The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-06-08 AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1999 6:00 P.M. MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 6:00 - 7:30 P.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION - WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL - PLEASE NOTE: PINKY CHARON HAS ASKED THAT THE HRA MEETING BE HELD ON JUNE 22. PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL MEETING. SHE HAS SOME DEADLINES TO MEET AND THIS WILL WORK BETTER FOR HER. 1. 7:30 P.M. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE 2. APPROVE AGENDA. 3. *CONSENT AGENDA *A. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 11, 1999, REGULAR MEETING .......................... 2001-2019 THERE IS NO #2020. *B. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1999, COMMITFEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES ............. 2021-2026 *C. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 25, 1999, REGULAR MEETING ........................... 2027-2041 *D. MOTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING AND SPECIAL MEETING REGARDING SUBMISSION OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, MINNESOTA INVESTMENT FUND GRANT FOR THE CITY OF MOUND/ ACT, INC. ~. (SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE~8', 1999, 6:00 P.M.) ........... 2042 AT THAT TIME THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN OPERATIONS PERMIT FOR ACT II, INC., AT 5330 SHORELINE DRIVE. 1998 *E. RE~OLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM IN FY 2000-2002 .......................... '~ . . ."' 2043-~2053 *F. MOTION TO INCREASE MERIT PAY INCENTIVE FROM 1 1/2% TO 2% OF OPERATING PROFITS FROM 1998, FOR LIQUOR STORE MANAGER, JOEL KRUMM. *G. MOTION PAYMENT REQUEST NO 1 - AUDITORS ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT $71.918.80 ............ 2054-2058 *H. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER gl FOR AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AN INCREASE OF $2,145.00 TO THE CONTRACT ........................ 2059 *I. CASF~ 9%39: VARIANCE, SETBACK, LOT AREA WIDTH, TO CONSTRUCT A NON CONFORMING DWELLING AT 23XX DRIFTWOOD LANE, ROBERT STEELE, LOT 10, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PID g 13-117-24 44 0059 ........................ 2060-2066 *J. MOTION TO APPROVE THE PAYMENT OF BILLS ...... 2067-2083 4. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE g99-22, PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER FINAL PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR THE LYNMORE SUBDIVISION TWIN HOME PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, AT 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE, PID g13-117-24 44 0032 .......... 2084-2122 e RESOLUTION TO APPROVE PARTIAL PAYMENT REQUEST gl AND CHANGE ORDER gl IN THE AMOUNTS OF $16,483.64 AND ADD - $15,488.75, RESPECTIVELY. - NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ....................................... 2123-2129 7. REVIEW AND APPROVE DRAFT AGREEMENT WITH ROD PLAZA REGARDING PEMBROKE MULTIPLE DOCK ............... 2130-2131 8. INFO~ATION/MISCELLA~OUS: Notice from Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, regarding amendments made to the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Act this session ............................... 2132-2133 B. EDC Minutes of May 20, 1999 ...................... 2134-2135 C. DCAC Minutes of 5-20-99 ........................ 2136-2144 1999 Changes in the Liveable Communities Act that were done in the 1999 Legislative Session ...................... 2145-2147 Financial Report for May as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director ........................................ 2148 Announcement that the Skatepark will reopen on lune 7, 1999... 2149-2151 Letter from Westonka Public Schools, rescinding the $1,180.840 purchase price for the property at 5600 Lynwood Blvd ........... 2152 ;oo - 20OO MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL- MAY 11, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 11, 1998, at 7:40 PM, in the Council Chaml~ei-s'at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers:.Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: Acting City Manager Fran Clark., City Attorney John Dean, Park Director Jim Fackler, City Planner Loren Gordon, and the following interested citizens:, Craig and Elsa Watson (4610 Tuxedo), Walter Neske (6225'Red Oak Road), Frank W. and Betty Weiland (6045 Aspen Road), Cathy Bailey (1554 Bluebird Lane), Greg, Vickie, and Sarah Pederson (6087 Aspen Road), Julie Andersen (2221 Southview Lane), Shirley M. Andersen (2210 Southview Lane), Amy Nelson (2226 Southview Lane), Ardrey Mewwisson (6170 Red Oak Road), John Beachamy (6029 Aspen Road), Greg Howard (6061 Aspen Road), Duane and Carol Norberg (6015 Aspen Road), Charles J. Chapman, Jr. (2017 Clover Circle), David Shinn (6310 Walnut Road), Thomas R. Berent (6000 Lynwood Boulevard), Tim Prepkom (5600 Lynwood Boulevard), Bob Dorfner (4849 Glasgow Road), Matt and Tracy Walstrom (4872 Leslie Road), Darren Poikonen (5967 Hillcrest Road), Doug Anderson (4912 Leslie Road), Paul Ganst, Board Group, Inc. (10 Eleventh Avenue South, Hopkins), Bill Beord, The Board Group, Inc. (10 Eleventh Avenue South, Hopkins), Gene and Gretchen South (4705 Island View Drive), Bob and Connie Schmidt (4708 Island View Drive), Becky Cherne (4701 Island View Drive), Greg Knutson (4701 Island View Drive), Stan and Marlene Straley (4501 Island View Drive), Don Williams (32135 Ayer Lane), John Mundt (4517 Tuxedo Boulevard), Joel Johnson (5309 Piper Road), Connie DeBoct (4722 Aberdeen Road), Irene and Pat Harrington (4687 Island View Drive), Tamy Lilj enquist (4737 Aberdeen Road), Mark Reschke (4737 Aberdeen Road), John Miller (3149 Inverness Road), Janet L. Petersen (3136 Tuxedo Boulevard), Greg Euvil (5585 Sherwood), Brad Biermann (5106 Windsor Road), Todd Rask (5109 Drummond Road), John Zuccaro (3146 Island View Drive), Orv Burma (3011 Island View Drive), Michael Gaida (3119 Tuxedo Boulevard), Jon F. Helgeson (3124 Tuxedo Boulevard), Timm Hollenberger (4512 Clyde Road), Gina and Mark Smith (4665 Island View Drive), Sandi and Tom Effertz (4757 Island View Drive). The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. She apologized for the lateness of the start which was due to the Housing Redevelopment Authority meeting. 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 Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. APPROVE AGENDA Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 11, 1999 Clark added a New Tree License for Tall Timber Experts, Inc. as Consent Agenda item number B4. She also deleted Agenda item number 4 (Public Hearing P & Z Case #99-09). This was withdrawn by the applicant and not rescheduled at this time. 20O 7x Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 11, 1999 MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Ahrens to approve the Regular Agenda, as amended with the add-on Item and deletion of item number 4. The vote was 5-0 in favor. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA Hanus pulled item A to be voted on separately. *3A.APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 27A999 REGULAR MEETING. The following were the corrections made to the April 27, 1999 Regular Meeting: Hanus ePage 9, first paragraph, last three sentences This will now read: "He stated that the resident would allow the docks to be in front of part of his home. The following is a statement the resident to the south gave indicating he would enter into an agreement with the city. The statement is dated 4/26/99 and reads as follows:" Wevcker ePage 6, fifth paragraph, last sentence should read: "She stated that if Swenson Park was used, there would be parking available." .Page 9, fourth paragraph, add to the last sentence: "; and to be careful with the LMCD rules and regulations." .Page 9, last paragraph, second to the last sentence should read: "Fackler needs to have this reviewed by the LMCD." *Page 8, second to last paragraph, moving the "benches" no fences. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to approve the Minutes of the April 27, 1999 Regular Meeting of the City Council, as amended. The vote was 5-0 in favor. Motion carried. Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 11, 1999 3B.MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS MOTION TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING PERMITS: 1 .TEMPORARY 3.2 BEER/SET-UP LICENSE, PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT, TRANSIENT MERCHANT PERMIT, PARADE PERMIT, FIREWORKS PERMIT FOR MOUND CITY DAYS - JUNE 18, 18, AND 20, 1999. PARADE PERMIT FOR AMERICAN LEGION/VFW FOR THE MEMORIAL DAY PARADE - MAY 31, 1999. PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT FOR SILVERADO PRO BASS TOURNAMENT WEIGH-IN - JULY 30, 1999, MOUND BAY PARK. NEW TREE LICENSE - TALL TIMBER EXPERTS, INC., P.O. BOX 836, WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391. 3C.RESOLUTION- CASE 99-10 -VARIANCE, FLOOD PLAIN, LAKESIDE SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION OVER THE EXISTING GARAGE AT 3153 PRIEST LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND SHORES, JIM SMITH, PID #23- 117-24 34 0079. 3D.MOTION TO RE-PURCHASE A CEMETERY LOT. 3E.MOTION TO APPROVE 1999 SEALCOAT BID - ALLIED BLACKTOP - $26,850. 3F.MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST - AUDITOR'S ROAD DEMOLITION - JME OF MONTICELLO, INC. - $7,285.75. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to approve items B - F of the Consent Agenda. The vote was 5-0 in favor. Motion carried. CONTINUED DISCUSSION: PEMBROKE MULTIPLE DOCK CONFIGURATION Fackler indicated that the map shown on page 1630 (estimate #3) of the packet is the recommended configuration with the exception of slip #10 which would be moved to the other side of the dock. Brown stated he thought the plan looked pretty good, as did one on page 1631. Joel Johnson of 1531 Park asked what would happen to the beach and the park area with the dock configured like this and located here. Mayor Meisel indicated that the beach would be left as is and roped off for safety sake. Mr. Johnson indicated that he doesn't understand why the dock Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 11, 1999 needs to be moved to the commons area since it is not in it now. Also, he is concerned that the kids could run onto the docks and jump off creating a potential hazard. Mayor Meisel discussed that one of the things they were looking into was to gate off the dock area. Hanus stated that some people like the dock for jumping off, so he was thinking the gate could be mounted on the dock. That would allow security for the boats, but yet allow people to jump off the dock for swimming. Weycker asked where the dock was last year. Fackler said it was close to the same area as the 28.25-foot mark on the drawing. (The drawing was displayed on the overhead for all to see.) Dean Sulander of 2524 Emerald Drive stated that his understanding was that the dislocated people from Roanoke would have spots elsewhere. Hanus stated that he was right. Mr. Sulander asked if there were any unused commons available in the future. He stated that slips 11 and 12 were far too shallow for boats and that it was a difficult area to maneuver around in. Hanus stated that 11 and 12 were to be assigned to Mr. Watson and that he had sailboats on lifts which required less depth than other boats. Hanus believes the water depth at this point is deeper than last year. Mr. Sulander asked if the system has worked well in the last few years, why is it being changed. He asked why it couldn't be left alone and eventually decrease to seven slips as originally agreed to by the people. He suggested relocated the other slips on other commons to be developed. ??? of 2915 Tuxedo Boulevard asked why the people were relocated from other commons and if anyone on City Council was affected by the changes. Mayor Meisel stopped the discussion at that point and stated that the discussion would not go that direction tonight. They have discussed these points previously and viewpoints had been aired. If anyone wanted to review the past meeting minutes they were available. She also stated she could be called and she would discuss the issues personally with them. Every meeting in 1999 has had this topic discussed and now it was time to move on and make some decisions. John Zuccaro of 3136 Island View Drive stated that he lives three doors away from the proposed dock configuration. He has lived there for 46 years and all his children grew up taking swimming lessons there. He believes the dimensions of the dock as pictured on the overhead are confusing. He believes it is a safety issue and problem. The beach is unsupervised and he doesn't believe the ropes will help. Additionally to fully analyze the slips, the lake depth needs to be noted. He said these were the only issues he had. Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 11, 1999 Brown discussed the option on page 1631 of the packet. He stated that on this option double piers encompass the beach area. If oil was a problem, he suggested placing ropes and a "floating absorbent material" between the boats and the swimming area. This material not only serves as a boundary, it soaks up the oil. Mr. Zuccaro asked why not leave it the way it is now. Hanus stated the primary reason for the change was to allow more room. That is why the multiple dock versus individual docks was initially installed. However, he stated, it was not designed to be so totally in front of one person's picture window as it has ended up since after the first year. This is the impetus for change to reduce the negative impact to the southerly neighbor, he stated. Stan Straley of 4501 Island View Drive stated he was the property owner north of the park. He asked about his view. He stated this relieves the visibility for the neighbor to the south, but makes it a visibility problem for him. No the "marina" is in front of my house. Hanus stated that he shared his concern, but that all the LMCD rules and regulations had been followed in the new dock configurations. Mr. Straley stated that the plan last Council meeting would have required him to file for a variance and that he was informed that the LMCD believed he was in favor of that plan. He stated that no one had contacted him with any plans. He wondered if the presentation last time was an attemPt to convince the LMCD that all owners had agreed to the new configuration. Hanus stated that this was not the intention. Mr. Straley wanted it stated publicly that he was not in favor of the dock in the middle of the beach area. Hanus stated that it was 5 - 6 feet from the south access road. Mr. Straley asked why the #1 slip had a 10 foot setback to the property line. He asked why it was not on the sbuth side of the dock. Fackler stated that other plans (pages 1628 and 1629) had this configuration, but that the intend was to stay within 143 feet. Members of the Council asked if the whole dock arrangement could be moved down one slip. It was indicated that the plan might be more favorable that way. The #1 slip is for a 36 foot cruiser and would need to be rearranged anyway to fit this size of a boat. Fackler stated that the #1 could be changed with #10. Hanus stated that would make it difficult to accommodate the sailboats on #10 and 11. If you moved it to the other side, he said, it would put it in the beach area more. Nonetheless, stated Hanus, he did not have a problem with minor rearrangements to the configuration. He would like to stay within the negotiated 143-foot measurement, however. Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 11, 1999 Dean Sulander stated that he would like to see the dock issue tabled for this year, the existing configuration put in so people could go boating, the people could work together over the next 11 months to come up with a plan that suited everyone's needs. Janet Petersen of 3136 Tuxedo Boulevard stated that she had been informed she was a non- abutter to Pembroke Commons. She purchased her home because of the parkland and the swimming area for the children. She is concerned about such a large dock. She asked the following questions: Is it a public dock? Can anyone walk on it? Hanus stated that it was intended for dock leases only. What is the legal distance out an adult swimmer could go from the beach? Brown stated that a swimmer could go as far out as they were comfortable with. They could swim across the lake, he indicated. She was looking at the 1630 configuration and asked how it would keep the children from swimming under the rope. Hanus asked her how they kept the children within the rope area today. She stated that she agreed with those before her. She has real safety concerns with the boats and dock area so close to the swimming beach. She doesn't want it to be resolved tonight. She would like to see it tabled. She also indicated that she did not receive notice of this meeting. Weycker indicated that only the people with slips on the dock had been notified. Craig Watson of 4610 Tuxedo Boulevard stated that he had a petition signed by 90 people objecting to the dock. He doesn't like what they are doing to the dock. He doesn't like the trash that is going to result from having it here. He doesn't like what it does to the beach area and the danger to the kids. The petition reads as follows: "We, as residents of the Pembroke Beach area, feel that the proposed dock configuration will offer a hazard and inconvenience to the children who use the beach. The hazards as we see them are: An attractive nuance - in the physical dock that the children can climb on - run on - and jump off the structure. There will be flotsam on the beach area consisting of weeds, trash, and oil spillage, mainly due to the blockage of water flow by the boats. This we believe will be a health threat to the children as they use the beach. Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 11, 1999 The dock will extend into the swimming area causing less usable area to play and swim." Mr. Watson indicated that slip #11 was too swallow for his boat. The dock would have to extend further out about 10 - 15 feet. His boat is 28 feet long and this is a low water year. He indicated that slip #10 was deep enough, however, it cuts off an additional 10 feet of the dock because of its size and length. It is a SeaRay. Brown stated that he had three slips. Mr. Watson quickly stated that the City has issued permits to have 4 boats at his own dock. He stated the neighbor to the south, Rod, indicated to him that last year's configuration was all right. He just didn't want them to come any further in front of his window. With that configuration, stated Watson, the beach is safer, the kids are not affected by the boats. Additionally, he stated, he does not want to lose his own private dock. Sometime in the future, the City could say you could only have one slip. He believes his dock is supposed to be grand fathered in. He was told that the Park wasn't used as much and would be going away. He stated that was untrue. Last Sunday, there were 15 kids and parents playing at the park. They've taken away the lifeguard, he stated that used to be here. He believes a lifeguard is needed, the parents are afraid to send their kids down there alone. He has also heard rumors that a member of the council was talking about moving the dock even closer, like to within 3 feet. He was curious if there was some agenda that wasn't put on the table. Another concern Mr. Watson has is that he pays $150 for four slips at his own dock. Other people pay $150 per slip. Is the City going to charge him more he asked. The Mayor indicated that she felt the ordinances needed a thorough review to bring them in line with where Mound is today. Mr. Watson asked if the lake was public access to everyone. The mayor indicated that a dock was a privilege, not a right. Mr. Watson went on to say that there was a "war and the council was writing their own rules and taking the vote away from the people." He went on that Rod Plaza has no objections to where the dock was located last year. Don Sherburne Jr. of 4529 Tuxedo Boulevard lives across the street from this area for 43 years. He believes the dock could be positioned further south than the proposed configuration. He doesn't believe that one resident should get all the space freed at the inconvenience of others on a common area. He stated that if the dock were moved further south two slips, the boats could get in and out easier. He stated that it would be less of a safety issue and they should move it closer to Plaza's property. Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 11, 1999 Hanus asked how it was less safe where it was proposed. He asked the people to get to the point. He stated that no one so far had come up with the real reason why the people don't want it moved. The Mayor suggested it be moved in front of where Mr. Watson's dock was now. Someone from the audience stated that might work on paper/board, but it won't work on the beach. Mr. Watson said the configuration was about 10 feet further north of where he is. He was 15 feet from the light pole. Janet Petersen asked about other's views. She stated that they had a picnic down at the Park last Sunday. They had a beautiful view of the lake. If the dock is placed there, the view will be obstructed. Dean Sulander stated that at the last Council meeting when the park issue came up for Philbrook Park the decision was to leave it as it was, a quiet neighborhood park. Now, he said, you want to come and destroy this quiet neighborhood park. He doesn't understand how the two are different. He feels the Council is talking "out of both sides of your mouth." The Mayor asked Mr. Watson for the petition. Mr. Watson stated that every family with kids signed this petition that they did not want the dock changes. Only one individual was undecided. Nine people circulated the petition-everyone on the dock. Hanus asked what configuration they were told about. Mr. Watson stated that it was Option A and B from the last COuncil meeting. That was what they had then. He stated he didn't see any positives to the move. "The kids get screwed, the people and boats on the dock get hammered, and Rod says to leave it as it was last year." Hanus asked how the people and boats on the dock would get hammered. Mr. Watson explained that in slip #10 he has a boat and a dock behind him. That means he will have to dock sideways and the boat will hammer against the dock in the wind. Fackler commented that several people had stated this to him also. Parking the boat sideways will not work. Hanus stated that Mr. Erlandson parked sideways and he didn't get hammered. Mr. Erlandson stated that while that might be true in most weather, in the storms there were times when he did. Further, he stated that it was very difficult to maneuver his boat in. Mr. Watson stated "why not table and work on over the next year." Hanus stated that "past experience has shown that the people are not willing to work together for a solution. It was hard as a Council to stay in the same "rut" month after month. He stated if we do table it and begin working on it in October, do you think everyone can agree with a configuration they can live with? Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 11, 1999 Mr. Watson stated that when you j am it down our throats with little to no notice, people don't want to work it out now. He stated, "the City Council is doing its best to ram it down our throats now. That's the only reason people are unwilling to work it out now. Mayor Meisel stating the City Council was becoming known as the "bad guys." She doesn't think that is the case. They are trying to work this out, but no one is working with them. A citizen asked why not put the additional people on another commons. There is a concern about safety. Originally the dock was configured with nine boats, it was supposed to get down to seven. Now it is up to twelve. 