Loading...
2000-01-25AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2000 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE 2. APPROVE AGENDA. 3. *CONSENT AGENDA *A. MINUTES FROM JANUARY 11, 2000, REGULAR MEETING ................................ 224-232 *B. CASE 99-43: VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN 8' X 10' SHED IN A FRONT YARD SETBACK; ROBERTA RICE, 4760 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 8, LOT 5 AND W 18' OF LOT 4, DEVON, 37870, PID//3011723220084 ......................... 233-250 oo- I *C. CASE 99-44: VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A PROPERTY IN ZONE R- I WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT ZONE; DENNIS KASIN, XXXX DORCHESTER, BLOCK 12, LOTS 27,28,29 AND THE E 25' OF LOT 26, AVALON, 37850, PID// 19-117-23-31-0127 ..... 251-263 *D. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: //105-2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 300:20, Subd.2; 305:00~ 310:00; 311:00; 315:20; 365.05, Subd.2; 460:35 AND 350:25, SUBD. 1 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ........................... 264-269 *E. RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT (#A14569) WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING ELECTRONIC PROPRIETARY GEOGRAPHICAL DIGITIZED DATE BASE (EPDB) AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT .... 270 221 *F. *G. RESOLUTION APPROVING A PREMISES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR THE AMERICAN LEGION POST//398 MOUND ................................... 271 SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VACA'I~IoN~. OF UNIMPROVED WATERFORD ROAD ADJACENT TO 2537 AND 2541 WEXFORD LANE LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 SINGLE OR TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, BLOCK 7, LOTS 1, 2,3,15 & 16, PID #'S NOT YET ASSIGNED, SETON, P& Z CASE//99-41. (SUGGESTED DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 2000) ........... 272 He *I. TREE REMOVAL LICENSE FOR STUMPF'S TREE SERVICE (Pending all insurance information is received.) PAYMENT OF BILLS ......................... 273-305 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUBJECT) e RESOLUTION APPOINTING GERALD JONES TO THE DOCKS AND COMMONS COMMISSION TO REPLACE ORV BURMA WHOSE TERM EXPIRED DECEMBER 31, 1999. THIS TERM WILL EXPIRE DECEMBER DECEMBER 31, 2002 ..................... 306-308 RESOLUTION APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBERS AS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES FOR 2000 ........................ 309 e CASE 99-47: VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT WILL RESULT IN NON-CONFORMING SETBACKS; STEPHEN L. HEWITT, 4849 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 14, LOT 3, DEVON, 37870, PID 9 25-117-24-11-0036 ...................... 310-345 CASE 99-48: VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A GARAGE ON A PROPERTY IN ZONE R-2 WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT ZONE; STEVE CODDON, 2217 CHATEAU LANE, BLOCK 1-; LOT 18, L. P. CREVIER'S SUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOT 36 LAFAYETrE PARK, 61570/950, PID # 13-117-24-43-0059 .............. 346-366 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: PENDING LITIGATION. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS OCTOBER, NOVEMBER & DECEMBER MONTHLY REPORT FROM LEN HARRELL, POLICE CHIEF ................. 367-373 B. THANK YOU NOTE FROM BOB SHANLEY ................ 374 222 Ce NOTICE OF THE SAVE THE LAKE RECOGNITION BANQUET FROM THE L.M.C.D. DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2000 PLACE: LORD FLETCHER'$ OF THE LAKE TIME: 6:00 P.M. PLEASE LET THE L.M.C.D. KNOW IF YOU ARE PLANNING TO ATTEND BEFORE FEBRUARY 3, 2000 ............... 375-376 ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES NEWS. . 377-418 POSC MINUTES FROM JANUARY 13, 2000 .............. 419-424 LETTER THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE DOCK & COMMONS COMMISSION AT THEIR MEETING ON JANUARY 20, 2000, BY ANN HILTSLEY REGARDING PEMBROKE PARK MULTIPLE DOCK ............................... 425-447 223 MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL -JANUARY 11, 2000 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 11, 2000, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers: Mark Hanus and Leah Weycker. Absent and excused: Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens and Bob Brown. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Acting City Manager Fran Clark, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following interested citizens were also present: Kim Anderson, Marshall Anderson, Amy Cicchese, Lorrie Ham, Peter C. Meyer, Roger Muomio, Linda Skorseth. *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 Councilrnember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor opened the meeting at 7:31 P.M. and welcomed the people in attendance. The pledge of allegiance was recited. APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Weycker stated she would like Items B, H, and I removed from the Consent Agenda. MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Hanus, to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda with the removal of Items B, H and I. The roll emil vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3-0. CONSENT AGENDA *1.0 MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 23. 1999. REGULAR MEETING. MOTION. Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. *1.1 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 11, 2000 RESOLUTION APPOINTING FRAN CLARK. CITY CLERK. ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 2000. RESOLUTION//00-1 RESOLUTION APPOINTING FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK, ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 2000. Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. '1.2 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER AS THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 2000. RESOLUTION//00-2 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 2000. Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. '1.3 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20.000 BOND FOR THE CITY CLERK. RESOLUTION//00-3 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY CLERK. Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. '1.4 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20.000 BOND FOR THE CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR. RESOLUTION//00-4 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR. Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. *1.5 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR 2000. RESOLUTION//00-5 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR 2000. 1 Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 11. 2000 '1.6 CASE//99-42: MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO (2~ PARCELS FROM THE EXISTING ONE: ROGER MUONIO. 5947 RIDGEWOOD ROAD, BLOCK 61. LOTS 5-6, THE HIGHLANDS, 61610/2410 PID #23-117-24-43-0024. RESOLUTION//00-6 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR THE PURPOSES OF CREATING A NEW PARCEL ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5947 RIDGEWOOD ROAD, LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 6 OF THE HIGHLANDS, PID #23-117-24-43-0024, P & Z CASE g99-42. Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. · 1.7 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT. RESOLUTION//00-7 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT. Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. · 1.8 MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION OF LMCD MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING: 2. 3. 4. 5. 9. 10. 11. 12. SETON VIEW ASSOCIATION SEAHORSE CONDOMINIUMS PELICAN POINT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION CITY OF MOUND (LOST LAKE CHANNEL CITY OF MOUND (ALL DOCKS IN COMMONS DOCK PROGRAM) -590 BSU'S MINNETONKA BOAT RENTAL LAKEWINDS ASSOCIATION HARRISON HARBOR TWINHOMES ASSOCIATION HALSTEAD ACRES IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION DRIFTWOOD SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AL & ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB SETON TWINHOMES MOTION. Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. '1.9 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 11, 2000 Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. 1.10 MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 14, 1999, REGULAR MEETING. Councilmember Weycker stated on page 18, no. 1.3, paragraph 2, lines 1 and 2 should read as follows: "The City Attorney stated on page 3940, paragraph 4, "rifle ownership" should be replaced with the words "underlying fee ownership." Councilmember Weycker stated on page 24, paragraph 10 should read as follows: "Councilmember Weycker wanted to assure the public that the City is not condemning all properties in question. The condemnation part occurs after negotiations have been thoroughly completed and an agreement cannot be reached." MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Hanus, to accept the minutes of December 14, 1999, regular meeting as amended above. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3-0. 1.11 RESOLUTION APPOINTING MARK HANUS AS ACTING MAYOR FOR 2000. Councilmember Weycker stated she did not agree with this theory when it was passed last year and she still is not in agreement with the theory. She feels the Acting Mayor should rotate every year. Councilmember Weycker will vote against this action. Mayor Meisel stated she would like to keep a consistency with the term of the Mayor and Acting Mayor. She stated the Mayor's term is two years and the Acting Mayor should coincide. MOTION by Mayor Meisel, seconded by Hanus, to approve the appointment of Mark Hanus as Acting Mayor in the absence of Mayor Meisel. Discussion Councilmember Weycker felt the position of Acting mayor should be rotated and shared by all Councilmembers. Mayor Meisel stated for the year 2001 she would strongly recommend Councilmember Weycker as Acting Mayor. Councilmember Weycker stated she appreciates the recommendation by Mayor Meisel, but her term will be up after this year of service. RESOLUTION g00-8: RESOLUTION APPOINTING MARK HANUS 4 MOUND CITY COUNCIl, MINU1ES- JANUARY 11, 2000 ACTING MAYOR FOR 2000. Motion carried. 2-1, with Weycker voting nay. 1.12 RESOLUTION APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBERS AS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES FOR 2000. Councilmember Weycker stated Councilmember Hanus should not be part of the team of the Dock and Commons Commission (DCAC). She stated the Council representatives for the DCAC should consist of individuals not using the dock program, such as Councilmember Brown or Mayor Meisel. She stated initially the program was set up based on users as well as the public at large. Councilmember Hanus stated he does not have a strong opinion either way with this issue. He stated that with the absence of Councilmember Brown and Councilmember Ahrens, this issue should be tabled until input has been received directly from other Councilmembers. MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Hanus, to table Item I until January 25, 2000. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3-0. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Weycker, to keep the current council representatives appointed in 1999 until January 25, 2000. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3-0. 1.13 PETITION REGARDING GREEN SPACE. Linda Skorseth, 5648 Alder Road, Mound. Ms. Skorseth stated on behalf of the Field of Dreams Group they are responding to the City Attorney's letter dated December 13, 1999, indicating 868 signatures were verified and more signatures still needed to be collected. She stated she would like to enter into the minutes the supplement that includes 109 more signatures for verification. The additional names should complete the amount required for a valid petition. Ms. Skorseth appreciates the work the City of Mound has done so far regarding the Petition and thanked the members present. 1.14 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CONVERSION OF THE DAKOTA RAIL RAILROAD CORRIDOR TO A REGIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAIL. Peter Johnson, 3140 Priest lane, Mound. Mr. Johnson is asking the City to adopt a resolution supporting a conversion of the Dakota Railroad to a recreational trail. He stated MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 11, 2000 the Cities of Orono and Minnetrista have agreed with this change, and he will be presenting it to Spring Park this week. Mr. Johnson stated the railroad has been operating without a profit and regular maintenance for some time. He stated last summer Dakota Rail made a public statement they will discontinue service. Hennepin Parks has had a corridor on their master plan since 1994 and 1995 and Hennepin parks is quite interested in a trail corridor. He stated they do not want to go forth with a corridor if the local communities are not supportive of the concept. Mr. Johnson stated it would be a desirable change within the City of Mound and he would like to see it happen. He stated there would be no financial commitment at this time by the City. He stated he presented the specifics at previous meetings but would gladly go over the attributes of the corridor again if the City Council sees fit. The Councilmembers felt no need to go over the positive attributes of the recreational trail system again at this time. Mr. Johnson stated the only change since he last spoke to the City is the fact that Mr. Alfred Gale would like to contribute to the Hennepin Park 410 acres which happens to be rightadjacent to this rail corridor. Mayor Meisel stated the EDC thought it was a great idea, as well as the Park Commission. Both Committees stated this project would go well with the Mound's vision project. Councilmember Hanus stated whenever a trail is established in a neighborhood backyard, there may be positive and negative reactions by the people. He stated the trade off is not having a train going through your backyard anymore, which seems positive in all aspects. Councilmember Hanus was curious with how the people have been reacting. Mayor Meisel stated, and Councilmember Hanus agreed, this is a wonderful opportunity and the City of Mound just cannot pass up. Mayor Meisel asked Mr. Johnson if there would be a need for financial contributions by the cities early on with the project because of the expense in pulling up the rails, etc. Mr. Johnson stated there would probably be grant money available to assist in this project, but the Hennepin County Park system was not very anxious about slowing down the project to help find the funding at this point. Mr. Johnson stated they did not feel there would be a need for outside financing to get the acquisition completed. Councilmember Weycker would like to add from the Park Commission draft resolution the following whereas to the proposed resolution at hand: "Whereas, the trail system would be a positive addition to the Mound vision program." Councilmember Weycker also stated for future reference that all resolutions that come in draft form from the Park Commission should not be edited until the Councilmembers have 6 MOUND CITY COUNCIl. MINUTES- JANUARY 11, 2000 seen them at actual meetings. Councilmember Hanus stated he would agree to the adoption of the sentence from the Park Commission draft resolution with making sure the spelling of the word vision was corrected. Motion by Weycker, seconded by Hanus, to accept the Resolution as amended above. RESOLUTION//00-9 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CONVERSION OF THE DAKOTA RAIL RAILROAD CORRIDOR TO A REGIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAIL. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFO~TION/MISCELLANEOUS. 1. 3-0. Letter from City Planner, Loren Gordon, regarding the Rex Alwin property. The Acting City Manager stated she went and reviewed the Rex Alwin property, which she found to be a very gorgeous piece of property. She stated Mr. Alwin seemed very interested in selling his property to an individual and not designating all of the property as parkland. Councilmember Weycker stated the City should speak to Mr. Alwin again and inform him the City is interested in the portion that would connect to the recreational trail system being proposed for the City of Mound because this would benefit the whole City. Councilmember Hanus agreed when the property is of this large in size, it would be a good choice to take the 10 percent of the property that will be dedicated as public to the City rather than taking the a park dedication fee. Letter from Rex Alwin regarding his property that was received January 7, 2000. Councilmember Weycker stated when she read Mr. Alwin's letter she was very saddened by the fact that he was so disappointed the City did not handle his property situation differently and now does not want to sell the property to the City at all. Councilmember Weycker stated it is a great loss to have lost this property because of communication problems. Councilmember Hanus assured Councilmember Weycker that the City will still receive 10 percent of the 27 acres which would amount to a nice size parkland in that location. Councilmember Weycker stated Mr. Alwin had every intention to sell the complete 27 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 11, 2000 acres to the City of Mound, but he got frustrated with the communication issues and how the City of Mound was approaching Mr. Alwin and he now has no intention of. selling to the City of Mound. Letter from POSC Commissioner, Tom Casey, regarding the proposed new municipal well. Mayor Meisel stated the City of Mound is strictly in the planning stages of a new well at this point in time. Mr. Casey's letter has a lot of useful information, but his letter is premature at this time. Mayor Meisel appreciates Mr. Casey looking out for the good of the City of Mound. POSC minutes of December 9, 1999. Mayor Meisel stressed the Councilmembers to pay close attention to No. 5 of the minutes. She stated the Park Commission has been invited to the next COW meeting scheduled for January 18, 2000. Mayor Meisel suggested having the COW meeting begin at 7:00 p.m and then invite the Park Commission to attend around 8:00 p.m. This was agreeable to Peter Meyer in attendance at tonight's meeting. DCAC minutes of December 16, 1999. EDC minutes of November 18, 1999. EDC minutes of December 16, 1999. Thank-you letter from Jim Fackler to the VFW for their donation to the City of $500 for park benches. Letter from Westonka School District to the Planning Commission regarding the sale of their land on Lynwood and Commerce. Letter from Mediacom regarding the upgrade of the cable T.V. system. 