for the CDBG program is up for renewal. The new agreement is for a three year period beginning in FY 2000. At direction of the County Board a series of meetings were held recently with all participating cities to discuss alternatives to the current method of allocating CDBG funds. One alternative would increase the Consolidated Pool threshold to $75,000. Under this alternative cities with a planning allocation of $75,000 or less have their allocation contribut{xl to the Consolidated Pool. Only cities contributing to the pool can apply for this funding. This proposed change would affect Mound and Chanhassen. The Consolidated Pool was eslablished in the current Cooperation Agreement that, was executed in 1997. Under this agreement l:lanning allocations for cities that would receive $50,000 or less are placed in the Consolidated Pool. For the 1999 program., a total of $330,889 is available to the 27 cities contributing to the pool. · M. rNUTES MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 23, 1999 Selection Committee A selection committee, most of whom arc administrators of participating cities, facilitates the annual application process. An attempt is made to balance the make-up of the committee to reflect the nature and geographic diversity of the Consolidated Pool area. The committee reviews competitive proposals from cities and public service agencies and prepares a funding recommendation. The City of Mound could appoint a representative to the committee. Funding Set-asides To simplify the application process the selection committee established set-asides for public services and single family rehabilitation. There is a 20% set-asidc for public services. Public service agencies submit competitive applications for priority services. In 1999 the public service set-asidc was $65,000. The following agencies serving western Hennepin County receive Consolidated Pool funding: Senior Community Services(Wcstonka Senior Center), WECAN, Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners and Sojourner Project. A second set-aside is for single family rehabilitation. For this set-aside a dollar amount has been designated that approximates the annual average amount allocated by cities for this activity prior to their p~micipation in the Consolidated Pool. In 1999 the rehab set-aside was $90,000. The rehal> funding pool is administered by Hennepin County. Clients are currently being served in all cities that had previously allocated funding to rehabilitation. Project Funding The 1999 funding for competitive CDBG projects, excluding the set-asides for public services and single family rehab, was $175.889. In the two years in which the Consolidated Pool approach has beer in operation, most of the successful city-initiated projects were funded at levels that exceeded the annual amount they would have received under the old formula approach. These include a scattered site acquisition/home buyer assistance project - $110,000, a new mul':i-community housing program in cooperation with Habitat for Humanity - $70,000, fimding for multi-community affordable housing planning - $40,000 and a housing rehabilitation project in targeted areas of Orono and Spring Park - $128,000. Hennepin County is looking for our input. They are looking at increasing the threshold to $75,000 for a three year perio:l beginning in funding year 2000. We need to let Mr. Hendrickson know if we are interested or n at in joining the consolidated pool so that he can let the County Board know on March 24, 1999. If the City wishes to participate, we would have to sign a cooperation agreement to raise that threshold so that we would be included in the consolidated pool. He recommended joining the consolidated pool. The Council voiced concern that the City might lose some control of where the money goes. They were in favor of more fl.:xibility. No action was taken at this time. M.~NUTES MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 23, 1999 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Financial Report for February 1999 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. B. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of March 11, 1999. Information from WECAN, CASH and Senior Community Services regarding budget questions asked of them at the CDBG Public Heating. D Memo from the City of Orono to Mayor Pat Meisel regarding an invitation to attend a meeting on March 24, 1999, 8 a.m., Lafayette Club with other area Mayors. Agenda for the meeting is to discuss the future of the Rail America (Dakota Rail) line between Hutchinson and Wayzata. To my knowledge, the line is not being abandoned. However, there is interest from some of the area cities regarding what could be done should the line ever be abandoned. E. Water quality report cards from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. F. LMCD update on the overhaul of Eurasian Water Milfoil (EWM) equipment. Strategic Planning Retr.mt: I have tentatively arranged for a facilitator to hold the strategic planning retreat that we discussed previously. The information about the facilitator, Peter Cotton, is enclosed. We have tentatively scheduled it for Saturday, April 10, 1999. Location is still to be determined. Department Heads are clear for that day. Councilmember Ahren., indicated her calendar is clear for that day. How about everybody else? Councilmember Hanus stated he will be out of town on the 10th. The City Manager will check with the rerrtainder of the Council to see if April 17th or 24th would work. He REMINDER: Joint Planning Commission meeting with Minnetrista is scheduled for Monday, March 29, 1999, 7:30 p.m., Minnetrista City Hall. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the proposed redevelopment of ti e mobile home park. Gayle Bethke, an employee in the Finance Department for many years, has resigned. She has been replaced by Collette Roberts, a previous applicant for a position in Finance. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to adjourn at 8:20 P.M. The vote was unanimously in f, tvor. Motion carried. Attest: City Clerk Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING - MARCH 30, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Tuesday, March 30, 1999, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers: Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker, Andrea Ahrens and Bob Brown. Also in attendance: John Dean, City Attorney; Karen Cole, Attorney Representing City on Woodland Point case; and Ed Shukle, City Manager. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Public Lands Permit for William Dahlen, 4555 Island View Drive Ahrens moved Resolution 99- approving a public lands permit for William Dahlen. Brown seconded the motion. There was no discussion; the motion carried unanimously. Executive Session - Woodland Point Matter City Attorney John Dean announced the need for an executive session to discuss the Woodland Point Court decision and legal strategies regarding this case. Councilmember Weycker excused herself from this discussion since she is a party to the litigation. Weycker indicated she was leaving the Council meeting since there were no other items on the agenda. The Council then adjourned to executive session at 7:40 p.m. At approximately 10:10 p.m., the Council retumed from executive session. City Attorney Dean reported that the Woodland Point Court decision had been discussed and that direction was given to him and to Karen Cole, the attorney representing the City in this case. Other Business It was noted that the Council/Staff retreat has been scheduled for Saturday, April 24, 1999. It was noted that the meeting with Mound businesses and business property owners is scheduled for Tuesday, April 6, 1999, 7:30 a.m., Mound City Hall. There being no other business, it was moved by Brown, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously, to adjourn the meeting at 10:18 p.m. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING MAY 1 & 2, 1999, AS MARCH FOR PARKS WEEKEND IN THE CITY OF MOUND WHEREAS, May 1 & 2, 1999, has been established as "March for Parks Weekend"; and WHEREAS, the purpose of organizing March for Parks was to plan a nationwide demonstration of public concern over the perilous condition of the nation's parks and public spaces; and WHEREAS, these events will not only raise awareness, but also necessary funds for park improvement, pro~:tion, and education projects benefiting national, state, and local public parks; and WHEREAS, those participating in March for Parks are demonstrating that they are committed, to protecting and revitalizing our national treasures for generations to come; and WHEREAS, everyone must become familiar with the environmental consequences 0 - f their actions and the impact it will have on future generations; NOW, THEREFORE, I, THE MAYOR OF MOUND, MINNESOTA, do hereby proclaim and call upon t~le residents of this city to observe and participate in this weekend, as well as the days ahead, with sensitivity and respect for the nation's precious parks and public spaces. April 8, 1999 I1 III illlllll I [] Engineering · Planning · Surveying RECEivL~ .,, ,..,_ ~ i999 Construction Bulletin ATTN: Rita 9443 Science Center Drive New Hope, Minnesota 55428 SUBJECT: City of Mound 1999 Seal Coat Program Advertisement for Bids MFRA #6173 Dear Rita: Please publish the attached Advertisement for Bids in your Friday, April 16 and 23, 1999 editions of the Construction Bulletin. Please bill the municipality for this publication and furnish one copy of an Affidavit of Publication to the City of Mound, Minnesota. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JC:pry Enclosures cc: Fran Clark, City Clerk, City of Mound e Cmain:\6 [ 73\adltr4-8 15050 23rd*Avenue North . Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra~mfra.com Engineering · Planning ° Surveying April 8, 1999 The Laker PO Box 82 Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound 1999 Seal Coat Program Advertisement for Bids MFRA #6173 To Whom It May Concern: Please publish the attached Advertisement for Bids in your April 17, 1999 edition of The Laker. Please bill the municipality for this publication and furnish one copy of an Affidavit of Publication to the City of Mound, Minnesota. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JC:pry Enclosures cc: Fran Clark, City Clerk, City of Mound e:~nain:\6173\adltr4-8 15050 23rd.Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (LOGIS) HEALTH CARE GROUP (GROUP) BY THE CITY OF MOUND WHEREAS, a number of communities of the State of Minnesota identified benefits, including cost, effectivene~ and efficiency, that could be obtained by joining together to cooperatively provide for the establishment, operation and maintenance of employee benefit programs to the benefit of the parties and others; and WHEREAS, this consortium has further determined that a necessary adjunct of management information sygtems is providing information and data pertaining to health care options as part of employee benefits; and WHEREAS, the members of LOGIS have determined through their Executive Committee that the manage~nent of information pertaining to health care options is interwoven with the selection and operation ,~f such plans and that jointly contracting for such plan operation is a necessary and appropriate role for LOGIS; and WHEREAS, Mound has determined that it would be to its benefit to participate in LOGIS as a member, with the intent of participating in the coordination of employee health care planning service selection; ~d WHEREAS, Mound meets all of the requirements for participation set forth in the LOGIS Group Health and Life Insurance Policies and Procedures ("Policies"), which are incorporated herein by this reference; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute the LOGIS Joint and Cooperative Agreement, by which Mound will join LOGIS as a member, and to appoint the City Manager and the Finance Director to serve as its Director and Alternative Director, respectively, on the LOGIS Board of Directors. BE IT FUl~:THER RESOLVED, that it is the intent of the City Of Mound to participate in the LOGIS Health Care Group, and shall abide by the policies and procedures set forth in the Policies, as amended from time to time and incorporated herein by this reference. LOGIS~I Local Government Information Systems Association The LOGIS Advantage-Health Care Group Suite 210, One Carlson Parkway, Plymouth, MN 55447 Voice: (612) 541-7527 · Fax: (612) 593-7767 · Internet: http://www, yjohnso~tcacorp, com MEMORANDUM Date: March 23, 1999 To: LOGIS Members From: Yvonne Johnson, Vice President DCA Stanton Group Re: LOGIS Membership It has recently come to the attention of the LOGIS Executive Board that some of the jurisdictions participating in the LOGIS Health Care Group are not formal members of the LOGIS Association. Since this is a requirement to participate in the Health Care plan, we need to have those who have not applied for membership in LOGIS do so now. As stated in the Policies and Procedures, members have to be at least an associate member of the Association. This does not obligate the jurisdiction to purchase systems nor are there any dues imposed. You will, however, need to appoint two representatives to the general board. Attached are the Policies and Procedures, the Resolution to Participate, the Joint and Cooperative Agreement, the Commitment letter, and general information about the LOGIS Association. Please have the City Clerk and the Mayor sign the Resolution, the City Manager or Administrator sign the Commitment letter, and the Mayor and City Manager or Administrator sign the Joint and Cooperative Agreement in the presence of the City Clerk. For those of you who are jurisdictions other than cities, please have similar representative sign in place of Mayor, etc.. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. These agreements should have been completed at the time you originally joined the Health Care Group, but were not. Please feel free to call me at (612) 541-7527 should you have any questions or if you would like more information about the Association, you may call Mike Garris, Executive Director, at LOGIS. Mike's number is (612) 543-2630. Thank you Yvonne Johnson LOGIS GROUP HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Effective August 1, 1992, Amended January 1, 1995 and Updated March 15, 1999 POLICIES Elieibilitv Requirements To be eligible for participation in the insurance program, the legal entity must be one of the following: 1. A current member of the LOGIS Group Health and Life Insurance Program; 2. A current member of LOGIS; 3. A Minnesota city; or 4. A joint powers entity sponsored by a Minnesota city. The legal entity must also: 1. Not previously have been a participant in the LOGIS Group Health and Life Insurance Program; and 2. Indicate its comment to the program by July 15m of the current year or whenever reasonably possible for members entering on other than the first day of a plan year. For the Plan Year beginning January. 1, 1990: 1. Ail current members of the LOGIS Group Health and Life Insurance program will be eligible for participation in the Plan without restriction; and 2. Other current LOGIS members will be eligible to participate in the Group provided: a. They have not previously dropped membership in the Group; and b. They submit the necessary marketing information as requested by the Group or its designated representative. 3. All non-LOGIS members who are Minnesota cities will be eligible to participate if they comply with items 2.a. and b. above, as well as: a. They must become at least associate members of LOGIS. For subsequent Plan years, a LOGIS member who has not been a member of the Program or who has not previously dropped membership in the Program may participate in the Program's ngxt Plan Year beginning January 1st of the following year, if.' 1. They sign a Partcipafion Resolution on or before August 1~t of the preceding Plan Year or whenever reasonably possible; 2. They submit necessary marketing information as requested by the Program or its designated representative. LOGIS GROUP HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES OTHER REQUIREMENTS Definitions for purpose of these Policies and Procedures 1. Benefit-eamin~ employee is a full-time employee working an average of 30 scheduled hours or more per week based on the employer definition during the plan year. 2. Benefit-eligible employee is a part-time employee working at least an average of 20 scheduled hours but less than the defined number of hours eligible to be benefit- earning under the employer's defirfition during the plan year. 3. Retiree is any employee ora member of the Group who is entitled to coverage under Minnesota Statutes g 471.61, subdivision 2a - 2b ("chapter 488") or any retiree policy maintained by the Member. 4. Non benefit-eligible emplovee is a part-time employee working less than an average of 20 scheduled hours per week during the plan year. 5. COBRA eligibles are employees entitled to continue participation subsequent to the federal legislation commonly termed COBRA as in force and/or amended. COBRA continuation does not constitute retirement coverage. This term also includes individuals eligible for continuation under any provisions of Minnesota State Law if different than any federally applicable legislation. 6. Program means the health insurance or life insurance policies maintained by LOGIS for participating Members. 7. Member means any legal entity as indicated above who has elected to participate in this Program. The Member must honor the LOGIS Health and Life insurance policy regarding employee eligibility which is as follows: 1. An employee of a Member is eligible for health and life insurance if he or she is a regular or probationary employee and works at least 20 hours per week. However, the Member participating in the group, at its own discretion, may establish a more strict definition of eligibility, but not a more lenient definition. Once the Member's definition of eligibility is established, it must be applied consistently within the Member's employee population. All employees meeting the Member's definition of eligibility must be allowed to participate. 2. Members employing two individuals married to each other may allow one of the partners to carry family coverage. The other partner may then be carried as a dependent of that Individual. These married individuals may also carry coverage separately if desired. 3. Upon retirement, an eligible public employee as defined in Minnesota Statutes § 471.6 l, subdivision 2a - 2b ("chapter 488") and his/her covered dependents can participate in this Plan at the same premium rate as active employees until reaching age 65. The retiree must pay the entire premium unless otherwise provided for in a collective bargaining agreement or personnel policy. Retirees age 65 and over have the option of an HMO Medicare Supplement. 4. COBRA-eligible employees may be covered to the extent the corresponding active employee is eligible for coverage. COBRA continuees are treated the same as employees who are actively at work. LOGIS GROUP HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 5. Elected officials of any Member are not to be considered eligible for participation unless the elected official's coverage was in effect April 15, 1991 or prior. Coverage for these elected officials will terminate upon completion of the term of office. 6. Non-benefit eligible employees may not be covered. C. The Member must honor the LOGIS Health and Life Insurance policies regarding the Employer's contribution toward health insurance, which is as follows: 1. At a minimum, the Member must pay 100% of the lowest single premium for health insurance and group term life insurance for all of its benefit-earning employees and at lezst 50% for benefit-eligible employees. This does not apply to early retirees eligible under Minnesota s~ Statutes 471.61, subdivision 2a - 2b ("chapter 488"). 2. The Member may opt, based on its bargaining agreements or personnel policy, not to provide coverage for benefit-eligible employees. 3. Each Member participating in the Group, at its own discretion, may establish a more liberal contribution policy, but not a more conservative policy. 4. Each Member must follow established contribution/participation rules regarding benefit-earning and benefit-eligible employees. 5. Each Member must treat benefit-earning married employees where both are employees of the same Member as they would any other benefit-earning employee. D. The Member may allow, at its discretion, benefit-earning employees to waive health coverage provided that the employee shows proof of group coverage elsewhere. E. If the Member allows its employees to waive health coverage, a maximum credit of $50 per month may be given to employees in lieu of coverage. F. The Member may not, for any reason, allow any of its non-benefit eligible employees to purchase health coverage regardless of who pays the premium. G. The Member must accept the LOGIS Health and Life Insurance Program's policy regarding the effective date of coverage for newly hired employees. The effective date of coverage can be no sooner than the first day of the calendar month coinciding with or next following one full month of employment and no longer than the first day of the month coinciding with or next following six months of continuous employment. Any such arrangement as to the waiting period of coverage must be consistenfly applied to all eligible employees of the member. PROCEDURES Ao Eligibility for participation in the following plan year's insurance program is based on the following procedures: 1. If the entity is a current Member of the LOGIS Health and Life Insurance Program: a. They will automatically be included unless it notifies LOGIS of its intention to withdraw from the program prior to July of the current year. b. They must submit insurance data as required. 2. If the entity is a current member of LOGIS, but is not a Member of the LOGIS Health and Life Insurance Program: a. They must notify LOGIS in writing that it wishes to participate in the Program. The notification must be received by LOGIS by July 15th of the current year or as soon as is reasonably possible. LOGIS GROUP HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES b. They must submit marketing information as required by the group or its designated representative. c. Having satisfied all other conditions, entities with less than 50 employees will be automatically accepted, however, premiums will be based on 100% of their own claims experience for the first year, 50% the second year, and will not be 100% blended with the LOGIS pool until thc third year. d. Entities with 50 or more employees may be declined based on claims experience. If allowed to participate, pr~tiums may be rated based on the above-mentioned formula (c.). 3. If neither a current member of LOGIS nor the LOGIS Health Care and Life Insurance Program: a. They must adopt a resolution authorizing execution of the standard LOGIS joint powers agreement. b. They must execute the joint powers agreement. c. They must submit the resolution, two copies of the joint powers agreement, and a cover letter to LOGIS. The cover letter should request admission to LOGIS as at least an Associate Member and state the intention to participate in the LOGIS Health Care and Life Insurance Program and commit to the Program at least through the following plan year. This material must be received by LOGIS by July 15'~ of the current year or whenever reasonably possible. d. The must submit marketing information as required by the group or its designated representative. 4. For purposes of marketing the Group to Health Care Providers, the Program has authorized the following to act as its designated representative: DCA Healthcare Management Group 13100 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55305-1840 (612) 541-7500 5. For purposes of marketing the Group Life Insurance, the Program has authorized the following to act as its designated representative: Larry Klopp & Assoc., Inc. 825 Nicollet Mall Suite 1045 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 333-5313 COMMITMENT TO: FROM: DATE: The LOGIS Health Care Group (name of entity) Please be advised that (name of entity) intends to participate in the LOGIS Health Care Group Benefit Program effective The (name of entity) hereby represents and warrants that it is at least an associate member of LOGIS and otherwise meets the requirements for participation in the Health Care Group Benefits Program, set forth in the LOGIS Group Health and Life Insurance Policies and Procedures ("Policies"), which are incorporated herein by this reference. If (name of entity) at any time does not meet such participation requirements, LOGIS may deny (name of entity) participation in the Health Care Group Benefits Program. As a participant in the Health Care Group Benefits Program, (name of entity) agrees to abide by all of the policies and procedures contained in the Policies, as amended from time to time. In order to facilitate the renewal process, we designate: (name of person designed) (title of person designed) (mailing address) (phone number of entity) to coordinate and supply the information necessary for obtaining health care proposals. It is understood that the maintenance of the health programs will be the responsibility of the LOGIS Health Care Group. This includes plan design, contract management, and renewal processing and marketing. Signed by Title For LOGIS An Information Systems Consortium for Municipal Governments and Public Sector Agencies Serving the computing needs of cities since 1972 What is LOGIS? Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS) is a consortium of Minnesota local government units. The purpose of LOGIS is to provide a full range of locally supported, highly reliable management information systems, data processing services, and re- lated support services. Organization and Control The LOGIS consortium is controlled by its members. LOGIS's Board of Directors is composed of one representative from each member. All funding decisions are controlled by the members through an mmual budget, an an- nual work plan, and by action of an Execu- tive Committee containing five members. This committee meets monthly and estab- lishes operating policies, sets service charges, and approves expenditures. The Consortium Advantage Because LOGIS members combine their re- sources, the LOGIS consortium offers strength, economy, and independence. With the consortium approach, LOGIS makes it possible to: · Reduce member costs by sharing devel- opment and technical expenses · Create a forum to share the ideas and ex- periences of members · Develop shared programs specifically de- signed to meet member needs · Share LOGIS data processing personnel to eliminate the need for members to maintain their own data processing staffs · Respond quickly and flexibly to ever- changing and often unpredictable needs · Provide members with high-quality sup- port in all phases of data processing · Maintain a wide area network (WAN) linked to each member organization, providing for data sharing and communi- cation among members Applications Available The applications presently available to members of LOGIS include: · Financial Control Includes budgeth tg, purchasing, fixed as- sets, and project accounting, plus a com- plete range of other modules covering every aspect of financial information · Payroll/Human Resources · Utility Billing Includes bar code scanning of utility bills, an interface for hand-held data collection devices (for meter reading), and ACH for electronic utility bill payment · Police Management Includes records management, computer- aided dispatch, E911 interface, Minnesota CJRS interface, multi-jurisdictional data access (with LOGIS member cities and the Minneapolis Department), and sup- port for Mobile Computing Devices (MCD's) in patrol cars · Property Data/Special Assessments · Geographic Information (GIS) (includes automated mapp;mg and engi- neering design) · Permit and Inspection Management/ Business License · Parks and Recreation Equipment (Fleet) Management Connectivity Wide Area Network (WAN) for data sharing between members, Internet ac- cess, Web site hosting, and local and Internet e-mail · Deputy Registrar · Dog License · Animal Impound Management · Tree Inventory Application Features · Instant (on-line) access to data · Integrated applications transfer appropri- ate data to one another automatically · A wide variety of report options for eas- ier decision-making and analysis · Ability to create user-defined reports and transfer data to personal computers (PC's) in many popular spreadsheet and database formats · Information security · Simultaneous access by multiple users · Tailored to local needs · Easy to use (no computer background needed) · Network solutions (both wide area and local area) Hardware The LOGIS consortium uses central and dis- tributed super-minicomputers and locally networked personal computers (PC's) link- ing members through a Wide Area Network (WAN). These highly reliable systems offer ease of operation, powerful database man- agement, and an open systems environment. LOGIS members use stand-alone and net- worked PC's linked to the WAN to access the central and distributed minicomputers for data transfer between systems, PC LAN servers, and PC's located at other member cities and agencies. Services Provided LOGIS members choose either central facility or distributed ("in-house") processh~g. The LOGIS staff provides the followh~g ,services: Advising, trah~ing, and assisting users on a day-to-day basis as well as during and after a conversion · Conducting periodic user seminars or workshops on LOGIS applications · Writing and maintaining user manuals · Enhancing applications as ~-teeded For "in-house" installation the LOGIS role would include the additional services of: · Advising and assisting in the selection of hardware and in the preparation of the computer site · Advising aa'rd assisting in the training of the operator · Providing ongoing user and tecbafical support for the compr~ter operation Network and Internet Services LOGIS offers its members complete Local Area Network (LAN) services at below market pricing. Services include: · Consultation and planning · Hardware and software purchasing · Installation and day-to-day monitoring and maintenance LOGIS also offers its members full Internet services including: · Web site hosting (i.e. a "home page") · High-speed Internet access · Internet e-mail Membership Requirements Any Minnesota governmental unit may be- come a member of LOGIS. Participation in the consortium is by contractual agreement between the members. No "front- end" invest- ment is required and no long-term commit- ment is necessary. Present members include: · Apple Valley · Brooklyn Center · Burnsvflle · Coon Rapids · Crystal · Eagan · Eden Prah'ie · Edina · Farrnington · Golden Valley · Hutchinson · Lakevflle · Maple Grove · Minnesota Building Codes Division · Minnetonka · New Hope · Northwest Cable Commission/ Northwest Community Television · Oak Grove · Plymouth · Richfield · Robbinsdale · St. Louis Park · Savage · Shakopee · White Bear Lake Awards 1996 State and Local Governme;tt High Technology Award Presented by Hewlett-Packard Corporation for "Improved Services to the Community" 1994 State and Local Governmcnt High Technology Award Presented by Hewlett-Packard Corporation for "Improved Services to the Community" 1992 Pacesetter Award Presented by IISAC (Intergovern- mental Information Systems Advi- sory Council) for "Innovative and Progressive Contributions to Gov- ernment Information Processing" 1991 State and Local Government High Technology Award Presented by Hewlett-Packard Corporation for" ~o_ Be.,t Long-Term Cost Savings" For More Information Membership in LOGIS is open to any Minnesota governmental unit or public sec- tor agency. For more information, contact: Mike Garris, Executive Director LOGIS 5750 Duluth Street Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612) 566-0050 E-mail: mgarris@logis.org Internet: www.logis.org LOGIS 5750 Duluth Street Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 LOGI SI I Don't for the Hoax, Folks! Hoaxes, rumors, tall tales, and cons have been with us for a long time. And each time we invented a new way to communicate, it didn't take long for the "bad elements" to begin using it. For example, the printing press allowed the wide-scale distribution of dubious "nev:s" sto~:ies, and the telephone system has been plagued for decades with con artists tryh~g to swindle people. The newest ~i~edium for mass communica- tion-the Intel:net--quickly fell victim to those who wanted to abuse it. The result is the Internet hoax. Currently, Internet hoaxes fall into three basic categories: com- puter virus hoaxes, chain e-mail, and false stories or rumors. Computer virus hoaxes are transmitted through e-mail. Have you ever received a message warning you about a new computer virus? These messages are almost always a hoax. The virus to which they refer does not exist, or the stated method of transmission is false. Virus hoax messages usually contain a request that you forward the warning to "everyone you kno~" or "everyone you care about." This is how the hoax is continued. Internet chain mail is like chain marl in the regular postal system. The message starts with an interesting story, then poses a threat about what would happen if you "break the chain.' Finally, you are urged to forward the message to your friends. Some of these letters appear to be compassionate. For example, it may say that the last wish of a terminally ill child is to break the (continued on page 4) A recent example o£ a virus hoax is the "Good Times" virus warning. In this hoax, you receive an e-mail warning you not to read any message whose subject is "Good Times." Just the act of reading the message would infect your PC with the Good Times virus, which totally erases your hard disk. In reality, there never has been a Good Times virus. In fact, there never has been a proven case of infection just from the act of reading e-mail. In order to get infected, you must execute an infected program. An e-mail message may have an infected file attached to it, but to get your PC infected, you must download the attachment and execute it. Virus hoaxes use two methods to make them- selves look legitimate. One ploy is to use technical jargon (or technical nonsense) in the message. For example, the Good Times hoax warned of an "nth-complexity infinite binary loop." (There is no such thing.) An- other method used to increase credibility is mentioning a reputable organization or cor- poration. For example, the Deeyenda Virus Hoax states that the warning comes from the FCC. However, the FCC does not issue warnings about computer viruses. Ask LOGIS This column provides answers to frequently asked user questions. If you have a ques- tion you would like to see answered in this N column, please call or send e-mail to a LOGIS staff person. Has LOGIS Operator coverage been changed recently? Yes. We have eliminated the second shift Operator position and re-shuffled the hours of Ed Matthews and Kien Ly, our two Computer Operators. (Norb Vossen, who used to be our daytime operator and Op- erations Supervisor, has taken on the new Network Wellness Engineer position at LOGIS.) Ed is now working during the day from 10:30 AM to 7:00 PM; Kien is working from 11:00 PM to 7:30 AM. Operator cover- age between 7:30 AM and 10:30 AM will be provided by Norb or other Network Serv- ices staff who are available. (co~tinued ot~ page 2) ~2 LOGIS is pleased to announce a new user of the LOGIS Permits and Inspection Management System (PIMS): the City of Eden Prairie. PIMS assists its users with two major tasks: issuing various types of permits and keeping track of the inspection results that accompany these permits. The permit issuing function includes collecting permit data, calculating permit fees, and printing the permit. The inspec- tion tracking function records in- spection results. PIMS also pro- duces standard and user-defined Ask LOGIS, (continued frown page 1) LOGIS made these changes be- cause advances in technology dras- tically reduced the duties of the second shift operator. In the past, most of the second shift operator's work involved backing up data, running batch jobs, and printing reports. Now, however, we have software that automatically runs batch jobs for each application in each account. Likewise, backups now require no human interven- tion. Final]y, the rise of remote printing means that most reports are printed on laser printers at your site. No operator is necessary to print and package the reports. Even with these changes, the °nly difference users should notice is that there will be no direct Eden Prairie ChOOses PIMS reports for intra- and interdepart- mental use, management informa- tion, and State reporting requirements. Permit applications record data from applicants, property data file:~, building officials, city plan- ners, and (sometimes) the city council. There are eight basic types of l:ermits--Building, Plumbing, Sewer and Water, Mechanical, Sign, Electrical, Fire, and User- deft ned. Kevin Schmieg, Eden Prairie's Building Official, said that one of the major reasons Eden Prairie chose PIMS was to get more of the city working on systems fi'om the same source (LOGIS). Eden Prairie also uses the LOGIS Property Data Sy,,:tem (PDS), which records prop- erty data and performs computer- aided appraisal of residential and commercial real estate. PIMS and operations coverage between 7:00 PM. and 11:00 PM. However, we will continue to provide communi- cations support for Police System users during these hours. If you are a Police System user and en- counter a communications problem du;'ing this time period, call LOGIS as you normally would (at 56(3-0050). The call will be picked up by an answering service, who wil~ contact the appropriate LOGIS st~ff person. Thc answering service will also be used for weekend and holiday Po- lice System communications sup- pm'~. Note that the beeper number formerly used for weekend support will no longer work. Please cai1 LOGIS directly and leave a mes- sa~;e with the answering service. C) PDS can share data with each other. Having applications from the same provider makes it easier to share data between departments. Eden Prairie has been issuing per- mits using PIMS since early Feb- ruary. They are now working on using PIMS to track inspections. Because they are one of the fastest growing cities in the metro area, the Permit Office is very busy. De- spite this, they have done an excel- lent job switching from a familiar system--one they had been using for years--to PIMS. PIMS has been and continues to be a success story for the LOGIS con- sortium. The addition of Eden Prairie.brings the number of PIMS users up to 12 member cities-- about half the total LOGIS men bership. This is quite impressive for not being one of the "big three" municipal applications (Financial, Payroll, and Utility Billing) that are used by almost all LOGIS members. We look forward to a long and fruitful relationship with Eden Prairie's PIMS users. Welcome to the group! 0 Bits & Bytes is a publication of LOGIS: Local Government Information Systems Association Mike Garris, Executive Director Paul Norton, Editor 2700 Freeway Boulevard, Suite 300 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 566-0050 Internet: http://www.logis.or~ Print'ed on 50% recycled Paper. This newsletter is recyclable. Getting Control of Documents A few years ago, industry experts predicted a "paperless office" in which documents would be gener- ated, stored, distributed, and read through the computer. However, instead of reducing paper needs, the PC--along with its indispens- able counterpart, the printer--have increased paper use exponentially. Despite this trend, there is at least one area in which the "paperless office" concept works well: the stor- age and retrieval of the countless official documents generated by a city. These documents must be stored permanently in some way, and doing so electrmfically--through something called an imaging sys- tem-provides significant advan- tages over storage as paper copies. Basically, an imaging system con- verts paper documents into profiles LOGIS has welcomed a new staff member since the last issue of Bits & Bytes: Sarah Smith. Sarah is taking on a part-time Pro- grammer/Analyst position, report- ing to Ray Jozwiak, LOGIS's Man- ager of Technology. Sarah comes to us from Ecolab, where she was a Systems Analyst. Sarah already has a lot to do considering the short time she's been here. She is currently working on the Property Data System (PDS), the Police Sys- tem, and the Permits and Inspec- tion Management System (PIMS) client/server project. With all this activity, we hope she'll take time out to eat. (She has been spotted in the lunch room from time to time.) We'd also like to announce that Norb Vossen is changing posts. Norb is filling the new Network Wellness elec!.ronic images, stores those im- age~ on a high capacity storage de- vice, and later accesses and dis-. plays those images quickly. A typical imaging system consists of high volume scanners, an optical disk "juke box" for image storage, and a network-based software ap- plication that manages and retrieves the docu~nents. The scmmers convert doc~m~ents from paper to electronic form. When you access a document, the ,,ptical disk on which it is lo- cated will be accessed by the "juke box." The application provides vari- ous ways of searching for documents such as by name, keyword, etc. One key advantage of imaging sys- temr~ is the ease with which records can be located and displayed. Often, pertinent documents can be dis- play.~d in seconds. This translates Engineer position. He is now moni- tori~,g and documenting the Wide Are~ Network (WA.N), and config- uring: software to monitor the WAN and our members' Local Area Net- works (LANs) attached to the WAN. The ,,~oal will be to prevent network' problems before they occur. We all look forward to benefiting from Norl/s knowledge and skill, even if we d~ have to put up with his sense of hu,nor. (Just kidding, Norb!) Welcome to LOGIS, Sarah! Con- grat ~dations, Norb! O Page 3 to better service for the customer waiting at the counter, on the tele- phone, or at the fax machine. Also, more than one person can access the same document simultane- ously, thus eliminating the possi- bility of a document "going miss- ~ ing" on someone else's desk. An imaging system allows a project team to collaborate on one docu- ment. Everyone works with the same, up-to-date version of the document, which can improve the speed of the of the production process and the quality of the final product. Of course, storing documents elec- tronically eliminates the paper that would be used in "hard copy" archiving and dramatically reduces the amount of space used for storage. Electronic documents last longer than paper ones, and they are less harmful to the environment. Another advantage of electronic storage is that the optical disks' containing the data can be dupli- cated easily and stored off-site. This allows for quick recovery of archived and active documents in case of fire, floodl etc. Imaging systems have proved at- tractive enough that more and more cities--including several LOGIS members--are using them. For example, St. Louis Park pur- chased a Minolta MIMS 3000 sys- tem, and has been using it to store police case files, cot~, munity (coatiaued oa page 4) page 4 Hoaxes (continued frown page 1) record for the number of e-mails received. In most cases, the "child" and his wish are fictitious. Some chain e-mail, like the "Make Money Fast" hoax, are actually ille- gal pyramid schemes. The message asks you to send a dollar to the sender, then you get a dollar from everyone to whom you sent the message. Sending messages like these constitute wire fraud. Messages that contain false stories or rumors usually come from friends who think you might enjoy them. These messages usually have hu- morous or sensational content. For example, one message said that · Bill Gates (the owner of Microsoft) had just bought the Catholic Church--lock, stock, and Vatican. At first, you may think that Internet hoaxes don't do much damage. Keep in mind that Internet resources are not infinite; useless e-mail traffic takes up space that Co~ild be used for legitimate purposes. Most Internet hoaxes are easy to spot. Often, the name and contact Document Imaging Systems (co~ttinued frown page 3) development case files, building permits, housing inspections, and various other official records. Po- lice users can access MIMS data directly from the Police System. They are now in their third year of using the system, and currently have about 280,000 documents stored in it. In the future, they infurmation of the originator is not included in the message. A good basic rule is this: if you don't know wk, o sent the message or don't know their reputation, don't auto- m~ tically believe what's in the message. Also, the more bizarre or outlandish a stow is, the less likely it i~ to be true. plan to store some word processing documents and spreadsheets di- rectly into MIMS from connected PC's. This will eliminate the need to scan paper output. Minnetonka also purchased a MiMS system--in April 1997. They are now using it to store police records, building permits/inspections, and project files for engineering. In the future, they plan to add city coun- cil meeting minutes, council resolu- tions, timesheets, and checks. Maple Grove, Golden Valley, and Coon Rapids also have imaging systems. Maple Grove has had a Lanier Online System for several years, while Golden Valley and Coon Rapids purchased their MIMS sys- tems recently--in December and August of 1997, respectively. If you get what you believe to be a hoax e-mail message, the most im- portant thing to do is nothing. That is, do not forward the message. For- warding is how hoaxes are spread. If iC is your city's policy, you may send the message on to your MIS ~ Coordinator or another with simi- lar responsibihties. 0 The increasing popularity of ime ing systems for cities is easy to un- derstand. These systems excel at the storage and retrieval of docu- ments, and cities function on docu- ments. Technology that can make such a vital aspect of municipal government easier and more effi- cient is welcome indeed. O LOGIS 2700 Freeway Boulevard, Suite 300 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 In this issue... Internet Hoaxes 1 Ask LOGIS: Changes in 1 Operations Support Hours Eden Prairie Chooses PIMS 2 Getting Control of 3 Documents Profiles 3 April 13, 1999 RESOLUTION #99- RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING ELECTRONIC PROPRIETARY GEOGRAPHICAL DIGITIZED DATE BASE (EPDB) AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, Hennepin County has developed a proprietary geographical digitized data base (EPDB); and WHEREAS, the City of Mound desires to use the County's EPDB in the course of conducting the City's business; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County is authorizing the City of Mound's use of the EPDB pursuant to a conditional use license agreement (EXHIBIT 'A') attached hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mound, Minnesota, enters into a conditional use license agreement with Hennepin County pursuant to the attached agreement and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to sign the agreement on behalf of the City of Mound. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk HENNEPIN COUNTY CONDITIONAL USE LICENSE AGREEMENT Ag~emem No. THIS AGREEMENT, made by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, Taxpayer Services Department, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of Mound, hereinafter referred to as the "Entity". For purposes of this Agreement, the address of the County is A703 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0073 and the address of Entity is 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the County has developed electronic forms of certain data bases and an electronic proprietary geographical digitized data base hereinafter referred to as "EPDB"; and WHEREAS, the Entity desires to use the County's EPDB in the course of conducting the Entity's business; and WHEREAS, in acknowledgment of the Entity's above-stated purpose, the County is agreeable to provide to the Entity the EPDB, and WHEREAS, the parties agree that the execution of this Agreement is necessary in order to adequately protect said EPDB; and WHEREAS, the County exclusively owns the EDPB which is the subject of this Agreement and has the authority and legal right to grant Entity a license to have and use the EPDB as provided in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the EPDB is trade secret or confidential information under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and is governed by Minnesota Statutes sections 375.86 and 13.03 as well as other applicable state and federal law. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, as well as the obligations herein made and undertaken, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: Form 1 (10 / 98) 1.1 Section 1 SCOPE OF AGREEMENT This License Agreement shall apply to the EPDB, which Hennepin County will provide to Entity, after a specific request has been made to County. 2.1 Section 2 GRANT OF LIMITED LICENSE The County hereby grants the Entity a non-exclusive, nontransferable and nonassignable limited use license to use the EPDB which includes self developed computer software under Minn. Stat. § 375.86. Said license shall commence on the date of approval of this Agreement by the County and shall extend throughout the term of the Agreement unless terminated sooner, in accordance with the provisions hereof. 3.1 Section 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION RESERVATION OF TITLE The Entity acknowledges and agrees that the EPDB is the exclusive property of the County, including, but not limited to, any and all indexes, and includes commercially valuable information which reflect the efforts of skilled development experts and required the investment of considerable amounts of time and money, and that the County has treated the EPDB as trade secret and confidential information, which County entrusts to the Entity in confidence to use in the conduct of the Entity's business. The Entity further acknowledges and agrees the EPDB is a creative selection, coordination, arrangement and method of arrangement of data which is identified as being subject to copyright protection; is self-developed computer software under Minn. Stat. § 375.86 and is an entire or substantial and discrete portion of a pattern, compilation, method, technique, process, data base or system developed with significant expenditure of funds by County under Minn. Stat. § 13.03. The Entity agrees that the County owns and reserves all rights, protection and benefits afforded under federal copyright law in all EPDB furnished to the Entity as unpublished works, as well as all rights, protection and benefits afforded under any other law relating to confidential and/or trade secret information respecting said EPDB, and that the Entity will abide by all relevant laws, rules, regulations and decisions which afford protection to the County for its confidential and trade secret information and said copyright. This Agreement does not effect any transfer of title in or to any EPDB of the County. The Entity acknowledges that it is granted only a limited right of use of such EPDB, which right is not coupled with an interest, and the Entity shall not assert nor cause or cooperate with others to assert any right, title, or interest in any £PDB of the County. 