'Weycker asked what it is that needs to be worked out. This is totally different than the original configuration of nine slips that was supposed to revert to seven when two boats left the program. Why does the size need to be increased, she asked. Hanus responded that it was to try to keep the people that were there in the neighborhood. Weycker disagreed, she stated that some of the people from Roanoke Commons needed to drive to get there. Brown called a point of order that things were getting argumentative. Bob Schmidt of 4708 Island View Drive stated that they should eliminate the non-abutters. Then the only people to realize the privilege would be the abutters. Dean Sulander that when the multiple dock was put in three years ago, it created a lot of upheaval. However, he stated, we were able to work it out. We did not dig in our heels and came to an agreement. The first year became a problem when they added the additional slip. Enlarging the dock is what made it a "marina." Hanus asked that the people be logical. A marina was not what was intended. "Let's get this thing in the water and work it out." Don Schervem, Sr. has a concern about the park. He has heard the equipment in the park is to be moved. The Mayor stated that was rumor only. He stated that the entire neighborhood was concerned. He also stated that he had signed a petition. If any thing should be moved, the parking lot should be moved across the street. He said the park is very important to the community. He is glad to work with the City, he said he would even take over the park maintenance at his own expense. After the hearing that the City was not closing the park, he did not care what happened to the dock. 10 olo Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 11, 1999 Elsa Watson of 4610 Tuxedo Boulevard stated that she wants the dock as it is. She stated, "we were promised out own dock." The Mayor stated that the ordinances needed reviewing. Everyone should have access to the commons if anyone did stated Ms. Watson. We have a good relationship with Rod and want to keep it that way. We were all happy with the way the dock was. "You are digging in your heels. Don't change it." Hanus stated that he did not agree that Mr. Plaza was content with the way it was. He believes there is a miscommunication somewhere. He will not support putting the dock back in the way it was. Brown asked if they used the configuration shown on page 1630 for this year and worked with the neighborhood to work out a "better" plan for next year that meet everyone's concerns would Hanus vote for it. Hanus responded that he would agree provided it isn't put in beyond the 143-foot pre- negotiated location and provided that City Council doesn't mind working with this again. Brown suggested that the City work with four neighborhood representatives. He was willing to represent the Council. Weycker asked why they were working with Hanus and not the Dock Commission. Hanus stated that he was the one contacted on the issue last year. Weycker asked why he didn't go through the Dock and Park Commissions first. She stated for the public that Hanus bypassed the two appropriate advisory boards prior to coming to the City Council. By doing that, she stated, the multiple slip dock configurations is not in alignment with the City's Comprehensive Plan. That called for seven slips not twelve. Twelve overtakes the beach and makes it a "marina." There are three beaches on the island including this one. She feels this is creating another "Al and Alma's" situation. She asked the attorney to rule on the City's responsibility on liability if anyone were to get hurt. The initial configuration went in on a one-year trial period. The resulting issues were never addressed such as the shallowness. Now it has been there three years and they are adding more slips. Why not fix the problems she stated. Hanus stated that they are adding more multiple sites every year so that was a non-issue. As for going to the Park Commission, the beach is not impacted. He pointed out that the records for the original Task Force recommendation covered both small and large park complexes. He did not see a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Weycker stated that the park area complex was never discussed in the conceptual plan for the multiple dock. They never talked about using more parkland or wrapping around the beach. Additional slips were never discussed. Hanus stated that another part of the plan discussed a larger complex. But, stated Weycker, the trial was on a small neighborhood park. 11 Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 11, 1999 Brown stated that the rope was separating the beach area and the dock area. Could the rope be extended over further to keep the docks from entering, he asked. Fackler stated it could be and you could use an upright buoy with an anchor of double bricks to stop something fi'om floating into the area. Hanus stated that the conceptual plan was just that, a concept. They need to be flexible and change and manage the programs efficiently. This allowed that area to have a triple use: park, swimming beach and docks. Nothing is permanent he stated, everything is changeable. One needs to change with the times. Brown asked if they could assign a lifeguard down there. Fackler stated the lifeguard had been taken from this area and used elsewhere. He could talk with Tim Piepkorn and see what his recommendation is. Mayor Meisel asked what would happen if they moved the dock fifteen feet closer to the light pole. Hanus stated that it was outside the pre-negotiated area of 143 feet. It doesn't open up the beach any, he stated, but does help visually. He suggested just moving the stick over. Mayor Meisel indicated she felt this would make a safer beach. Ahrens suggested moving the stick back to between slips 7 and 8. The mayor agreed. Mr. Watson posed the following question to the Council. You have had all the users say we will work together towards a mutually acceptable plan. Leave the dock as it is. The City Council is elected and works for the people. They have totally ignored what the people want. Another citizen stated they thought they lived in a democracy and that the majority should rule. The mayor indicated that this was not to please just one person, but to open it up for more. Marlene Straley, a lakeshore owner from the north side said she didn't think they were concerned about their visibility or how the dock would affect their property, the Council was only concerned about the one person. Several citizens asked why fix what works. Hanus said it doesn't work ,that's why. The response was, it doesn't work according to one person. This same citizen wanted to know why the Docks commission didn't review this. Weycker stated that it certainly should have gone to that advisory committee first. Hanus stated that if it had to pass two other committees/boards/commissions, it would be July before the dock was put in. Hanus stated that the individual slips and depth of water and distance from the beach had not changed. 12 go/g_ Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 11, 1999 John Helgeson of 3124 Tuxedo Boulevard asked if they had a list of people with boats to be on that dock. The answer was no. He is concerned about the 36-foot boat. There will problems anywhere on the dock with this boat. Brown suggested that "maybe your boat is too large for the dock system." The mayor came back to the need to review the ordinances. Ahrens suggested extending section one towards the shore. That would give him room for his boat and protect the beach more. Mr. Helgeson stated that would work for him, but he still couldn't see why the dock had to change. He asked if the reason was to relocate people from Roanoke onto this dock. He still wanted to know why they couldn't work with what was there and change for next year. Hanus responded that Plaza has absorbed the entire dock far too long. The citizens asked why he (Plaza) wasn't at the meeting. Mr. Helgeson stated he felt like the City Council was holding this over their heads, if they didn't agree, then the docks wouldn't go in at all. Ahrens stated that they needed to fit 12 boats into the dock. Mr. Watson stated that if they left it as it was, there would 11 of the 12 boats there. Hanus asked where they should locate the other people, elsewhere in the City. Weycker asked Hanus if this was still impacted by the Roanoke area.-Ilanus m,~wc'~¢d )'es. The attorney was asked if it was a conflict of interest to have Ahrens participating in this discussion. Dean came back after attempting to listen to the tape (which had been switched offunbeknownst to the Council in the audio/visual room upstairs and therefore there was no taped record), and stated that when this discussion had begun he was approached with the question of whether or not there was a conflict of interest on the Council. Ahrens asked him that question herself. He didn't think at the time there was an issue. When the question was asked about where do we locate the other people in the city by Hanus, he still did not see a connection to Devon. Therefore, he still does not see a conflict of interest if Ahrens remains on the Council for this discussion. The Mayor made a motion which was: MOTION made by Mayor Meisel, seconded by Brown to put in the configuration as it was on page 1630 with the accommodations for an extra section onto number 1 to accommodate a 36 foot boat. The stick would be located 13.25 feet from the light post. The Beach area would be roped off from the rest of the area and 13 Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 11, 1999 this would be revisited in October to determine how it worked. This season would be a trial period. In conjunction with his second, Brown asked that a representative neighborhood group work with people from the City to come to some compromise through the summer rather than waiting until October. Four neighborhood representatives, one City Council member, one Parks Commission member, and one Dock Commission member was suggested. At least one of the neighborhood representatives needed to live in the neighbor hood, the other three could be on the dock or residents or both. The Mayor accepted Brown's amendment. Discussion Hanus asked that along with the motion be an amendment which would direct the City Attorney to draft an agreement between the City of Mound and the neighbor to the south of Pembroke Park, Rodrigo Plaza Navarrette at 4539 Island View Drive. This document will state that Mr. Plaza agrees that the city may freely utilize a portion of the property in front of the Plaza property for city dockage in either a single or multiple configuration without contest. In exchange for this promise of no contest in the future, the city will agree that it will not expand, extend, or shift the dock/boat complex area beyond a point 143 feet southwest along the shoreline as measured from the north property line of Pembroke Park. Weycker went on record to say that this was "truly a scary precedent" that the City would allow themselves to be tied to a particular limit on public property. She feels this will become an issue and follow them through discussions on all the different commons. She asked Dean what the City's liability would be if anyone got hurt because of the configuration they set up. Dean stated that he couldn't comment on the configuration, but surely, if it was set up to deliberately be unsafe and someone was injured, the City would have liability. Hanus also asked that along with the motion, the money be released to pay for the dock. The Mayor accepted the 143-foot guideline. Weycker stated "beware, it is a sad thing that we are doing. I believe that will eliminate the beach and kids won't use because it will be too dirty. It is another "Al and Alma's" situation. The motion was called. Motion carried 4-1. (Weycker stated she was very opposed and voting nay.) 14 Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 11, 1999 Mr. Watson stated "you have just shown us that we have nothing to do with governing the City of Mound and once again 3 yahoos have hurt us." Mark Cita stated that he found it interesting that a council member can just pre-negotiate an agreement with one individual without considering others or even including them in the negotiations. Dean stated that if by "pre-negotiate" he meant discuss, a person could do this. However, he cautioned them to remember that he was only one vote. Tim Hollenberger of 4512 Clyde Road stated that the City Council did not even consider the 90 signatures on the petition as indicating their preference. Since that was the case, why would four members of the council make a difference. Weycker publicly pointed out that there was nothing recorded on this discussion via video or via tape. Neither one were functioning. This will not be shown on the public video. The following people volunteered to work with the neighborhood: Stan Straley, John Mundt, Dean Sulander, Todd Rask, Tim Williams. Brown volunteered again from the City Council. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT Barb Casey of 4704 Island View Drive wanted to know why it was in the City's best interest to remove her dock and Albrecht's dock last week. Mayor Meisel discussed the decision made last meeting regarding Roanoke Commons. Ms. Casey asked where the study from the Docks Commission was and why they were not used. Hanus stated that it was a hot, legal issue that had to be resolved. In cases like that, it doesn't do much good to use the advisory committees. Weycker indicated that until this issue, the advisory committees were always used. Renae LaFortune of 46?? Island View Drive indicated that not everyone in the room was opposed to the dock. She wanted the Council to know that she was not opposed and that there were two sides to the "story." She also stated that she very much enjoys using the park system, however, she recognizes that Pembroke Park is lacking in facilities. She has been taking her children to Plymouth to play, but has recently contacted Fackler for suggestions of another park to use. She has started using Dundee Park and feels this is a very good park and the neighborhood protects it. She thanked the Council for considering "all" citizens' viewpoints. 15 Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 11, 1999 RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ON FENCE/TRELLIS STRUCTURES Gordon covered the information the Planning Commission passed on to the Council regarding fences and trellises. The Planning Commission reviewed this issue on April 26, 1999 at their regular workshop meeting. The decided to not change the way the ordinance reads. Ahrens stated that in the minutes it notes that none of the cities that Gordon researched have a definition spelled out regarding fences and that Mound Staff was asked to use "common sense" when they were reviewing a situation involving something that could be considered a fence. She found it interesting that all cities regulated fences, but did not define them. She asked if the definition for fences was removed from the ordinance, wouldn't it make it easier for the staff. Brown stated that the Planning Commission did not see a problem leaving the definition in. Ahrens pointed out that because of the materials cited in the ordinance, she could put a wrought iron enclosure around her yard and it would not be considered a fence. Weycker asked if there was a problem with the definition. Ahrens indicated that it needed changing to include more or to be dropped entirely from the ordinance. Gordon stated that he has worked with communities that do not have a definition and if there was a question, the normal default was the dictionary definition. Hanus stated that it still becomes an interpretive issue. Gordon stated that our ordinance is basically that, a definition from the dictionary. Without it, there could be issues if Staff tried to enforce something also. Hanus stated that by not having a definition, Staff is allowed to look at the intent of the structure and the person placing it at the same time. Dean stated that if there were to be change, the law would require the entire process to be completed. In this case, it means that the Council could say that the Planning Commission had their "shot" at the ordinance or that they could allow the Planning Commission to take one final view at it. Then a public hearing would be required. Brown stated he thought the Planning Commission would like to review it again. Hanus suggested that either the materials not be listed or a phrase such as "other acceptable materials be added." The Mayor said they needed to give Staff credit for common sense. Gordon suggested that when the Comprehensive Plan was finished, a zoning ordinance review was needed. He suggested that this issue could wait until then. Dean suggested that would be okay, however, it should be within the next year. 16 Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 11, 1999 RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON LAKESIDE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Gordon indicated that this was a Planning Commission discussion item that initiated from the Hunt Boat House case. In his research, other communities ruled on both sides about evenly. The DNR stated that they look to the City for insight on these issues and if the City wants this to be reflected in the ordinance, they may have to "give up something else." This would open up the opportunity for the DNR to review all the codes again. Therefore, the Planning Commission wanted to leave the codes as they are written for lakeside accessory structures. Hanus stated that in the Hunt case, the roof was rotting. Because it was a structural issue, the Planning Commission reviewed. The owners wanted to replace the shingles. Planning Commission said they couldn't. The Building could stay, but the roof would have to go. Ilanus has a problom 4v that one rafter was broken and need~,~l fixing.~Otnexwi~e, it wa3 a sound ~tv,,m~re, But they needed a building permit. Now it is non-conforming and they need a variance. The Mayor made some additional comments on the Hunt case. Weycker asked how the accessory buildings fit in with the Shoreline management for the DNR. Gordon stated that the model allows lakeside accessory structures close to the lake. Hanus stated that the City's regulations do not always match the DNR's. In fact, often they are stricter. However the DNR signs offon the City's. The Mayor asked about the comments made by DNR's hydrologist as found on page 1661. She requested that perhaps she could come in and speak with the Council about what changes the City might have to make or give up if they were to change the Lakeside Accessory Structure ordinances. There was some additional discussion regarding boat houses and the different philosophies people have about them. For example, Ahrens likes boat houses along the Lake. She thinks they add character. Frank Weiland of the Planning Commission stated that the reason the Hunt case was denied was not just the roof. It was denied because the owner had been warned that he would need a building permit and he went forward anyway. "He didn't play ball all along." .'~he Ma/yxrr discussed her. boat house and the issucs she lvas with ~aow. Shc asked if she ccadd4-eva4~ ~ Weiland stated that the structure could be repaired for up to 50% of the overall value over a lifetime. Mayor Meisel asked if she could put up a brace Gordon stated that if the support structure were modified in any way, then the ordinances wouldn't support it. The Mayor said that didn't make sense. Hanus said that was because fixing the support 17 Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 11, 1999 structure was considered adding life to the structure. Again, it could be repaired up to 50% of the value over it's life time. Structure repairs normally take more than 50%. The Mayor stated the ordinance needed review and the Council needed more information from the DNR about issues they would need to "give up." Hanus suggested after further discussion that the issue be sent back one more time to the Planning Commission with these minutes and they should hold a study session on it and perhaps bring in the area hydrologist for comment. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Financial report for April as prepared by Finance Director, Gino Businaro. B. Letter from City of Excelsior, thanking the Mound Fire Department for their help in containing a fire on main street of Excelsior on April 25, 1999. C. LMCD mailings. D. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 1999. E. Letter from Our Lady of Grace Catholic Church asking that the City consider using the name of Father Francis Jager when renaming Auditor's Road after the improvement. (The Mayor will respond with a letter to them regarding this.) Letter from C. Scott Thomas of Minnetrista, who was appointed to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers. G. Action alert from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding levy limits. Letter sent to Gen and Steve regarding this. Notice from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities regarding Tax Increment Financing legislation. Update from Suburban Rate Authority on Area Codes. Reminder: HRA meeting, 7:00 p.m. prior to the Regular City Council meeting, May 11, 1999. Reminder: Committee of the Whole meeting, Tuesday, May 18, 1999, 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. Fo Ho 18 Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 11, 1999 Brown again brought up the Pembroke Park committee and offered to be the City Council representative on the committee. The mayor stated that they would address this at the Committee of the Whole meeting. Dean had an add-on information piece on the letter from Michael Gavin regarding the Devon Commons issues. Mr. Gavin has respectfully asked the Council to reverse their decision. Dean will draft a response to Mr. Gavin and fax it over to him tomorrow. Clark stated that she received notice that Triax is finalizing things to purchase Media Communications. As a result, there will not be public cable available for a while. Brown stated that bids were being taken at the Builders Exchange on May 13th for the demolition on the Community Center. MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Weycker to adjourn. Motion carried 5-0. Meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. ~o Xo. MINUTES - MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MAY 18, 1999 The Committee of the Whole for the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 18, 1998, at 7:40 PM, in the Council Workroom at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: Acting City Manager Fran Clark, Police Chief, Len Harnell, Bruce Chamberlain (HKGI), The Mayor opened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Bruce Chamberlain discussed part of the timetable for redevelopment of downtown. The items he looked at include: the new post office, redevelopment of the Langdon District, hotel/farmer's market, completion of Lost Lake Canal and Greenway projects, redevelopment of Coast to Coast District, Auditors Road District, and the relocation of County road 15. He stated that while it was an aggressive schedule, he felt it was doable. He stated that he wanted to work through the EDC for additional component discussions and then they would come to the City Council for review and approval. His intent is to prepare a strategic plan and schedule for each endeavor (listed and others that come up) and appropriately delegate responsibility for each of them. There will be a team of developers, public finance specialists, acquisition and relocation specialists, architects and engineers working on the actual plans. Brown asked why' the Post Office project was delayed. Mr. Chamberlain stated that a number of factors played into that decision. Chamberlain stated that with the good economy he is with working with Bill Beard (developer for redevelopment of the Landgon District and Auditors Road District). There has been a request to pull up the Coast to Coast project by six months. Mayor Meisel gave an update regarding the Community Center proposed demolition. The bids have been let and will be awarded on June 7th. She has spoken with Eric Bjorklund and asked for a verbal appraisal of the property if it was "clean" and nothing was on it minus the cost of the demolition. She thinks that possible the City should go in there and offer to purchase the land as is. She stated that the school district has found the extra money to do the demolition without touching the $1.2 million. If the Council is inclined to do so, however, they need to move prior to June 7t~ when the bids are scheduled to be awarded. Hanus raised the question of what was happening to the land next to the SuperAmerica. He stated that he was more interested in this piece of land versus the Community Center piece since it is proposed to house a hotel and restaurant. Chamberlain indicated that he will try to work with the Mound Committee of the Whole Regular Meeting Minutes May 18, 1999 existing owner and see what they can do with him retaining ownership or if they can get him to handle the development as we would design it. He has also discussed the choreography of the projects with Bill Beard for the downtown development. Some of those thoughts require relocating the post office which could be placed elsewhere. There are other retail opportunities for the coruer of Auditors Road and County Road 110. Brown and Hanus came back to the Community Center Site. Hanus feels it may be too expensive. It was suggested that the area could be rolled into a TIF district. Some other options for payment include Tax Anticipation bonds or General Obligation bonds. Hanus stated that his preference was still the Super America site. The Mayor indicated that they should at least consider posting an "intent to purchase" to the school district. Hanus asked if Beard could purchase the property and develop it. Chamberlain indicated that he was working with the team for redevelopment of the downtown area and that this would have to be weighed against the projects and what the team said. Chamberlain stated that if the City wanted the Community Center land, they would probably have to go out on a limb to acquire since the school district did not trust the City. (Mayor Meisel). If their intent stops demolition (especially after bid awarding), then there is a financial obligation. He stated that he would work with Dean and the School District and look at the options for financing. Hanus asked what the City's obligation is if they give letter of intent. Chamberlain stated that in the worse case scenario, "we buy the land and something changes, we still have property to sell." The Mayor stated that for a fallback, the City could go to the bank for a loan. Harnell stated that his would give the City the "opportunity to control their own destiny." Hanus asked in light of all the property the City will have to acquire, how will this impact that. Chamberlain stated that eventually, it can be rolled into a TIF. The Mayor directed Chamberlain to start working on the Super America site land options vigorously also. Chamberlain stated that he was developing a plan to meet with all the business owners and Bud Storm from Evergreen regarding acquisition in order that it was handled in a "legal and moral, ethical, professional, and above board manner." There should be on-going meetings every six to eight weeks with business owners to keep lines of communication open that were on the order of the earlier one sponsored by the City Council. 2 Mound Committee of the Whole Regular Meeting Minutes May 18, 1999 Greg Skinner spoke with the COW regarding the Y2K requirements in the Public Works department, particularly in the water department. A current contingency plan is being worked on. He presented the two bids they received for the work to be done. His recommendation was to go with the quote from U. S. Filter in the amount of $16,250.00. They did receive a bid from the current vendor. However, they have not been especially happy with the service on the equipment from Davies. They are looking at September to be "p and running." The residential equipment will be the same. This will place meters on the homes and readers. Clark stated that there was not money in the budget, but that it would have to be done. Gino Businaro sent a memo regarding the request from John Cameron to look at the Water and Sewer Funds and determine what percentage the cost to revenue could be attributed to direct operation, exclusive of personnel cost and payments to Metropolitan Council. For the south portion of the WARA development, water is a direct cost, sewer isn't as concerning. Minnetrista reviewed these numbers last night. Hanus asked what would happen when Mound needs a new well. How would these residents be assessed, he asked. Ahrens stated that they would probably need the new well regardless. The Mayor asked what the Council felt about the agreement with Minnetrista.. They thought it was a fair agreement. However, Ahrens asked how much additional land was there that could tap into this and Weycker asked for time to review these numbers. Clark stated that the information was handed out for review and no action was being taken tonight. Ahrens asked about the compost site and where it was to be located. The S~ate h~x~ a,~a~ along Highway 7, but it is hung up with the frontage road and the striping stated ~aaff. v It was discussed at the meeting in Minnetrista the evening before that MnDOT needs a letter from them (Minnetrista) covering striping issue. Ahrens suggested tying the water issue to the compost/recycling issue. Skinner stated that the SMC (corporation for recycling) had met all the requirements to go ahead, the issue seems to be in Minnetrista. Ahrens stated that she felt uncomfortable, with Minnetrista making all the demands of Mound and Mound ending up on the short end of things. She stated that the citizens were "mad." They had paid all this money into a recycling fund and now have no place to take their recycling to. Hanus and Weycker stated that part of the fee was pick-ur of the recycling and now the fee won't be used for that. A voucher system was discussed. Hat/tell suggested limiting access to the site and providing a location the residents could "dump in" and then the City could haul once or twice a week to a more regional site. He felt this may be a short term solution for all the phone calls the City is receiving. Mound Committee of the Whole Regular Meeting Minutes May 18, 1999 Skinner stated that he would talk with Minnetrista tomorrow and make it clear that there was a contingency between the water and the recycling site. The Council gave Skinner the okay to move forward with Y2K issues. The Council was notified that letters on the Seton Bluff variance for LMCD had been sent. This waived the right to notice of Public Hearing for the City and allows for minimum crossing of cattails. There was a letter from Mr. Albrecht regarding his dock costs to the Council. If the City purchased the dock for his cost, there would be an additional out of pocket expense for the City of $445 between his cost and the appraised cost from Fackler. After discussion, the Council members suggested offering the appraised amount of $1650 or suggesting that Mr. Albrecht sell the dock on his own. The Council discussed personnel issues for Clark, Harnell, and Joel Krumme. After a lengthy discussion minus these people and others, the Council gave the following proposals. The Mayor prefaced the proposals with the remark that legal opinion had to be sought on the proposals and the money found to fund them. Clark; raise base pay to $50,376 plus 10%. Enable a bonus system to be paid out at the end of her term as "Acting City Manager." This system would be based on four elements: public relations, supervision, communication and organizational skills and would be from $2000 - $5000. If she meets all the criteria, the full bonus would he awarded. Clark accepted this proposal, but indicated some concern over the difference in what Businaro received when he was Acting City Manager. The Council did comment that the communication Clark was giving others was way up and appreciated. This increase would be retroactive to 4/27/99. Harnell was offered an increase of 5% to his base pay plus 10% plus a 2% increase. In January 2000, his base salary would be raised 3 % more plus a $5000 bonus. This would put his base at $65,926 now and $67,904 in January. This would assume a five year commitment on his part to stay until retirement. Harnell will not withdraw from the University of Minnesota job process (at the urging of Brown, although Harnell stated he would withdraw) and notify Council of his decision after that process. If he accepts the Council's offer, it would be retroactive to May 18a. 4 Mound Committee of the Whole Regular Meeting Minutes May 18, 1999 The Mayor stated that she would pass on this information to Businaro the next day regarding Clark and the proposal to Harnell. Hanus suggested adopting a policy which would reward departments for coming in under budget rather than penalizing them. Brown asked Harnell if there was anything in the Police Department that was needed from Council. Harnell stated that there was always a need for police officers. Brown suggested setting up an incentive for the officers to stay. Different plans were discussed. The Mayor offered to sit down with Krumme with the Council's recommendations. Harnell will update him first regarding the discussion held tonight. Krumme would be asked what it would take to keep him there in his position for five years or so and present that plan to the City Council. Clark informed the Council that there is a bid with Olympic to repair the outside of the building and that it would show up on the bills. Brown raised a concern about using non-Mound contractors. Clark stated that in this case, the exterior was a specific material and Olympic was the one that originally installed it, thus she went to them to maintain. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn. Motion carried: 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. Mound Committee of the Whole Regular Meeting Minutes May 18, 1999 The Mayor stated that she would pass on this information to Businaro the next day regarding Clark and the proposal to Harnell. Hanus suggested adopting a policy which would reward departments for coming in under budget rather than penalizing them. Brown asked Harnell if there was anything in the Police Department that was needed from Council. Harnell stated that there was always a need for police officers. Brown suggested setting up an incentive for the officers to stay. Different plans were discussed. The Mayor offered to sit down with Krumme with the Council's recommendations. Harnell will update him first regarding the discussion held tonight. Krumme would be asked what it would take to keep him there in his position for five years or so and present that plan to the City Council. Clark informed the Council that there is a bid with Olympic to repair the outside of the building and that it would show up on the bills. Brown raised a concern about using non-Mound contractors. Clark stated that in this case, the exterior was a specific material and Olympic was the one that originally installed it, thus she went to them to maintain. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn. Motion carded: 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 25, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 25, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Police Chief Len Harrell, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon. 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 Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered itt normal sequence. APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Brown asked that item 3D be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Weycker pulled item 3A from the Consent Agenda. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Brown to approve the Regular Agenda, as presented, and items B, C, E, F, G, H, and I from the Consent Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA Bo CASE 99-12: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, LOT SIZE, HARDCOVER; TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2925 HOLT LANE; BLOCK 6, LOT 5, MINNESOTA BAPTIST SUMMER ASSEMBLY, MICHAEL STOLTENOW, 61810, PID//23-117-24 42 0074. MOTION Ahrens, Brown unanimously. Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES CASE 99-13: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD SETBACK AND STREET FRONTAGE; TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 4420 RADNOR ROAD; BLOCK 15, LOTS 3-4-5 AND PART OF 6, AVALON, JERRY BARELMAN, 37850, PID #19-117-23 34 0093. MOTION Ahrens, Brown unanimously. Eo CASE 99-18: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD SETBACK; TO CONSTRUCT A LAKESIDE DECK AT 2625 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD; BLOCK 1, PART OF LOT 1, SHIRLEY HILLS, UNIT C, DAREN AND JILL JENSEN; 62030, PID # 24-117-24 13 0013. MOTION Ahrens, Brown unanimously. MOTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 99-22; PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER FINAL PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR THE LYNMORE SUBDIVISION TWIN HOME PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, AT 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE, PID # 13-117-24 44 0032. SUGGESTED DATE - JUNE 8. 1999. MOTION Ahrens, Brown unanimously. Go MOTION TO APPROVE LICENSE RENEWALS AS FOLLOWS: CLUB ON-SALE SUNDAY ON-SALE · ON-SALE WINE ON-SALE BEER · OFF-SALE BEER MOTION Ahrens, Brown unanimously. Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES H. PAYMENT REQUEST NUMBER 1 (PARTIAL STREET UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION. MOTION Ahrens, Brown unanimously. MOTION TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION Ahrens, Brown unanimously. PAYMENT) NORWOOD LAND The vote was 5-0 in favor. Motion carried to approve the regular agenda as presented and the preceding consent agenda items. DISCUSSION - ITEM 3A Weycker stated that on page 13 (1718) of the May 11, 1999 Council meeting minutes, paragraph //3, should read: "Weycker asked Hanus (not attorney) if this was still impacted by the Roanoke area." Weycker added to this paragraph the following: 'Hanus answered yes. The attorney was asked if it was a conflict of interest to have Ahrens participating in this discussion." Hanus disagreed that he answered in the affirmative. MOTION made by Weycker to approve the minutes with this amendment. The motion died on the floor for lack of a second. Hanus had the following changes: Last paragraph on page 8 (1713), second sentence should read: "Someone from the audience stated ..." (not Hanus). Seventh paragraph on page l0 (1715) should read: Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES "Don Schervern, Sr. has a concern about the park. He has heard the equipment in the park is to be moved. The Mayor stated that was rumor only. He also stated that he had signed the petition .... He is glad to work with the City, he said he would even take over the park maintenance at his own expense. After the hearing that the City was not closing the park, he did not care what happened to the dock." Paragraph two on page 11 (1716), Brown stated he was willing to represent the Council, not the neighborhood. In the fifth paragraph on that page, Hanus stated that the third sentence was garbled. He wanted to deleted the sentences "This is a park/beach .... Not a large park area." He also suggested that it should read: "He pointed out that the records for the original Task Force recommendation covered both small and large park complexes." Weycker did not agree that this was what he said. After discussion, the attorney suggested that the minutes review be tabled until such time as the hand written notes of the meeting have been reviewed. The tape recording of the meeting had been turned off unbeknown to the Council at that meeting for a period of time. That period of time would cover these discussions. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to table the approval of the minutes to provide time for review of the handwritten secretarial notes. Motion carried 5-0. DISCUSSION - ITEM 3D Prior to any discussion, Mayor Meisel abstained from this discussion since it involved a neighbor or hers. She turned the leadership of the meeting over to Council member Hanus. Brown stated that the proposal on page 1767 of the packet while conforming is a line of sight issue for Commerce Boulevard since the structure is proposed to be located near the front property line. He further indicated that the existing "cabin" is more of a small house. A firewall is needed to separate the cabin from the garage. In his experience, he stated, that if there was a fire, it would also take the house. He feels that locating the garage near the front property line "clutters up the street." Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES Brown proposed that the plan be returned to the City Building and Planning Departments for them to work with the applicant in reviewing this plan to locate it elsewhere on the property. Since there is already an existing attached garage, he feels the new proposed one should be reviewed for the above reasons. Hanus asked if the proposed garage is four feet from the house. Yes, it is. Hanus has difficulty denying a conforming structure. The ordinances allow up to three accessory structures on a property in this zone. The applicant is only proposing one. Since the cabin belongs to someone else, Hanus feels the applicant is being "punished" enough to have to put up a firewall between the garage and the cabin. Further, stated Hanus, he does not see where else the garage could be located on the property and be conforming. At the best, stated Hanus, the garage would have to be downsized to meet all other requirements. Actually, since it is the curb to curb with of the street is shorter than the right- of-way, the garage is actually 8 feet back from the road. He does not see any need to redirect this back to the Planning Commission to review. Clyde Bonema, the applicant was present and explained that the purpose in locating the garage where it is proposed is to do two things. One it is to locate it on the east side of the driveway so that a turn around can be constructed going out onto the west side of the driveway to Commerce Boulevard. The second purpose is to locate it in a spot that "looks nice" on the property and in the neighborhood. In a response to a question from Mayor Meisel, Mr. Bonema indicated that the drainage plan is to put gutters all around draining towards the driveway and the lake. Some will drain onto the street where the natural flow of the land directs it that way. The structure will be finished as the house is. Hanus indicated that the drainage plan should be reviewed and approved by the City engineer and should be a condition in the resolution. Brown accepted the owners explanation and withdrew his motion to return this to the Planning Commission. MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Ahrens to recommend and approve the resolution on page 1752, # 99-16. Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES Brown recommended that a condition be placed on the resolution to have approval of the drainage plan from the City Engineer. Both Weycker and Ahrens accepted the amendment. Motion carried 4-0. Hanus turned the meeting back over to the Mayor. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. Peter Meyer, Chairperson of the Parks and Open Space Commission addressed the Council with concerns over what had transpired at the last two meetings regarding the multiple dock commons. He also addressed the "Letters from the Readers" (From the May 22, 1999 issue of THELAKER) submission from Mr. Hanus in response to this issue. He feels that at best, Mr. Hanus mislead, if not deceived the people regarding this issue. Mr. Meyer went on to explain that he thought Hanus was "catering to a special interest group." He believes the issue should have come before both the Docks and Commons Commission and the Park Commission prior to the City Council as the Council's advisory boards. Mr. Meyer did thank the Council for getting the citizen's involved in the process. However, he stated, a petition with ninety signatures was presented against the configuration and the Council still "did not listen to their wishes." At the end of additional comments against what had taken place, Mr. Meyer thanked the Council for "letting him vent" his opinions. Brown responded to Mr. Meyer with the fact that this is a new Council. Some of the members have only sat on it since January. He stated that they have been handling issues that should have been resolved long before they came. To further delay this process by sending these issues through the advisory boards, he felt was unfair to the citizens. While not all the decisions made, stated Brown, are always the best, they are making decisions and moving forward. In cases where a better solution is possible, they can revisit the issues. He believes that moving forward, the Council will have a more positive impact that before. Mayor Meisel stated that several neighborhood residents in the concerned area had volunteered to work on a task force to come up with a better proposal after this boating season. The groups to be represented include the Park and Open Space Commission. She asked Mr. Meyer if he would serve as the representative from that board. Mound City Council Meeting, Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES Mr. Meyer indicated that Parks programs have not been funded or supported in the past and this was a frustration to them. The Mayor and other Council members discussed ways that this has changed and was changing. Mr. Meyer asked why the Council bypassed the advisory boards on the multiple docks issues, Hanus asked that this conversation be suspended. That is because much time was spent in the last two council meetings specifically and for months prior. Mayor Meisel responded that she understood that the Parks and Open Space Commission felt slighted. However, the solution implemented at this point was not a permanent solution and would be revisited. When it is revisited, the Parks and Open Space Commission will have the opportunity for representation on the committee. CASE # 9%39: VARIANCE, SETBACK, LOT AREA WIDTH, TO CONSTRUCT A NON CONFORMING DWELLING AT 23XX DRIFTWOOD LANE, ROBERT STEELE, LOT 10, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PID # 13-117-24 44 0059. Gordon reported that this case came before the Planning Commission originally in November 1997. The application was tabled to develop a more suitable proposal. The request is for a variance in buildable lot size and for lot width variation, as well as flood plan elevation. The proposed structure will be a lot that will have 5900 square feet of buildable land, thus requiring a 4100 square foot variance from the required 10,000 square feet. The lot width is fifty-five feet as opposed to a sixty foot required width. The proposed foundation with a finished floor would be at 933.8 feet elevation that meets the elevation standards for floodplain areas. Gordon also stated that the soil was poor and even if filled would wash out as time goes by. The property owner has applied to the Watershed District in order to sign off on the compensation area requested to back fill this property. The proposed grading plan does then come under the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. A letter from Jim Hafner provides comment on this issue. The record notes that a memorandum from Ceil Strauss, the area hydrologist at the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources arrived in the office on April 12, 1999. This memo was brought to the meeting for review. Based on her survey on April 2, 1999, this lot would require "net filling." She stands opposed to net filling in the floodplain area and that this property would not meet the City's regulation of fifteen feet from all directions of the house to have the property be within the elevation for the 100 year height. Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES In a later conversation with the applicant, Ms, Strauss has indicated that they would not oppose this proposed structure and would write an amending letter if necessary. Gordon stated that in the first meeting in April 1999, the recommendation of the Commission was to table this proposal until receiving additional information regarding similar cases in recent history. The proposal was brought back to the Planning Commission in late April for further consideration. After much discussion of the issues, the precedent cases, the Commission recommended that the variance be denied on a vote of 4-3. They feel that there may be other alternatives in recombining lots 10 - 12 to make a lot that has a more buildable lot size. Brown commented that he felt rather strongly about this case. He stated such comments at the Planning Commission meetings. First of all, he stated, the fact that the sea wall is eroding is not due to the fault of Mr. Steele. It is due to lack of maintenance. Additionally, Mr. Steele is paying assessmems for sewer even though a septic tank is used on this site. Water is available. Mr. Steele, Brown explained is proposing to place a nice structure on this property, tie it into the City sewer system, place additional fill on this land to create additional lot area above the floodplain level, all of which would provide a more decent view from one of the main channels of the City. Ahrens commented that in the handout that Mr. Steele provided to all the Council members, he had provided the City with comparisons of other properties that had received variances to build that also were grossly undersized. She stated that based on some recent applications that had been granted, she would have trouble not granting this one. StaWs response to some of the more recent applications that had been approved covered that the applicants already lived on site and the "structure" was not vacant. They are trying to improve the infrastructure of the City and raise the housing standards which ties to their reason for recommending non approval. The Mayor asked if they were saying that the lot was unbuildable unless it was combined with other lots. Gordon answered that no, but it was a lot smaller than standards. The Mayor indicated that the staff should not be looking at other properties to recombine with. The fact that his daughter owns the adjacent property should not play into the decision. Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES Brown reiterated that this applicant had been paying taxes, assessments just like anyone else. "To say his land was unbuildable was wrong," stated Brown. Sutherland indicated that when the applicant purchased the property, they purchased both tax parcels. He should have been aware of the building ordinances when he sold part of the total property to his daughter. The applicant should have been aware that the remaining parcel was not large enough to build on and does not meet the City's Comprehensive Plans and Goals. Hanus stated that he had an issue with this. Both of these properties were "lots of record" and were separate tax parcels. It is not reasonable to expect all owners to know all the zoning codes. Ahrens did not feel that the argument that the applicant was not currently occupying the home was a valid one either. The Council had discussions about what the various jurisdictions stated about this property and the ability they had to regulate certain aspects of the property. This was when Mr. Steele reported his conversation with the DNR. Hanus stated that if the Watershed District approved the proposal, the applicant should be granted the variance. Brown started a motion to recommend approval of the variances, the setbacks, the lot area and width and the grading exceptions which was seconded by Hanus. HOwever, both withdrew their motions after the recognition that a resolution should be drawn up to grant the variances. Ahrens felt the Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution for approval which would be conditioned on the Minnehaha Watershed District's approval on the land fill. Weycker commented that if the structure was conforming, she felt he should be able to build it. Hanus also supported the proposal by looking at both sides. Yes, the lot was undersized, however, that was a case in a lot of lots in Mound. Secondly, instead of an old cabin, now there would be nice home. MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Hanus to direct Staff to prepare a resolution approving the variances requested by Mr. Steele subject to Minnehaha Watershed District approval and an approved drainage plan as reviewed by the City Engineer. Hanus seconded this motion to add clarification to it. The building should conform to the setbacks and floodplain regulations. It should be hooked up to sewer and the septic tank properly Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES abandoned. Finally, it should come back to the City Council the second week of June 1999 for final approval. Mr. Steele came forward with the following comments. When he brought the other cases before the Planning Commission for comparison, he did that to show the good points of his plan. One, he would be improving the drainage situation that exists today from the vacated Driftwood Lane. He recognizes and thanks the Council for taking each of these cases on their own merit. They have allowed owners to do what is a "fair and reasonable use of their property. He reiterated that he is trying to do everything that is possible to make this a good lot. The statutes should be applied fairly and evenly across the board. While he agrees that the City's ordinances should be met where possible, he is presenting the best proposal for his property. Motion carried. 5-0. The Mayor reiterated that Staff would be in touch with Mr. Steele and that this would come before the Council again on June 8~h. PRESENTATION OF THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT BY INDEPENDENT AUDITORS The City's financial director presented tile auditor from Abdo, Abdo, Eick and Meyers. They are hired to review the City's financial reporting and to make sure that all numbers and cash flows are represented fairly. The auditor reported that the City had received an "unqualified" report and that was a "clean" report. The one comment he made regarding the report that could be improved upon was in the segregation of accounting functions. However, he stated, this is common in smaller municipalities. It is difficult to fully enact these measures and that Businario had done an excellent job of managing the various priorities this involves. The auditor covered various aspects of tile report in more detail outlining where the City was and should/could be. He compared these numbers to similar municipalities and opened questions and answers with the Council members. When he was done, Businario pointed out the following items: 10 Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES · One, he thanked the auditors for their report and for the non-qualified opinion. This once again, he stated meets the certification requirements. · He also indicated that thc report would be available for review both at City hall and at the local library. He addressed the separation of duties issue and stated that was a major function of the City Council to his department. He appreciates their consistency in reviewing the bills as he prepares them. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanns to accept the Annual Financial Report and Management letter. Motion carried. 5-0. ZONING CODE STREAMLINING AND PROCESS ENHANCEMENT Gordon covered the actions of the Planning Commission regarding these processes. In 100% of the cases that were conforming structures over the past couple of years that the Planning Commission has recommended, Council has also recommended. Therefore, this became an issue to pursue and see if there were other ways to stream line the processes for both the City and the citizen. Staff prepared the following guidelines for the Planning Commission to review. Under streamlining the following two were recommended: Option #1 Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses Subd. 11. Residential properties with a nonconforming principal structures may be improved by adding a conforming detached accessory structure provided that any nonconforming detached accessory structure and the principal structure are in sound condition as determined by the Mound Building Official. Furthermore, impervious cover on said lots shall be compliant with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. Of the Mound Zoning Code or shall not exceed the amount allowed under prior variance approval. Option #2 11 Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses. Subd. 9. A nonconforming structure may be expanded if the expansion meets all applicable city ordinance requirements. The following Process Enhancement was offered: Section 350:510. Board of Adjustment Subd. 1. The Board of Adjustments shall be the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hear and act on all variances to this ordinance. Gordon stated that this Process Enhancement was allowable by the State of Minnesota. Weycker asked if it was true for Statutory Form B. Yes, stated Gordon. Hanus is opposed to the process enhancement. He stated that he would have to think twice about who was on the Planning Commission if that were enacted. He stated that as an elected official, he would want to make sure that his opinions and views are what are voted on. He feels that the Planning Commission is a mostly "non-political" body in a "highly political" town. He was in support of the streamlining option 372, however. He stated that this was hardly any different than the proposal he made a couple of years ago when the streamlining began. His goal is to relieve the long process for the applicant. He stated, "we are here to serve them." He further stated that he would not "sweat the small stuff that an additional pair of eyes might catch." However, he stated, he would like to see the language of option//2 tightened up. He suggested the following: "Nonconforming principle and accessory structures may be expanded, and conforming principle and accessory structures may be added, provided that all uses on the parcel are conforming, and provided that the entire expansion or construction meets the current zoning regulations and no other non-conformities within the zoning ordinance are created." Weycker asked if what he was really saying was that there was an existing variance on the property. Hanus responded that he was not saying a variance existed. 