2000 League of Minnesota Cities legislative policies. Notice from the National League of Cities about the 2000 NLC Congressional City Conference in Washington D.C., March 10-14, 2000. Please let me know before the end of January if you intend on attending because the deadline for registration is February 4, 2000. Councilmember Hanus stated he is planning on attending the conference, as well as Councilmember Brown. 13. 14. 15. 16. Mov, vo c,~rr cowvca, s~mv~s- jA~rVAm' ~. 2000 Mayor Meisel stated Coun¢ilmcmber Hanus and Councilmember Brown will need to be back from the conference by the evening of March 14, 2000, or the City Council meeting will need to be rescheduled because they will not have a quorum. Councilmember Hanus stated he and Councilmember Brown would be available on March 14, 2000, so the City Council meeting will not need to be rescheduled at this time. Mayor Meisel stated she will be out of town as well and will not be in attendance at the March 14, 2000, meeting. REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, January 18, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission minutes dated December 13, 1999. LMCD agenda for meeting on January 12, 2000. AMM Fax News dated Jan. 10-14, 2000, including article entitled "Ventura unveils his 'Moving Minnesota' transportation plan." MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Hanus, to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3-0. Manager Francene C. Clark, Acting City Attest: Council Secretary 9 Janua~ 19,2000 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #00- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 4 FEET IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED SHED, AT 4760 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 8, LOT 5 & W18' OF LOT 4, DEVON, PID # 30-117-23 22 0084 P & Z CASE #99-43 WHEREAS, the applicant, Roberta Rice, has applied for a 16 foot variance to the required front yard setback of 20 feet in order to allow construction of a non conforming 8x10 foot shed. WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which, according to City Code, requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, front yard setbacks of 20 feet to both Island View Drive, and unimproved Hanover Road, and side yard setbacks of 6 feet for lots of record; and, WHEREAS, the shed would be located in the rear of the property, within the required 20 foot front yard setback from unimproved Hanover Road. As shown, a 4 foot setback would be maintained from the rear and side lot lines. The setbacks are typical of those for interior lots, but due to the platted road right-of-way, a 20 foot front yard setback is required; and, WHEREAS, the impervious surface is conforming with this proposal; and, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and determined this lot has two fronts. In addition, the site has steep topography which results in complications and enough practical difficulty that the variance should be approved; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed that in the event Hanover Road was improved or a garage was eventually constructed, the proposed shed could be constructed in a manner that would allow it to be removed or relocated; and, January 19, 2000 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the variance request for the 8x10 foot shed with the condition that the shed must be moved to a conforming location in the event a garage is constructed on the property; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 16 foot front yard setback variance in order to construct a 8x10 foot shed with the following condition; a. The shed must be removed or relocated in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance in the event a garage is constructed on the property. 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 providing for needed storage space. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 5 wl 8' OF 4, BLOCK 8, DEVON PID #30-117-23 22 0084 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. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Plannin(~ Commission Minutes, January 10, 2000 DRAFT MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Absent and excused: Commissioner Becky Glister, Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle, Commissioner Michael Mueller, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following public were Present: John Beise, Steve Coddon, Stacy Goldberg, Stephen L. Hewitt, Dennis Kasin, Stephen Krause, Mick Mueller, Peter C. Meyer, Roberta Rice, Mike Schoephoerster, Scott Spanjers. Chair Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. CONTINUATION: CASE #99-43: VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN 8 FOOT X 10 FOOT SHED IN A FRONT YARD SETBACK; ROBERTA RICE, 4760 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 8, LOT 5 AND W 18' OF LOT4, DEVON, 37870, PID #30-117- 23-22-0084. Gordon stated the applicant has submitted a variance request to allow an 8 feet by 10 feet shed in a front yard setback. The request is as follows: Existing/Proposed Reauired Variance Front yard shed 4 ft 20 ft 16 ft The shed would be located in the rear of the property, within the front yard setback from unimproved Hanover Road. As shown, a 4 feet setback would be maintained from the rear and side lot lines. The setbacks are typical of those for interior lots, but due to the platted road right-of-way, a 20 feet setback is required. There are 3 undeveloped parcels along the unimproved portion of Hanover that could be developed as single family lots. In this situation, the roadway would be improved to City street standards and the shed would look out of place. There is the opportunity to locate the shed in a conforming location on the property. Given the circumstances, staff cannot recommend approval of the request. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance request. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planninq Commission Minutes, January 10, 2000 Voss stated after a review of the applicant's property, he would like to know if the property on Hanover Road would be improved. Gordon stated the potential exists to have the property improved. He stated parcels 75 and 76 are undeveloped lots that could be developed. He stated the only access point is Hanover Road off of Oxford Road. Gordon stated these lots are of record and meet lot area requirements and are conforming. Gordon stated the lots do not have the depth but they do meet lot area requirements. Chair Michael asked staff if the Planning Commission would allow this variance, would it be appropriate to note that when parcels 75 and 76 are developed, the shed would have come down. Gordon stated he did not have an ideal solution of how to link the unimproved property with the variance at this point. He stated if this variance would be passed, then the City Attorney may need to explore the proper terminology to allow this an acceptable situation. Voss stated there is no precedence regarding this type of case, and he stated this might open more problems for the future. He stated rather a bond required by the applicant might be a more suitable solution. Voss further stated this structure is not permanent, it is not being cemented in, it is not a large structure, and it is not a garage so to not allow the shed at this point in time, would not be appropriate. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to allow the applicant the variance to construct an 8 x 10 foot shed. Weiland stated that is a doubled fronted lot. He stated the individuals that will develop the other side of property would not stand on its own. He stated some of the property to the right has been dug down and a retaining wall is up in the back. He stated the applicant has hills behind her lot, which cause complications. Weiland asked what would happen to dug-down properties if a road was put in. He stated given the nonpermanency of the shed at this point, with no foundation, until the lots have been developed, this variance should be approved. Voss asked if a condition could be put on the variance when the lots are developed. Sutherland stated a condition cannot be suggested that would make this decision stick, but perhaps a garage could be put on the property at some point and, if a garage gets built, the shed would need to be removed. Voss asked if this condition would be taken care of when the applicant came in for a building permit or should it be part of the motion. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Plannincl Commission Minutes, January 10, 2000 Sutherland stated he could be put a whereas in the resolution indicating such a condition. Gordon stated the terminology is questionable for the resolution. Gordon stated this should be part of the motion for City Council's consideration. AMENDED MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to allow the applicant the variance to construct an 8 x 10 foot shed, but upon any future request for a permanent garage on the property, the shed must be moved to a conforming location. Discussion. Chair Michael asked if a road will open up if the property gets built on. Gordon stated more than likely a road,~;~uld be opened up. MOTION CARRIED. 5-0. Mound Planning Commission Minutes, December 13, 1999 CASE #99-43' VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN 8 FOOT X 10 FOOT SHED IN A FRONT YARD SETBACK; ROBERTA RICE, 4760 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 8, LOT 5 AND W 18' OF LOT 4, DEVON, 37870, PID #30-117-23-22-0084. 6 Mound Planning Commission Minutes. December 13, 1999 Gordon stated the applicant has submitted a variance request to allow a 8 feet by 10 feet shed in a front yard setback. The request is as follows: Existing/Proposed Requ~red~j., Vartance Front yard shed 4 ft 20 ft ~[~,~ 16 ft The shed would be located in the rear of the-9ro9ert~ within the front yard setback from · ,; ~ '-' ~ ¥i . . ummproved Hanover Road. As shown, a¢~e~t setback would be maintained from the ~-: .:~ ..-C :~ ,~ . rear and side lot lines· The setbacks;are~ typical'of those for interior lots, but due to the platted road nght-of-way, a 20 feet s.etb, acl~;~s required. There are 3 undeveloped parcelS.~lOng the unimproved portion of Hanover that could be developed as single family lots. In this situation, the roadway would be improved to City street standards and the shed would look out of place. There is the opportunity to locate the shed in a conforming location on the property. Given the circumstances, staff cannot recommend approval of the request. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance request. Mueller asked staff if this is a through lot. A through lot states attached structures require 40 feet from the side but not the rear and detached structures require 20 feet from the road. Mueller stated the proposed shed probably could not be placed in the back of the house and be conforming. Chair Michael stated it appears the City does not allow a shed to be placed in the location the applicant is requesting. Roberta Rice, 4760 Island View Drive, the applicant, stated she has lived on the property in question for six years. She stated she had made a lot of improvements. She stated she does not have a garage and needs a shed for storage. She stated she would prefer not to have it in the northeast corner as recommended by staff. The applicant stated if the shed would be put in the northeast corner there would not be an appropriate area for the lawn mower to mow around. She also stated it would look overcrowded. The applicant stated if the commissioners would drive down Island View and look at the location of the garages near her, the shed would be much better placed and looked much better where she is proposing. Chair Michael stated he would not allow the shed to be placed where the applicant is considering without having a look at the property line to see how it would blend in with her neighbors. Chair Michael suggested tabling this case until the Commissioners have a chance to review the property in person. Chair Michael strongly stated how can we make a vote when we have not visited the property. Mound Planninq Commission Minutes, December 13, 1999 The applicant agreed with Chair Michael and would like the case tabled until the Commissioners reviewed her property line. Burma stated the mail service did not get the packets to Commissioners in an appropriate amount of time to allow each one of th.efh to review her property before tonight's meeting. MOTION by Voss, seconded! by Fla. s~e, ..to t~ble this case until January 10, 2000, to allow the Commis.~(on~er~"a.¢h'Orough review the applicant's property. MOTION CARRIE~D. ~8-0'~: Sutherland stated to the applicant~o'identify her property line and stake out her property with four stakes the best she can showing the location of the proposed shed so when the Commissioners come out to her property, they will have the information xx,~they need to assist with her case. T~ INCREMENTx FINANCING PLAN FOR T~ INCREMENT FINANCIN~ISTRICT NO. 1-2 G~NFORM TO THE GENE~L PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELQPMENT OF THE CITY. - ~ , Chair Michael Stated this item is considered an open meeting ¢¢ the public s information so he'will ente~ain comments, but this is not a~u~lic hearing. Gordon stated this item is a continuance from the December 6, 1999, agenda. He stated there are no new materials to present to the~,C~mmissioners and the Resolution for discussion tonight is in the agenda packet. ~¢'~rdon stated there were ~o minor changes to the maps regarding prope~y owoership. He stated the Comprehensive Plan and the Tax increment Financing P!a~have consistency, and he would like to see the above noted Resolution moved fq¢~City Council approval. ~ ' MOTION by Voss, seconded by Brown, to move the Resolution onto City Council for approva~ccordmg to Staff recommendation. Discussion: ~/ -, Jim Prosser stated~e was directed to respond to ~o qbestions raised by the Commissioners'at the December 6, 1999, meeting. The fi~st.~uestion was with regard to adm~mstr¢~ve costs. The question asked related to the prS~ion which would allow 10 Crcent can they be included in the 25 percent, and Mr. Prosser s~~ PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. k-tH TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, .MCP DATE: December 13, 1999 SUBJECT: Variance Request OV,~'ER: Roberta R/ce CASE NUMBER: 99-43 HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5 LOCATION: 4760 Island View Drive ZONING: Residential District R-lA COMPREHENSI%~E PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow a 8 feet by 10 feet shed in a front yard setback. The request is as follows: Existing'?roposed Front yard shed 4 fi Required Variance 20fi 16 fi The shed would be located in the rear of the property, within the front yard setback from unimproved Hanover Road. As shown, a 4 feet setback would be maintained from the rear and side lot lines. The setbacks are .typical of those for interior lots, but due to the platted road right- of-way, a 20 feet setback is required. There are 3 undeveloped parcels along the unimproved portion of Hanover that could be developed as single family lots. In this situation, the roadway would be improved to City street standards and the shed would look out of place. There is the opportunity to locate the shed in a conforming location on the property. Given the circumstances, staff cannot recommend approval of the request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance request. 123 North Th/rd Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Mirmesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Nlaywood Road, Mound, IVIN 55364. Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 r'All~ NOV 0 19 9 CtTY OF MOUND '~I~'(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: i'% iqqq Application Fee: ¢ 100.00 Case No. ~ Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER il'f, _ -'i / City Planner Il - I~-(?,'..,' City Engineer t!-!~ 4;'~i Public Works Address Block Address Other R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 (M) APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) ~¢v '~ r_ r',~ I (W) (M) 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. ,/ Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. 6-16-99) Variance Application, P. 2 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED VARIANCE Front Yarc~ Side Yard: Rear Yard' Lakeside: NSEW) NSEW) NSEW) NSEW) NSEW) NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: REQUESTED (or existing) ft. q o * ft. '- ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~. ft. ,~. ff. ft. ft. f~. ft. f. ft. ft. sq ft sc ~ sq ~ sq ft sq ~ sq ~ Does the present__ use of the property conform to ail regulations for the zoning district in which it iS located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject prope~y prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses pertained in that zoning district? Please lC'r ( ) too narrow (~topography ( ) soil  too smal! drainage ( ) existing situation too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Variance Application, P. 3 Was the hardship described above created by the action o{ an¥on~ ~avlng property ~nterests ~n the land after the zoning ordinance Was adopted {1982)? Yes { ), No J~, If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the pro~e~¥ described in this :etition? YesNx/), No (). If no, list some other prope~ies which are similarly affected? -\ 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ~~'-~~ 1 Applicant's Signature Date (Rev. 6-I6-99) CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: HT~ -~).,./ Y/'~ W OWNER'S NAME: ~-~ 0 ~'f'~ ('~ I' C-'~'---- LOT AREA LOT AREACJ~]J. 5'-0 LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% SQ. FT. X 40% SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) ....... = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH HOUS~ /~. 