2 4.1 4.2 4.3 Section 4 PROTECTION OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Obligations of Confidentiality, Limitations of Use. The Entity shall neither disclose, furnish, sell, resell, transfer, duplicate, reproduce nor disseminate, in whole or in part, the EPDB of the County and its unique design, arrangement or method of arrangement in its electronic form furnished to the Entity to (1) any other person, firm, entity, organization, or subsidiary, except as expressly authorized hereunder; or (2) any employee of the Entity who does not need to obtain access thereto in connection with the Entity's exercise of its rights under this Agreement. The Entity may have and use the EPDB on a corporate-wide basis and shall have the rights to use the EPDB on a limited number of sites, provided the equipment on which the EPDB is maintained supports only equipment operated by the Entity and the EPDB is used only for the conduct of the Entity's own internal business by Entity employees. All employees having access to the EPDB shall be informed of the requirements contained in Section 4 herein. The Entity shall not otherwise copy or reproduce any EPDB of the County. Under no circumstances may the entity disclose or disseminate any EPDB to any other public or private entity. The obligations of the Entity to protect confidentiality which are established by this Agreement apply to the EPDB itself and not to any graphic representation or products produced by the Entity while using the EPDB. Any authorized consultants, contractors or agents of Entity must properly execute and file a separate EPDB Conditional Use License Agreement with Hennepin County. The Entity expressly agrees to use the County's EPDB in the ordinary course of its business and all such use shall bear a notice of copyright by Hennepin County. Secure Handling. The Entity shall require that all EPDB be kept in a secure location at 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 and maintained in a manner so as to reasonably preclude unauthorized persons from having access thereto. The Entity shall devote its reasonable efforts to ensure that all persons afforded access to EPDB protect same against unauthorized use, dissemination or disclosure. Entity agrees it will not knowingly or negligently allow its employees, agents or independent contractors to copy, sell, disclose or otherwise make the EPDB available to others. Entity agrees to immediately notify the County by telephone and in writing if Entity becomes aware of any unauthorized duplication, sale or other disclosure. Entity further agrees to prevent unauthorized disclosure by taking appropriate security measures including, but not limited to, providing physical security for copies of the EPDB and taking all steps Entity takes to protect information, data or other tangible and intangible property of its own that Entity regards as proprietary, confidential or nonpublic. Except for off-site backup, the Entity shall not remove or cause or allow to be removed from the Entity's place of business or the place of business of any EPDB or any copy thereof without the prior written consent of the County, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Assistance of the Entity. At the request of the County and expense of the Entity, the Entity shall use good faith and reasonable efforts to assi.st the County in identifying any 4.4 use, copying, or disclosure of any EPDB by any current or former Entity personnel -- or anyone else who may have come in possession of said EPDB while the same was in the Entity's possession - in any manner that is contrary to the provisions of this Agreement so long as the County shall have provided the Entity with information reasonably justifying the conclusion of the County that such contrary use may have occurred. Survival of Confidentiality Obligations. The Entity's obligations respecting confidentiality of the EPDB shall survive termination of this Agreement for any reason and shall remain in effect for as long as the Entity continues to possess or control any EPDB furnished by the County. In addition, the County shall remain entitled to enforce its copyright and propriety interests in all EPDB. Section 5 TERM, TERMINATION 5.1 The Entity and the COUNTY agree that this Agreement is in effect during the period commencing January 1, 1999 and terminating December 31, 1999. This Agreement shall commence from the date hereof, unless sooner terminated by either party with cause upon three (3) calendar days' written notice to the other. The expiration or termination of this Agreement shall automatically and without further action by the County terminate and extinguish the license. In the event of any such expiration or termination, the County shall have the right to take immediate possession of said EPDB, and all copies thereof wherever located, and without demand or notice. Within five (5) days after expiration or termination of this Agreement, the Entity shall return the EPDB and all copies thereof to the County, or upon request by the County, the Entity shall destroy all of the same and all copies thereof and certify in writing to the County that the same has been destroyed. 5.1.1 It is agreed that any right or remedy provided for herein shall not be considered as the exclusive right or remedy but shall be considered to be in addition to any other fight or remedy hereunder or allowed by law, equity or statute. 5.1.2 The County's failure to insist upon strict performance of any covenant, agreement or stipulation of the Agreement, or to exercise any right herein contained shall not be a waiver or relinquishment of such covenant, agreement, stipulation or fight, unless the County stipulates thereto in writing. Any such written consent shall not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of such covenant, agreement, stipulation or fight. 4 6.1 Section 6 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF The Entity acknowledges and agrees that unauthorized disclosure or use of the EPDB or any part thereof could cause irreparable harm and significant injury to the County, which may be difficult to measure with certainty or to compensate through damages. Accordingly, the Entity agrees that the County may seek and obtain against the Entity and/or any other person or entity injunctive relief against the breach or threatened breach of the foregoing undertakings, in addition to any other equitable or legal remedies which may be available. 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5. 7.6 Section 7 OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS No Agency. The parties hereto are independent contractors, and nothing herein shall be construed to create an agency, joint venture, partnership or other form of business association between the parties hereto. No Waiver. No delay or omission by either party hereto to exercise any right or power occurring upon any noncompliance or default by the other party with respect to any of the terms of this Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof unless the same is consented to in writing. A waiver by either of the parties hereto of any of the covenants, conditions, or agreements to be observed by the other shall not be construed to be a waiver of any succeeding breach thereof or of any covenant, condition, or agreement herein contained. All remedies provided for in this Agreement shall be cumulative and in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other remedies available to either party at law, in equity, or otherwise. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Entire Agreement. This License Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties, and there are no understandings or agreements relative hereto other than those that are expressed herein. No change, waiver, or discharge hereof shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the party against whom such change, waiver, or discharge is sought to be enforced. No Assignment. Neither party shall assign, sublet or transfer this Agreement, either in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the other party, and any attempt to do so shall be void and of no force and effect. THE ENTITY AGREES THAT THE COUNTY IS FURNISHING THE EPDB ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT WHATSOEVER, AND WITHOUT REPRESENTATION OR ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED 7.7 7.8 WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT IN ANY MANNER LIMITED TO, FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, MERCHANTABILITY OR THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE EPDB. THE COUNTY'S SOLE LIABILITY AND THE ENTITY'S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY SUBSTANTIAL DEFECT WHICH IMPAIRS THE USE OF THE EPDB FOR THE PURPOSE STATED HEREIN SHALL BE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT. THE COUNTY DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE EPDB ARE ERROR FREE. THE EPDB WERE DEVELOPED FOR THE COUNTY'S OWN INTERNAL BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE COUNTY DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THE EPDB CAN BE USED FOR NAVIGATIONAL, TRACKING OR ANY OTHER PURPOSE REQUIRING EXACTING MEASUREMENT OF DISTANCE OR DIRECTION OR PRECISION IN THE DEPICTION OF GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES. THE COUNTY DISCLAIMS ANY OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, RESPECTING THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT OR THE EPDB. In no event shall the County be liable for actual, direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential damages (even if the County has been advised of the possibility of such damage) or lost of profit, loss of business or any other financial loss or any other damage arising out of performance or failure of performance of this Agreement by the County. The County and the Entity agree each will be responsible for their own acts and omissions under this Agreement and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of the other party under the Agreement and the results thereof. The parties' respective liabilities shall be governed by the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466, and other applicable law. This paragraph shall not be construed to bar legal remedies one party may have for the other party's failure to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. Notice. Any notice or demand shall be in writing and shall be sent registered or certified mail to the other party address as follows: To the Entity: City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 7.9 7.10 7.11 To Hennepin County: Hennepin County Administrator A-2300 Government Center (233) Minneapolis, MN 55487-0233 Copy to: Robert L. Hanson Hennepin County Chief Information Officer A- 1900 Government Center (190) Minneapolis, MN 55487-0190 Copy to: Patrick H. O'Connor Director, Taxpayer Services Department A-600 Government Center (060) Minneapolis, MN 55487-0060 Whereas Clauses. The matters set forth in the "Whereas" clauses on page one of this Agreement are incorporated into and made a part hereof by this reference. Survival of Provisions. It is expressly understood and agreed that the obligations and warranties of the Entity under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.6, and 7.7 hereof and the obligations and warranties of the Entity and the County which by their sense and context are intended to survive the performance thereof by the Entity and the County, shall so survive the completion of performance and termination or cancellation of this Agreement. Authority. The person or persons executing this License Agreement on behalf of Entity represent that they are duly authorized to execute this License Agreement on behalf of Entity and represent and wan'ant that this License Agreement is a legal, valid and binding obligation and is enforceable in accordance with its terms. 7 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL ENTITY, having signed this agreement, and the County having duly approved this agreement on the ~ day of ,19 , and pursuant to such approval, the proper County officials having signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Approved as to form and execution COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA Assistant County Attorney Date: By: Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator CITY OF MOUND By: Mayor And: City Clerk / Manager Form 1 (10 / 98) 8 RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEME~ FOR (HMEP) HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY PROGRAM MONIES WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has been given a grant by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has applied in good faith for HMEP monies for activities of the Lake Minnetonka Regional Emergency Preparedness Planning and Review Committee; NOW, THEREFORE, BY IT RESOLVED, that the City of Mound fully agrees to the terms of the grant, and, with the passage of this resolution, officially requests the Division of Emergency Management to enforce the contract in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the agreement and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City of Mound all of the contractual obligations contained therein. April 1, 1999 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: FROM: SUBEJCT: CITY COUNCIL FRAN C1 ARK, CITY CLERK LICENSE RENEWALS FOR APRIL 13 COUNCIL MEETING The following licenses are up for renewal. The license period is May 1, 1999 through April 30, 2000. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. GAMES OF SKILL American Legion Post #398 VFW Post #5113 POOL TABLES VFW Post #5113 Lake Minr etonka Bow1 BOWLING Lake Mint etonka Bowl AMUSEMENT DEVICE American Legion Post #398 VFW Post #5113 RESTAURANT A1 & Alma's American Legion Post #398 Domino's Pizza #!974 Happy Ga~'den Hardee's House of Moy Lake Mint etonka Bowl Scotty B's Subway Sandwiches VFW Post #5113 Uncharted Grounds printed on recycled paper April 6, 1999 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: FROM: SUBEJCT: CITY COUNCIL FRAN Cl_ ARK, CITY CLERK LICENSE RENEWALS The following licenses ar~ up for renewal. The license period is April 1, 1999 through March 31, 2000. Approval is c~ntingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. Transient Merchant By the Way Snack Shop Tree Removal License Aaspen Tree Service Amberwood Tree Emery's Tree Service Four Season's Tn~ Service Ostvig Tree, Inc. Precision Landscape & Tree Randy's Tress SeJ-vice Shorewood Tree Service (Residential) Shorewood Tree Service (Commercial O Set-Up License A1 & Alma's Sup'3er Club Public Gathering Permits 1. VIKING BASSMASTERS - OCTOBER 3, 1999 - WEIGH-IN AT MOUND BAY PARK e MINNETONKA BASS CLASSIC (DENNY NELSON) - JUNE 5, 1999 - WEIGH-IN AT MOUND BAY PARK printed on recycled paper April13, 1999 PROPOSED RESOLUTION # 99- RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 4-5-6, BLOCK 1, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID # 18-117-23 32 0011 & 18-117-23 32 0012 P & Z CASE # 99-05 WHEREAS, the applicants, Marvin and Joyce Nelson, have applied for a minor subdivision which would create two buildable lots; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet; and, WHEREAS, current site conditions include a single family residence, detached garage, and a shed on lots 4 and 5. Lot 6 is a vacant lot characterized by the number of large deciduous trees; and, WHEREAS, the minor subdivision would create two almost equal parcels by dividing the three existing lots through lot 5. Each parcel would meet the R-1 district requirements for lot area and width. Impervious surface would be limited to code requirements for non lots of record; and, WHEREAS, a previous variance was approved for the detached garage also recognizing the existing front yard setback of the house; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the lot split as recommended by staff; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a minor subdivision of the property pursuant to Section 330:20, Subdivision 1.B. with the following conditions: a. The shed located on lot 5 be removed. b. Utility and drainage easements be provided and recorded as indicated by the City Engineer's report. (see exhibit A) 2. This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally described property: PARCEL A: LOT 6 AND THAT PART OF LOT 5 LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF A LINE, AND IT'S SOUTHEASTERLY EXTENSION, DRAWN FROM A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 DISTANT 25.00 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE MOST NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 5, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 5 DISTANT 25.00 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE MOST SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER Of SAID LOT 5. ALL IN THE PLAT Of SHADYWOOD POINT ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. April 13, 1999 Minor Sub-2025 Shorewood Ln Page 2 PARCEL B: LOT 4 AND THAT PART OF LOT 5 LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF A LINE, AND IT'S NORTHWESTERLY EXTENSION, DRAWN FROM A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 DISTANT 25.00 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE MOST NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 5, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 5 DISTANT 25.00 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE MOST SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 5. ALL tN THE PLAT OF SHADYWOOD POINT ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. 3. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 22, '1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Those absent and excused: Commissioner Becky Glister; Council Liaison Bob Brown Public Present: Joyce and Marvin Nelson (2025 Shorewood), James Peterson (2561 Wexford Lane), Jim Gefre (4800 Carrick Road), Sandy Hayward (4792 Carrick Road), Leroy Byan (2544 Wexford Lane), Dan Swenson (2560 Wexford Lane), Tracy Sirny (2560 Wexford Lane), Judy and Maria Wartman (4816 Longford Road), Bernie McVey (4807 Longford Road), Thomas Stokes (4363 Wilshire Boulevard, #207), Dick Oliver (4824 Longford Road), Mark Hanus (4446 Denbigh Road). Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 22, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller to accept the minutes as presented. Motion carried: 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 99-05: MINOR SUBDIVISION, TO READJUST PROPERTY LINES TO CREATE TWO PARCELS, MARVIN NELSON, 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 4,5, AND 6, BLOCK 1, SHADYWOOD POINT 61980, PID # 18-117-23 32 0011 SNF 18117-23 32 0012. The applicant has submitted a minor subdivision request to split their property into two buildable lots. The proposal would split the parcel through lot 5 creating two new lots as shown on the (attached to packet) survey. Both Parcel A and Parcel B would meet the zoning standards for R-1 for lot width and area and frontage. Hardcover for Parcel A is under the 30% requirements, and Parcel B would need to satisfy this requirement also. The applicant currently lives in a one-story home on this property. Other structures on the property include a detached garage Mound Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 and a shed that will be removed. A previous variance from 1993 allowed for the construction of the garage by recognizing the existing front yard setback. Staff is comfortable with the request per a Planning Report from Loren Gordon dated March 8, 1999. Lot 4 next to this was recently released from Hennepin County and purchased by this applicant. The split of property will allow the vacant parcel to go back into the City's land inventory as a buildable lot. There are a number of large trees on Parcel B, some of which will be lost during home construction. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested with the shed located on Parcel 5 removed and the utility and drainage easements be provided and recorded as indicated by the City Engineer's report. The City Engineer had no comments except as noted in the memorandum dated February 23, 1999 to Jon Sutherland from John Cameron. Those comments are that the easements will need to be recorded at the same time that the resolution is filed for subdivision. Gordon reported that Staff had no issues with the subdivision. DISCUSSION: Mueller asked if the easement would be recorded and then saw the answer in the City Engineer's report. He also wanted to make sure that the existing shed would not be moved to another location. Gordon stated that the applicant was present and that there were or encroachments from or on to neighboring properties. There was no public comment. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to accept the Staff recommendation as presented. Motion carried: 7-0. Chair Michael reported that this will appear before the City Council on April 13, 1999. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: March 8, 1999 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision OWNER: Marvin Nelson - 2025 Shorewood Lane CASE NUMBER: 99-05 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5d LOCATION: 2025 Shorewood Lane ZONING: Residential R- 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a minor subdivision request to split their property into two buildable lots. The property is described as lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 1 of Shadywood Point located at the end of Three Points on Shorewood Drive. The property is currently zoned R-1. The proposal would split the parcel through lot 5 creating two new lots as shown on the survey. Both Parcel A and B would meet R-1 zoning standards for lot width and area for lot area and frontage. Hardcover for parcel A is under 30% requirements and Parcel B would need to satisfy a 30% standard as well. Currently, the applicant lives in the one-story home. Other structures on the property include a detached garage and a shed which will be removed. A previous variance in 1993 allowed for construction of the detached garage by recognizing the existing front yard setback. COMMENTS: Staff has worked with the applicant prior to this submittal and is comfortable with the request. The vacant lot 4 was recently released by Hennepin County and was purchased by the applicant as an adjacent landowner. This split will allow the vacant parcel to go back into the City's land inventory as a buildable lot. There are a number of large trees on parcel B, some of which will be lost during home construction. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested with the following condition: 1. The shed located on parcel 5 be removed. 2. Utility and drainage easements be provided and recorded as indicated by the City Engineer's report. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 lid. Engineering · Planning ' Surveying RECEIVED FEB 2 ~ 1999 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: February 23, 1999 Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer City of Mound Nelson - Minor Subdivision Case No. 99-05 MFRA #12367 As requested, we have reviewed the application and survey submitted for the above mentioned minor subdivision and have the following comments and recommendations: All the technical engineering concerns appear to have been met. City water and sanitary sewer serve both new parcels, and all adjacent streets are improved. The utility and drainage easement normally required are shown on the easement survey. These easements will need to be recorded at the same time the resolution is filed for the subdivision. e %main:\ 12367Xsutherland2-2 15050 23rd, Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com Rev. 12-30-98 Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0600, Fax'. 4724620 Planning Commission Date: ~f~o.//)~_hS, Iqqq Distribution: 55364 C s .o. Application Fee: $75.00 Escrow Deposit: $1,000 City Planner 2-1q-q9 DNR FEB'"! '1': 1999 Deficient Unit Charges? Public Works ¢,?-/")- ¢j¢/ Other City Engineer -~-~ CI ~ ~ ~v ~t~U~D Delinquent Taxes? 0¢ I 3 I~ ~ VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY INFORMATION EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZONING DISTRICT Lot ~ -- S u bdivision L.~~ ~j_~/~ ~ c~ APPLICANT Circle: (~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 The applicant is: ___~wner other: OWNER Name (if other than applicant) Address Phone (H) (W) Name ENGINEER Address - ' (M) Phone(H) 9 '~3-(..~'~ (W) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this prope~? y~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. O~ner'sGjgnature Owner's Signature Dale Date July 13, 1993 RESOLUTION ~93-93 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID ~18-117-23 32 0012, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-035 WHEREAS, the owner, Marvin Nelson, has applied for a variance to recognize and existing nonconforming front yard setback to the prinicpal dwelling to allow construction of a conforming detached garage, and; WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is setback 3.7 feet from the south front property line resulting in a variance request of 26.3 feet, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback to both the south and east, a 10 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The city does hereby approve a variance recognizing a nonconforming 3..7 foot front yard setback to Shorewood Lane to allow construction of a conforming 36' wide by 24' deep detached garage at 2025 Shorewood Lane. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a conforming 36' wide by 24t~ deep detached garage. 210 July 13, 1993 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 5 and 6, Block 8, Shadywood Point. 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. 7. Removal of existing shed. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. Attest: City Clerk The following voted in the negative: none. ' ~yor~ 211 CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) OWNER'S NAME: ~ CE ~ ~' ~/AJ LOT AREA //~)/~, ~,.~-SQ. FT. X 30% LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for all lots, .............. I = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . . J J *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT ~3. 7 x ~;- 3 : ?.¥3. 9 /~.0 x /~..J, = / r./?. d X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... , ~-' x /09= TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ' 3~'-x .~ : 11~/~5'" X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY. ETC .................. /9- / x /~. ;~ : /7~.0 X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... %/ /72 OTHER X = ~ ~ ~0 x ~,3 : /? TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~OVER (,n~te difference,. ;~~.~i/~ .. ......... . .......... PREPARED BY ~-°~C_.4 ~ DATE PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) SQ. FT. X 30% SQ. FT. X 40% SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) (for all lots) .............. (for Lots of Record*) ....... -' *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ........... · ...... X = X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER PREPARED BY (~)J~ a~te difference) ............................... 1 tN~30 FEET Certificate of Survey MARVIN NELSON 2025 Shorewood Lone Mound, Minnesota 55564 .25 EXISTING SITE LOT AREA = 21,492 SF DRIVEWAY - 1145 SF HOUSE = 1074 SF (with deck) (without deck, subtract 172 GARAGE = 860 SF HA!~DCOVER AREA = 3,079+ 3079 / 21,492 = 14.33 ~ HARDCOVER Ordinary High Water (OHW) ~ 929.40 EXISTING PARCEL DESCRIPTION LEGEND · - Iron monument found 0 ~ iron manure, ant set and morke(J wlth license No. 23968. BOOK 577 PAGE 70 Drawing File: 9845BM.DWG Project No. 98488M Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, SHADYWOOD POINT, according to the recorded plot thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PROPOSED PARCEL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A Lot 6 and that port of Lot 5 lying northeasterly of a line, and it's southeasterly extension, drown from o point on the northwesterly llne of said Lot 5 distant 25.00 feet southwesterly from the most northeasterly corner of said Lot 5, to o point on the southeasterly tine of Lot 5 distant 25,00 feet southwesterly of the most southeasterly corner of said Lot 5. All in the plot of SHADYWOOD POINT according to the recorded plot thereof Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL B Lot 4 and that port of Lot 5 lying southeasterly of o line, and it's northwesterly extension, drown from o point on the northwesterly line of said Lot 5 distant 25.00 feet southwesterly from the most northeasterly corner of sold Lot 5, to o point on the southeasterly line of Lot 5 distant 25.00 feet southwesterly of the most southeasterly corner of said Lot 5. All in the plot of SHADYWOOD POINT according to the recorded plot thereof Hennepin County, Minnesota. RLK Kuusisto, Ltd. hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by f '~ me or under my direct supervision and that I om o duly Registered '~"~'~' '~'~1~'' ' 6110 Blue Circle Dr. Suite #100 Land Sur~,ey. or under the lows of the State of Minnesota. ~ Minnetonka, Mn. October 19, 1998 ~..~._..j, (0ia) 933-09?2 Kurt M.-Kisch, MN License No. 23968 Date ~ Fax: (612) 933-1153 Revised : January 20, 1999 Bldg. ties, utll's shown, specify hordcov~r Exhibit A Ec sewent PARCEL B 0.25 acres MARVIN NEI ON :20~5 Shore~ood /on~ Mou~d, ~inn~$ot~ 553~4 PARCEL A 10.695 sq.ft. -- L--34.60 . R=27.45 /-~ 72 */$'05 ' LEGEND · ~ Iron monument found 0 ~ Iron monument set and marked with license No. 2~968. BOOK 577 PAGE 70 Drawing File: 98488ESl.DWG Project No. g8488M EXISTING PARCEL DESCRIPTION Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, SHADYWOOD POINT, according to the recorded plot thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PROPOSED PARCEL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A Lot 6 and that port of Lot 5 lying northeasterly of o line, and it's southeasterly extension, drown from o point on the northwesterly line of said Lot 5 distant 25.00 feet southwesterly from the most northeasterly corner of said Lot 5, to o point on the southeasterly line of Lot 5 distant 25.00 feet southwesterly of the most southeasterly corner of said Lot 5. AIl in the plot of SHADYWOOD POINT according to the recorded plot thereof Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL B Lot 4 and that port of Lot 5 lying southeasterly of o line, and it's northwesterly extension, drown from o point on the northwesterly line of said Lot 5 distant 25.00 feet southwesterly from the most northeasterly corner of said Lot 5, to o point on the southeasterly line of Lot 5 distant 25.00 feet southwesterly of the most southeasterly corner of said Lot 5. All in the plot of SHADYWOOD POINT according to the recorded plot thereof Hennepin County. Minnesota. I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision end that I om o duly Registered Land Surve, vor under the lows of the State of Minnesota. ~~ January 15, 1999 ~urt M. Kisch, MN License No. 23968 Dote RLK - Kuusisto, Ltd. 8110 Blue Circle Dr. Suite #100 Minnetonka, Mn. 55343 (612) 933-0972 Fax: (612) 933-1153 CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ADDRESS: SURVEY ON FILE?. ~ NO LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO HOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF DIRECTION ] REQUI RED N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R~10,O00/60 Bi 7,500/0 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD, I130,000/100 EXISTING~ROPOSED 15' 50' 10' OR 30' O EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DEI'TII: VARIANCE GARAGE, SIIED ..... OR OTHER DETACIIED FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E w SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF HARDCOVER 30% OR 40% BUILDINOS 4'OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' 10' OR 30' I I - CONFORMING? YES / NO I ? BY: DATED: ~'his Zo marion Sheet only summarizes n portion of the requirements olltlined in tile City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound ~1 .i. e r- - - t*,472~. Bills April 13, 1999 Batch 9031 71,667.56 Batch 9032 134,778.66 Total Bills 206,446.22 o ! o ! J , · -~ .... 4 · ' oo oo oo oog oo ~o oo oo:~ ', ! ~Z ..... g ogoo g o§ ooo ' i D I ~ Z wU o oooooooo oo ooo oooo oo o oo oo oo o~ o- o- o- o- oo~ O~ o z 0 u~ 0 u.J u z g oo oo oo ~ ~o u o o : .... 4 .... ;~44 ' .rD o I o o o 0 I oo oo oo oo o g o o .1. o, Y , ~Y Y Y ~ ~ °~ oo oo ~ ~ Ct' LLJ ~ ~ o o o / O- _J O, 0'- .< ck , _j -4 / 212 J JJJ 14J I.iJ LU I I I I ! u) o I J LLI W ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ooo o z O . ZZ I April 13, 1999 PROPOSED RESOLUTION # 99- RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A TWINHOME IN A R-2 ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 2541 WEXFORD ROAD, LOTS 1, 2, 3, 14, & 15 SUBJECT TO ROAD, BLOCK 7, SETON, PID # 24-117-24 11 0019 P&Z CASES # 99-06 & 99-07 WHEREAS, the applicant, Fine Line Design, has submitted an application for a Minor Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit to construct a twinhome pursuant to City Code Section 350:630; and, WHEREAS, the property is currently used for single family purposes with an existing single story home and accessory buildings. The proposal would remove all existing structures from the site for the twinhome building; and, WHEREAS, the minor subdivision request would combine lots 1,2, 3, 14, and 15, and split them into two new lots described as parcels A and B on the survey; and, WHEREAS, the proposed twinhome would be located within the R-2 Single or Two Family Residential district and is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, the proposal meets all zoning standards for lot area, lot width, building setbacks, and impervious surface in the R-2 Zoning District; and, WHEREAS, the basement elevation of the proposed twinhomes may not be adequately served by gravity sanitary sewer service. Service to the basement in this case would require installation and connection of a private system, such as a grinder pump, to the City's sanitary sewer system; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision and Conditional Use permit as recommended by staff; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a minor subdivision of the property pursuant to Section 330:20, Subd. 1 .B. with the following conditions: A. Easements for drainage and utility purposes should be required along all exterior lot lines, ten feet in width adjacent to the three streets and five feet wide along the south lot line of Parcel B. B. A more complete grading plan will need to be furnished at the time of the building permit application. c. 2. The City does hereby grant a Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: A. The existing fencing conform to the codes for fence requirements. B. All existing building be removed prior to construction. C. Covenants be established and approved by the City Attorney prior to Council review for the exterior of the proposed buildings and the landscaping of the lots. D. The basement elevation not be lower that 933.5 feet. E. Any changes in the plan be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to City Council approval. F. Applicant adhere to the Tree Preservation Performance Standards. G. Review by the City Building Official of the back up systems if the basements are to be served with sanitary sewer. 3. This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally described property: PARCEL A: LOT 1 AND THOSE PARTS OF LOTS 2 AND 15, BLOCK 7, SETON WHICH LIE NORTH OF A LINE DRAWN WEST AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT2 FROM A POINT THEREON DISTANT 52.00 FEET NORTH, AS MEASURED ALONG SAID EAST LINE AND THE EAST LINE OF LOT 3, SAID BLOCK 7, FORM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3. PARCEL B: LOTS 3 AND 14, AND THOSE PARTS OF LOTS 2 AND 15, BLOCK 7, SETON WHICH LIE SOUTH OF A LINE DRAWN WEST AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 2 FROM A POINT THEREON DISTANT 52.00 FEET NORTH, AS MEASURED ALONG SAID EAST LINE AND THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3. 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. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 CASE #99-07 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TWINHOME LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 SINGLE OR TWO FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT AT 2541 WEXFORD LANE LOTS 1, 2, 3, 14 & 15, BLOCK 7 SETON PID # 24-117-24 11 0019 P & Z 99-07 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, April 13, 1999 to review the use of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a Twinhome at 2541 Wexford Lane located within the R-2 Single or Two Family Zoning District. This type of construction business is allowable within the R-2 Zoning District through Conditional Use Permit. !~ , ~ S: ~ ,'.~ ~ ~0.' ; '~,cc,: ~: ~' ~c! :OC ~i" .~' o~ :~,73)','~] ~71~ % , All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. ~Secretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected prope~y on March 23, 19~ Published in the Laker, March 27, 1999 pnnled on recycled paper March 30, 1999 Stephan Can' Carr & Mankey, PA 5100 Eden Avenue, Suite 306 Edina, Minnesota 55436-2337 Dear Steve, Below please find the proposed dock language for the Wexford Lane properties. The homeowners at 2537 and 2541 WexfordLane, desiring to build and maintain a watercraft dock in common, agree to share construction, recontruction, maintenance, utilities and license fees and costs equally. Use of the structure is to be shared. Each address shall enjoy one (1) slip and use of the walkway to said slip. Improvements, alterations and repairs shall be by agreement of the two (2) parties with each address having one (1) vote in the matter. Neither party may use the structure in such a way as to endanger to license held in common. I'm sure there will need to be revisions to these and there may be additional regulations added. Let me know Sincerely, Steve Behnke March 26, 1999 Stephan Can' Cart & Mankey, PA 5100 Eden Avenue, Suite 306 Edina, Minnesota 55436-233? Dear Steve, Below please find the legal description for the Wexford Lane properties. The City of Mound normally does not issue addresses for lots until the project is approved, howwever in this case they have said that one residence will retain the existing address of 2541 Wexford Lane, while the other residence will acquire a new address of either 4 higher or lower. I will forward this data to you as soon as its available to me. Legals: North Lot (A): Lot 1 and those parts of Lots 2 and 15, Block 7, SETON which lie north of a line drawn west at right angles to the east line of said Lot 2 from a point thereon distant 52.00 feet north, as measured along said east line and the east line of Lot 3, said Block 7, SETON from the southeast comer of said Lot 3. South Lot (B) ' Lots 3 and 14, and those parts of Lot 2 and 15, Block 7, SETON which lie south of a line drawn west at right angles to the east line of said LOt 2 from a point thereon distant 52.00 feet north, as measured along said east line and the east line of said Lot 3 from the southeast comer of said Lot 3. Sincerely, Steve Behnke DECLAR. ATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND I:~ESTRIC~ONS THIS DECLARATION, made on this Stokes and Richard Oliver, (the Owners'). 1999, by Thomas A. WITNESSETH TtlAT: WHEREAS, the owners" are the fee simple owners of the property described on Exhibit A and B attached here to and by this reference incorporated herein for all purposes; and, WHEREAS, the property, described on Exhibits A and B consists of two (2) residential housing units which share a common wall and which are commonly known as a "double bungalow". WHEREAS, the owners' have subdivided the property on Exhibit A and B into two (2) separate parcels of real property whioh are described on Exhibits A andB attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, such that the common boundary between such parcels hms along the party wall and creates two (2) residential lots which are roughly comparable in area; alld, WHEREAS, the owners' desire to provide for the preservation of the values and amenities for both parcels and to this and desire to subject each lot described on Exhibit A and B to the covenants, restrictions, easements, charges and liens hereinafter set forth, each and all of which is and of for the benefit of said real property and each owner thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises owners hereby declares that each of the lots described on Exhibit A and B shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed, and occupied subject to the conditions, restrictions, easements, charges and liens hereinafter set forth, which covenants and restrictions shall mu with the real property described on Exhibits A and B, and be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in such property or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each owner thereof. ARTICLE I. DEFINITIONS Definitions. The following words, when used in this Declaration, shall have the following meanings: 1.1 "Declarant" shall mean and refer to the holder of the fee simple absolute and contract vendees, or any combination thereof, their respective heirs, successors and assigns. 1.2 "Living_Unit" shall mean and refer to thc residential homing unit situated on each lot consisting of a group of rooms and hallways and attached garage which are designed and intended for use as living quarters for one family and which is commonly known as one-half (1/2) of a "double bungalow". 1.3 "Lot" shall mean and refer to each separate tract or parcel of land described on Exhibit A and B attached hereto. 1.4 "Mortgage" shall mcan and refer to any' mortgage -or other security instrument by which a lot, or any part thereof, or any structure thereon, is encumbered. 1.5 "Mortgagee." shall mean an>, person or entity named as the mortgagee under any Mortgage, or any successors or assigns to the interest of such person or entity under a Mortgage. 1.6 "Owner" shall mean and refer to the record owner, whether one or more persons or entities, of the fee simple title to a lot, including contract sellers, but excluding any person having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. Notwithstanding anything herein to the apparent contrary, even though more than one (1) individual may own a fee simple interest in each lot, for purposes of this Declaration there shall only be one (I) owner for every lot who shall only be entitled to cast one (1) vote with respect to all management decisions that are governed by this Declaration. 1.7 "Private Yard Area" shall mean and refer to that portion of a lot not covered by a Living Unit. 1.8 "property" shall mean and refer to all the real property subject to this Declaration, all of which is more fully described on Exhibits A and B attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein for all purposes. ARTICLE H. Management of the Prooertv 2.1 Management. All decisions relating to the exterior maintenance, repair and replacement of the Living Units located upon each lot and the maintenance and upkeep of the Private Yard Areas of the lots, shall be made by the unanimous decision of both Owners. In the event of the failure of the OWners to unanimously agree upon any such management matter, either Owner may seek arbitration, which shall be the exclusive remedy available for such management disputes, in accordance with the procedures described in Article X hereof. ARTICLE III. Covenants four Maintenance Assessments 3.1 Creation of Lien and Personal Obliga.u.'on for Assessment. The Declarant, for each lot owned within the Property and each Owner of any lot by acceptance of a deed therefor, whether or not it shall be so expressed in any such deed or other conveyance, hereby covenants and agrees to pay one-half (1/2) of all of the costs and expenses of performing those maintenance measures which are governed by this Declaration and which are more particularly described in Section 6.2 hereof. Each OWner shall pay his one-half (1/2) share of such costs when and as such costs are billed to thc Owners. In the event that Owner shall fail to pay his share of such costs and expenses, the other Owner may pay the same and, upon such payment, shall acquire a continuing lien upon the lot of delinquent Owner (herein sometimes referred to as an "assessment Lien") which shall bind such lot in the hands of the then Owner, his heirs, devisees, personal representatives, grantees and assigns. Each Owner shall also be personally obligated to pay for such Owner's share of such costs and expenses and such obligation shall remain his personal obligation even after the conveyance or other passage of tire to his lot to another but such personal obligation for such past due share shall not pass to his successors in title unless expressly assumed by them. 3.2 Nature of Lien. Any such assessment lien shall run in favor of the non-delinquent O~ner and such lien shall be prior and superior to all of the liens or encumbrances on the delinquent Owner's lot except for liens for general real estate taxes and special assessments levied by any governmental authorities and the lien of any f~'st Mortgage as provided in Section 3.6 hereof. Any other lien or acquiring a lien on any lot after the Declaration shall have been recorded and whose liens shall also have bean recorded, shall be deemed to consent that their liens shall be and remain inferior and subsequent to future liens provided for herein whether or not such consem has been expressed in thc instruments creating their liens. The non-delinquent Owner may, but shall not be required to, prepare and file a written notice of lien setting forth the ~nount owed, the name of the delinquent Owner and a description of such Owners lot and file or record the same. 3.3 Enforcement of Lien. Such assessment lien may be enforced and foreclosed either by judicial foreclosure by the non-delinquent Owner in the same manner in which mortgages on real property' ma),' be foreclosed in Minnesota or by foreclosing the lien in the manner prescribed by Minnesota Statutes for the foreclosure ora mechanic's lien. Each Owner, by acceptance ora deed for any lot, does further hereby give full and complete power of sale to the other Owner and does consent to a foreclosure of the assessment lien by advertisement. In the event of any such foreclosure, and in the further event that the non-delinquent Owner shall prevail in any such foreclosure the person personally obligated to pay the same shall be required to pay all costs of foreclosure including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees. All such costs and expenses shall be further secured by the lien being foreclosed. The person personally obligated to pay such lien, shall also be required to pay the non-delinquent Owner his share of any additional sums for the cost of maintaining the Property which shall become due during the period of foreclosure. The non-delinquent Owner shall have the right and power to bid at the foreclosure sale or other legal sale and to acquire, hold, convey, lease, rent, encumber, use and otherwise deal with the lot as the Owner thereof. A release of the notice of lien shall be executed by the non-delinquent Owner and recorded upon payment of all sums secured by such lien. 3.4 Subrogation. Any encumbrances holding a lien on any lot may pay, but shall not be required to pay, any amounts secured by the lien created and authorized by this Section and, upon payment of such sums, such encumbrances shall be subrogated to all rights of the non-delinquent Owner with respect to such lien, including, but not limited to, priority as to any other lien or interest in such lot. 3.5 Interest on Lien and Abandonment. Any assessment not paid within thirty (30) days after the due date shall bear interest from the due date until paid at the rate of eight (9%) percent per annum. No Owner may waive or otherwise escape personal liability for the assessments pro,dried for herein by abandonment of his lot. A suit to recover a money judgment for such expenses, with costs of collection and interest as provided for herein, shall be maintainable by the non-delinquent Owner without foreclosing or waiving the lien securing the same. 3.6 Subordination of Lien to First Mortgages. The lien of assessments provided for herein shall be subordinate to the lien of any first Mortgage, and the sale or transfer of any lot shall not affect the assessment lien. However, the sale or transfer of any lot pursuant to the foreclosure of a first Mortgage, or pursuant to any other proceeding or arrangement in lieu of such foreclosure, shall extinguish the lien of such assessments as to payments which become due prior to the effective date of such sale, transfer or acquisition by the Mortgagee to the end ~at no assessment liability shall accrue to an acquiring Mortgagee except with respect to payments of assessments becoming due afte~ possession has passed to such acquiring Mortgagee, whether such possession has passed at the termination of any period of redemption or otherwise. No such sale, ~ansfer or acquisition of possession shall relieve an Owner or a lot from liability' for any assessments thereafter becoming due or from the lien thereof or shall relieve the person personally obligated to pay the assessments which were levied prior to the transfer of such propert}' from the personal obligation to pay the same. 0£ :9I 3.7 Estoppel Certificate. Each Owner (the "Certifying Owner") agrees, at any time upon not legs than ten (10) days prior written notice from the other Owner (the l'Requesting Owner"), to deliver to the Requesting Owner a statement in writing, in recordable form, if requested, that (i) the Requesting Owr~er has paid all charges which were due and payable prior to the date of such statement, or, if not paid, then stating the amount payable, (ii) the mount of all charges which are reasonably expected to become due and payable hereunder by the Requesting Owner within sixty (60) days from' the date of such statement, (iii) and acknowledging that there are not, to the Certifying Owner's knowledge any defaults hereunder on the part of the Requesting Owner, or, if there are such defaults, then describing each such default. Any such statement may be conclusively relied upon by any prospective purchaser or the holder or prospective holder of any encumbrance upon the Requesting Owner's lot. If the Certifying Owner shall fail to deliver such statement within such ten (10) da), period, then such failure shall be conclusive that the Requesting Owner has paid all charges payable hereunder, that no such charges shall be payable within sixty (60) days from the date of such request and that the Requesting Owner is not in default hereunder. ARTICLE IV. Easements and Restrictions 4.1 Easements. In addition to the easements, covenants, restrictions and conditions of Article V concerning party walls and of Article VI concerning architectural and exterior controls, all Living Units and lots shall be subject lc} the covenants hereinafter specifically described for the benefit of the Property, all as more fully set forth hereinafter in this Article. 4.2 Private Yard Area Restrictions. Except as herein-after provided, each Ox, mcr shall be duly emitled to the exclusive use and occupancy of the Private Yard Area in his lot to the exclusion of all others. No Owner shall erect or cause to be erected any structure of any sort upon his lot, or plant any trees, shrubs or6ther landscaping prior to obtaining the written consent of the other Owner, which consent may be witluheld for any reason whatsoever. Except as otherwise provided under Section 6.3, ail planting, landscaping and private yard maintenance shall be performed by third parties and the costs thereof shall be divided equally between the Owners as provided in Section 3.1 4.3 Utility Easements. Each Owner grants to the other Owner the right of free access to each Owner's lot for the purpose of maintaining any utility lines which may serve the Living Units on each lot. ARTICLE V. Party Walls 5.1 General Rules of Law to Apply. Each wall which is built as part of the original construction of the Living Units upon the Property and located upon the common boundat3, line between the lots shall constitute a part3.' wall and to thc extent not inconsistent with thc provisions of this Article, thc general rules of law regarding party walls and of liability for property damage due to negligence or willful acts or omissions shall apply thereto. 5.2 Sharing of Repair and Maintenance. The cost of reasonable repair and maintenance of a party wall shall be shared equally by the Owners of each lot. 5.3 Destruction by Fire or other CasualW. If a party wall is destroyed or damaged by frre or other casualty, either Owner may restore it, and if the other Owner thereafter makes use of the wall, they shall contribute equally to the cost of restoration without prejudice-," however, to the right of either such Owner to call for a larger contribution ~rom the other under any rule of law regarding liability for negligent or willful acrs or omissions. 5.4 Weathemroofing. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Article, any Owner who, by his negligent or willful act, causes the party wall to be exposed to the elements shall bear the whole cost of furnishing the necessary protection against such elements. 5.5 Right to Contribution Runs with Land. The right of any Owner to contribution from the other O~mer under this Article shall be apppurtenant to the land and shall pass to such Owner's successors in title. 