12 Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES Sutherland stated that Hanus' language was good. It defines the situations well and is better than the staff's suggestions. Ahrens agreed with Hanus both on the process enhancement issue and on the selection of Option #2 for streamlining. She stated that the Planning Commission was an advisory commission to the Council and were appointed people and not elected representatives. She sees issues with granting authority to an advisory body. Hanus stated that another issue was the lack of the presence of the attorney at the Planning Commission meetings. He also had real problems with the suggestion of a fee if the applicant chose to appeal to the Council a Planning Conmaission's ruling. Ahrens pointed out that they needed to be careful not to confuse uses with variances. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to direct staff to prepare ordinance language based on his earlier comments ("Nonconforming principle and accessory structures may be expanded, and conforming principle and accessory structures may be added, provided that all uses on the parcel are conforming, and provided that the entire expansion or construction meets the current zoning regulations and no other non-conformities within the zoning ordinance are created.") and to take back to the Planning Commission for comment and review and to set a Public Hearing date. All areas of the ordinance impacted should be changed consistently. Motion carried. 5-0. Hanus stated that if this was adopted, it certainly would be more user friendly for the applicants. Sutherland thanked the Council for their actions and suggestions. ESTABLISHING PILOT PROGRAM FOR PERSONAL WATERCRAFT AT AVALON PARK In his memorandum dated May 21, 1999, Fackler reviewed that the Docks and Commons Advisory Committee is asking that a pilot program be initiated to provide sites for personnel watercraft at multiple slip docks. Results from a survey indicate that site holders at Avalon Park are positive in allowing a pilot program to take place there for the 1999 boating season. They have suggested a lottery process to assign the available slips. 13 Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES In this case, there are sufficient slips to accommodate the desired holders. However, Ahrens, stated, she would prefer a seniority process versus a lottery process. Hanus leaned this direction also. Weycker stated that from the April minutes of the Docks and Commons Advisory committee, each individual multiple dock should be able to recommend their own use for this. Hanus stated that they would have to restrict the program to accommodate only up 12 foot vessels such as fishing boats, jet skis, or long canoes, etc. The Mayor suggested that this be tried for the 1999 boating session and reevaluated after the completion of the season. MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Hanus to direct staff to approve the pilot program for Avalon Park multiple dock to be set up with four sites to be designated with conditions restricting watercraft/life size to 75 square feet, current site holder only, application procedure based on a lottery and fees to run $50 plus the LMCD fee. This program is to be reviewed in October, 1999. Ahrens asked if they should look at seniority rather than lottery. It was decided to accept this for now and look at other options in the fall. Hanus stated that it needed to be recognized that these slips would be marginal slips and that if the water level went down, they could become unusable. The Mayor indicated that for the pilot, that was fine. Motion carried. 5-0. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Minutes of 5/13/99 B. LMCD mailings C. Dock and Commons Minutes of 4/15/99 D. POSC Planning Commission Minutes of 5/10/99 The Mayor pointed out the memorandum from Fackler regarding the Albrecht dock. The City should only pay what they can recover for his dock. 14 Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to direct Harrell to arrange for the even exchange of fees for Mr. Albrecht's clock per Fackler's memorandum dated May 24, 1999. Motion carried. 5-0. Brown discussed the letter from Tim Becket. He walked the property today and it is like a swamp. He feels that staff needs to insist on a water test/measurement today. Mayor Meisel discussed Mound City Days and the parade and whether or not Council should ride in the parade. She also had been given a suggestion of buttons to hand out to the citizens. They would say "Mound on Lake Minnetonka." She has all the necessary items and tools to make these buttons and they would not cost the City anything. The Council agreed on this and debated what would be better to sit on, a trailer or a pontoon. The Mayor mentioned that the City Attorney would bring information on recruiting firms for City Managers to the next meeting for the Council to review. There were other discussions centering around upcoming contract negotiations for the Police department. Chief Harrell discussed various idea that could be used as incentives to keep people and to keep them living in Mound. He stated that they needed to do something since nearby communities often had more money to pay and other incentives to keep the officers there. He has also heard some discussion among the administrative staff regarding unionizing. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to adjourn. Motion carried. 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:56 p.m. CITY OF MOUND CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE & PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that there will be a Special City Council Meeting on Monday, June 28, 1999, at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. The Council is holding this Special Meeting to conduct a public hearing on the submission and filing of an application for a Minnesota Investment Grant from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development. The grant will be used to provide a loan to ACT, Inc. in order to promote a fixed asset expansion and creation of new employment opportunities. Citizen inquiries and participation regarding the submission of the grant is encouraged. Written or oral comments will be considered. After the Public Hearing is held the Council will consider approval of an Operations Permit for ACT, Inc., at 5330 Shoreline Drive. The public is invited to attend. Francene C. Clark, CMC Acting City Manager/City Clerk PUBLISH IN THE LAKER - JUNE 12, 1999. RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT COOPERATION ~GREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM IN FY 2000 - 2002. WHERE~S, the city of Mound, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement for purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs; and WHEREAS, the City and County wish to execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement in order to continue to qualify as an Urban County for purposes of the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the current Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County be terminated and a new Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and County be executed effective October 1, 1999, and that the Mayor and the City Manager be authorized and directed to sigh the Agreement on behalf of the City. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk HAY ,~,~ ~ T · ennepin County An Equal Opportunity Employer May 6, 1999 Mr. Ed Shukle, ~. City Manager City ofMound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: Accompanying for your review and execution is the Urban Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement for FY 2000 - 2002. The agreement sets forth broad shared powers f6r carrying out housing and community development activities. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires the agreement in order for Hennepin County to qualify as an urban county and be the recipient of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) entitlement funds. A draft gray-line copy of the agreement is enclosed, which details all revisions to the current agreement. There were two significant changes. One is to increase the threshold for participation in the Consolidated Pool from $50,000 to $75,000. The second is to add a clause to Section VI that gives cities that reach metropolitan city entitlement status before July 16, 1999 the choice of opting out of the program or to defer their status and stay in the county program. Under the Hennepin County agreement, any city with metropolitan city status will receive funding using the HUD entitlement formula or the county formula, whichever is greater. As a community participating in the Urban Hennepin County program, your city would not be eligible in FY 2000 - 2002 to apply for grants under the small cities or state CDBG programs. Your community will automatically participate in the Hennepin County HOME program and will not be eligible to receive HOME funds through the state or other consortiums. Please execute the city signature page of the agreement to indicate your continued participation in the Urban County Program. Return only an original copy of the city signature page with the city seal and a copy of the authorizing resolution by JUNE 30, 1999. 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) 541o7981 Recycled Paper Mr. Ed Shukle, Jr. May 6, 1999 Page 2 A sample council resolution is enclosed. A copy of the county signature page wiIl be provided agter execution by the county. Please contact Mark Hendrickson at 541-7084 if you have any questions about the agreement or the Urban County Program. I look forward to continuing our cooperative efforts in addressing suburban Hennepin County housing and community development needs. Sincerely, ingham Director Enclosures: Cooperation Agreement Draft gray line agreement Sample resolution Contract No. A18637 JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," A-2400 Govemment Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55487, and the cities executing this Master Agreement, each hereinafter respectively referred to as "COOPERATING UNIT," said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59: WITNESSETH: COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens that COOPERATING UNIT shares its authority to carry out essential community development and housing activities with COUNTY in order to permit COUNTY to secure and administer Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Parmership funds as an Urban County within the provisions of the Act as herein defined and, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that by the execution of this Agreement that it understands that it: May not also apply for grants under the State CDBG Program from appropriations for fiscal years during which it is participating in the Urban County Program; and 2. May not participate in a HOME Consortium except through the Urban County. I. DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR {}570.3 of the Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them: "Act" means Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). Bo "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including but not limited to 24 CFR Part 570. C. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Cooperating Unit" means any city or town in Hennepin County that has entered into a cooperation agreement that is identical to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County, which is a party to each Agreement. to "Consolidated Plan" means the document bearing that title or similarly required statements or documents submitted to HUD for authorization to expend the annual grant amount and which is developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the Community Development Block Grant Program. "Metropolitan City" means any city located in whole or in part in Hennepin County which is certified by HUD to have a population of 50,000 or more people. H. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing and authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other eligible activities for the benefit of eligible recipients who reside within the corporate limits of the COOPERATING UNIT which will be funded from annual Community Development Block Grant and HOME appropriations for the Federal Fiscal Years 2000, 2001 and 2002 and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds. HI. AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on October 1, 1999 and terminating no sooner than the end of the program year covered by the Consolidated Plan for the basic grant amount for the Fiscal Year 2002, as author/zed by HUD, and for such additional time as may be required for the expenditure of funds granted to the County for such period. COUNTY may notify COOPERATING UNIT prior to the end of the Urban County qualification period that the Agreement will automatically be renewed unless it is termin, ated in writing by either party. Either COUNTY or COOPERATING UNIT may exercise the option to terminate the Agreement at the end of the Urban County qualification period. If COUNTY or COOPERATING UNIT fail to exercise that option, it will not have the opportunity to exercise that option until the end of a subsequent Urban County qualification period. COUNTY will notify the COOPERATING UNIT in writing of its right to elect to be excluded by the date specified by HUD. This Agreement must be amended by written agreement of all parties to incorporate any changes necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in the Urban County Qualification Notice applicable for the year in which the next qualification of the County is scheduled. Failure by either party to adopt such an amendment to the Agreement shall automatically terminate the Agreement following the expenditure of all CDBG and HOME funds allocated for use in COOPERATING UNIT's jurisdiction. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated at the end of the program period during which HUD withdraws its designation of COUNTY as an Urban County under the Act. This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in thc Hcnnepin County Office of Planning and Development, and in no event shall the Agreement be filed later than June 30, 1999. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the applicant's certifications required by Section 104Co) of the Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Fair Housing Act, Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; and other applicable laws. IV. ACTIVITIES COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to undertake and carry out within the terms of this Agreement certain projects involving one or more of the essential activities eligible for funding under the Act. COUNTY agrees and will assist COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this Agreement. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act and the Regulations and other relevant Federal and/or Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate COUNTY's responsibility to assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the development of the Consolidated Plan, pursuant to 24 CFR Part 91. COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agrees as follows: COOPERATING UNIT will in accord with a COUNTY-established schedule prepare and provide to COUNTY, in a prescribed form, requests for the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds consistent with this Agreement, program regulations and the Urban Hennepin County Consolidated Plan. Bo COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that, pursuant to 24 CFR {}570.501 (b), it is subject to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement for a written Subrecipient Agreement set forth in 24 CFR {}570.503. The Subrecipient Agreement will cover the implementation requirements for each activity funded pursuant to this Agreement and shall be duly executed with and in a form prescribed by COUNTY. Co COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that it is subject to the same subrecipient requirements stated in paragraph B above in instances where an agency other than itself is undertaking an activity pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. In such instances a written Third Party Agreement shall be duly executed between the agency and COOPERATING UNIT in a form prescribed by COUNTY. Do COOPERATING UNIT shall implement all activities funded for each annual program pursuant to this Agreement within Twenty-Four (24) months of the authorization by HUD to expend the basic grant amount. Funds for all activities not implemented within Twenty-Four (24) months shall be transferred to a separate account for reallocation on a competitive basis. Implementation period extensions may be granted upon request in cases where the authorized activity has been initiated and~or subject of a binding contract to proceed. to COOPERATING UNIT will take actions necessary to assist in accomplishing the community development program and housing goals, as contained in the Urban Hennepin County Consolidated Plan. Fo COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that all programs and/or activities funded in part or in full by grant funds received pursuant to this Agreement shall be undertaken affirmatively with regard to fair housing, employment and business opportunities for minorities and women. It shall, in implementing all programs and/or activities funded by the basic grant amount comply, with all applicable Federal and Minnesota Laws, statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and equal employment opportunities and Administrative Rule issued by the COUNTY. COOPERATING UNIT that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes action by COUNTY to comply with its fair housing certification shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funding for any activities. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in the citizen participation process as established by COUNTY in compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY for any expenditure determined by HUD or COUNTY to be ineligible. Jo COOPERATING UNIT shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed all documents protecting the interests of the parties hereto or any other party of interest as may be designated by the COUNTY. K. COOPERATING UNIT has adopted and is enforcing: A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations; and A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows: COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies, on an annual basis, all plahs, statements and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount under the Act. Bo COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating services to COOPERATING UNIT in the preparation and submission of a request for funding. Co COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERATING UNIT to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and housing goals. COUNTY shall, upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer local housing rehabilitation grant programs funded pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall receive Twelve percent (12%) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT to the activity as reimbursement for costs associated with the administration of COOPERATING UNIT activity. COUNTY may, at its discretion and upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer, for a possible fee, other programs and/or activities funded pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. COUNTY may, as necessary for clarification and coordination of program administration, develop and implement Administrative Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations, HUD administrative directives, and administrative requirements of COUNTY. V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under Section 106 of the Act shall be allocated as follows: A. COUNTY shall retain Ten percent (10%) of the annual basic grant amount for the undertaking of eligible activities. B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be made available by COLrNTY to COOPERATING UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part C and the procedure stated in part D of this section for the purpose of allowing the COOPERATING UNITS to submit funding requests. The allocation is for planning purposes only and is not a guarantee of funding. C. The COUNTY will calculate, for each COOPERATING UNIT, an amount that bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between: 1. The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all COOPERATING UNITS. 2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of poverty in all COOPERATING UNITS. 3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERATING UNITS. 4. In determining the avenge of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice. D. Funds will be made available to communities utilizing the formula specified in C of this Section in the following manner: 1. COOPERATING UNIT qualifying as a Metropolitan City (having populations of at least 50,000) will receive annual funding allocations equal to the HUD formula entitlement or the COUNTY formula allocation, whichever is greater. 2. Other COOPERATING UNITS with COUNTY formula allocations of $75,000 or more will receive funding allocations in accordance with the formula allocations. 3. COOPERATING UNITS with COUNTY formula allocations of less than $75,000 will have their funds consolidated in a pool for award in a manner determined by COUN'rY. Only the COOPERATING UNITS, whose funding has been pooled, will be eligible to compete for these funds. E. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any errors in the data furnished by HUD. F. In the event COOPERATING UNIT does not request a funding allocation, or a portion thereof, the amount not requested shall be made available to other participating communities, in a manner determined by COUNTY. VI. METROPOLITAN CITIES Any metropolitan city executing this Agreement shall defer their entitlement status and become part of Urban Hennepin County. This agreement can be voided if the COOPERATING I. YNIT is advised by HUD, prior to the completion of the re-qualification process for fiscal years 2000-2002, that it is eligible to become a metropolitan city and the COOPERATING UNIT elects to take its entitlement status. If the agreement is not voided on the basis of the COOPERATING UNIT's eligibility as a metropolitan city prior to July 16, 1999, the COOPERATI2qG UNIT must remain a part of the COUNTY program for the entire three-year period of the COUNTY qualification. VII. OPINION OF COUNSEL The undersigned, on behalf of the Hennepin County Attorney, having reviewed this Agreement, hereby opines that the terms and provisions of the Agreement are fully authorized under State and local law and that the COOPERATING UNIT has full legal authority to undertake or assist in undertaking essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifical~newa~ly-assisted housing. Assis~~ttorney . VIII. HENNEPIN COUNTY EXECUTION The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on 1999, and pUrsuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this Agreement, the COUNr~ agrees to be bound by the provisions hereto set forth. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA By: Chair of its County Board And: Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator . Attest: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: Assistant County Attorney Date: IX. COOPERATING UNIT EXECUTION COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this Agreement, and the COOPERATING UNITS governing body having duly approved ttfis Agreement on ,1999, and pursuant to such approval and the proper city official having signed this Agreement, COOPERATING UNIT agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Joint Cooperation Agreement, contract A18637. CITY OF HOUND By: Its Mayor And: Its Acting City ATTEST:' Jodi Rahn Manager CITY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to: Plan A X Plan B Charter May 7, 1999 Engineering ° Planning ° Surveying June 3, 1999 Ms. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Auditors Road Street Improvements SAP 145-108-02 MFRA #9968 Dear Fran: Enclosed is Kusske Construction's Payment Request No. 1 for work completed through May 28, 1999 on the subject project. The amount of this payment request is $71,918.80. Also included is Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $2,145. The major item in this change order is the addition of silt fence, which was shown on the plan, but was omitted in the bid proposal. One additional ten-inch gate valve was also added during construction and appears in the change order. We have reviewed the payment request and change order, find both to be in order and recommend payment. 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 Enclosure e:~nain~)968\clark6-3 15050 23rd Avenue North · P/ymouth. Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com 0 c~O ~0o ~ 0 0 0 O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~8~~--o885888~8oo-~-o-o§o8o-- ~bbbbbbbbbbbbbb~bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb~ 8o~B~Jo~oooooooooo~oS~oooSooS~ bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb 000000000000000000000000000000000 '~ °~o oooooooooo o~ooo oo~ o bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb~ o~ ~o~oooooooooo~oo~ooo oo~~ © >! >_ ~o o~ ~>~ z© O© ~ -~- ~=~ ~- ~ _ 8~--oooo88888~ooo=~o~ooo88oo~8~ooo ~ ~ ! ---- O0 O0 0 ~00 0 0 ~bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb 0~0000000~00000000000~00~000~0 00000000000000000000000000000000000 bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000 o- ,~ ,,b,, bb~;bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb 0 z; ooooo8ooooooooooo~8oo8,~oo~, "q 0 9 © m z~ .o~ 0 Z 0 -r z 0 9 z ~z0 z ~00 0 ~ 0 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 CITY OF MOUND AUDITORS ROAD STREET CONSTRUCTION SAP 145--108-03 MFRA 09968 ADD 2573.502 2504.602 TOTAL ADD DEDUCT 2104.509 Remove Miscellaneous Structure TOTAL DEDUCT TOTAL THIS CHANGE ORDER ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT Silt Fence Type Preassembled Maintained 10" Gate Valve & Box $ 1,605.00 $ 940.O0 $ 2,545.00 $ 400.00 ($ 400.00) $ 2,145.00 $ 222,349.00 $ 2,145.00 $ 224,494.00 APPROVED: KUSSKE BY: DATE: TRU~N CO., INC. ACCEPTED: CITY OF MOUND BY: DATE: RECOMMENDED: McCOMBS FRANK R00S ASSOCIATES, INC. e 5main:LO968\changeorder~ 1 June 8, 1999 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, AND FLOODPLAIN FILL ELEVATION STANDARDS VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 23XX DRIFTWOOD LANE, LOT 10, SKARPS EAST LAWN, PID 13-117-24 44 0059 P & Z CASE #97-39 WHEREAS, the applicant, Robert Steele, has applied for a lot area, lot width, and floodplain fill elevation stanards variances to construct a new Single Family Dwelling at 23XX Driftwood Lane; and, WHEREAS, the following lists the variance requested by the applicant: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Lot Area 5,900 sf 10.000 sf 4,100 sf Lot Width 55 ft 60 ft 5 ft Grading within the floodplain fringe is required to be at 932 ft for a distance of 15 ft from the point where the grade meets the foundation. 