5- x ~.~ = X = X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAG~ SQFT X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. DRIVEWAY, PARKING A.EAS, S~D~WALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under ere not counted as hardcover OTHER ~.~{ ~.~ x 2.5' = x H. ~ : /~r~ x '5.5-= TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. ~)~,'~'/~,~,~ x : /J/,,~ x = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... )~ x /,5~ q x g TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OVER (indicate difference) May 22, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. B4-BO RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COHHI$SiON RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A 6 (SIX) FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE FOR LOT 5 & WEST 18 FEET OF LOT 4, BLOCK 8, DEVON (PID ~30-117-23 22 0084 ~" fo WHEREAS, John and Joyce Koss~eck, the a~ ~ca,,~s r property described as Lot 5 and the West 18 feet of Lot 4, Block 8, Devon, PiD #30-1i7-23 22 0084, 4760 island View Drive, have applied for a variance to allow the existing carport to be enolosed for an acoessory building garage; and WHEREAS, the carport was constructed under a variance, R=so!ut~on_ _ #71-1~, tc al=ow~ ...... ~t to be bu~t with~ 1" '~ to ~9 feet from the front property line; and WHEREAS, a~., ac~e=sory_ . bui!~!ng .~ n ~=..- =-~., - z'~ing~.. dissrict requires a 2'3 ~o~ frans yard sesbask' and W~rRE~S, ~h= ~anning ~ ' ........ ~..-. m i s s ~_ on has request and dce~ , .~sm...enz approval d~e to t~ ' ~=:hv ~ ' lot and so of fora ~ne ne'; pu ..... se. ~cna ..... o property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED that the C!sy Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the 6 foot front yard variance as requested to enclose the existing carport upon the cond~ ~io~ that ~truotur-' .... =.- repa~-s are made to the existing wa~' . ,zs amd aspha~ t floor at 4760 is~ and View Driv=, on Lot 5 and the West 18 feet of Lot 4, Block 8, Devon. The forego:ng resolution was moved by Ccunc!!member ~ed by Counc~-=~b~r Charon Jessen and T'~= fo!~owl~ Counc!!~=~=~s voted in t,he a'~firmativ=: Charon, Jessen, Pau!sen, Peterson ar.d ?o~'ston. T'~=,.. fc:'cwin=__ o Counci~=-~rs~..,.. voted .~n the negative: P, one. Attest: City Clerk Mayor Councilmember Ulrick moved the followlno re~olution, 149 April 21, 1981 RESOLUTION NO. 81-136 RE~OLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION & APPROVE DIVIDING LOT INTO TWO PARCELS WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of i'Mound, and WHEREAS, said request for a waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that there are special circumstnaces affectlng said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; thet the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to ~ . o~.r property owners NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: 1) The request of James E. Luff, for the waiver from the provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the re:uest to subdivioe property of less than five acres, and described as Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 8, Devon, PID 30-117-23 22 0066, Plat 37870, Parcel 2760 and 2800, is hereby granted for division in the following manner: PARCEL "A" - (with existing structure &carport on it) Lot 5 and the West 18 ~eet of Lot 4, Block 8, Devon. Zoned A-2, 6,000 sq. ft. single family residence lot contains 6062.16sq. ft. PARCEL "B" - Lot 3 and Lot ~ except the West 18 feet of said Lot 4, Block 8, Devon. Zoned A-2, 6,000 sq. ft. single family residence lot contains 6192.42 2) That any deficiencies resultin0 From said division be paid in full or waivers signed. 3) It is determined that the foregoing division will constitute a de- sirable and stable community development and is in. harmony with adjacent properties. 4) The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this ~e- solution to the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regularions of this City. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council- member Swenson and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor there- of; Charon, Lindlan, Polston, Swenson and Ulrick, the following voted against the same; none, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the Acting City Clerk. ~...'. ~. . Mayor Attest: Actin~/~ City Clerk Councilmember Ulrlck moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 81-137 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WiTH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ~ APPROVE A 7 FT. STREET FRONT VARIANCE& A .1 FT. SIDE YARD VARI* WHEREAS, James E. Luff, owner of property at 4760 Island View Drive, has requested street front a~d s~de yard variance, and WHEREAS, said variances will allow construction of a deck and provide easier access to the carport and street, and WHEREAS, the nonconforming garage now in existence is acknowledged. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: Tho: Council ~on_~rs wish *~ ..... ~-' ~= , ~ar, 2 ~,, re.~mm .... =~;~ of ~' ~nc · , .... n,,rmanc'/. existing carpor~ a~d acknowledges the .1 f: slde '.'ar.: ~c~ Fur:her, saTd cons:ruction of prapcsed ~ by 17 a =' wi'~ easier_ ac:ess to the ex!s~ing- carport. (See ~revTcus Res. 71-]'" A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolutlon was duly seconded by Council- member Swenson and upon vote being taken ~hereon; the following vo~ed in favor thereof; Charon, Lindlan, Pols~on, Swanson and Ulrick, ~he following voted agalns: the same; none, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by ~he Mayor and his slgnasure attested by [he Acting Ci~y Clerk. s/Leiohson Lindlan Mayor Scal~_; 1" = Proposed descriptiens: k. B. ~t 5 and the '~st 18 feet of .Lot A, Block 8, D~.vcn. Lot 3, and Lot A exceot the We~t 1E feet of said '...."' A, BLock 8, Devon. Survey on file? yeS~:~ no~ ~ Required Lot Width: / SETBACKS REQUIRED: N ,$/'~/'E W F~QNT: ~". ~ SIDE: N ~ E~ W EXISTING A2~D/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PR~'NC: P~L 9U :L~iNG FRONT: N ~ Z w ~L '- FRONT: ," N S E W -- si:--: N s( £ w ---.~--< -- '--- --'"'. i'~,. /-- , S::E: N S £"W /- REAR: N $ E W FRONT:"/N~ Z W %., SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W ~AR: N $ E W FRONT FRONT: LN~/~"S ~ SIDE: REAR: C 0 -- 0 ~ -- ~- %.. '< '-4 O CO Janua~ 19,2000 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #00- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A PROPERTY IN ZONE R-1 WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT ZONE; LOCATED AT XXXX DORCHESTER, BLOCK 12, LOTS 27 thru 29 INCL AND E 25' OF LOT 26 EXCEPT ROAD, AVALON, PID # 19-117-23-31-0127, P&Z CASE# 99-44 WHEREAS, the applicant, Dennis Kasin, has requested a Variance to lot area in order to construct a single family dwelling at XXXX Dorchester, Block 12, Lots 27 thru 29 incl and east 25' of Lot 26 except road; and, WHEREAS, the parcel of land is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which, according to City Code, requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 60 feet; and for this corner lot, a front yard setback of 30 feet to Tuxedo, a front yard setback of 20' to Dorchester, side yard setbacks of 8 feet, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet; and, WHEREAS, the parcel of land is undersized in terms of lot area by about 9%, yet, as a corner lot at the intersection of Tuxedo and Dorchester, it conforms to lot width requirements; and, WHEREAS, the driveway access will be served from Dorchester, and the proposed home location and setbacks conform to district provisions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Staff recommendation and advises that the Council approve the variance; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance of 917 square feet to the required 10,000 square feet for the R-1 zone, with the following condition: a. Grading and drainage plans are approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. This Variance is granted for the following legally described parcel of land as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: BLOCK 12, LOTS 27 THRU 29 INCL AND EAST 25' OF LOT 26, EXCEPT ROAD, AVALON, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. PID~ 19-117-23-31-0127 This property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planninq Commission Minutes. Janua~ 10, 2000 DRAFT MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Absent and excused: Commissioner Becky Glister, Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle, Commissioner Michael Mueller, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jori Sutherland, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following public were present: John Beise, Steve Coddon, Stacy Goldberg, Stephen L. Hewitt, Dennis Kasin, Stephen Krause, Mick Mueller, Peter C. Meyer, Roberta Rice, Mike Schoephoerster, Scott Spanjers. Chair Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 13, 1999, MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE 99-44: VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A PROPERTY IN ZONE R-1 WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT ZONE; DENNIS KASIN, XXXX DORCHESTER, BLOCK 12, LOTS 27, 28, 29 AND THE E 25' OF LOT 26, AVALON, 37850, PID # 19-117-23-31-0127. The applicant requested a variance to lot area standards in the R-1 District in order to build a home on this vacant parcel. The proposed residence is a 4 level home with and attached two-stall garage. Existina/Proposed Required Vadance Lot Area 9083 sf 10,000 sf 917 sf The property consists of the east 25 feet of lot 26 and lots 27, 28, 29, of Block 12 Avalon. The lot is undersized in terms of lot area the R-1 district by about 9%. As a corner lot at the intersection of Tuxedo and Dorchester it conforms to lot width requirements. The survey indicates the proposed home location and setbacks which conform to district provisions, 30 feet front yard on both streets, 10 feet side yard, and a15 feet rear yard. Hardcover calculations indicate the property will be under the allowable percentage. The driveway access Will come from Dorchester and for this reason, is why the property is addressed as such. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Plannin.Q Commission Minutes, January 10, 2000 DRAFT Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following condition: 1. Grading and drainage plans are approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. Voss was concerned about the discrepancy of lot size from the two surveys presented to the Commissioners. Gordon stated the updated survey on page 43 is correct and there is no problem. Weiland was concerned about the height of the retaining wall. Gordon stated there is no exact figure at this point. Weiland stated Tuxedo and Dorchester forms a corner and there will be a site obstruction for traffic coming that will cause a problem. Gordon stated the City Engineer will need to review this situation before construction begins according to staff recommendation. Dennis Kasin, 8898 Autumn Dale Drive, Rockford, 55373. Mr. Kasin stated the surveyor drew in a retaining wall just in case it would be needed, but he believes there will be no need for a retaining wall of any sorts. Weiland agreed with the applicant. Weiland stated if the retaining was eliminated, there would be no traffic site. Sutherland stated this lot has an additional right-of-way which is about 10 feet to the curb. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to approve variance according to staff recommendations. Discussion. Weiland stated this is an undersized lot, about 10 percent, and the applicant must meet all setbacks according to City code. MOTION CARRIED. 5-0. JAN 05 '00 ll:lS PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: January 10, 1999 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: D.C. Kasin, Inc. OWNER: Joseph Detling -4540 Autumn Oaks, Rockford, MN CASE NUMBER: 99-44 HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-05 LOCATION: 4$xx Dorchester Road EXISTING ZONING: One Family Residential (R-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting a variance to lot area standards in the R- 1 District in order to build a home on this vacant parcel. The proposed residence is a 4 level home with and attached 2 stall garage. Existing/Proposed Rcouired Variance Lot Area 9083 sf 10,000 sf 917 sf The property consists of the east 25 feet of lot 26 and lots 27, 28, 29, of Block 12 Avalon. Thc lot is undersized in terms of lot area the R-1 district by about 9%. As a comer lot at the intersection of Tuxedo and Dorchester it conforms to lot width requirements. The survey indicates the proposed home location and setbacks which conform to district provisions, 30 feet front yard on both streets, l 0 feet side yard, and a15 feet rear yard. Hardcover calculations indicate the property will be under the allowable percentage. The driveway access will come from Dorchester and for this reason, is why the property is addressed as such. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following condition: 1. Grading and drainage plans be approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364. Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 RECEIVED N0V 1 7 1999 MOUND PLANNING & INSF Application Fee: $1 OO.OO {FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Case No. ~?~- ':/'-/ Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. t ~- - ! ~f City Planner 12..-- (ff City Engineer i 2~ - i N Public Works Address ~' J~'f ~ ¢ ~ C~ ~ Block I ~ Subdivision ~ ~. ZONING DISTRICT (R-P R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 Phone (H) Z/Z~-~~' (W) Other B-2 B-3 ~. (IF OTHER Address ' -THAR Phone (H) -/ .,',m- ~ ~ (W) (M) ~OWNER) Has an application ever been made~o~.,ning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( } yes, nL)~f yes, list date(s} of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of reso'~tb-tibhs. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etcJ' Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. L~'~ ~ Z~, Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setSack,'lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: : NSEW NSEW NSEW NSEW NSEW NSEW Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE / (or existing) ! ft. ft. ft. ,~x ft. ft. ft. ~ ,~ ft. ft. ft. / ~' ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. -~-~ /eL ft. ft. ft. .,~, Zc'? sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present us, e o.f the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), N~,., If no, specify, each non-conforming use: Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? too narrow ( )topography too small ( ) drainage too shallow ( ) shape ( ) soil ( ) existing situation ( ) other: specify RECEIVED N I ? 1999 MOUND -' ',' . (Rev, 6-16-99) Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in thc land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~$, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official o_f the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. FJECJ~JEj~ NO¥ 1 7 1999 Date///- /' 7-- ~;~' (Rev. 6-16-99) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% -- (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE ~ : ~ X ,:~ ? / ...... = X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. DRIVEWAY, PARKING ' -~ = AREAS, SIDEWALKS, -- -' X ' '" = ~" ETC. X = DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OVER (indicate difference) ............................... BFI~©!I-1i Bl'3r-IB. F1FIF'IB FIFlmU. EJI-IBB BF1F1~Fla 27'-~' 4'-8' / l' ].?-2' .'~ r~ SHINGLES VENTS AS REQ'D 15# ROOFING FELT 7/16' WAFER BOARD SHEATHING TRUSSES-24' EXTERIOR AIR FILM R=,61 BLOWN INSULATION R=38 POLY VAPOR BARRIER 5/8' GYP. BD, R:,56 INTERI[]R AIR FILM R=,61 TOTAL R 39.80 INSULATION BAFFLES 1' MIN, AIRSPACE IX3 TRIM BD 1XB FASCIA BD 2X4 LOOKOUT 3/8' PLY~JD SOFFIT CLOSET 3/4' T&G OXBOARD SUBFLOOR 16' FLOOR TRUSSES @ 84' O/C 8X4 STUDS 8 16' Q/C 3 1/8' BATT INSUL, W/ FIRE RETARDENT PDLY 3 1/21' CDNC. SLAB EXTERIOR AIR FILM SIDING 85/321' SHEATHING 2X6 STUDS-16'O.C, 6' BATT INSULATION RELY VAPOR BARRIER 1/8' GYP. BO. INTERIOR AIR FILM TOTAL R (R= R=i R"', 218, .... OX6 TR, SILL PLATE W/SEALER & 1/21' A.B. @ 6'-0' rl.C. XG STUDS 8 16' O/C ---I' 5-C. 18' CONC, BLK, - -- 210' X 8' CONC, FTG. CITY OF MOUND - .SS: SURVEY ON FILE.( ~a,~ NO LOT o,, RECORD: Z_ES NO YARD I DIRECTION IIOUSE ......... FRONT N S E W FRONT N W SIDE ~ S E w SIDE N S E W REAR N S E (0 LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: EXI]S,I1.NG LOT SIZ '.E~,.~ (~1 10,000/6~'~,') Bi ~, 500/0 L~)T R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 LO'I' DEPTti: ,. R3 SEE ORD. 11 30,000/100 ~'O "~ REQUIRED [ EXISTING/PROPOSED VARIANCE ! 50' 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SiiED ..... DETACItED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF 4' OR6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' 10' OR 30' ItARDCOVER ~ 30% OR -ONFOR,,NG, YES 'O.d' ' rhm Zonm Informauou Sh c~ on -- ' ', , ' g ' e Iv summarizes a ~rtion of fl~e requircmen~ oullined in ~e Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For ~r~er info~alion, con~cl ~c City of Mound Pla~ing ~par~ent at 472-0~. ~z) ~' ~1 ,4 t ~ Lr"L'~'t _1~5~) . ..... I "1'; t,, ,-~.~,.~,.~c"'b , :~/~o ,~lio,t,~~ '17 /'.