5.6 Encroachments. If, for whatever reason, a wall intended to be a party wall is not precisely located on the dividing line between the tots, during the life of the building containing such wall, the lot upon which such party wall encroaches shall be subject to an easement for the life of the building which shall be in favor of and appurtenant to the other lot, to the end that for all pm'poses of this Declaration, such wall shall be treated as if it were centered precisely upon the common lot line. ARTICLE VI. Architectural and Exterior Controls 6.1 Architectural Control. No exterior additions, removals or alterations (including changes in color or appearance) to any building on a lot, additional fences, hedges, walls, walkways and other structures shall be commenced, erected or maintained, except such as exist on the date hereof, until the plans and specifications showing the nature, kind, sbape, height, materials, location and approximate cost of same shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the other Owner, which approval may be with-held if such other Owner reasonably believes that such changes or additions are not harmonious with the existing buildings mad landscaping on the Property. In the event of such disapproval, the Owner requesting approval may seek to have the reasonableness of the nonconsenting Owner determined in accordance with arbitration as provided in Article X, which shall be the exclusive remedy of the Requesting Owner. In the event said other Owner fails to approve or disapprove such design and location within thirty (30) days a~er said plans and specifications have been submitted to him, such approval shall be deemed to have been given. If no application has been rejected, a suit to enjoin or remove such additions, alterations, or changes may be instituted at any time' by such other Owner; provided, however, no suit to enjoin or remove such additions, alterations or changes may be commenced if unapproved improvements have been completed for a period of ninety (90) days and thereafter a deed to a new Owner is recorded, such improvements having been deemed to have been approved by the other Owner. Exterior antennae shall not be placed on any buildhag without the express written approval of the other Owner, which may be denied for any reason. 0£ :9t 6.2 Exterior Maintenance. In order to preserve the uniform and kigh standards of appearance of the Property, the maintenance and repair of the exterior of all Living Units, atxd the walks, yard areas and driveways of the Lots shall be performed by third parties. Such maintenance and repair shall include ,.he following: The maintenance and repaix of the exterior surfaces of ail building on the Property, including, without limitation, the painting of thc same as often as necessary, thc replacement of trim and caulking, the maintenance and repair of roofs, and overhangs, (but excluding all maintenance and repair to glass and other window' surfaces), mowing, trimming, watering and other care of grass, trees, and other plants, and the maintenance and repair of walks, driveway aprons, driveways and walkways, including snow removal therefrom. All other exterior maintenance and repair and all maintenance and repair of the interior of individual Living Units and garages shall be the sole obligation and responsibility and expense of the individual Owners thereof, except to the extent that thc exterior maintenance and repair is expressly governed by this Declaration. In the event that any maintenance or repair measures arc necessitated by willful or negligent acts of any Owner, his family, guests, or invitees, the cost of all such maintenance and repairs shall be paid solely by such Owner. 6.3 Maimenance By Individual Owners. Notwithstanding anything set forth herein to the apparent contrary, an Owner, with the express written permission of the other Owner, may perform the following maintenance measures on such Owner's lot: (a) Thc mowing, trimming, watering and other care of grass, trees and other plants, and (b) Snow removal from the walks, driveways, driveway aprons and roofs on such lot; (c) "minor general" exterior maintenance such as gutters-drain spouts, re-caulking and painting windows, weatherproofing, garage door resurfacing, and any wrought iron upkeep in the existing color scheme. (d) or any other general repairs agreed upon in writing. (e) above minor items to be paid for by the side doing same work. Cost not to be shared by the other side. provided, however, that such express written permission may be revoked at any time by the other Owner with or without cause, in which case, such maintenance measures shall then be performed by third parties and the cost thereof shall once again be assessed equally against the lots, Except as permitted under the limited circumstances described in this Section 6.3, all maintenance and repair measures described in this Declaration shall be performed by third parties and the cost thereof shall be assessed equally against the lots. If an Owner shall perform his own maintenance as provided h~ein, such Owner shall not be obligated to pay for any portion of the cost of performing the same maintenance measures on the other Owner's lot. ARTICLE VII. Insurance, Destruction and Reconstruction 7.1 Insurance. Each Owner shall obtain, at each Owner's sole cost and expense, "all risk" casualty, insurance against loss or damage to such Owner's Living Unit for at least one hundred percent (100%) of the replacement cost of such Living Unit without deduction for depreciation, on a standard co-insurance endorsement of not more than ninety percent (90%). Each such policy shall be endorsed to provide that the insurance company issuing such policy shall notify the other Owner, in writing, at least fifteen (15) days prior to any cancellation or change in the insurance issued by such company, if either Owner fails to procure and maintain the insurance required hereunder, the other Owner shall have the fight to procure and maintain such insurance in the name of the delinquent Owner and at the delinquent Owner's sole cost and expense. The non-delinquent Owner shall have and is hereby granted a lien upon uhe delinquent Owaaer's lot to secure all sums paid for such insurance. Within ten (10) days upon the written request of either Owner, the other Owner shall furnish the requesting Owner with a certificate of insurance from such Owner's insurance company evidencing that the insurance required hereunder is in force, stating policy numbers, effective dates, expiration dates and policy limits ~ereunder. 7.2 Subrogation Waiver. Each such policy shall contain a provision in which the issuing insurance company waives all rights of subrogation which thc insurance company might otherwise have against either Owner. 7.3 Loss Payable. Each Owners insurance policy shall provide that in the event of any loss covered by such policy, the proceeds of such policy shall be jointly payable to both Owners for disposition as provided herein. Ail such proceeds shall be deposited by both Owners in a bank or other financial institution, the accounts of which bank or institution are insured by a federal governmental agency. 7.4 Reconstruction. Thc Owner of the lot upon which such casualty shall have occurred shall, within thirtT (30) days after the insurance proceeds have been paid to the Owners and deposited in accordance with Section 7.3, enter into a firm contract with a qualified builder providing for the reconstruction or remodeling of the damaged diving Unit to the same condition as existed immediately prior to such casualty; provided in however, that no construction or repair shall be commenced by the affected Owner until the unaffected Owner shall have granted his written approval of the plans and specifications therefor. The Owner whose Living Unit shall have been affected by such casualty shall not enter into any reconstruction contract for an amount in excess of the amount of the insurance proceeds available until additional funds had been deposited by such affected Owner to cover all additional construction costs. All reconstruction or remodeling shall be commenced and completed with due diligence and in no event shall such work be completed later than one hunted eighty (180) days after such proceeds had been paid to the Owners. If it shall be necessary to deposit additional funds in excess of the available insurance proceeds in order to permit the reconstruction of the Living Unit affected by such casualty, the unaffected Owner may make additional advances in order to facilitate such reconstruct(on and such advances shall be secured by a lien upon the other Owner's lot but subordinated to the interest of any f~rst mortgagee. 7.5 Disbursement of Construction Funds.. Disbursement of insurance proceeds shall be made by both Owners subject to reasonable safeguards including, but cot limited to, sworn construction statements, subcontract0- lists, lien waivers, receipts and inspections as shall be necessm3' to insure the completion of such work ia accordance with the construction contract. 7.6 Proceeds for Reconstruction Only. The holder or holders of any Mortgage or Mortgages encumbering a lot, whether a first or subordinate Mortgage, shall have no rights to elect to apply any of such casualty insurance proceeds to the reduction of any indebtedness secured by any such Mortgages until after such insurance proceeds shall have fn'st been applied to the repair, replacement or restoration of any loss or damage sustained by the insured Living Unit and all costs thereof have been paid in full. 7.7 Failure to Reconstruct. In the event that an Owner whose lot has been affected by any such casualty shall fail to enter into a firm contract for the' reconstruction of his Living Unit and garage, as provided in Section 7.4 above, or in the event that such reconstruction is not commenced or completed as provided above, then the other Owner, along with any Mortgagee of the delinquent Owner, shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enter into such construction contracts and to complete such reconstruction and the fight to have such insurance proceeds applied in satisfaction of any obligation recurred pursuant to those contracts. 7.8 Other Insurance. Each O~mer may, at his own expense, obtain insurance coverage for loss of or damage to any fmnimre, furnishings, personal effects and other personal property belonging to such Owner. ARTICLE VIII Notice to First Mort~agee.s 8.1 Morteagee's Riehts. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Declaration, the provisions of this Article VIII shall control and in the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Article and the other provisions of this Declaration, the provisions of this Article shall control. 8.2 Notice of Default. Any Mortgagee holding a first Mortgage on a lot. and who shall have previously filed a written request with either Owner shall be entitled to written notification of any default by the mortgagee or Owner of such lot, or his, or their, heirs, successors, or assigns, in the payment of any assessments or the performance of any other duties or obligations herein set forth which shall have remained in default for a period of thirty (30) days or more. The neglect or failure of the Owner to tender such notice to the Mortgagee shall toll the running of any time limits applicable to the procedure for the collection of such assessment or remedies available to the non-defaulting Owner on account of such default. 8.3 Consent ReQuired. Without the prior written unanimous approval of both Owners, no Owner shall be entitled by act or omission, to change, waive or abandon the scheme of exterior and architectural controls, exterior maintenance, maintenance of part), walls, or lawn maimenance as hereinabove set forth. ARTICLE IX, General Restrictions. Obligations and Rights of Owners 9.1 Living Unit Restriction. No Living Unit shall be used for purposes other than as a single family residence, nor shall any garage be used for or occupied as living or sleeping quarters, nor shall any trade or business of any kind be carried on within a Living Unit or upon a lot, nor shall any lot or any part thereof be leased, sublet, assigned or suffered to be used for hotel or transient occupancy. 9.2 Prohibition of Damage and Certain Activities. Nothing shall be done or kept on any lot or any part thereof (i) to increase the rate of insurance on any other lot over what the Owner of such other lot, but for such activity, would pay, without the prior written consent of the other Owner, or (ii) wh/ch would be in violation of any statute, role, ordinance, regulation, permit or other validly imposed requirement of any governmental body. No damage to, or waste of, the Property or the buildings situated thereon, sha[I be committed by any Owner or any invitee of any Owner and each Owner agrees to indemify and hold harmless the other Owner from and against all loss resulting from any such damage or waste caused by him or his havitees. No noxious, dostructive or offensive activity shall be allowed on any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be m may become an annoyance or nuisance to any other Owner or to any other person at any time lawfully residing on the Property. 9.3 Animals. No animals, rabbits, livestock, fowl or poultry of any kind shall be raised, breed or kept in or upon any lot or any part thereof, except dogs, cats or other household pets shall be penmtted; provided, however, that no such pets shall be kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purposes. 9.4 Si.gus. No signs of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any lot; provided, however, one sign, of not more than five (5) square feet in area may be used to advertise such Living Unit for sale or rent. There shall be no exterior Christmas lights, statues, etc. 9.5 Maintenance of(3arages. All garage facilities, as existing on the date hereof, shall be retained as and used primarily for a garage facility for the off-street interior storage of vehicles and no such facility shall be converted by consuuction or usage to any other primary purpose. 9.6 Parking and Storage of Boats and Vehicles. No motor homes, recreational vehicles', trailers, boats, snowmobiles or other similar vehicles uses or stored on any lot without the express written consent of the Owner of the other lot. All cars shall be removed from the driveway for snow removal. ARTICLE X. Arbitration 10.1 Arbitration AvailabLe. In the evem that the Owners shall fail to unanimously agree upon any management matter requiring the unanimous decision of both Owners, or any other matter for which arbitration is expressly provided for herein, either Owner may have such matter determined by arbitration in the manner hereinafter provided. 10.2 Arbitration Procedure. The Owner seeking arbitration shall dispatch a written notice to the other Owner and indicating such Owner's iment to have such matter determined by arbitration and such notice shall specify, the name of an arbitrator appointed by' such Owner, whereupon within ten (10) days after the giving of such notice, the other Owner shall appoint a second arbitrator, and, in default of such second appointment within the time above limited, the arbitrator first appointed shall act as sole arbitrator, than any two arbitrators shall have been appointed as aforesaid, they shall appoint a third arbitrator, or, failing such appointment within ten (I0) days of the appointment of the second arbitrator, either Owner may apply to the senior Judge in service of the District Court of the County of Hennepin for the appointment of a third arbitrator, and the three arbitrators, however appointed, or, failing appointment of a second arbitrator within a time above limited, then the sole arbitrator, shall give reasonable opportunity to the Owners to present their cases and witnesses, if any, in the presence of one another and shall then make their or his determination and award, and the award of a majority of the arbitrators, if there be three (3) or of the arbitrator, if there be one (1), shall be binding upon the Owners. Such determinati°n and award shall include the fixing of the expenses of arbitration and the same shall be paid by the Owner failing to prevail in such arbitration, and such expanses and costs shall be additionally secured by the assessment lien hereinabove described. 10.3 Limitation on Arbitration. The arbitration procedure described in this Article shall only be available with respect to those matters where arbitration is specified as the exclusive remedy. ARTICLE XI. General Provisions 11.1 Enforcement. Any Owner shall have the right to enforce, by a proceeding at law or in equity, all restrictions, conditions~ covenants, reservations, liens and charges now or herea~er imposed by the provisions of this Declaration including, but not limited to, the collection of all assessments. In the event that an Owner should employ the services of an attorney in connection with a breach of the terms hereof by the other Owner, his family, guests, tenants or contract purchasers, or in connection with the enforcement of the terms hereo~ and if such non-defaulting 0whet shall prevail in any such action, the defaulting Owner shall pay, in addition to all other sums due, the non-defaulting Owner's reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. The failure by any Owner to enforce any covenant or restriction herein contained shall m no event be deemed a xvaiver of the right to do so thereafter. 11.2 Access. Solely for the purpose of performing the maintenance authorized by this Declaration, an)' Owner through his duly authorized agents or employees, shall have the right, after reasonable notice to the other Owner, to enter upon the other Owner's lot. 11.3 SeverabiliW. The invalidation of any one of these covenants or restrictions by legislation, judgmem or court order shall in no way affect any othex provision which shall remain in full force and effect. 11.4 _Amendments. The provisions of this Declaration may only be amended by the unanimous written consem of both the Owners. No amendment shall be effective until it shall have been properly recorded. 11.5 Limitation on Declaration. The covenants, restrictions, conditions and reservations imposed or established by or created under this Declaration shall run with and bind the lots for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of the recordation of this -Declaration and may be enforced as provided in Section 10.1 herein-above. Thereafter, the covenants, conditions and restrictions of this declaration shall be automatically extended for a successive period often (10) years, unless art instmmem is signed by the two owners. 11.6 Notices. Any notice, request, demand, approval or consent given or required to be given under this Declaration shall, except as otherwise expressly provided hereto, be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given when received if mailed by United States registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered by hand, and addressed to the street address of each lot' or the last changed address given by the Owner to be notified IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this document to be executed as of the day and year first above written. Thomas A. Stokes STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of ,1999 before me personally appeared THOMAS A. STOKES, and RICHARD OLIVER(the owners), to me known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same az their free act and deed. EXHIBT A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 0£ :BI MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Those absent and excused: Commissioner Becky Glister; Council Liaison Bob Brown Public Present: Joyce and Marvin Nelson (2025 Shorewood), James Peterson (2561 Wexford Lane), Jim Gefre (4800 Carrick Road), Sandy Hayward (4792 Carrick Road), Leroy Byan (2544 Wexford Lane), Dan Swenson (2560 Wexford Lane), Tracy Sirny (2560 Wexford Lane), Judy and Maria Wartman (4816 Longford Road), Bernie McVey (4807 Longford Road), Thomas Stokes (4363 Wilshire Boulevard, #207), Dick Oliver (4824 Longford Road), Mark Hanus (4446 Denbigh Road). Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 22, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller to accept the minutes as presented. Motion carried: 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 99-06: MINOR SUBDIVISION, TO READJUST PROPERTY LINES TO CREATE TWO PARCELS TO CONSTRUCT A TWIN HOME AT 2541 WEXFORD LANE, FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP INC., PO BOX 1611, BURNSVlLLE, LOTS 1,2,3,14, AND 15, BLOCK 7, SECTION 37950, PID # 24- 117-24 11 0019. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 99-07: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A TWIN HOME AT 2541 WEXFORD LANE, FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP INC., PO BOX 1611, BURNSVlLLE, LOTS 1,2,3,14, AND 15, BLOCK 7, SECTION 37950, PID # 24-117-24 11 0019. Staff noted that the applicant has submitted a minor subdivision request to split property into two buildable lots to construct a twin home. The proposal would split the parcel north/south creating two new lots as shown on survey (attached Mound Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 to meeting packet). Both Parcel A and B would meet the R-2 twin home zoning standards for lot width and area for lot area and frontage. Existing on the property include a single story home, detached garage, and a shed. All are in poor condition and would be removed prior to construction. A six-foot wood fence also exists along the south property line in the front line and along Wexford and Longford along the property lines. Both sets of fences would be considered non-conforming and would need to be removed or made to be conforming. Gordon stated that Staff has worked with the applicant on this project and is comfortable with the proposal. They feel it would be a good application and eliminate a problem property from the neighborhood. This would require two motions that state approval for a Minor Subdivision which is recommended by Staff for the Commission to approve to the Council with the conditions listed in the City Engineer's report and a Conditional Use Permit which Staff also recommends with the two conditions being that the existing fences conform to code fence requirements and that all existing structures be removed prior to construction. John Cameron's, City Engineer, memorandum to Jon Sutherland dated February 23, 1999 states the following additional recommendations: Easements for drainage and utility purposes should be required along all exterior lot lines, ten feet in width adjacent to the three streets and five feet wide along the south lot line of Parcel B. Utility services are in-place for both parcels. Parcel A has a sewer service available on the Longford Road side and water services in both Longford Road and Wexford Lane. Parcel B can use the existing services that presently service the house that is scheduled for demolition. The City's record utility plan shows the existing house was equipped with an individual sewage pump, because it could not be served by gravity. The proposed structure may have the same situation if basements are planned. These existing services will need to be replaced from the right of way to the new structure. A more complete grading plan will need to be furnished at the time of building permit application. Gordon covered both applications 99-06 and 99-07 concurrently. Chair Michael opened the Public Hearing for purposes of looking at a Conditional Use Permit at 7:50 p.m. Chair Michael gave the normal introduction to a public hearing for the citizen's present. Mound Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Gordon stated that the proposal meets setback requirements, hard cover requirements, and eliminates a "poor" situation existing today. DISCUSSION: Mueller asked why there was a public hearing for a construction of a twin home in the R-2 zoning area. Gordon responded that this would allow the City to have a closer control on setbacks, screening for neighbors, and that a twin home is different from a duplex. It serves more as an attached single family home. The City would be able to review the covenant between the owners of the two different homes as to exterior structure, maintenance, etc. Mueller asked where the covenants were. The developer was willing to get these together and share with Council/Commission prior to application for construction permits. He stated that it would be general and pretty standard in nature as compared to other covenants. Hasse asked what the height of the basement elevation was in relation to the lot lines. His concern is that this is located in a flood plain area. This was not a problem per the developer; grinder pumps would be used. Voss asked if Staff had looked at two single-family homes for this site. Gordon stated that they hadn't, but that construction of two unattached single homes would be difficult with setback limitations. The house would need to be very narrow. Mueller asked why there was an easement for a street that was under water. Gordon indicated that it was used for utility easements versus drainage easements. The applicant, Tom Stokes indicated that they did look at single homes, but that the design would be so long and narrow, they didn't feel they would be marketable. Therefore, they designed a twin home. The other concern they wanted to avoid/discourage was rental property. They wanted to see both sides function as single family homes that were owned by the occupants. Mr. Stokes also indicated that all structures including the fences, that are located on the property would be demolished prior to any new construction. Standard Twin Home covenants would be put into place between the owners. They address the exterior, the maintenance, and the outside storage. He believes the City will be happy with the result. Clapsaddle asked if he would supply the Covenants to the City. Mr. Stokes indicated that he would. Grinder pumps will be used to overcome the basement elevation problem with sanitary sewer service. Mound Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING: Mr. Bernie McVey of 4807 Longford Road stood and indicated concern about the property and the development of it. His property is across from this one. The west side of Waterford Road is under water as is the field and the land is not solid. He is under the understanding that the land between property and the lake is public. His concern is that the previous owner has filled in the swamp areas. Mueller stated that the proposed home is further back from the water and the current home. Therefore, it shouldn't be a problem. Mr. McVey asked if the easement would be put on City land. Gordon stated that the City has requested the easement, not the applicant. It is not for lake access, but for utilities. Mr. McVey wanted some assurance that the homes would not be occupied by two sets of renters. The owner stated that the covenants handle that. The homes are for sale, not planned for rental. They will have a purchase value of around $250,000. People renting in the bracket are few and far between as the rent would be so high. Mr. McVey felt that two families was too much congestion and traffic to add to this location. He doesn't like the thought of three garages lined up in a row when looking out his bedroom window. Chair Michael reminded him that these lots could house two separate single family homes and the scenario would be no different. Mueller understand where Mr. McVey is coming from, however, an attached twin home is actually a smaller foot print than two single homes. Mr. McVey still has concerns over a twin home. He wants to see one home on the two parcels. Chair Michael stated the likelihood of that happening is small since the twin home as well as two single homes would be in compliance with zoning. Mr. McVey wants to stand on record as being opposed to a twin home concept. Sandy Haywood, 4792 Carrick Road stated that she wanted two individual family homes. Mr. Jim Gefre of 4800 Carrick Road requested that the Planning Commission deny the application on the basis of the size of the footprint. He asked why this property wasn't zoned single houses. Mueller stated that the R-2 zoning has been in effect for several years and that is what the commission needs to keep in mind when approached with a plan. Mueller stated that with a twin home, there would actually be more green space on the lot than two single-family homes detached. Mound Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Mr. Gefre asked what the square footage would be of each side. The developer stated that they would be around 1482 feel on the main level of the plan plus the garage. Mr. Stokes also indicated that they did look at one lot, one home. However, the cost to build it would keep it from being marketable. Mueller asked the citizens to be aware that as a conditional use permit, the City would watch this more closely than other properties. It would quickly be called in for review if anything inappropriate took place on the property. This application is pretty clean. Mr. Gefre feels that this will be too dense and bring too much traffic into that area. He is also concerned about property values being negatively impacted by this "multiple" housing. Weiland reiterated that this property would actually be less dense with a twin home than two single-family homes. More green space would be provided making it seem larger. Voss had a concern that the commissioners were challenging the public when they had a comment and stated that this discourages participation. Chair Michael stated that he was sorry if his manner offended anyone. That certainly is not his intent or purpose. He just sees this as a better situation than is there and a workable solution and apologized if this came out in his demeanor. Jim Peterson of 2561 Wexford Lane stated that he was happy this property was going to be cleaned up. He hasn't seen the actual survey and is unsure of whose fence is involved. He has maintained the fence as his own since moving in there. He thought the land was his, now apparently it isn't. He would like to see a survey. He also wants to know who is going to take care of the trees, etc. He wondered how he was able to build it there was property issues outstanding. He would like to see survey stakes posted along the lot line so he can reestablish his property. Public Hearing was closed at 9:50 p.m. DISCUSSION: Burma summarized the three citizen concerns that he heard. He stated they were saving green space, the density of the new building and the cleaning up of the property. Mound Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 He went on to say that one could speculate anything, but for the most part, twin homes would take up less green space, the covenants will assure clean up of the existing property and hopefully defray rental possibilities. Mr. McVey asked about the existing mature hardwood trees. The developer indicated that only as many as needed would be removed. Trees sell real estate, so their desire is to maintain as many as possible. Mueller suggested that the City could implement the Tree Preservation Policy if needed. Mueller asked the developer if when grinder pumps were being used there was a power shortage, how would the water be pumped off. The developer stated that there would be back up battery power. Clapsaddle was excused at 9:00 p.m. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Mueller to accept the Staff recommendation for the Commission to recommend to Council to approve the minor subdivision with the conditions listed in the City Engineer's report.. Motion carried: 6-0. Gordon stated that the developer's direction as far as the Tree Preservation Policy is concerned is to enact "good site planning techniques when building." Once again, the developer ensured the Commission that because trees sell homes, they would not be removing any tree that wasn't necessary to remove. With the twin home, fewer would be taken than with two detached single family homes. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to accept the Staff recommendation for the Commission to recommend to Council to approve the Conditional Use Permit with the staff conditions: m 5. 6. 7. The existing fencing conform to the codes for fence requirements. All existing buildings be removed prior to construction. Covenants be established and approved by the City Attorney prior to Council review for the exterior of the proposed buildings and the landscaping of the lots. The basement elevation not be lower than 933.5 feet. Any changes in the plan be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to City Council approval. Applicant adhere to the Tree Preservation Performance Standards. Review of the back up systems by the City Building Official. Mound Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 DISCUSSION: Mueller stated that he was uncomfortable with Twin homes in this area, however, this is better than the existing property condition or than any other plan he has seen for this property. His opinion is that he favors two single-family homes in this location. Voss echoed Mueller's comments. He is comfortable, however, that the building will fit in with the integrity of the neighborhood. MOTION CARRIED. 6-0. Chair Michael stated that this would be brought before the City Council on April 13, 1999. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: March 8, 1999 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit OWNER: Fine Line Design - Bumsville, MN CASE NUMBER: 99-06 and 99-07 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5d LOCATION: 2541 Wexford Lane ZONING: Residential R-2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a minor subdivision request to split property into two buildable lots to construct a twinhome. The property is described as lots 1, 2, 3, 14 and 15, Block 7 of Seton. It is located at the coruer of Longford Road and Wexford Lane. The property is zoned R-2 which allows for twinhomes. The proposal would split the parcels north/south creating two new lots as shown on the survey. Both Parcel A and B would meet R-2 twinhome zoning standards for lot width and area for lot area and frontage. Existing property improvements include a single-stow home, detached garage, and a shed. All of which are in poor condition would be removed with the construction. Six foot wood privacy fencing also exists along Longford and Wexford at the property lines. A 6 foot fence also exists along the south property line in the front yard. Both sets of fencing would be considered nonconforming. The proposed twinhomes would be a single-story walkout with a two-stall attached garage. Submitted building plans show kitchen, dining/living room, and 2 bedrooms/den on the first floor. The basement would walk out and have possibilities for additional bedrooms to accompany living and storage rooms. Setbacks conform to all R-2 requirements for twinhomes. The shoreland setback is 63 feet which is also conforming. COMMENTS: Staff has worked with the applicant prior to this submittal and is comfortable with the request. This is a good application and will eliminate a problem property from the neighborhood. Along with the existing structures, staff would like to have the existing fencing removed from its present location, or conform to code fencing requirements. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #99-06 and 99-072541 ICexford Land Minor Subdivision and CUP March 8, 1999 MINOR SUBDIVISION RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested with conditions as outlined in the City Engineer's report. ~},~,,, ~'"'O "O ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following condition: 1. The existing fencing conform to code fence requirements. 2. All existing structures be removed prior to construction. 123 North Third Slxeet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Il I I I ~ [] ~ I i:,-,~ I I lll Engineering · Planning · Surveying qFCEIVED FEe z 999 iv, PLANNING & INSP, MEMORANDUM DATE: February 23, 1999 TO: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Minor Subdivision Case #99-07 CUP Case #99-06 2541 Wexford Lane MFRA #12371 As requested, we have reviewed the above-mentioned applications for the technical engineering concerns. We have no comments concerning the CUP application and the following are our comments and recommendations regarding the proposed minor subdivision: Easements for drainage and utility purposes should be required along all exterior lot lines, ten feet in width adjacent to the three streets and five feet wide along the south lot line of Parcel B. Utility services are in-place for both parcels. Parcel A has a sewer service available on the Longford Road side and water services in both Longford Road and Wexford Lane. Parcel B can use the existing services that presently service the house that is schedule for demolition. The City's record utility plan shows the existing house was equipped with an individual sewage pump, because it could not be served by gravity. The proposed structure may have the same situation if basements are planned. These existing services will need to be replaced from the right-of-way to the new structure. 3. A more complete grading plan will need to be furnished at the time of building permit application. e%'nain:\1237 lXsutherland2-23 15050 23rd. Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com 11'-7o Rev. 12-30-98 Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 PlanningCommission~Date: ~k'~Y~h~, Jqqq City Council Date: t~C; ~ ~51 ~qqq Distribution: ~--~ City Planner ~-JO -~ DNR ~-~ Public Works ~ -~ ~ Other~'" ~~~ A -I~ ~q City Engineer 55364 Case No. Application Fee: Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? PAID FEB' O/q-om .,' $7s.oo ~ ~q~/ $1,000 VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY INFORMATION EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZONING DISTRICT Subject Address .o, 5 .,or. Subdivision Circle: R-1 R-lA ~ R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 ~...,~.~~.e~.~,,o~.,,.: __ow.er ~'o~e~: ~"~'~/''"~ OWNER Name (if other than applicant) Address Phone (H) G72--/~ (W) (M) Phone (H~ --~ ~/ (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this prope~?~yes, ( ) no. If ye~, list da)e(s) of application, action tak~ resolution number(s)and provide copies of resolutions. must be signed by.2owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. ~' O-wner's Signa~~- O n's Signature Date Date CERTtFICATE OF SURVEY FOR RICHARD OLIVER IN BLOCK 7, SETON HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ~BS~B LEGAL DESiTiN ~ PREM~ES: ~.9~1.~): Existincj spot elevation PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS EXTERIOR ENVELOPE AVERAGE 'U' COMPUTATION OWNER: SITE ADDRESS: CONTRACTOR: XZXX Wexford Road- Mound Fine Line DESIGN group, inc. Determine working square footage of each: 1. Total exposed wall area 2280 sq. ft. x 0.11 -- 250.8 2. Total roof/ceiling area . 1528 sq. ft. x 0.026 = 39.728 Total a. b. C. d. e. f. g. exposed wall area above floor = 2280 sq. ft. Total wall window area: 230 sq. ft. Total door area: 82 sq. ft. Total sliding glass door area: 80 sq. ft. Total fireplace wall area: 0 sq. ft. Total wall framing area (average 10%): 228 sq. ft. Total net wall area above floor: 1480 sq. ft. Total rim joist area: 180 sq. ft. Total exposed foundation area = h. Total foundation window area: i. Total net foundation area above grade: 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Determine 'U' value of each wall segment: a. 230 sq. ft. x 'U' 0.45 = 103.5 b. 82 sq. ft. x'U' 0.07 -- 5.74 c. 80 sq. ft. x'U' 0.45 = 36 d. 0 sq. ft. x'U' 0 = 0 e. 228 sq. ft. x 'U' 0.09 = 20.52 f. 1480 sq. ft. x'U' 0.04 = 59.2 g. 180 sq. ft. x'U' 0.04 = 7.2 h. 0 sq. ft. x 'U' 0 = 0 i. 0 sq. ft. x 'U' 0 = 0 3. Total wall If item #3 heat loss ... -- 232.16 is the same as or less than item #1, the intent of SBC 6006(c)2 has been met. Total exposed ceiling/roof area = 1528 sq. ft. j. Total skylight area: 8 sq. ft. k. Total roof/ceiling framing area (ave. 1( 153 sq. ft. I. Total net net insulated ceiling/roof are 1367 sq. ft. Determine 'U' value of each roof/ceiling segment: j. 8 sq. ft. x'U' 0.3 = 2.4 k. 153 sq. ft. x 'U' 0.02 ~ 3.06 I. 1367 sq. ft. x'U' 0.02 -- 27.34 4. Total roof/ceiling heat loss ... = 32.8 If item #4 is the same as or less than item #2, the intent of SBC 6006(c)2 has been met. Alternate Building Envelope Design To utilize the total envelope system method, the values established by the sum of items #3 and #4 shall not be greater than the sum of items #1 and #2. 1. 250.8 + 2. 39.728 = 290.528 3. 232.16 + 4. 32.8 = 264.96 CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS DAME DRESS EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA 10529 10529 10529 Fine IJne DESIGN group, inc. ~ Wexford Road, Lot B SQ FT x 30% SQ FT x 40% SQ FT x 15% HOUSE: X x x TOTAL HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS x (GARAGE) x TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS DRIVEWAY: 30 x X TOTAL DRIVEWAY DECK: 12 x x TOTAL DECK TOTAL DECKat50% OTHER: Sidewalk 3 x X TOTAL OTHER TOTALPROPOSED HARDCOVER UNDER (OVE~ MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS 16 10 BY: Steven K. Behnke DATE: 157g.35 2097 0 0 0 0 0 480 0 120 0 120 21 0 25.24% NO 2/18/99 ~ES 3158.7 4211.6 2097 0 480 60 21 2658 1553.6 Q I u I m ri I u i m I I ,4 I v I _ I I '.r I U .. I .~ I f) I U I = I ~ I CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ONFILE? YES I NO LOT OF RECORD? YES I NO YARD [ DIRECTION iiOUSE ......... FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W ;FOP OF BLUFF ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 10,000/60 Bi 7.500/0 R1A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 ~ s,ooo/~m,~ ~ zo.ooo/~o R2 '14,000/80 R3 SBB ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED ] EXISTING/PROPOSED /O 15' 50' 10' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E w SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF 4' OR 6' 4' OR6' 4' 50' 10' OR 30' ItARDCOVER 30% OR 40% CONFORMING? YES I NO I ? I BY~~..., / I DATED: 'Hlis 7.oning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirementa outlino~in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Depar~nenl at 472-0600. ~ "o -'1 o ~3 ~ r- I o ~., o o-, I o ~ ~ 0 0 o~ o ~ ~ ~ 0 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 CASE //99-O7 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TWINHOME LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 SINGLE OR TWO FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT AT 2541 WEXFORD LANE LOTS 1, 2, 3, 14 & 15, BLOCK 7 SETON PID # 24-117-24 11 0019 P & Z 99-07 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, March 8, 1999 to review the use of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a Twinhome at 2541 Wexford Lane located within the R-2 Single or Two Family Zoning District. This type of construction business is allowable within the R-2 Zoning District through Conditional Use Permit. ~ ~:~S::~:~ :~G:'~2 ~ ~ :~'= ~' ~ ~ i (7i) ~ All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on February 23, 1999 Published in the Laker, February 27, 1999 prtnted on recycled paper Rev. 12-28-98 Application for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Distribution: City Planner: ,~,' ~ '~ City Engineer: ~" iq Public Works: f- O~tt~ r:~ Fire Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY Subject ddq/ INFORMATION Address LEGAL DESCRIPTION APPLICANT OWNER (if other than applicant) ARCHITECT, SURVEYOR, OR ENGINEER ZONING DISTRICT CHANGE OF USE Name of Business su~,v,~,on The applicant is: owner Name Address ~'~' Address (PH?ne///74 - / ¢0'' '2''''''2'''' ~ Address ~' O-BO~~'~ /~/// Phone/ [¢7 Circle: R-1 R-lA ~ R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 FROM: TO: Conditional Use Permit Application Page 2 Descr pt on of Proposed Use: EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impa.cts. / _ ~ / .., If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? .,~yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This appfication must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Print Applicant's Name .n~~Owner's Name Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Date Date Date Rev. 12-28-98 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR RICHARD OLIVER IN BLOCK 7, SETON HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA §851E (939. · / -" " I "~-I "~ ~ .-..' '.. ,' : L_'~,~L .... .................................. ~'" ~ .... BUILDING ' ~ (~.o ' ~ .-~ "z I', 4 LEGAL DE~T~ ~ P~ Lots 1, 2, 3, 14 ~d 15, ~k 7, ~T~ ~.e~ i$): Existing spot elevolion PROPOSED LEGAL DE$CRtPTION$ GCOFfiN & GRONBERG, INC. 612-473.-4 T41 SCALE 1/19/99 98518 CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS AME DDRESS EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA 11594 11594 11594 Fine Line DESIGN group, inc. XXXX Wexford Road, Lot A SQ FT x 30% SQ FT x 40% SQ FT x 15% HOUSE: X X X DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE) DRIVEWAY: DECK: OTHER: TOTAL HOUSE X X TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS 30 x X TOTAL DRIVEWAY 12 x X TOTAL DECK TOTAL DECK at 50% Sidewalk 3 TOTAL OTHER TOTALPROPOSEDHARDCOVER UNDER (OVE~ MEETSLOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS X X 16 10 BY: Steven K. Behnke DATE: I 1739.1 2097 0 0 0 0 0 480 0 120 0 120 21 0 22.93% I I NO ~YES 2/18/99 3478.2 4637.6 2O97 480 6O 21 26581 1979.6 EXTERIOR ENVELOPE AVERAGE 'U' COMPUTATION OWNER: SITE ADDRESS: )NTRAC-I-OR: )O0(X Wexford Road - Mound Fine Line DESIGN group, inc. Determine working square footage of each: 1. Total exposed wall area 2280 sq. ft. x 0.11 = 250.8 2. Total roof/ceiling area . 1 528 sq. ft. x 0.026 = 39.728 Total a. b. C. d. e. f. g. exposed wall area above floor = 2280 sq. ft. Total wall window area: 230 sq. ft. Total door area: 82 sq. ft. Total sliding glass door area: 80 sq. ft. Total fireplace wall area: 0 sq. ft. Total wall framing area (average 10%): 228 sq. ft. Total net wall area above floor: 1480 sq. ft. Total rim joist area: 180 sq. ft. Total exposed foundation area -- h. Total foundation window area: i. Total net foundation area above grade: 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Determine 'U' value of each wall segment: a. 230 sq. ft. x'U' 0.45 = 103.5 b. 82 sq. ft. x 'U' 0.07 = 5.74 c. 80 sq. ft. x'U' 0.45 = 36 d. 0 sq. ft. x'U' 0 = 0 e. 228 sq. ft. x 'U' 0.09 : 20.52 f. 1480 sq. ft. x 'U' 0.04 = 59.2 g. 180 sq. ft. x 'U' 0.04 = 7.2 h. 0 sq. ft. x 'U' 0 : 0 i. 0 sq. ft. x'U' 0 = 0 3. Total wall If item #3 heat loss ... = 232.16 is the same as or less than item #1, the intent of SBC 6006(c)2 has been met. Total exposed ceiling/roof area = 1528 sq. ft. j. Total skylight area: 8 sq. ft. k. Total roof/ceiling framing area (ave. 1 ( 1 53 sq. ft. I. Total net net insulated ceiling/roof are 1367 sq. ft. Determine 'U' value of each roof/ceiling segment: j. 8 sq. ft. x'U' 0.3 = 2.4 k. 153 sq. ft. x 'U' 0.02 = 3.06 I. 1367 sq. ft. x'U' 0.02 = 27.34 4. Total roof/ceiling heat loss ... = 32.8 If item #4 is the same as or less than item #2, the intent of SBC 6006(c)2 has been met. Alternate Building Envelope Design To utilize the total envelope system method, the values established by the sum of items #3 and #4 shall not be greater than the sum of items #1 and #2. 1. 250.8 + 2. 39.728 = 290.528 3. 232.16 + 4. 32.8 = 264.96 r' '~ I 0 I t I ~" I 0 SURVEY ON FILE? YES I NO LOT OF RECORD? YES I NO YA~ I DIRECTION HOUSE ......... FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W :FOP OF BLUFF ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 10,000/60 B1 ?,500/0 RZA 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 d-"~2- 6,000/4u-~ B3 10,000/60 R2 '14,000/90 R3 SES ORD. I1 30,000/100 ILEQUIRE:.D I EXISTING/PROPOSEO /O 15' 50' 10' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE:, LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCI~ GARAGE, STIED ..... DETACIIED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF 4' OR 6' 4' OR6' 4' 50' 10' OR 30' HARDCOVER 30% OR 40% This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlino~ in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Deparlment at 472-0600. April 13, 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 1/2STORY DWELLING INTO A 2 STORY AND ADD AN ADDITION WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE, AT 4844 ISI,AND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 1 & 2, BLOCK 5, DEVON PIDS 25-117-24 11 0047 & 25-11%24 11 0046, P & Z CASE//99-03 WHERAS, the applicant, Jorj Ayaz, has made application to vacate a utility easement on la of unimproved Drununond Road. This would allow additional hardcover associated with the construction to convert a 1 ,a story dwelling into a 2 story and add an addition with an attached 'garage at 4844 Island View Drive, and: WHEREAS, the i~roperty is a corner lot that fronts on three streets, Island View Drive, Amhurst Road, arid unimproved Drummond Road, and; WHEREAS, the :~ubject 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 g98-43, and; WHEREAS, staff' has reviewed the request and recommended the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. Hardcover be limited to 40 percent as stated in Resolution//98-43. e Vacate the south 1/2 of Drummond Road right-of-way adjacent to Lots I and 2, Block 15, Devon, retain:rig a permanent easement for utility and drainage purposes. Vacate the north l 0 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 easemerts and city utilities, including the watermain in the north e: unvaeated Drummond Road. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the following: 1. The vacati~m request of the south 1/2 of Drummond Road be denied. 2. Allow up to a total of 4000 square feet of impervious surface. April 13, 1999 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, THEREI~:)RE, 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: The vacation request for the south 1/2 of Drummond Road be denied. Allow up to a total of 4000 square feet of impervious surface. 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 1/2 unvacated Drummond Road. e 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. e It is determined tttat the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of ttte following improvements: Converting a 1 1/2 story to a 2 story dwelling including an addition with an attached garage. This variance is g ranted 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 o 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. 6 April 13, 1999 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 Jori 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 Jorj Ayaz to construct an addition to the existing dwelling at 4844 Island View Drive. In order for this dwelling to be in conformance with zoning and building regulations, the vacation of part of the street right-of-way and utility easements is required. Gordon reported that today 4844 Island View Drive is a one and one-half story and the applicant desires to expand this to two story and add a two-stall garage. In order to accomplish this and be in compliance with codes, the applicant has submitted a request for the vacation of one-half of Drummond Road adjacent to his property and the vacation of a utility easement which runs along the front of the property as contained in Document # 779757. 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 February 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. Sutherland replied that yes, that owner had been. Sutherland further spelled out the frustration of this application for both the applicant and the Staff. Everyone is held up if we seek the entire neighborhood to vacate all of Drummond Road. Mueller is uncomfortable with a hardcover variance. Clapsaddle asked if the City could just vacate and give Drummond to the adjacent property owners. This would require a Public Hearing. PUBLIC COMMENT Jorj Ayaz asked what the City's plans were for the road. He is trying to improve his property and that of the roads. Today it is green space and while used for a utility easement, there is no building on it nor proposed to be on this area. He does not think the neighbors would object to getting extra land if all of Drummond Road was vacated. Brown indicated "walking" the property today and does not see how it can possibly be an improved road. It would have to be a "tunnel." Weiland continued to express his concern that any one of th~. 