931.5 ft is proposed for 5 ft on two sides and 15 ft on a third. ; 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, front yard setback of 30 feet, 6 feet side yard setbacks, and 50 feet ordinary high water setback; and, WHEREAS, the current use of the property is a dilapidated cottage would be removed with the proposal; and, June 8, 1999 S~ele-23xx Ddflwood Ln Page 2 WHEREAS, there is a substantial portion of this property in the floodplain that cannot be used in the calculation of lot area; and, WHEREAS, the city does not have jurisdiction over fill in the floodplain; and, WHEREAS, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) uses 931.5 as the regional flood elevation for Lake Minnetonka and does not allow any fill to be placed below that elevation, unless compensating volume is provided. The plan as submitted appears to provide for this compensation, but a permit must be granted by the MCWD; and, WHEREAS, the proposed hardcover is 1830 sf or 27.85%; and, WHEREAS, the proposed foundation with a finished floor elevation of 933.8 ft which meets residential structure elevation standards for floodplain areas; and, WHEREAS, the soil conditions on the property are poor but with proper engineering and building techniques, a home can be built to withstand unsuitable soil conditions; and, WHEREAS, the proposed home will be built to conform with all applicable zoning regulations; and, WHEREAS, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) recommended denial; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommend denial of the variance with a vote of 4-3; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the request and has granted the request with conditions; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a lot area, lot width, and floodplain fill variances listed below as granted by the City Council in order to construct a new Single Family Dwelling with conditions: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Lot Area 5,900 sf 10,000 sf 4,100 sf Lot Width 55 ft 60 ft 5 ft Grading within the floodplain fringe is required to be at 932 fl for a distance of 15 ft from the point where the grade meets the foundation. 931.5 ft is proposed for 5 ft on two sides and 15 ft on a third. June 8, 1999 Stee~-23xx Driftwood Ln Page 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: B. C. D. E. The variances be approved pending the approval of the Minnehaha Watershed District. Approval of drainage plan by the City Engineer. The building conform to the setback requirements for the R-1 zoning district and floodplain regulations. Connection to water and sewer utilities shall be installed at the owners expense. Removal of the septic tank if present. 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 alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a new Single Family Dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated from Hennepin County Property Information: LOT 10, SKARPS EAST LAWN, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. 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. 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 Councilmember. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: and seconded by Attest: City Clerk Mayor Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 25, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 25, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Police Chief Len Harrell, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. CASE # 97-39: VARIANCE, SETBACK, LOT AREA WIDTH, TO CONSTRUCT A NON CONFORMING DWELLING AT 23XX DRIFTWOOD LANE, ROBERT STEELE, LOT 10, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PID # 13-117-24 44 0059. Gordon reported that this case came before the Planning Commission originally in November 1997. The application was tabled to develop a more suitable proposal. The request is for a variance in buildable lot size and for lot width variation, as well as flood plan elevation. The proposed structure will be a lot that will have 5900 square feet of buildable land, thus requiring a 4100 square foot variance from the required 10,000 square feet. The lot width is fifty- five feet as opposed to a sixty foot required width. The proposed foundation with a finished floor would be at 933.8 feet elevation that meets the elevation standards for floodplain areas. Gordon also stated that the soil was poor and even if filled would wash out as time goes by. The property owner has applied to the Watershed District in order to sign off on the compensation area requested to back fill this property. The proposed grading plan does then come under the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. A letter from Jim Hafner provides comment on this issue. The record notes that a memorandum from Ceil Strauss, the area hydrologist at the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources arrived in the office on April 12, 1999. This memo was brought to the meeting for review. Based on her survey on April 2, 1999, this lot would require "net filling." She stands opposed to net filling in the floodplain area and that this property Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES would not meet the City's regulation of fifteen feet from all directions of the house to have the property be within the elevation for the 100 year height. In a later conversation with the applicant, Ms. Strauss has indicated that they would not oppose this proposed structure and would write an amending letter if necessary. Gordon stated that in the first meeting in April 1999, the recommendation of the Commission was to table this proposal until receiving additional information regarding similar cases in recent history. The proposal was brought back to the Planning Commission in late April for further consideration. After much discussion of the issues, the precedent cases, the Commission recommended that the variance be denied on a vote of 4-3. They feel that there may be other alternatives in recombining lots 10 - 12 to make a lot that has a more buildable lot size. Brown commented that he felt rather strongly about this case. He stated such comments at the Planning Commission meetings. First of all, he stated, the fact that the sea wall is eroding is not due to the fault of Mr. Steele. It is due to lack of maintenance. Additionally, Mr. Steele is paying assessments for sewer even though a septic tank is used on this site. Water is available. Mr. Steele, Brown explained is proposing to place a nice structure on this property, tie it into the City sewer system, place additional fill on this land to create additional lot area above the floodplain level, all of which would provide a more decent view from one of the main channels of the City. Ahrens commented that in the handout that Mr. Steele provided to all the Council members, he had provided the City with comparisons of other properties that had received variances to build that also were grossly undersized. She stated that based on some recent applications that had been granted, she would have trouble not granting this one. Staff's response to some of the more recent applications that had been approved covered that the applicants already lived on site and the "structure" was not vacant. They are trying to improve the infrastructure of the City and raise the housing standards which ties to their reason for recommending non approval. The Mayor asked if they were saying that the lot was unbuildable unless it was combined with other lots. Gordon answered that no, but it was a lot smaller than standards. The Mayor Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES indicated that the staff should not be looking at other properties to recombine with. The fact that his daughter owns the adjacent property should not play into the decision. Brown reiterated that this applicant had been paying taxes, assessments just like anyone else. "To say his land was unbuildable was wrong," stated Brown. Sutherland indicated that when the applicant purchased the property, they purchased both tax parcels. He should have been aware of the building ordinances when he sold part of the total property to his daughter. The applicant should have been aware that the remaining parcel was not large enough to build on and does not meet the City's Comprehensive Plans and Goals. Hanus stated that he had an issue with this. Both of these properties were "lots of record" and were separate tax parcels. It is not reasonable to expect all owners to know all the zoning codes. Ahrens did not feel that the argument that the applicant was not currently occupying the home was a valid one either. The Council had discussions about what the various jurisdictions stated about this property and the ability they had to regulate certain aspects of the property. This was when Mr. Steele reported his conversation with the DNR. Hanus stated that if the Watershed District approved the proposal, the applicant should be granted the variance. Brown started a motion to recommend approval of the variances, the setbacks, the lot area and width and the grading exceptions which was seconded by Hanus. However, both withdrew their motions after the recognition that a resolution should be drawn up to grant the variances. Ahrens felt the Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution for approval which would be conditioned on the Minnehaha Watershed District's approval on the land fill. Weycker commented that if the structure was conforming, she felt he should be able to build it. Hanus also supported the proposal by looking at both sides. Yes, the lot was undersized, however, that was a case in a lot of lots in Mound. Secondly, instead of an old cabin, now there would be nice home. MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Hanus to direct Staff to prepare a resolution approving the variances requested by Mr. Steele subject to Minnehaha Watershed District approval and an approved drainage plan as reviewed by the City Engineer. Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES Hanus seconded this motion to add clarification to it. The building should conform to the setbacks and floodplain regulations. It should be hooked up to sewer and the septic tank properly abandoned. Finally, it should come back to the City Council the second week of June 1999 for final approval. Mr. Steele came forward with the following comments. When he brought the other cases before the Planning Commission for comparison, he did that to show the good points of his plan. One, he would be improving the drainage situation that exists today from the vacated Driftwood Lane. He recognizes and thanks the Council for taking each of these cases on their own merit. They have allowed owners to do what is a "fair and reasonable use of their property. He reiterated that he is trying to do everything that is possible to make this a good lot. The statutes should be applied fairly and evenly across the board. While he agrees that the City's ordinances should be met where possible, he is presenting the best proposal for his property. Motion carried. 5-0. The Mayor reiterated that Staff would be in touch with Mr. Steele and that this would come before the Council again on June 8th. BILLS JUNE 8, 1999 Batch 9052 97,814.85 Batch 9053 195,888.43 TOTAL BILLS $ 293,703.28 CZ 7. ° ? C: r- I Z I I ~ I[ , I ' I I i J __:-.c,~'~,' ~,,.~-,~,~,.~,: ~,:. ~ ........ ~ ..... ~ ,.~ .......... ..., Zm- Z 12, ..~. o · ": ' ('; C' { ' t,, ,~ * I o z m ~ I " 0 o 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 o 0 o 0 ~ 0 ,.0 ~ .... ~'~ '~ ' !" ; o oo~oo~ ~ o o o ~ r~ ."~ Z~ C z t- -< O CD Z CZ: z IZ o ~ I I Iii -,-I ,...1,: -~ · 0 0 ~ g i????? !m nm CZ , I d C~ rn . o ih.' °°° 0 z c~ o ~ ~ ~ o o o o I"q "ql z Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: CITY OF MOUND NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR THE LYNMORE SUBDIVISION TWIN HOME PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNiT A, AT 4901 SHORELINE pID # 13-117-24 44 0032 P & Z 99-22 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. June 8. 1999 to consider the approval of a Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit with variances for the Lynmore Subdivision Twinhome project at 4901 Shoreline Drive Jocated within the R-2 Zoning District. ~ ~,~,~LL~~- .... ~::~:!~.~ ~ ~? ~" ~, ,, ~ ~ 5'~'~?~:v~ , 0, - .' ' Ali persons ~peanng at said hearing Kris Lmqu~st, Planning Secrea~ with reference ~ the a~ve will be given the oppo~tuni~ to be hear~ at this m~ting. (Published ~n The Laker M~ 22, 1~9) A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed Final Plat & CUP With Variances which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for 1 successive weeks: It was first published Saturday the 22 day of Hay' 19 99 , and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, the day of 19 ; Subscribed and sworn to me on this 22 day of ,, ~ay ,19 99 ...... - ..... Notary Public ~ KRISTI HOLM ~& NOTARY PUBLC ' MINNEc~nTA ' ~*~ MY COMMISSION EXPI~,~S ~ JANUARY 31 2000 (1) Lowest classified rate paid by ~mmercial users for ~mparable space: $12.90 per inch. (2) M~imum rate allowed by law for above maffer: $12.90. (3) Rate a~ually charged for above ma~er: $7.19 per inch. Each additional su~essive week: ~.14. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR LYNMORE, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 1, A REPLAT OF LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A WHEREAS, the applicant and owner, Lynmore LLC, has submitted the final plat for a twinhome development called Lynmore, in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330:00 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statue and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council, held public heatings on P&Z case #s 98-28, 98-05, and 98-07 approving the preliminary plat, conditional use permit, and variances in a manner consistent with City Code Section 330:00, 350:525, and 350:530, which regulate the use of the property for twinhomes; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, on June 8, 1999, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 330:00 of the Mound City Ordinances, to consider final approval of the Lynmore Subdivision located on property currently platted as follows: Lots 1-6, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A PID 13-117-24 44 0032 To be replatted as: Lots 1-6, Block 1, Lynmore ;and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota approves the Final Plat for Lynmore with the following conditions: 1. The final plat drawing labeled as Exhibit A is hereby incorporated into this Resolution and all improvements shall be as shown on the plans or as modified under the approval of the City Engineer. The location of all dwellings shall be only as provided on the City's Zoning regulations, or as modified by official action of the City Council; and any inconsistent dwelling location in the final plat shall be ignored ..... 2. The ~ Assgciation documents will be prepared and submitted with the Final Plat and incorporated into final plat resolution. The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within one hundred eighty (180) days of the City Council approving the final plat. If the plat is not filed within that time period, it shall become null and void. AId, omeownor's Associat;-io~ shall be established for all lots within the subdivision and provided prior to the Final Plat approval. All of these documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Prior to any occupancy the applicant shall secure Certificates of Occupancy from the Building Official. Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued from homes in the subdivision until utilities and access servicing the homes are approved by the City Engineer, Public Works Superintendent, and Building Official. 6. A revised grading and drainage plan must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer if the grading and drainage will change from the previously approved plan o The Developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities, such as telephone, electric and natural gas services. The required utilities shall not be installed until the boulevard or utility easements have been graded. All such utilities shall be installed underground. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 and the City of Mound Code of Ordinances. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember by Councilmember and seconded The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk PROPOSED SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DAVE MOORE IN LOTS 1-6, BLOCK SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ~, w Ro'~D ~-~ ...... ~2--- ~--'.~'- ~- ~ e .............. .............. :-~--- ...... ~--~-~- ..... ~ .... ,' ~,~ .' ~,, / ~ .............. _~___.~__~___~__~, ~' I ,' L /~ ~' '1: ~' 8 ' ~ ' , : ~ ~ '- ~ :q---~---~%~---,~::--~ .............. ~ ~-~-~=- ' 4 ,~-~. ",,,,/ ¥. ~" z .............. ' :1. 'N ~5 ' .,.'--" .t-~---'~ .... _.__~_~ ..... ~-~ ............... ', ~ ' ,~ 2. I ,,~,6 ' :',~,~ ~A-~ ~- ~" " ' ................ LEGAL DESCRPT~ON OF PRE~:SE~ Let 1. except the East 3.00 feet of ~id Lot 1 end except that p~'t of said Lot I which lles Northeasterly of a line d~own frm~ a point on the East line of ~id Lot 1, distant 10.00 feet South from the Northe~t corner of s~id Lot 1. to a point on the North llne of said Lot 1, dJetont 15.00 feet West from s~id Northeost corner Lots 2 to 6 inclualve, ~ 7~, Shirley HIt~. U~it A. occordin~ to the pk~t thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrur of TRies in ~'~ for sold Co~ty. This survey intends to a~ow the boundories of the d~ove described proporty, ~nd the location of d existlr~ bu~d'u'~, if ~y. theree~ It does not purport to ~ow ~y other im~'ovements or encroochments. o : ~'on rm:rker t~in~s shown ~re bused upo~ ~ ~umed dat~ CO~N &: GRONBERG, INC. 612-473-4i41 FECEIVED FEB 1 9 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: July 8, 1999 SUBJECT: Lynmore Final Plat OWNER: Lynmore LLC LOCATION: Norwood and Shoreline ZONING: Residential District R-2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a final plat for the Lynmore. The preliminary plat was approved by Resolution #98-72 in June of 1998. Council approval of the final plat is being sought at this time. The road and utility improvements to Norwood are completed except for the final street surface come after the development is completed. At the time of preliminary plat approval, a conditional use permit and variances were also approved that will regulate the development and use of the property. The resolution is included in you packets, along with staff reports, for your review. A resolution has been prepared and is ready for your approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Council approval of the Lynmore Final Plat with conditions as stated in the resolution. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1667 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE #99-22 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR THE LYNMORE SUBDIVISION TWIN HOME PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, AT 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE PID if 13-117-24 44 0032 P & Z 99-22 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, June 8, 1 999 to consider the approval of a Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit with variances for the Lynmore Subdivision Twinhome project at 4901 Shoreline Drive located within the R-2 Zoning District. :~ ~_ ~.~.~, ~..i41.~ D.~. ~.~ ~ ~ ~30 ~ ~ ,' ~40) ~','."~7,'~;'~ ' ~ ', ~.7 (43) ~ ~ ]44 ,;,:.;.:.~4~.Z:-~:,:~ ~ ~= ~' ~ 1~5 ~ ~ ~8 ~- · .:~;.;;;.:.1-:; 2~:~.~. ~ ~ r Z6~ ~.~ hearing with reference to the ' be given the All persons appearing at said ~ a~wlll opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Secretary Mailed to prope~y owners within 350 feet of affected prope~y on May 18, 1999 Published in the Laker, May 22, 1999 printed on recycled paper Engineedng · Planning ' Surveying RECEIVED J UN - ,~ ~999 MOLI~I) PLA~I~tf,,16 & INSP. June 3, 1999 Mr. Jon Suthefland Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: Final Plat - Lynmore Case #99-22 MFRA# 11951 Dear Jon: Enclosed is our final report for the final plat of Lynmore. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:aam Enclosures cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group eSmain:\114175suthet6-2 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-maiL' mfra@mfra, com CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA ENGINEER'S MEMO TO THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL RECEIVED J U N - ~ 1999 MOUND PLANNING & INSP, DATE: CASE NO: PETITIONER: FINAL PLAT: LOCATION: June 2, 1999 99-22 Dave Moore, Lynmore, LLC Lynmore Shoreline Boulevard (County Road 15) ASSESSMENT RECORDS: N/A Yes No 2. E] ~ En 4. [~ [--[ [~ Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use. Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed use. SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are issued. Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at the time of final plat approval. Area assessments. Other additional assessments estimated: Streets LEGAL / EASEMENTS / PERMITS: 6. [~] [5~ r-] 7. [21 IZl V1 Complies with standard utility/drainage easements - The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and five feet (5') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines. All standard utility easements required for construction are provided - N/A Yes. ,.No The City will require twenty feet (20') utility and drainage easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines were these utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed with the final construction plans and the following changes are necessary: o 10. 11. Complies with ponding requirements - The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for ponding purposes on all property below the established 100- year high water elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive stormwater drainage plan. SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS. All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have been vacated - It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of- way to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic process in conjunction with the platting process. It is the Owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated. The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the City with this application - If it is subsequently determined that the subject property is abstract property, then this requirement does not apply. It will be necessary for the property Owner to provide the City Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order that he may file the required easements referred to above. All necessary permits for this project have been obtained - The following permits must be obtained by the Developer: [] DNR ['~ Hennepin County ~] MPCA [-] State Health Department [-'] Minnehaha Creek Watershed District [-'] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [--] Other The Developer must comply with the conditions within any permit. -2- 12. Yes. No Conforms with the City's grid system for street names - The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the City grid system for street names. The following changes will be necessary: Conforms with the City's Thoroughfare Guide Plan - The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan. Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided - Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of and All existing street rights-of-way are required width - Additional right-of-way will be required on UTILITIES: 17. [5~ [~ I~ Conforms with City standards requiring the Developer to construct utilities necessary to serve this plat - In accordance with City standards, the Developer shall be responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the development. Final utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements- The Developer has submitted the required construction plans for the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities; and has also furnished profiles of these utilities as well as the proposed street system (public and private). Per the Developer's request, final plans will be prepared by the City. If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as part of its Capital Improvement Program, a petition must be submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October -3- N/A. Yes No 1st of the year preceding construction, if the Developer is paying 100% of the cost. The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan - The following revisions will be required: 20. V1 Cl The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan - The following revisions will be required: It will be necessary to contact Crreg Skinner, the City's Public Works Superintendent, 24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The Developer shall also be responsible for contacting the Public Works Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the City right-of-way. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL: 22. 23. [-'-I [--] [J~ Minimum basement elevations - Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following lots: Complies with Storm Drainage Plan - The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted to the City's Consulting Engineer for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control, including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations. Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary: SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS. -4- SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED: 23. The small size of the proposed subdivision meets the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements for an exemption to Rule N; Therefore no stormwater permit is required from the MCWD. 24. A revised grading and drainage plan must be submitted which reflects the present site conditions. Additional fill was added during the street construction at the developers request. 25. The Developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities, such as telephone, electric and natural gas services. The required utilities shall not be installed until the boulevard or utility easements have been graded. All such utilities shall be installed underground. Submitted by: ~ (//]~~~ / John Cameron, City Engineer c:main: 11417:engmemo6-2 -5- C~TY CO.NC,L DATE: DISTRIBUT~ON CITY P~ER CI~ ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DNR FIRE DEPARTMENT ASSESSING OTHfiR: Application for MAJOR SUBDIVISION City of Mound 5341 MaYW°od Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 DA TE CASE NO. HAY - 5 1999 TYPE OF APPLICATION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL PLAT $10/LOT OVER 2 LOTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: PDA ESCROW DEPOSIT VARIANCE TOTAL FEE $ 20O $150 $ 250 $1,000 $100 $ Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY Subject INFORMATION Address 4 q~-'~ / EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot ~-- /~ A ZONING ~ DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-lA R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT OWNER (if other than applicant) The applicant is: ~ owner other: Name ~-~,~ ~ ,//~~ ) /~/~)~/~ ~-~// ~ ~, (h) ~ (W) - (U) Address Phone (H) (W) (M) SURVEYO~ ENGINEER Name Address Phone (H) (W) (M) :-: (Revised 12-30-g8) Major Subdivision Application Page 2 Description 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 impacts. 