~ ~ ~ ~ "~ (2) .,-I ORDINANCE - 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 300:10, Subd. 1; 305:00; 310:00; 311:00;315:20365:05, Subd. 2; 460:10; 460:35 and 350:525, Subd. 1 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section I. Section 300:10, Subd. 1 of the City Code is amended by adding the underlined language to read as follows: Section 300:10. Buildine Permits~ Ao,lication Subd. 1 Plans and Soecifications. Each application for a building permit shall be accompanied by written certification that all property taxes, special assessments, municipal utility fees. including but not limited to water and sewer bills, and penalties and interest thereon have been paid for the property for which the building permit has been submitted and by such building plans and specifications as the Building Inspector may determined to be sufficient to explain the nature, construction, and purpose of the building or structure, or additions or alterations, proposed to be erected or placed; or as the City Council may require. Section II. Section 305:00 of the City Codes is amended by adding the underlined language to read as follows Section 305:00. Permits No person shall repair, install, construct, or modify any well or individual septic system unless said person shall have first obtained a permit from the City Clerk or someone he or she designates to process permits. The permit applicant shall provide written certification that all property taxes, special assessments, municipal utility fees. including but not limited to water and sewer bills, and penalties and interest thereon have been paid for the property for which the permit has been submitted. The fee for such permit shall be as set by the Council in Section 510:40. It is the responsibility of the permittee to obtain the necessary inspections before doing the work. Section IH Section 310:00 of the City Codes is amended by adding the underlined language to read as follows: Section 310:00. Permit Reouired, Fees No person shall install or make substantial repairs or additions to plumbing, sewage disposal, or sewage connection systems without first securing a permit for such installation, repair or addition. The permit applicant shall provide written certification that all property taxes, special assessments, municipal utility fees, including but not limited to water and sewer bills, and penalties and interest thereon have been paid for the property for which the permit has been submitted. There shall be a minimum fee as set by the Council in Section 520:00 for the permit for inside plumbing, plus an additional fee as set by the Council in Section 520:00 for each plumbing fixture; and there shall be a fee as set by the Council in Section 520:00 for each permit or connection to the public sanitary sewer system. Section IV. Section 311:00 of the City Code is amended by adding the underlined language to read as follows: Section 311:00. Permit Rec~uired, Fees It is unlawful for any person to perform any work on mechanical systems, including gas piping, of a building regulated by this Code without first having obtained a permit and paid the fees required in Chapter 5. The permit applicant shall provide written certification that all property taxes, special assessments, municipal utility fees. including but not limited to water and sewer bills, and penalties and interest thereon have been paid for the property for which the permit has been submitted. The provisions o__f this Code shall apply to the erection, installation, alteration, repairs, relocation, replacement, addition to, use or maintenance of any heating, ventilating, cooling, refrigeration systems, incinerators or other miscellaneous heat-producing appliances within this jurisdiction. Section V. Section 315:20 of the City Code is amended by adding the underlined language to read as follows: Section 315:20. Permits Every person seeking a permit pursuant to Section 315:15, or renewal thereof, hereunder shall make an application therefor in writing at the office of the City Clerk upon a form provided. The permit applicant shall provide written certification that all property taxes, special assessments, municipal utility fees, including but not limited to water and sewer bills, and penalties and interest thereon have been paid for the property for which the permit has been submitted. It shall state the name and address of the applicant and a description of the property upon which the permit is desired. Each such application shall be filed with the City Clerk not less than ten (10) days before said trailer is ready for occupancy, and shall be accompanied by an inspection fee as set by the Council in Section 520:00. No permit shall be issued pursuant to this Section 315 except upon approval of the Council. Section VI. Section 460:10 of the City Code is amended by adding the underlined language to read as follows: Section 460:10. Application. The application shall be made in writing on such form as the City may from time to time designate, and shall include such information as may be required by the City Manager or Council and shall contain, among other things: Subd. 1. The correct legal description of the premises where the excavation, removal, or storage of rock, sand, dirt, gravel, clay, or other like material shall or does occur. Subd. 2. The name and address of the applicant and owner of the land. Subd. 3. The purpose of the removal, storage, or excavation. Subd. 4. The estimated time required to complete the removal, storage, or excavation. Subd. 5. The highways, streets, or other public ways within the City upon and along which the material excavated or removed shall be transported. Subd. 6. A map or plat of the proposed pit or excavation to be made showing the confines or limits thereof together with the proposed finished elevations based on sea level readings. Subd. 7. Written certification that all property taxes, special assessments, municipal utility fees, including but not limited to water and sewer bills, and penalties and interest thereon have been paid for the property for which the permit has been submitted. Section VII. Section VII. Section 460:35 of the City Code is amended by adding the underlined language to read as follows: Section 460:35. Conditions of Permit The permit shall include as a condition thereof a finished grade plan which will not adversely affect the adjacent land, and as a condition thereof shall regulate the type of fill permitted, plans for rodent control, fire control, and general maintenance of the site and adjacent area, and make provision for control of material dispersed from wind or hauling material to or from the site. The permit shall also make reference to the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Controls established in the Zoning Ordinances. (23.711). The permit applicant shall provide written certification that all property taxes, special assessments, municipal utility fees. including but not limited to water and sewer bills, and penalties and interest thereon have been paid for the property for which the permit has been submitted. Section 350:525 of the City Code is amended by adding the underlined language to read as follows: Section 350:525. Conditional Use Permits Subd. 1 Criteria for Grantine Conditional Use Permits. In granting a conditional use permit, the Mound City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. Among other things, the City Council may make the following findings where applicable. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. Section IX. Eo That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. Fo The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. H. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. I. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Jo Existing adjacent uses will not be adversely affected because of curtailment or customer trade brought about by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. Ko The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project. Lo The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer. M° That all property taxes, special assessments, municipal utility fees, including but not limited to water and sewer bills, and penalties and interest thereon have been paid for the property for which the permit has been submitted. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and official publication. Dated this __ day of 2000. APPROVED: Mayor ATTEST: Accepted by Gramee this By: Its: day of ,1999: PROPOSED RESOLUTION #00- January 25, 2000 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT (#A14569) WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING ELECTRONIC PROPRIETARY GEOGRAPHICAL DIGITIZED DATE BASE (EPDB) AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, Hennepin County has developed a proprietary geographical digitized data base (EPDB); and WHEREAS, the City of Mound desires to use the County's EPDB in the course of conducting the City's business; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County is authorizing the City of Mound's use of the EPDB pursuant to a conditional use license agreement (EXHIBIT "A") attached hereto and made a part thereof; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound approved the license agreement on April 13, 1999, by Resolution//99-31; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County is now asking that we extend the EPDB Conditional Use License Agreement through December 31, 2000. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby authorize the Acting City Manager to execute the extension of Hennepin County's EPDB Conditional Use License Agreement (#14569) through December 31, 2000. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember and The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk January 25, RESOLUTION NO. 00- RESOLUTION APPROVING A PREMISES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR THE AMERICAN LEGION POST//398 - MOUND 2000 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, approves a Premises Permit Renewal Application for American Legion Post//398, 2333 Wilshire Blvd., Mound, MN. 55364. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-168 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE #99-41 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF UNIMPROVED WATERFORD ROAD STREET VACATION ADJACENT TO 2537 AND 2541 WEXFORD LANE LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 SINGLE OR TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, BLOCK 7, LOTS 1, 2, 3, 15, & 16 PIDS# NOT YET ASSIGNED P&Z 99-41 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 8, 2000 to consider the approval of unimproved Waterford Road Street Vacation adjacent to 2537 and 2541 Wexford Lane located within the R-2 Single or Two Family Residential zoning district, ~' +-]; ';e. LL~'- ;' ,.~.~,_?1 . I... : . ,:~. = -, All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Fran Clark, City Clerk Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on January 26, 2000. Published in the Laker, January 28, 2000, prJnled on recycled paper PAYMENT BILLS DATE: JANUARY 25, 2000 BILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TOTAL BILLS BATCH # #9122 #9124 #9125 $325,358,61 AMOU'NT $ 81,137.61 $121,161.42 $120,059.58 PAGE 1 AP-C02-01 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NHBR DATE DATE STATUS AO051 64263 ABRAX SYSTEMS, INC. AOlli 991231 1119/00 1/19/00 VENDOR TOTAL 1/19/oo 1/19/oo [RTOUCH CELLULAR/BELLEVUE VEND~R' TOTAL ' A020! 19137 i/!9/00 t/19/00 AL'S MASTER PLUMBING VENDOR TOTAL 50600 10023124 1119/00 1/19/00 I0023125 1/19/00 1/19/00 i0023183 1/ig/O0 i/ig/o0 i0023054 1/19/00 1/i9/00 10023039 1/19/00 I/ig/o0 BLACKOWIAK AND SON C09BO 99123i COLLETTE ROBERTS VENDOR TOTAL 1/19/00 1/19/00 VENDOR TOTAL P U AMOUNT 424.94 424.94 424 7.85 27.59 20.87 20.67 20.87 30.21 27.26 36.42 27.50 27.26 2?.26 27.26 27.26 27.26 .55 1.52 1.84 7.85 367.50 367.50 101.50 101.50 101.50 31.66 31.66 31.67 94.99 67.01 67.01 26.30 26.30 17.76 17.76 67.07 67.07 273.13 35.00 35.00 35.00 R C H A S E J O U R N A L CITY OF HOUND DESCRIPTION TAPE BACKUP 4MM -TAPE JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMBER 01-4095-5000 IOIO DEC 99 PHONE SERVICE 296-9058 01-4090-3220 DEC 99 PHONE SERVICE 554-6520 73-7300-3220 DEC 99 PHONE SERVICE 590-435i 01-4280-3220 DEC 99 PHONE SERVICE 590-435i 73-7300-3220 DEC 99 PHONE SERVICE 590-4351 78-7800-3220 DEC 99 PHONE SERVICE 945-6789 01-4190-3220 DEC 99 PATROL #845 551-2110 01-4140-3220 DEC 99 CHEIF HARRELL 581-6401 01-4140-3220 DEC 99 BLAZER 5dl-6404 01-4140-3220 DEC 99 S~UAD #840 5B1-6440 01-4140-3220 .DEC 99 SQUAD ~841 581-644t 01-4140-3220 DEC 99 S~UAD #842 581-64.42 01-4140-3220 DEC ~9 S~UAD #843 581-6443 01-4140-3220 DEC 99 SQUAD #844 -- 581-6444 . 01-4140-3220 DEC 99 MOUND FIRE 723-7560 22-4170-3220 DEC 99 ENGINE #i8 751-3572 22-4170-3220 DEC 99 MOUND FIRE 751-3573 .... 22-4170-322.0- DEC 99 RESCUE TRUCK 875-4502 22-4170-3220 JRNL-CD 1010 POST OFFICE BLDG REPAIRS _ JRNL-CD DEC 99 SANITATION PICKUP DEC ~9 SANI~ATION..PICKUP DEC 99 SANITATION PICKUP JRNL-CD DEC 99 SANITAT]ON PICKUP JRNL-CD DEC 99 SANITATION PICKUP JRNL-CD DEC 99 SANITATION PICKUP JRNL-CD DEC 99 SANITATION PiCKuP JRNL-CD EXAM kEiMBURSEHENT 19V9 EYE JRNL-CD 01-432D-3330 1010 01-42~0-3750 73-7300-3750 78-7800-3750 iOlO 22-4170-3750 1010 01-4340-3750 1010 71-7100-3750 1010 01-4280-3750 1010 01-4090-3140 1010 PAGE 2 AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR ! NVO] CE NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DUE HOLD DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NuMbER Cl104 000106 ......... 4,087.00-. DEC-99-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ...... 01-4110-3120 1/19/00 1/19/O0 4,087.00 JRNL-CD 1010 CHADWICK AND MERTZ, P.A VENDOR IOTAL Cl106 125041 1/19/00 1/19/00 4087.00 59.00 12-10-99 DELIVERY CHARGES 01-4040-3210 59.00 JRNL-CD ...... 1010 CORPORATE EXPRESS DELIVERY VENDOR TOTAL Dli72 314643 1/19/00 1/19/00 59.00 42.00 (2) HEAD HARNESS 22-4170-2270 42.00 JRNL-CD 1010 DANKO EMERGENCY E(~UIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL 42.00 E1485 6185033 1/19/00 1/19/00 114.75 DEPOT 5LDG SERVICED FURNACE 114.75 JRNL-CD 01-4340-2330 lOlO .EeUIPMENI SUPPLY INC F1710 000106 VENDOR TOTAL --- 114.75 33.92 NOV DEC 99 CELLULAR PHONE 1/19/00- 11~9/.00 ....... 33.92.- JRNL-CD 01-4040-3220 . 1010 FRANCENE CLARK G1750'-252474 ~ & K SERVICES G1890 99i231-B VENDOR TOTAL 33.92 35.09 MATS I/ig/o0 1/19/O0 35.09 JRNL-CD vENDOR IOTAL 35.09 . 15.60 WATER #4148501 1/19/O0 1/19/00 i5.60 JRNL-CD 01-4340-2330 1010 01-4320-2200 1010 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD G1905 9120396 VENDOR TOTAL 15.60 1/19/00 1/19/00 50.75 DEC 99 LOCATE5 73-7300-3125 50.75 DEC 99 LOCATES 78-7800-3125 101.50 JRNL-CD 1010 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL, INC VENDOR TOTAL G1912 059839 1/19/00 1/19/00 10!.50 332.32 TIRE ORDER 01-4140-3810 332.32 JRNL-CD iOlO GOODYEAR TIRE DISTRIBUTION VENDOR TOTAL 332.32 H2003 1201 1/19/00 1/19/00 1,835.56 DEC 99 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 30-5615-3100 1,835.56 JRNL-CD IOiO HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOC IN VENDOR TOTAL 1~35.56 H2061 DK34433 1/19/00 1/19/00 30.00 CHEMICALS FOR 6 CYL 73-7300-2260 30.00 JRNL-CD 1010 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT VENDOR TOTAL 30.00 PAGE 3 AP-C02-Oi VENDOR iNVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION H2139 000112 1,040.43 i04.05 1/19/00 1/19/00 1,745.08 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF VENDOR TOTAL i745.08 H2180 000104 691.24 1/19/O0 i/I9/O0 691.24 HENN COUNTY TREASURER VENDOR TOTAL 691.24 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND ACCOUNT NUMBER 1999 ANNUAL- RADIO LEASE 22-4170-3900 (3) MICS FOR RADIOS 01-4170-4150 JRNL-CD 1010 2000 TRUTH IN TAXATION NOTICES JRNL-CD 01-4020-3100 1010 H224I O00106-A 2,440.15 DEC 99 99-73 TIF RELATED SERVI 1/19/00 1/19/O0 2,440.i5 JRNL-CD 55-5880-3100 I010 O00106-B 112.50 DEC 99 98-77 LOST LA&E CANAL 30-5615-3100 1/19/00 1/19/00 112.50 JRNL-CO - 1010 1/19/00 1/19/00. 1/19/00 1/19/OD_ 2,211.80 DEC 99 99-24 MOUND VISION 2,211.80 JRNL-CD ............ O00106-C O00106-D 000106-E 55-5880-3100 .... 1010 2,503.20 DEC 99 99-1 PROFESSIONAL SERVI 01-4190-3100 2,503.20 JRNL-CD ..... 1010 478.50 DEC 99 99-5 PROFESSIOINAL SERV 01-4190-3100 1/19/00 1/19/00 478.50 JRNL-CD - - 1010 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP,* VENDOR TOTAL 12333 991713 1/19/00 1/19/00 NFRATECH VENDOR TOTAL I2400 4364 4377 4412 1119/00 1/19/00 1/19/00 1/19/00 1119/00 1119/00 1/'19/00 1/19/00 1/19/00 1/19/00 1/19/00 1/19/00 VENDOR TOTAL i/19/00 1/19/00 4303 4291 4392 ISLAND PARK SKELLY J2573 990501 7746.15 177.10 CLOTHING ALLOWANCE, GEISE, L. 01-4280-2240 177.10 J~NL-CD 1010 i77.i0 $6.99 DODGE DURAmGO UlL ~/~ TIRES ~8.99 JRNL-CD 01-4140-3610. 1010 65.99 LUHINA OIL M/B TIRES SUUAD 845 01-4140-3610 55.99 JRNL-CO 1010 639.62 S@UAD 843, GAS RYDER STRUT_ 639.62 JRNL-CD 01-4140-3~i0 1010 208.71 SNUAD 842 SRAKES ~/B TIRES 01-4140-3810 208.7i JRNL-CD lOiO 729.66 INSTALL INJECTION PUHP 01-~280-3&10 729.66 JRNL-CD 1010 62.04 RgR FILTER FUEL 01-4280-3810 62.04 JRNL-CD I010 1795.0i 7.19 DRANO 01-4320-2200 7.19 JRNL-CD 1010 PAGE AP-C02-01 VENDOR NO. INVOICE NMBR 990603 990603-B 990820 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT - 51.90 1119/00 1/19/00 51.90 14.7& 1/i9/00 1/19/00 14.74 14.75 1/19/O0 1/19/O0 14.75 DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER FRAMING ..... 01-4040-2200 JRNL-CD 1010 PLANTS 01-4320-2200 JPNL-CD 1010 FOLDERS FOR COUNCIL - 01-4020-2200 JRNL-CD lOiO JOHNS VARIETY & PETS K2699 31306 VENDOR TOTAL 88.58 1/19/00 1/19/00 576.00 1,983.i0 981.79 258.00 44.40 3,843.29 DEC 99 EXECUTIVE SERVICES 01-4110-3100 DEC 99 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 01-4110-3100 DEC 99 PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES 0i-4280-3100 DEC 99 P/I SERVICES 01-4190-3100 DEC 99 PARKS SERVICES -- 01-4340-3100 JRNL-CD 1UtO 31305 ..... i89.10 THRU 12-31-99 MU2OO..PRO SERVlC. 01-4110-3100 1/I9/00 1/19/00 1£9.I0 JRNL-CD lOlO 31304 .. 2,033,3! i/19/00 1/19/00 2,033.3i THRU 12-31-99 -HU195 PRO SERVIC .... JRNL-CD 55-5880-3100 10' KENNEDY & GRAVEN VENDOR TOTAL 6065.70 L2775 991231 3,489.50 i/19/00 1/19/00. 