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 Mueller suggested that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that a Public Hearing be called for purposes of vacating the entire Drummond Road. Weiland asked if this could be called "green space" and unusable and thus, grant a variance for one-half of the street. Then when and if the whole street is vacated, the variance could be removed. Burma pointed out that even with this plan, the hardcover condition is still an issue. Do we give a variance on the hardcover condition of 40 percent was his next question. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland for a variance for hard cover limits not to exceed 40 percent (4000 square feet) with the addition of the extra 1200 square feet (Drummond Road 80 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. 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 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, 1 999 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_ 40 40 40 40 40 ~ ~ ~ 40 40 40 40 40 40 ,,40 40 40J 4(~., 40 ~0 40 40 40 40 ~5 40..~ ~ =,'o6~ 5~ All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this ~~ Secretary 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 HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5c LOCATION: 4844 Island View Drive ZONING: Residential District R- lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND/COMMENTS: Jorj 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 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #99-03 Ayaz Vacation Request January 8, 1999 which would allow for 4,000 sq. fi. of hardcover. The site plan and hardcover calculations submitted with last year's variance request show a total of 3932 sq. fi. 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. fi. of hardcover bringing the total hardcover after incorporation of the vacated street to 4364 sq. fi. An overage of 364 sq. fi. Even with street vacation, the January 26~' 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 ½. 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. fi. 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, ~uite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Engineering I I Planning ° Surveying RECEIVED FEB - 2 19 ][t MOUND PLANNINC- & INSR MEMORANDUM DATE: February 1, 1999 TO: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Vacation Request - 4844 Island 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 document 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 comer 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. o 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:~nain:\misc:\sutherland1-28 April 28, 1998 RESOLUTION g98-43 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK AND REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION TO CONVERT A 1 ~72 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 g98-15 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jori 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 1/2 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 Drive is similar to many of the adjacent properties, and; April 28, 1998 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 10 foot front yard setback to Island View Drive and a 9 foot rear yard setback variances to convert a 1 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 percent 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~ 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 1/2 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 2 shall be considered a restriction on how'this property may be used. April 2,5, 1998 The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Weycker and seconded by CouncilmemberJe nsen. The following Councilmembem voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen, Polston and Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. SS/BOB POLSTON Mayor C Attest: City Clerk 3 ............................................... luueao~a ~/nuorm ~.oavtraacm$ ula~, (19JI). A temporary construction easement 25 feet' in':'&i~%~l.ahd a perpetuKl" easement 20 feet in width for public ~ower, wa'¢erf'Kn,l'0th&r utility Purpose~ including th~ right to~ open, .:lay' o~t;', con~'6t, ahd' maintain ~he same, and the right ':to remOv, e,.trees, b~sh'~ '..a~d:soil"th~refrom over, under and across Lot 2 in.BiOeK';~lS'of:Dev6fi'~A6~'o'rdihg.'~o:'%He ,~pl~ thereof on fileand Of:record in the O'f~i6~'b~.'%h'~.R~gistxar~Of" Titles tn and for said county and state, the SOU~h .1ihs of'both . Said temporary construction easement. %O' exPix'e:':ganuarY'.!, 1965. L:a.~ c t~pcon, bo:~noct.~,~nd replace 'drain"fia!~.. Hen~a'~'e :ba,~].. ~d e~d~vor a::vo zidewalk bloc;:~ on b~..,. Replace. ea':y port'i'on Of'drain.qivl6 disturbed ' tt ~10 bc~nein~ or i~ an.~i~e ap~erlainin$, ~o th~ naitZ party Of th~ se~Z pa, rt,:its ~uceesso;t'and Forever. ' ' /ta~ZS.. the day and !~ear first above lt:r~tten. Kon~ O. King and F~'l~da F. Ktng~ husband, t,: ~,~,' 1,'.o~o~. lc, b,! the. pcrsor~ $ ....... de. mwibr,? i.. ~t~,J ti:ho e}vecttlod thn [ora~oln.$ inatr~t,~tcttt. 'h iI STATE OF ~.~INNESOTA OOUNT~ OF !{ENN~IN 907 10 ECEIVED SEC. 1 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDIOIAL DISTRICT Ihe Village of ~und, a municipal oorporation, Petitioner, VSo Maudo L. Goetz, Henry D. Andresen, I,i.~l~ ~harlotte Andresen, husband and wi£e, Nancy l.~y Andreson, also known as Nancy May Ilorbst and John Peter Horbst, her husband, ELiza- beth l.~y Andresen, Antoinette Hare%on ~se and Clyde Case, her husband, Ltllian Schmitz and John W. Schmitz, husband and ~fe, ) ~thl~_do Voazg~.l(enne_v__~nd Courtnoy) Anderson and Margaret ~n Anderson,) husband and wife, Jerome W. Sulli-') van and Grace F, Sullivan, husband ) and wife, and Lewis H. Schwartz, ) Respondents. ) _JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN THE ~5%TTER OF THE CONDDINATION OF CERTAIN' LANDS FOR MUNICIPAL SANITARY SM~/AGE COLLECTION SYSTEM AND MUNICIPAL WATER SYST~24~ND STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY Upon ~he certification of Raymond C. Ploetz, one of the attorneys for petitioner herein, vhie~ certification is duly filed herein; upon Motion of Gra~hwol, Ploetz & Oberhauser by Raymond C. Ploetz, Attorneys of petitioner herein~ upon authority of ~nnesota Statute 117.17, and it appearing to the Court all proceedings for the takin~ of the lands described herein have been that f~ore have been no appeals therefrom, that due serviee of the notice has been made, and more than thirty (]0) days have expired since said service, and the petitioner has made payment of all damages and interest allowed by ~he commissioners; IT IS ADJUDGED AND DECREED that ~h~llage of Mound omstndefeasible perpetual easement ~ the lands desoribed below, the ~lght to oonstruot and maintain municipal water mains and other municipal utilities and appurtenances thereon~ including, the right to ro~ovo trues, brush, soil~ and Pill therefrom~ Parcel 5 A tem~.?ary easement 25 feet in width and a perpetual easement 20 feet in wid~l for public sewer and other u~.litypur~oses over, under and across Lot i in Hlock 15, Devon, Southerly llne of both easements being the 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 Hennepin County as evi- donce and notice of the title and rights of the said petitioner herein, and upon such filing that the notices of lis pendens filed in connection with this pro- ceeding and upon said parcels.~ be, and hereby are, d~scharged. - Or C~}~d ~ ~e.a ~e end corr~t.~ et the BY THE COURT: GERALD R. NELSON Clerk of Dt~trtct Court Deputy 89074O OFFICE OF REGISTRAR OF TITLES STATE OF MINNESOTA C 0 L1 lq T'Y' OF' ! hereby certi/y ~'/as filed in thi~ ot];~ o., tl~e CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE #99-03 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A STREET AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION LOCATED WITHIN THE R-lA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT 4844 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE AND ADJACENT UNIMPROVED DRUMMOND ROAD, BLOCK 15, LOTS 1 & 2, DEVON PIDS # 25-117-24 11 0161 P & Z 99-03 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the 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. L Z4040"~40 ;40 ~ ~ ~ ,~ ( 127.~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~--ao ~._[~ ~ ~0 40 40 40 40 40,~ "~- -~'~' ~? ' ~1 ~; ' ~-,~ ~; ~ (6';)'"~(64)~'~ ,~(128) ~ .1~ ~ ~ ~ 40 40 40 40 40 40 ~ 40 40 ~ 40 40 40 40 40 40 ...... ~ ~ ...~////~ - _ _ (;~ t~ ~ 3v ~u 40 ~ ';~ ';~. ~ 40 40 40 406 40 ~40 40 40 ~ 40 15 40 40 40 40 J 40 40 15 ._lo.t~u~ ~R3~) - e (~)(~)(~)/ -(35) (41) J / I All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to ~above will be given the opportunity to be heard at th ~rms ~nqums~mg 5ecr~ary Mailed to prope~y owners within 350 feet of affected property on January 27, 1999 Published in the Laker, January 30, 1 999 pr~nled on recycled paper Rev. 1/30/97 Application for STREET / EASEMENT VACATION City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Distribution: /~C~J-¢~ City Planner /~/'-~ City Engineer /~.~/-~ Public Works "JAN 2.1. 1999 Case No. Application Fee: $250.00 /ir~-~Minnegasco Police Dept. Fire Dept. Other Please type or print the following information: APPLICANT Name JO R Y ~ yA Z. Address q ~/..~ t.J [ ,~ J../~J~JJ~ [,J]~/.AJ 2)~. ADJACENT PROPERTY Name of Business (APPLICANT'S PROPERTY) Lo~ ~ · Circle: R- 1 ~-2 R-3 B- 1 8-2 B-3 ZONING DISTRICT DESCRIPTION OF STREET TO BE VACATED REASON FOR REQUEST IS THERE A PUBLIC NEED FOR THIS LAND? Print Applicant's Name Print Applicant's Name A Date Applicant's Signature Date From: Jod Ayaz 4844 ]Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 To: City of Mound Council members Date: January 25, 1999 Re: Vacation of Drummond Road Dear council members; I 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, I must have more square footage in my property for my hard cover calculations so that I will be allowed to have such pavement. I 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. I have outlined on the updated survey the portion that I 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 lo'az/// RECEIVED JAil 2 6 1999 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. Rev. 1/30/97 Application for STREET / EASEMENT VACATION City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 DiStribution: /-jl-~ ¢iw P~.~=er /~/'-~i City Engineer /-~.~/-g~ Public Works ~3AN 2 1 1999 Case No. Application Fee: $250.00 /i~/-~Minnegasco Police Dept. Fire Dept. /--~/-<~' GTE Other Please tYlae or print the following information: APPLICANT Name Jo R I & yA Z ADJACENT PROPERTY Name of Business (APPLICANT'S PROPERTY) Lot Subdivision ZONING Circle: R-1 ~ R-2 R-3 8-1 B-2 8-3 DISTRICT OF STREET FOR REQUEST Block I% Plat// PUBLIC NEED ~ND? ' Print Applicant's Name Minnegasco has no facilities within the above described area and has no objection to its vacation. Thank you for the advance notice. Steven Von Bargen Right-of-Way Administrator Minnegasco RECFIVED JAN 2 7 1999 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. C,. PROPOSED ROAD VACATION EXHIBIT BL©iGK 16 " '" ,, .;:. S89'21'19"E ~'0.00 ......... - Z ' ' ' ' .... ", , ~ ...... N892119W' 80.00 ........ - ~1- ': ~ :~1 "-. I'~,,,~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ y.. ~c~ ~ I~;~,~[~'. /0 I~ - I - O ' ' ~ x, i0.~ x. I~ L / ~ ,'S~ ~ ~ ,. ~ /1 .~ ..... 4;~v,~-~ ,. , ,.. ~ ~e~ ] .... ' WEST" 80.00" '..~.~ ~*~ [~SZ.4A,I) /SEll' ( CONCR~1E ROAD sc~ su~v ro~: dO~d AYAZ PROPERTY ADDRESS: ~8~ Island ~ew Drive, Mound, Minnesota. PROPOSED VACA~ON DESCRIPTION: Thor port of Drummond Rood, es dedicoted in the Recorded plot of "Devon", situate in Hennepin County, Minnesoto I~ng east of the northerly extension of the west line of Lot 2, Block 15, of said plot, end west of the northerly extension of the eost line of Lot 1, Block 15. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this exhibit was prepered by me or under my direct supervision and that I om e duly Registered Land Surve~r under the lows of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 26th day of January, 1999. ~ . ~ b~~ ~ RFCEIVED jA. Z 6 ~99 Bolke NOTES: Minnesota License No. 20281 1. The orientation of this bearing s~tem is based on the south line of Lot 1, Block 15, Devon which is ossumed to hove e bearing of West. 2. No title work was provided for the preparation of this survey to verify the legal description, ownership, or the existence of any easements or encumbrances. ~. Area 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. ~4-~ SURVEYORS ~.,~ (~) 5~-~ Request: The Pelican Point Homeowners are requesting that the 40 slip dock structure on the North side Of Pelican Point be moved an additional fifty (50) feet out from shore in order to provide navigable water depths for the inside docks. There are several compelling reasons why this request should be granted by the District: 1. At the current approved location of the dock structure the 16 inside slips are not usable. 2. Moving the approved structure out will make it unnecessary to build "low water" docks to the South of Pelican Point. While these low water docks are already approved by LMCD, they have never been installed. The Mound City Council has recently unanimously voted their opposition to them. Additionally, several residents at Pelican Point and adjoining properties are strongly opposed to docks being installed on the South side of the point. 3. Extending the docks on the North side ofthe point will result in the 600 feet of natural undeveloped shore along the South side of the point being lel~ undismrbedJ No additional impact would result on the North side of the point. 4. The consensus among the members of the LMCD present at its meeting of March 1, 1999, when this request was informally discussed, was strongly in favor of it. Clearly there is a hardship now working against the residents of Pelican Point due to the unusable nature of the inside slips. Please review the proposed dock plan that illustrates water depths and dock requirements. We sincerely hope that you will give it favorable consideration. ~~ ~/,¢y yours, President, Pelican Point Homeowners Association pphoa, lmcd 1,99 Pelican Point IIomeowners Association of Lake Minnetonka 18283A Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, Minnesota 55391 Telephone: 475-2097 Fax: 475-2005 March 5, 1999 Board of Directors Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, Mimaesota 55391 Dear Board Members: The Pelican Point Homeowners Association has current LMCD approval for a 40 BSU dock system along its shoreline. The dock plan which was approved in 1994 is for 40 boat slips located North of Pelican Point on a single dock structure. In the event of shallow water, 12 slips could be moved to the South side of the point. The dock system was'approved pursuant to Section 2.02 Subd. 5 of the LMCD Code of Ordinances. This approval required the Association to agree to reducing the number of boat storage units it was entitled to based on its total shoreline from '57 to 40. Additionally, LMCD ordinances required the dock to be located within 100 feet from the shoreline. This requirement made it necessary to locate slips on the inside of the main dock in what has turned out to be very shallow water. Last Fall and continuing to the present time the approaches to the inside docks is in water too shallow to be navigable. That has rendered these 16 inside slips unusable. Through the 1998 boating se3,son the docks on the outside of the main headwalk were adequate in number for the residents who had purchased homes in Pelican Point. The inside docks are now required due to the development being substantially sold out. As stated above, the inside docks are in water too shallow to permit approaching them without grounding. Measurements of water depths taken earlier this week show the average water depth in the approach to the inside docks to be approximately 15 inches or less at 928.0 NGVD. This is clearly not navigable for a typical Lake Minnetonka boat. It is important to note that the LMCD Water Structures Committee in recommending approval of the PPHOA multiple dock license in 1994 clearly intended that there be sufficient water depths for all dock slips. In its report to the full LMCD on October 26, 1994, the Dock Structures Committee recommended approval of the multiple dock license for Pelican Point under "the following conditions: . . 2) Sufficient water depths for all dock slips; It is clear that the Dock Structures Committee and the LMCD intended that the docks have sufficient water to be usable. That is all we are asking for now. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Page Two March 5, 1999 · LAKE MIN'NETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. · DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 * TELEPHONE 812/745.0789 · FAX 612/745-9085 ~ Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS DOuglas E. Babcock Chair, Tonka Bay Bart Foster Vice Chair, Deephaven Eugene Partyka Secretary, MInnetl~ta Craig Nelson Treasurer, Spring Pa~k An(:lrea Ahrans Mound Bob Ambrose Wayzata Kent Dal~len Mlnnetonka Beach Craig Eggers Vlctoda Tom Gilman Excelsior areg Kltchak Minnetcmka Uli McMillan Orono Rol3ert Rascop Shorewood He~ J. Sue~fl Woodland Sheldon We~l Greenwood ' TO: FROM: S~: Lake~om Weeldy News Attn: Legal De~ent 'Roger L. ~Administrativ¢ Tech ,ician Public Hearing Notice (4/01/99 Edition) LAKE MINNE'IDNKA CONSERVA'I [ON DISTRICT PUBLIC/WARING NOT ;CE 7:00 PM, April 14, 1999 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901 Manitou Road Pelican Point Homeowners' Association Variance Application Spring Park/l~dl~ Bays, Lake Minnetonka The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) will hold a public hearing to consider a Variance Application from the Pelican Point Homeowners' Association. The application is for variance from LMCD length requirements. Details available at the LMCD office, 18338 Minnetonka Blvd., Deephaven, lVlN 55391. ~ R,W~J,~ cont~t Web Page Address: http://www, wintemet, com/-Imcd/ ;m~ Po~ ~ w~, E-rnaJl Address: ImcdO win/emet, com PKf.ICAN POINT HOA PUBLIC HEARING MEMO~ 4/~/~ I~AGIS ~ residents of thc development and the City of Mound would prefer this re. configuration. The: Boa.rd tabled further discussion of the issue indefinitely at this me~tin~. An application for a dock length variance on the north-end of the property was received in the LMCD office on 3/5/99, with a public hearing scheduled for the 4/14/99 Board meeting. I~ISCUSSION The Code allows the Board to consider dock length variance applications where practical difficulties or physical hardships exist. Historically, the Board has granted dock length variances with shallow water being the most common physical hardship. The Code provides for the construction and maintenance of a dock in the Lake to a water depth of 4', measured from the 929.4 NGVD, at the outer end of such dock to provide adequate water depth for navigation. The water depth measurements submitted by the applicant at the outer end of the site plan currently approved range from 30" to 66", measured from the 929.4 NGVD. Staff believes the Board needs to discuss whether the proposed application qualifies as a physical hardship. If the Board determines a physical hardship exists for the proposed dock length variance application, one additional issue needs to be resolved before the application could be approved by the Board. The Code that allows the transfer of shoreline from the island to the mainland prohibits the granting of variances, other than temporary low water variances. The applicant currently complies with this section of the Code; however, they would not if a dock length variance was granted. Staff has evaluated the site plan relating to the proposed application and notes that it meets LMCD Code relating to side setback requirements. In compliance with MN DNR General Permit 97-6098, the MN DNR and the City have Mound have been copied on the proposed application. Staff is awaiting feedback from these agencies. RECOMMENDATION Staff believes the Board has two options to consider when reviewing the proposed dock length variance application. First, the Board could deny the variance application because the proposed change is prohibited by Code and/or it does not qualify as a physical hardship. In this option, the applicant has requested the Board consider the new multiple dock license application to relocate the 16 inner slips to the south-end of the property. Second, the Board may wish to approve the dock length variance application as presented. In this option, the Board needs to make an amendment to the Code and might want to consider restricting the proposed increase in 32' long slips out beyond the 100' distance from the 929.4 NGVD. LAKE MINN~TONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT FROM: April 9, 1999 TO: Board of Directors ~/~j~ Greg Nybeck, Executive Director SUBJECT: Pelican Point HOA Public Hearing (4/14/99) BACKGROUND Mr. John Boyer, President of the Pelican Point HOA, has submitted new multiple dock license and variance applications for Board consideration of their multiple dock facility on Spring Park and Phelps Bays. The proposed applications have been submitted to address low-water concerns in the 16 inner slips on the approved site plan. The current site plan, which was approved by the Board on 10/26/94 for 40 Boat Storage Units (BSU), conforms to LMCD Code on 2,857' of non-continuos shoreline. The shoreline further breaks down to 1,386' on the main land and 1,471 on the island. Applying LMCD Code Section 2.02, subd. 1 for the General Rule of 1:50', the maximum number of BSU's allowed for the main land is 28. In addition, LMCD Code Section 2.02, subd. 5 allows for the transfer of shoreline from the island to the main land at 1:100', provided a variety of conditions on the main land are met (see attached Code excerpt). These conditions were met when the facility was approved in 1994, thus another 15 BSU's could be transferred to the main land dock site. Because the Code prohibits the storage of watercraft greater than 1:35' on the main land when shoreline is transferred from the island, the maximum number of BSU's that could be approved on the main land in 1994 was 40. In 1994, the Board approved an emergency site plan to the south-end of the property for 12 BSU's when low-water conditions exist (see attached site plan). LMCD Code Section 1.07, subd. 9 states the Board may issue temporary low water variances for multiple docks in locations or configurations not otherwise allowed by this Code when the lake level falls below 928.0' NGVD. A public heating was held at the 2/24/99 Board meeting to consider the new multiple dock license application to relocate the 16 inner slips to the south-end of the property on a permanent basis because of inadequate water depths (see attached minutes for details). During the public heating, the applicant stated they would like to amend the application to extend the dock length of the existing facility on the north-end of the property from 100' to 150', rather than relocate the 16 inner slips to the south. They indicated both the MOUND CITY COUNCIL MII~I'IE8- NOVEMBER 24. 1998 The City Planner submitted some pictures of some problem areas that many people call trellises, until the Staff applies the Zoning Code to it and the Zoning Code would say that what appears to be a trellis is indeed a fence, for lack of another definition within the Zoning Ordinance to classify it as anything other than a fence. He further explained that the trellises that we would be called fences in the pictures, would not meet the requirements that the Code lays out for fences. Some of the trellises may appear not to be fences, but they are fences and the requirements for those would apply. The Planner explained that the fences or trellises in the pictures have also not received permits, which is another issue. He recommended that this section of the Code be reviewed because the fence definition seems to be a blanket for structures within a yard that are not fences. He asked that the Council refer this to the Planning Commission for further review to see if there is a more acceptable way look at this trellis issue and other types of structures that are similar. Councilmember Hanus stated that another item to look at in the current code is the acceptable materials for fencing, which are listed specifically as chain link and wood. This would exclude wrought iron fencing, and the new PVC plastic fencing. He stated he does not necessarily agree with Staff's interpretation, but if the City goes with the current interpretation, we will have to issue building permits 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 fence or trellis size which could also be a problem if it becomes a barrier. Councilmember Elect Bob Brown stated he has done a little checking on the trellis versus fence concept. He stated he stopped at Home Depot and what they call the lattice type fencing is used for a trellis for ivy or growing things. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to refer the fence portion of the Zoning Ordinance to the Planning Commission for study, and redefinition of fence versus trellises. The Council asked that this be completed and back to the City Council by March of 1999. Councilmember Weycker stated that she knows letters have gone out to people who are in violation, or questionable on whether it is a trellis or a fence and she asked how these will be handled in the meantime? The Building Official stated he will take a relaxed approach on these until the Planning Commission makes recommendations and the Council decides on the ordinance. The Council asked that the Building Official notify these people of this action. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Acting Mayor Ahrens returned to the Council. The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, November 24, 199B, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Acting Mayor Andrea Ahrens, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Mayor Bob Polston was absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Ir., City Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon and the following interested citizens: Bob & Anne Hunt, Dale & Lorell Becker, Tim Becker and Councilmember Elect Bob Brown. The Acting Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. The City Manager stated he would has and item to add to the Agenda regarding directing the Planning Commission to look at the fence ordinance and do a study on it. This will become Item 7.A. The City Manager advised that the Planning Commission tabled Case//98-64, the Conditional Use Permit for the Community Center at their meeting last night. Therefore, this Public Hearing will need to be scheduled for the December 22nd City Council Meeting, not the December 8th Council Meeting. Councilmember Weycker asked that the Minutes from November 10, 1998, be removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hanus asked to discuss the Public Lands Permit, briefly. 1.9 ADD-ON - FENCE ORDINANCE DISCUSSION Acting Mayor Ahrens excused herself from the Council for this discussion. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to have Councilmember Jensen take over as Acting Mayor. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Manager reported that this came about as the result of 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. It is the desire of the Staff to send this on to the Planning Commission for review and study to give a clearer definition and interpretation of what a fence really is. 582 MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission FROM: Loren Gordon DATE: February 22, 1999 SUBJECT: Regulating residential accessory uses This item is regarding a situation that was brought before Council last November by a citizen complaint. Included in the packet material are pictures of a trellis located at 4673 Island View Drive. 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 shoreland impact area, it would not be allowed. Rather than acting on the complaint at the meeting, the Council felt it appropriate to sent the issue to Planning Commission after the first of the year for review. To start the discussion on this item, we should consider the things that could be located in a yard and if the Commission feels they should be regulated. Current accessory buildings/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 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 is doesn't have a residential character or is an obstruction. It seems that the approach to this issue is to revisit the definition of 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. " 123 North Third Street, ~uite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 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. Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 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. 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." Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 the wall of a house or garage probably wouldn't be regulated. An arched treltis over a s'~c~ewa~k probably wou~Gn't either. Staff woulc) 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 that this item be sent on to the Planning 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. 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: 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 MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. J*n-ii l ln TO: Mound Planning Commission FROM: Loren Gordon DATE: March 22, 1999 SUBJECT: Fence/Trellis issue As a follow up to this item, I have reviewed a number of City zoning codes and found little in the way of assistance with a definition for a fence or trellis. All of the communities I reviewed including Orono, Minnetfista, Shorewood, Bloomington, and Minnetonka, did not have a fence or trellis definition. All have specific standards for height, materials, and finish similar to ours. I would suggest we continue the discussion on the definition and purpose of a fence. I'll continue to look for additional information that could help with discussions before our meeting on Monday. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Mound Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Hanus stated that he felt it would be appropriate to get the Staff to have a 'more open mind and common sense" approach in enforcing these guidelines and not to create non-conforming property use issues. He doesn't believe the ordinances should be changed either. Motion carried: 6-0. Mound Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Those absent and excused: Commissioner Becky Glister; Council Liaison Bob Brown Public Present: Joyce and Marvin Nelson (2025 Shorewood), James Peterson (2561 Wexford Lane), Jim Gefre (4800 Carrick Road), Sandy Hayward (4792 Carrick Road), Leroy Byan (2544 Wexford Lane), Dan Swenson (2560 Wexford Lane), Tracy Sirny (2560 Wexford Lane), Judy and Maria Wartman (4816 Longford Road), Bernie McVey (4807 Longford Road), Thomas Stokes (4363 Wilshire Boulevard, #207), Dick Oliver (4824 Longford Road), Mark Hanus (4446 Denbigh Road). Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 22, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller to accept the minutes as presented. Motion carried: 7-0. DISCUSSION ON CONTINUA TION FENCE/TRELLIS: Gordon did some study of other city ordinances, and concluded that Mound was the only city to define a "fence." Unless the Planning Commission would like to "enforce" the definition of "barriedpartition," these words should be removed. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Michael, that the ordinances should remain the same and leave the implementation up to the enforcer. DISCUSSION: Weiland stated that if that was the case, then the trellis should be defined as barriers and have the same guidelines. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mound City Council Loren Gordon, Assistant City Planner April 7, 1999 Review of the zoning definition - fence As directed by the Council, the Planning Commission has reviewed the zoning code definition for a "fence." After much discussion and debate about enclosure of yard space and sight lines, the Commission made a motion to keep the definition as it currently reads. They felt that the definition was generally good and was a good fit for most situations. For those situations that were in the grey zone, they felt staff needed to use a "common sense approach" for enfomement. Minutes from the two Commission meetings as well as staff reports are provided as background for your review. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 1997 Consolidated Pool CDBG Funded Projects Project COBG No. Applicant Description Funding General Projects Total Funding Available: $257,504 Public Se~ice Projects ~ ,~ ~ y ...... ~ .... . 3,000 Total Funding Available: $67,000 Total 1~7 Consolidated Pool Funding $324,504 1998 Consolidated Pool CDBG Funded Projects No. Applicant General Projects Public Service Projects: Project CDBG Description Funding . -, :single FarnUY Rehabg!ta~n Total Funding Available: ~ 70,000 · , · 113,344 i ~ 20,000 ...... 4,500 $295,844 North' : ;~e~,~iol;Cent~l:s;'T~fation, etc. ~ ~e(:;,,AJ%!. Program:Fu'rkl~ lng ~ ?ranSpe~ation for seniors/Disabled Services Total Funding Available: Total 1998 Consolidated Pool Funding $36,000 10,000 9,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 2,500 . ~500 $80,000 $375,844 Ed Shukle March 17, 1999 Page 2 A second set-aside is for single family rehabilitation. For this set-aside a dollar amount has been designated that approximates the annual average amount allocated by cities for this activity prior to their participation in the Consolidated Pool. In 1999 the rehab set-aside was $90,000. The rehab funding pool is administered by Hennepin County. Clients are currently being served in all cities that had previously allocated funding to rehabilitation. Project Funding The 1999 funding for competitive CDBG projects, excluding the set-asides for public services and single family rehab, was $175,889. In the two years in which the Consolidated Pool approach has been in operation, most of the successful city-initiated projects were funded at levels that exceeded the annual amount they would have received under the old formula approach. These include a scattered site acquisition/homebuyer assistance project - $ t 10,000, a new multi- community housing program in cooperation with Habitat for Humanity - $70,000, funding for multi-community affordable housing planning - $40,000 and a housing rehabilitation project in targeted areas of Orono and Spring Park - $128,000. I hope you find this information useful in describing the Consolidated Pool. I've attached a copy of the 1999 application package for your information. If you have any questions about the Consolidated Pool please call Jim Ford at 541-7091. On March 24, 1999 at 9:00am the County Board will be briefed on the community meetings and a recommendation to increase the Consolidated Pool threshold. Sincerely, Mark Hendrickson Principal Planner Encl. CC: Gary L. Cunningham Jim Ford Hennepin County March 17, 1999 An Equal Opportunity Employer Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ed: As you are aware, the Joint Cooperation Agreement for the CDBG program is up for renewal. The new agreement is for a three year period beginning in FY2000. At direction of the County Board a series of meetings were held recently with all participating cities to discuss alternatives to the current method of allocating CDBG funds. One alternative would increase the Consolidated Pool threshold to $75,000. Under this alternative cities with a planning allocation of $75,000 or less have their allocation contributed to the Consolidated Pool. Only cities contributing to the pool can apply for this funding. This proposed change would affect your city and Chanhassen. In response to your request, following is a description of how the Consolidated Pool operates. The Consolidated Pool was established in the current Cooperation Agreement that was executed in 1997. Under this agreement planning allocations for cities that would receive $50,000 or less are placed in the Consolidated Pool. For the 1999 program, a total of $330,889 was available to the 27 cities contributing to the pool. Selection Committee A selection committee, most of whom are administrators of participating cities, facilitates the annual application process. An attempt is made to balance the make-up of the committee to reflect the nature and geographic diversity of the Consolidated Pool area. The committee reviews competitive proposals from cities and public service agencies and prepares a funding recommendation. The city of Mound could appoint a representative to the committee. Funding Set-asides To simplify the application process the selection committee established set-asides for public services and single family rehabilitation. There is a 20% set-aside for public services. Public service agencies submit competitive applications for priority services. In 1999 the public service set-aside was $65,000. The following agencies serving western Hennepin County receive Consolidated Pool funding: Senior Community Services (Westonka Senior Center), WeCAN, Interfaith Outreach and Community Parmers and Sojourner Project. Office Of Planning & Development Development Planning Unit 10709 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 260 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55305 (612) 541-7080 FAX:(612) 541-7090 TDD/TTY:(612) 541-7981 Recycled Paper MFRA 15050 23RD AVENUE NORTH PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 BID TAB 02/25/99 C~TY OF MOUND NORWOOD LANE MFRA #8614 ITEM UTILITIES SANITARY SEWER 8" PVC Sewer, 0-8' Depth 2 Manhole 3 8" x4"Wye 4 Connect 4" Service to Manhole 5 4" PVC Sewer Service 6 Granular Foundation Material 7 2" Planklnsulation SUBTOTAL SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN I 6" DIP Watermain 2 Fittings 3 6" Gate Valve 4 I" Water Service 5 1" Copper Service Pipe 6 Granular Foundation Material 7 Bituminous Removal SUBTOTAL WATERMAIN STREETS 1 Sit Fence 2 Salavage Existing Aggregate Base 3 Remove Concrete Curb and Gutter 4 Bituminous Removal 5 Subgrade Excavation 6 Select Granular Borrow (CV) 7 Subgrade Preparation 8 Gravel Base Class 5 100% Crushed Quarry Rock 9 Bituminous Base MN/DOT 233 IType 31 10 Bituminous Wear MN/DOT 2331 Type 41 11 Geofabric 12 Bituminous Overlay MN/DOT 2331 Type 41 13 Surmountable Curb and Gutter 14 Manhole and/or Catch Basin Adjustment 15 Black Dirt 16 Seed andMulch SUBTOTAL STREETS TOTAL BID e:\excel\bldtab$\86 } 4 F.F. JEDLICK1, INC. AMOUNT ] TOTAL 256.0 LF $ 24.00 $ 6,144.00 1.0 EA $ 1,450.00 $ 1,450.00 12.0 EA $ 40.00 $ 480.00 1.0 EA $ 250.00 $ 250.00 350.0 LF $ 15.00 $ 5,250.00 80.0 TN $ 9.00 $ 720.00 1200.0 SF $ 1.50 $ 1,800.00 $ 16,094.00 470.0 LF $ 24.00 $11,280.00 400.0 LB $ 4.00 $ 1,600.00 1.0 EA $ 490.00 $ 490.00 13.0 EA $ 140.00 $ 1,820.00 340.0 LF $ 14.00 $ 4,760.00 100.0 TN $ 9.00 $ 900.00 300.0 SY $ 3.00 $ 900.00 $ 21,750.00 200.0 LF $ 2.00 $ 400.00 1.0 LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 15.0 LF $ 5.00 $ 75.00 80.0 SY $ 3.00 $ 240.00 50.0 CY $ 8.00 $ 400.00 70.0 CY $ 15.00 $ 1,050.00 1.0 LS $ 2,900.00 $ 2,900.00 440.0 TN $ 170.0 TN $ 90.0 TN $ 1200.0 SY $ 25.0 TN $ 600.0 LF $ 16.00 $ 7,040.00 44.00 $ 7,480.00 51.00 $ 4,590.00 1.75 $ 2,100.00 51.00 $ 1,275.00 9.00 $ 5,400.00 4.0 EA $ 250.00 $ 1,000.00 120.0 CY $ 10.00 $ 1,200.00 0.2 AC $ 2,500.00 $ 500.00 $ 37,150.00 $ 74,994.0O 4of4 MFRA 15050 23RD AVENUE NORTH PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 ITEM UTILITIES SANITARY SEWER 8" PVC Sewer. 0-8' Depth 2 Manhole 3 8" x4" Wye 4 Connect4" Serviceto Manhole 5 4" PVC Sewer Service 6 Granular Foundation Material 7 2" Plank Insulation SUBTOTAL SANITARY SEWER WATERMAI'N 6" DIP Watermain 2 Fittings 3 6" Gate Valve 4 1" Water Service 5 1" Copper Service Pipe 6 Granular Foundation Material 7 Bituminous Removal SUBTOTAL WATERMAIN 1 Sit Fence 2 Salavage Existing Aggregate Base 3 Remove Concrete Curb and Gutter 4 Bituminous Removal 5 Subgrade Excavation 6 Select Granular Borrow (CV) 7 Subgrade Preparation 8 Gravel Base Class 5 100% Crushed Quarry Rock 9 Bituminous Base MN/DOT 2331Type 31 10 Bituminous Wear MN/DOT 2331 Type 41 11 Geofabric 12 Bituminous Overlay MN/DOT 2331 Type 41 13 Surmountable Curb and Gutter 14 Manhole and/or Catch Basin Adjustment 15 Black Dirt 16 Seed and Mulch SUBTOTALSTREETS TOTALB1D BID TAB 02/25199 R.P. UTILITIES HARDRIVES, [NC. AMOUNT TOTAL AMOUNT CITY OF MOUND NORWOOD LANE MFRA #8614 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION UNIT I AMOUNT TOTAL 256.0 LF $ 22.65 $ 5,798.40 $ 26.40 $ 6,758.40 $ 25.33 $ 6,484.48 1.0 EA $ 1,225.00 $ 1,225.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,525.00 $ 1,525.00 12.0 EA $ 65.00 $ 780.00 $ 44.00 $ 528.00 $ 56.28 $ 675.36 1.0 EA $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 275.00 $ 275.00 $ 900.00 $ 900.00 350.0 LF $ 10.85 $ 3,797.50 $ 16.50 $ 5,775.00 $ 11.53 $ 4,035.50 80.0 TN $ 15.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 9.90 $ 792.00 $ 0.01 $ 0.80 1200.0 SF $ 1.50 $ 1,800.00 $ !.65 $ 1,980.00 $ 2.71 $ 3,252.00 $14,850.90 $17,708.40 $16,873.14 470.0 LF $ 23.00 $10,810.00 $ 20.20 $ 9,494.00 $ 23.86 $11,214.20 400.0 LB $ 1.00 $ 400.00 $ 4.40 $ 1,760.00 $ 2.43 $ 972.00 1.0 EA $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 540.00 $ 540.00 $ 483.89 $ 483.89 13.0 EA $ 100.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 155.00 $ 2,015.00 $ 133.27 $ 1,732.51 340.0 LF $ 11.60 $ 3,944.00 $ 15.40 $ 5,236.00 $ 11.84 $ 4,025.60 100.0 TN $ 15.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 9.90 $ 990.00 $ 0.01 $ 1.00 300.0 SY $ 5.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 3.30 $ 990.00 $ 7.00 $ 2,100.00 $19,954.00 $ 21,025.00 $ 20,529.20 200.0 LF $ 3.25 $ 650.00 $ 2.50 $ 500.00 $ 2.50 $ 500.00 1.0 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ !,500.00 $ i,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 15.0 LF $ 10.00 $ 150.00 $ 10.00 $ 150.00 $ 5.00 $ 75.00 80.0 SY $ 5.00 $ 400.00 $ 10.00 $ 800.00 $ 7.00 $ 560.00 50.0 CY $ 6.50 $ 325.00 $ 16.50 $ 825.00 $ 6.85 $ 342.50 70.0 CY $ 15.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 18.80 $ 1,316.00 $ 13.50 $ 945.00 1.0 LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 440.0 TN $ 14.75 $ 6,490.00 $ 14.00 $ 6,160.00 $ 12.50 $ 5,500.00 170.0 TN $ 37.50 $ 6,375.00 $ 32.00 $ 5,440.00 $ 37.19 $ 6,322.30 90.0 TN $ 45.00 $ 4,050.00 $ 50.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 46.62 $ 4,195.80 1200.0 SY $ 1.40 $ 1,680.00 $ 0.95 $ 1,140.00 $ 1.70 $ 2,040.00 25.0 TN $ 45.00 $ 1,125.00 $ 50.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 49.95 $ 1,248.75 600.0 LF $ 10.20 $ 6,120.00 $ 11.75 $ 7,050.00 $ 11.32 $ 6,792.00 4.0 EA $ 275.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 150.00 $ 600.00 $ 150.00 $ 600.00. 120.0 CY $ 15.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 15.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 10.50 $ 1,260.00 0.2 AC $ 3,000.00 $ 600.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 900.00 $ 33,915.00 $ 35,531.00 $ 37,281.35 $ 68,719.90 $ 74,264.40 $ 74,683.69 3 of 4 MFRA 15050 23RD AVENUE NORTH PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 ITEM UTILITIES SANITARY SEWER 8" PVC Sewer, 0-8' Depth 2 Manhole 3 8' x 4" Wye 4 Connect 4" Service to Manhole 5 4" PVC Sewer Service 6 Granular Foundation Material 7 2" Plank Insulation SUBTOTAL SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN I 6" DIP Watermain 2 Fittings 3 6" Gate Valve 4 1" Water Service 5 1" Copper Service Pipe 6 Granular Foundation Material 7 Bituminous Removal SUBTOTAL WATERMAIN STREETS Sit Fence 2 Salavage Existing Aggregate Base 3 Remove Concrete Curb and Gutter 4 Bituminous Removal 5 Subgrade Excavation 6 Select Granular Borrow (CV) 7 Subgrade Preparation 8 Gravel Base Class 5 100% Crushed Quarry Rock 9 Bituminous Base MN/DOT 2331Type 31 10 Bituminous Wear MN/DOT 2331 Type 41 11 Geofabric 12 Bituminous Overlay MN/DOT 2331 Type 41 13 Surmountable Curb and Gutter 14 Manhole and/or Catch Basin Adjustment 15 Black Dirt 16 Seed and Mulch SUBTOTAL STREETS TOTAL BID CITY OF MOUND BID TAB NORWOOD LANE 02/25/99 MFRA #8614 PENN KUSSKE COTKACTING WIDMER. INC. CONSTRUCTION QUANTITY UNIT AMOUNT TOTAL AMOUNT TOTAL AMOUNT TOTAL 256.0 LF $ 21.70 $ 5,555.20 $ 19.50 $ 4,992.00 $ 16.50 $ 4.224.00 1.0 EA $ 1,010.00 $ 1,010.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,240.00 $ 1,240.00 12.0 EA $ 34.00 $ 408.00 $ 25.00 $ 300.00 $ 40.00 $ 480.00 1.0 EA $ 158.00 $ 158.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 430.00 $ 430.00 350.0 LF $ 6.50 $ 2,275.00 $ 17.00 $ 5,950.00 $ 15.75 $ 5,512.50 80.0 TN $ 13.00 $ 1,040.00 $ 14.00 $ 1,120.00 $ 16.00 $ 1,280.00 1200.0 SF $ 1.75 $ 2,100.00 $ 0.50 $ 600.00 $ 2.50 $ 3,000.00 $12,546.20 $ 14,412.00 $16,166.50 470.0 LF $ 20.40 $ 9,588.00 $ 18.25 $ 8,577.50 $ 19.75 $ 9,282.50 400.0 LB $ 1.70 $ 680.00 $ 0.75 $ 300.00 $ 2.75 $ 1,I00.00 1.0 EA $ 458.00 $ 458.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 420.00 $ 420.00 13.0 EA $ 165.00 $ 2, t45.00 $ 175.00 $ 2,275.00 $ 200.00 $ 2,600.00 340.0 LF $ 7.30 $ 2,482.00 $ 17.00 $ 5,780.00 $ 8.75 $ 2,975.00 t00.0 TN $ 13.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 14.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 16.00 $ 1,600.00 300.0 SY $ 3.00 $ 900.00 $ 4.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 2.55 $ 765.00 $17,553.00 $ 20,532.50 $18,742.50 200.0 LF $ 1.0 LS $ 15.0 LF $ 80.0 SY 50.0 CY $ 70.0 CY ! .0 LS 440.0 TN $ 170.0 TN 90.0 TN $ 1200.0 SY $ 25.0 TN $ 600.0 LF $ 4.0 EA $ 120.0 CY $ 0.2 AC $ 2,000.00 $ 2.00 $ 400.00 $ 2.50 $ 500.00 $ 2.00 $ 400.00 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 4.00 $ 60.00 $ 10.00 $ 150.00 $ 10.00 $ 150.00 3.00 $ 240.00 $ 4.00 $ 320.00 $ 3.00 $ 240.00 8.00 $ 400.00 $ 20.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 5.00 $ 250.00 $ 12.00 $ 840.00 $ .15.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 10.00 $ 700.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 15.75 $ 6,930.00 $ 38.00 $ 6,460.00 $ 46.00 $ 4,140.00 $ 1.50 $ 1,800.00 $ 47.00 $ 1,175.00 $ 8.40 $ 5,040.00 $ 150.00 $ 600.00 $ 15.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 400.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 11.50 $ 5,060.00 $ 12.00 $ 5,280.00 30.50 $ 5,185.00 $ 35.00 $ 5,950.00 42.00 $ 3,780.00 $ 45.00 $ 4,050.00 1.50 $ 1,800.00 $ 1.75 $ 2,100.00 42.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 50.00 $ 1,250.00 10.75 $ 6,450.00 $ 10.75 $ 6,450.00 250.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 250~00 $ 1,000.00 20.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 13.50 $ 1,620.00 300.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 240.00 $ 32,585.00 $ 32,245.00 $ 33,180.00 $ 62,684.20 $ 67,189.50 $ 68,089.00 2 of 4 MFRA 15050 23RD AVENUE NORTH PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 ITEM UTILITIES SANITARY SEWER I 8" PVC Sewer, 0-8' Depth 2 Manhole 3 8" x4" Wye 4 Connect 4" Serviceto Manhole 5 4" PVC Sewer Service 6 Granular Foundation Material 7 2" Plank Insulation SUBTOTAL SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN ! 6" DIP Watermain 2 Fiuings 3 6" Gate Valve 4 1" Water Service 5 1" Copper Service Pipe 6 Granular Foundation Material 7 Bituminous Removal SUBTOTAL WATERMAIN STREETS 1 Sit Fence 2 Salavage Existing Aggregate Base 3 Remove Concrete Curb and Gutter 4 Bituminous Removal 5 Subgrade Excavation 6 Select Granular Borrow (CV) 7 Subgrade Preparation 8 Gravel Base Class 5 100% Crushed Quarry Rock 9 Bituminous Base MN/DOT 2331Type 31 I 0 Bituminous Wear MN/DOT 2331 Type 41 11 Geofabric 12 Bituminous Overlay MN/DOT 2331 Type 41 13 Surmountable Curb and Gutter 14 Manhole and/or Catch Basin Adjustment 15 Black Dirt 16 Seed and Mulch SUBTOTAL STREETS TOTAL BID BID TAB 02/25/99 ENGINEER'S MACHTEMES ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION QUANTITY UNIT AMOUNT TOTAL AMOUNT TOTAL CITY OF MOUND NORWOOD LANE MFRA #8614 KOBER EXCAVATING, INC. UNIT I AMOUNT TOTAL 256.0 LF $ 16.00 $ 4,096.00 $ 16.75 $ 4,288.00 $ 13.00 $ 3.328.00 1.0 EA $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00 12.0 EA $ 60.00 $ 720.00 $ 67.00 $ 804.00 $ 47.00 $ 564.00 1.0 EA $ 200.00 $ 200.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 270.00 $ 270.00 350.0 LF $ 7.00 $ 2,450.00 $ 7.25 $ 2,537.50 $ 9.00 $ 3,150.00 80.0 TN $ 9.00 $ 720.00 $ 9.00 $ 720.00 $ 14.00 $ 1,120.00 1200.0 SF $ i.25 $ i,500.00 $ 2.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 1.73 $ 2,076.00 $10,886.00 $12,399.50 $12,108.00 470.0 LF $ 15.00 $ 7,050.00 $ 17.00 $ 7,990.00 $ 15.00 $ 7,050.00 400.0 LB $ 1.50 $ 600.00 $ 1.60 $ 640.00 $ 1.32 $ 528.00 1.0 EA $ 450.00 $ 450.00 $ 565.00 $ 565.00 $ 460.00 $ 460.00 13.0 EA $ 125.00 $ 1,625.00 $ 120.00 $ 1,560.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,300.00 340.0 LF $ 8.00 $ 2,720.00 $ 7.25 $ 2,465.00 $ 9.00 $ 3,060.00 100.0 TN $ 9.00 $ 900.00 $ 9.00 $ 900.00 $ 17.00 $ 1,700.00 300.0 SY $ 4.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1.75 $ 525.00 $ 3.37 $ 1,011.00 $14,545.00 $14,645.00 $15,109.00 200.0 LF $ 2.50 $ 500.00 $ 1.25 $ 250.00 $ 2.66 $ 532.00 1.0 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 1,700.00 15.0 LF $ 8.00 $ 120.00 $ 5.00 $ 75.00 $ 5.62 $ 84.30 80.0 SY $ 4.00 $ 320.00 $ 1.75 $ 140.00 $ 3.37 $ 269.60 50.0 CY $ 8.00 $ 400.00 $ 2.00 $ I00.00 $ 5.62 $ 281.00 70.0 CY $ 15.00 $ 1,050.00 $ -7.00 $ 490.00 $ 10.00 $ 700.00 1.0 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 890.00 $ 890.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 440.0 TN $ 10.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 11.80 $ 5,192.00 $ 15.00 $ 6,600.00 170.0 TN $ 32.00 $ 5,440.00 $ 44.00 $ 7,480.00 $ 38.00 $ 6,460.00 90.0 TN $ 35.00 $ 3,150.00 $ 48.75 $ 4,387.50 $ 46.00 $ 4,140.00 1200.0 SY $ 1.50 $ 1,800.00 $ 1.10 $ 1,320.00 $ 1.43 $ 1,716.00 25.0 TN $ 50.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 48.75 $ 1,218.75 $ 46.00 $ 1,150.00 600.0 LF $ 9.00 $ 5,400.00 $ 8.20 $ 4,920.00 $ 8.35 $ 5,010.00 4.0 EA $ 150.00 $ 600.00 $ 230.00 $ 920.00 $ 200.00 5;. 800.00 120.0 CY $ 5.00 $ 600.00 $ 5.00 $ 600.00 $ 13.00 5;. 1,560.00 0.2 AC $ 3,000.00 $ 600.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 800.00 $ 4,600.00 5;, 920.00 $ 28,630.00 $ 29,283.25 $ 33,422.90 $ 54,061.00 $ 56,327.75 $ 60,639.90 1 of 4 Engineering · Planning · Surveying RECEIVED 3 t999 March 2, 1999 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Norwood Lane MFRA #8614 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Enclosed is a tabulation of the bids received on Thursday, February 25, 1999 for the construction of Norwood Lane between County Road 15 and Bartlett Boulevard. Nine bids were received, with the low bid of $56,327.75 submitted by Machtemes Construction, Inc. of Waconia. The Engineer's estimate was $54,061.00. When this project was bid last fall, only two contractors submitted bids with the low being $72,920.56. These bids were rejected. With the lower prices obtained through re-bidding the project, the City has realized a savings of over $16,500.00. Machtemes Construction, Inc. is primarily a grading and utility contractor that we have previously worked with on other projects. They are a reliable contractor and should be capable of performing the work; therefore if the City sees fit to proceed with the project, we would recommend awarding Machtemes Construction a contract in the amount of $56,327.75. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JC:aam e:~nain:\8614:~nachtemes3-2 15050 23rd'Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra.com The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. ,, .- Engi,'-ering · Planning · 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:aarn cSmain:\86142assess3-2 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth. Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra(~mfra.com ~IORWOOD LANE ASSESSMENT ROLE Legal Descriptim! PID # OWNER - HARDRIVES, INC. Lots 1-6, Block 3 13-117-24 44 0032 OWNER - JONATHAN & BONNIE HAULTON Lot 7, Block 3 13-117-24 44 0033 OWNER- BEVERLY BARKLEY Lot 12, Block 2 13-117-24 44 0026 OWNER - BEVERLY BARKLEY Lot 13, Block 2 13-117-24 44 0027 OWNER - WAYNE & I_INDA EHLEBRACHT Lots 14-17, Block 2 13-117-24 44 0091 Totals Utility Assessment $15,845.00 $ 2,175.00 $ 2,175.00 $ 2,175.00 $ 8.700.00 $31,070.00 Street Assessment $15,265.00 $ 2,095.00 $ 2,095.00 $ 2,095.00 $8,380.00 $29,930.00 Total Assessment $31,110.00 $ 4,270.00 $ 4,270.00 $ 4,270.00 $17.080.00 $61,000.00 RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT FOR THE NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MRFA #8614 WHEREAS, pur.,.uant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of Norwood Lane between Shoreline ])rive (County Road 15) and Bartlett Blvd., bids were received, opened and tabulated acc,)rding to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: MACHTEMES CONSTEUCTION KOBER EXCAVATING.. INC. PENN CONTRACTING CONS'rRUCTION WIDMER. INC. KUSSKE CONSTRUCT] ON R & P UTILITIES HARDRIVES, INC. NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION JEDLICKI, INC. $56,327.75 $60,639.90 $62,684.20 $67,189.50 $68,089.00 $68,719.90 $74,264.40 $74,683.69 $74,994.