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: $ RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Number of Structures: Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: sq. ft. Number of Dwellin~Units/Structure: ~ - ?r Total Lot Area: .-~_ ~ , ~ sq. ft. 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 application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. ,~nt Applicant'_s Name int Owner's Name Print Owner's Name {;. ~her s Signatl e ' //,,'3 Owner's Signature 'l:)at/e~ / Date (Revised 12-30-98) HAY - ~ 1999 MOUND PLANNING & April 28, 1999 City of Mound I'm requesting a time extension of the preliminary plat as it relates to our application with the subdivision and platting of Norwood Lane, Mound, MN. Dave Moore Developer/Owner MAY'OS-1999 12:50 Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior. MN 55331.9578 Phone: (6121471-0590 Fax: (612) 471-0682 Ernail: admin ~ minnehahacreek, org Web Site: www. rninnehahacreek.org Managers Pamela G, Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Thomas W. LaBounty Thomas Maple. Jr, Malcolm Raid MINNEHAHA CREEK ~ATERSHED 6124710682 P.O2/02 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District MEMORANDUM Date: April23, 1999 To: Kris Lindquist From: Jim Hafner RE: Dave Moore, Norwood Lane After conversations with Dave Moore and his consultant Mark Oronberg, and with John Cameron, Consulting Engineer for the City of Mound, Mr. Moore's project (6 residential units on approximately one acre) does not need a stormwater permit from 'the Minnehaha Creek Watershed. He may need an erosion control permit but that cma be administratively issued by staff. Please call me at 471-6282 with any questions. ([:~i~nd ~ recycled pt~:~r a::e;a, lflln~ :._.0 I TOTC::IL P. 02 RECEIVED M,~Y - 5 1999 MOUND PLANNTNG & May 4, 1999 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District It is my understanding if a subdivision is less than one acre and less than eight units, it is not necessary to apply for a permit from the district. Lynmore LLC Dave Moore, owner CERTIFICATE City of Mound STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) · I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that: As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached and foregoing extract was transcribed. 2. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record. I find said extract to be a tree, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date indicated in said extract, including any resolution adopted at such meeting, insofar as they relate to: RESOLUTION//98-72 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERI~rlT WITH VARIANCES FOR 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE TWIN HOME PROJECT, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID 13-117-24 44 0032 P& Z CASE # 98-28, 98-05, & 98-07 Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on June 23, 1998. WITNESS of April, 1999. my hand officially as such Clerk, and the seal of said City, this 22nd day CITY CLERK 1998 RF_~OLUTION g98..72 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE TWIN HOME PROJECT, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID 13-117-24 44 0032 " P& Z CASE # 98-28, 98-05, & 98-07 WHEREAS, the prospective builder, James Johnson has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit with VarianceS to start construction of Twinhomes pursuant to City Code Section 350:630; and, WHEREAS, the development would be located within the R-2 Single or Two Family Residential district and is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, the developer is proposing 3 twin units on the 6 lots. Lots 2-6 are under the required 7000 sf lot area standard for twin homes. The proposal meets all other setback requirements for dwellings maintaining 10 feet on side yards, 45 feet rear yard and 20 feet front yard setbacks; and, WHEREAS, each proposed unit would be 1534 sf in size with a two stall attached garage; and, WHEREAS, the developer is marketing the units to a senior population by incorporating a single story design and added association amenities; and, WHEREAS, the proposed landscaping includes a row of 7 over story deciduous trees planted on a 2 feet earthen mound along Shoreline Drive. The developer is proposing typical 2 inch caliper ash, oak or maple trees; and, June 23, 1998 WI:IEREAS, The hardcover calculations for the property have been updated to consider the site as a whole rather than an individual lot basis. Total hardcover is 39.63 percent of the property, under the 40 percent lot of record requirement by 0.37 percent; and, WHEREAS, Outside lighting consists of two lights on each garage and two lights in the rear of each unit; and, WHEREAS, the Covenants will be reviewed the City Attorney; and, WHEREAS, the street and utility improvements have at this point been addressed conceptually. The developer estimates the cost for street, water and sewer connections would be $48,871. Of this amount $25,000 would be paid for by the developer, $10,000 by an abutting property owner, and $13,871 left to be paid by the City. These estimates will need to be verified by the City Engineer. If the City should chooses to approve the project, the proposal shows that it would be responsible for contributing $13,871 up-front for the improvements. These costs could be then be deferred to the abutting properties or paid from other city funds. If the City chooses to proceed with assisting in the project funding gap, greater detail will need to be provided on the specifics of the project before final project approvals are granted. This would include construction plans prepared by the City Engineer or the developers engineer, costs for street and utility assessments to the abutting properties; and, WHEREAS, there were 2 finding of facts: 1) Good for the City - purchasers would be targeted to the semi retired or retired individuals. 2) Only street in Mound that is used as a street and has not been developed yet; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby: approves the Preliminary Plat and a Conditional Use Permit with variances for the twin home development on Norwood Lane with the following conditions: 2. No hardcover variances due to the project is being considered as a whole. That the lot size variance be granted due to land being taken during the reconstruction of County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive). The City Engineer review and approve all grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building Permits The stormwater plan be reviewed and approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The City Engineer review and approve all road improvements prior to issuance of Building Permits. Developer will relocate the existing encroaching fence at the expense of the Developer and all required permits will be required. o e A Final Plat must be filed within one year of the date of approval of the Preliminary Plat or June 23, 1999, or the plat becomes null and void. A ten (10) foot Right of Way Variance be granted. A. Recognize lot size variances as follows: Lot 2 - 5: proposed lot size of 5,828 square feet requiring a lot size variance of 1,172 square feet. Lot 6: proposed lot size of 5,853 square feet requiring a lot size variance of 1,147 square feet. B. The property legally described at 4901 Shoreline Drive as: Lot 1, except the East 3.00 feet of said Lot 1 and except that part of said Lot I which lies Northeasterly of a line drawn from a point on the East line of said Lot 1, distant 10.00 feet South from the Northeast comer of said Lot 1, to a point on the North line of said Lot I, distant 15.00 feet West from said Northeast comer and Lots 2 to 6 inclusive, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County, Hennepin County, Mimaesota. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens, and seconded by Mayor Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Hanus, Polston and Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Jensen was absent and excused. Attest: City Clerk Mayor Edlna Recllty Tltle~ REGISTERED PROPERTY ABSTRACT FOR Certificate of Title No. 510022 dated September 6, 1974, originally registered August 26, 1922 in Volume 77, Page 24689 in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. EDINA REALTY TITLE, INC. certifies that the real property is described in the Certificate of Title as follows: Lot 1, except the East 3.00 feet of said Lot 1 and except that pm't of said Lot 1 which lies Northeasterly of a line drawn fi'om a point on the East line of said Lot I, distant I 0.00 feet South fi'om the Northeast comer of said Lot I, to a point on the North line of said Lot I, distant 15.00 feet West fi'om said Northeast comer of Lots 2 to 6 inclusive, Block 3, Shirley Hills, Unit A, according to tile plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County. That according to the Certificate, title to the property is registered in the following names: Carol J. Aslesen (Now by Remarriage Carol J. Child) Who, according to tile Certificate is of the age of 44 years, mmv'led to Sampson Reed Child and under no legal disability. Owners Duplicate Certificate was picked up by owner, June 1 I, 1976. That the following recitals appear on the Certificate: None That the unreleased registered encumbrances, liens and interests memorialized on the Certificate are as follows: Edward C. Streater and Alma Streater, his wife TO QUIT CLAIM DEED Dated: June 3, 1964 Filed: July9, 1964 Document No.: 773457 The Village of Mound, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation A temporary construction easement 10 feet in width and a perpetual easement 5 feet in width for public sewer, water, and other utility purposes including the fight to open, lay out, construct and maintain the same, and the fight to remove trees, brush, and soil therefl'om over, under the across Lot 1, Block 3, Shirley Flills, Unit A, the North line of both easements being the North line of said lot, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said county and state. Said temporm'y construction easement to expire January 1, 1966. County of Hennepin TO The Public HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID HIGtlWAY NO~ 15, PLAT 68 Dated: July 2, 1985 Filed: July 5, 1985 Document No.: 1656002 Know all men by these presents: That the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 160.14 and 505.1792 as amended, has caused the right of way of part of Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 15 to be surveyed and monumented. Said right of way is comprised of the following described lands situate in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to-wit: Part of Lots I and 22, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A AND OTHER LAND NOTE: See Original Record Carol J. Child, formerly known as Carol J. Aslesen and Sampson Reed Child, husband and wife TO QUIT CLAIM DEED Dated: November 10, 1988 Filed: December 18, 1988 Document No.: 1980421 The County of Hennepin, a Minnesota body, politic and corporate A pe~xnanent easement for drainage purposes over all that part of the following described tract: Lot I, except the East 3.00 feet of said Lot 1, and except that part of said Lot 1 which lies Northeasterly ora line drawn fi'om a point on the East line of said Lot 1, distance 10.00 feet South fi'om the Northeasterly comer of said Lot 1 to a point on the North line of said Lot 1; distance 15.00 feet West from said Northeast comer, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A, according the duly recorded plat thereof. which lies 12.5 feel on each side of a line 25.0 feet in length drawn Southeasterly at fight angles lo the North line of said Lot 1 fi'om a point thereon distant 80.0 feet Easterly of the Northwest corner thereof. Kenneth R. Hall and Donna J. Hall, husband and wife TO QUIT CLAIM DEED Dated: November 10, 1988 Filed: December 8, 1988 Document No.: 1980422 The County of Hennepin, a Minnesota body, politic and corporate A permanent easement for drainage purposes over all that part of the following described tract: Lot I, except the East 3.00 feet of said Lot 1, and except that pm't of said Lot 1 which lies Northeasterly of a line drawn fi'om a point on the East line of said Lot 1, distance 10.00 feet South from the Northeasterly comer of said Lot 1 to a point on the North line of said Lot 1, distance 15.00 feet West fi'om said No~lheast corner, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A, according to the duly recorded plat thereof. which lies 12.5 feet on each side ora line 25.0 feet in length drawn Southeasterly at right angles to the North line of said Lot 1 fi'om ao point thereof distant 80.0 feet Easterly of the Northwest corner thereof. That according to the general tax records of Hennepin County, Minnesota, there are no unpaid or delinquent real estate taxes and no tax sales which appear unmerged or uncancelled against the subject property for 1998 or prior years, except, None That according to the general tax records of Hennepin County, Minnesota, real estate taxes payable in 1999 are as follows: Taxes for 1999 are in the amount of $508.38 and are Unpaid. Base tax foL' 1999 is ,$504.33. Property is Non-Homestead. Proper~y ldenti fi cation Number: 13- l 17~24-44-0032. Taxpayer: SRDD LLC Owner:Same That within the ten year period preceding the date of this abstract, no bankruptcy proceedings and no unreleased Notices of Federal Tax Liens have been docketed in the United States District Court, District of Minnesota, Fom~h Division or filed with the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, nor have any unreleased Notices of State Tax Liens been filed with the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota against any registered owner of the subject property or against any party shown by memorial or recital to have or have had an interest affecling lille lo the subject premises. Federal Tax Lien searches have been extended to cover the p~Sor of lime commencing eleven years prior to the stated certification date. Federal .ludgment searches have been extended to include all those docketed on or after May 29~ 1981, to insure compliance with the Federal Debt Collection Act, U.S.C. Chaplet 176. That the following statutory exceptions appear on the Certificate: (1) Liens, claims, or fights arising under the laws &the Constitution of the United States, which the statutes of this state cannot require to appear of record; (2) Any real property tax or special assessment for which a sale of the land has not been had at the date of the certificate of title; (3) Any lease for a period not exceeding three years, when there is actual occupation of the premises under the lease; (4) All rights in public highways upon the land; (5) Such right of appeal or right to appear and contest the application as is allowed by law; (6) The rights of any person in possession under deed or contract for deed from the owner of the certificate oftitle; (7) Any outstanding mechanics lien rights which may exist under sections 514.01 to 514.17. NOTE: It' premises covered by the foregoing Abstract are to be divided and conveyed by language necessary to describe said portion, other than by simple, fraclional or quantity part, of a full government subdivision, order of the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Hennepin County, Minnesota, provides for the filing of a "Registered Land Survey" when so required by the Registrar of Titles. Dated at Edina, Minnesota this 3 Ist day of December, 1998 at 7:00 A.M. EDINA REALTY TITLE, INK. Authorized Signature ~- Date: To: From: Subject: COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. 8URVEYING. ENGINEERING AND LAND PLANNING 4Eg'-A TAMARACK AVENUE LONG LAKE, MINN. 1~8~Se May 5, 1999 473-4141 City of Mound Mark Gronberg Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners Lynmore Subdivision The following is the square footage for each of the lots in Lynmore. Lot 1 8,137 Lot 2 5,828 Lot 3 5,828 Lot 4 5,828 Lot 5 5,828 Lot 6 5,853 Total ~ 37,302 Sincerely, Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. Mark Gronberg, P.E. & L.S. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS RECEIVED HAY - 5 1999 MOUND PLANNI~,IG & This Declaration, made on the date hereof by Lynmore LLC, (Declarant). WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of certain property located in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, which is legally described as: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Block 3 SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A. and more particularly described as: Parcel A. 2305 Norwood Lane legally known as Lot 1, Block 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A. Parcel B. 2307 Norwood Lane legally known as Lot 2, Block 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A. Parcel C. 2311 Norwood Lane legally known as Lot 3, Block 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A. Parcel D. 2313 Norwood Lane legally known as Lot 4, Block 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A. Parcel E. 2317 Norwood Lane legally known as Lot 5, Block 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A. Parcel F. 2319 Norwood Lane legally known as Lot 6, Block 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A. ( Property ) WHEREAS, for the benefit of the Property Declarant desires to impose certain covenants, conditions and restrictions. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares the Property shall be held, sold and conveyed subject to the following restrictions, covenants, and conditions, which are for the purpose of protection the value and desirability of, and which shall run with the Property and be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the Property or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall insure to the benefit of each owner thereof. ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS Section 1. Terms. The following words, when used in this Declaration, have the following meaning, unless the context prohibits: a. "Lot" shall mean and refer to any plot of land shown upon any recorded subdivision map of the Property. b. "Owner" shall mean and refer to the record owner, whether one or more persons or entities, of a fee simple title to any Lot, contract purchaser and life tenants thereof, and lessees under a lease having a term of more than three years, but excluding those have such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. ARTICLE II LAND USE REQUIREMENTS Section 1. Residential Structures. All Lots shall be used only for residential purposes except that any Lot dedicated to the public for park purposes, may be used for park purposes, may be used for park purposes and shall not be used for residential purposes. No building or structure shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any Lot except a residence together with any garage, fence, patio or other structure accessory to the residence unless first approved by the Declarant, its successors or assigns. Section 2. Easement Areas. Easements for installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities are reserved as shown on the recorded plat unless vacated by action of the appropriate governmental authority. Within these easements, no structure, planting or other material shall be placed or permitted to remain which may damage or interfere with the installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of utilities, or which may change the direction of flow of drainage channels in the easement, or which may obstruct or retard the flow of water through drainage channels in the easements. The easement area of each Lot shall be maintained continuously by the Owner of the Lot except for improvements owned by a public authority or an utility company. Section 3. Setback. Every building, structure, or other improvement shall be set back in accordance with the setback ordinances, rules and regulations of any governmental body which may have or acquire jurisdiction over the Property. In addition, the placement of all structures and improvements is subject to the approval of the Declarant, it's successors or assigns. Section 4. Common Walls. Parcels A and B of the Property share a common wall located on the lot line, and parcels C and D of the Property share a common wall located on the lot line. Parcels E and F of the Property share a common wall located on the lot line. The common walls of Parcels A, B, C} D, E and F are party walls standing one-half on described and the other half on the other parcel adjoining, forming part of the building on both such parcels. The premises hereinbefore described shall, therefore, be sold subject to all rights of the Owners of such adjoining properties in the said party walls. Owners shall maintain their respective overall function and appearance is unimpaired. Owners shall share equally the cost of maintenance and repair of the party walls; except that any damage due to the negligence or intentional action of the Owner or of any person or persons pursuant to authority of any owners, in which case, the Owner shall be liable for such damages. Section 5. Maintenance of Lots and Buildings. Owners of the Property shall be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of their respective Parcels and the buildings and other improvements located thereon. The Parcels and the buildings and improvement located thereon shall be kept in good condition and repair at all times. ARTICLE III PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND USES Section 1. Nuisances. No noxious or offensive activities shall be carried on upon any Lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to neighborhood. Section 2. Animals. No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any Lot except that dogs, cats or other household domesticated pets may be kept provided that they are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purpose and provided that such pets are kept in accordance with all governmental ordinances applicable thereto. Section 3. Garbage. Garbage, rubbish and trash shall not be kept on a Lot except in closed sanitary containers. All receptacles used or kept for the storage of disposal of such material shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. Section 4. Temporary Structures. No structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, barn or other out-building shall be used on any Lot at any time as a residence either temporarily or permanently. Section 5. Signs. No signs of any kind shall be displayed to the public vieTM on any Lot except sign or signs not more than five square feet advertising the property for sale or rent by the then owner/occupant or any sign or signs used by the Declarant to advertise the property during construction and sale of Lots. Section 6. Vehicles. No buses, trucks, housetrailers, trailers, unlicensed automobiles aircraft, tractors or watercraft over 20 feet shall be parked, kept or stored on any Lot except on a temporary basis unless parked, kept or stored within an enclosed garage. Section 7. Tower Structures. No poles, posts, towers, or antennae may be installed that exceed 10 feet in height except that an outside radio or television antenna may be placed upon the roof of a residence, provided such antenna does not extend more than 10 feet above the roof where it is located. Section 8. Storage. The storage or collection of rubbish of any character whatsoever, any material that emits foul or obnoxious odors, the growing of any noxious weed or other natural substances, and the harboring of the source of any noise or activity which disturbs the peace, comfort or serenity of Owners is prohibited. No Lot shall be used for the storage of materials not customary to or necessary and convenient for residential living. Provided, however, this section shall not apply to the temporary storage of soil and building material accumulated as a result of construction. ARTICLE IV GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. Duration. The covenants, restrictions and easements of this Declaration shall run with and bind the land and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Owner of any Lot subject to the Declaration, his or her respective legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, for a term of twenty (20) years from the date the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions was recorded; after which time said covenants, restrictions and easements shall be automatically renewed for successive period of ten (10) years. Section 2. Amendments. The covenants and restrictions of the Declaration may be amended as follows: a. At any time up and until the last Lot is sold and a residence has be constructed on every Lot, the Declarant may amend the Declaration in its discretion. b. From the date the Declarant sells the last Lot and a residence has been constructed on every Lot to the end of the first twenty (20) year period from the date of this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions may be amended by an instrument signed by not less than three-fourths (3/4) of the Owners of the Lots; and c. Thereafter this Declaration may be amended by an instrument signed by not less than three-fourths (3/4) of the Lot Owners. Any amendment must be approved by the appropriate governing body and properly recorded. Section 3. Enforcement. Enforcement of these covenants and restrictions shall be by any proceeding at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant or restrictions either to restrain violation, require specific performance of an obligation or to recover damages and against the land to enforce any lien created by these covenants; and failure by any Owner to enforce any covenant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. Section 4. Variances. The Declarant hereby reserves the right to grant a reasonable variance or adjustment of these conditions and restrictions in order to overcome practical difficulties and prevent unnecessary hardships arising by reason of the application of the restrictions contained herein. Such variances or adjustments shall be granted only if the granting thereof shall not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood, shall not defeat the general intent and purpose of these restrictions and shall not result in or permit any violation of law, ordinance, rule or regulation of any governmental authority. Such right of variance shall terminate upon the Declarant selling the last Lot designated for park purposes. Section 5. Notices. Any notice required to be sent to any Owner under the provisions of this declaration shall be deemed to have been properly sent the provisions of this declaration shall be deemed to have been properly sent when mailed, postage prepaid, to the last known address of such Owner appearing on the tax records at the time of such mailing. Section 6. Severability. Invalidation of any one or more of these covenants or restrictions by judgment or court order shall not affect any other provision which shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the Declarant herein, has hereunto set its hand and seal this 1999. day of Lynmore, LLC STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ) ) ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1999 by of Lynmore LLC, on behalf of the corporation. , the Notary Public 10 d - j Z 0 (..9 b. 0 ADDRESS: REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSe,-)/.3 ,/ FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W 15' LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCtPAL BUILDING/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 LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: ZONE: REO. LOT AREA: EXIST. LOT AREA: ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED 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 LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: 4' or 6' 4' or 6' 4' 50' (measured from O.H.W.) ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED 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 LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: HAR,I~OV~I CONFORMING? YES / NO / ? IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YES / NO / ? BY: DAT :. ~ (,o . 3 his Ge~er~ Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion ot the requirements out ineo in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance, For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. il Jun. 4. 1999 9'15AM ..... MCCOMBS FRANK FRA RO0$ .... Engineering No. 8652--P. 2/8 Planning · Surveying June 4, 1999 ' Ms, Fran Clark, Acting City Manager City of Mound 5341 Ma>wood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBIECT: City of Mound Norwood Lane Street and Utility Improvements Partial Payment MFRA #8614 Dear Fraa: Enclosed is Machtemes' Payment Request No. 2 for work completed through May 28, 1999 on the subject project. The mount of this payment request is $16,4S3.64. Also included is Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $15,458.75 for extra work necessary to complete this project. A number of items make up this change, the major two are the extra subcut and granul/r material, necessary because unstable soils encountered. The plans were prepared using the developer's original street design, with no soil borings and the assumption that soil corrections had been done. This was not the case and there was no choice but to make the decision during the cons~uction to spend the additional money and direct the contractor to proceed with the necessary soil corrections. Some of the extra cost in the cl~nge order relate to the utility construction that we feel should be paid from the City's utility, fund. This extra work was discussed with Oreg Skinner of Public Works and we are in agreement that these extra costs should not be assessed to the property owners. We have discussed these extra costs with City Attorney, John Dean, who is presently investigating the possibility of a supplemental assessment for the additional costs related to the street construction. A report will be forthcoming that address the supplemental assessment along with a breakdown of the costs that we recommend be included. We have reviewed this payment request and change order, and final them to be in order, and recommend approval of the change order and payment in the above amount to the Comzaetor. 15050 23r¢~ Avenue North . Plymouth. Minnesota · $$447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra~mfra.com Jun, 4, 1999" 9:16AM'-""MCCOMB$ FRANK R00$" No, 8652--P, 3/8' Nfs. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager June 4, 1999 Page 2 If you have any questions or ne~ additional information, I will be available at the Council meeting on Tuesday, June 8, 1999. Very U'uly yours, 0MBS FRANK R00S ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JC:p~y Enclosure e:~n~A~.\~614~lar~-~ Jun. 4, 1999 9'iSAM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS N°, 8~52 P. 4/8 Jun, 4, 1999 9'I?AM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS No, 8652 P. 6/8 Jun, 4, 1999 9'I?AM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS No, 8652 P, 3/8 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 CITY OF MOUND NORWOOD LANE A~O v'rn, rrg co~s~avcr~o~ ~ ~6~4 SANITARY SEWER Rerno.vc ~" PVC Sewer and Replace with 8" PVC DEDUCT Item ~4 - Connect 4" Service to Manhole TOTAL - SANITARY SEWER (ADD) WATER.MAIN Item #7 - Bituminous Removal DEDUCT Item # 6-Granular Foundation Mmterial TOTAL - WATEKMAIN (DEDUCT) STREETS Item #3 - P,.emove Concrete Cuxb and C-utter Item #5 - Subgrade Excavation Item #6 - Select Granular Borrow (CV) Item #$ - Class 50ravel 100% Crushed Quarry Rock Item ~9 -Bituminous Base M~I'}OT 2331 Type 31 Item #10 - Bituminous Wear MnDOT 2331 Type 41 Item #11 - Geofabric Item #13 - Surmountable Curb and Gutter Item #16 - Seed and Mulch Item #17 - 4" PVC Dralr~tile TOTAL ADD DEDUCT Item #12 - Bituminous Overlay TOTAL DEDUCT TOTAL - STREETS (ADD) $ 2,500.00 ($ 250.00) $ 2,250.00 $ 222.25 $ 630.00 ($ 407.75) $ 250.00 $ 1,900.00 $ 8,OOg.O0 $ 967.60 $ 7O4.00 $ 731.25 $ 319.00 $ 451.00 $ 800.00 $ 734.40 $ 14,865.25 ($ 1,218.75) ($ 1,218.75) $ 13,646.50 ;u~. &.~999 9:~k~ ~CC0~BS ~RANK DOS No. 8652 P. 8/8 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 SANITARY SEWER (ADD) '~'AT'~~ ('DI~DUC'ID gTREETS (ADD) TOTAL THIS CHANGE ORDER OKIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $ ($ 407.75) $ 1~,646.50 $ 15,455.75 56,327.75 15,488.75 71,816.50 APPROVED: MACHTEMES CONSTRUCTION, INC. ACCEFTED: CITY OF MOUND BY: DATE: KECOMMENDED: McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC, e:~aain:~6 l,l~d'ange~rdcr~ I DRAFT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT. 1s made and entered into as of the, day of .1999 by and between the CITY OF MOUND. a Minnesota municipal corporation. ("City") and RODRIGO PLAZA-NAVARRETE and GINNY MILLER-PLAZA ("Plazas"). BACKGROUND 1. Pleas are the owners of land in the City of Mound having a str~et address of 4539 Island View Drive and legally described as Lot 1. Block 1 Devon.("Plaza Property") 2. The City is the owner of land which is legally described as Lots 71 and 72 Phelp'.~ Island Park First Division.("City Property") 3. The two properties are separated by a 25-foot wide street which lies withio the Phelp'.s Island Park First Division plat. 4. The Plaza Property is separated from Lake Minnetonka by a public common which is generally known a,~ Devon Common. 5. The City Property is separated from Lake Minnetonka by a private common which, for the purposes of this agreement will be called Phelp's Common. 6. The City maintains a park on the City Property. and maintains a park and a multiple nlip dock,on the Phclp's Common 7. The City also maintains, contwls and regulates the public commons within the City. including Devon Common. so that they may be available for r~creational use by the public to the greatest extent possible. Among the activities which the City regulate.~ is the number, location and placement of docks on the commons. 8. The City is undertaking the alteration of the multiple slip dock located on Phelp'.~ Common. The alteration will make available to the public locations for at leant 3 additional boats. The City Council is of thc opinion that this alteration is a necessary and important feature of its recreation programs. The design of the dock has b~n approved by official action of the City Council. 9. The location of the new dock will be such that it will encroach and cross the extension of the sideyard line of the Plaza Property extended across Devon Common and into Lake Minnetonka. 10. Concern has been rained regarding whether it is a legitimate use of the City's authority to locate and expand a multiple dock at such a location. 1 I. The City has proposed that the parties enter into this agreement which would have the effect of resolving that potential objection 12. The City believes that the stability and certainty which this agreement will provide it in the administration of its dock pro.am is sufficic'nit reason to enter into this agreement. NOW THEREFORE. in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants hereinafter contained, thc parties hereto do stipulate and agree as follows: MU220-6 CITY OF MOUND FO 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 June 7, 1999 Memorandum TO: Mayor and city Council tor~_~~~ FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Direc~ ~- SUBJECT: Purchase of Jim Ahlbrec~/Dock. This is ~o update you on the possible cities purchase of Mr. Ahlbrec~ dock. In my May 24, 1999 memo on this matter Crepeau Docks had advised me that Mr. Ahlbrec~s dock could have a value of seventeen sections at $100.00 and one double wide section at $125.00 for a total of $1,825.00. Upon delivery of the dock to Crepeau Docks it was determined that ten of the sections had to have the decking replaced at a cost of $100.00 per-section the remaining eight were in acceptable condition. The value of the dock towards a trade in has changed to eight sections at $100.00 and ten sections at $50.00 which brings the current value to $1300.00. Staff has offered this to Mr. Ahlbrec~ and he has asked the Council to consider the refund total. printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 May 24, 1999 Memorandum TO: Mayor and' city Council ~/' FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director ~ - SUBJECT: Purchase of Jim Ahlbrects ~3ock. As directed by the City Council I have made arrangements with Mr. Ahlbrect to purchase his dock. There are fifteen to seventeen regular sections at $100.00 per-section and one double-wide section at $125.00. The cost will range from $1,625.00 to $1,825.00 depending on the section count. Crepeau Dock will allowed the city a credit towards the cities recent purchase of the docks that were installed at Carlson and Highland End Parks. Mr. Ahlbrect has requested that this be approved by the City Council at the May 25, 1999 Council Meeting and payment made as soon as possible. printed on recycled paper i. Th~ Plazas. for themselves, and their successors in interest to the Pla~a property do hereby con.~¢nt and a~re~ that the City may locate. ~rcct. continue and maintain any structure, including without limitation either a single or multiple slip dock confi~ration on Phelps Common: provided however, that rto such structure ma~, bc located further ~0uth thart I'L~ [¢ct 5outhwcst (measured along thc shoreline) of thc north property linc of tl~¢ City Property. 2. The City alrces that it will keep and abide by and follow thc pwvisions of this a~recment. ~. The Pla~,a~ agr~ for themselves and their succ¢~or~ and a.~signs that for so lonl ~s the City shall keep and abtde by the provisions of this a~rccmcnt, they will make no claim, nor sup~rt at~7 claim or cause of action wherein City's authority to mxintain a structure at such location is an i,~.~ue. the IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF. thc parties hereto have sct thcir hands as of day and year first above written. CITY OF MOUND By Pat Meisel Its Mayor BY Fran Clark Its City Clerk Rodrigo Plaza-Navarett¢ Ginny Miller-Plaza [acknowledgments attached] MU220-6 BOZ-d £0/£0'd Z[£-I from: ,(~mv] IO: rran I,;laJq(-LelSl/')ger L)a~e: ~,IZ:)I~) Ii,qle:/:'~:~, I'M Hage ~, oT ~s AMM FAX lie Association ot Metropolitan Municipalities May 24-28, 1999 Amendments to the TIF Act: Q & A The following are some ques tions and answers regarding the amendments made to the TIF Act this session: Question #1 Housing districts can chose to make a local contribution equal to 10% of the increment. Was the percentage rate changed? Was the definition of a housing district changed? Answer #1 The amendments to the TI F Act are found in Article X of HF 2420 (1999 Omnibus Tax Act). The local contribution rate for housing dis- tricts was reduced from 10 to 5 percent. The change is effective for districts or geographic additions to AMM Fax News is faxed periodically to all AMM city managers and administrators. The information is in- tended to be shared with mayors, councilmembers and staff in order to keep officials abreast of important metro city issues. ~Copyright 1999 AMM 145 University Avenue }Vest St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651} 281-1299 E-maik amm(~amm14 5. org districts for which the request for certification was made after June 30, 1999. Although the definition of a "qualified" housing district was proposed in the Senate Tax Bill, it was not included in the Omnibus Bill. The definition of a housing district was not changed. Question ~ The Office of State Auditor (OSA) has concluded that TIF districts for which the request for certification was requested be- tween Aug. 1, 1979 and June 30, 1982 are not permitted to expend or pool increments outside the district. The OSA has identified the presence of 73 such districts in approximately 50 cities. While it has not completed audits on all cities the OSA has issued non- compliance letters to at least three cities and has referred the issue to the county attorney. During the 1999 Session there were special law proposals and general law amendments regarding the "1979 to 1982". What did the 1999 Legislature do related to this issue? Answer #2 The final Tax Bill ratifies all expenditures made outside the district but requires district decertifi- cation upon the payment of all outstanding bonds and contracts for preexisting in-district obligations and preexisting outside district obliga- tions. Preexisting outside district obliga- tions means (1) bonds that were issued and the pledge of TIF was made before the earlier of a final notice of non compliance from the OSA or April 1, 1999: (2) bonds issued to refund bonds discussed under clause 1 provided the refund- ing bonds do not increase the amount of TIF needed to pay the refunded bonds, and (3) binding written agreements secured by TIF and entered into by May 1, 1999. In-district obligations have the same meaning as the outside district obligations except the last date for entering into a binding written agreement is June 30, 1999. After Dec. 31, 1999, the district (if it pooled increments) must use increments to only pay preexisting in-district and preexisting outside district obligations and administra- tive expenses. Question #3 Are there any exemptions or special rules related to the 1979 to TIF Amendments ~ See Page 2 I-rom: ,~M IO: rran L;larK-belslnger uate: =/gt~/~d~ lime: /:1:~::,,'~ I'M I-'age ~ 01' Lf May 24-28, 1999 AMM Fax News Page 2 of 2 IF Amendments/Pooling provisions are modified Continued from Page 1982 districts? Answer #3 Yes, there are some exemptions and permitted expenditures. The 1979 to 1982 legislation does not apply to districts that (1) were decertified before the enactment date of the Tax Bill and all incre- ments pooled for expenditures outside the district have been repaid and distributed as excess increments and (2) increments were pooled to pay only for debt service on revenue bonds under section 469.129, subdivision 2 and to refund the bonds issued. j In addition to the preexisting outside district obligations, incre- ments can be spent for expendi- tures outside the district before the earlier of notification by the state auditor or Dec. 31, 1999. Question ~, During the session there was proposed legislation to prohibit the use of increment for a commons area used as a public park or a facility used for social, recreational or conference center. Was the legislation enacted? Answer #4 Section 2 of Article X prohibits the use of increment for the identi- fied purposes for all districts present and new but it does not apply to (1) expenditures made before Jan. 1, 2000 (2) expendi- tures made under a binding agree- ment entered before Jan. 1, 2000 or (3) expenditures made under a binding contract entered pursuant to a letter of intent with a developer if the letter of intent was entered before Jan. 1, 2000. The amendment prohibits public and private facilities but it does permit increment to be used for a privately owned conference facility. The prohibition does not apply to the Mills Ruin Park and Milwaukee Road districts, as well as a future district that includes the former Federal Reserve Bank Building. Question #5 Can increment be used outside a district for public improvements, equipment or other items? Answer #5 Increments cannot be used outside a district for such purposes if the improvements, equipment or other items will primarily serve (1) an aesthetic or decorative purpose or (2) a functional purpose but their cost is increased by 100 percent as a result of the selection of materi- als, design or type as compared to more commonly used materials and designs. The prohibition does not apply to the rehabilitation of historic struc- tures that are on the National Register of Historic Places or are a contributing element to historic district listed on the National Regis- ter of Historic Places. Question #6 Can a district including a 1979 to 1982 district pool increments to cover deficits in making debt ser- vice caused by changes in property tax class rates? Answer ~6 Yes, the 1999 Tax Bill amended the current pooling provisions relating to deficits to include changes made by the 1996 and 1999 legislatures. The amendment also allows a city council to authorize a city development agency to transfer tax increments to assist another city development agency in covering deficits in debt service caused by the changes. In addition, the law permits a city located within more than one county to pool increments for this purpose regardless of its location within the city. Question #7 Has the grant program that provides state funding for TIF deficits been amended? Answer #7 Yes, the grant program has been amended to include tax rate com- pression changes in 1998 and 1999. Other amendments include changing the application deadline date to Aug. 1, increasing the amount of the program from $2.0 million to $6.0 million and extending the sunset date from Jan. 1, 2001 to 2002. Question ~8 The House made changes to the enforcement provisions of the TIF Act to include the Department of Revenue. Were any changes made to this section of the act? Answer ~8 Yes, the act was amended to provide that the attorney general will review the case if the county attorney does not act. If the attorney general finds that there is non-compliance and it is substantial, he may attempt to resolve it through dispute resolution or take the case to tax court. If tax court finds that there is non- compliance and it is substantial, the court can suspend an authority's ability to do TIF for up to five years. MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION May 20, 1999 The meeting was called to order at 7:04am by Paul Meisel. Members in attendance were Pietrowski, Drahos, Weber, Brewer, Longpre, and Brown. Also present: Cook, Chamberlain, Pat Meisel, Brusinaro, Harrell, and later Jo Longpre. There were no previous minutes available. Bill Beard & Redevelol~ment Paul indicated that we are in an exciting time and that change will be coming. Paul introduced Brace Chamberlain who then made about a 40-minute presentation regarding plans for development. Bill Beard, the developer, was unable to attend because of a family medical emergency. Mound Mainstreet, Inc has been developed to move the project forward. Additional members of the redevelopment team will include Sid Inman (finance specialist), Bud Storm (property specialist), John Dean (city attorney), and John Cameron (city engineer). An appraiser will also be brought on board. First phase almost done and phase two has to wait for the move of the post office. Post office location may become area of old school/community center area. Intention is to start to identify businesses that will be relocating and work with thOn early ia the process. Emphasis on "working with the businesses" and taking the moral "high ground." Need to dual track and get the post office moved as quickly as practical. Pat Meisel informed that the council has decided to seriously go after the community center property and the property west of Superamerica. Council is backing the effort to get things moving and strongly in agreement with the need for the City to take more responsibility for moving forward. Brace advised that EDC needs to take a more active role in redevelopment. Need to develop strategies and plan for the future. Drahos had a concern over the change in the location of the post office and the timeline. Post office move is immediate need. Discussion followed around the possible change. Brace emphasized that the Langdon area would involve multiple owners and tenants and the process would be slow. If negotiations go well on the school property that could speed up the moving of the post office. There would probably be professional office space and retail to accommodate other businesses moved out of Langdon in the area of the school property. Pietrowski voiced concern that the project is getting too big and that we are now taking on too much risk. Concern for taking on too much and not being able to be successful. Discussion regarding risks and possibilities continued. Brace advised that approximately 40,000 sq. f~. of retail involved; the size of Commerce Square and it would be developer responsibility to fill the space. EDC Minutes Cont. May 20, 1999 Longpre expressed that one cannot compare existing to the possibilities after redevelopment. Brewer would like to see a large-scale grocery store as a major drawing point for the redevelopment area. Brace: Need to agree on level of aggressiveness and have EDC in agreement. Pietrowski still feels that purchase of the community center property is too aggressive. Brown wanted to know if there would be consideration for the businesses that are not moved for improvements. Workshoo/brainstorming Bruce will provide separate synopsis of items identified. Brewer and Paul Meisel indicated that it was time for the EDC to take a more active role in support of change. Consensus of voting members to support moving forward. Buy a Brick Weber provided a handout that is not yet for distribution. Discussion regarding selling at Mound City Days and having a booth. Money to go through Mound Crime Prevention for charitable status. Also discussion on lapel pins for promotional item...tabled. Greenwav Plan oreoaration Bruce: Construction plans needed very soon. Council if completed by 12/31/99. Next Meeting Cook requested that Harrell check the rules for the EDC for status for voting Ordinance attached. June 3, 1999 at 0700 and Sharon will bring the rolls. Bill Beard to be present. Adiourn Brown and Brewer at 9:02. May recover 80% of construction costs fxom Met members. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION MAY 20, 1999 Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Frank Ahrens, Orvin Burma, Greg Eurich, Mark Goldberg, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Building Official John Sutherland, Park Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Heidi Guenther. Members absent: None. Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. MINUTES Motion made by Burma, seconded by Eurich, to approve the minutes of the April 1.5, 1999 Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) meeting, as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES Agenda approved as amended: Switch Items 4 and 5; Add Item 6: DISCUSSION OF THE PEMBROKE SITE; and Add Item 7: DISCUSSION OF COMMISSIONS ABILITY TO VOICE STANDARDS. DISCUSS: ADDITIONAL SLIP LOCATIONS AT CITY DOCKS FOR PERSONAL WATERCRAFT Chair Funk introduced the item and stated there was discussion at a previous meeting regarding this issue. He stated the Commission was ready to decide on a policy for recommendation to Council. Commissioner Burma noted he is not being personally impacted by this issue and wanted to keep it a general policy for the Commission. He explained the draft multiple dock program proposal with the Commission. Commissioner Burma noted the permit issuance process, vacancy issues, and the reassignment of slips. He noted the policy would set standards for the Commission to follow with each resident who approaches the City. He stated the proposed fee for a second craft permit is $50 per year and noted the second craft space would not exceed 6 feet by 11 feet. Chair Funk asked for comments on the draft second craft policy. Commissioner Eurich stated he revised several statements of the draft second craft policy to reduce repetitive issues. He reviewed these changes with the Commission. Chair Funk opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. Karen Buffington, 4456 Radner Road, asked what the current requirements are for a primary slip dock. Commissioner Hanus stated there are no restrictions at this time. Ms. Buffington requested the size of the second craft be increased to 15 feet. She reminded the Commission that residents within the City keep the City docks in operation because of their use. Chair Funk stated the Commission understands this and will make second craft slips accommodate residents where possible. Commissioner Eurich suggested several other changes in the language regarding the safety of a second craft and permit issuance by the lottery system. Commissioner Burma stated he agreed with the changes but had concern about the failure of residents using their reserved slips. Chair Funk stated a policy may have to be set on how to deal with vacancy issues. Commission Ahrens voiced concern with the overall policy due to the fact it states each dock will be reviewed under specific regulations based on location and size. He noted that consideration should be taken for owners of property abutting multiple docks. Commissioner Hanus agreed stating the neighbors do need to be taken into consideration. Commissioner Hanus stated he does not want to see the second craft slip as a staging point for personal water crafts. He noted this may create problems for neighbors and other dock users. Chair Funk stated this should be made an overall dock policy for the City and not just for second crafts. Jim Ostman, 2945 Island View Drive, explained he is a dock holder at Avalon and has been for a year. He noted the current abutting residents within the City can use their dock for two boats and encouraged the City to keep this in mind when setting policy on their own docks so as not to lose its current slip holders. Commissioner Ahrens voiced concern regarding the definition and size of "second crafts" and added that he doesn't want to see the City incur additional expense for the current docks. Commissioner Burma stated the 6 foot by 11 foot size was chosen for a number of reasons, namely for the size of personal water crafts and inflatable crafts. Commissioner Goldberg asked if the size could be stated as 75 square feet for the density of each second craft slip. Commissioner Burma stated the 75 square foot restriction would be acceptable. The Commission voiced concern regarding the placement of canoes on multiple docks. Park Director Fackler stated a canoe tree could be added to the dock or shoreline to accommodate the owners of these crafts. Commissioner Goldberg stated the aesthetics of a second craft should be made a part of the second craft policy. He added he would like to see language added into the process where a public hearing would be held to gain input from abutters and non-abutters of the dock area. Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission May 20, 1999 Commissioner Ahrens stated the second crafts on multiple docks should be tried on a pilot basis at the Avalon site only because they have shown great interest. He stated that at the end of the season the policy can be reviewed for the following season. Commissioner Hanus agreed. Commissioner Burma stated he agrees with this as well and added that no further requests have been received from other areas in the City. Commissioner Ahrens reviewed the surveys of those residents using the Avalon dock and commented on their responses and presence at the meeting. He proposed the Commission allow second crafts on a pilot basis for 1999 at the Avalon site after the rules and regulations are set by the Commission. Park Director Fackler stated that the Commission needs to keep in mind a transient spot for those visiting the multiple dock area. Commissioner Burma explained the water level will be a great determinant of transient spaces at this dock. Pat Meisel, 5501 Bartlett Boulevard, asked that the Commission not overregulate the second crafts within the City. She asked that staff be allowed to handle this issue. Park Director Fackler agreed and stated he was in favor of the proposed Commission regulations for the second craft policy. Commissioner Hanus asked how complaints are handled by the City and questioned who has the ability to take action. Park Director Fackler stated not all actions could be handled at the staff level, but the Dock Inspector does have discretion to make judgement calls on the aesthetics and policies set by the City. Hearing no further public input, Chair Funk closed the Public Hearing at 8:45 p.m. Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, to open Avalon Multiple Dock as a Pilot Project to allow for second crafts with a maximum size of 75 square feet, including any protrusions such as motors, or any lift devices used in this space, with Council dock revisions, and that staff direct applicants through the lottery system. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Hanus noted the fee was to be set at $50.00 along with the applicable LMCD fee. Park Director Fackler stated the Council would have to review the fee structure and dock site number system to establish the new docks as temporary. He noted this item would go before the Council for their review on Tuesday, May 25, 1999. Park Director Fackler asked the number of second craft slips that are desired at Avalon. Commissioner Ahrens asked the residents to contact staff to state their interest. 3 Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission May 20, 1999 Commissioner Goldberg asked if input from abutting property owners would be needed. Park Director Fackler stated he spoke with an abutting property owner and stated there wasn't concern regarding additional slips, but noted they would like to see primary dock holders receive the second slips and not new members. Pat Buffington, 4456 Radnor Road asked where the second craft slips would be placed. Commissioner Hanus stated they would be placed parallel or perpendicular to the existing dock. Park Director Fackler stated he would look at the site to determine where slips fit most efficiently while maintaining a transient spot. Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to open Avalon Multiple Dock as a Pilot Project to allow for Second Crafts with a maximum size of 75 square foot, including any protrusions such as motors, or any lift devices used in this space, with Council dock revisions, approve of a fee of $50.00 along with the applicable LMCD fees, and that staff direct applicants through the lottery system. Motion carried unanimously. It was noted this item would go before the Council next week for their review and approval. The residents present asked that they stay involved and be asked for further input on this process. Park Director Fackler stated this item could be planned for the October 21, 1999 meeting for review of the second craft policy's success. 4. ENCROACHMENT STATUS REPORT Building Official Sutherland reviewed the encroachment policy for the City and noted the changes proposed by the Mayor and staff. He stated he met with 17 residents who are currently encroaching on City property and informed them of the City Ordinance. Building Official Sutherland explained that all violators were not in favor of the $15.00 fine for the encroachments. He encouraged the Commission to streamline the encroachment process and eliminate the fee due to the great deal of time and paperwork involved in the current process. Commissioner Goldberg asked where the concern was from the residents. Building Official Sutherland stated the residents did not want any greater regulation from the City and noted the fee was viewed as an irritant. Chair Funk explained the fine may be considered a nuisance fee but it could rid the City of several structures that are not in conformance and would grant residents added responsibility for their site. Commissioner Goldberg stated the purpose of this Ordinance is to set a principal for the exchange of being allowed to keep a structure on public property. He viewed the encroachments as a give-and-take situation for the City and resident. 4 Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission May 20, 1999 Commissioner Ahrens stated he understands there is concern about Mr. Sutherland's time dealing with encroachment issues and noted the proposed revisions to the Ordinance do streamline the process. Building Official Sutherland stated the revised Ordinance is moderate and firms up the City's policies. He stated that with direction from the Mayor he reviewed the proposed changes to Section 320 of the City Ordinance. Chair Funk asked what the goal was for these revisions. Building Official Sutherland stated the goal was to streamline this policy and eliminate the fee structure. He reviewed the general revisions in language throughout the Ordinance. Building Official Sutherland explained the proposed changes allow staff more freedom to deal with many of the issues without having to come before the Commission and/or Council. Commissioner Ahrens asked if current boathouses on common space had to apply for repair permits. Building Official Sutherland stated the permit was still needed but would be handled at a staff level and only extreme cases with numerous concerns would be brought before the Commission and/or Council. Building Official Sutherland reviewed the one-time permit for Building Code issues as being stairways and decks. He stated the Procedure Manual and Current Use Plan both need updating with comments from the Planning Commission, Docks Commission, and Park Commission. Building Official Sutherland stated he would provide a status report to the Council every year in June to advise them of any corrective action that would be needed. He stated an update of the Procedure Manual and Use Plan would allow staff to be better prepared to handle issues at a staff level. Mayor Meisel stated that after reviewing the current Ordinance with Mr. Sutherland, she was amazed at the paperwork and "hoops" that residents were having to go through. She encouraged the Commission to allow staff to regulate these issues with the residents. Mayor Meisel added she didn't want to see over regulation in this area due to the fact staff can handle these situations. Commissioner Ahrens stated the changes were ideal for these situations. He explained the intentions were still the same within the Ordinance but the "hoops" were eliminated for the residents. Beth Anderson, 3001 Brighton Boulevard, stated a number of the encroaching structures within the City were preexisting before the current owners moved into the area. She stated she would tear down her encroached fence before paying the $15 fee because it would not be worth it. 5 Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission May 20, 1999 Robed Anderson, 3001 Brighton Boulevard, thanked Mr. Sutherland for his work on this issue and for keeping the residents in mind when revising this policy. Commissioner Goldberg applauded the effods of staff and the Mayor on this Ordinance. He stated common sense simplified the process for all involved. Building Official Sutherland asked the Commission to allow him to bring this Ordinance to the Planning Commission and Park Commission for their review, in addition to reviewing the Procedure Manual and Use Plan. Commissioner Hanus asked if a four-fifths vote was needed for public properly repairs versus a simple majority for private properly. Commissioner Goldberg stated he understands the common space procedures and respects the extra protection. Commissioner Hanus noted the four-fifths vote makes issues more difficult to approve. Building Official Sutherland explained the four-fifths vote does not happen often. He stated that birdhouse and retaining walls are much more prevalent and are allowed in the commons. Commissioner Ahrens asked what other issues require the four-fifths vote. Building Official Sutherland stated a Zoning Code amendment is the only issue that requires a four- fifths vote. Commissioner Hanus stated the Planning Commission may have a concern with staff approved variances. Building Official Sutherland explained staff cannot grant variances under the revised Ordinance and they would still have to be brought to the Planning Commission and Council. Commissioner Hanus asked why retaining walls were not included as a staff level issue. Building Official Sutherland stated these are complex issues due to the change in grade, new plantings, and additional landscaping which needs Council approval. Commissioner Goldberg asked if the flow chad was being incorporated into the new policy at this time. Building Official Sutherland stated this was in the policy at this time but the Commission will have time to review this Ordinance again at a later date. Motion by Funk, seconded by Goldberg, to forward the revised encroachment ordinance to City Council and other commissions, in addition to directing staff to work with the City Planner to propose revisions to the Procedure Manual which will be moved to the June meeting after review from staff. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ahrens asked that the four-fifths vote from Council be changed to a simple majority of the Council. Chair Funk stated he would be in favor of this amendment. 6 Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission May 20, 1999 Substitute motion by Funk, seconded by Goldberg, to forward the revised encroachment ordinance with a simple majority vote required, to City Council and other commissions, in addition to directing staff to work with the City Planner to propose revisions to the Procedure Manual which will be moved to the June meeting after review from staff. The motion passed unanimously. 5. REVIEW: PROCEDURE MANUAL This item was tabled to the June 1999 meeting. 10:00 p.m. Motion made by Goldberg, seconded by Ahrens to extend the meeting for 30 minutes. Motion passed unanimously. 6. DISCUSS: PEMBROKE SITE Chair Funk asked for comments from the Commission on this site. Mayor Meisel stated additional slips were being added to this site but a committee is being pulled together for the site and that a Commission representative would be appreciated. Commissioner Ahrens asked that Commissioner Burma serve on this committee due to the fact he currently participates in a multiple dock situation. Motion by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg to delegate Commissioner Burma to the Pembroke Site Committee. The motion passed' unanimously. 7. DISCUSS: COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO VOICE STANDARDS Commissioner Goldberg stated there is a growing disturbance between the abutters and non-abutters in the City. He stated there is a need from the Docks Commission to aim for the middle ground, and to educate the public that the City is not trying to take what is not their's. Commissioner Goldberg asked that the Commission make several public statements to explain the decisions that were made. Commissioner Goldberg stated he feels the Commission needs to state their commitment to a balance of non-abutters' right to dock a boat on the lake. Chair Funk stated this may be a good decision for the Commission to examine the issues at hand. Commissioner Ahrens stated the actions of this Commission have never restricted access to the lake for anyone, at any point in time. He stated people are being treated fairly within this City and reviewed several surveys with the Commission. Commissioner Ahrens stated the rights of abutters and non-abutters have always been taken into consideration. He gave an example and noted programs have been set up for 7 Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission May 20, 1999 non-abutters to allow for dock slips that do not disturb abutters. He stated this issue is going to continue to come before the Commission so the City needs to address these situations. Commissioner Goldberg encouraged the Commission to keep the majority of the public in mind. Commissioner Burma agreed and stated the Commission should maintain a proactive stance with the residents. He explained he doesn't want to see inconsistencies throughout the City with the various programs offered to residents. Commissioner Goldberg noted that restating the Commission's principals would confirm the City's consistencies and set the public at ease to assist in finding a balance. 8. DISCUSS: JUNE DCAC AGENDA Commissioner Hanus asked the Commission to review an issue with regard to current dock slips that are leased that have no boats present. Commissioner Goldberg asked that the Commission's Principles and Guidelines be discussed. FOR YOUR INFORMATION: LMCD Information POSC Minutes City Council Minutes Pembroke Dock Reconfiguration Monthly Events Calendar Woodland Point Information 10. REPORTS: a. City Council Representative No report was made at this time. b. Park Director Park Director Fackler stated a dock was going in at Carlson's. He reviewed the public dock locations and stated there was a discrepancy with the property line placement. Park Director Fackler stated a survey has to be completed to determine whether or not the site has enough room for the additional slips. He stated the new dock is in and that the owner is willing to move the dock next year if there is a concern with its placement. c. Dock Inspector 8 Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission May 20, 1999 No report was made at this time. Motion made by Burma, seconded by Goldberg, to adjourn the meeting at 10:37 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 9 MA¥-~4 99 13: iT FROM: J U; l'lLIUl~lu ),Ay 66T~ D^vl SATURDAY, MAY 15, 1999 4423 ~.~ "JnclusJon,'.ry ~ devclopn'mnl" ~ne~ns ~ ncw con.~trum ion_ dcvclnpnlcn~ including ow~'mr.c~cul~icd_ or rcnt;~..,._~} ~ or ~ combination ~ ~ _wi~ a ,~aric~ oi'~ ~ ~ whicl._._.~ serve familic.< with a ~ of income__.__ .q ~ ~ I APPLICATION CRITERJ^. ) ~ commissioner mus~ ~.ivc prct'er~ncg ~ economically viable ~ th~ dcerc~ ~ ~ ~ us~ innovative ~ tcchniauc~ or ma~crJal~ ~ Iowe~ construction ~ maintaining ~ aualh~ cm~st~mio~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ac~i ~ communities ~ ~ay~. dcmon~cralcd ~llinene.~s ~ ~ai~ ~ rcstricdons which ~hc~i~c would ~ ~ ~ consl~cdon; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ incomes ~ ~ ~low ~ ~rcem ~ ereatcr ~ ~ ~ ~rca m~ian ~nc~Dc. ~ ~ fron._~ rc?ulator¥ incentives rnu~ bc reflcm~:~d ~n ~ ~ o._f al_~l resicicnccs in ~ ;nclu.~ion~v ho?~in~ ~vClOpmenh Set. 'iS. Minne.~ma Statule$ 1998. section 462A.21, is ~mcndcd by adding a subdivision ~o rcad; Subd. 25._.~ [FLn,_L CYCLE HOM~E OWNERSHIP SERVICES.} Thc ,~.ency m~_~ ~ ~ fo_Er ~hc ~ o_f ~ 462A,2~? ~ ma~ ~ ~h~ c_ost:; an_ d ~ ~ an.~d incidental to thc devclor~ment -R~ or~:ration of Set. $6 [¢62A.33} [ECONOMIC D£VELOPM~NT AND FIOUSZNG CHAI.J.,ENGE PROGRAM,} Subdivision I_.. [CREATE:D.J Th,=~ ~:onomic dcveloomcn_t ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ crc~tcd L.O I~ I~ministeted b_~ Ih~c ~ shall provide ~ ~ ~ f~or ~hc ~ ~ cbnstruclion, acouisition, rehabilitation, ~onstmcti~ ,~anent financinE, interest ~ rcdumion, refinancing, an~ ~ fi~ancin e ~* ,~,-..~ ~ ~mi~ a~i~ ~ creation ~thin a communit~ ~ ~ ~ m~ti ~ ~ identifi~ h~sin~ o~s. ~ [EUG~ ~C~S.J Challenge ~ ~ l~ns ~ ~ made ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ develo~r, j ~anizati~, ~ o~cr ~ ~ ~ individuals. ~ ~ pu~se ~ ~ '~it~" ~ ~shig. ~ extent ~ramicable. ~ ~ loans ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ en ap~roximamlv ~ual numar ~ ~. [CONTR.[BLFrlON R.EQLr[R~M]ENT: REGDLATORY FLEX~,} ChallenF. c r~g.C~.~j o_C[Oan~ taus! economically vJabl.~__ge .homeownershi~ o..z rc_n~al ~ p~o~s~l~ [11 include _n fi_.~mcia.__~l or in-ldn._._._.~d contribution from an ~rca ~ ~ either _~ ~ n...f local ~.ovcrnmcm or A '~ ~hilanthropic. reli,~ious, o_Er charitable organization: a. Lt~ i:. addres~ th._~e ~ousi~t~ needs ofzhe ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o_..f ~hi.~ subdivision, a_n ~ contribution ~ consist ~ or ~ o_f federal housir,~ t~ .Prcfercnc~ for ~ and _loan~s ~ be ~ lo Corer)arable r~ ~ include rcgul:,torv ~ th~a~ identifiable ~ ~voicl~nce or cost re41uc~ions. ~ ~. ~ densil_V~ Ilcxibili~v i~ ~ devclonrncn! or ~ ~ requirements. for ~.~nt...~ ~ ioan.__~ ~ al.~_.~o ~ ~ lc~ comparable ~ ~ ~ a financial ~r in-kin,.,~._~d f_crom a unh o~ Inc,~l .eovcrnmenl. LE ~ cmr)lovcr, an.~d ! ~ philanthror~ic, religious, or charitable MAY-24 99 1~:18 FROM: TO:MOUND PAG£:03,04 4424 JOURNALOFTHEHOUSE [66TH DAy [{ Subdr 4. [STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COOPERATION.] !n making chaUenKe ~rants ~ Loans, th.~e comtnJssioner taus{ develop a joint application process an~d coordinate fundin~ with funding available to the contmlssioner c~f trade and ecc~omlc development and Ic~:al eovernments for housing and i~frastructure conslructio'~ and repair. -- ~ SuJ__~ ~. [[NCOMiE LI2vI3TS.] Households _served throuRh challenge grants _or loan~ taus; not hav_._~e incomes tha._~t ex,-,,,,d, for homcoumershio ~ 115 percent .~he creater o_.f iR!! _or area median income as determined by th.~e ~ Stares Department of ~ and Ur'ban Deve]ooment. an._dd for renta! housing projects. 115 percent of th.~e ~ of state or area ~ income as determined b~ the United ~tates Denartrr~nt of Housinst _and-Urban D~velopment. ~ ~ ~ 6_. [LARGE-SCALE PROJECTS.] ~.t least on.._~e proposal funded_ under this section .must provide sufficient resources to.make i significant impact on the housing needs an_d econo~c develovment activities within i communal.. ~;ubd. 7. [GRANTS AND LOANS TO U~DfV1~UALS.] Preference shall be givcn to ~ants and loans that provide down oavraents and other assistance to individuals to purchase a home. ~.~ commissioner must coordinate ho~me ownetshio assistance provided to indiC'duals under this section with other pro, trams administered bv or through the commissioner. - -- - ~ Sec. 57. 'Minnesota Statutes 1998, sectioa 473.2~1, is amended to read: 473.251 [METROPOLITAN LEVABLE CObiMUNITI~ FUND.] The metropolitan livable communities fund is creat~l and consists of the following accounts: (l) the t~x base revitalization account; (2) the livable communities demonstration account; and (3) the Icr~ housing incentives accountl ,~d ~4) th._~e inclusionarv ~ account. Sec. 58. [473.255] [INCLUSIONARY HOUSZNG ACCOUNT.] Subdivision i, [DEF12qT~ONS.] f_a) "Inclusionar~ housinR development" means _a ~ eonsuuctlon develoomcnt. includim, oumer-occul~ied or re. ptal ~ ~.n combination _ofboth. with a_ vm-ie~y o_.f prices and de. siRns which serve families vdth { range of incomes and h_ousin_t needs. Co) 'Municivalitv" ~ a statutory or borne rule charter ~ ~ to~ uaniciuarinz.in thc local housiRg incentives oroeram under section 473.254. Subd. 2. [APPLICATION CRFI'E~.] The metropolitan council must ~ preference to economically viabl~ ptooosals to thc dc~ree that they:, fl1 use innovative building techniques or materials to ~wer c~"nstruction costs_ whil_..~ mnlntainint ~ ~ construction an._.dd livabilitv; ~ ate kr-ated in communities that have demonstrated a willingness ~o waive local restrictions .which otherwise would increase costs of construction: and f31 includ.._._~e unit.~ affordable to households with incomes at or below 80 pen:~t of ~ ~ income. Priority shall be ~ to l~roposals wher._._~e a~ ~ !.~5 ~'cent o_.f th.~e owner-occupied units arc affordable to households at or below 60 percent o__f the ~ea ~nual median income an~d at leu__.! tc_~n t~ercont~he rental units ~r..~e affordable to households a~ or below 30 percent of area, annual median income_. ~ induslonary housin~ develooment may ~ resale [imitations ~ i_ts affordable units.. T~he limitations m_~ include a minimum ownetshie period before _a ~urchaser ma~ pro§; ~ th_e sal._.e_e o_.f an affordable unit. I U; I'll_IL,Il'Il.,' MR¥-B4 99 :L3: :LB FROM: I DAy ~TH DAY] MAY 15, 1999 4425 ,c.~ ~ : of ~h.~e ~ ~ fi'om regulatory incentive! ~ te _reflected LQ th__c sal__~c of ~ rcsidencc~ in a.~n it~clu.~ion,ry dcvelopmcm. ~otxL..3. [INCLUSIONARY HOUSING INCENTIVES.] ~c mctror, olitan_ ~ m~_~ ~ ~th. municipalities ~ develnpcrs ~ proyidc i~ccntlves ~ inclusiooar¥ hOU$i,J', developments ~ a~ w~[ver :Df' ~¢rvicc availability ~ Im.d~ ~t hcr re~'.u lator¥ in cnn ti vc~ ~ wou Id r¢.,:uh ~ idcnd Iq abl ~ cos~ -~ void-'mcc or r~'duct ion.~ ~ a_D.n .i n ~ deve]opn~e.nL "~ 4,.~ [INCLUS[ONARY HOUS[NG GR.A, NTTS.J T~he council shall u~se fund.~ in ~ inclu.ciomsry ho, u.,:in~, accounl ~mj~ m'~nt$ or loans !o municipalities ~o ~ thc ~roduction o_finclusiona~¥ ~ developments th~at a_.(g located ~ rnun~c~pnhtlc~_ that ~ mcenl~ve.~ 1o ~ Ln lh_.~e production o_f mclus~onalT housing. ~ incen~lve.~ ~ _bul ~ n..~.~ ~im. jte4 ~ _d~nsit¥ ~honu~ses, reduced ~ anti ~ rcouircmen~s, decreased roadwidths, flexibility in ~_dcvclopmcnt standard.< ~ zonin}: ~ recluiremcnts, wai~ver .0..f pcrn~i~ or irn~ct ~ fa.<~-track ~cr,'nitti,l£ and ,zprovals, o_z an,~ mhcr rej~ulator¥ i__nccmivcs tha,.._J~ wnuld rcs~uh in idcmifiable _cml avoidance or reductions tha._~ ~_~_tributc ~ ~ ~:onomic fcasibilit), o_f incluslonary ~ u..~..~: S. {GRANT APPLICATION.J A ~ application_ ~ at a minimum includ.c the Ioc~tion o..f d~ c inclusiona.r¥ development ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~.~ producccL ~hc number of .affordable ~ ~ hc produced., lhc _mon th }¥ ~ ~ i~_urchasc_ rp..CL~ of lhe affordable_ u, unit~: and ~ incentives ~ b~ thc municioali~y ~o achiRye develoi~mcnt _of th.~e Sec, 59. 1999 S. F. No. 148~. ~.ction i, if enacted, is amended to rca:[: Scctio~ I, [326,10~I DrEES.] ("r) Thc fcc for licensure Or rcne'*'a] of licensurc as an architect, professional engineer, i~nd surveyor, landSCalX: ~chimct, or g~o~ciencc professional is ~ $104 per biennium, The fc~ f~ certification ~s a certified interior cicsigncr er for rencwaJ of thc certificate is ~ ~ per biennium. The f~e for ~n azchitcct applying for original certification u a ccnifi~ interior designer is $$0 per biennium, Thc initial license ix certification f~ for ali profusions is ~ I~tJ~, The renewal fee shaJI be paid biennially o~ or before June 30 of each even-numbcrext ~.~r. The renewal fee, ,~llea paid by n~il, is nm timely paid unless it is postmarked can or Ix:fore June 30 of c~ch even.humbert4 ye~-. The fee for mooitoring licensing examinations for applicants is $25, payable by the applicant. ~:, 60. Laws 1998. chapter 404, section 13, subdivision 5, is an~cnded to reaxl; Subd. S. Labor Interpretive Center For renovation and upgrades to thc Ea~ Building of thc Science I, lu~eum for use for the lvtinnesota [~bot Interpretive Centcr. Thc, Sec. 6l, Laws 1998, First Special Session chapter I, article 3, se~ion 8, is amended to read; Sec. 8. {JUDY GARLAND C[-UJLDP..EN'S MUSELrIvt. I The appropriaticm in Laws 1097l chapter 200. article I. s~tion 2, subdivision 2, Io the commissioner of tradc and a~onomic developmem for thc Judy Garland Children's Museum is available until and may be matched until J~nc 30. +v99 2_._~_, g TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER FROM: GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR RE: MAY FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT Investment Activity Bought: Money Market 4M Plus 2,775 Money Market USBank 45,000 CP Salomon Smith Barney 4.947.% 718,142 CP Salomon Smith Barney 4.998.% 593,764 Matured: Money Market 4M Plus (265,000) CP Salomon Smith Barney 4.905.% (583,513) CP Salomon Smith Barney 4.926.% (710,144) Financial Reports On May 25 the City Council accepted the 1998 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and the independent auditor's unqualified opinion. As a follow up to that publication, the Finance Department is required: - to prepare data to be published in the local newspaper. - to compile forms to be sent to the Government Finance Officers Association for their review as part of the program of .Excellence in Financial Reporting. - to corn plete an extensive report to be used by the State Auditor Office and other state agencies. - to send to the State Auditor Office detail data on the Commerce Place tax increment financing district. County Auction On May 1st the County held the annual car auction and the City of Mound participated with one police car and one confiscated motorcycle. The net proceeds from the auction was $4,800. 5' Spine 5' Wedge Launch Box 6' Quarter Pipe S' Quarter Pipe 8' Quarter Pipe Channel Street Curb Monday: I 0:00 a.m. - 1:00p.m., 2:00 - - - S:O0 p.m. and 6:00 - 9:00 p.m. Wednesdaln 2:00 - $:00 p.m. and 6~00 - 9:00 p.m. Friday: I 0:00 a.m. - I :Oop. m, (Beginner's Only) 2:00 - S:00 p.m. and 6:00 - 9:00 p.m. Saturday: 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 - 9:00 p.m. There will also be space to skate around the perimeter of the rink! Harold J. Pond Sport~ Center 2121 Commerce Blvd. . . . Mound, MN 55364 (612) 491.8261 A parent or guardian must sign a waiver in view o~Take ~ ~ ,s ~ '~ under 18 vears oFage ' ........... ' . , o · ~,~ ,~:..~,,. Participants Will be required to wec]r a buckled helmet. IJmited rental pr0tect/ve 8ear Will be · .,;.-' ... ~.,,,:~ ~:'_.,:%:::, -,:% , , , . ~ , .,. .- . ,., ..... . ~ .... .... :, ::,_ .~,:~.: .r. *"'" '~' :~.;~,.~._.,._ ,~r.50 er helmet, wnst. uclrd$, elbow ods ond knee c~ds..~,.-4';, .... ., ..... ~ .. ,,~,, ,~ .......... ~l.~,., ..Take F~ve offers .... · ,~ ~-~;,:~..'~_,-_ ..~-..', ~~_ ,t ~ '~ " .... . ' , - - ................ I L ' ' ~ . '~G'~~ '~ ' · ~ 'f~C , ~ :.. · ,.,. .... ,.'4 ~._.,: ~,~?~ _ ~, , ~~~{: :,~. - ~ ~ ~. , ... . / We're back for act two at TAKE FIVE Skatepark! Last year was a great success! Over 300 inline skaters and skateboarders took advantage of our indoor skatepark. We had terrific support from parents and area business'. Please help us get the word out for our second season by hanging the enclosed flyer and tear off sheets. The Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative with help from Westonka Public Schools are sponsoring the TAKE FIVE Skatepark. Why don't you consider sending your area kids our way! For more info. rmation.calI.Leah Weycker at 491-8085 or our Informat:on hne at 491-8261. · WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS EVDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD · HOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 #1 in SAT scores on Lake Minnetonka in 1994 & 1995 Top 10% in Minnesota on Basic Skills Test scores in 1998 Team from Shirley Hills 4th grade placed #1 in 1999 Minnesota NewsBowl http://www.westonka.kl 2.mn. June 4, 1999 TO: FROM: RE: Fran Clark,Acting City Manager Pam Myers, Superinte ¢~ Purchase of the 5600 Lynwood property This letter is a follow-up to my previous letter to your office, dated March 25, 1999. Since the April 24, 1999, deadline has passed, and since the City of Mound has made no offer to the School Board for this property, the price of $1,180,840 is hereby rescinded. c. Bill Pinegar, Chair, Westonka School Board WCC property 6/4/99