3,489450. OCT NOV DEC 99 STORAGE ETC 01-4030-3100 JRNL-CD ...... 1010 LAKE MINNETONKA AREA CHAMB VENDOR TOTAL 3489.50 L2930 5-284645 4.88 1/19/00 1/19/00 4.~8 5-286152 5.57 5.57 5.57 1/19/00 1/I9/O0 ib.7i 5-285546 1.86- 1/19/00 1/19/00 1.86 BULBS FOR ~17 22-4170-2200 JRNL-CD 1010 TYME 1 GALLON 01-4280-2250 TYME 1 GALLON 73-7300-22S0 TYME 1 GALLON 78-7800-2250 JRNL-CD 1010 UFO FASTNERS . 01-4280-2310 JRNL-CD 1010 LOWELL'S AUTOMOTIVE/ZITCO* VENDOR TOTAL 23.45 M3025 000110 16.00 1/19/00 1/19/00 16.00 THRU 12-31-99 MILEAGE/EXPENSE 01-4110-3100 JRNL-CD 1010 MARK HANUS VENDOR TOTAL 16.00 M30&O 32288 4,309.20 i/i9/O0 1/i9/O0 4,309.20 32275 2~3.00 i/19/00 i/I9/O0 32278 43.00 DEC 99 AUDITORS RD ALTA SURVEY 55-58B0-3100 JRNL-CD 1010 DEC 99 UPDATE CEMETARY MAP 80-BO00-3iO0 JRNL-CD iOIO DEC 99 ENGINEERING SERVICES 01-4280-3100 PAGE 5 AP-C02-Oi VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS 32279 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L CITY OF MOUND 1/19/00 1/19/00 AMOUNT DESCRIPTION &3.00 JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMBER 1010 1/19/O0 1/19/00 21.50 DEC 99 CNG SERVICES FOR P/W 21.50 DEC 99 CNG SERVICES FOR P/W 43.00 JRNL-CD 73-7300-3100 7~-7800-3100 lOlO 32280 43.00 DEC 99 AUDITORS ROAD 26-5700-3100 i/19/00 1/19/00 43.00 JRNL-CD lO!O 32281 684.00 DEC 99 LANGDON DISTRICT . 55-5880-3100 1/19/00 1/19/00 684.00 JRNL-CD 1010 32282 32283 32284 32285 322B6 322 87 1/19/00 1/19/00 1/19/00 1/19/00 1/19/00 1/19/00 176.00 DEC 99 SURFACE WATER MANAGEHEN 01-4190-3100 176.00 JRNL-CD 1010 172.00 DEC 99 LOST LAKE REHABILITATIO 30-5615-3100 172.00 JRNL-CD 1010 43.00 DEC 99 HALSTEAD LN/gEST. EDGE. 01-4280-3100 - 43.00 JRNL-CD 1010 - 129,00 DEC 99 MSA.MISC ENGINEERING 26-5700-3100. 1/19/00 1/19/00 129.00 JRNL-CD iOlO ' 1/19/00 1/19/00 43.00 DEC 99 DOWNTOWN TIF DISTRICT .. 55-5880-3100. 43.00 JRNL-CD 1010 215.00 DEC 99 GROUNDWATER HASBRO ....... gl-4190-3100 1/19/00 1/19/00 215.00 JPNL-CD 1010 MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCi~ VENDOR TOTAL ~3171 000101 1/19/00 1/19/00 METRO WEST INSPECTION SER~ VENDOR TOTAL ~3250 991231 MINNEGASCO M3460 000113 MN U C FUND ~3478 12315 i/19/00 1/19/00 VENDOR TOTAL 1/19/00 1/19/00 VENDOR IOTAL 1/19/00 l/i9/O0 6183.20 1,650.00 SEPT OCT NOV DEC 99 INSPECTION 01-4190-3100 1,650.00 JRNL-CD ..... 1010_ 1650.00 142.~2 11-15-99 THRU 12-15-99 DEPOT 01-4340-3720 418.i3 11-15-99 THRU 12-15-V9 CUMBERL 01-4340-3720 147.20 11-15-99 THRU 12-15-99 LI@UO~ -.. ?1-71~0-3720 37.28 ii-i5-99 THRU 12-I5-99 FIRE DE 22-4170-3720 749.65 1i-I5-99 THRU 12-i5-99 CITY 01-4320-3720 200.08 11-I5-99 THRU 22-15-99 P/W 01-4280-3720 113.68 11-15-99 TmRU 12-15-99 P/W 73-7300-3720 140.97 11-15-99 THRU 12-15-99 P/w 78-7800-3720 1,949.41 JRNL-CD 1010 1949.41 8~3.55 4TH ~TR 1999 JAYKO, BRAD 81-4350-1310 883.55 JRNL-CD 1010 883.55 30.74 WESTERN HARNESS KIT FOR -V-PLOW 01-4340-3810 30.74 JRNL-CD lOlO PAGE 6 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE J 0 CITY OF HOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION URN A L ACCOUNT NUMBER MONROE TRUCK M3490 991130 MOUND N3685 991231 EQUIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL 30.74 1/19/00 1/19/DO 1/19/00 1/19/00 FIRE DEPAETMENT VENDOR TOIAL 991231 1/19/00 1/19/00 NATIONAL INDEPENDENT BILL! VENDOR TOTAL N3800 991231-B NORTHERN STATES 03870 080637092-01 0B§451291-01 086056447-00 086866400-01 OFFICE DEPOT R2681 R12991630 REYNOLDS WELDING R4240 170176 1/19/00 POWER CO 1/19/00 VENDOR TOTAL 1/19/00 1119100 1/19/00 1119/00 ..... 1/19/00 1/19/00 1119/00 1/19/00 VENDOR TOTAL 1119/00 1119/00 SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL 1/19/O0 1/I9/00 9,037.25 NOV 99 SALARIES 22-4i70-1390 670.00 NOV 99 DRILLS 22-4170-1380 1,250.-00 NOV 9'9 MAINTENANCE 22-4170-3190 10,957.25 JRNL-CD iOiO 7,657.75 DEC 99 SALARIES 22-4170-1390 670.00. DEC. 99 DRILLS ..... 22-4170-1380 1,250.00 DEC 99 HAINTENANCE 22-4170-3190 9,577.75 JRNL-CD 1010 20535.00 1,036.02 PAYROLL CHECKS, VOUCHERS, ETC 01-4095-2200 1,036.02 JRNL-CD 1010 1036.02 ..................................................... 788.27 DEC 99 .- .21.99 DEC .99. 365.00 DEC 99 2,834.4i DEC 99 475.38 DEC 99 191.80 DEC 99 122.06 DEC 99 ...... 122.06 DEC 99 122.07 DEC 99 1,296.58 DEC 99 350.15 DEC 99 6,689.77 JRNL-C9 GENERAL 2245-301-939 SIRENS ..... ~466-607-2~3 LIQUOR WATER FIRE PARKS STREETS ._WAT£R - SEWER LIFT STAT TRAFF SIGN 01-4320-3710 01-4150-3710. 1914-601-425 71-7100-3710 0217-606-329 73-7300-3710 2164-407-I47-. 22-4170-3710 0047-005-229 01-4340-3710 0864-508-832 01-4280-3710 0864-50~-£52 .... 73-7300-3710 0864-508-832 78-7800-3710 0018-802-654 78-7800-3710 0009-604-835 . 01-4280-3710 1010 6689~77 ............... 14.06 BOARD, MARKERS, FRAME, ETC 22-4170-2200 14.06 JRNL-CD .... 1010 57.38 DATA CARTRIDGES 01-4095-2200 57.38_..JRNL-CD .............................. I010-- 350.6~ LEGAL FILE FOLDERS 01-4090-2200 350.68 JRNL-CD 1010 149.10 HOt; MOBILE FILE PUTTY 01-4190-5000 149.10 JRNL-CD 1010 571.22 19.81 AIR AND OXYGEN 22-~170-2270 19.~1 JRNL-CD 1010 19.81 538.24 THRU 12-26-99 ADMIN SECRETARY 01-4190-3100 538.24 JRNL-CD 10~' PAGE 7 AP-C02-O1 VENDOR INVOICE NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DUE HOLD DATE STATUS PURCHASE CITY OF MOUND JOURNAL AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER REMEDY STAFFING VENDOR TOTAL 538.24 S4392 37537 1/i9/00 1/19/00 SHORELINE SPUR STATION VENDOR TOTAL 500.00 THRU 12-31-99 500 ~TY CAR WASH 500.00 JRNL-CD 5OD.D0 S4448 000104 1/19/00 1/19/00 SPORTING BREED KENNELS VENDOR TOTAL S4580 6137 1/19/00 1/19/00 S4580 1/19/00 1/19/00 STERNE ELECTRIC CO VENDOR TOTAL S4630 99i228 1/i9/00 1/19/00 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC VENDOR TOTAL S4632 000119 1/19/00 I/ig/o0 01-4140-3810 1010 2,592.00 03-15-99 THRU 12-31-99 ADDITIO 01-4140-4270 2,592.00 JRNL-CD - I010 SERVICE STREET LIGHTING JRNL-CD REPAIR LIGHTING JRNL-CD 2592.00 65.00 65.00 190.i3 190.13 255.i3 SPEEDWAY SUPERAHERICA LLC T4730 3t13 THE LAKER W5590 000107 12o80 THRU 12-28-99 GASOLINE CHARGES - 185.70 THRU 12-28-99 GASOLINE CHARGES 1,410.44 THRU 12-28-99 GASOLINE CHARGES 341.04 lHRU 12-28-99 GASOLINE CHARGES 301.45 THRU 12-2~-99 GASOLINE CHARGES 2,251.43 JRNL-CD 2251.43 316.88 DEC 99 GASOLINE CHARGES __ 316.88 JPNL-CD VENDOR TOTAL 1/19/00 i/i9/O0 VENDOR TOTAL 1/19/00 VENDOR TOTAL 01-4280-3710 1010 71-7100-3820 1010 wESTONKA SCHOOL DIST 277 W5630 2966 2965 1/19/00 1119/00 1119/00 1/19/00 1/19/00 1/19/00 01-4190-2210 01-4340-2210 01-4280-2210 73-7300-2210 78-7800-2210 lOiO 22-4170-2210 - 1010 316.~8 300.90 COLOR AD (FOURTH OF JULY) 71-7100-3410 300.90 JRNL-CD 1010 300.90 18,250.00 1999 SUMMER PARKS PROGRAM 01-4360-4100 20,160.00 i999 SUMMER BEACHES 01-4360-4200 36,410.00 JRNL-CD lOiO 38410.00 299I 378.00 DUG UP CURB STOP 73-7300-3800 378.00 JRNL-CD 1010 1,190.00 wATERMAIN BREAK EDGEWATER 73-7300-3800 1,I90.00 JRNL-CD 1010 391.25 DEC 99 SNOWPLOWING 01-4280-4200 391.25 DEC 99 SNOWPLOWING C~[; 40-6000-4200 782.50 JRNL-CD 1010 PAGE AP-C02-O1 VENDOR NO. INVOICE NMBR 2942 2941 2940 2939 2938 WIDMER INC INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE STATUS 1/19/00 1/19/00 1/19/00 1/19/00 1/19/00 i/ig/o0 1/19/00 1/ig/o0 1/19/00 I/i9/00 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR TOTAL AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 384.00 REPLACE HYDRANT 384.00 JRNL-CD 1,100.00 WATERMAIN BREAK - 1,100.00 JRNL-CD 1,067.00 BARTLETT BLVD BACKHOE 1,067.00 JRNL-CD 1,154.00 LYNWOOD/GRANDVIEW BREAK WATERM 1,154.00 JRNL-CD 666.00 HIGHLAND BACKHOE 666.00 JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMBER 73-7300-3800 -. 1010 73-7300-3800 1010 73-7300-3800 lOlO 73-7300-3800 1010 73-7300-3800 1010 TOTAL ALL VENDORS 6721.50 121,161.42 PLGE 1 AP-C02-OZ VENDOR INVOICE bdE ,WOLD NO. iNvOICE N"mR DATE DAlE STATUS AOOSo lOC200 A~DO AmDC EICK & A0245 000106 A~BEWG, DRENT A0349 O00113 L/25/00 1/25/00 MEYERS LL vENDOR IOTAL 1125/00 1125/00 VENDOR TOTAL 1/25/00 1/25100 ANOKA TECHNICAL INSTITUTE VENDOR TOTAL A0410 057 ASSOC OF METRO ~13 000112 ASSOC OF TRAINING A04~g 0',o!39 1/25/00 1/25/00 ~UNiCIPALI$ VENDOR IOTAL OF 1125/00 1/25/00 OFFI= V£NuOR TOTAL 2125/00 1/25/D0 A~E~iCAN WATERNORKS ASSOC l&lS06OO 15117000 VENDOR TOTAL 5FLLoOY CORPORATION 1/25/3u 1/25/u0 2125100 1125100 1125/00 1/25/00 C0~59 323051 CHAMPION &UTu C0920 00Jl15 CIfY OF MOUND C0970 61365220 1/25/00 vENDOR TOTAL 1125/00 1/25/00 VENDOR TOTAL 1125/00 1/25/00 P O A"'3 UNT 1,500.00 1500.00 33.75 33.75 !3.75 50~ .90 504 .90 504.90 3,01~.00 3,01&.00 3018.00 lOu .00 10o.00 lO0.00 105.00 lOS i05.00 363.13 303.10 003.05 003.05 1,15~.3~ 1,15V.$~ 212~ .53 111.13 111.13 !11.14 ~3.40 333.40 17.71 17.71 17.71 62.90 62.90 R C H A S E J O U ~ :~ A L CITY OF MOUND DESCRIPTION THRU 12-24-~9 J~NL-CL CERTIFIED AudIT WATER REFUND JQNL-CD REgISTRATIoN E'~S T,<A!N!NG JRNL-CD 2000 ME"6ERSHIP DOES JRNL-CD 2000 ,~EMEERSMIP (4) OF-, NL-CD MEHBE~-SHIp DUES FOR JRNL-CD L I (~UOR J~ N L -C ~ LIQUOR JRNL-CD LI ~UOR J~,NL-CD MISCELLANEOUS SNON SOPPLIES :~ISCELLANEOUS SNOW SOFPLIE~ MISCELLANEOUS ~NOW Sdp~', ~I,SC JR.',L-C D wATER PAYM£NT J~NL-CD MISCELLANEOUS TAXASLE JRNL-CJ ACCOUt4T NUMBER 01-4090-3130 !OlO 79-3995-0000 1010 22-4170-4110 lOlO 01-.020-4130 1010 01-4140-&130 10!0 73-7300-4130 1010 71-7100-o510 !010 71-7i00-9513 iOIO 71-71U0-9510 1010 0!-c2~0-2200 73-7300-2200 7o-780~-2200 1010 71-7100-3740 1010 71-7100-g550 1010 PAGE 2 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDUR INVOICE . DUE HOLD .. ............... NO. INVOICE NHBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER __. 64863114 ._ 53.60 MIX TAXABLE ................. 7i-7100-9540 i/25/00 1/25/00 53.60 JRNL-CD iOiO COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST VENDOR TOTAL Cl102 619 1,257.00 2000 CONTRACT FOR CHILD ABUSE 01-4140-4200 1/25/00 1/25/00 1,257.00 JRNL-CD .......... IOlO. CORNERHOUSE VENDOR TOTAL 1257.00 - D~1~4 59169 ...... i67."8~ BE£R .................... 71-7100-953~" 1/25/00 1/25/00 167.80 JRNL-CD 1010 59562 13.65 BEER 71-7100-9530 1/25/00 1/25/00 !3.65 JRNL-CD 1010 59895 71-7100-9530 lOlO 1/25/00 1/25/00 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING CO VENDOR TOTAL 5~6.'80 BEER ........ 516.80 JRNL-CD 698.25 D12OO 82067 _ . 481.35 - 1/~5100--1~ 5']00- ~.81.35 82068 15 1~25-/00 '1;25/00 15 82353 ........................ 125.25 1/25/00 1/25/00 125.25 82812 408 1>~'5/oo - z/F~/0o ...... ~o~ _ _82813 ...................... ~1.25 ',/~5/00 1/25/o0 41.:~5 83549 876 1/25/00 1)25/00 876 .DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL _ _ 1948.05 D1341 991231 223.50 ........... 135.00 67.50 40.50 34.50 I3.50 13.50 588.00 DRIVER AND VEHICLE E1420 569124 '~ 569125 1/25/00 1/25/00 SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL 1125100 1/25/00 588.00 5,153.70 5,153.70 27.15 BEER ................................ 71-7100-9530 .... JRNL-CD 1010 .75 MISCELLANEOUS NON-TAXABLE ........... 71-7100-9550 .75 JRNL-CD 1 BEER ......... 7£-2.100-953~ JRNL-CD 1010 .10 BEER ........................... .10 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9530 1010 _~ISCELLANE. OUS NONtT_AXABLE .......... 7!~7100-~550 ..... JRNL-CD 1010 .35 BEER ........... 71-710.0-9530 ...... .35 JRNL-CD 1010 LICENSE TABS FOR 98 FORD 01-40&0-4140 LICENSE_TABS_(LO)_OlrOO_RENENA ...... 01~4.280-414D ..... LICENSE TA~S (5) 01-00 RENEWAL 73-7300-4140 LICENSE TABS (3) 01-00 RENEWAL 7~-7800-4140 ..LICENSE. TABS_.~7) .Oi-O~_.RENEWAL ....... 01~4340~4~40 .... LICENSE TABS 01-00 RENEWAL 01-4340-4140 LICENSE TA~S Oi-O0 RENEWAL 01-4340-4140 JRNL-CD 1010 BEER 71-7100-9530 JRNL-CD 1010 MISCELLANEOUS .... 71-7100-9550 PAGE 3 AP-C02-O1 .VENDOR NO. INVOICE NMB R 570388 571896 573204 575632 575631 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE Ei472 10907 ''EMBEDDED SYSTEMS 10 000106-B ~RANCENE CLARK G1833 11708 GENERAL SPRINKLER ~18~6 000105 GtNO BUSINARO 61972 160588 160587 1634~3 I63484 1634569 GRIGG5 COOPER PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND INVOICE DUE HOLD _ DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER PR 1/25100 1/25100 ....... 27.15 JRNL-CO ...................... 1010 333.00 BEER 71-7109-9530 1/25/00 1/25/00 333.00 JRNL-CD - - I010 2,i74.05 BEER 71-7100-9530 i/25/00 i/25/00 2,174.05 JRNL-CD .... i010 63.00 BEER 71-7i00-9530 1/25/00 1/25/00 63.00 JRNL-CD ............. 1010 36.20 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 1125/00 1/25/00 36.20 JRNL-CD i010 3,398.20 SEER 71-7100-9530 i/25/00 !/25/00 3,398.20 JRNL-C5 ..... 1010 VENDOR TOTAL iIif5.30 '53i.06 J~J'UNE 2~00 SIREN ~A'iNTENANC 01-a150-3260 1/25/00 1/25/00 531.00 JRNL-CD 1010 ................ 10.0~ _LUNC~ RF~MBURSE~EN~_._LH.C£ REPS ...... 01-4340-412.0 i/2S/O0 1/25/00 10.00 JRNL-CD 1010 VENDOR TOTAL i70.00 2000 ANNUAL SPRINKLER INSPECTI 01-4320-3800 1/25/00 1/25/00 .... 170.00 JRNL-CD ........ 1010 CORPORA* VENDOR TOTAL 170 3O2 i/25/00 i/25/00 302 VENDOR TOTAL 302 .00 .88 1999 BALANCE REFUND 01-2050-0000 .88 JRNL-CD 1010 .88 118.00 1/25/00 1/25/00 11~.00 MISCELLANEOUS ......... 7~-7!00-9550. JRNL-CD !010 1/25/00 1'/25/00 315.74 WINE 71-7!00-9520 315.74 JRNL-CD 1010 1/25/00 1/25/00 151.17 MIX 71-7100-9540 151.17 JRNL-CD 1010 1/25/0'0 1125/00 437.16 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 437.16 JRNL-CD 1010 1/25/00 1/25/00 743.21 wINE 71-7100-9520 743.21 JqNL-CD 1010 & COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 1765.28 PAGE 4 P U AP-C02-01 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMhR DATE PATE STATUS H2040 1009 __ 1/25/00 1/2~/00 HATCH, JIM SALES COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL H2ii0 991228 1/25/00 1/25/00 HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEFS OF VENDOR TOTAL I2309 2341956A 1125/00 1/25/00 AMOUNT 136.45 i36.45 136.45 ~0.00 40.00 40.00 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 14.54 i4.54 21.82 21.$2 72.72 72.72 72.72 72.72 581.75 R C H A S E J O U R N A L CITY OF MOUND DESCRIPI IDN TURBO BEAM AMBER LIG~iT EAR JRNL-CD 2000 MEMBERSHIP DUES JR NL-CD ACcouN~ NUWEER ol-42 o-sooo_ _. 1010 01-4140-4130 - 1010 COPY MACHINE PAPER 01-4040'2200 COPY MACHINE PAPER 01-4090-2200 COPY ~ACHINE PAPER . 01-41~0-220.0 COPY MACHINE PAPER 0I-~190-2200 COPY MACHINE PAPER 01-c340-2200 COPY MACHINE PAPER . 01-42~0-2200._. COPY MACHINE PAPER 71-7100-2200 COPY MACHINE PAPER 73-7300-2200 COPY HACHINE PAPER ....... 78-7800-2200 .... COPY MACHINE PAPER 01-4020-2200 COPY MACHINE PAPER 01-4190-2200 _.CO~Y_MACHINE.~APF_~ .................... 0~-4~&0-2200 ..... COPY MACHINE PAPER 81-4350-2200 JRNL-CD iOl~ 165.72 12-22-99 THRU 01-19-00 MAINTEN 1/25/00 1/25/00 i65.72 JRNL-CD iK0~-OFFICE SOLUTIONS VENDOR TOTAL 747.47 22-4170-2140 1010 I2340 000122 100.00__ 2000_~EYBERSHiP_FDk HARRELk 1/25/00 1/ZE/O0 10~.00 JRNL-CD 0i. 4140~4~30 1010 9078 ....... 78.00 TRAINING KEY SUBSCRIPTION ..... 01-4140-413.0 .... 1/25/00 i~/00 78.00 JRNL-CD 1010 991228 30.00 2000 SUBSCqIPTION ~!575145 .... 01-4140-4130 i/25/0g 1/25/00 30.00 JONL-CD 1010 991230 .......... 78.00. 2000 SUBSCRIPTION_ (I.~) ..... 01-4140-413_0 ...... i/25/00 1/25/00 78.00 J~NL-CD 1010 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION vENDOR TOTAL 286.00 J2573 991227 1/25/00 1/25/00 840.00 REIMBURSE ESCRO~ ACCDUNT 01-2300-1000 840.00 JRNL-CD .................................... ~0,10 JOHNS VARIETY & PETS VENDOR TOTAL 840.00 32579 1066881 1~1~5.60 WINE 1/25/00 1/25/00 1,i35.60 JRNL-CD 1066880 ~48.33 LI~UO~ 1/25/00 1/25/00 848.33 JRNL-CD 1069344 143.50 WINE 71-7100-~5~0' 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9520 PAGE 5 APoC02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND ._VENDOR INVOICE DUE dOLD . NO. INvOiCE N~BR DATE DATE STATUS ANOUNT 1069342 1069341 1/25/00 1125/00 ........... 143.50 i/25/00 i/25/00 1/25/00 1/25/00 1067412 1125100 1125/00 JOHNSON BROTHERS LI&dOR VENDOR TOTAL K2731 335929 1/25/00 1/25/00 -~USTO'M SIGNALS, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 748.50 74a.50 511.80 511.80 343.65 .... 343.65 3731.38 5,174.84 5,174.84 s174'~ DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NdMBER _ JRNL,CD ................................ WINE 71-7100-9520 JRNL-CD ........... 1010 LIeUOR 71-7100-9510 JRNL-CD - . 1010 WINE 71-7100-9520 JRNL-CD ........................... lO!O RADAR uNIT/viDEO 01-4140-5000 JRNL-CD 1010 L2770 991127 ..... 4,054.92 1/25/00 1/25/00 4,054.92 LAKE MINNETONAK CONVERS~TI VENDOR_TOTAL __ _4054.92 775 0002744 226.00 1/25/00 1/25/00 ..... 226.00 LAKE MINNEIONKA AREA CHAMB VENDOR TOTAL 226.00 L2780 000112 i0.00 1/25/oo 1/z5/oo lO.OO LAKE REGION MUTUAL AID ASS VENDOR TO~A~ ...... ~0~0~ L28!1 10370 LARSUN PRINTING L2930 5-285466 1/25/00 1/25/00 GRAPHICS VENDOR TOTAL 1/25/00 1/25/00 LOWELL'S M3016 O201 6223 6239 215 AUTOMOTIVE/ZITCO= VENDOR TOTAL i/2~/00 1/25/00 1/25/00 1/25/00 1125/00 1/25/00 t/25/00 1/25/00 137.03 137.03 137.03 199.73 199.73 199.73 2.80 2.80 *~2 o o 9~.00 9.10 81.20 81.20 2000 LEVY PAYM;_N.T _tST ~UAR_TER 0i-4020-4130 . JRNL-CD 1010 2000 MEMBERSHIP INVESTMENT JRNL-CD 01-4020-4130 .... _1_010 DAILY CASH SUMHARY SHE;..TS ........ 7]-7100-2200 JRNL-CD 1010 STATION SUPPLIES JRNL-CD ............................... 22-4170-2200 ..... 10~.0 01-03-00 DEL I VE-RY- 71- 7100-96-0-0 URNL-CD 1010 Oi:O7--O0 ~-LIg~R'~ ............. 71-7100-96~0 JRNL-CD iOlO 01-10-00 DELIVERY- - 71-7100-9600 JRNL-CD 1010 01-13-Q0 DELIVERY 71-7100-9600 JRNL-CD 1010 MARLIN'S TRUCKING VENDOR TOTAL i91.i0 PAGE 6 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND _VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD . PR NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS A~d'u~ DE~IPT'~ON ACCOUNT NUMBER M3'030 100211 2,504.40 BEER 71-7100-9530 1/25/00 1125/00 2,504.40 JRNL-CD 1010 102466 92~'0~ ~'E'R- - ' 71-7100-9530 1/25100 1/25100 92.00 JRNL-CD 10~708 928.00 BEER ' - 71-7100-9530 1/25/00 1/25/00 928.00 JRNL-CD 1010 MA~K VII DISTRIBUTOR VENDOR TOTAL 352~ M3115 000ii2 20.00 POSTAGE REiHBURSE~ENT 22-4170-3210 1/25/00 1/25/00 20.00 JPNL-CD I010 MELISSA JOHNSON VENDOR TOTAL 20.00 M3118 991228 30.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP DUES 1/25/00 1/25/00 .... 30.00 JRNL-CD _. MEMA--METROPOLITAN EMERGEN VENDOR TOTAL 30.00 ~31'70 '00006~7573 ................... 