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Machtemes Construction is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MINNESOTA: The mayor and C:~ty Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract with Machtemes Construction in the name of the City of Mound, for the improvement of Norwood Lane between Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) and Bartlett Blvd., in the amount of $56,327.75, according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the city council and on file in the office of the city clerk. 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 fi.om 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 fi.om 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. 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 = $2,175.00/1ot * 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 * Leeal 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. 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: 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, wkich 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 fi'ontage 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. RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR THE NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and heard and passed UlX,n all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement of Norwood Lane between Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) and Bartlett Blvd. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MINNESOTA: Such proposed as~,essments, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 10 (ten) 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 this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall I:e added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until D,y.~ember 31, 1999. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at anytime 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 this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the 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 Now:mber 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year.' 4. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended or the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. of the following events: The: death of the owner, provided that the spouse is otherwise not eligible for the deferment. The surviving spouse shall file a new application with the city Manager, City Clerk and City Treasurer. If the property is still digible for deferment, they shall so note in the city records and the matter need not be referred to this Council. b. The; sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part thereof. c. The property for any reason loses its homestead status. do The City Council shall determine that there is no hardship and shall req'.dre immediate or partial payment. April 13, 1999 RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION AMENDING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE OF HARDSHIP FOR SENIOR CITIZENS WHEREAS, the state legislature has enacted MSA 435.193 to 435.195, which authorizes a city to defer the collection of special assessments for homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older for whom it would be a hardship to make payments; and WHEREA S, the City Council has determined that this law should be implemented by the City of Mound for the Norwood Lane special asssessment. NOW, TI-[EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: Persons 65 years of age or older who reside on and own homestead property may apply to defer special assessments levied by the City of Mound. Application for deferred assessments shall be on forms prescribed by the County Auditor and such other information as is determined necessary by the City Manager, City Clerk and City Treasurer to make their certifications as set forth in paragraph 3. The City Council will approve deferred assessments for property owners who reside in a household which has a gross income of less than $22,250. The City Manager, .City Clerk and City Treasurer are hereby authorized and directed to review income data and to certify to this Council that the property owner qualifies as a hardship case under the aforementioned criteria. Income tax returns and other private data may be reviewed by said city officers to determine that the property q~mlifies for a deferred assessment but said income information shall not be kept on file as a public record and said officials are directed to protect the privacy of applicant"s personal financial affairs. After City Council approval of the application for the deferral, the City Clerk shall file a notice with the County Auditor thereof setting forth the amount of special assessments being deferred. The County Auditor shall file a copy of said notice witt~ the County Recorder pursuant to M.S.A. 435.194. All special assessments deferred under the provisions of M.S.A. 435.193 to 435.195 shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the unpaid balance. The notice to the County Auditor shall specify the interes: rate and all such interest and principal shall be collected when the deferred assessment is payable under the provisions set forth hereafter in paragraph 5. · The optior to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amounts accumulated plus interest shall become due upon the occurrence of any HOUSE ....... '..' ' FRONT {N)$ E W FRONT N ~E.~W SIDE N $ REAR N $ E W' LAKE N $ E W TOP OF BLUFF ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R 1 ln.nno/~o B1 7,500/0 , lA 6,000/40 ~B2 20.000/80 'J~ 6, ooo/4o a3 ~o,ooo/so R2 14.000/80 R3 Sgg ORD. X~ 30,000/~00 RF..~ILFIRED I .10' 10' OR F2(IS'I'IN G tOT LOT ~ LOT DEFIH: VARIANCe, GARAGE., SilED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS FRONT N $ E W FRONT N $ E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N .t E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' ~0' I0' OR 30' HARDCOVER 30% OR 40% CONFORMING? YES , NO O I BY: I DA'FED:' This Zoning Information SIc'ct only ~Jmmariz~ a porflofl of ~e tequiremcnM outlinnd in ~he City of Mound Zonin~ Ordinance. For futd~r information, conl,lCt tke C~ of Mound II ~/q..?..: .... .._ . ~' _ ,, ,,, ~,,., .,,.,~, '=' "+g' r%. "~.'" - tL~ ~ -- -- ~ *' -' '~''' ~' I ~-~v . .l-. ~,-- ~.,, .... . ,_ .... , .. ....... ,...*~--. ,c "TF'e~, ~. a,8 ~s ~, ~ ~o.~ ~" ' ""il := m 4_~st ~ i~.,~,,~'' ~.~ .... ?I ~.(~a ~(. ~',' '-' ',~ ~-:-'~,,~' '.-" ' ." ~19".'-', .... ' =' < ' (e~: ~, e-(~_ ,.'fig:'; :.:'.:, ~-", ?~c~r ~',': .,s i'...'.:= ...... ~ o ~: ~ .. . . o , te~ ... ~ £ ,~:~/U st ~'?~ .... ~' J-~=. ' ~'= " '~'~ ..... u-- ~ '. ...... ' .................. : ORU~O RO .~-'~-' . / ~ ,.. '~) ,~,~ ~- . .-.- .... ~L. J-"~ ~ ~,~ ~.6~ ....... ~ ~ .' .c~ __ ~ ..... .~..A~ .., .~~;,',~ . __ ~ ~:.,~~7~ 7~-7~.;- ;~ ,~ ,~ ~,~,~,,~,' ~;,~i ~,',f~ .. ...... ,:: '.-.='~.:~. :~: ~---:.~ X ~.~*~'~-.'. ':~.- ,, ~J-~{~ ,,.~ " e.-' c" - ' - ' I. · .. "' '- ' ..... : ~ -- .'~' .' ' ' Variance to The LMCD Code VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE LMCD CODE · Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 Phone 745-0789, Fax 745-9085 -%, Because this form is to be copied, please use black ink or type. In accordance with LMCD Code Section 1.07. where practical difficulties or particular hardships occur or where necessary to provide access to the handicapped, the Board may permit a vadance from the requirements of the Code. or may require a vadance from what is otherwise permitted by the Code, provided that such vadance with whatever conditions are deemed necessary by the Board. does not adversely affect the purposes of this ordinances, the public health, safety, and welfare, and reasonable access to or use of the Lake by public or ripadan owners. The following application, when completed, shall be filed with the Executive Director of the Distdct along with sun/eys, photos, and such o~er information as required. The person completing this form is the authorized agent or property owner (circle one). APPLICANT: Address: City, State, Zip: Pelican Point Homeowners' 18283A Minnetonka Blvd., Dee. ph~v~,n, MN 55~91 Phone #: 612-475-2097 PROPERTY LOCATION The property is located in the City of: The property is ripadan to LMCD bay/area(s): LMCD Area Identification Number(s): Association of Lake Minnetonka Fax #: 612-475-2005 Mound Spring Park Bay, Phelps Bay TYPEOFVARIANCE: 50' variance to 100' maximum dock length State practical difficulties and hardships causing variance to be required: 16 inside slips are inaccessible due to shallow water (see attached) Please submit names and mailing addresses of owners within a 350-foot radius of the property. Such owners must be verified by checking with Hennepin County Auditors Office, 348-3271, (or a private abstract company) which can provide actual mailing labels at a cost of $1.25 per tax parcel (minimum of $25.00). This service usually takes two days, and you must have your tax parcel identification number (PIN) ready when calling for this assistance. C:Wly Oocuments~pplJcation~;\Vadance to code appl..doc Variance to Code Documents listed below are required; check that they are attached: [-J Locator Map (U.S.G.S area map with scale, North direction, Site clearly marked, Name or Title, LMCD Area Name, LMCD number) [] County Plat Map (Site clearly marked, Name, LMCD area name, LMCD number) [] Certified Land Survey (Legal description, Name, LMCD area name, LMCD number, 929.4 N.G.V.D. shoreline) D Proposed facility site plan (to scale, 929.4' N.G.V.D. shoreline, LMCD area name, LMCD number, Scale, North direction, affected neighbors, locate setback area, locate dock use area, location of dock structure with dimensions and slip numbers, indicate type of slip if applicable) [] Existing facility site plan, if applicable (to scale, 929.4' N.G.V.D. shoreline, LMCD area name, LMCD number, .Sc:,le, North direction, affected neighbors, locate setback area, locate dock use area, location of dock structure with dimensions and slip numbers, indicate type of slip if applicable) [] Scaled drawing of docks on abutting properties, and other affected dockage Absence of significent data requested above could result in a processing delay. FEE CALCULATION APPLICATION FEE .......... (non-refundable) .......................................... $250.00 DEPOSIT ..................... (refundable, upon full compliance with the Code and extent of administrative, inspection and legal service required) .................................... +250.00 TOTAL FEE ENCLOSED (this fee is for processing of the application and does not ntitle the applicant to a variance) ...................... ~$500.00~ T certify that the information provided herein and the attachments hereto are true and correct; ! understand that any variance granl~l may be revoked by the District for violation of the LHCD code. ! agree to reimburse the District for any legal, surveying, engineering, inspection, maintenance or other expenses incurred by the District in excess of the amount of the application fee. ! consent to permitting officers and agenl~ of the District to enter the premises at reasonable times to investigate and to determine whether or not the Code of the District is being complied with. ! agree to submit a certif'~l, as-built survey upon completion of the docks. Autho~ed ~gflit~e 3/5/99 Date Pelican Point Homeowners' Association of Lake Minnetonka Board President T~e N/A Relalionihip to owner Return thJl application, attachments and fee to: Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 Phone: 745-0789 Fax: 745-9085 !~ '-~~ NE.W MULTIPLE DOCK, LAUNC~NG RAMP, ~/OR ~e ~in~o~a Conse~a~on ~s~ct 1~338 ~eto~ Blvd. ~ve~ 55391 Phone 745-0789 Because this form is to be copie~ please use black ink or t~pe. Pursuant to LMCD Code Section 2.03, a new multiple dock license is requested, in accordance with all data and other information submitted herewith and made a part hereof. The person completing this form is the~;rized agent~or property owner (circle one). Applicant: Pelican Point Homeowners' Association of Lake Minnetonka Address: 15283A Minnetonka Boulevard City, State, Zip: Deephaven, ~ 55391 Phone; 612-475-2097 Fax: 612-475-2005 Property owner (if different from applicant): Address: City, State, Zip: Phone: Fax: ]'ROPERTY LOCATION: The property is located in the city of: Mound The property is riparian to LMCD bay/area(s): Spring Park/Phelps Bay LMCD Area Identification Number(s): Classification of user per Section 2.11, Subd. 2 (please circle one): a) commercial marina d~ tra?sient g) private residence b) private club ('- e) outlot association) h) other (explain) c) municipal f) multiple dwelling 2. Type of dock construction, describe and attach to-scale drawing: pipe and platform Please submit names and mailing addresses of owners within a 350-foot radius of the property. Such owners must be verified by checking with Hennepin County Auditors Offices, 348-3271, (or a private abstract company) which can provide actual mailing labels at a cost of $1.25 per Tax parcel (minimum of $25.00). This service usually takes two days, and you must have your tax parcel identification number (PIN) ready when calling for this assistance. New Dock License AppUc~oa - 2 - Documents listed below are requirec~, check that they are attached: :GiLocator Map nScaled drawing of docks on abutting properties IZlCounty Plat Map ~Proposed facility site plan :l~lCertified Land Survey, Legal Description ~Existing facility site plan ~b~enc~ of ~i~ni~cant data requested ~bove could ~e~ult ~n a p~oc~ d~i~. All required permits, licenses, and approvals have been obtained fiom the MN DNR and from the city in which the multiple dock, ramp, and/or mooting is located, copies attached? Yes x No if no explain: 6. Public liability insurance: Coverage $ 2 million ; Company: State Farm 7. Check the parking requirements bfthe City if you provide the following services: Boat Storage Launching ramps Sales Service Boat Rentals Restaurant Other (explain) TOTAL 8. Restroom facilities provided: Yes No x Indoor Outdoor portable (number) 9. Boat toilet pumping service provided? Yes No x 10. Total square footage ofdock area including maneuvering space = 18,368 sq. ft. If20,000-sq. fL or over, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is required. 11. Boat Storage Units (BSU) computation: Lakeshore Frontage 2,857 feet divided by 50 = 53 BSLPs allowable under the one-boat -per-fifty-foot rule. If this number is less than the total BSU's applied for in the No. 12 below, an application for a Special Density License is required per Code Section 2.05. 12. Number of BSU's applied for: LOCATION USE Slips t+0 Rent, lease, etc. Slides Service work LiRs Company use Tie-ohs Private use Moorings Transient use Off Lake Rack Storage Other Other TOTAL BSU's /+o TOTAL BSU's 4o 4o New Dock License Application -3- 13. Watercraft Storage Unit (WSU) computation schedule: SLIP SIZE CATEGORIES BSU ~ 1 WSU (each slip up to 20' long and/or up to 10' wide) BSU (~ 1.5 WSU (each slip up to 20'-24' long and/or up tol 1' wide) .~ BSU ~ 2 WSU (each slip up to 24-32' long and/or up to 12' wide) BSU ~ 2.5 WSU (each slip up to 32-40' long and/or up roi4' wide) BSU ~ 3 WSU (each slip up to 40-48' long smd/or up to 16' wide BSU ~ 4 WSU (each slip over 48' long and/or over 16' wide) }/0 BSU and WSU Totals 14. Fee Calculation: Base fee>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> Number of Watercrafl Storage Units (WSU) ~ x $7.50 = $500.00 Total Fee Enclosed .........................................................$ ~/~0 ~ I certif), that the information pmvidexi herein and the attachments hereto are true and correct; I understand that any license issues may b~ r~voked by the District for violation of the LMCD Code. I agree to reimburse the District for any legal, surveying, engineering, inspettion~ maintenance or other expenses incurred by the District in excess of the amount of the application fee. I consent to permitting officers and a~ents of the District to enter the premises at all reasonable times to investigate and to dct~rmin~ wl~th~r or not thc Code of thc District is I~ing complied with. I a~..~t a certified, as-built survey upon completion of thc docl~. Titl~...~ Rel~tiomhip ~o Lake Minnetonka Conservation Dist. 18335 Minnetonka Bird Phone: 745-0789 Fax: '/4S-~055 Deephaven, MN 55391 ,I : ,.F..EB ''~ ;~' 1999, LAKE MIN TONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, February 24, 1999 Tonka Bay City Hall 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 hearing 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 Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board MeO_ in_o 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. McMilian 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. Weft asked why the City of Mound has reservations al~out 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. Weft 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 Lake ~Vlinnetollka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 24, 1999 Page 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 $0' in length. Boyer stated he believed it would be better to go out 50' to allow for better maneuvering for the inner 1t5 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 BSU's are currently approved at the 32' length in the low 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 maintaining 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 property. Suerth stated he was generally favorable for the dock length variance; however, he had concerns with increasing 24' long slips to 32' in length. Weft 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 thc 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. 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. He Ambrose stated he is undecided on the issue of larger slips but likes the practical solution of a dock length variance. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting '* February 24, 1999 · Page ~ Partyka encouraged the applicant to demonstrate a physical hardship to justify a dock length variance out to 150' from the shoreline. MOTION: Gilman moved, Wen seconded to table further discussion on this issue indefinitely. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Subd. 5. Specia~ .Ful.~ for Non-Continuous Shoreline of Dock Use Areas in Close ~oXimity. The Board may authorize shoreline from one or more sites (the "transferor sites") to be counted as part of another site (the "transferee site") for the purpose of computing permissible boat storage density. Applications for permission to transfer boat storage density shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 2.03 and shall be processed as a part of the applicant's multiple or commercial dock license application. Criteria to be considered by the Board in evaluating whether to approve such application shall include all criteria set forth in Section 2.03, subd. 3a). No such permission to transfer boat storage density shall be granted by the Board unless the following additional conditions are met: The dock use areas of each transferor site and the transferee site may be no more than 150 feet apart. b) The credit for boat storage density transferred from any transferor site may not exceed one restricted watercraft for each 100 feet of shoreline of the transferor site (with fractional watercraft counted in accordance with subdivision 1). -19d- c) e) (Rev. 11-95) The total boat storage at the transferee site may not exceed one restricted watercraft for each 35 feet of shoreline of the transferee site (with fractional watercraft counted in accordance with subdivision 1). No variances, other than temporary low water variances, may be granted for construction of docks at the transferee site. As long as the transferee site is used for the storage of more restricted watercraft than this Code would allow without the transfer of boat storage density under this subdivision: i) the transferor sites and the transferee site must be in common ownership and without restriction as to material riparian rights; ii) no docks or boat storage is permitted on the transferor sites; and iii) the. transferor sites must be maintained in essentially a natural state and may not be used for residential dwelling units or commercial uses. -19e- PELICAN POINT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Boat Club Committee 3018 Pelican Point Circle Mound, Minnesota 55364 Telephone: (612) - 472-6060 Facsimile: (612) - 472-6072 Mike Custer Owen Gregg Kelth Johnson Larry Whalen Bob Eldsvoid Terry Jacolmon Jim Reynoid~ April 7, 1999 Board of Directors Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Mi~metonka Boulevard.. Deephaven, Minnegota 55391 Re: Pelican Point Homeowners Association Application This letter is written in strong support of a variance request by Pelican Point Homeowners Association to move its dock out by fit~y (50) feet. As chair of the Pelican Point Boat Club Committee I can report that this request is made in response to a genuine hardship. The 16 inside slips in our contbnning dock structure are not accessible due to inadequate water depth in the approach to them. For all intents and purposes these inside slips are not useable. It is expected that this condition will exist at some time every year, but is exacerbated in low water conditions such as currently exist on the lake. This problem is serious, and of great concern to the property owners at Pelican Point. As the Board is aware, the low water relief which is contained in our license provides for twelve slips to be built to the South of Pelican Point. Such relief is inadequate for several reasons: 1. It provides for temporary relief for "low water" conditions. The conditions which make the inside slips unusable are permanent and continuing. 2. It is not practical to move part of the dock structure to the South side at some time during the year when "low water" conditions exist. Such an approach would involve prohibitive costs and is simply impractical. 3. The City of Mound has gone on record opposing docks being built on the South side. Some residents of Pelican Point and neighboring property owners have also expressed strong opposition. . 4. A dock structuie on the South side would impact one of the few remaining large areas ot~' L~ike Mi~metonka shoreline not populated with boat docks. By granting the variance, the. flatural, state of this shoreline ~vould. be pre~l~d~ [~ [~ ~ [~ ]APR 7 - 1999 Board of Directors Lake Minnetonka Conservation District April 7, 1999 Page Two There are, however, many compelling reasons why moving the North side dock structure out by fffiy feet is appropriate and would reflect good public policy. Among these reasons are the following: 1. A genuine hardship exists. A substantial number of the authorized slips at Pelican Point are not accessible due to an insufficient water depth to navigate to those located on the inside. 2. It is clear that LMCD intended, in granting the 1994 license to Pelican Point, that all the docks have sufficient water to be useable. 3. No additional slips are proposed, the total remains at 40. 4. The dock design continues to conform to shoreline density requirements as provided for in LMCD Code of Ordinances, {}2.02 Subd.5c. 5. There would be no additional impact on the North side of Pelican Point. 6. LMCD Code §2.02 Subd. 5 has very limited application, and was enacted specifically for Pelican Point. No precedent is created. 7. Variances should be granted when, as here, they have obvious merit. There has been no showing that granting the variance would produce any adverse effect whatsoever on the lake or the public. 8. The "no variances" provision of§2.02 Subd.5(d) is harsh and unreasonable. To rely on that provision to deny the variance would place undue emphasis on form over substance. The variance is the right thing to do. The Code should be amended, if necessary, and the request granted. 9. We have been advised that the LMCD Code governing other multiple docks on the lake does not contain such an onerous "no variances" provision. Indeed, we have been further advised that other multiple docks on the lake have been allowed to go out further than the 100 foot limit imposed on Pelican Point. Accordingly, Pelican Point is being singled out for unfair and disparate treatment. 10. The application is strongly supported by Pdican Point residents and their neighbors who would affected by it. It is sound public policy. The application submitted to the LMCD in regard to this matter contains a dock design which should be approved. This design contains a relatively minimal change of converting PELICAN POINT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Boat Club Committee :3018 Pelican Point Circle Mound, Minnesota 55:364 Telephone: (612) - 472-6060 Facsimile: (612) - 472-6072 Mike Custer Owen Greg~ Keith Johnsoa Larv~ Whalen Bob Eldsvold Terry Jacoboa Jim ~ April 7, 1999 Board of Directors Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Mi~metonka Boulevard Deephaven, MinneSota 55391 Re: Pelican Point Homeowners Association Application This letter is written in strong support of a variance request by Pelican Point Homeowners Association to move its dock out by fifty (50) feet. As chair of the Pelican Point Boat Club Committee I can .report that this request is made in response to a genuine hardship. The 16 inside slips in our contbnning dock structure are not accessible due to inadequate water depth in the approach to them. For ali intents and purposes these inside slips are not useable. It is expected that this condition will exist at some time every year, but is exacerbated in low water conditions such as currently exist on the lake. This problem is serious, and of great concern to the property owners at Pelican Point. As the Board is aware, the low water relief which is contained in our license provides for twelve slips to be built to the South of Pelican Point. Such relief is inadequate for several reasons: 1. It provides for temporary relief for "low water" conditions. The conditions which make the inside slips unusable are permanent and continuing. 2. It is not practical to move part of the dock structure to the South side at some time during the year when "low water" conditions exist. Such an approach would involve prohibitive costs and is simply impractical. 3. The City of Mound has gone on record opposing docks being built on the South side. Some residents of Pelican Point and neighboring property owners have also expressed strong opposition. . ~.' :,:_ .~.' · .: 4. A dock struetu/'e on the South side would impact one of the few remaining large areas ot~ L/ike Mi~metonka shoreline not populated with boat docks. By granting the variance, the fiatural state of this shoreline would be preseg¥~d ~ APR 7- 1999 Board of Directors Lake Minnetonka Conservation District April 7, 1999 Page Two There are, however, many compelling reasons why moving the North side dock structure out by fffiy feet is appropriate and would reflect good public policy. Among these reasons are the following: 1. A genuine hardship exists. A substantial number of the authorized slips at Pelican Point are not accessible due to an insufficient water depth to navigate to those located on the inside. 2. It is clear that LMCD intended, in granting the 1994 license to Pelican Point, that all the docks have sufficient water to be useable. 3. No additional slips are proposed, the total remains at 40. 4. The dock design continues to conform to shoreline density requirements as provided for in LMCD Code of Ordinances, §2.02 Subd.5c. 5. There would be no additional impact on the North side of Pelican Point. 6. LMCD Code §2.02 Subd. 5 has very limited application, and was enacted specifically for Pelican Point. No precedent is created. 7. Variances should be granted when, as here, they have obvious merit. There has been no showing that granting the variance would produce any adverse effect whatsoever on the lake or the public. 8. The "no variances" provision of§2.02 Subd. 5(d) is harsh and unreasonable. To rely on that provision to deny the variance would place undue emphasis on form over substance. The variance is the right thing to do. The Code should be amended, if necessary, and the request granted. 9. We have been advised that the LMCD Code governing other multiple docks on the lake does not contain such an onerous "no variances" provision. Indeed, we have been further advised that other multiple docks on the lake have been allowed to go out further than the 100 foot limit imposed on Pelican Point. Accordingly, Pelican Point is being singled out for unfair and disparate treatment. 10. The application is strongly supported by Pelican Point residents and their neighbors who would affected by it. It is sound public policy. The application submitted to the LMCD in regard to this matter contains a dock design which should be approved. This design contains a relatively minimal change of converting Board of Directors Lake Minnetonka Conservation District April 7, 1999 Page Three seven 24 foot slips to an equal number of 32 foot slips. It should be approved for the following reasons: 1. The initial mix of 24 and 32 foot slips was merely an estimate. There was no way to accurately determine in 1994 what the required mix would be. 2. Most of the families moving to Pelican Point already have their boats, and are relocating from their previous homes on the lake. Larger boats are not coming to the lake as a result of their move to Pelican Point. 3. The dock struc~u'e would be no wider or further out as a result of the additional 32 foot slips. 4. The dock structure would continue to conform to the shoreline density code requirement. 5. The number of slips remains at the previously approved number. 6. Additional 32 foot slips have already been approved tbr the South side of the point. 7. Additional 32 foot slips could be added now, because the dock structure at its current location conforms to all applicable code require~nents. 8. There is no additional impact on the North side of Pelican Point. 9. The 32 foot slips are not barred by ordinance. 10. No substantive reason for denying the seven additional 32 foot slips has been pre~ented. To deay the desiga as presented would be um'easonaNe. It is respectfully requested that application to move the Pelican Point dock structure out by fifty feet and the design submitted therein should be approved. Upon careful consideration of this application, we trust yOu will agree. ·ery trulyyours, . t/Chair,,]_ PPHOA Boat Club pphoa-bc3a.99 March 16, 1999 TO: Board of Directors Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Uinnetonka Boulevard /~ ~ . .,~ Deephaven, MN 5539~~.~ FR: Robert J. $chmidt 2878 Pelican Point Circle Mound, MN 55364 612-495-8059 The Pelican Point Homeowners Association is requesting to move the North side Dock out by 50 feet to overcome the hardship imposed by shallow water which makes access to shore slips impossible. I strongly support that request. The approval of the request is reasonable public policy because of the following: 1. There will be no additional impact to the shoreline on the North side. All of the Pelican Point dock will remain in an area of other large multiple docks. 2. It gives appropriate weight to conservation of the lake and its environment, the interest of the public, and affected residents. 3. The Mound City Council strongly preferred this request instead of placing additional docks on the South side of the property. Board of Directors Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18228 Minnetonka Blvd Deephaven, MN Ref: April 14th meeting to discuss 1999 Pelican Point Docks To whom it may concern: My wife and I will not be able to attend this important meeting but would like you to incorporate our inputs in your considerations. We are residents of Pelican Point. A very important factor in our relocating from Plymouth to Mound was easy access to Lake Minnetonka for boating. As many are aware, the low water level will cause havoc with prior docking arrangements. For these reasons we request your approval of Pelican Point's application to move the dock out by 50 feet to accommodate shore side slips. The Mound City Council prefers the above approach to others which have been discussed. It will have no additional impact on the shoreline, accommodates the needs of affected residents and should be considered good public policy.' Richard L I.;arson 2918 Pelican Point Circle Mound, MN 55364 MAR 3 0 1999 ..,, APR 0 1 1999 .~ April 9, 1999 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Public Works M~rch RepoYt Road Restriction were posted on March 8th. These will be enforced until about May 1st. On the 8th we had to plow and sand due to 10" of snow. After the snow melted we prepared the sweepers and started to sweep Shoreline Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. Ne will start sweeping the rest of the city after that. /his will take about six weeks. We will have to stop for a couple of days to get ready for our recycling day on May let. We are also starting to prepare for the severe weather season. I have purchased a grappler for our frontend loader. /his will allow use to remove and pick storm debris faster. 3im and myself have set up help with Shorewood Tree Service for cleanup if needed. Over the past year we have had additional training and have planned with the other city departments. Ne are looking into a updated billing software and reading equipment for our water meters. There will be more on this in the comirlg months. Our liftstation at Nestedge and Sinclair hao been giving trouble again. This is the station that had the motor explode at the first of the year. Ne are still [gaiting for the $10,000.00 motor. weeks age we notice that there may be a broken pipe. To dig this up to repair we had to remove the panel and set up a temporary panel in different location. Remove the concrete and haul out the excavated material. Restoration of the area is $2,000.00 and with equipment and labor I estimate will be $5,OOO to $7,OOO. prmted on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 To: Mayor, City Council and City Manager From: Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager Date: April 5, 1999 Re: March 1999, Monthly Report Again we had a very strong month for this time of the year. I know and expect that we should be up every month over the corresponding month of the previous year. But this increase of $13,041.00 is more likely to occur in the summer months. I wish I could place my finger on the reason so that I can prepare myself for the upcoming season. The beginning of the month did not start out on an auspicious note. On Monday March 8th we were in the middle of our one and only snow storm of the year, if you recall. At roughly 2:30 p.m. we abruptly lost power. I later discovered that the whole shopping mall, plus City Hall, other businesses and residences had also experienced the same problem. Rumor has it that one of Mound's fire vehicles had skidded into some type of utility pole. I've never confirmed this however. When power goes out it is customary to lock doors. This is for obvious reasons that insurance companies require. From the time power went out until about 3:45 p.m. I estimated we had about 30 people drive up to our store. People's reactions were funny. They were either understanding that we could not let them in or they were angry. I concluded in my unofficial survey that half the people were understanding and half were mad. We had a pretty good day going until the mishap. When people are stranded at home and don't go to work they tend to party a little. So far for the year gross sales are $372,280.00. Last year at the same time sales were $345,045.00. 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 ~7~ ChiefLen Harrell Monthly Report for March, 1999 I. STATISTICS The police department responded to 859 calls for service during the month of March. There were 8 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 burglary, 5 larcenies, and 1 vehicle theft. There were 45 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 child abuse/neglect, 8 weapons, 11 liquor law violations, 8 DUI's, 7 domestics (2 with assaults), 4 harassment, 2 trespassing, and 3 other offenses. The patrol division issued 150 adult and 10 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 83 tickets. Warnings were issued to 149 individuals for a variety of violations. There were 4 juveniles arrested for felonies. juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. misdemeanor warrant arrests. There were 22 adults and 9 There were 4 additional The department assisted in 6 vehicle accidents, 1 with injuries. There were 26 medical emergencies and 48 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 18 occasions in March and requested assistance 4 times. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - March, 1999 II. III. IV. iNVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on 2 criminal sexual conduct case and 3 child protection issues accounting for 54 hours in March. Other cases included terroristic threats, burglary, damage to property, forgery, NSF checks, theft, trespass, and harassment. Formal complaints were issued for no insurance, false information to a police officer, disorderly conduct, theft, driving after cancellation, worthless check, minor consumption, and gross misdemeanor DWI. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 76 hours of overtime during the month of March. Officers used 45 hours of comp-time, 112 hours of vacation, 27 hours of sick time, and 2 holidays. Officers earned 93 hours of comp time. TRAINING Officer Swensen continued to attend the Wilson Supervisory Leadership course in March. Four officers attended EMT refresher, the department had additional defensive tactics training, one officer attended PTAC mandatory training courses, one officer attended crime prevention training, and one officer attended a four day course on drug interdiction for the street officer. V. COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICERS Reserve Mike Bruckner continues as a temporary until the hiring has been completed for our new CSO. Mike handled 19 animal complaints, 35 ordinance violations, and 47 miscellaneous details. One citation was issued. VI. RESERVES The reserves donated 181 hours of community service in the month of March. The unit currently has eight members. PART I CRIMES MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MARCH 1999 OFFENSES CLEARF. D EXCEPT- CLEARKD BY ARRESTED REPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARED ARREST ADULT JUV Homicide 0 0 0 0 Criminal Sexual Conduct 0 0 0 0 Robbery 0 0 0 0 Aggravated Assault 0 0 0 0 Burglary 2 0 0 0 Larceny 5 0 1 0 Vehicle Theft Arson 0 0 0 0 TOTAL PART II CRIMES 0 Child Abuse/Neglect 2 0 1 1 Forgery/NSF Checks 0 0 0 0 Criminal Damage to Property 0 0 0 0 Weapons 8 0 2 0 Narcotic Laws 0 0 0 0 Liquor Laws 11 0 0 11 DWI 8 0 0 8 Simple Assault 0 0 0 0 Domestic Assault 2 0 0 2 Domestic (No Assault) 5 0 0 0 Harassment 4 0 0 0 Juvenile Status Offenses 2 0 0 2 Public Peace 0 0 0 0 Trespassing 2 0 1 0 All Other Offenses 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 8 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 TOTAL 45 0 4 25 22 9 PART II & PART IV Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations TOTAL 5 1 0 26 48 18 702 800 HCCP Inspections TOTAL 859 26 22 13 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT MARCH 1999 GENERAL ACTIVITY SU~94ARY 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 92 178 174 52 116 171 29 50 61 45 145 157 73 220 266 83 162 130 8 12 16 8 11 9 5 18 27 1 4 8 0 0 0 0 6 5 26 51 108 4 6 10 9 15 48 8 30 67 45 99 172 26 82 85 48 110 126 35 39 81 702 1,884 2,627 TOT/iL Assists Follow-Ups HCCP Mutual Aid Given Mutal Aid Requested 1,299 3,238 4,348 31 122 171 16 55 204 3 11 15 18 52 51 4 15 8 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MARCH 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 8 8 0 2 0 76 6 0 8 2 1 0 10 0 12 0 2 8'3 0 3 0 4 4 233 JUV~NIT.~. 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MARCH 1999 W~RNINGS Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRANT ARRESTS Felony Misdemeanor 38 33 27 0 4 34 0 0 0 4 140 Juveniles 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Run: 1-Apr-99 15:22 PR003 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Page I Primary ISN's only: Date Reported range: Activity codes: ~Property Status: Property Types: Property Descs: Brands: Models: Officers/Badges: NO 02/26/99 - 03/25/99 Ail All All All All All All Enfors Property Report STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen Date Recov'd Quantity Act Brand Model Off-1 Off-2 Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value Recov'd Value Code Assnd Assnd Prop type Totals: 8,000 ' 8,000 1.000 Prop type Totals: 5 0 1.000 Prop type Totals: 4,000 0 1.000 Prop type Totals: 265 0 2.000 Prop type Totals: 700 700 1.000 Prop type Totals: 30 0 2.000 Report Totals: 13,000 8,700 8.000 Run: 1-Apr-99 15:07 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: NO Date Reported range: 02/26/99 - 03/25/99 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION 9000 SPEEDING 9001 J-SPEEDING 9002 NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 9014 STOP SIGN 9017 J-FAILURE TO YIELD 9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 9021 J-CARELESS/RECKLESS 9026 OVER THE CENTER LINE 9034 STOP ARM VIOLATION 9038 ALL OTHER TRAFFIC 9040 NO SEATBELT 9100 PARKING/A3~L OTHER 9140 NO PARKING/WINTER HOURS 9200 DAS/DA/~/DAC 9210 PLATES~NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 9220 NO INSURgeNCE/PROOF OF 9222 OVERWEIG}{T VEHICLE 9240 C~ANGE OF DOMICILE 9253 STOP ARM VIOLATION/NO TICKET 9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 9313 FOUND PROPERTY 9314 FOUND VEHICLES/IMPOUNDED MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 76 8 6 1 1 10 1 2 2 1 4 6 77 2 12 4 1 2 2 Page Run: 1 -Apr- 99 15: 07 CFS08 Primary ISN'S only: NO Date Reported range: 02/26/99 - 03/25/99 range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: ;%11 Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION 9430 9450 9564 9566 9567 9730 9731 9801 9802 9812 9900 9904 9920 9930 9931 9932 9933 9951 30 9993 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS DOG BARKING ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS DANGEROUS DOG MEDICALS MEDICALS/DX ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT PUBLIC ASSIST TRESPASS NOTIFICATION LT ALL HCCP CASES OPEN DOOR/ALARMS INSPECTIONS DEPART~rENT HANDGUN APPLICATION HANDGUN DENIALS OFP VIO. CRIME CONTROL & LAW ENF ACT OF '94 RESTRAINING ORDER ON FILE SEX OFFENDERS WARRANTS MUTUAL AID/8100 MU/73ALAID/6500 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS ! 5 1 1 25 1 6 5 1 3 2 3 8 3 1 9 Page Run: 1-Apr-99 15:07 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: NO Date Reported range: 02/26/99 - 03/25/99 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: Ail 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 9994 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER 9996 MUTUAL AID/NARCOTICS AL351 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM AL354 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-CH-FAM B3490 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT B3864 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT I0060 CRIM AGNST FAM-UNK LVL-NEGLECT OF A CHILD J2501 TRAFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH J2E01 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV J2U01 0.20 OR MORE BAC 33501 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE J3E01 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV M3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER M3005 JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING CO~9~UNICATIONS N3370 VIOLATION OF ORDER FOR PROTECTION Pl130 PROP DAMAGE-FE-BUSINESS-UNK IXTrENT P2130 PROP DAMAGE-GM-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT P3310 TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT TC029 THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP TG069 THEFT-LESS 200-MS~MAILS-OTHER PROP Page Run: 1-Apr-99 15:07 CFS08 MOUND POLICE DEPART~.~NT Page 4 Primary ISN's only: Date Reported range: range each day: How Received: ~ivity Resulted: Dispositions: Officers/Badges: Grids: Patrol Areas: Days of the week: No 02/26/99 - 03/25/99 00:00 - 23:59 ~ll All All All All All All Enfors Calls For Service INCIDElqT A2~%LYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE ~ER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER VA021 THEFT-FE-AUTX)-MORE THAN 2500 i VA024 VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-SNOW 1 Report Totals: 380 Run: 1-Apr-99 15:13 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: NO Date Reported range: 02/26/99 - 03/25/99 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: All Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page i ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED AL351 AL354 B3490 B3864 10060 DOM ASLT-MS-XNFLT BODILY HARM-I~%NDS-AD-FAM 2 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-CH-FAM 1 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT 1 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT l CRIM AGNST FAM-UNK LVL-NEGLECT OF A C~ILD I 32501 TRAFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH J2E01 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 12U01 0.20 OR MOPE BAC .33501 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE 13E01 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV M3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER M3005 JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO ':]190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING ~ICATIONS ';3370 VIOLATION OF ORDER FOR PROTECTION 'I130 PROP DAMAGE-FE-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT ']110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK IN"rENT '~310 TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT C029 THEFT~501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP ?G069 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILS-OTHER PROP YG159 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTNER ;A021 THEFT-FE-AUTO-MORE THAN 2500 3A024 VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-SNOW '''' Report Totals: 2 1 5 5 2 4 1 1 6 2 1 1 2 1 1 47 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0 0 i 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 0 0 i 1 100.0 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0 0 1 0 i 0 0 I 100.' 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 100.0 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 100.0 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 100.0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0 0 ¢ 4 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 ~. I 0 i 0 0 1 100.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 6 4 0 0 2 2 33.3 0 2 I 0 0 1 1 50.0 0 I 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 0 i i 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 47 16 20 6 5 31 65.9 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF MOUND MEMORANDUM April 7, 1999 City Manager, Members of the City Council, and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ d MARCH '1999 MONTHLY REPORT 5341 MAY1NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-o6o0 FAX (612) 472-0620 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY There were 31 building permits issued in March for a construction value of $463,163. We issued 24 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellaneous permits for a total of 55 permits this month, and 127 permits year-to-date. Total valuation now stands at $1,458,167. Permit inquires and activity has increased slightly and it appears weight restrictions will be removed early this due to the warm weather. 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) Minor Subdivision cases and One (1) Conditional Use Permit case to the City Council. The Planning Commission further discussed the Comprehensive Plan. They also discussed the Fence/Trellis ordinance. printed on recycled paper INSPECTION ACTIVITY There were approximately 60 various inspections completed in March including building, plumbing, mechanical, variance/zoning, and zoning code enforcement. Two (2) cases of exterior storage violations, one (1) illegal shed, one (1) electrical hazard, and three (3) dumpster enclosures were resolved with the assistance of the City Attorney. In addition, staff worked with Hennepin County Health to resolve two (2) unsanitary residences filled with garbage. Several cases of rental code violations were initiated. kl CITY OF MOUND BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT MONTH: MARCH YEAR: 1999 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 ESIDENTIAL DDITIONS / ALTERATIONS ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS DECKS SWIMMING POOLS REMODEL - MISC. RESIDENTIAL REMODEL - MULTIPLE DWELLINGS SUBTOTAL [ON-RESlDENTIAL DDITIONS / ALTERATIONS COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / SCHOOLS DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SUBTOTAL iDEMOLITIONS RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS NON-RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS TOTAL DEMOLITIONS TOTAL THIS MONTH II#PERMITSll #UNITS II VALUATION [1 1 1 185,000 YEAR TO DATE ,UNITS I1 VALUATION 3 508,000 2 360,000 1 I~ PERMITS 185,000 5 868,000 0 I~ PERMITS 3 23 I~ PERMITS 1 0 121,500 5 180,000 10,880 2 10,880 119,920 40 333,898 1 500 252,300 48 525,278 20,863 2 59,889 1 I~PERMITS I 1 1 # PERMITS 31 # UNITS 0 20,863 2 59,889 IVALUATION IF PERMITS I VALUATION ] 5OO0 I 5OO0 5000 I 5,000 # UNITS VALUATION # PERMITS VALUATION 5 463,163 56 1,458,167 IPERMIT COUNT * BUILDING FENCES & RETAINING WALLS SIGNS PLUMBING MECHANICAL GRADING S & W, STREET EXCAV., FIRF~ ETC. ITOTAL THIS MONTH I YEAR-TO- DATE 31 56 0 0 0 2 13 42 6 20 0 0 5 7 I 55 I 127 I W~ W~ ~o ~ ~0~ =~ ~ ~ ~z ooooo ~ ~0000 ~ ~ o~ z~o~o~ 9soo 0~ ~~~ 0 Om ~wO~<~O ~ ZZZZ ~ ~ ~oo ==~=~ ~_o5 .... o ~ooo zz O0 ~ _ ~Z~ ~ O~ ~ww z ~0~ ~ ~o~~ o~<~ N ~ ~ ^< ~ ~ ~ ~ Z~< ~ ~~oo~~o<-~ ~ ~0~=<~~ >> 0 = <~ ~~~ ~8<<~< =<~o= m O~m~--~w MONTH YR DAY PERMIT # MAR 99 I 4211 MAR 99 1 4212 MAR 99 1 4213 MAR 99 2 4214 MAR 99 4 4215 MAR 99 8 4216 MAR 99 10 4217 MAR 99 15 4218 MAR 99 11 4219 MAR 99 15 4220 MAR 99 15 4221 MAR 99 15 4222 MAR 99 15 4223 MAR 99 16 4224 MAR 99 17 4225 MAR 99 18 4226 MAR 99 22 4227 MAR 99 22 4228 MAR 99 24 4229 MAR 99 25 4230 MAR 99 26 4231 MAR 99 30 4232 GENERAL PERMIT REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 1999 ADDRESS CONTRACTOR PERMIT TYPE 5065 WINDSOR RD WESTONKA MECHANICAL PLUMB 2057 ARBOR LN DAVE PERKINS S & W 5065 WINDSOR RD FLARE HEATING MECH 4924 GLEN ELYN RD WIDMER S & W 2057 ARBOR LN DAVE PERKINS ST EXCAV 3024 ISLAND VIEW DR CITY VIEW PLUMB & HTG MECH 2893 CAMBRIDGE RD LARRY OLSON PLUMB 5138 HANOVER RD BREDAHL PLUMBING PLUMB 4654 KILDARE RD COPPIN S & W S & W 2887 HALSTEAD LN CUSTOM PLUMBING PLUMB 2188 FAIRVIEW LN CULLIGAN WATER COND PLUMB 2942 OAKLAWN LN NORBLOM PLUMBING PLUMB 5910 GLENWOOD RD MCGUIRE & SONS PLUMB 1749 HERON LN PRACTICAL SYSTEMS MECH 8362 MAPLE RD DOUG'S PLUMBING PLUMB 4724 HANOVER RD JOHN RICHARDSON P & M 2057 ARBOR LN PLYMOUTH P&H P & M 4867 SHORELINE DR CULLIGAN WATER COND PLUMB 6362 MAPLE RD J & S MECHANICAL MECH 5005 EDGEWATER DR MCGUIRE & SONS PLUMB 3022 BLUFFS DR MIKE SCHULZ PLUMB 4700 HAMPTON RD COPPIN S & W S & W City of Mound Monthly Report Utilities Month of: March 1999 04/02/1999 Utility-99 Residential Commercial No. of Customers: Water Sewer Water Used: (in 1,000 gallons) Billing: Water Sewer Recycle Payments: Water Sewer Recycle Total ,085 126 1,211 ,089 126 1,215 16,141 2,260 18,401 Total $27,507 $4,762 $32,269 $62,107 $14,551 $76,658 $6.679 $142 $6.821 $96.293 $19,455 $115.748 Total $31,365 $5,081 $36,446 $71,951 $13,251 $85,202 $7.047 $105 $7.152 $110.363 $18.437 $128.800 TO: FROM; RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR MARCH FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT Investment Activity Bought: Money Market 4M Plus 3,060 Money Market Salomon Smith Barney 585 CP Salomon Smith Barney 5.056% 316,417 CP Dain Rauscher 4.978% 302,248 CP Norwest Bank 4.991% 827,366 Matured: Money Market 4M Plus (170,000) Money Market US Bank (30,400) Money Market Salomon Smith Barney (800) Money Market Norwest Bank (2,166) CP Salomon Smith Barney 5.311 .% (312,857) CP Dain Rauscher 5.18.