3~,312.00-FE'B ~0'~-~'s-iE~T~R 1/25/00 1/25/00 37,~12.00 JRNL-CD -~EfR6PoLITAN couNcIL 'ENv~=-~O~-~'T'~" 37312.~0 01-4150-4130 1010 78-7800-4320 1010 M3256 991229 ............................ 250.00 1/25/00 1/25/00 250.00 MINNETONKA SPORTSMEN, INC VENDOR TOTAL 250.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP DUES ............. 0~-4~40-4Z30 JRNL-CD 1010 M3269 000103 1/25/00 1125/00 67.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP DUES 80-~000-4110 67.00 JONL-CD ....................... 10!0 MN ASSN OF CEMETERY OFFIC~ VENDOR TOTAL M3279 991228 1/25/oo MN ANIMAL CONTROL ASSOCIA~ v~N~oR TOTAL 67.00 30.00 2000 ME~BERSHIPuU, ~ ~ CARNES 01-4140-4130 30.00 JRNL-CD 1010 30.00 M3283 000104 1125/00 i125/00 490.00 REGISTRATION 04/17-19,2000 . 01-4140-4110 490.00 J~NL-CD 1010 MN CHIEFS OF POLICE EDUCA~ VENDOR TOTAL .490.00 M3284 000104 1/25/00 1/25/00 120.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP DUES WCKINLEY 01-4140-4130 120.00 JRNL-CD lOlO 991228 1/25/00 1/25/00 MN CHIEFS OF POLICE VENDOR TOTAL M3300 991228 120.00 2000 ~IEM~ERSHIP DUES HARRELL 01-4140-4130 120.00 JRNL-CD 1010 240.00 PAGE 7 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-Oi CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NHBR DATE DATE STATUS' ~HouNT DESCRIPTION 1/25/00 _ ~/25/00 ............ 95.00 _. J~NL-CD ..... ACCOUNT NUMBER 1010 MN CRIME PREVENTION VENDOR TOTAL 95.00 ~33~ 000106 35.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP DUES NELSON 1/25/00 1/25/00 35.00 JRNL-CD MN D.A.R.E. OFFICERS VENDoR'TOTAL 35~60 H3332 991213 _ _. 30.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP_DUES 1/25/00 1/25700 ' 30.00 JRNL-CD 01-4140-4130 1010 9!-4090-4130 1010 MN GOVERNMENT FINANCE VENDOR TOTAL 30.00 M3350 000Z18 25.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP 1/25/00 1/25/00 . 25.00 JRNL-CD _ _ - MN PARK SUPERVISORS ASSN VENDOR TOTAL 25.00 '~3370 000104 135.00 02/23-24,2000 REGISTRATION 1/25/00 !/25/00 135.00 JRNL-CD - ~ ~'O~[UTiON CONTROL'AGENC ~E~b~R-~O~A[ ..... 1~5.00 0!-4340-4130 !010 70-4270-4110 1010 82 991223 ................... 20.00__ 200D.HEH~-RSHI~.])UE~ __ 01-4340-4_l-3D ...... 1/25/00 1/25/00 20.00 JRNL-CD 1010 _M~_.~ECREA~ION & PARK FOUN~ VENDOR TOTAL .... 20.00 M3405 000107 300.00 03/07-09/00 REGISTRATION 73-7300-4110 1/25/00__i/25/.00 ..... 300.00 JRNL-CD ........... I010. 991227 175.00 1/25/00 1/25/00 ........ MN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION VENDOR TOTAL 475.00 02/00 THRd 02/01 MEMEERSHIP JRNL-CD 73-7300-4!30 __ 1010 ' ~3~0 017664 205.00 j-AN ~006 ~EMB~R-SH~F DUES 0~-4090-4250 1/25/00 1/25/00 205.00 JRNL-CD 10Z0 '-MN SAFETY ~OUNCIL ' - ' VENDO~--T~TA-[ ..... 205-.0~ ............... M3440 991217 200.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP DUES 22-4170-4110 ~/~5/00 ~/2s}oo 20o.o0 JRNL-Ca ~010 MN FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION VENDOR TOTAL 200.00 ................... N~370 000110 240.00 REGISTRATI3N ~ORKSHOP (2) 22-4170-41~0 1/25/00 1/25/00 240.00 JRNL-CD 1010 NORTH SUBURBAN MUTUAL AID VENDO~ TOTAL 2~0.00 N3685 000110 4,375.00 1/25/00 1/25/00 4,375.00 NATIONAL INDEPENDENT'BILLI VENDOR TOTAL 4375.00 2000 SOFTWARE SUPPORT 01-4095-3800 JRNL-CD 1010 PAGE AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NM6R DATE DATE STATUS A~OUNT DESCRIPTi0~ ACCOUNT NUMBER 1/25/oo i/25/oo 849.00 --~ATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES VENDOR TOTA~ - ~49.00 N3762 991206 45.00 1/25/00 1125100 45.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP. DUES . 01-4190-4130 JRNL-CD 1010 NORTH STAR CHAPTER OF ICB0 VENDOR TOTAL 45.00 N38iO 3002600 1/25/00 1/25/00 NORTHERN WATER WORKS SUPPL VENDOR TOTAL --03a~d-087i9547i-o0 i/25/00 i/25/oo 087183946-0i '-OFFICE DEPOT VEN6OR iOTA~ 03890 991229 1/25/00 1/25/00 363.65 1" METERS 73-7300-2300 363.65 JRNL-CD 363.65 239.16 FILE CABI~ET S-DRAWER 22-4170-5000 239.16 JRNL-CD lOlO '6.~0 RE¢ICL$'0~¢-ICE ~OP'PLIES 01-4040-2200 6.30 JRNL-CD 1010 245.46 ....... 75 .00_ REIMBURSEMENT_._CASE_ #9_7.-.2B ............ 0d.-2300-1014 .00 JF~NL-CD ioi OLEXA, ROBERT VENDOR IOTAL ..... 75 P3957 1674720 65.72 65.72 65.72 1/25/00 1/25/~0 197.16 PAM COMPANIES VEND~R TOTAL ' ' i97.~6 PA000 323898~3 89.85 i/25/0o i/25/00 89.~5 WIndSHIELD WASHER, FILTER, ETC 01-4280-2250 WINSHIELD ~ASHER,.FILTER~ .ET£ ..... 73-7300-225g WINSHIELD WASHER, FILTER, ETC 78-7~00-0065 JRNL-CD iOiO MIX , J~NL-CD 10t0 PEPSI-COL~ COMPANY P4021 569214 VENDOR TOTAL 1/25/00 1/25/00 569215 i/25/00 1/25/00 1 57ii49 i/25/00 1/25/00 B9.85 142.50 142.50 ,354.60 ,354.60 ~85.00 885.00 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 JRNL-CD ........... iOiO _ WINE JRNL~CD ............. 71-7100-9520 1010__ _ LIQUOR 71-7i00-9510 JRNL-CD 1010 PHILLIPS WINE P4038 591864 592022 & SPIRITS, * VENDOR TOTAL 1/25/00 1/25/00 2382.10 686.30 CIGARETTES 71-7100-9550 6B6.30 JRNL-CD ioio CIGARETTES 7i= 10o: o .... ,-,,cz? PAGE 9 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND _VENDO_R INVOICE DUE HOLD _ . .... PF NO. INVOICE NHbR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUNBEM i/25/00 1/25/00 ..... 654.41.. JRNL-CD ...................... 1010 - 26965 891.28 CIGARETTE5 71-7100-9550 2/25/00 1/25/00 891.28 JRNL-CD ............. lOlO .... 26964 314.75 CIGARS 71-7!00-9550 2/25/00 1/25/00 314.75 JRNL-CD lOlO PIN~4ACLE DISTRIBUTING VENDOR TOTAL 2546.74 P4110 991228 50.00 1/25/00 1/25/00 50.00 2000 MEHBERs~¥P D'j~'~ Ol-415o-411o JRNL-CD 10!0 PROFESSIONAL LAW ENFDRCEME vENDOR TOTAL 50.00 .24171 792888-00 2,368.65 LIQUOR .... 71-710g-9510 1/25/00 1/25/00 2,368.65 J~NL-CD 1010 791176-00 1,102.34 WINE _ 71-7100-9520 1/25/00 1/25/00 1,102.34 JRNL-CD ..... 1010 793891-00 _ . . 302.49__ WINE ................................... 7~-7±00~932.g ...... 1}25/00 ~/25/00 ~02.49 JPNL-CD 1010 794969-00 1,935.37 LIDUOR ................... 71~2100~9310 ...... 1/25/00 1/25/00 1,935.37 JRNL-CD 1010 794959-00 1,349.2i LIQUOR 1/25/00 1/25/00 1,349.21 JRNL-CD .... 71r7!00-9510 ...... 1010 @UALITY WINE & SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL 7058.06 R4203 6191 194.32 1/25/00 1/25/00 I94.32 REPAIR 1990 CHEV 1-TON 01-4340-3810 JRNL-CD ............................. R & S COLLISION R4240 174951 SERVICES,~ VENDOR TOTAL lO4.32 1125/00 1/25/00 538.24 68.00 606.24 THRu 01-02-00 SECRETARIAL 01-4190-3100 T~RU 01-02-06 SECRETARIAL 01-4190-3100 JRNL-CD .................. 1010 179830 REMEDY STAFFING 136. 269. 399. 1/25/00 1/25/00 ~04. VENDOR TOTAL 1410. O0 THRU 01-09-00 SECRETARIAL 01-4190-3100 12 THRU 01-09-00 SECRETARIAL . 01-4190-3100 50 THRU 01-09-00 SECRETARIAL 01-4190-3100 O2 JRNL-CD lOlO 86 R4290 54512 1/25/00 i/25/00 117.48 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 147.48 J~NL-CD 1010 RON'S ICE CO,"IPA~4Y VENDOR TOTAL 147.&8 R4300 O0010i 1/25/00 1/25/00 20.00 JAN,FES,MAR,20g FAMILIES FUND 01-4140-4120 20.00 JRNL-CD ............ 1010._ PAGE lO AP-C02-01 VENDOR NO. INVOICE NMBR ROTARY CLUB OF MOUND S4349 2013441 SCHARBER & SONS S4404 83183667 INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE STATUS VENDOR TOTAL 1/25/00 1/25/00 VENDOR TOTAL 1/25100 1125/00 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER COM~ VENDOR TOTAL 54433 000112 i/25/00 1/25/00 SOUTHERN POLICE INSTITUTE VENDOR TOTAL 54448 000131 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R i~ A L CITY OF MOdND . AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMSER 20.00 ........................................... 62.80 RIM 01-4340-3820 _ _ 62.80 JRNL-CD ............... 1010 62.80 7os:J~ -2~o -A~,NdAL-S~R'VICE AG"EEME~ 705.03 JRNL-CD 705.03 40.00 2000 H£MB£RSHIP DUES (4) .- 40.00 JRNL-CD .40.00 ............................ 240.00 JAN 2000 ~ENNEL FEES 01-4320-3&00 1010 01-4140-4130 1010 01-4140-4270 1125/00 1/25100 _ _ 240.00_ JRNL-CD ............................................ 1010.- - SPORTING BREED KENNELS VENDOR TOTAL 240.00 S4600 145921.1 17.78 -2" HOOK/LOOP FASTENIt~G TAPE 73-7300-2310 17.78 2" HOOK/LOOP FASTENING TAPE 78-7800-2310 1/25/00 1/25/00 ...... 35.56 _JRNL-CD__ ................ lOlc STREICHER'S VENDOR TOTAL 35.56 54610 127196 ................... ~.'~-9---TURF SAVER (2) ........ ~3~'~20 ........ 1/25/00 1/25/00 62.49 JRNL-CD 1010 SUB-URBAN TIRE COMPANY VENDOR TO~AE ~-2.~ ........................................................ T4703 99122i ........ 2~.00 .... T~AN~EB._W.E;S]]E .PU~LiCATi_O~ ........ 0!r4320-3100 1125/00 1725/00 25.00 JRNL-CD 1010 T-CHEK SYSTEMS LLC VENDOR TOTAL 25.00 T,q 770 182199 36.30 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 1/25/00 1125100 ............ 36.30__ JR NL-~C D ............................... lOlO 182200 2,230.10 BEER 71-7100-9530 1/25/00 1/25/00 2,230.10 JRNL-CD ..... 1010 154057 306.50 BEER 71-7100-9530 1/25/00 1/25/00 306.50. JRNL-CD ................. 1010 154557 16.50 BEER 71-7100-9530 1/25/00 1/25/00 16.50 JRNL-CD .... 1010 182703 12.10 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 71-7100-9550 1/25/00 1/25/00 12.10 JRNL-CD lOlO 182704 2,942.~5 BEER 71-7100-9530 1/25/00 1125/00 2,942.35_ .JRNL-CD ........... 1010.. PAGE Ii AP-C02-Oi PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DEscRIPTI3N i83259 3,496.65_ dEER_ 1/25~00 i/25~/00 3,896.65 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9530 1010 183258 ................. 24.20 1~25100 1/25/00 24.20 MISCELLAN£DUS JRNL-CD .71-7100-9550 1010 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN VENDOR TOTAL 9454.70 T4790 101641 1/25/00 1/25/00 524.58 MOUNT AND WIRE WARNING LIGHT 01-~280-5000 52~.58 JRNL-CD ....................... lO&O - THURK BROS CHEVROLET VENDOR TOTAL T4808 12326 1/25/00 1/25/00 524.58 265.25 01-1O-00 ~LANNING COM~ISSIUN 01-~190-4200 i42.i3 01-11-00 COGNCIL MEETING 01-~020-4200 407.38 JRNL-CD .......... 1010 TIME f4965 234895 _ %'H~SE~ LAGERQUIST T4985 237836-0 SAVER OFF SITE SECRE~ VENDOR TOTAL 407.38 ....... 147.9~ J~N'2000' ELEVAT~ ~E~vICE 01-~320-4200 1/25/00 1/25/00 147.92 JRNL-CD 1010 ELEVA$O VENBO~ TO~ ...... ~.9~ ................ 2.o _ OFFIC SUPPLIES ...................... 0Z-4040- 20o ..... 2.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4090-2200 2.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-~140-2200 ............... ......... 2.0~__ OFF~C.E_SURPLIES ..................... O~.4~9_O~ZZg~ ..... 2.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES .69 OFFICE SUPPLIES .09_ OEFIC~ SUPPLIES 1.04 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1.05 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1/25/00._ 1/~5(00 ......... 13.82_ JRNL-CD 1125/00 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 1 .Ii 1.Ii .. 1.66_ 1.63 193.81 ................ 29.29_ 1/25/00 245.21 237817-0 01-4340-2200 01-4280-2200 71-7100-2200 73-7300-2200 78-7800-2200 ....... 10~0_ _ OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4040-2200 OFFICE SU~PLiES ...... 0i-4090-2200_ OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2200 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2200 _.OFFICE_SUPPLIES ................. 0!-4340y2200 ......... OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4280-2200 OFFICE SUPPLIES 71-7100-2200 OFFICE SUPBLIE~ ............... 73-7300-2200 __ OFFICE SUPPLIES 78-7800-2200 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2200 _iN,JET_ SU~PLi£S ....................... 0~-4~90-220g JRNL-CD 1010 238196-0 1/25/00 1125/00 25.03 CARLENDAR REFILL 01-4190-2200 25.03 JRNL-CD 1010 239059-0 9.59 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4040-2200 9.59 OFFICE SUPPLIES 02-4090-2200 9.59 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-2200 9.59 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2200 9.59 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4340-2200 PAGE i2 AP-C02-01 VENDOR INVOICE NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DUE DATE 1/25/00 1/25/00 P U HOLD STATUS AMOUNT ..... 3.20 3.20 4.80 4.80 138.27 27.2~ 219.51 TWIN CITY OFFICE SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL 513.57 'Us{u1 000113 ~,o.oo i/25/oo l/a~/oo 6o.oo UNITED WAY FIRST CALL FORm VENDOR TOTAL 1/25/oo U5130 991122 1)25/oo i>~-5)oo- 60.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 99!122-B UNIVERSITY OF_MN REGISTRAR VENDOR TOTAL . _ U5131 C0004074 1/25/00 1/25/00_ VENDOR TOTAL UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN -g~-ZO~ 00010~ !/25/00 1/25/00 ~EST METRO BUILDING MAINT. VENDOR TOTAL Y5040 509459434189 i/25/00 1/25/00 YELLOW PAGES, INC. VENDOR TOTAL R C H A S E J O U R N A L CITY OF MOUND DESCRIPTION OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES JRNL-CD DIRECTORY FIRST CALL FOR HELP J~NL-CD REGISTRATION/MEmbERShIP JRNL-CD 2000 MEMBERSHIP DUES JRNL-CD 400.00 ............... 235.00 REGISTRATION 235.00 JRNL-CD .......... 235.00 1,126.00 jAN 20~0 ~NTRACT ~LEANING 91.33 JAN 2000 CONTRACT CLEANING 91.33 JAN 2000 CONTRACT CLEANING 91.34 JAN 2000 CONTRACT CLEANING 1,~O0.O0 JRNL-CD 1400.00 177.00 DIrECTOrY LISTING FO~ 177.00 JRNL-CD 177.00 TOTAL ALL VENDORS 120,059.58 ACCOUNT NUMBER 01-4280-2200. 71-7100-2200 73-7300-2200 78-7800-2200 -- 01-4140-2200 01-4190-2200 lOIO 01-4140-4170 1010 01-4140-4110 1010 01-4140-4130 . 1010 01-4140-4110 _ 101r 01-4320-4210 01-4280-4200 . 7J-TJO0-4200 78-7800-4200 1010 22-4170-4130 1010 PS¸ PAGE 1 AP-C02-O1 VENDOR iNvoIcE _DUE NO. INVOICE NM~R DATE DATE AOO50 1002~0 1125/00 1/~5/00 ABDO ABDO EICK& MEYERS LL VENDOR TOTAL A0245 000106 i/25/00 1/25/00 AMBERG, ~RENT VENDOR TOTAL AO34g 000113 1/25/00 1/25/00 ANOKA TECHNICAL INSTITUTE VENDOR TO~A~ 60.410 657 i/2~/00 1125/00 ASSOC OF METRO MUNICIPALI* PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF ,HOUND HOLD_ STATUS AKOUNT DESCRIPTION 1,500.00_ THRU 12-24-99 CERTIFIED AUUIT 1,500.00 JRNL-C~ 1500.00 ACCOUNT NUMBER 33.75 WATER REFUND 3].75 JRNL-CD 0!-4090-3130 1010 33.75 504.90 REGISTRATION EMS TRAINING 504.90 JRNL-CD ~04.90 - - 79-3895-0000 1010 22-4170-4110 1010 3,018.00 .ZOOO_MEMB£RSKIP _D$-~.S .............. D1-4020-4130 3,018.00 JRNL-CD 1010 VENDOR TOTAL__ ........ ]018.00 13 000112 100.00 . _. 1/25/00_ 1/25/00 ............ 100.00 ASSOC OF TRAINING OF OFFI* VENDOR TOTAL 100.00 A'b480 0~6139 AHER'ICAN B0549 2000 MEMBERSHIP (4) 01-4140-4130 JRNL~CD ........................... ~010 .... 105.00 MEMBERSHIP DUES FOR SKINNER 1/25/00 1/25/00 105.00 JRNL-CD 7~-730o'41~o 1010 WATER~'ORKS ASSOC VENDOR TOTAL 105.00 18083500 ........ 363.10__ LIQUOR 1/25/00' 1/25/00 363.10 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9510. 1010 18150600 603.05 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 1/25/00 1/25/00 603.05 JRNL-CD lO1O 333.40 18117000 ..... ......... 1,159.38._ LIQUOR ...................... 71-71U0~9510__ 1/25/00 1/25/00 1,159.3~ JRNL-CD 1010 BELLBOY CORPORATION __VENDOR TO~AL ..... 2125.5~ C0859 D23051 111.13 MISCELLANEOUS SNOW SUPPLIES 01-4280-2200 ........... 111.13 MISCELLANEOUS SNOW SUPPLIES 73-7300-2200 111.14 MISCELLANEOUS 5NOW SUPPLIES 7~-7800-2200 1/25/00 1/25/00 ]3].40 JRNL-CD 1010 VENDOR TOTAL 17.71 wATER PAYMENT . . __ 71-7100-3740 1/25/00 1/25/00 .... 17.71 JRNL-CD 1010 VENDOR TOTAL 17.7I MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE JRNL-CD 71-7100-9550 ........................ 1010 .... P~ CHAMPION AUTO C0920 000115 CITY OF MOUND 970 61365220 62.90 1/25/00__ 1/25/00 ......... 62.90 PAGE 2 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDUR INVOICE DUE HOLD P NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 64863114 53.60 MIX TAXABLE 71-7100-9540 i/25/00 1/25/00 53.60 JRNL-CD 1010 COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST VENDOR_TOTAL ..... 116.5o Cl102 619 1,257.00 2000 CONTRACT FOR CHILD ABUSE 01-4140-4200 1/25/00 1/25/00 1,257.00 JRNL-CD CORNERHOUSE VENDOR TOTAL 1257.00 - D1154 59169 ........ 157.80 1/25/00 1/25/00 167.80 59562 i3.65 1/25/00 1/25/00 i3.65 ..... 59895 5i6.80 1/25/00 1/25/00 516.80 ~AH~HEIMER DISTRiBuTING CO VENDOR TOTAL 698 D1200 82067 ...... 481.3.5 1/25/00 1/25/00 481.35 82068 15.75 1/25/00 '172~/00' 15.75 82353 .............. 125.25 1/25100 1/25/00 125.25 82812 408.10 '-- 1~15/00 1/25/06 4o~.1o 82813 83549 _.D_A Y 01341 991231 DRIVER AND VEHICLE E1420 569124 569125 JRNL-CD BEER JRNL-CD BEER JRNL-CD 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 !010 BEER ................................... 71-7100-9530 JRNL-CD lOlO MISCELLANEOUS NON-TAXABLE .......... 71-7100-9550 __ JRNL-CD ..BEER .......................... 71-.71D.O-953D ........ JRNL-CD 1010 BEER_ ................................. 71-7100-9530 JRNL-CD lOlO ................... &l.25 ._ MISCELLANEOUS NON-TAXABLE ~ 71-7100-9~5~ ..... 1125100 1/25/00 41.25 JRNL-CD 1010 876.35 BEER 71-7100-953D_ 1/25/00 1/25/00 87~.35 3RNL-CD 1010 DISTRIBUTING COMDANY VENDOr. TOTAL 194~.05 .............................................. 223.50 LICENSE TABS FOR 98 FORD 01-4040-4140 _ 135.00 LICENSE TABS_(iO). Ol-OO RENEWA ..... 01-4280-414D ...... 67.50 LICENSE TA~5 (5) 01-00 RENEWAL 73-7300-4140 40.50 LICENSE TABS (3; Ol-O0 RENEWAL 7~-7800-4140 ............... 94.50 .LICENSE 13.50 LICENSE TA~S 01-00 RENEWAL 01-4340-4140 13.50 L£C£NSE TABS 01-00 RENEUAL 0!-4340-4140 1/25/00 1/25/00 585.00 JRNL-CD 1010 SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL 58~.00 5,153.70 BEER 71-7100-9530 1/25/00 1/25/00 5,153.70 JPNL-CD 1010 ......... 27.15 MISCELLANEOUS 7I-7!00-9550 PAGE 3 AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND ..VENDOR I NVOI CE NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DUE HOLD DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTIDN ACCOUNT NUHBER 1/25/00 1125100 ....... 27.15 JRNL-CD ..... ......... 1010 570388 333.00 BEER 1/25/00 1/25/00 333.00 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9530 1010 571896 2,174.05 BEER 1/25/00 1/25/00 2,174.05 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9530 1010 573204 63.00 BEER 1/25/00 1/25/00 63.00 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9530 .................. 1010 575632 36.20 MISCELLANEOUS i/25/00 1/25/00 36.20 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9550 1010 575631 3,398.20 BEER 71-7100-9530 1/25/00 1/25/00 3,398.20 JRNL-C~ .......... 1010 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE VENDOR TOTAL 11185.30 'Ei472 10907 531~00 JAN-JUNE 2000 SIREN MAINTENANC 1/25/00 1/25/00 531.00 JRNL-CD EMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC. VENDOR TOTAL 531.00 01-4150-3260 i010 0 000106-B ........... 10.00 LUNC~.REiHBURSEH~",LI'_J,._H£~_RF__P~ .... 0A~4~40-4J.2~ ...... 1/25/00 1/25/00 10.00 JRNL-CD 1010 _FRANCENE CLARK VENDOR TOTAL lO.O0 G1833 11708 170.00 2000 ANNUAL SPRINKLER INSPECTI 01-4320-3800 1/25/00 1/25/00 170.00 JRNL-CD ....................... 10~0 GENERAL SPRINKLER CORPORA* VENDOR TOTAL 170.00 ~1886 000105 302.88 ~/25/oo 1/25/oo 3o2.88 1999 BALANCE REFUND 01-2050-0000 JRNL-CD lOlO GINO BUSINARO vENDOR TOTAL 302.88 G1972 160588 1~25/00 1/25/00 llg.O0 MISCELLANEOUS 118.00 JRNL-CD ........ 71-7100-9550 __ 1010 160587 1/25/00 1125/00 315.74 NINE 315.74 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9520 lOlO 1534~3 1/25/00 1/25/00 151.17 MIX 151.17 JRNL-CD 71-Z100-9540 i010 163484 1/25/00 1125/00 437.16 LIQUOR 437.16 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9510 1010 1634569 GRIGGS COOPER 1/25/00 1/25/00 & COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 743.21 WINE 7~3.21 JRNL-CD 1765.28 71-7100-9520 1010 PAGE 4 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR · INVOICE . DUE HOLD - -. '- NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AHouNT DE~cRI'PIIDN ACCOUNT NUMSER H2040 1009 .... 136.45__ TURBO BEAM.AMBER ~IGHT ~AR 01-4280-5000 1/25~00 -1~'~/00 136.45 JRNL-CD iOlO HATCH, JIM SALES COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 136.45 ........... H2iIO 991228 40.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP DUES 01-4140-4130 1/25/00 1/25/00 _ _ 40.00 JRNL-CD lOiO HENNEPlN COUNTY ' I ~30'~ -234i956 A CHIEFS OF VENDOR TOTAL 40.00 -' 43.63 COPY MACHINE PAPER 01-4040-2200 43.63 COPY MACHINE PAPER 01-4090-2200 43.63 COPY ~ACHINE PAPER 01-4140-2200 43.63 COPY MACHINE PAPER 01-4190-2200 43.~3 COPY MACHINE PAPE~ 01-4340-2200 ~4.54 _ COPY MACHINE PAP£R ..... 0~-4280-2200 14.54 COPY MACHINE PAPER 7~-7t00-2200 21.82 COPY MACHINE ~APER 73-7300-2200 21.82 CORY. MACH]NE__~AP£R 78-7800-2200 72.72 COPY MACHINE PAPER 01-4020-2200 72.72 COPY MACHINE PAPER 01-4190-2200 Z2.Z2._COP~__M~CHINE_~APER .......... O£-434.0~22D.g ........ 72.72 COPY MACHINE PAPER 81-~350-2200 1/25/00 1/25/00 581.75 JRNL-CD lOlO 23543470 ........................ ~5-~'---l~2--2-'--9'~-~HRU 01-19-00 MAINTEN 22-4170-2140 1/25/00 1/25/00 i65.72 JRNL-CD iOlO ~O~'-OFFICE SOLUTIONS _2000_MEMBERSHIP _FOk HARRELL ...... 01~4140-413_0 JRNL-CD 1UiO I234Q 000122 ................................ 100..00_. 1125/00 1/25/00 100.00 9078 1/25/00 1/25/00 991228 1125/00 ~/25/00' 991230 . 78.00 - ~ i/25/00 1/25/00 78.00 78.00 TRAINING KEY SUBSCRIPTION ..... 01-4140-4!30 .... 78.00 JRNL-CD 1010 _30.00 2000_ SUBSCRINTION ~1575145 01-4140-4130 30.00 JPNL-CD iO!O 2000 _SUBSCRiPT!0N.(~L3) .............. 01-4140-4130 JRNL-CD 1010 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION J2573 991227 JOHNS VARIETY & PETS J2579 1066881 VENDOR TOTAL ...... 286.00 _. 1066880 840.00 REIMBURSE ESCROW ACCOU~;T 01-2300-1000 1/25/00 ._1/25/00 ......... 840.00_ JRNL-CD ...................... !010 i069344 VENDOR TOTAL 840.00 ..... f,~i¥'.60- W~NE 71-7100-9520 1/25/00 1,!35.60 J~NL-CD 1010 ~48.33 cI~uo~ 71-7100-9510 1/25/00 ~48.33 J~NL-CD ~0 - i43.50 ~INE ....... 71-710~-9520 1/25/00 1125/00 PAGE 5 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-OI CITY OF MOJND _VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD ....... PF NO. INVOICE NM~R DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUHBER 1/25/00 1125./00 ......... 143.50._ JRNL-CD I069342 748.50 WINE 71-7100-9520 1/25/00 1/25/00 ?48.50 JRNL-CD 1010 i0§9341 5ii.80 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 1/25/00 1/25/00 511.80 JRNL-CD 1GlO 1067412 343.65 ~INE 71-7100-9520 1/25/00 1/25/00 . 343.65 dRNL-CD ............. 1010 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIGdOR VENDOR TOTAL 3731.38 K2731 335929 5,174.84 RADAR UNIT/VIDEO 01-4!40-5000 1/25/00 1/25/00 5,174.84 JRNL-CD 1010 -~UST-~ SIGNALS, INC. vENDOR- TOTAL 5174.84 L277Q 991127 ....... 4,054.92 2000 LEVY PAYMENT !ST ~UARTER .._ 01-40.20-4130 ._ 1/25/00 1/25/00 ~,054.92 JRNL-CD 1010 LAKE MINNETONAK CONVERSATI VENDOR TOTAL __ 226. 226. 226.00 ~o.o0 10.00 ~o .o0 _LAKE 2775 0002744 iE MINNEIONKA AREA CHAMB VENDOR TOTAL L~O 000i~2 z/251oo REGION MUTUAL AID ASS VENDOR TOTA~ 00 2000 MEMBERSHIP INVESTMENT 01-4020-4130 00. JRNL-CD .................................. _l]~ 1 ~_ 2000 ASSOCiATioN 0UES ........ ~i~0~i'~0 ..... JRNL-CD i010 L2811 1C370 1/25/00 1125/00 137.03 DAlLY'CASH SUMMARY SHEETS .... 7Z-7100-2200_ .. 137.03 JRNL-CD 1010 LARSON PRINTING & GRAPHICS VENDOR TOTAL 137.03 L2930 5-286466 i~9.73 1/25/00 1/25/00 I99.73 LOWELL'S AUTOMOTIVE/ZITCO~ VENDOR TOTAL 199.73 M3016 ~20I 2.~0 1/25/00 1125/00 2.~0 6223 98.00 1/25/00 1/25/00 98.00 STATION SUPPLIES 22-4170-2200 JRNL-CD .............. IOAO _ __ 01-03-00 DELIVERY JRNL-CD 0i-97~00 DEL~ER~ JRNL-CD 71-7100-9600 1010 71-7100-9600 lOiO 6239 9.10 01-I0-00 DELIVERY 71-7100-9600 1/25/00 1125/00 9.10 JF~NL-CD 1010 215 81.20 01-13-00 DELIVERY 71-7100-9600 1/25/00 1/25/00 81.20 JRNL-CD 1010 MARLIN'S TRUCKING VENDOR TOTAL 191.i0 PAGE 6 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-OZ CiTY OF MOUND _VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD - -. NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS A~ouNT ~EScRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER '-M~30' 10021i 2,504.40 BEER 1/25/00 1/25/00 102466 104708 1/25/00 1/25/00 MARK VII M3115 000i12 i125/00 1125100 DISTRIBUTOR VENDOR TOTAL 1/25/00 VENDOR TOTAL 1/25/00 1/25/00 MELISSA JOHNSON VENDOR TOTAL M3118 991228 1/25/00 1/25/00 MEMA--METROPOLITAN EHERGEN VENDOR TOTAL 1/25/00 1/25/00 -~ETRbPOLiTAN COUNCIL ENVI*'VkND6R TOTAL M325~ 991229 1/25/~o HiNNETONKA SPORTSMEN, INC M3269 000103 Z/25/00 1/25/00 MN ASSN OF CEMETERY 3FFIC* VENDOR TOTAL M3279 991128 1/25/00 1/25/~0 MN'ANIMAL CONTROL ASSOCIA~ VENDOR T~TAL M3283 000104 1/25/00 1/25/00 2,504.40 JRNL-CD 92.0'0 BEER ' 92.00 JRNL-CD 92~.00 BEER 928.00 JRNL-CD ~.4o 20.00 POSTAGE 20.00 JRNL-CD 20.00 3O 37,~12 37,~12 250.00 250.00 250.00 67.00 57.00 57.00 30.00 30.00 3o.0~ ~90.00 490.00 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 I010 71-7100-9530 1010 REIMBURSEHENT 22-~170-3210 lO10 .00 2000 MEMBERSHIP DUES 01-4150-4130 .00. JRNL-CD 10!0 .00 .00 'FEB~2-~O~ ~A'S~ ............... ~7~0~ ....... .00 JRNL-CD 101o 2000 .MEHBERSHIP DUES ............... 01.4140-4130 ........ JRNL-CD 1010 2000 MEMBERSmIP DUES 80-8000-4110 J~NL-CD ............ 1010 2000 HE~BERSHIP DUES C~RNES 01-4140-4i30 JRNL-CD lOlO REGISTRATION 04/17-19,2000 01-4140-4110 JRNL-CD 1010 MN CHIEFS OF POLICE M3284 000104 991228 MN CHIEFS OF POLICE H3300 991228 EDUCA* VENDOR TOTAL 1/25/00 1/25/00 1/25/00 1/25/00 VENDOR TOTAL 490.00 120.00 i20.00 120.00 120.00 2&O.O0 95.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP DUES MCKINLEY 01-4140-4130 JRNL-CD 1010 2000 ~IEMbERSHIP DUES HARRELL 01-4140-4130 JRNL-CD _ _. iOlO PAGE 7 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE dOLD .... PR NO. INVOICE NHBR DATE DATE STATUS 'AMOUNT DE~'I~'~i~N ..... ~CCOUNT NUMBER 1/25/00 1/25/00 ..... 95.00 JRNLvCD ............................ 1010 MN CRIME PREVENTION VENDOR TOTAL 95.00 M3314 000106 35.00 2000 MEM6ERSHIP DUES NELSON 01-4140-4130 1/25/00 1/25/00 35.00 JRNL-CD 1010 MN D.A.R.E. OFFICERS VENDOR TOTAL 35~'00 M3~32 9912i3 .... 30.00 2000_MEMBERSHIP DUES ........... O~-4090-4130 i725/00 1/25~00 30.00 JRNL-CD 1010 MN GOVERNMENT FINANCE VENDOR ~OTAL 30.00 M3350 000118 25.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP 01-4340-4130 1/.25/00 1/2~/00 ..... 25.00 J~NL-CD ............... Mb; PARK SUPERVISORS ASSN VENDOR TOTAL 25.00 M3370 000104 135.00 02/23-24,2000 REGISTRATION 70-4270-4110 1/25/00 1/25/00 135.00 JRNL-CD -~i PO~LOT~ON CONTRO[ AG~NC VE~D6R '~OTA~ ......... ~]5.00 52 9~1223 .... 20_.0_0~_ 2000_ ~E~ERSHLP__DUES 0&r4340~4_1._3~ ........ ~/25-/0~ 1/25~ ..... 20.00 JRNL-CD 1010 MN ~ECREATION M3405 000107 991227 MN RURAL WATER M3410 017604 MN PARK FOUN~ VENDOR TOTAL ....... 20.00 500.00 03/07-09/00 REGISTRATION 1/25/00 .1/25/00 ......... 300.00_ JRNL-CD_ 73-7300-4110 ............ 1010 ..... 175.00 02/00 THRU 02/01 HEMbERSHIP 73-7300-4130 1/25/00 1/25/00 .1~5.00 J_,NL~U ................................ 1010 ASSOCIATION VENDOR TOTAL 475.00 265.00 ]~-~ ~M-~I'-%--D~ES .... 01-~090-~1~0' 1/25/00 1/25100 205.00 JRNL-CD 1010 SAFETY COUNCIL ' ' VE'NDOR TOTAL 205.00 M3440 991217 200.00 2000. MEHBERSHIP. DUES ........... 22-4170-4110 ...... 1/25/00 1/25~00 200.00 JRNL-CD 1010 MN FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION VENDOR TOTAL 200.00 .................................... N~370 000110 2&0.DO REGISTRATION WORKSHOP (2) 22-4170-4110 1/25/00 1/25/00 2&0.O0 JRNL-CD ............ 1010 NORTH SUbURbAN MUTUAL AID VENDO~ ~OTAL 2&0.00 N3685 000110 4,375.00 2000 SOFTWARE S~PPOR'T .... 01-4095-3800 1/25/00 1/25/00 4,375.00 JRNL-CD 10iO NATIONAL INDEPENDENT BILLI VENDOR TOTAL 4575.00 PAGE 8 P U R C N A S E AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT D~SCRIPTION JOURNAL ACCOUNT NUMBER ~-~'~i oo~o3 1/25/00 1/25/00 ~'ATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V~DO~ IoTA~ N3762 991206 1/25/0'0 '1/25/00 NORTH STAR CHAPTER OF ICBO VENDOR TOTAL N3810 3002600 1/25/00 1/25/00. NORTHERN WATER WORKS SUPPL VENDOR TOTAL ---5387'0- 087195~71-00 1/25/00 1125/00 ..... 087183~46'01 1125/00 11251OO -"~FF~'c~ DEPOT -- VE~O~- TOTAL 03890 991229 __.OLEXA, ROBERT. P3957 1674720 PAM cOmPANIES P4000 32389863 _~E~SI-COLA COMPANY P4021 569214 569215 1125100 1/25/00 849.00 JRNL-CD !010 849.00 45.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP.DUES .......... 01-4190-4130 - 45.00 JRNL-CD 1010 45.00 363.65 1" METERS 73-7300-2300 363.65 JRNL-CD ..... lOlO 363.65 - 239.i6 "~iLE CABINET 5-DRAWER ~3~.16 J~NL-CD ' ' 6.~'0 ~'E ~ I'L~' '-0~ ~-~'~-- ~U~'P C I E s 6.]0 JRNL-CD 245.46 75..O~___REIMBURSEMENT_CASE_#9~2B. 75.00 JRNL-CD _VENDOR TOTAL ....... ~5.00__ 1125/oo 22-4170-5000 1010 0i-4040-2200 1010 1125100 1/25/0~0 0!~2300.1014 101 65.72 WINSHIELD WASHER, FILTER, ETC 01-4280-2250 65.72__ WINSHI_ELD_WASHER, F.ILTERL_ETC_ ...... 73-7300-2250. 65.72 WINSHIELD WASHER, FILTER, ETC 7~-7800-0065 197.16 JRNL-CD lOlO 197.16 39.85 MIX ........ 7!-7100-9540 ..... 89.85 J~NL-CD 1010 VENDOR TOTAL .... 89.85 1/25/00 1/25/00 1125/00 1125/00 142.50 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 142.50_ JRNL-CD ............... 1010 1,354.60 WINE 71-7100-9520 1,354.60. JRNL~CD .......... ~010_ ~85.00 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 lOlO 885.00. JRNL-CD 571149 1/25/00 1/25/00 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS, * VENDOR TOTAL P4038 591864 1/25/00 1/25/00 592022 2382.10 686.30 CIGAR~ff~ ...... 71-7100-9550 686.30 JRNL-CD 1010 654.41 CIGARETTES .............. ~~'~Oo~'~ .... PAGE 9 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND VENDOR iNVOICE DUE HOLD PRE NO. INVOi'CE NM~R DATE DATE STATUS DESCRIPTION ' - ACCOUNT NdN~SN ~ 1/25/00 1/25/00 ...... JRNL-CD .................... 1010 . 26965 CIGARETTES 71-7100-9550 1/25/00 1125/00 JRNL-CD ...... lOlO 26964 CIGARS 71-7100-9550 1/25/00 1/25/00 JRNL-CD 1010 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING VENDOR TOTAL P4~10 ~61228 2000 MEMBERSHIP DiES ol-41so-cllO 1/25/00 1/25/00 3RNL-CD 1010 ~ROFESSIONAL LAW ENFDRCEME VENDOR TOTAL AMOU~T _ 891.28 __ 891.28 314.75 314.75 2546.74 50.00 50.00 50.00 54171 792888-00 71-7100-95!0 1/25/00 1/25/00 1010 .......... 793891T~0 2,368.65 LI@UOR 2,368.65 JRNL-CD 791176-00_ ............ _. 1,10.2.34_ WiNE ................ 71-7100-9520 1/25/00 1/25/00 1,102.34 JRNL-CD iOlO 302.49 302.49 794969-00 1,935.37_ LIQUOR ...... ?A-7~00-953-0_._ -i~25/06 -i>25)~ ' ' - 1,9~5.37 JRNL-CD iOi0 WINE~ JRNL-CD _.. 71~7.AOD-9.520__. 1010 794959-00 LIQUOR ...... 71. 7100- 9510 - i/~5i0o i/25/00 JRNL-CD 1010 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL REPAIR 1990 CHEV 1-TON i/25/00 1/25(00 _ JRNL-CD R4203 6191 R & S COLLISION SERVlCES,$ VENDOR TOTAL 1125/00 1125/00 . . _ R4240 17&951 I79830 - -REMEDY STAFFING R4290 54512 1/25/00 1/25/00 VENDOR TOTAL 1/25/00 1/25/00 VENDOR TOTAL 1/25/00_ 1/25/00 1,349.21 1,349.2i 7058.06 .... 194.32 194.32 194.32 538.24 68.00 606.24 136.00 269.12 399.50 ~04.~2 1410.86 147.48 MISCELLANEOUS I47.48 JRNL-CD I47.48 20.00 JAN,FEB,MAR,200 _.20.00 JRNL-CD THRU'0Z-0220~ SECrETArIAL THRU 01-02-00 SECRETARIAL JRNL-CD ....... THRU 01-09-00 SECRETARIAL THRU 01-09-00 SECRETARIAL THRU 01-09-00 SECqETA~IAL J~NL-CD FAMILIES FUND RON'S ICE COHPANY R4300 000101 01-&340-3810 ...... 1010 01-&l~0-3iO0 01-419C-3i00 1010 .01-4190-3100 01-4190-3100 01-~190-3100 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 01-4140-4120 1010 PAGE 10 AP-C02-01 _VENDOR 1NVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS PURCHASE CITY OF HOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION J 0 U R M A L ACCOUNT NUMBER _ROTARY CLUB OF MOUND VENDOR TOTAL _ ._ 20.00 54349 2013441 1125/00 1125/00 62.80 RIM ___ 62.80 JRNL-CD 01-4340-3820 1010 SCHARBER & SONS VENDOR TOTAL 62.80 '~4404 83183667 '- 705.03 2000 ANNUAL sERVICE AGREEMENT 1/25/00 1/25/00 705.03 JRNL-CD -S'IMPLEX TIME RECORDER coM~ VEN'D~R TOTA~ ....... ~o~'[o~ .......................... 01-4320-3800 loIO ..54433 000112 1/25/00 1/25/00 40.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP DUES (4) 40.00 JRNL-CD 01-4140-4130 1010 SOUTUERN POLICE INSTITUTE VENDOR TOTAL _ 40.00 S4448 000131 i/25/0~ _1/25/00 240.00 JAN 2000 KENNEL FEES 01-4140-4270 240.00.. JRNL-CD .................................... 1010 .... SPORTING BREED KENNELS VENDOR TOTAL 240.00 54600 145921.1 17.78 -2" HOOK/LOOP FASTENING TAPE 73-7300-2310 17.78 2" HOOK/LOOP FASTENING TAPE 78-7800-2310 1/25/0.0 1/25/00 ...... 35.56_ JRNL.CQ ...................... 10. L STREICHER'S VENDOR TOTAL -S~10 ~27196 1/25/00 1/25/00 'S~URBAN TIRE COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 35.56 62.49 TURF SAVER (2) 01-4340-3820 62.49 JRNL-CD lOiO 62.L~ ........................................ T4703 991221 1/25100 1/25/00 25.00 _ TRANW£B.WESSI~E_PUBLICATION_ 25.00 JRNL-CD _01,432.0r3100 .... 1010 ]-CHEK SYSTEMS LLC VENDOR TOTAL 25.00 T~?70 182199 36.30 MI SCELLANEOUS 1/25/00 1(2510.0_ .............. 36.OQ__JRNL~CD .................. 71-7100-9550 ................. 10.10 .__ 182200 1/25/00 1/25/00 2,230 .iO BEER 2,230.10 JR NL-CD 71-7100-9530 1010 154057 1/25/00 1/25/00 306.50 BEER 306.50 JRNL-CD __. 71-7100-9530 ............. 1010 154557 1/25/00 1/25/00 16.50 BE£R 71-7100-9530 16.50 JRNL-CD 1010 152703 1/25/00 1/25/00 12.10 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 12.10 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9550 1010 182704 1/25100 1/25/00 2,942.35 BEER 2,942.35 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9530 1010 PAGE 11 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND TIME SAVER OFF SITE f4965 234895 fH~S~N LAGERQUIST 985 237836-0 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NKSR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT 183259 3,896.65 1/25/00 1/25/00 3,896.65 183258 24.20 i/25/00 1/25/00 24.20 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN VENDOR TOTAL 9464.70 T4790 10164i 524.58 1/25/00 1/25/00 524.58 THURK BROS CHEVROLET VENDUR TOTAL 524.58 T4808 12326 265.25 142.13 1/25/00 1/25/00 407.38 SECRE= VENDOR TOTAL 407.38 147.92 i/25/oo i/25/oo 147.92 ELEVATO VENDOR 'TOTAL - - 14~.9~ - ' 2.07 2.07 2.07 .................. 2.07____ 237817-0 238196-0 239059-0 1/25/00_ 1/25/00. 2.07 .69 1.04 1.05 1_3 · ~2 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NuMbER ~EER ............... 71-7100-9530 JRNL-CD 1010 MISCELLANEOUS .... Zi-7100-9550 . JRNL-CD lOlO MOUNT AND WIRE WARNING LIGHT 01-4280-5000 JRNL-CD .............................. 1010 PR 01-i0-00 ~LANNING COM"ISSIUN 01-4190-4200 01-ii-00 COUNCIL HEETI~,G 01-c020-4200 JRNL-CD ............... 1010 ELEVATOR SERVICE 01-4320-4200 1010 J~N 2~-C JRNL-¢D OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES O~EiC_LS~EPLiES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFF]CLSUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES JRNL-CD OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES. OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES ......................... 01-4040-2_2.0_0 ......... 01-4090-2200 01-4140-2200 ....... 01-4190-220D ....... 01-4340-2200 01-4280-2200 .. .... 71-7100-2200 73-7300-2200 78-7800-2200 .......................... 1010 .... 01-4040-2200 _. _ 01-4090-2200 01-4190-2200 01-4190-2200 1/25/00 1/25/00 1125/00 3.32 1.11 1.11 1.66 1.63 193.81 29.27. 245.21 OFFICE._SUPPLI£5 ................ OlrA340~220Q ....... OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4280-2200 OFFICE SUPPLIES 71-7100-2200 OFFICE SUPPLIES ................ 73-7300-2200 OFFICE SUPPLIES 78-7800-2200 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2200 _IN,JET. SUPPLi[~ ....................... 0~-~190-2200 ........ JRNL-CD lOlO 25.03 CARLENDAR REFILL 01-4190-2200 25.03 JRNL-CD 1010 9.59 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4040-2200 9.59 OFFICE SUPPLIES 02-4090-2200 9.59 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-2200 9.59 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2200 9.59 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0!-4340-2200 PAGE 12 AP-C02-O1 _VENDOR NO. I,~VOICE NMBR T~IN CITY OFFICE U5ioi oooii3 UNITED WAY FIRST U5i30 99ii22 991122-B UNIVERSITY OF MN U5131 C0004074 UNIVERSITY OF W5492 000101 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R CITY OF MOUND N A L INVOICE DUE HOLD .... . DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTIDN ACCOUNT NUMBER .................... 3.20 OFFICE SUPPLIES ...... 01-4280-2200-. 3.20 OFFICE SUPPLIES 71-7100-2200 4.80 OFFICE SUPPLIES 73-7300-2200 ........ 4.80 ~ OFFICE SUPPLIES _ - 78-7800-2200 138.27 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-2200 2?.29 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2200 1/25/00 1/25/00 229.51 JRNL-CD . 1010 SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL 513.57 60.~0 DIRECTORy FIRST CALL FOR HELP 01-4140-4170 1/25/00 1/25/00 60.00 JRNL-CD 1010 CALL FOR~ VENDOR TOTAL 50.00 ....... 