% (299,387) CP Norwest Bank 5.44% (815,212) Audit of the Year 1998 Auditors from the CPA firm of Abdo Abdo & Eick were with us for a full week this month. Their audit of the 1998 City financial activity is progressing as scheduled. A report to the City Council will be presented at one of the May council meetings. Legislative Conference Council person Bob Brown, the City Manager and I attended the 1999 Legislative Conference. It was well attended and some legislators spoke to us. Many legislative issues were discussed by the leadership of the League of Cities and its staff. Again this year, the two major areas of concern to us were the property tax reform and the levy limits. Other issues of concern relate to tax increment financing and sales tax on local government purchases. Personnel As you know, Gayle Bethke, after 21 years of service to the City of Mound, has decided to retire. We appreciate her hard work and her dedication to her job as the Payroll Clerk and Bookkeeper for the City. We wish her well in her retirement. Collette Roberts will start working for the City on April 5, 1999, assuming the duties and responsibilities that Gayle had previously. /estonka Community Action Network nnlversar~ · 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 Spring Park Minnetonka Beach Tonka Bay Minnetrista Western 0ton0 OFFICERS Craig Andemon President St. 8oni-Miooetristra Po/ice Chief Dorothy McQueen Vice President Community Volunteer ·and¥ Slmar ~cmtan/ Head Start Manager Marvin Johnlon Mayor of Independence BOARD OF DIRECTORS Director of Wes1Hennep~n Public Safety Mary DeVInney Westooka Foodshelf Coordinator Ro~emarll Fabmga-Snyder Community Volunteer Leo Harmll Mound Police Chief Irma Kefalghazal Community Volunteer Plum L~mon Business Owner l. arson Printing Sharon McMenimy. Cook Norwest Bank Vice Pres/dent Su~an Mwerl Community Volunteer Mlrty~ Nelion Personal Banker Mound Ma~uette Sandy Olitid Parish Nurse Charlel Pugh Community Volunteer Ken Rlbe Pastor of First Prssbytetian Church Bob Tomalka Community Volunteer Mirdl Wett Westonka Chamber-Adm, ASSt. Mark Winter Crow River Bank Vice President ADMINISTRATION Klkl Sonn®n Execulive Director Keko Chltko Family Advocate Audr~ Ogllnd Adminislrat/ve Assistant Meals on ~ls Coo~linator Shl~tey 'liJIberg Career Counselor/Job Developer March 22,1999 Mayor and Councilmembers of Mound 5341Maywood Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, As you know, WeCAN's office space in the Westonka Community Center is coming to an end April 30, 1999 because efforts to renovate the existing community center have stopped. Enclosed you will find a letter from the Westonka School District notifying WeCAN to vacate by April 30th. We are currently negotiating with a private landlord for rental space in Mound. We are optimistic and believe we can move to new quarters with no disruption in service. However, the cost of relocation (telephone, fax, computer system changes, printing costs of new stationary, mailing change of address, packing and unpacking, setting up office walls to ensure confidentiality, and the physical move) is estimated at $25,000. ThOse are funds we just do not have, and we are trying to avoid making severe cuts in our programs and services. We are writing to you now to ask for additional help above and beyond the CDBG funding that you have been so helpful with in the past. We are asking you for a one-time-only emergency grant to cover relocation costs to new quarters. Would you please allocate $13,052 from your general funds, or contingency funds, to help us? The amount we are requesting is based on the per cent of families WeCAN served who were residents of your city. I will be contacting you soon to schedule a time when we can meet with you as you consider this request. Sincerely, Kiki Sonnen WeCAN Executive Director Independent School District 277 Westonka Public Schools 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, MN 55364 Community Education and Services office (612) 491-8040 fax (612) 491-8043 www. westonka, k 12. mn. us February 17, 1999 Westonka Community Action Network Kiki Sonnen, Director 5600 Lynwood Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms. Sormen: As you are aware, the issue of "what to do" with the Westonka Comn~tmnity Center, has challenged our community for quite some t/me. The Mound City Council recently voted to dissolve a mutually developed joint powers agreement with the Westonka School Board and withdraw their support from their cooperative commitment to the Community Center renovation project. The School Board convened last evening in a special session to specifically address this issue. Formal action was taken to close the Community Center Building on May 1, 1999 for all non-school district programs. With closing the building, all school related programs and school offices will also be relocating to other space. It has been our pleasure in working with you. We have enjoyed a wonderful relationship in serving the residents of our community. However, the time has finally come to close the building. Your final day of occupancy is Friday, April 30th. Please plan to have all staff, supplies, and equipment removed from the building by the end of the business day. Respectfully, Michael G. Looby, Director Community Education and Personnel Services Westonka Public Schools copy: Dr. Pamela J. Myers, Superintendent CITY OF MOUND DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION MARCH 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. Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. MINUTES Motion was made by Ahrens, seconded by Eurich, to approve the minutes of the February 18, 1999 DCAC meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES Agenda approved as amended: Add 3A: Encroachments. 3. DISCUSS: ADDITIONAL MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK LOCATIONS Park Director Fackler reported on dock configurations and costs for Carlson Park, Highland Park, and Kenmore Commons. Council Representative Hanus expressed concern regarding Kenmore Commons and questioned where the dock would be in relation to the residences. Park Director Fackler answered that the location of the docks is limited by the terrain. Council Representative Hanus asked how many people have applied for docks in the area so far. Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated there are 12 users now, which is what the configuration would meet. Commissioner Goldberg asked if a multiple dock would clean things up and relieve congestion at Kenmore Commons. Fackler replied that it would help quite a bit. Commissioner Ahrens wanted to make sure that if two multiples are put there, one will not have to be set in front of someone's home. Council Representative Hanus indicated he believes there is another space, in addition to the end of Carlow Road, that would work on the end of Kildare Road. Commissioner Eurich stated that the next step is to invite the abutters in to find out their interest level in the multiple dock. Chair Funk questioned the timing, wondering if these docks could still be done this Spring. Park Director Fackler stated that if the decision was made soon, installation could be in mid-May. Commissioner Goldberg requested a re-check on each site to make sure the areas would benefit from multiple docks. Commissioner Eurich suggested putting in one multiple dock at Kenmore Commons rather than two, and asked if this would still help congestion in the area. Council Representative Hanus replied that anything to reduce congestion in that area would be a help. Park Director Fackler stated that the most important information right now is the interest in the citizens of each area. Commissioner Burma asked if multiple docks at Kenmore Common will eliminate the setback problem. Commissioner Ahrens asked what the setback is. Park Director Fackler stated that Greg Nybeck will be at the next meeting to address these questions, but Fackler believed the setback at that site is 30 feet. Council Representative Hanus pointed out that the multiple docks would also relieve any setback problems at Carlson Park and Highland. Chair Funk asked if the configurations presented need to be approved by the LMCD. Park Director Fackler stated that they would not, simply that the LMCD requests being notified of what is being done. Commissioner Goldberg asked currently the budget is $22,000. proposals is $38,000. about the budget for the docks. Fackler replied that Goldberg then pointed out that the total for these three Council Representative Hanus stated that the money is there if all the proposed configurations were to be approved. Chair Funk asked for suggestions for time to gather the neighborhoods and discuss these proposals. Park Director Fackler suggested meeting with the citizens of Carlson Park and Highland this year, and to notify citizens of Kenmore Commons that the interest is there. If there is any interest, the project could be done in the year 2000. Commissioner Ahrens asked if it would be possible to add any more docks to the proposed configurations at any of these sites. Park Director Fackler stated that some possibility may be there, but more setback information would first be needed. At Highland, it would depend on interest, as there are abutters who have their own docks, and may not be interested in moving into a multiple slip dock. Commissioner Ahrens indicated he would like to include Kenmore Commons, as there is some dissatisfaction with the current situation there. Park Director Fackler suggested having one meeting for all three sites, explaining the situation to begin, then discuss one site at a time. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission March 18, 1999 Council Representative Hanus pointed out the 20% discount that the City receives, and wondered if this was negotiable. Park Director Fackler stated that April 3rd seems to be the earliest date available to have the public meeting so letters need to go out very soon to give the most notice. Council Representative Hanus stressed the importance of presenting the information very softly. Commissioner Goldberg stated that the old letter must still be available, and seemed to work quite well for past meetings. Park Director Fackler stated he can find the old letter, get it to the Commissioners early next week, and hopefully send the letters out by March 23 or March 24. Commissioner Goldberg asked if Council approval is needed to continue. Council Representative Hanus stated that as long as the project stays withing budget and guidelines, only final approval is needed. Hanus also pointed out that the private abutters on either side of each site should also be notified of the public meeting. Commissioner Goldberg stated that in the past, users of the multiple docks have come up with their own ideas for configuration, and these ideas have been used in some instances. Chair Funk volunteered to draft an agenda for the public meeting. Motion was made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to hold a public meeting on Saturday, April 3, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. to discuss all three sites under consideration for discussion of proposed multiple docks. Motion carried unanimously. 3A. ENCROACHMENTS Commissioner Ahrens asked about the requests from the last meeting as pertains to Exhibit J and a letter that was going to be sent by the Building Official. Commissioner Goldberg stated he would like this project to have more priority and asked if there is a way to get this done. Park Director Fackler reported that renewals are behind, but it is not a huge number. They need to be done before it gets to be too many. Chair Funk suggested that the requests for information from the last meeting that was to be given by the Building Official be carried into April since they were not presented tonight. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission March 18, 1999 Motion was made by Goldberg, seconded by Hanus to direct Staff to prepare recommendations on howto proceed notifying affected encroachment owners of the policy, details from the City Attorney on the responsibility issues, and to provide requested information. Also directing Jon Sutherland to attend the May 20, 1999, meeting of the DCAC with the aforementioned information and recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. 4. DISCUSS: APRIL DCAC AGENDA Add: Add: Add: Add: Add: Decision regarding multiple slip dock locations Review procedure for Public Lands Permit Report from Greg Nybeck Review addition of second boat or personal watercraft proposal Multiple Dock Survey Results - FYI Only, no discussion In May: Report from Jon Sutherland Multiple Dock Survey Results FYI A) B) C) D) E) F) G) LMCD INFORMATION POSC MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES DOCK LOCATION SURVEY (SENT OUT MARCH 8TH) MONTHLY EVENTS CALENDAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6. REPORTS A) B) C) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE PARK DIRECTOR DOCK INSPECTOR No reports at this time. 7. ADJOURN Motion was made by Ahrens, seconded by Burma, to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 email: istrommcn(&~kenncd¥-~raven.¢om MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SRA Delegates/Alternates/City Managers/City Administrators Jim Strommen 03/24/99 612 Area Code Decision As you have read in the newspapers, on March 22, 1999, the PUC met and decided the next phase of issues relating to the 612 area code. The PUC's ultimate decision under the facts presented at the hearing followed the SRA's stated position, namely to. maintain municipal boundaries in a geographic split and not to adopt the overlay proposal. The SRA decided not to take a position on which region should keep 612. It was clear from the number exhaustion evidence, however, that the suburbs would not be able to keep 612, plus the 612 wireless numbers. Suburbs would have faced another split in approximately three years, dividing the suburbs again between 612 and a new number. This would have violated FCC guidelines for exhaust periods. Having concluded that the suburbs must receive 952, a new development at the heating was the issue of establishing three rather than two area codes. Driving that issue was the continual updating of exhaust periods resulting in a determination that a two area code split (Minneapolis and suburbs) would not give enough assurance that a further split would not be necessary in the near future. As a result of this development, the PUC has tentatively decided to divide the western suburbs along the municipal boundaries along 1-394 highway. The PUC inquired of me regarding the SRA's position on two rather than one code in the western suburbs. I could not represent that an 1-394 dividing point was the SRA position because it had not been presented to the SRA. I suggested to the PUC, however, that this geographical split of the western suburbs made sense as a natural division approximately in the middle of the western Minneapolis suburbs. JMS-153048 KG400-1 SRA Delegates/Alternates/City Managers/City Administrators March 24, 1999 Page 2 Following is additional information about the decision you or your council may find helpful in explaining to interested residents. GEOGRAPHIC SPLIT VERSUS OVERLAY I have spoken with many of you regarding your positions and the position of your councils regarding these two models. You have uniformly supported the geographic split along municipal boundaries. The PUC continues to accept that position, rejecting wire center boundaries as dividing committees and arbitrary from a customer standpoint in a heavily populated area. The issue with the PUC is whether the overlay is a better long-term solution. The arguments that people still value geographic identity; seven-digit dialing within their local area and want to avoid the increasing confusion of overlays still prevailed (by a 3 to 2 margin). The overlay argument was stronger this time because the telecom competitors generally, but not completely, endorse the overlay. 612 VERSUS 952 The SRA maintained its position that 612 should stay with that area where it makes the most sense from an exhaust and policy standpoint. The split as originally proposed, keeping 612 in the western suburbs, would not have worked because of the exhaust problem. In other words, if the suburbs had kept 612 and Minneapolis had been assigned 952, the projections show that within two to three years the PUC would be forced to make a decision again of splitting the 612 between North and South suburbs. The exhaustion balance in keeping the 612 with Minneapolis worked much better. Also, the heavy concentration of large businesses and the fact that Minneapolis is the Twin Cities center in many ways probably influenced the PUC. TWO-WAY VERSUS THREE-WAY SPLIT The SRA had been polled on the overlay versus a two way split. There had been no proposal for a three way split and, therefore, no boundaries to which the SRA could react. At the hearing, the PUC asked me regarding an SRA position for a three way split. I had been able to contact a couple of SPA representatives in potentially affected communities (over the noon hour). I indicated that while I could not represent an SRA position because it had not been discussed, the position of the SRA would logically remain with municipal boundary splits whether exhaustion needs required one or two area codes in the suburbs. The reaction I had received from the SPA delegates with whom I had spoken over the noon hour were consistent with that position, no to the overlay and yes to municipal boundaries whether there would be one or two area codes. The long-term benefit of two area codes in the western Mi,~meapolis suburbs is the near certainty or at least high probability that no further splits will be necessary. The location of the split was also put to me by the PUC. Based on a mid-way geographic point, some division of commerce and the "natural" 1-394 divider, I suggested that may be an appropriate location along municipal boundaries. JMS-16021-1 SU160-31 SRA Delegates/Alternates/City Managers/City Administrators March 24, 1999 Page 3 The PUC has tentatively adopted that split, subject to the Numbering Plan Administrator granting a PUC request for two rather than one area code number. We already have the 952; the PUC would need to obtain an additional number. The plan would be that the two new area code numbers would then be applied simultaneously to the two new area codes. Therefore, people would only be required to make the change once. A certain amount of seven-digit dialing would remain, many communities of interest would remain and the overlay addition of new area codes would not occur. COST US West strongly opposed a geographic split along municipal boundaries, in part because of the added cost of making the divisions. US West, however, was able to execute it in Phase I without much difficulty. It does not appear that it will pass on the cost of the Phase I split to ratepayers. A double split in Phase II is estimated by US West to be a much higher cost (approximately $6 million for Phase I versus $20 million for Phase II). The PUC asked me whether our position was dependent on the ratepayers not being required to bear some or all of the cost of this split. I indicated that this was a policy-based decision and was not driven by whether or not ratepayers would be assessed at a later time for these costs. I stated that there is an argument that US West has waived its right to recover costs for these area code splits under its Alternative Form of Regulation. The SRA reserved its right to make those arguments. Yet, if the PUC allows these costs to be assessed against ratepayers, as many costs incurred by the utilities are, the SRA. is aware of this possibility and would not change its position on that basis. SUMMARY It is clear, though not reflected at all in newspaper accounts, that the SPA position regarding geographic splits along municipal boundaries was again a primary driving force to the DPS and ultimate PUC decision. The multiple splits made necessary because of number exhaustion, however, make this a more expensive process. Further, the new area codes will be an adjustment to people living in the suburban area--a one-time adjustment. I emphasized to the PUC the public policy priority taken by the SPA cities and their willingness to stand by this policy position, notwithstanding potential criticism from residents and businesses that must change their number. The easy appeal of the overlay is to keep the existing number and give the new numbers to the "new guy" later on. Yet, the overlay has the increased confusion factor of new codes within another area code, as well as the tendency to divide by time. The decision described above is subject to the Number Plan Administrator giving the PUC the two numbers it requests. If that request is denied, the PUC will have to reconvene. The SPA can also expect that US West will petition the PUC to change its position and adopt the overlay. JMS-160211 SU160-31 SPA Delegates/Alternates/City Managers/City Administrators March 24, 1999 Page 4 Please contact me by email with any information you hear or thoughts you have on the matter at j strommen~kennedy- graven, com. Thank you for your input. The SRA has had a very influential role in the PUC's decision in this difficult area code matter. The Twin Cities remain the only metro area in the United States using municipal boundaries to divide area codes. The SRA can take credit for this, with great technical assistance from the DPS. JMS-160211 SU160-31 To strengthen and promote cities as centers of opportunity, leadership, and governance. National League of Cities 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. · Washington, D.C. 20004-1763 202-626-3000 Fax: 202-626-3043 Internet: www. nlc.org 1999 Officers President Clarence E. Anthony Mayor, South Bay, Florida First Vice President Bob Knight Mayor, Wichita, Kansas Second V/~e President Dennis W. Archer Mayor, Detroit, Michigan Immediate Past President Brian J~ O'Neill Councilman, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Executive Director Donald J Borut RECEIVED 2 § 1999 March 19, 1999 The Honorable Patricia A Meisel Mayor City of Mound 5341 Ma3~vood Rd Mound, MN 55364-1627 Dear Mayor Meisel: I am writing to enlist your support in advocating the five federal priorities set by your Board of Directors last week at our Congressional City Conference and in working with your Congressional delegation on behalf of our 1999 Action Agenda: Making Electronic Commerce Fair, Preserving Municipal Authority, Building a New Economy, Investing in Transportation, and Protecting Municipal Authority in any federal Electric Deregulation legislation. The enclosed copies of our five-point Action Agenda we adopted at our just-concluded Congressional City Conference provides details about our highest federal priorities for this first session of the 106~ Congress. The feedback I have received fi.om our thousands of delegates who met with their Senators and Representatives last week demonstrates that we can have a big impact when we speak with one voice on a focused set of priorities. That's why I'm asking for your active participation in our 1999 lobbying effort. Please share this information and call for action with your council, so that you can develop a joint action plan. In addition, the March 15~ edition of Nan'on's Cin'es Weekly provides detailed coverage of our actions and the feedback we received fi.om key national leaders. While our lobbying staff does an outstanding job of representing local interests in Washington on a daily basis, the voices of the more than 135,000 local officials we represent speaking directly to their elected representatives can be especially powerful. I urge you to read this information carefully to make your voice heard now. It has become clear that the nature of government and our information technology economy is rapidly changing traditional notions of the federal-state-local relationships. Cities are far more dependent upon our regional economies, so that our relationship--once primarily defined by federal grants we used to implement national pohcies--today is defined more by federal efforts to preempt our access to revenues and historic and traditional power and authority. Those preemptions, fi.om Intemet sales taxes to land use and zoning decisions, can have far greater impact on our ability to balance local budgets and provide services to our joint constituents than ever before. Consequently, we believe that the way we proceed in this transition is of the utmost importance if we are to earn the respect and trust of the taxpayers we all serve. Our most important federal priority is to protect and restore fairness to the nation's Main Street retailers and to protect the state and local sales tax--without question the most critical single source of revenue for the nation's state and local governments. Unless and until Congress and the President act to ensure equity with regard to remote sales, the escalating erosion of these state and local revenues will undermine any federal claims of a commitment to public education. Recycled Paper Pn~ Presidents: Glenda E. Hood. Mayor, Orlando Florida .* Sbnrpe James. Mayor, Newark, New Jersey · Gregety Lashulka. Mayor, Columbus, Ohio. Cathy Reynolds. Ciiy Council President, Denver, Colorado · Directors: Amie Adan~en, Councilman, l.as Vegas, Nevada · Kenneth A. Alder~on, Executive Director, Illioois Municipal League. E. H. Alexander, Commissioner, Red Spt/ocs, Nor~ Carolina · John B. Andrews, Executive Director, New Hampshire Municipal Association · Lam/A. Bakken, Counci~ Member, Golden Valley, Minnesota · James T. Bedmoo, Councilman, Baton Rouge, Louisiana · George D. Blackwood, Jr., Mayor Pro Tern, Kansas City, Missouri · George A. Brown, Jr, Councilmember` Lexington- FayeT~e, Kentucky · Maxine Childross Brown. Councilwoman, Rechester, New Yor~ · John P. Bsono, Councilman, Pontiac, Michigan · Mictmel Cnthe¥, Alderman, Senatobia, Mississippi · hank Clinton, Mayor, Paris, Illinois ·Hnl Dsoti, Mayor, Omaha, Nebraska · Sun Donaldson, City Council President, Seattle, Washington · hancio H. Dunhny, Mayor, Cambridge, M~saachusetts ·Ron Gal/egos. Councilman, Loogmont, Colorado · John A. Garner, Jr., Executive Director, Pennsylvania League of Cities ao~ Municipalities. Nell G. Giulinoo, Mayor, '[empe, ~-im~ · Thomas J. Grody, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities · Becky L I'la~xin, Council Member, Foe Wo~, Texas. Pe~y Jo Hillin~l, Mayor, East Point, Georgia · Michael Keck. Vice Mayor, Little Rock, Arkansas · Jack Lynch, Chief Executive, Butte, Montana · Hun'/et Miller, Mayor, Santa Barbara, California · James F. Miller, Executive Director, League of Minnesota Cities · L/ada A. Morton. Mayor, Lakew~3Odr Cot~'ado * William A. Moyer, Executive DiT~Or, Oklahoma Mueicipal League · Jim Nnugie, Mayor, Fort Lauderdate, Florida · Leu Ogden, Mayor, Fualatin, Oregon · Jenny Orolmza, Councilmember, Long Beach, California · Willie J. Pitt Council Member, Wilson, North Carolina · Ma~ C. Po~, Mayor Pro Tern, Dallas, Texas. Retiecca J. Ravine. Council Precident, Eort Wayne, Indiana .. Johnny Robiesoo, Councilmember, Coltage Park, Georgia · Michael SiLt/g, Executive Director, Florida League of Cides · Leon Smith, Mayor. Oxford, Alabama · Daniel M. Spoor, Mayor, Pulaski, 'l'ennessec · Connie Sprynczynntyk, Executive Director, North Dakota League of Cities · Ewlyn WrigM Turner. Councilor` Columbus, OeoTgia. Jorfilyn S. Wall, Council President. Evanston, Wyoming -2- We are hard pressed to think of a more critical issue to our Main Street merchants or to the future of our communities and states that rely on sales taxes. I ask you to join in a grass-roots campaign to make sure every part of your community understands the importance of this issue--and the consequences if we do not succeed. Shortly we will be providing you and your colleagues, in coordination with your state municipal league, materials to help unleash a strategic and effective campaign. We will keep you posted on progress on these priorities during the coming months and will be seeking your continued involvement as the work of the 106th Congress evolves. Thank you for your continuing commitment and support. Our Congressional City Conference last week in Washington, D.C. demonstrated that we have much in common and that, acting together, we can influence the federal government. So I want to thank those of you who came and contributed so much of your time and effort. We made progress on each of our priorities. But we cannot rest upon those successes. All members of your House and Senate delegation will be in recess and back home during the first week of April. That will be an excellent time to follow up, achieve commitments, and send a message on behalf of your own citizens from all of us. The enclosed materials provide further information. Please keep me advised as we work together to make a difference on each of these issues for our constituents. Sincerely, Clarence E. Anthony President Mayor, South Bay, Florida Enclosure I National League of Cities This five-point Action Agenda defines the major federal priorities of the leaders of the nation's cities and towns for 1999. It was adopted by the National League of Cities Board of Directors on March 6, 1999, to guide NLC's advocacy efforts this year. lli Making Electronic Contmerce Fair The federal government must act to create a level playing field for electronic commerce or sales of goods and services over the Internet. The President and Congress must change the federal rules to ensure that retail businesses, cities, and states can all play by the same rules--and that those rules are fair. It is unacceptable for the federal government to treat local businesses inequitabl); depending upon whether they sell goods itt a local store, on the phone, by mail order, or over the Internet. Federal legislation should not create a protected class of taxpayers at the expense of Main Street and other taxpayers. Only the Congress can change federal laws to provide authority for states to require out-of-state mail order and electronic vendors to collect and remit state and local sales taxes. To achieve this goal, NLC: · Urges Congress and the President to request the General Accounting Office to provide a comprehensive report on the impact of electronic commerce on Main Street retailers and on current and projected impacts on state and local revenues. · Urges the President to appoint a commission composed of state and local elected leaders to examine the consequences for the nation's public education and safety systems if there is a failure by the President and Congress to act to create a level playing field within three years. · Opposes any Intemet commission that is not fully and fairly balanced, that does not include Main Street retailers or a full balance of local and state elected leaders. Ii2 Letting Cities Work For the nation's municipal leaders, preemption has become the successor to unfunded federal mandates. This priority is about putting a real check on federal preemption, and to make the ~4dministration attd Congress accountable to our citizens. It is to press for a simpler, more rational, and tnore flexible h~tergovernmental system to let city leaders develop more 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue., N.W. · Washington, D.C. 20004 · (202) 626-3000 · www. nlc.org innovative and cost effective methods of delivering programs, infrastructure, and services to citizetts, and to enhance public ittvolvement attd restore public condI~dence in governmettt. It is to end the one-size-fits-all mentality that has governed at the federal level for too many years and replace it with a true partnership that ensures a safe and healthy future for our citizens. Front telecommunications to Internet taxation to takings to electric deregulation, preserving the ability of local governments to manage the public rights-of-way and receive fair attd reasonable compensation for their use, to protect municipal zonOtg attd taxing authority from federal intrusion, and to mOtimize the intpact of deregulation on municipal revenues and citizen costs is increasOtgly Ouportant. To achieve this goal, NLC: · Supports legislation to restrict federal efforts to preempt historic and traditional municipal and state authority, including preemption notes, a point of order against any federal legislation that would preempt historic and traditional municipal authority, or other appropriate tools. · Supports strengthening the current Presidential Executive Order on Federalism to insure a local voice in all Administration decision-making. · Opposes any federal proposal that would interfere with traditional municipal authority regarding infrastructure, land use, or other local priorities. · Supports accountability, so that cities have the capacity to challenge any proposed federal rule or regulation which would preempt local authority or fails to disclose the intent and legal authority to interfere with municipal authority. #3 Building'A New Economy We must build a new economy. We must ensure that an equitable share of our federal budget is dedicated to local priorities attd that a significant share of any surplus is reOtvested itt the future of our communities. The current economy is accelerating disparities in our cities between the highest attd lowest income families. The fitture economy and econontic opportunities will depend not only upon Otvestmettts Ot the physical Otfrastructure of our communities, but also upon Otvestment in families attd children, schools and education. ~Is Congress and the President debate scrapping federal legislation enacted at the height of the Great Depression to now deregulate the nation's financial institutions, we must ensure that every institution bears a responsibility to reOtvest in its own community. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires that every federally guaranteed financial institution bears a respousibility to return a share o fits deposits back Otto cities and towns. To achieve this goal, NLC: · Supports raising the 1997 budget caps, consistent with the growth in federal revenues, to ensure current funding for priority housing and community development programs. Supports action to ensure preservation of low-and-moderate income housing stock in cities. · Urges dedication of an equitable share of any federal budget surplus to the nation's human and public infrastructure to ensure the economy of our next generation. · Supports legislation to ensure that every federally instlred financial institution bears a responsibility to reinvest back into its own community through strengthening the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). #4 Investing In Transportation The President or Congress must mal~e sure that at least a portion of the future surplus is reinvested bt our public ht~'astructure. That will be the foundation for a 21st century economy. The federal government must move s~vifily to reauthorize the Federal Aviation · Administration before the current law expires on March $Oth. With international trade accounting for nearly one-thh'd of the economy, the capacity of airports itt cities to handle cargo attd traffic safely and efficiently is more important titan ever. The legislation must halt diversion of trust fund revenues for other purposes. The legislation must address service to under-served areas. There are 18,224public and private airports--nearly all of them itt cities and towns. Issues about local atttltority and funding are at risk. The continuation of federal funding is critical to meeting safety attd traffic demands. To achieve this goal, NLC: · Supports immediate action by Congress and the President to invest in a world class system of airports and airways. · Opposes any federal tax reform proposal that would imperil the bonds we issue to build airports, bridges, and highways to connect us to international markets. · Supports airport reauthorization and increased funding for airport infrastructure and aviation safety and security programs and lifting the cap on passenger facility charges. · Supports fully funding TEA-21 and halting the diversion of highway and airport trust funds by the federal government. · Supports evaluation of the impact of existing transportation funding formulas on sprawl. · Supports a review of existing transportation funding formulas for their impact on efficient movement of goods and people tlxrough improved inter-modal connections. #5 Electric Power To The People'& Cities Congress should leave the issue of electric utility deregulation to states and local' governments. Federal legislation could affect traditional local government authority, such as zoning, revenue, attd right-of-way authority. It could affect the cost of power for all cities and towns, as well as their citizens and businesses. It could provide for a far-reachbtg federal preemption of traditional state and local authority. Legislation has already been introduced that would retroactively change the status of tax-exempt bonds regarding municipal power. As with cable rates, Congressional action could lead to much higher costs. Not only could rates increase for states and local governments and their citizens, but also some of the changes being considered by Congress could eliminate taxes attd franchise fees collected by state and local governments from electric utilities. To achieve this goal, NLC: Supports preserving the right of states and cities to act on restructuring without federal interference. · Opposes any federal preemption of franchise, revenue, or rights-of-way authority. · Opposes any federal action to preempt municipal authority to issue municipal bonds to finance public services for the repair, maintenance, and provision of electric generating and transmission capacity to citizens and businesses. · Supports partnerships with other organizations, including the American Public Power ' Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures, to preserve local rights. League RECEi\/E, I' AR 3 1 1§§§ li ehaha I ree[ a ershed Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre MEMORANDUM Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (612) 471-0590 Fax: (612) 471-0682 Email: admin @ minnehahacreek.org Web Site: www. minnehahacreek.org Board of Managers Pamela G. Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Thomas W. LaBounty Thomas Maple. Jr. Malcolm Reid DATE: TO: FROM: RE: March 23, 1999 City Managers/Administrators and MCWD Liaisons Eric Evenson, District Administrator.. ~- City - Watershed Round Table THANKS to all who participated in the March 12th roundtable. I enjoyed the discussion and appreciate all of the comments. Attached is a summary of the meeting put together by Jim Brimeyer. Feel free to share it with other staff or your council. I presented the summary to my Board last Thursday and will be using it at an upcoming Board retreat to help frame some of our long-term goals. If you feel there is anything missing from this summary or if you did not have a chance to come to this roundtable and would like to share some additional thoughts or recommendations, call or e-mail me (471-6284, eevenson(c_-~)minnehahacreek.org. ). Again, thanks for participating Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% ~ consumer waste. C:\Program Files\Eudora~ttach\rule change memo.doc The Brim¢¥¢r Group, Inc. EXECUTIVE SEARCH CONSULTANTS Minnehaha Creek Watershed District March 12, 1999 Session Redefine the role of MCWD (within thc guidelines of statute) for: - Capital projects - Regulatory compliance - F_.Aucationa! program~ - Maintenance of projects and systems 904 Mainstreet Suite 205 Hopkins, MN 55343 The Capital Project process should: Focus on projects that have a system-wide impact and a favorable cost/benefit ratio. Be utilized when projects are multi-jurisdictional and are politically sensitive Take a more thoughtful, deliberate approach with input from the agencies and from a Technical Advisory Committe~ (TAC) Be given a priority ranking based on pre-determined criteria as established by the Board with input from the staff and the local agencies. MCWD should be a leader in policy development with reference to water quality and water quantity issues: - Ensure perrrfit enforcement - Use existing staff, contract employees, participating agencies - Communicate with local jurisdictions and the general public on a regular basis - Determine appropriate level of education program~ on water related issues - Propose new programs that meet the mission of the MCWD - water quality and water quantity - Promote a necessary level of funding - short term and long term to finance capital projects, new programs, on-going maintenance, etc. - Act as advocate, facilitator and clearinghouse in developing funding options for MCWD and MCWD entities (612) 945-0246 · fax (612) 945-0102 -2- Board should evaluate why, how, by whom, and for what reasons the District communicalteS, meets with, and "stays in contact" with internal (local entities) and external (other agencies, state) customers. 5. Board should consider establishment of.' A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to assist the staff in project evaluation, technical issues, compliance and enforcement, etc. A Policy Advisory Board (PAB) to assist Board and staff in considering new programs, funding options, legislation, etc. SPECIFIC ISSUES Phosphorous Reduction * Clearly a "system" function. * Needs to be an on-going, continuous program - depending on the needs of the "system" and specific areas. * Policy should not deal with a specific criteria that defines "clean" .but rather a goal that annually reduces phosphorous levels throughout the system. -impact on wildlife, fish, etc. - impact on property values - impact on usefulness of water resources Fundraising * Overriding question should always be... What good, for which people, at what cost? * Develop policy that distinguishes between system-wide projects and program.~ vs local agencies' policies and programs. This policy should incorporate some cost sharing options for the District and the local agencies. * District policy (particularly the development of the policy) should ensure a sense of equity and fairness; maximize understanding through participation and communications; and foster a strong sense of partnership with local units. -3- Coordination * District Board, District staff and local entities need to aggressively pursue a 'partnership' enviroment. Focus should be on reducing duplication, developing cost effective solutions, maintaining regular methods of communicaRion, and getting a level of trust that results in sound policy development and increased public acceptance and expex'tations. Compliance with Plan * Develop a system that meets the objective of the District through rules and procedures adopted by the District. * Recognize there are a variety of options to obtain compliance. MCWD will allow local entities to ensure compliance provided they have an approved Plan. MCWD will provide resources, at a fee, to ensure compliance at the option of the local entity. Local entities may contract with other resources to ensure compliance within guidelines established by the District and/or per an approval plan. RECEIVE93 1 i999 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE Regarding.the Operation of the Headwaters Control Structure (Grays Bay Dam) The Board of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is conducting a public hearing to receive comments regarding the operation of the Headwaters Control Structure (also known as Grays Bay Dam, the outlet of Lake Minnetonka and source of Minnehaha Creek). This is being done as part of the District's application to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for renewal of the District's HEADWATERS CONTROL STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT POLICY AND OPERATING PROCEDURES. This document is available for viewing on the District's Web page at www.minnehahacreek.org. The Public Hearing will be held at 6:30 PM, or as soon thereafter as possible on Thursday, April 22, 1999 Mirmetonka Community Center, Council Chambers 14600 Minnetonka Blvd., Minnetonka, MN Written comment will be accepted until April 30, 1999 at MCWD, 2500 Shadywood Road, Excelsior, MN 55331. Association of Metropolitan Municipalities ECEIYE'3 ,!,??:- 2 Aprill, 1999 TO: Mayors, Manager/Administrators, and Councilmembers FROM: Gene Ranieri, AMM Executive Director RE: TAB Vacancy/AMM Board Vacancy TAB Vacancy A recent resignation from the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) has created vacancy that must be filled by a city elected official. The TAB assists in the preparation of the regions transportation program and plans. The TAB meets monthly (fourth Wednesday at 1:30 p.m.) at the Metropolitan Council. The AMM Board is seeking candidates to fill the un-expired term (18 months). Eligible applicants must be an elected city official. If you are interested please send by April 26, 1999 a cover letter and resume to Gene Ranieri. The board at its May meeting will consider all nominations. The Metropolitan Council will then approve the board nominee. If you have any questions or need additional information please contact me at 651- 215-4001. AMM Board Member vacancy AMM Board of Director elections will be at the May 20, 1999 Annual Meeting. At · Js time it appears there .will op.!y be one open seat on the Board created by the resignation of Jim Prosser. Based on past concerns for geographic and elected versus appointed representation, his replacement should be an elected official from suburban Hennepin County. Please respond with letter and short resume to Gene Ranieri by April 26, 1999. The nominating committee is meeting at 12:15 p.m. Wednesday, April 28, 1999. L~msdocs\bodX4-99tab-bodvacancylerc doc 145 University Avenue West Saint Paul, Minnesota 55103-2044 Telephone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: amm@amm145, org RECEIVED/-'.,?R_ 5 1999 " LAKE MINN.ETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 M~NNETONKA BLVD. DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 6121745-0789 · FAX 612/745-90H5 Gregory 8. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS Douglas E. Babcock Chair, Tonka Bay Bart Foster Vice Chair, Deephaven Eugune Partyka Sucrela~/, Minnetrista Craig Nelson Treasurer, Spring Park Andrea Ahrens Mound Bob Ambrose Wayzala Kerd Dahlen Minnetonka Beach Crm!~ Eggers Victoria Tom GJlma~ l:xcelsior Greg Kitchak Minneto~ka Ldi McMillan Orono Robed Rascop Shorewood Herb J. Suerth Woodland Sheldon Weft Greenwood March 9, 1999 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Lakcshore Weekly News Att, n: Legal De,~t~cnt Roger L, ~Administrativc Technician Public Hearing Notice (4/01/99 Edition) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 7:00 PM, April 14, 1999 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901 Manitou Road Pelican Point liomeowners' Association Variance Application Sprin~ Park/Phelps Bays, Lake Minnetonka The Lake Minnctonka Conservation District (LMCD) will hold a public hearing to consider a Variance Application from the Pelican Point Homeowners' Association. The application is for variance from LMCD length requirements. Details available at thc LMCD office, 18338 Minnctonka Blvd., Deephavcn, MN 55391. Web Page Address: http://www.winternol.com/~lmcd/ E-mail Address: Imcd (~ winternet.com RECEIVED2 1999 MOUND CITY DAYS 4437 Radnor Road Mound, MN 55364 612472-1187 (Home) 612-882-9483 (Work) March 12, 1999 Dear Parade Participant; The Mound City Days Committee is happy to announce our annual celebration to be held June 18 and 19, 1999 We had an excellent parade last year and anticipate the 1999 parade to be even bigger and better. The Mohawk Jaycees of Westonka and the Northwest Tonka Lions are co-sponsoring the celebration this year and we are looking forward to a great weekend. We would like to invite you to join us on Saturday June 19 at 10:00 am to participate in the parade with your float, band, car, or other parade unit. Please fill out the enclosed Parade Registration Form, sign it, and return it to us by May 1. If you do plan to take part in this year's parade, we will send a follow-up letter with a map of how to get to Mound, our staging area, staging time and other pertinent information. If you haVe any questions, or know of others that might want to participate in the parade, please call us. The more, the merrier. We are looking forward to having you join us. Sincerely, Mike Sorensen - Parade Chair Everett Fischer Lorrie Ham Kim Sorensen Co-chairs MOUND CITY DAYS CELEBRATION PARADE REGISTRATION FORM JUNE 19, 1999 PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY AND COMPLETE ALL ITEMS GROUP/COMPANY REPRESENTED: ADDRESS: PHONE#: CONTACT PERSON NAME: ADDRESS: CITY & ZIP: PHONE# (HOME) ovom ) DESCRIBE PARADE UNIT W/DETAIL (attach separate sheet if needed - for television coverage): RELEASE OF LIABILITY: In consideration of the right to participate, I, and any others with me hereby release the Mound City Days Celebration Committee, the City of Mound and their employees or agents or any others from any kno;vn or unlmoxvn damages, injuries, losses, judgements and/or claims from any cause or factor involved. Further, eac~ entrant expressly agrees to indemnify all of the foregoing entities, persons and bodies from any and all liabilities resulti~ from the conduct of entrants, spectators, or any participant assisting or cooperating with entrant and under direction or control of entrant or control of entrant. ' OPERATION: The Mound City Day's Celebration Committee, the City of Mound and their employees or agents reserve the right to restrict entrants to acceptable behavior during any and all activities. Violation of behavior deemed unacceptable by any hosting bodies will subject individual to removal. SIGNATURE: DATE: PLEASE FOLD FORxM ON DOTTED LINES SO ADDRESS FACES OUTWARD, STAPLE/TAPE SHUT, AFFIX POSTAGE AND RETURN. MIKE SORENSEN, PAIL4DE CHAIR2~IAN 4437 RADNOR ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 Jim and Mary Albrecht 4701 Aberdeen Road Motmd, MN ~304 g12.472.1571 April 12, 1999 Mayor Meisel City of Mound Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Meisel: Last year on June 6th we paid $150.00 for dock fees. We didn't put our dock up in June because there was some discrepancy about the trees down by the commons. The City of Mound didn't cash our check in June because of the tree issue. Then when the tree issue got resolved we were told we had to pay a penalty before putting our dock up, which we paid when wc were notified on August 12th. Then, again we did not install our dock because at that time one of the docks next to ours would have had to be moved. So, in order to oblige everyone, Greg Knutson, at a council meeting (we were in the Black Hills on vacation at that time) said that the Albrecht's wouldn't put their dock up and make the neighbor move his, but we would like our dock fees applied to 1999. This year we again paid the dock fees. Then we were going to put our dock in on April 2ha, so we rented all the equipment from A-1 rental and Mr. Mack suggested we wait and talk to the City of Monday, because Mr. Mack had called a meeting for Monday morning. So in order not to cause may problems, we said fine. Jim Albrecht had to work on Monday morning so our br0ther-in-law met with Mr. Mack and the City of Mound dock representatives. We were going to put a U shaped dock in, but decided to cut back to an L shaped dock in order to please the homcowners. Then on Friday, April 9th Jim Albrecht talked to Jim Fackler to reconfirm that we follow the fence line to the shore and then run the dock perpendicular to the shoreline. On Saturday, we again rented equipment fi.om A-1 rental and got approximately 32 feet done by 10:00 a.m. and then Mr. Smith disputed whether or not we were putting our dock perpendicular to shoreline. That we should follow straight out from fence line. We are aiming just to the left of the red bridge. Again we stopped to accommodate the homeowner, but again had to take all rental equipment back and will have to rent it once again. That's three times we will have had to pay for rental equipment for dock. We would like to have the City come out and put stakes in where we should start our dock and then perhaps they could put in writing that our dock should be just to lett of red bridge, or pointing at yellow house across lake or pink house or whatever. The dock fees were paid on June 6th per attached copy. We would like our dock fees for 1998 returned. I did fax copies of our two checks from 1998 to Jim Fackler on February 16 and then I spoke briefly with him regarding these checks, Yours truly, Jim and Mary Albrecht JAMES O. OR MARY R. ALBRECHT t' 4701 ABERDEEN RD. PH. 472-1571 3514895411 [=i MOUND MN 55364 " I'AY 'fO TI IE ~ ~ ~ ~ Notwest Bank Minnesola, N.A. ~ ~ ~:O~OOO0~q~: ~5~h~Sh~,'OB/~B ,,'OOOOO~SOOO,,' ' 09 I00~019 JAMES O. OR MARY R ALBRECHT ~0'150 4701 ABERDEEN RD. PH~ 472H571 35148954t1 MOUND, MN 55364 i)^'1'1~. PAY'ltl I'11~ ' ~ ~ ~ Mmnea~l~s, MN 55406 I:O~ ~OOOO ~: ~S ~h~Sh ~,'O~?S ,"OOOOOO ?DOD," 09 ! 0000 i 9 E,~IqK, N.tCl. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999 '1.12 APPROVAL OF 1999 DOCK lOCATION MAP. The DCAC held a public hearing in on November 19, 1998, for the 1999 Dock Location Map. Their recommendation is as follo:vs: Dock Inspector McCaffrey presented the 1999 dock location map changes as detailed in his November 10, 1998 memorandum. In summary, the recommendation is to remove docksites//00030, g00115, //00155, //60785, //60825 and//61070, to add docksite//32750 (replaces//32775), change docksite//32760 to//32710, and add multiple docksite//42800 sites A through J and remove docksite //42821, //42856, //42871, //42901, and //42990. In addition, Hanus brought up an issue that was raised last summer, a request from Mark Smith on Island View Drive. Mr. Smith discovered last year that his dock was not centered in his dock location. He is now asking to have a new number assigned to his dock where it currently is located and has been for many years. The dock is located next to a light pole that has underground wiring. He would like a new number assigned to his current location. Because of that small shift, it would also require the next dock (the Albrecht dock) to the east to be shifted. Albrecht leased the site last year, but never put in a dock. This would allow Smith to be where he has always been. It v-:ould also allow him to use the light pole. Hanus stated it wouldn't deprive anyone of anything. It is very flat and accessible along there. Smith currently has two water spaces in front of his house and will continue to have two water spaces. Hanus stated that nothing is really changing and it is a valid and honest request. Smith requested this about 6 or 7 months ago and the City still hasn't taken any action on it. The neighborhood was going to get together before winter and try to come to a consensus. There has not even been a meeting on it. Staff has not resolved the issue. Hanus stated' it is time to set the dock location map and he suggested this change be made as well, to clean up the area. Councilmember Hanus suggested the following: Move the Smith site (Dock//41866) to//41842 and then moving the next dock site to the east, which is currently//41824 up to//41790. This would also complete the pattern that's in the neighborhood, where you have the abutter docks, more or less toward the cemer of their lots and the inland docks that are in there tend to be closer to the lot lines. It spreads them out a little more evenly and it's less intrusion on the people that are there because the neighbors that are coming into the neighborhood are more toward your lot lines rather than down toward the center of your lot. MOTION made by Hanus to approve the 1999 dock location map as recommended by the DCAC; moving the Smith site (Dock//41866) to//41842 and then moving the next dock site to tlte east., which is currently//41824 up to//41790; and directing Staff to resolve this by thc first Council Meeting in February,( February 9). If the affected people come up with another alternative that they can reach agreement on, that would be acceptable. 9 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 Councilmember Weycker stated that the last time this was before the Council, it was decided that that neighborhood would get together and work this out. She stated that notices did go out in their dock packets encouraging them to get together with Staff and work this problem out. Brown seconded the motion. Hanus stated that this was to be taken care of before winter. Last Fall at a DCAC Meeting when it was discussed, he told the Park Director to do it then. He stated it is merely shifting 2 docks over a few feet. Weycker disagreed and encouraged the Council to delay action on shifting these particular docks until the neighborhood is notified of the possible shift and a meeting with them can be arranged. Hanus does not feel the neighborhood will be able to reach an agreement and that is why he is proposing this shift. He stated it will only affect the two docks in front of Mr. Smith's home. The Mayor stated she would rather see Staff work with these people and reach an agreement. Councilmember Ahrens stated that Mr. Smith has two dock locations in front of his house. The Park Director sent letters to 12 people asking them to agree on where the docks should be located in front of Mr. Smith's home. She did not feel this was appropriate. Brown suggested the Council go ahead and approve the motion as presented on the condition that Staff speaks to the two people involved and if they have no legitimate objections to moving the two docks, it will be resolved. The City Manager suggested giving these people some time to respond to Staff since the letters just went out in their dock packets. The Mayor stated she would like to see the neighborhood notified before a decision is made. The Council discussed moving ahead with the proposed motion. Having Staff notify the affected people and if the neighborhood comes up with a different solution, it can be changed. Councilmember Weycker did not agree. A vote on the motion was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. 10 MINUTE8 - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 1.10 P,H~RT FROM JANUARY 30. 1999 ~G OF ~ENTS FROM THE DEVON COMMON AT ROANOKE ACCESS RE: IX)CK PLA~. Park Director, Jan Fackler, reported that a meeting of the ndghlx~rh(~ (appro~y 12 persons) was held on January 30, 1999. He sl~3~ved an overhead of the plan that was approved at the January 12th Council Meeting, nofng lhat these an; approximale center locations of the docks as lhey exist now. He explained that the dock spaces are detennimd by dividing halflhe limal foolage m either side of the dock. These may beoff a little bit. He lhen showed an oveflead that was an alternative plan put together by some of the individ~h in lhe area as a result of lhe January 30~h ndghlxatx~ meeting. This altermte plan did not differ too much fix)m what was approved in January. Slaff was ~ go out and then mark ~ six~. This was done on Febmary 3rd. The orange markers showed the approved plan. The blue markers showed the alternative plan from the January slaff mIxxviskm to utili?e tlx/r doclc space. In other words, their dock may. not fit spedfx:a~y in one area within their dock spare. They may move it over _bec~__t;se of tqxlw4xhy; size of Ixm; or design of the dock. Faclder noted Ih,at on both th~ approv~ and allermte plan, Albrecht and Smith would change dock locations wilh each other. Fw.&ler stal~rl that they looked at lhis as to how it would affect the docks, fflhereisnoOtxx lt~tt line), each dock would stay in the current spotitis, at lhistime. They would still bewilhin lhdr water space. The Caz~ d~k is about 9 to 11 feet east ofwhere it is shown on the approved map, which puts it on the Comnx~ in front of the Ahrem ~. Therewas diso~on on rnm~ag wiflfinaperson's water space. The Park INtex~ poinled out fl~ this is at the discretion of the Dock Ir~xtor. Slaff liles 1~ have these issues brought in and dealt with before become a problem with anotl~' ckx:k site holder in lhe area. If there is not clear justification to move wilhin Peq)le normally want to work this out and not infringe on someone else's water space. much the same but the dis~:e between the docks is changed. He pointed out ~ the nonabutling dock slay on lhe lot lines as lhey have been. He poinled out the following differences in the aptxov~ plan, lhe allema~ plan and the a~__~! 1995-1998 location map: . 108 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 Approved 1999 plan - 48 f~t o~ the w~t s/de and 66 f~t o~ ~ east s/d~ = 114 f~t. 1995-1998 map - 48 fcet on the wcst s/de and 42 feet on thc cast side = 90feet. SMHH DOCK SHE//41842: ~ed 1999 plan - 66 fce~ on the west side and 52 fcct on fl~ east side = 118 feet 1995-1998 map - 42 feet on the west side and 74 feet on the east side = ll6feeC ~ed 1999 plan - 52 feet on the west side and 40 feet on the east side = 92 feet. 1995-1998 map - 42 feet on the west side and 42 feet on the east side = 84feet Dock was not in lastyear. CASEY DOCK STIE g420~ ~ber Brown pointed out that beca~of~y ff~e Ca~ dockis ac~__~3y 11 feet east of where it is shown o~ the 1999 appn~ plan, which then gives Mr. Harrington 55 feet on the east side of his dock and leaves Ahrem with 37 t%et on the west side of their dock. Ahrens would stay where Ihey have been. He asked if this ham't been a problem before, why is the altema~ propoml to move 7 docks? 109 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 just that he gets a dock spot that he can use. She asked if there was an open ~ at ~roke Park for the S~ dock. The Park Director did not k~w ff there ~ a ~ m Pembrol~ Parle he does not lax)w at lifts poir t, if ahem is an availahle site at Pembroke. Pat Harfington, 4687 Island 'View Drive. He aslaxl if he could present his plan. The Mayor slated he could n~t unill this discttssion was over. loohxl inlo wtxxe Smith's do~ was and delmnired lhat it was 4.6 feet inlo Albrex:ht, s dock space. Thru Mr. MINUTES - MOUND CIT~ COUNC~ - FEBRUARY ~, 1~ Mr. Smilh agreed wilh lhe pl~n ap[noved m January 12th _beck__ me he felt it was reasonable. He fdt lhe allemale plan would just aggravate an ahmdy lense situation and make it worse. He commented Ih,at is ~ is unha~ on comnx~, they r~uld go by private lakest~. Pat Harringt~, 4687 t4and ~£~wv Drive,(new resident in June) presented the following plan and asked that the Council give the people a permanent solution. "Hardngtons' position on dock locations from footage 41437 through 42129 (January 12, 1999 dock location n~) 42043 (Sdunidt) - Centaaxt at fire lane centerline 41956 (Casey) Cen~ at property line 41790 (Albrecht) - 41477 (s~.O - No ~ consid~on f~ multiple docks betwem 41437 and 42129 foo~ges." Island, the sand ~ goes directly toward the bridge, not toward the Mack propea'ty. Harfington ~ ~ ~ u~ ~ p~, m ~ ~d ~ve ~ ~. They would all stay where It~ are except for Casey who could move eilher way to avoid having t~ deal wilh the trees if she was on center. He He would like to see a lock or the number of clocks and fix:ir lo:at~ that go fia~n Forester all the way to Smith on lhe other ~4de of the Roar~)he firelane. Hanus smxt that has alre~_ _ y been dme and the number is 14 from Brown sugges~l liaat if and wt~ a plan is adopt, Ii, at a survey be done and ~t posifims for tlaese docks be detenninefl so this doesn't oome up again. 111 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 ~line? He asked if t~'e was going to be some sort of limi~n lo the dock itmlf. He s~ that he knows ~ ~t ~ is going to be an H dock. Casey's dock is a straight one. ~ docks would be fetter in fi'ont ofparks and open space rafl~ tim in front ofpeq~'s homes. She aslaxl ifa ~ ~ ~k~ ~ for ~ ~ J'un Albrecht, 4701 Aberdeen Road, slated he just wants a dock. He relate! his saga of trying to get oae last year. He ~__~J he wants lc get al~g with all the ~ He paid for a docklast year and did _rec~__'_veit but, tx~uldn't put a dock in v~ ~hout forcing ~ people to move which he didn't feel was fair so he didn't put the dock fee lhis year. He ha~ already paid his dock fee lhis year and would like ~ know if he was getting the she is forced onto a lot line b_ _-canoe the access is not good. She woukl want to be able Io shift ff mceasary as 112 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY The City Attorney sugges~ that if the only issue is lie Casey dock, maybe lhat should be dealt wi~ ~ ofcomingupwithadefinitic~tofccnter. ~ber Weycl~ was also ~ about the Albrecht and Stead dock. Mack vdced concern about the Albrecht dock bec~__j_t~ it is an H shaped dock and that will infringe on Mack's water spa~. Frank Ahrem slaled this has always been a problem, when you lalk about cenlefing docks, _beco__use what do you rneanbycmtering? It's not 'M~exe the dock mee~ the land and saying liaat's the ceater. If a straight dock is put out it's not a problem b~t a U, H or Ldock, can cause a problem when you lalkabout centering. His urders~nding is that you have to slay in your water ~ ~ess of what the sh~ is. He felt center ~ Mr. Schmidt objecaxi bemt~e it is congested at his end and all the docks converge and he ck)es not have a sWaight dock by choice. He pointed out ~t lhere h a ~e in the ahord~ and all ~e docks come togeaher. That is why he was in favor of Mr. Knutson's plan, _be~__j_t~ it gave everyone a little more room at his end. adjust for things like light poles, water pumps, etc. He would like to see lhe neigh~ get along and bury 113 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 4roS~ (Casey) - Cam~ at W~perty 41'P)O~ - " "" . 41477 ~ - " "" . No ~ amsid~ for mulliple docks I~twem 41437 and 42129 f~" bet',,'cmFo~es~r Kudm. Weychr~flae~. W~~~a~~m~~~~~~by Bro'~m ~ that Casey would stay where she h at 11 feet cast of Ahrcns property linc. s611 h~ her w~mr sp~. Fm~Ahrcm s~d li~ was O. tL with him and his dockis ~ying whereit has bom for 23 years. The Casey dock #41956 would remain where it is. Albrecht h on the The ParkDircO~ no~thatMr. Mack brought up a problem that he will have. I-~ dock h k~___~ to ~ west of his ccn~ be~_,_,~ of trees, if An~-ccht goes in at (417~0). You am ~e two 20 feet spaces and butt them right up next Io each offer. infri~ on his walgr space. Mack did not agree bem,_,~ of lhe trees and fl~e MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCI~ - FEBRUARY 9, 19~ rightoff~'spoinL It is a line that runs off shore fl~at ahows minimum 10 foot or less fi'om tt~at point in, but it runs the whole shoreline from ii,at point all the wa) ovex I~ lhe ~ it doesn't show any ob~cfiom, according to the Sheriff's De C Fmflc Ahrens slated It~ ~ to his copies of the Dock Ixx:ali~ Map and he remembers thewhole ~iss~in 1977. The area with nodtrks was really betvn:en 41650 ~) dock sile and 41477 ~ S~ dock site). The City A~ suggested consi~ an ~t which would lom___~ abe Alb:echt dwJc on fine extmskm of the ~ line between the M,~Smilh property pro~4defl ~ it is posa~ble to shitt the Mack dock ,4ightly to the east. In ~ event fl~at Jam~'y 12, 1999, approved Dock Locaficm Map which would ~ it slightly west of the Mack/Smi~ ~ line. 1Vax:k ~ted he wants to stay where he has been for 11 years and does not want to mose easterly. 11 feet mst oflhat rronummL I-Ie asked if this was O.K. with Casey and Ahrm~ 115 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 brought up at the l~mary 30th Meeting or she would have calkd this ~o evexyt~'s att~tion. She staedthat no one really wanls to ~l it like it is. Shesta~ fl~atMr. Mackhasag0 footlotand hedoes not want any nmatmttets wamr space in front of his htx~. it fi'om a water de~ standlx~t so as to allow the Albrecht dock Io ~ loco~____ted as close to the ~ line as pos~'ble? W~$ that part of the mo6on? Weycker ~t~ she had accep~ that as ff~e seconder Brown s~ed that fix: way it goes is the way he smxl it. if a ndghbor needs help with something, we'H work it ~t with him." Oty Attm~. "I 6~'t disagree with lhat. My onlyamaxn, Councilmember Brown, was lbzt based on ~&at I was hearing, it may be lhat locating lhe Albre~t dock on lhe ~ at tie location where it is cun'ently ~t~ to be." City Attorney. "But then lie argurmnt is 1t~ he cannot move to the east _bec~_n~ of water problems." the closer into shore ff~e shallow area gets andby the time you get to the lot linc, it's veen shor~ yet. In all fl~e evkience I've seen, it would indicate absolutely ~ opposite.' Hanus. "I have a ca~ple ofqucsliom lo ask hhc maker ofthc motion. First of all, I have to know what the difference is between this plan and whaf s already in place? That's the first thing. Brown. "Well, this il,an ptas Mr. Albrecht on fl~e lot line for c~e itgng." Brown. "I look 417¢0 tO be just off file lot line." IIanus. "By what criteria? Don't go by w~ ~ l~ is drawn, becausethat'snaaccumte." 116 117 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 "I think it's i~ The intmt is to have it cm the lotline, right?. That was the intent of ahe nt~0a Jmuary 12th and we w~re using num~ that we lad from Staff that if you addgl line. Maybe. we'rejustdi~gveeing ovcr wha~ the number is?" "Actually, I think the disageenxmt came when the slakes got set They said it's not qui~ on fl~e lot line. Is hhat ctnre~ Mr Mack?." TheSlaffis all over witixin 15 feet so l don't know ifl can tmst these numbers." that would be my plan. Have Jolm Camer~ go ~ a~ survey these spots so ltaat tt:ey come out on these lines and lhat's whexe it ~ ~." "To define ccntefing. Ynn, I think, ~ed it better. Due lo dock formafion. You know, aTor H. "Do we ha~e that written yet or not? Butyour planning onpa~,4ng themotion, so twoweeks ffom now l~df of the lxx~ple sitfing here will be back ~ abo~ I don't know which like the defiaition. It's not good to pass a motion ..... or pass a resolution or a motion not Weycker. "J'mt did say it. Can you repeat it fun?" "Wlere I a&lmssed the totx)graphy? I think I did lKat in my nen~ a little bit, last par~gra~, page l. Where I said, '. .... as long as the si~e holder is allowed to adjust thc ;zx:ess point due to dock crnfftgtmation, boat size or ~y.'" Weycker. "That's good." Hanus. "And that's '~y whose interpretation, the individual?" "Nc,, basically, it's at lhe discretion of the Dock Inslxclor." Hanus. "And so it vAll be back here. WeknowthaL They'llappeal. It's lhe same old lhing. It's going to be Imclc" Weycker. "Well, I lhink it's better ~ ~ ar~ Mr. ~ said it best, I guess it's a co~xnon semeiaste, ffyoucan'tputyour dock _beck_ -~there'salreethere, it should be ¢ommoll seflseo" MINfflES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 "But that's ray point. ThisisO.K. Idon'thaveamajor~lemwilhit. Ihaveamajor problem with anolher ~ of that motion. We'll ge~ into that in a minule. I don't have a problem, ~rmlly, wi~ what Mr. Han'ingt~'s prolroxt either but, it's no~ the penmnmt we didn't ck,~me firings right or we didn't. .... It's never ending and I don't see this oxling "I d0n't have a problem with it but, I ~inkMark said it best. Oneyear it's 15 fee~ one way and next year it's 15 feet the oSer way. I would like to see it surveyed. If weYe going to go of U~ lot lines. I want to know Mere my lot lines are so it's not be,~lking that are nonabuUers ..... ?" "Most of ltx~e ~cs have curr~t modem surveys on them and most of these ~ have proper.y irons at their comcxs. We don't have to survey it. They're already there. Maybe we need to identify them but, I'm not crazy atx~t spending the money to go out and survey. Hers many prol~r~ do we have here?" Comrrent from the audieme about how much mo~j lhere is in ge Dock Fund. "That's no excuse to go out and throw the moray away, dger. The point is, we have the irons out there. We don't have to resurvey. We've got bonded, licensed surveyors Ih,at have done it alrea:ly. Why do it again? We just need to find out where those points are. " "I've been over Ibis area a few times in the last few mon~ and I know where a number of the .... I know where the Knutson/Smi~h is, ff~at comer. I know where bo~sidesoftheHarringt~n'sis. I know the access points. I've found ffese many tinxs over lhe last year or two. IknowlheAhren's. IknowtheSmilh's." beenmoved. Ican'tverifyflqat. A surveyor will verify lhat but, I can probably get 90% of the stakes that are out there." 118 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 idea oflod~g it in for 1 year, 2 years0t5 years. The ~ stxxfld be aware fl~at if we do usin. If we want to go in and change some~ing, we go in and change ~ and to pass a motion that says we're not going to, doesn't st~ us fi'om ddng it. So I lhink it's not good practice~do~t. The intent is fine. Theintmtis goodbut, the result won't be there. It doesn't lock us in and I don't want to suggest ~ anyone sitting out here lhat it would, beta_ n~e it won't." Meisd. "That's a ~try tho~t, Mark." Hanus. "Well it's tree though. Meisd. "I think Bob, you came up wifl~ the two years strictly I:~cause this ~ wouldn't be dmngjng fen' two years." "Yeah, and [~ that. I'mlookingatother~ ~ as darmge to an area, atree fl~at goes down. Son~ fl~at o,t~es yoa to notbe able to use that sile and we're locked in. Are you folks willing, if that happem to your site, are you willing to lose your site? A lock in is a true l~x:k in or are you ~tlking about a fleya'ble lock in? "A ,nlarnity of ~__mre, I think would bring it hack for disots_4on and we would have to nMsit that. Just like the slorm did last ~, but laldng the aggravation lhat we kn~now, Ithink allowing this togo forward with reasonable care and saythatwe City AUorney. reqtdre that 4 City ~bers vote to dmge the policy. Typically, fiat's what you see on lock-ins like this." City Attorney. that ad5th's vae. Hanus. "So there's no lock-in. But the criteria to make a change is a 4/51h's vote? City Attoney. "Jt~t four membersoflheCotn~, tovotein that si,_n_fion. But it would, of course, apply in si_,~Oom like that, as well. As you IXOhably know, four ~ voting the same way is a diffioalt sihmfion." · 119 MIN[]TES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 "I just aslaxi if there's ~ in the~ that. ..... These are 1~ folks that have Olive wi~hitfor .....O.K. Two years and a 4/5's vo~ lo change anything. Are the people in agreenmt?" Hanus cM not ~doe fl~e 4~5tbs vote to reqffned to make a ~. The City Attorney ~ o~a that there are 4 people voting. That's 4/5tbs. "I fldnk a sinl:~ way bemme the mofi~ is so involved and ~ I w{;dd be w~g to wifl~aw my secad. Aplrove fl~ 1999 plam" Ihnus. "You don't have ~o do that. That's akcady there." "A~4 no mrmer ¢msiteration for mu~ie d~ks. Add ~ st~es mt to e~ed four. Add, mt the lock-in but, the I year or 2 yems and s 4/Sth's vote to Weyck~, '~ what I just said e~uid be a motion? I)id y~u want to ammd wt~ I move&" The Weyci~ m~tion ~ fir lack d a second. Brown s~d his maion %,ain. And a me )~ar krk-in, with 4/Sth's d~he Omc/v~ing to chan~ it. 120 . · MINrJTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 C~mo~ Weycker ax,~iod Brown's nmliom 'Ihe v~te on the motian was 3 in fava' w~h Hanus v~ing nay. ~ carried. director slated he would have to look that up. He tho~t it was ~nefin~ in early August. staled lt~ maybe we shoul~'t have been renting it anyway, if you couldn't put it lhere. The Park Directtf explained lhat Mr. Albrecht was aware of what was there. This was reviewed ~l~e v~te was 2 in favor wilh Har~ ~ ~ v~ my. Motion fa~ The~ advised that if Mr. Albrecht disagreed, he should submit a letler outlining the facts as he sees them CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven.com RECEIVED - § 1999 JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 entail: jstrommen(~kennedy-graven.com TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM St~ City Managers/Administrators/D/rectors/Alternates Jim Strommen April 6, 1999 Notice of SRA Quarterly Meeting The quarterly meeting of the Suburban Rate Authority will be held on April 21, 1999, beginning at 4:00 p.m. at the Roseville Skating Center, City of Roseville Parks and Recreation, 2661 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, Minnesota. (See map attached). There are several important issues on the agenda including area code, right-of-way roles and undergrounding updates. The proposed year 2000 budget will also to discussed and recommended for approval in July. Please RSVP by calling Shannon Stang at 612-337-9279 or emailing her at sstang@kennedy- graven.com. We value your attendance. JMS-160841 5U160-3 DIRECTIONS TO THE ROSEVILLE ICE ARENA From Minneapolis: Take 35W north to Highway 36, Highway 36 east to Snelling, north on Snelling to County Road "C", right on County Road "C" to Civic Center Drive(3/4 mile). Left on Civic Center Drive. From St. Paul: Take 35E north to Highway 36, Highway 36 west to Lexington Ave, north on Lexington Ave to County Road "C", left on County Road "C" to Civic Center Drive. Right on Civic Center Drive. ~ WOODHll 1_ DR ~ I COUNTY RD Il 2 HIGIiWAY ©1992 Twin Cities Arena Guide Roseville Skating Center City of Roseville Parks and Recreation 2661 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 (651)415-2160 c Ke edy tven H A R T E R E 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven.com TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM SPA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates Jim Strommen April 6, 1999 ROW Rulemaking--Model ROW Ordinance JAMES M. STROMMEN Attomey at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 email: jstrommen~ken nedy-graven.com (MEMO #1) The PUC has made a final decision to adopt rules governing standards for ROW users. (Rules available upon request, jstrommen~kennedy-graven.com). The rules will become effective approximately May 1, 1999. The PUC has maintained its broad jurisdiction over right-of-way standards for telecommunications, gas, electric and cable users (as well as municipal utility ROW use). This means that the ROW management by cities will be subject to review by the PUC more extensively than in the past. The rules themselves, however, have been well received by cities and do not represent significant reductions in traditional municipal ROW authority in gas, electric and cable. The rules greatly expand municipal ROW authority in telecommunications, due to the repeal of an early statute, under which the US West v. City of Redwood Falls case was decided. On balance, there is much greater certainty and authority given to cities in right-of-way ROW management over certain entities such as telecommunications carriers. Cities have lost some of the local autonomy that has been associated with ROW management. MODEL ROW ORDINANCE By the time of the April 21, 1999, quarterly meeting, I will have met with League of Cities representatives to update the model ordinance to reflect the rules. By that time or shortly thereafter, a proposed comprehensive ordinance will be available for adoption by cities. JMS-160872 SU160-3 Ken,n c H A R T E R E D 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven.com TO: FROM: MEMORANDUM SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates Jim Strommen JAMES M. STROMMEN Anomey at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 email: jstrommen~kennedy-graven.com (MEMO #2) DATE: April 6, 1999 RE: Area Code Update Attached is the text of the memorandum emailed or otherwise sent to SRA delegates following the PUC's decision to approve a split of the western Minneapolis suburbs along municipal boundaries parallel to 1-394, subject to approval from the numbering plan administrator for an additional number. The PUC order should be issued this week. The anticipated date of the Numbering Plan Administrator's decision to grant Minnesota the additional area code number is the week of April 26, 1999. JMS-160874 SU 160-3 JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 email: j strommen @ kennedv-£raven.com MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: SRA Delegates/Alternates/City Managers/City Administrators Jim Strommen April 6, 1999 612 Area Code Decision As you have read in the newspapers, on March 22, 1999, the PUC met and decided the next phase of issues relating to the 612 area code. The PUC's ultimate decision under the facts presented at the hearing followed the SRA's stated position, namely to maintain municipal boundaries in a geographic split and not to adopt the overlay proposal. The SRA decided not to take a position on which region should keep 612. It was clear from the number exhaustion evidence, however, that the suburbs would not be able to keep 612, plus the 612 wireless numbers. Suburbs would have faced another split in approximately three years, dividing the suburbs again between 612 and a new number. This would have violated FCC guidelines for exhaust periods. Having concluded that the suburbs must receive 952, a new development at the hearing was the issue of establishing three rather than two area codes. Driving that issue was the continual updating of exhaust periods resulting in a determination that a two area code split (Minneapolis and suburbs) would not give enough assurance that a further split would not be necessary in the near future. As a result of this development, the PUC has tentatively decided to divide the western suburbs along the municipal boundaries along 1-394 highway. The PUC inquired of me regarding the SRA's position on two rather than one code in the western suburbs. I could not represent that an 1-394 dividing point was the SRA position because it had not been presented to the SRA. I suggested to the PUC, however, that this geographical split of the western suburbs made sense as a natural division approximately in the middle of the western Minneapolis suburbs. JMS-153048 KG400- i SRA Delegates/Alternates/City Managers/City Administrators April 6, 1999 Page 2 Following is additional information about the decision you or your council may find helpful in explaining to interested residents. GEOGRAPHIC SPLIT VERSUS OVERLAY I have spoken with many of you regarding your positions and the position of your councils regarding these two models. You have uniformly supported the geographic split along municipal boundaries. The PUC continues to accept that position, rejecting wire center boundaries as dividing committees and arbitrary from a customer standpoint in a heavily populated area. The issue with the PUC is whether the overlay is a better long-term solution. The arguments that people still value geographic identity; seven-digit dialing within their local area and want to avoid the increasing confusion of overlays still prevailed (by a 3 to 2 margin). The overlay argument was stronger this time because the telecom competitors generally, but not completely, endorse the overlay. 612 VERSUS 952 The SRA maintained its position that 612 should stay with that area where it makes the most sense from an exhaust and policy standpoint. The split as originally proposed, keeping 612 in the western suburbs, would not have worked because of the exhaust problem. In other words, if the suburbs had kept 612 and Minneapolis had been assigned 952, the projections show that within two to three years the PUC would be forced to make a decision again of splitting the 612 between North and South suburbs. The exhaustion balance in keeping the 612 with Minneapolis worked much better. Also, the heavy concentration of large businesses and the fact that Minneapolis is the Twin Cities center in many ways probably influenced the PUC. TWO-WAY VERSUS THREE-WAY SPLIT The SRA had been polled on the overlay versus a two way split. There had been no proposal for a three way split and, therefore, no boundaries to which the SRA could react. At the hearing, the PUC asked me regarding an SRA position for a three way split. I had been able to contact a couple of SRA representatives in potentially affected communities (over the noon hour). I indicated that while I could not represent an SRA position because it had not been discussed, the position of the SRA would logically remain with municipal boundary splits whether exhaustion needs required one or two area codes in the suburbs. The reaction I had received from the SRA delegates with whom I had spoken over the noon hour were consistent with that position, no to the overlay and yes to municipal boundaries whether there would be one or two area codes. The long-term benefit of two area codes in the western Minneapolis suburbs is the near certainty or at least high probability that no further splits will be necessary. The location of the split was also put to me by the PUC. Based on a mid-way geographic point, some division of commerce and the "natural" 1-394 divider, I suggested that may be an appropriate location along municipal boundaries. JMS-160211 SUI60-31 SRA Delegates/Alternates/City Managers/City Administrators April 6, 1999 Page 3 The PUC has tentatively adopted that split, subject to the Numbering Plan Administrator granting a PUC request for two rather than one area code number. We already have the 952; the PUC would need to obtain an additional number. The plan would be that the two new area code numbers would then be applied simultaneously to the two new area codes. Therefore, people would only be required to make the change once. A certain amount of seven-digit dialing would remain, many communities of interest would remain and the overlay addition of new area codes would not occur. COST US West strongly opposed a geographic split along municipal boundaries, in part because of the added cost of making the divisions. US West, however, was able to execute it in Phase I without much difficulty. It does not appear that it will pass on the cost of the Phase I split to ratepayers. A double split in Phase II is estimated by US West to be a much higher c6st (approximately $6 million for Phase I versus $20 million for Phase II). The PUC asked me whether our position was dependent on the ratepayers not being required to bear some or all of the cost of this split. I indicated that this was a policy-based decision and was not driven by whether or not ratepayers would be assessed at a later time for these costs. I stated that there is an argument that US West has waived its right to recover costs for these area code splits under its Alternative Form of Regulation. The SRA reserved its right to make those arguments. Yet, if the PUC allows these costs to be assessed against ratepayers, as many costs incurred by the utilities are, the SRA is aware of this possibility and would not change its position on that basis. SUMMARY It is clear, though not reflected at all in newspaper accounts, that the SRA position regarding geographic splits along municipal boundaries was again a primary driving force to the DPS and ultimate PUC decision. The multiple splits made necessary because of number exhaustion, however, make this a more expensive process. Further, the new area codes will be an adjustment to people living in the suburban area--a one-time adjustment. I emphasized to the PUC the public policy priority taken by the SRA cities and their willingness to stand by this policy position, notwithstanding potential criticism from residents and businesses that must change their number. The easy appeal of the overlay is to keep the existing number and give the new numbers to the "new guy" later on. Yet, the overlay has the increased confusion factor of new codes within another area code, as well as the tendency to divide by time. The decision described above is subject to the Number Plan Administrator giving the PUC the two numbers it requests. If that request is denied, the PUC will have to reconvene. The SRA can also expect that US West will petition the PUC to change its position and adopt the overlay. JMS-160211 SU160-31 SRA Delegates/Alternates/City Managers/City Administrators April 6, 1999 Page 4 Please contact me by email with any information you hear or thoughts you have on the matter at jstrommen @kennedy-graven.com. Thank you for your input. The SRA has had a very influential role in the PUC's decision in this difficult area code matter. The Twin Cities remain the only metro area in the United States using municipal boundaries to divide area codes. The SRA can take credit for this, with great technical assistance from the DPS. JMS-16021 I SU160-31 Ken..nedy H A R T E R E D 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven.com TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates Jim Strommen April 7, 19996, 1999 PUC Case Cost Allocations JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 email: jstrornmen@kennedy-graven.corn (MEMO #3) This issue is a follow-up to an authorization I received at the October meeting to comment on the imposition of potential cost to the SPA for participation in certain proceedings before the PUC under a vaguely worded new statute. See, Minn. Stat. 237.295. Shortly after the annual meeting, the PUC met regarding its cost of over $150,000 for the ROW mlemaking proceeding. The PUC took the position that the local government units and the industry should split the total cost 50/50. The theory was that each group participated equally and benefited equally from the process. I appeared on behalf of the SRA, along with the League of Cities representatives. We took the position that the statute does not apply to this rulemaking proceeding and if it applies at all, individual local government units were not "parties" to the proceeding, ordered by the legislature. Rather, the legislature should have allocated sufficient funds to cover the cost of this extensive proceeding. Further, the SPA is exempted from ever paying the PUC cost of a proceeding because it is a nonprofit organization established for the benefit of end users and local governments. The PUC was placed in the position of a bill collector of its own costs of proceedings (allocated staffand commissioner salary and out-of-pocket expenses). Recognizing the problems with collecting from local government units, it decided to defer any decision in the cost allocation until June 1, 1999. By that time, possible legislation in this session would allocate the remaining funds necessary to reimburse the PUC for the ROW rulemaking proceeding. The League of Cities has been working on passing such an appropriation. The remaining issue is whether cities themselves will be assessed costs for future PUC proceedings under this statute. It is clear that the ROW rulemaking has expanded PUC jurisdiction and the likelihood that cities will be brought before the PUC in a ROW dispute. The legislation at issue threatens to cause cities to pay a portion of the PUC cost of such a hearing. On behalf of the SRA, I objected to any such interpretation as bad public policy and as having a chilling effect on participation before the PUC in matters where participation is voluntary but possibly subject to assessment of costs. JMS-160876 SU160-3 C H A R T £ R E D 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-931o fax http:Hwww, kennedy-graven.corn TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates Jim Strommen April 6, 1999 Lost Margin Surcharges by NSP JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direc~ Dial (612) 337-9233 email: jstrommen~kennedy-graven.com (MEMO #4) Attached is a report by Bill Glahn of Dahlen Berg, which is representing the SRA in a proceeding before the PUC over recovery of alleged lost margins by electric and gas companies for conservation programs mandated by state law. The work of Mr. Glahn and Dahlen Berg has already bore fruit in causing NSP to voluntarily reduce its proposed resource adjustment charge going forward. NSP has reduced the percentage of a customer's electric charge attributed to the lost margin recovery, a direct reversal of its earlier position and nine million dollars less than the anticipated request and over two million dollars less per year for SRA member city electric customers. Dahlen Berg on behalf of large end users and the SRA, together with the Department of Public Service, have taken the position that the electric utilities particularly have not shown that lost margins result from participation in the conservation program. (See attached). JMS-160879 SU 160-3 D A h L E N ~ B E R 13 & I"~. n. April 7, 1999 James M. Strommen Attorney Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center 200 S. Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Mr. Strommen: I am writing to update you on our effort in the Demand Side Management (DSM) Lost Margins case before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC). In its latest filing on this issue, Northern States Power Company (NSP) has proposed to reduce its DSM surcharge (called the Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) adjustment rate) on ~lectricity. Savings to SRA Ratepayers Estimated at $2.5 Million in Next Year We estimate that this move will save ratepayers in SRA cities approximately $2.5 million in the next year, with much greater savings possible in following years. Final DSM Roundtable Meeting Held Since my last letter, dated March 8, 1999, the DSM Roundtable held its final meeting on March 12~. Although no issues were resolved at that meeting, two dates were set for the utilities to make additional filings: · On April 1, utilities made their annual filings on DSM efforts in the past calendar year and their proposed surcharges for the upcoming twelve-month period beginning in July. · On April 16, the utilities will file their plans for future recovery of lost margins and other DSM financial incentives. NSP Has Proposed a Surcharge Rate Reduction In its April 1't filing, NSP proposed to reduce (for the first time ever) its CIP surcharge rate. This reduction of the rate to 3.78 percent is the result of NSP's beginning to implement the first stage of its proposal to phase down (but not eliminate) recovery of lost margins. As you recall, we have been actively pursuing the elimination of lost margin recovery since May 1998. In April 1998, NSP projected that its CIP surcharge rate would increase to 4.22 percent for this upcoming year. The difference between NSP's original projection of 4.22 percent and its latest proposal of 3.78 percent represents annual savings of more than $9 million for NSP's ratepayers. As the ratepayers in SRA cities are estimated to represent approximately 25 to 30 percent of NSP's total customer base, SPA ratepayers would receive approximately $2.2 to 2.7 million in savings in the next year. Savings would increase in later years as NSP further implements its phase-down of lost margin recovery. 2 1 ,50 DAIN BOSWO~TH PLAZA ~UTH SIXTH STR£ETIMINNEAPOLIS, MINNESO?A 554~21PHON[ 6 ')~/349-6~)6i I J FAX 61 '~/349-61'; Mr. James Strommen April 7, 1999 Page 2 We Will Continue Pursuing This Issue Of course, we continue to advocate the complete elimination of lost margin recovery and we will continue pursuing this issue at the PUC. Please note that despite NSP's proposed rate reduction, the utility still claimed $26 million in 1998 lost margins, and it has been estimated that up to $175 million may be at stake over the next five years. If you have any questions, please call me at (612) 349-6868. Very truly yours, Dahlen, Berg & Co. William L. Glahn C RT£R 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven.com TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates Jim Strommen April 6, 1999 Electric Facilities Undergrounding JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 email: jstrommen~kennedy-graven.com (MEMO #5) Attached is a draft of an undergrounding ordinance that is a composite of other ordinances involving the municipal right to require undergrounding without payment by the city to the utility. It includes language from the Oakdale ordinance that was litigated in NSP v. City of Oakdale. It also includes a more extensive undergrounding if a city council decides that undergrounding of overhead lines is appropriate over a period of time, without being triggered by a public improvement project or other change initiated by the utility. Please note that the Oakdale decision confirms the power of municipalities to require undergrounding over city streets (not trunk highways) and not be required to pay for the additional incremental costs incurred by the utility. The utility, however, is able to recover its cost from the ratepayer and will seek the recovery from ratepayers who live in the city. This is subject to PUC approval. It is likely, however, that the PUC will approve a surcharge on the city, business and residential ratepayers. Cities have the opportunity to argue to the PUC that in particular circumstances the recovery should be spread at least partially over the entire ratebase. This ordinance is also drafted to conform to the model right-of-way ordinance. Please review and comment for discussion at the April meeting. JMS-160888 SU160-3 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates Jim Strommen March 16, 1999 Draft of Undergrounding Ordinance The following are some suggested ordinance provisions to address undergrounding rights available to cities under Minnesota law and in light of the NSP v. City of Oakdale decision, filed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on February 2, 1999 and not appealed by NSP. As a result of the Oakdale decision, cities may require undergrounding, of electric distribution lines either through the exercise of police power or franchise right. The case does not give authority to require undergrounding of the higher voltage transmission lines, and by implication in the enabling statute, Minnesota Statutes, Section 216B.36, would not be allowed under Minnesota law. Though the Oakdale case does not deal with telecommunication lines, the opinion and relevant statutory and case law would support the same right to require undergrounding under the city's police power. The Oakdale decision further holds that as an exercise of police power, the city need not reimburse the utility for the added cost of undergrounding. The utility must comply and bear the cost of compliance. The utility may seek recovery of the cost from the ratepayers through the tariffs or some other form approved by the Public Utilities Commission. The language suggested below covers undergrounding in three distinct contexts: new lines for new development; utility or city projects causing the need for facility repair or relocation; and a plan to underground all utility lines over a period of time. The right to require all facilities to be underground by a reasonable date certain appears supportable under Oakdale. Cities have a restricted right to require undergrounding in the interest of safety and the general welfare. UNDERGROUNDINGORDINANCE Note that the League of Minnesota Cities Model Right-of-Way Ordinance, Section 1.23, subdivision 1, deals with briefly with undergrounding. If your city has adopted the Model and intends to have a comprehensive undergrounding ordinance, I suggest that the following be substituted for existing language in the Model ROW Ordinance. Sec. 1.23, Subd. 1 Undergrounding. Unless otherwise agreed in a franchise between the applicable right-of-way user and the City, Facilities in the right-of- way must be located or relocated and maintained underground in accordance with Section of the City Code. JMS-159854 SUI60-38 In accordance with the codification of a given city, the following is a sample, comprehensive approach to undergrounding of facilities. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public and is intended to foster (i) safe travel over the right-of-way, (ii) non-travel related safety around homes and buildings where overhead feeds are connected and (iii) orderly development in the city. Location and relocation, installation and reinstallation of Facilities in the right-of- way must be made in accordance with this section. Definitions. The terms used in this section have the meanings given them. Commission. "Commission" means the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Facility. "Facility" means tangible asset in the public right-of-way required to provide utility service. The term does not include Facilities to the extent the location and relocation of such Facilities are preempted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.45, governing utility facility placement in state trunk highways. Facility does not mean electric transmission lines, as distinguished from electric distribution lines. Public right-of-way. "Public right-of-way" has the meaning given it in Minnesota Statutes, section 237.162, subdivision 3. Right-of-way user. "Right-of-way user" means (1) a telecommunications right-of-way user as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 237.162, subdivision 4; or (2) a person owning or controlling a facility, in the right-of-way, that is used or intended to'be used for providing utility service, and who has a right under law, franchise or ordinance to use the public right-of-way. Utility service. "Utility service" means and includes: (1) service provided by a public utility as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 216B.02, subdivisions 4 and 6; (2) services of a telecommunications right-of-way user, including the transporting of voice or data information; (3) services provided by a cable communications system as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 238.02, subdivision 3; (4) natural gas or electric energy or telecommunications services provided by a local government unit; (5) services provided by a cooperative electric association organized under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 308A; and (6) water, sewer, steam, cooling or heating services. Undergrounding of Facilities. Facilities placed in the public right-of-way must be located, relocated and maintained underground pursuant to the terms and conditions of this section and in accordance with applicable construction standards. This section is intended to be enforced' consistently with state and federal law regulating right-of-way users, specifically including but not limited to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 161.45, 237.162, 237.163, 300.03, 222.37, 238.084 and 216B.36 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Title 47, USC Section 253. JMS- 159854 SU160-38 2 Undergrounding of New Facilities. A new Facility or a permanent extension of Facilities must be installed and maintained underground when supplied to: (a) a new installation of buildings, signs, streetlights or other structures; (b) a new subdivision of land; or (c) a new development or industrial park containing new commercial or industrial buildings. Undergrounding of Permanent Replacement, Relocated or Reconstructed Facilities. A permanent replacement, relocation or reconstruction of a Facility of more than 300 feet must be located, and maintained underground, with due regard for seasonal working conditions. For purposes of this section, reconstruction means any substantial repair of or any improvement to existing Facilities. Undergrounding is required whether a replacement, relocation or reconstruction is initiated by the right-of-way user owning or operating .the Facilities, or by the city in connection with (1) the present or future use by the city or other local government unit of the right-of-way for a public project, (2) the public health or safety, or (3) the safety and convenience of travel over the right-of-way. Retirement of Overhead Facilities. The city council may determine whether it is in the public interest that all Facilities within the city, or within certain districts designated by the city, be permanently placed and maintained underground by a date certain or target date, independently of undergrounding required pursuant to sections ..... (new Facilities) and ..... (replacement Facilities) of this Code. The decision to underground must be preceded by a public hearing, after published notice and written notice to the utilities affected. (TwO weeks published: 30 days written.) At the hearing the council must consider item (1) - (4) in section __ of this Code and make findings. Undergrounding may not take place until city council has, after hearing and notice, adopted a plan containing items (1) - (6) of section of this Code. Public Hearings. A hearing must be open to the public and may be continued from time to time. At each heating any person interested must be given an opportunity to be heard. The subject of the public hearings shall be the issue of whether Facilities in the right-of-way in the city, or located within a certain district, shall all be located underground by a date certain. Hearings are not necessary for the undergrounding required under sections and of the City Code. Public Hearing Issues. The issues to be addressed at the public heatings include but are not limited to: (1) The costs and benefits to the public of requiring the undergrounding of all Facilities in the right-of-way. (2) The feasibility and cost of undergrounding all Facilities by a date certain as determined by the city and the affected utilities. JMS-159854 SUI60-38 (3) The tariff requirements, procedure and rate design for recovery or intended recovery of incremental costs for undergrounding by the utilities from ratepayers within the city. (4) Alternative financing options available if the city deems it in the public interest to require undergrounding by a date certain and deems it appropriate to participate in the cost otherwise borne by the ratepayers. Upon completion of the hearing or hearings, the city council must make written findings on whether it is in the public interest to establish a plan under which all Facilities will be underground, either citywide or within districts designated by the city. Undergrounding Plan. If the council finds that it is in the public interest to underground all or substantially all Facilities in the public right of way, the council must establish a plan for such undergrounding. The plan for undergrounding must include at least the following elements: (1) Timetable for the undergrounding. (2) Designation of districts for the undergrounding unless, undergrounding plan is citywide. (3) Exceptions to the undergrounding requirement and procedure for establishing such exceptions. (4) Procedures for the undergrounding process,, including but not limited to coordination with city projects and provisions to ensure compliance with non- discrimination requirements under the law. (5) A financing plan for funding of the incremental costs if the city determines that it will finance some of the undergrounding costs, and a determination and verification of the claimed additional costs to underground incurred by the utility. (6) Penalties or other remedies for failure to comply with the undergrounding. JMS-159854 S U 160-38 4 Ft A R T E D 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, ken nedy-graven.com TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM SPA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates Jim Strommen April 6, 1999 Proposed Electric Energy Resolution JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 email: jstrornmen~kennedy-graven.corn (MEMO #6) Attached is a copy of a proposed resolution the City of Bloomington received from the Energy CENTS Coalition (I believe). It relates to affordable electric energy in a deregulated environment. Because this relates to a public utility rate matter, Bloomington seeks a response from the SPA to the substance of this resolution. From my standpoint, the resolution is consistent with anticipated Minnesota rate policy but is not a current issue for decision before the legislature or PUC. Deregulation of electric service is in a "go slow" pattern now. Telephone access has a federally and state mandated universal service fund. The telephone universal service fund, however, is established for the purpose of equalizing metro and rural rates rather than targeted to impoverished ratepayers. Traditionally the SRA has not become involved in issues specific to the affordability of energy to customers living below the poverty line. As each SRA city has such persons living in its community, however, such an issue is relevant. I will attempt to find out more about this resolution before the April 21 meeting. One issue Bloomington inquired about is whether any other cities have received a similar request for city council action on this resolution. JMS-160889 04×05×99 15:41 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON ADMIN DEPT ~ 93~79J10 04/01/99 14:02 FAT 651 647 0446 COOPERATING FUND DR '~ 'e~/17/90 OS:Si FAT. NO.OJ8 P003 i~00z BESOLI~TION TO E~qS~ ~CCi~SS TO .~1,0~~ ~ %X,'Z41~I~A~ Cbc X~nnemt~ Legislm~*e and dM Public U *nfltbs ~ofnmission wilt c, ousid~ pro~s to defecate the elec~G uti]icy indusU~, and V.,"l*,]~-~, com~ clcctri0 suppliers may not actbrcly segk to serve ~.1,..~,1 c,,-*,,~.,.~'s, . j:~u,~cnh-.ly ]ow' ami ~ incofae cu.dnmets: aoct WI-win_ ~,~S, clr~-tric utiUty &:rcg._,t,,*;,.-n. ,.,,-.y ~ costs onto rg~l-,,,dal cu~tomc~, increase and m~cran biil~ and ~ iow and fixed income M'mwes~*~,,. cte~ote an averaBe c~' 17% oflbeh* Lucome fi~r enersy mats (~s~' hzrden): and B~: IT .Ft~TI-IBR ~LVED THAT a univ~l se~ce lurid'be established m pravide bill- BE IT FLTR'II-TI=~ R.F:SO~VED THAT un~veFsal service lundin6 levols should be bund mt reducins the energy tnnden at'Imuselmlds a~ or bc~w 50% ~the stye median income; and BE IT PT.,TP.~ REgOLVI~D THAT ~ service Grads should be raised ~n a consistent l~Ais ~ meet ~ determined mMd; fred BE 1T FUR~ RESOLVED THAT univewsnl service funds should be sdm~niqered i~ the mos~ efficterrt mannm* possible To provide *,.be mos~ significam bene~ ~o low azut flA*mi incoms FEB-26-1999 11:33 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON P.04/05 Universal ~erv~ee Proposal lVlinn~om needs m~ ~_~iversal service ~und to enmre more afl~ordable, continuous energy servicc for low ~nd fixed income lVEu~csotans who represent uearly 20% of the sta~e's population. The fund should be used to reduc~ the percentage oflncome low income households devote to ener~ costs. Even though low income households consume Bout 14% less energy than medi~ income household~ they devote an average of 17% of household income to energy co,ts while median income Minne~ta hou~hold$ spend less than 3% of income on ufil~ costs. Univer~ service funds should be raised .by a consumption-based energy charge on al! customer and on ~il fuels (electricity, natural gas, propane and tuel oil). A $S$ million universal ~-vicc Fund will allow M~_p_nc~ota to make utility service more affordable to an additlo,,-t 116,186 lo~,, income households. If the charge was assessed on all fuels and paid for by ~11 custom~ classes: ~ residential electric bill would increase 30 cents, a gas bill by ~3 centa, fu~) oil and propane by about a penny per gallon, With the current level of' Energy A~istance Program funding, Minnesota's program would have $9?.5 million. Populations to target for assistance include all senior households below 100% of poverty and as ma~y senior households at ] 00-125% ot'.poverty'and all households below 100¥, of'poverty as possible. ~ Low~ energy burdens would help to prevent: - malnl.'l~ition - alcknes~ - emeal~ency hospital visits - premature nuts/rig home p.l~ement - home foreclosures and evz&mns - homelessness household debt - lo~ o£e~aial ~el hor~ Energy CENTS Coalition is urging support £or the Minnesota HEAT (Home Eneq~ Assistanc~ Trust) Fund to ensure universal energy ~ervice to low and fixed income Minnesotans. FEB-26-1999 11:33 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON : ~ F~gain~ Pltlitar9 Hadr~$s PHONE NO. : 612 8~? 6344 P. 05/05 BS:3~ 1::3 What is the Energy Gnp? The Energy Gap is the difference between . wh~t peBpi¢ can ~fford w pay fo.r borne heating'and electric service alld what they' .curr.enfly pay. The "g~p" is felt most · acutely when Iow and fixed income households lose a¢'ccss to energy servi,c6 . · altogether. Minnesota households at or below 150% ($24,600 for a famil~ of four) of povcrtT income pay ~n, av~a~e of 17°~ ofthdr income for energy bill~ over ~ive times the zm~ median income ($56.200 for a fiuuily Of four) ~un~lies pay less tha~ 3% of their income on energy costs. The Energy C~'NTS Coalition received 14,000,remm~l surveys from Energy Assistauce households across the state (40,000 surveys were originalty mailed). ~7~e Energ~ Gap Study documents the ext~t to which low and fixed income households must saerifi~ basic needs in order to pay energy bills~ The Study Found that nearly 18% of low income households went at least one day without Food, over 11% had their heat shut offer ran out of~ei, 30% did not seek medical cate, 30% could not pay full rent or rnoa~ge payments, 47% could not pay their electric bilh and over halFturn~d thermostats below 65 degrees. -i What are the effects of the' Energy Gap? When home energy costs are uuaffordable, ~eopte n~glcct Other basic needs. They skip meals, do without medical and d~tal care, tur~ the th~mosiat dangerously, low and ca~uot pay for other necissities like prescription drugs, do.thing and car repair,. N~.glect, ia$ basic ~eeds'also creates bigger and more ex. sire problems like l~omelessness, hospitalization and nursing home placements, The Energy Gap causes pai~. sui~efing. illness, disability and humiliation. Don't Iow income people get help paying for energy bills? Minnesota has a program'called Energy Assistance which pays a portion of home energy costs during the winter months. But Energy Assistance'helps only :25% of'the low income p~ople in the sr. ate..h does not reach cvc. n one-half of the population living at or below the federal poverty llne. Many senior citizens, wage-earning households and families with children do not receive assistance. Universal service as a solution. Universal service would provide fuming to ensure affordable and continuous utility service to ail Minncsotans. l~nnd_in$ would be used to reduce the percentage of household income that low and fixed people devote lo energy coSTS tO no more than 8% of income. Punds should be raised through a anmll surcharse on all customer bills and on all fuel types. CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven.com MEMORANDUM TO: SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates FROM: Jim Strommen DATE: April 6, 1999 Proposed Year 2000 Budget JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 email: jstrommen~kennedy-graven.com (MEMO #7) Attached is a proposed Budget for the year 2000. As you will note, additional reserves are projected to follow a reserve-building year of 1999. The types of issues facing the SRA have moved away from those arising in rate cases and increased in matters relating to deregulation, right-of-way management and franchising. Each year new issues arise that could not be anticipated the previous year (e.g. PUC charging cities for participation in PUC proceedings). The projected year 2000 issues and costs are rough estimates based on anticipated proceedings. It is possible that, e.g., a Minnegasco or NSP rate case could be filed (if the NSP proposed merger falls through). As has been done in the past, this proposed Budget is considered at the April meeting and recommended for review by each SRA member for final approval at the July meeting. The city council of each SRA member is not required to pass onthe Budget. The delegate fi.om a majority of a quorum of SRA members has authority to approve the proposed Budget each year. Note that the assessment amount has not been changed for five years. JMS-160881 SU160-3 2000 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY PROPOSED BUDGET 1999 Assets: Cash and Investments (12/31/98) Membership Assessments~ TOTAL $19,160 63,200 $82,360 Anticipated 1999 Expenses: Utility Undergrounding US West Cost Investigation 612/952 Area Code Proceeding US West Alternative Regulation PUC Right-of-Way Rulemaking PUC Case Cost Allocations Lost Margins Electric (Electric Rate Surcharges) General (incl. costs and disbursements) TOTAL $10,000 2,000 10,000 1,000 5,000 2,000 10,000 16,000 ($56,000) Reserve at December 31, 1999: $26,360 2000 Assets: Carryover from 1999 Membership Assessments2 TOTAL $26,360 63,200 $89,560 Anticipated 2000 Expenses Right-of-Way Issues (Legislation/PUC) Telephone Rate Geographic Deaveraging Electric-Gas Franchise Issues Utility Undergrounding General Matters (incl. costs and disbursements) TOTAL $10,000 10,000 5,000 10,000 16,000 ($51,000) Estimated Reserve at December 31, 2000: $38,500 ~This is calculated at $400 per vote established in 1995 (for every 5,000 in population or fraction thereof). This calculation is based on full year assessments from the 36 SRA members. 2This is calculated at $400 per vote established in 1995 (for every 5,000 in population or fraction thereof). This calculation is based on full year assessments from the 36 SRA members. $MS-160846 SUi60-3 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, April 14, 1999 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER RECEiV Oi 2. 1§9§ ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock · Board of Directors Lake Inspection Tour, Saturday, 6/5199 READING OF MINUTES - 3/24/99 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS · Excelsior Bay Charters, Consideration application for the charter boat Linda Lee. of new on-sale Intoxicating Liquor License · Sunboats of Lake Minnetonka, Consideration of new on-sale Intoxicating Liquor License application for the charter boat Sunboat Cruises. · Pelican Point HOA, Consideration of application for variance from LMCD Code to extend the dock at the existing multiple dock facility from 100' to 150'. 1. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A) (*) Minutes from the 4/0199 meeting (handout); B) Carmichael Lynch, Discussion of proposals received relating to zebra mussel prevention work plan; C) Additional Business; 2. WATER STRUCTURES A) 1999 Multiple Doc~DistdctMoodngArea(DMA)Licenses, staffrecommends approvalof1999 multipledoc~DMAlicenseapplicationsasoutlinedin ~99staff memo; B) Cochranes' Boatyard, consideration of minor change application to change storage of charter boat from slip 11 to slip 1; C) Excel Marina, staff recommends Board approval of the 1999 renewal w/o change Application; D) Additional Business; . 3. LAKE USE & RECREATION A) Holiday Fair, Inc., Staff recommends Board approval of 1999 renewal Beer and Wine license applications; B) Jay Nygard, consideration of 2/18/99 letter received relating noise concerns of antique boats; C} (*) Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity Report; D) (*) Paradise Charter Cruises, staff recommends full refund of $3,000 deposit for preliminary investigation; E) Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to charter boats; amending LMCD Code Section 3.07, subds. 2 and 3, and adding Section 3.07, subd. 10; F) Additional Business; 4, FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers for payment (4/1/99 - 4/15/99); B) February financial summary and balance sheet; C) Additional Business; 5. SAVE THE LAKE 6. ADMINISTRATION 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT LAK~ MINNETONKA CONSERVA~ON DISTRICT BO~ OF D~CTO~ 7:~ PM, We~y, ~r~ ~, 1~ To~ ~y City Ha~ ..1:N-Fo 'DRAFT I' CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. ROLL CALL Members present: Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Bob Rascop, Shorewood; Craig Eggcrs, Victoria. Also present: Charles LcFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director; Roger Winberg, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Lili McMillan, Orono; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. CHAIR ANNOUNCEM~NTS, Chair Babcock There were no Chair announcements. READING OF MINUTES - 3/10/99 LMCD Regular Board Meeting MOTION: Dahlen moved, Foster seconded to approve the minutes of the 3/10/99 Regular Board meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes (7), Abstained (1, Eggers); motion carried. Gilman arrived at 7:01 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (5 min.) There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA- Foster moved, Partyka seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Items so approved include: lA, Minutes of the 3/12/99 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting; 2H, Pelican Point HOA, Notice of Extension- staff recommends Board approval to notify the applicant that additional time, 60 days, is needed to consider the application for new multiple dock license; and 2I, Excel Marina, Notice of Extension- staff recommends Board approval to notify the applicant that additional time, 60 days, is needed to consider the application for new multiple dock license. 1. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE B. Discussion of the proposed use of Sonar in the southwest comer of Carsons Bay. Babcock asked staff to provide some background leading up to this agenda item. Lake Minnetonka Conservation Distri-~ Reauiar Board Meetina March 24, 1999 ' Page 2 Nybeck stated in January, Tom Pokonosky, who represented the Carsons Bay HOA stopped by the District indicating they were considering making an application to the MN DN'R for use of Sonar. He noted this request was reviewed by the EWM/Exotics Task Force on 1/8/99 and there was some feedback relating to past use of Sonar. He added it was suggested at the 1/27/99 Board meeting by Foster that it would be beneficial for the District to do some additional research and fact finding relating to this request. He concluded Tyler Koschnick, Aquatic Specialist for SePRO, for the manufacturer of Sonar, and representatives from the 1YIN DNR and Hermepin Parks were in attendance to assist the Board in this fact finding. Babcock asked the Board if they had any questions or concerns they might want to discuss prior to getting input from the specialists. Kitchak questioned whether it is appropriate for the Board to be discussing this issue. He stated he believed the permitting of this request is in the jurisdiction of the MN DNR and that either supporting or not supporting these requests would set a bad precedent for the District. Babcock asked LeFevere to address jurisdictional issues for the District in getting involved in weed removal. He noted he believed the District has this authority; however, the specifics of this work have generally been delegated to the MN DNR. LeFevere stated the District has some jurisdiction; however, it cannot permit something that the MN DNR is forbidding. Foster stated he believed one of the main responsibilities of the District is to manage the recreational aspects of the lake. He expressed concern that the recreational value of the lake has been greatly diminished with the management of weed growth, especially milfoil. He stated if the Board listens to the experts on this product and determines it would benefit the recreational aspects of the lake, it is the District's responsibility to meet and lobby with the MN DNR to change some of their policies. LeFevere stated the state enabling legislation provides that one of the powers granted to the District is to regulate mechanical and chemical means of removal of weeds and algae from the lake. He added the District has concurrent jurisdictions with the MN DNR. Kitchak stated he believed the Board is not qualified to make a decision on this issue. He suggested it might be appropriate for a third party consultant to assist the Board in making the right decision. Foster suggested the Board keep an open-mind on this issue and allow the experts to discuss the pros and cons of Sonar. He stated the Board might decide the use of Sonar is proper for Lake Minnetonka and that it is appropriate for the District to support such projects. Babcock stated he believed it is appropriate for the Board to listen to the request because the enabling legislation has granted jurisdiction to regulate chemical means of removing weeds from the lake. Lake Minnetonka Conservation Distri--~ Regular Board Meeting Page 3 Tom Pokonosksy, 20100 Minnetonka Blvd., stated he was in attendance representing the Caxsons Bay HOA in addition to Bob Woodbum, 20180 Cottagewood Road. He noted they currently have a grandfathered permit under which they treat the weeds annually. He stated he was pleased the Board decided to conduct some additional fact finding prior to dismissing the request. He noted in a letter dated 12/14/88 to Bert Foster, he suggested the District might want to consider chemical treatments, in addition to harvesting, in managing the growth of milfoil. He introduced Tyler Koschnick from SePRO Corporation. Koschnick made a slide presentation that provided background on Sonar. following comments: He made the He reviewed some basic background on the chemical. He noted it is used on a variety of water sources and is effective in controlling a variety of weed species including hydrilla, curly leaf pondweed, and eurasian watermilfoil. It is approved at rates up to 150 parts per billion with no restrictions for fishing, swimming, and drinking. He noted there are two forms of Sonar. Sonar AS is in liquid form and Sonar SRP is in pellet form. · He stated Sonar SRP is generally more plant specific because it is a slow release pellet. He added because Sonar is a systemic herbicide, you generally get full season or longer control. He noted application rates vary because it depends on the primary objective of the treatment. He added eurasian watermilfoil is very susceptible to Sonar. · He stated a key to the use of Sonar is that a specific concentration of the chemical must be in contact with the target plant for a minimum of 45 days. He added split applications are generally used to meet this contact time requirement. He noted the average half-life of Sonar in this area of the country is around 30 days. The use of the Sonar does not adversely affect water quality because it takes an extensive amount of time to get plant control. He added that scientific studies have revealed Sonar, when used properly, presents little or no unreasonable risks to humans and animals. · Fie noted the main target of Sonar is exotic species that are not native to this area of the country. He noted one of these exotic species is eurasian watermilfoil, an exotic that has spread rapidly since being introduced into the United States in the late 1940's. Fie stated it has had great impacts on recreational activities including boating, swimming, and fishing. · Fie reviewed a series of lakes where research has been conducted on selectivity. The majority of this discussion focused on lakes in Michigan with the goal of treating eurasian watermilfoil and curly leaf pondweed with minimal impacts on native species. He noted the rate of applications at these lakes was lower than the label allowed and the results were generally favorable relating to plant control and plant selectivity. · He stated most of the work with Sonar AS has been done in the northern states while most of the work with Sonar SRP has been done in the southern states. He added some work with Sonar SRP has been done in a limited number of lakes in Wisconsin. · He thanked the Board for allowing him to make a brief summary of the product, Sonar. Headded he believed there is a fit to use Sonar SRP on Lake Minnetonka Lake Minnetonka Conservation Distr~ Regular Board Meeting March 24, 1999 ' Page 4 with a possible test plot in Carsons Bay. He suggested other control methods are needed in addition to Sonar, and he mentioned the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is one of many parties which could assist the District on this decision. He concluded SePRO has spent a significant amount of time researching the chemical to control exotic species and at the same time emphasize plant selectivity. He asked the Board if they had questions or comments at this time. Foster asked Koschnick if he had spoken to the MN DNR relating to the use of this chemical. Koschnick stated he would speaking to the MN DNR tomorrow morning. Foster asked why the MN DNR is opposed to the use of Sonar. Koschnick stated the work in Michigan was done in 1997 and the MN DNR has observed it. He added he believed they are interested in the work but he was unaware of where the use of Sonar in Minnesota will go. Pokonosky stated the main purpose for the Carsons Bay HOA to pursue the use of Sonar in the southwest corner of the bay is to control the exotic species with more safe chemicals. Babcock stated it appears some frae-tuning specific dosage in the water column is still needed. I-Ie asked what variables are involved in getting the required specific dosage and whether improvements have been made since past studies conducted on Sonar. Koschnick stated he believed there have been advances made in getting the specific dosage needed. He added he would not recommend a whole lake treatment of Lake Minnetonka. Partyka asked about temperature and how that might impact when Sonar can be applied. Koschnick stated temperature has no impact on the product. He added the focus is to identify an actively growing plants. Dahlen stated from reviewing the information on Lake Zumbra, water quality decreased after it was treated with Sonar. He asked for an explanation on that. Koschnick stated he believed the concentration level used in Lake Zumbra was too high. This resulted in a reduction in the native plant, thus the nutrients were released into the lake. Eggers asked Koschnick to respond to the letter received from Wendy Crowell, MN DNR, which stated there was significant non-target damage in Lake Lac Lavon even though the application rate was much lower. Koschnick stated when the lake was originally treated in 1996, the data received was generally favorable. He added the treatment was a three-year process and that treatment levels the past years were too high. Lake ~linnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meetin~ '* March 24, 1999 ' Page 5 Mike Halverson, MN DNR Aquatic Plant Specialist for the metro area, made the following comments relating to the use of Sonar: · He stated a main function of his position it to educate the public on the importance of aquatic plants. He added everyone who lives on the lake is a steward of the lake and is responsible for surface use and the overall health of the lake. He noted plants are growing because of the nutrients in the water. He added if one plant is eliminated, another one will replace it. He stated the plant that replaces the one that has been eliminated might be more aggressive. · He stated he looks at plants in the long-term rather than the short-term. He added he has a strong interest in maintaining a strong ecosystem. · He asked the Board if they had any questions at this time. Eggcrs asked Halvcrson if he believed eurasian watermilfoil contributed to a healthy ecosystem Halverson stated he has talked to several residents he has permitted over the years who have indicated that milfoil growth has diminished over the years. He added he believed the ecosystem in Lake Minnetonka is mixed depending on the areas of the lake where there is extensive growth of milfoil. Babcock stated he believed milfoil growth over the years has had a greater impact on recreational activities than other native species. Halverson stated over time, some of the natural species adapt to milfoil and either overtake or adjust to and control the growth of milfoil. He added this appears to be taking place in some areas of Lake Minnetonka. Eggers stated he has had several conversations with fishermen of Lake Minnctonka relating to milfoil. He reported none of the fishermen are favorable to milfoil and generally complain about it. Halverson stated thc bass fishermen who fish in special events have learned how to fish in milfoil. He added they do not govern MN DNR policies relating to milfoil. Gilman asked what chemical is currently being used to treat milfoil. Halverson stated a 2,4-D herbicide is generally used. Pokonosky stated based on thc information he has read regarding Sonar, it seems reasonable to expect a multi-year treatment. He added with the chemical they currently use boating and swimming is greatly impacted by matted milfoil by mid August. Gilman asked Halverson how the treatment of milfoil with Sonar would impact native species. Halverson stated the impact on native vegetation would depend on the concentration of the chemical and the hydrology of the bay. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting March ~4, 1999 ' 6 Babcock stated from the presentation so far, it appears that the Carsons Bay HOA is looking for the treatment of some native species in addition to milfoil. He noted Carsons Bay HOA could continue to treat the area in question as allowed under a grandfathered permit. He questioned whether this is something that should be debated. Halverson explained the goal of the MN DNR program is to allow residents reasonable access to the lake for boating and swimming while maintaining the ecological integrity of the lake. He added the intent of the program is not to open up huge areas of open water. Suerth asked Halverson what he would do if these residents requested a MN DNR permit for the use of Sonar. Halverson stated he would first like to meet with the residents and educate them on the need for a healthy ecosystem. He added state law allows for reasonable use of the lake and he believed it is being attained under the current grandfathered permit. He noted there is a variance procedure in place whereby they could make application to use Sonar, with an appeal process to the MN DNR Commissioner. Babcock asked Halverson if he would encourage residents to change their view in chemical treatments rather than changing the treatment method. Halverson stated there is merit in for chemical treatments provided the applicant understands why the problem exists. Pokonosky reviewed the layout of Carsons Bay and noted they are interested in only treating 150 littoral feet of the southwest corner of the bay. He added if leaching of the chemical occurred, he believed it would only occur in an area for which the Carsons Bay HOA already has permits. Koschnick stated based on his opinion, the Carsons Bay HOA would not get the treatment of large leaf pondweed they desire because of the low concentration level proposed. He noted he believed they will get control of milfoil and that it will not leach and treat all of Carsons Bay. He added the treatment in this area of Carsons Bay would be with Sonar SRP. Wendy Crowell, MN DNR EWM Program Coordinator, commented on the littoral zone in Carsons Bay. She stated there are 88 littoral acres in the bay of which Carsons Bay has 20. She questioned how it could be determined that if leaching occurred, it would impact areas permitted by Carsons Bay HOA. Pokonosky stated he believed the shoreline that would be impacted by leaching is along the north side of the bay for which they have a permit. Halverson stated SePRO has a product that might assist in treatment of large leaf pondweed that the MN DNR currently approves and would have less widespread impact. Pokonosky stated the large leaf pondweed is becoming a huge problem in the Carsons Bay Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meetin_ HOA area. Pa/e 7 Babcock asked Halverson if there are alternatives he was aware of othcr than chemically treating the area. Halverson stated this area is not that unique. He suggested the current chemical treatment supplemented with mechanical harvesting seems to be one reasonable alternative. Foster questioned whether the District could assist in mechanical harvesting in the area in question. Pokonosky restated the current alternatives are providing relief to the area in question only until around mid-August. He added if Sonar is effectively applied, he understood it could provide for relief for up to two or three years. Kathy Heidel, Hennepin Parks Interpretive Naturalist, stated she lives on the lake in Greenwood. She questioned whether the lawns in the area run down to the lake. Pokonosky stated one company ferti_'li?e.s the lawns in the area without phosphates in the fertilizer. Heidel stated she believed one alternative for the residents to consider is to lakescape the shoreline to retard the transfer of nutrients from the lawn to the lake. Nybeck stated in recent years, the District has not assisted the Carsons Bay H0A on a late season harvest for channel cutting to their docks at their request. He suggested Woodburn might be able to comment on that. Kitchak suggested Carsons Bay explore hte season harvest options whether it be with the District or a private harvester. Nybeck stated in recent years, the District channel cuts in several areas of the lake to assist residents in getting from unusable to usable water. Woodburn stated many years ago, the District was informed not to harvest in the area because of fragmented milfoil. He noted at the time they believed it would do more harm than good because they were getting good chemical treatment at the time. Pokonsky stated he believed it would be worth a try to use a product that would control the weeds as well as the product presently used but can be used at a lower concentration and is safer. Gilman left at 8:50 p.m. Crowell stated she had worked as an aquatic biologist the past five years for the Exotic Species Program. She noted she was one of the staff members who conducted the studies and collected the data on previous fluridone lakes. She spoke on the use of fluridone from a milfoil Lake l~linnetolika Conservation District Regular Board Meeting March 24, 1999 ' Page 8 standpoint including preventing the spread of it and minimizing related nuisances where it exists. She noted the MN DNR supports the District with approximately $20,000 annually from boating surcharges to manage milfoil. She questioned whether matted milfoil or large leaf pondweed poses the majority of the problems on Lake Minnetonka. Babcock stated recreational activities on the lake are greatly influenced by sub-surface milfoil in addition to matted milfoil. Crowell discussed the use of Sonar SRP that would effectively control large leaf pondweed. She stated the rates that would be required to treat large leaf pondweed effectively would be approximately two to three times the amount needed to treat milfoil because it is one of the most resistant to this chemical. Babcock asked the applicants if they desire higher dosage rates than needed to treat only mil foil. Koschnick stated the Carsons Bay HOA would like to treat large leaf pondweed in addition to mil foil. Babcock stated he believed this is relevant to the Board because he believed Carsons Bay HOA desired to treat milfoil in Carsons Bay. Pokonosky stated when he approached the EWM/Exotics Task Force, they proposed to control milfoil for the entire season. He added they desired to control large leaf pondweed in the 75' littoral zone. Crowell stated when Lake Zumbra was treated with fluridone, it generally treated all the plants in the lake at a much lower dosage rate. She expressed concern that at the rate proposed, even though it is granular, a lot of the chemical would still exist and could possibly damage native species. Koschnick stated the research in the midwest indicates that Sonar SRP and Sonar AP are two entirely different products because the rates of application cannot be compared. Crowell stated even lower dosages of Sonar could create significant non-target damage. Kitchak stated when Libbs l_ake was treated with Sonar AS some years ago, leaching occurred into Grays Bay through the channel. He added he recalled the treatment killed all weeds and that they came back more dense, quicker, and faster after it was treated with Sonar. Koschnick stated because milfoil is an exotic species that is very aggressive, it will eventually grow back in addition to native plants. Heidel stated if an area is treated with Sonar, she believed the native species would grow back but not in the same composition prior to treatment for several years. She added this is one major reason why the exotic species such as milfoil come back so fast because there are no Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meetln~ March 24, 1999 ' other natural controls. Koschnick stated the District is essentially doing the same thing by talcing away the natural controls of native species by mechanically harvesting milfoil. Babcock expressed concern about the request being considered because Carsons Bay HOA wants to treat large leaf pondweed in addition to milfoil. He suggested before work is done on Lake Minnetonka, he believed there is a need to get Sonar SRP down to scientific application for dosage rates similar to Sonar AS before test plots can be established on Lake Minnetonka. Koschnick stated if the project does not proceed on Carsons Bay, he stated he believed there is merit testing Sonar SRP on a larger bay to evaluate treatments. Babcock stated before he would support a test project with Sonar SRP, he would like to see supporting documentation from other studies similar to Sonar AS. Crowell stated she had concern similar to those expressed by Babcock. She stated she has a concern related to the hydrologyof the use of Sonar and the fate of it once it has been placed in the water. She noted she would like background on this. Kitchak stated there might be merit in the District participating in a study with the MN DNR and SePRO on a test plot in the future to get some of these answers. Crowell stated one reason why it appears the dosage rate of Sonar is less than other chemicals is that it is especially toxic to plants. She suggested the Carsons Bay HOA consider the use of another chemical because the end result will probably be more milfoil and less native vegetation. Koschnick stated he believed SePR0 would commit some time to do some vegetation monitoring on Lake Minnetonka in cooperation with the MN DNR. He suggested if this is to be done, that more work should be done rather than just Carsons Bay. Crowell stated she believed there are better lakes other than Lake Minnetonka to do dissipation studies. Pokonosky stated it is too late to submit an application to the MN DNR for a permit to use Sonar in 1999. He noted he believed the discussion has been beneficial to the Board and the public, and should be beneficial for future years. The Board discussed the application process with the MN DNR and whether a variance would be required. They suggested the Carsons Bay HOA work with the MN DNR on the dosage rate needed to treat milfoil only, noting it might not require a variance. Heidel stated she believed the Board should discuss what the use of Sonar could do beyond plants. She noted it has an impact on animal life in the ecosystem and that this should be discussed before any test plots for this chemical are established. Lake Minnetollka Conservation Distri~ Regular Board Meeting Page 10 Rascop asked Halverson to qualify his statement relating to the health of Lake Minnetonka. Halverson stated he believed it is one of the healthiest lakes around in the area. Rascop asked Halverson to comment on the complaint he received from a fisherman relating to spots on the fish meat. Halverson stated that has nothing to do with the chemical treatments on the lake. Rascop commented he would like to see the District suspend mechanical harvest for one-year to see whether it would use up the nutrients and die out as it has been reported. expressed concern about the dumping of all the chemicals in the water and suggested this philosophy should be debated. He Woodbum thanked the Board for the time it spent on discussion of this agenda item. He asked whether the Board would feel comfortable making a motion that the District advises the MN DNR that it supports a test project on Lake Minnetonka in the year 2000 with Sonar. Babcock stated for this type of a project, he believes the Board would like to work with the MN DNR to ensure they are an active sponsor. He suggested the Carsons Bay HOA convince the MN DNR to take the next step in testing Sonar SRP. He concluded discussion of this agenda item by thanking both the Board and experts who were in attendance to discuss it. C. Additional Business. Suerth updated the Board on the progress of the zebra mussel work plan. He stated he would be meeting with officials from Carmichael Lynch on 3/26/99 regarding proposals from them. He added he would like to divide a list of commercial marina owners equally among the Board members whereby each Board member would then be required to discuss concern about zebra mussels and ask for the marina owner's support in the program. WATER STRUCTURES A. ltennepin Parks, request for Board direction relating to permit(s) for installation of two RUSS units on Lake Minnetonka in 1999. Babcock asked for staff background on this agenda item. Nybeck stated Brian Vlach, Hennepin Parks Water Quality Technician, recently requested permit applications for the two RUSS unit that will be placed in Halsteds Bay and West Upper Lake. He noted he discussed this with LeFevere because it is a unique request and determined that the Board should discuss what permit(s) should be required for this project. LeFevere stated the Code requires a permit for buoy unless they are within an authorized dock use area. He added the Executive Director can grant a permit out to 200' and the Board needs to grant a permit out beyond 200'. He noted he believed it is appropriate for the Board to discuss whether a permit should be required and what conditions qhould be placed on the permit Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting if one is granted. John Barren, representing Hennepin Parks, stated one RUSS unit is proposed in Halsteds Bay with the other proposed in West Upper Lake by the Lake Minnetonka Regional P~rk behind Crane Island. He noted both locations should not impede navigational channels and should be easily identified by boaters with a beacon visible at night for ~h mile. He added the units would be surrounded by three buoys with a "no boating" sign on them. MOTION: Rascop moved, Dahlen seconded to authorize the Executive Director to grant the necessary permits and to waive any related fees. The Board directed staff to link the District web site to the web site where this information will be illustrated. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Grandview Point Assoc., consideration of minor change application to relocate slip # 5 from southwest of slip # 1 to the northeast of slip #4, and to reorganize slips #'s 6-8. Babcock asked for staff background on this request. Nybeck stated the applicant has proposed two changes to their conforming multiple dock facility. First, they have proposed to relocate slip 5 from the southwest of slip 1 to the northeast of slip 4. Second, they have proposed the reorganization of the lifts in slips 6-8. He noted both the MN DNR and the City of Deephaven have been copied on the request and have expressed no objections. He stated staff has concerns with the request because it cannot be verified whether boat sizes have increased on the lifts in slips 6-8 and the length of slip 5 would increase 4' in length. He noted because no one is present to represent the applicant to address staff's concerns, the Board might want to table this request. MOTION: Rascop moved, Foster seconded to approve the 1999 multiple dock license, with minor change, for Grandview Point Association, subject to condition that the boat sizes in slips 6-8 not increase. VOTE: Ayes (7), Nayes (1, Partyka); motion carried. Partyka stated his opposition to the motion was to not approve the length change at slip 5. Babcock stated he believed the Board could authorize the change under a minor change because the facility conforms to Code and that 4' in length is not a substantial change. C. Lafayette Ridge HOA, consideration of minor change application to relocate the double wide slips from the east end of the dock structure to the west end. Babcxx:k asked for staff feedback on this request. Nybeck stated the applicant has proposed one change to their conforming multiple dock facility. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting Page 12 He noted they have proposed to relocate the double-wide slip on the east-end of the structure, slips 8A and 8B, to the west-end with the same slip size dimensions. He added both the MN DNR and the City of Minnetonka Beach have been copied on the request and have expressed no objections. He stated staff recommends Board approval. Babcock stated the extended lot lines and side setback are not documented on the proposed site plan and should be documented. MOTION: Foster moved, Partyka seconded to approve the 1999 multiple dock license, with minor change, for Lafayette Ridge HOA, subject to the applicant documenting extended lot lines and side setbacks maintained. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Minnetonka Yacht Club (Site 1), consideration of minor change application to relocate slip #32. Babcock asked for staff background on this request. Nybeck stated the applicant has proposed one change to their non-conforming facility. He noted they have proposed to relocate slip 32, which stores a service boat, to the north side of the main walkway that leads to slips 35 and 36. He added the MN DNR and the City of Deephaven have been copied on the request and have expressed no objections. He stated staff recommends Board approval, providing that the slip remains for a service boat and subject to no increase in size of this storage boat. MOTION: Foster moved, Partyka seconded to approve the 1999 multiple dock license, with minor change, for Minnetonka Yacht Club (Site 1),on the condition that slip 32 remains for the storage of a service boat and and that there is no increase in size of this storage boat. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. West Point Place HOA, consideration of minor change application to convert two existing transient BSU's to two overnight storage BSU's. Babcock asked for clarification from LeFevere on why this request is allowed to be considered under a minor change application. LeFevere stated because it is a conforming facility, the conversion of use regulations in the Code do not apply. He noted staff was unclear in whether a new license, with public hearing, should be required because it is uncertain that this is a change in type of watercraft and that this might merit further Board discussion. Rascop expressed concern in allowing conversion of use at boat clubs for conforming facilities. LeFevere stated because the request meets all Code requirements, the Board needs to decide how these requests should be considered, whether through a minor change or a major change application that requires a public hearing. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting March 24, 1999 ' Page 13 MOTION: Foster moved, Ydtchak seconded to approve the ~999 multiple dock license, with minor change, for West Point Place HOA. Babcock stated in this request, it makes sense to approve the request from the applicant. He added in the future, he believed the conversion of transient to non-transient slips should not be considered under a minor change application and that a Code change is justified. Rascop stated he believed it is appropriate to require all HOA's to have a minimum of either one transient slip or a number determined by a formula. VOTE: Ayes (7), Nayes (1, Rascop); motion carried. MOTION: Partyka moved, Rascop seconded to direct the attorney to prepare an amendment to the minor change section of the Code at conforming facilities by requiring a public hearing for conversion of use. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. F. Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to boat storage density and multiple dock facilities on Lake Mirmetonka; amending LMCD Code Sections 2.02 and 2.03 Babcock stated he had received requests from Board members McMillan and Weft recommending the District hold a Workshop/Planning Session to get input from the cities on this ordinance. MOTION: Foster moved, Suerth seconded to table discussion of first reading of this ordinance amendment, and to direct staff to facilitate a Workshop/Planning Session to discuss this ordinance amendment with all member cities. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. G. 1999 Multiple Dock/District Mooring Area (DMA) Licenses, staff recommends approval of 1999 multiple dock/DMA license applications as outlined in 3/18/99 staff memo. MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded to approve the 1999 multiple dock/DMA license applications as outlined in the 3/18/99 staff memo. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. H. Additional Business. There was no additional business. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Staff recommends approval of renewal Liquor/Wine/Beer license applications as outlined in the 3/18/99 staff memo. Lake ~linnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting March 24, 1999 · Page 14 MOTION: Foster moved, Kitchak seconded to approve the 1999 renewal Liquor/Wine/Beer license applications as outlined in the 3/18/99 staff memo. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Review of LMCD Code requirement relating to charter boats on Lake Minnetonka with Liquor/Wine/Beer licenses (including review of current restrictions relating to areas of operation). Babcock introduced the agenda item noting that staff has pointed out that current regulation restrict charter boat activity to only the main Upper Lake and the main Lower Lake. He suggested this merited Board discussion. Kitchak stated under the current Code these regulations apply to only charter boats with liquor licenses. He suggested the Code should be amended to apply to all licensed charter LeFevere stated he recalled charter boats were licensed prior to the Code that required liquor licenses on these boats. He noted charter boats were initially required to secure a license; however, there were no specific regulations or conditions. He added when the state legislature delegated to the District the authority to issue liquor licenses on these boats, the Board took a loser look at what kinds of conditions should be imposed on the boats. He concluded it might make sense to impose these conditions on all charter boats, whether or not they have liquor on them. Nybeck stated it would be beneficial in the near future to further clarify what areas of the lake charter boats can operate in. He noted he believed this will be asked when staff meets with charter boat owners. Foster stated he had recently talked to a charter boat owner who expressed concern about not allowing live or amplified music on a charter boat unless it is fully contained. He added he informed the charter boat owner that the current Code prohibits that activity and it is the responsibility of the District to balance the needs of charter boat owners and the residents that abut the lake. The consensus of the Board was to direct staff that there will be no active enforcement of the Code relating to the areas where charter boats can operate, unless there is cause to enforce. The Board added that charter boat owners need to use good common sense when operating their boats. The Board directed LeFevere to prepare a Code amendment that would impose the same regulations on charter boats that do not have liquor licenses. C. Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to a mandatory meeting requirement for charter boats with liquor licenses. Babcock introduced this agenda item, noting the Board directed LeFevere to prepare this Code amendment at the 3/10/99 meeting. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting March 24, 1999 · P~6e 15 MOTION: Foster moved, Dahlen seconded to approve first reading of an ordinance relating to the sale of alcohol; adding new LMCD Code Section 5.425, to waive second and third readings, and to adopt the ordinance. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 4. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment (3/15/99 - 3/31/99). Nybeck reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. MOTION: Foster moved, Dahlen seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. VOTE: Motion car~ed unanimously. B. January financial summary and balance sheet. Nybeck reviewed the January financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded to accept the January financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 5. SAVE THE LAKE There was no discussion. 6. ADMINISTRATION A. Update on Hawks v. LMCD pending litigation. Babcock introduced the agenda item stating the Board could review the latest results of the pending litigation in a public forum. He added if thc Board desired to discuss strategy or direction, that should be done in an Executive Session. He asked for an update on thc litigation from LeFevcre. LeFevere stated the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the District Court decision that ordered Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting March 24, 1999 ' Page 16 Mr. Hawks to either remove the storage boat from the lake or convert it into a houseboat. He added Mr. Hawks has 30 days to petition the Minnesota Supreme Court for review. He noted because it is not new law or about policy matters, he questioned whether the Minnesota Supreme Court would accept review of the case. Partyka suggested the Board not comment about the case until the 30-day period to petition the Minnesota Supreme Court has expired. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck stated the Board recently directed staff to write a letter to the MN DNR relating to the bass populations on Lake Minnetonka, He noted the letter was written to the MN DNR and that staff has received some summary data from fishing tournaments on Lake Minnetonka in 1998. He stated the MN DNR has agreed to send a representative to a Board meeting in the future to discuss the bass populations on Lake Minnetonka. He noted this issue will be discussed in the near future at an EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting. 8. oLr~ BUSINESS There was no old business. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chair Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary CITY [] HALL 52025 Wychw00d Beech I 50895 50745 503?'5 NT oN 0 0 E og ,F [ ....... JL __., ......... ; ~ ROAiI 2300 2400 oo 2~00 / 3000 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~0 ,:3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600