200.00_ REG_ISTRAT.ION/MEMBERSmIP - - 0i-4140-4110 - 1/25/00 1/25/00 200.00 JRNL-CD 1010 ............. 200.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP DUES _ 01-4140-4i30 1/25/00 1/25/00 200.00 JRNL-CD iOlO WISCONSIN 1/25/00 ~EST METRO BUILDING MAINT. Y5040 509459434189 1/25/00 1/25/00 YELLOW PAGES, INC. VENDOR TOTAL REGISTRAR VENDOR TOTAL ........ 400.00 ........................................................ 235.00 REGISTRATION 01-4140-4110 1/25/00 1/25/00 ........ 23.5.00. JRNL-CD VENDOR TOTAL 235.00 1,~26.00 JAN 2000 CONTRACT CLEANING 01-4320-4210 91.33 JAN 2000 CONTRACT CLEANING 01-~280-4200 91.33 JAN 2000 CONTRACT CLEANING ..... 73,730.0r4200_ 91.34 JAN 2000 CONTRACT CLEANING 78-7800-4200 i/25/00 1,400.00 JRNL-CD 1010 VENDOR TOTAL 1400.0'0 ...................................................... 177.00 DIRECTDRy LISTING FO~M .... 22-4170-4130 177.00 JRNL-CD 1010 177.00 TOTAL ALL VENDORS 120,059.58 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 January 21, 2000 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor/City Council ~~~ Jim Fackler, Park Director Commissioner Vacancy for th?~CAC The DCAC at the January 20, 2000 meeting interviewed two applicants for the upcoming vacancy on the commission (Letters of application attached). The DCAC recommends that Mr. Gerald Jones be approved by the City Council to the position and that his term begin March 1, 2000. printed on recycled paper Gerald P. Jones 6038 Chestnut Road Mound, Mn 55364 (6x2) 472-7946 Janua~' 6, 2000 City. of Mound Attn: Francene Clark Acting City. blanager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, bin 55364 Dear bls. Clark, I would like to submit my name for the vacancy on the Dock and Commons Advisory. Commission for the City of Mound. As a long time boater, and presently a licensed dock holder, I feel the current program is very. important to all the boating people of Mound. My qualifications would be a great asset to this committee. I look for~vard to hearing from you to set up a time for an interview to fill this vacancy. Thanking you in advance for your consideration of my name for this position. Sincerely, Gerald P. Jones December 28, 1999 Jim Fackler City of Mound 5341 May~vood Rd Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Fackler: I am applying for the opening on the Docks Commission. ! fee! I am able to brS.'ng skill and experience and am interested in your consideration for the volunteer position. I am a user of the commons docks system and have been since 1984. Currently, I am considered a non-abutter. We e,"5oy using the commons at Avalon park which became a multiple dock system in the surnmer of 1998. The dock holders have worked closely together with the lakeshore o~vners, other non-abutters and other neighbors not participating in the pro,am to enhance our small communities enjoF~.ent of this feature of our neighborhood. I know' we have become a good example of how this Commons Dock pro,am can work well in a neighborhood allowing everyone enjoyment of the park, shoreline and lake. I have experience with the City of Mound. I participated on the Docks and Open Space Commission for 6 years, 2 of which I chaired. During that tenure I also provided a liaison role to the Economic Development Commission. I enjoyed working with the City of Mound in the capacity of a commissioner but needed to leave due to changing job responsibilities. Currently, I am the nurse manager for Ridgeview Home Care Services. I supervise 22 nurses who provide home care services to 540 patients. I manage the 2 million dollar budget within a veu, complex reimbursement system mandated by strict regulator'2' guidelines. The skills I have honed within my management position can be put to good complimentary use by ser~'ing on the Docks Commission. Please consider me as an applicant fcr the opening on the Dcclr Ccn'~-nissicn. Sincerely, Carolyn Schmidt 3001 Islandview Drive Mound, MN' 55364 home: 472-5996 work: 442-6009 January 25, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 2000- RESOLUTION APPOINTING LEAH WEYCKER TO THE PARK COMMISSION (POSC); BOB BROWN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION; BOB BROEN TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (EDC); AND MARK HANUS TO THE DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION (OCAC) AS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES FOR 2000 BE IT RESOLVED, ~hm the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby appoint the following Councilmembers as Council Representatives to the following City Commissions for 2000. Leah Weyckerto the Park Commission Bob Brownto the Planning Commission Bob Brown to the Economic Development Commission Mark Hanus to the Dock & Commons Advisory Commission The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember by Councilmember and seconded The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Jnnunry 19,2000 PROPOSED RESOLUTION # 00-__ RESOLUTION TO DENY FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, LOT AREA, AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES FOR REMODELING AND ADDITIONS TO THE RESIDENCE AT 4849 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 3, BLOCK 14, DEVON, PID # 25-117-24 11 0036 P & Z CASE #99-47 WHEREAS, the applicant, has requested variances to remodel and add to the existing residence at 4849 Island View Drive. The associated variances are as follows: Existing/Proposed Reauired Variance Front Yard 1.5 feet 20 feet 18.5 feet Side Yard 2 feet 6 feet 4 feet Side Yard 3.4 feet 6 feet 2.6 feet Lot Area 4000 sq. ft. 6000 sq. ft. 2000 sq. ft. Hardcover 2046.72 sq. ft 1600 sq. ft. 446.72 sq. ft. ;and, WHEREAS, the property is located within an R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires standards as indicated above; and, WHEREAS, the existing home is a one story structure and as proposed, the request would allow the conversion to a two story structure with an attached 2 stall side entry garage and a lakeside deck; and, WHEREAS, the proposed lakeside deck is cantilevered over a sanitary sewer easement; and, WHEREAS, hardcover will increase from 49 to 51 percent as proposed; and, WHEREAS, the garage door is 15 feet from the side yard line which would not provide for an adequate turning radius for vehicle circulation without utilizing the neighboring driveway to the west; and, WHEREAS, a 1.5 feet front yard setback is not adequate to allow for snow removal; and, WHEREAS, the small side yard setbacks do not promote good drainage and could cause grading and drainage problems; and, Janua~ 19,2000 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended that the Council deny the variance as requested by the applicant; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby deny the variance. 2. This variance is denied for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 3, BLOCK 14, DEVON, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes, January 10,2000 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orr Burma, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Absent and excused: Commissioner Becky Glister, Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle, Commissioner Michael Mueller, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jori Sutherland, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following public ware present: John Beise, Steve Coddon, Stacy Goldberg, Stephen L. Hewitt, Dennis Kasin, Stephen Krause, Mick Mueller, Peter C. Meyer, Roberta Rice, Mike Schoephoerster, Scott Spanjers. Chair Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. CASE 99-47: VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT WILL RESULT IN NON-CONFORMING SETBACKS; STEPHEN L. HEWITT, 4849 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 14, LOT 3, DEVON, 37870, PID # 25-117-24-11-0036. The applicant requested variances to remodel and add to the existing residence at 4849 Island View Drive. The associated variances are as follows: Existin.q/Proposed Re(]uired Vadance Front Yard 1.5 feet 20 feet 18.5 feet Side Yard 2 feet 6 feet 4 feet Side Yard 3.4 feet 6 feet 2.6 feet Lot Area 4000 sq. ft. 6000 sq. ft. 2000 sq. ft. Hardcover 2046.72 sq. ft 1600 sq. ff. 446.72 sq. ft. The proposal will essentially provide a new home for the property using the existing foundation. The project will turn the home into a two story house with an attached 2 stall side entry garage. The existing side setbacks of the house remain essentially the same. The added garage will require the large front yard variance. Lakeside setbacks as proposed meet requirements. Hardcover will increase slightly from 49 to 51 percent. The lakeside deck is cantilevered and encroaches into the sanitary sewer easement. Staff would recommend the plans be modified to eliminate this encroachment or put a hold harmless agreement in place in the event that digging needed to occur in the easement adjacent to the house. The driveway is not long enough east/west to accommodate the turning radius of a typical vehicle. This will result in the sharing of the adjacent driveway to the DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Plannincl Commission Minutes, January 10,2000 west. Although the current owners may be amenable to this now, the situation could change. One way to accommodate the proposal is to secure an easement over each property to accommodate vehicle turning. Due to the narrow width of Island View Drive, it may be in the City's interest to pursue this arrangement to prevent multiple turning movements on the roadway. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following condition: 1. Grading and drainage plans be approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. 2. A driveway access easement be secured for the property and the adjacent driveway to the west. 3. A hold harmless agreement be secured if the lakeside deck is allowed to encroach into the sanitary sewer easement. Voss asked how does this addition differ from proposed plans in 1995. Sutherland stated this plan is more intense and did not have anything over the easement. The depth of the garage was smaller as well. Voss asked if this plan would have appropriate hardcover requirements. Gordon stated the hardcover would go below the 30 percent if the commons portion were included for hardcover purposes. Weiland asked because the applicant is changing over 50 percent of the valuation of the building, does this require the applicant to bring his property up to code. Gordon stated he does not have to because he is asking for the variance. Weiland stated if the applicant takes down the house, is the applicant required to conform to all of the City codes. Sutherland stated technically "yes," but the variance is covering this problem. Weiland stated the applicant also would then conform to the side yards with this variance. Voss asked how could we be assured the basement would support the new building. Sutherland stated the applicant could get into replacing the basement when he is in the process of reconstructing the house. He stated this situation ha~ happened in the past with the neighbor across the street. Voss asked if there was a need for a new foundation, would the applicant now have to comply to the City codes and setbacks that exist. Sutherland stated the applicant would have to conform to the setbacks. Sutherland stated the previous variance for denial was three feet instead of the two feet on this variance case. Sutherland stated the applicant is proposing a dock storage platform. Staff recommends approximately a 6 x 10 feet on the DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Plannin.q Commission Minutes, January 10,2000 lower level. The applicant agreed and stated would like the platform by the Devons Common location. Voss asked where the snow would go through the winter months. He stated having only I 1/2 feet from the roadway would not allow much room for snow cleanup and snow removal. Burma agreed with this statement. Burma stated with the position of the new garage, there does not appear to be enough room to turn around onto the street in a safe manner. He stated he does realize there are other homes on Island View that have this scenario, but does the City of Mound want to keep adding to this type of problem by allowing this type of variance. Voss stated in 1995 the Planning Commission denied the variance request from the applicant, although the City Council approved it. He stated there is not a huge difference from then and now. Suthefland stated this plan by the applicant tonight appeared to have more of an encroachment than the previous variance. Voss stated the Planning Commission cannot deny because of previous 1995 approval. He stated he does not like it, but states we really cannot deny it. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Chair Michael, to approve the variance according to staff recommendations. Discussion. Burma stated this is an advisory body and to base our advice on what the City Council did before would not be appropriate. Burma stated we have to handle each case separately and recommend what we think on each case. He stated if the City Council changes the Planning Commission's recommendation, then that is their choice. Weiland stated this proposal would be removing over 50 percent of the house which he would recommend having the applicant bring the building up to code. He stated there is much overuse of the property. Weiland stated he does not like seeing the use of other people's property for a person's enjoyment. He stated he further cannot see having a snow plow coming through and cleaning the road properly. He would not consider this plan for this property. Voss stated he would not argue this and it is a small piece of property and will always needs variances on all three sides. He stated the applicant could come in and take out the foundation and start new, but he will still need a variance to acquire an adequate garage. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Plannin.a Commission Minutes, January 10,2000 Stephen L. Hewitt, 4849 Island View Drive. Mr. Hewitt stated it is a tough site. He stated he understood this scenario when he bought the house in 1995. He weighed his decision on buying the house because of variances approved in prior years. Mr. Hewitt stated he does not see a problem with the garage being so close regarding snow removal according to neighbors. He stated the removal cannot be put where the garage is now because that is where he puts his car currently. The applicant stated the sewer line limits where to put the house, and would like the house further away; although, the plan of driving in from the side of the garage appears in his eyes as a good plan. He stated if he would try to put the garage back into the house more, this would take away much of the first level of the house. He stated he did not want to go to a three-story house because of the look it would leave. He stated he would build up to code. He stated if the foundation is not strong enough to hold the proposed addition, this would have to be changed. The applicant further understands the deck situation regarding the cantilever would have to be worked out with the public works people. Voss stated he would be more supportive of the applicant's plan if he did not have a single standing garage. Mr. Hewitt stated he would like to build an attached garage but with the sewer line in the back, this would limit the use of the property to its full potential. He stated his neighbor does not see a problem with sharing the driveway. Hasse stated the applicant's garage on the east side has a two foot overhang on the garage and when it rains, does he understand the runoff will go onto his neighbor's property. Hasse stated even if a gutter is installed, there would be a water problem. Voss stated Hasse's concern would be dealt with by the City Engineer according to staff recommendations. Stacy Goldberg, 4853 Island View Drive. She is the applicant's neighbor with the garage on the street. That stated this is not a problem as far as she is aware. Secondly, she has had no problems with Mr. Hewitt and feels he is a great neighbor. She stated she is very happy about him rebuilding his house. Ms. Goldberg stated she has no problem with sharing a driveway as well. She stated if the two parties ever decide to sell, then it would have to be noted in the appropriate purchase papers so that the new owners understand the agreement of having a shared driveway. She stated if you choose to live on Island View Drive you need to adjust to tight corners. She is very excited about a new house going up which would benefit her as well as her neighbors. Ms. Goldberg stated she was given permission to have the garage one foot off the road and she does not see any problem with the neighbor having his garage the same way. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes, January 10,;~000 Chair Michael asked staff if the City of Mound has ever considered the I~land view area to have its own makeup of zoning rules. If that would ever be a consideration, Chair Michael would consider approving this case. On the other hand, if the Planning Commission is considering this case on the merits of the Comprehensive Plan that has been recently thoroughly reviewed by the Planning Commission, then he does not feel there is anyway this case would be passed with those rules in mind. Gordon stated Chair Michael's suggestion may need to be looked at further with a review of the City codes and the Comprehensive Plan. Burma stated he commends the neighbors for the shared driveway efforts. Although, there is precedence where neighbors do not share their driveways and do not want anything to do with that concept. Voss stated this is a great opportunity to improve the property and the value of the property by having both property owners share the easement. Weiland stated his opposition is not the problem regarding the shared driveway. He is concerned about the side yards being so narrow causing drainage problems. MOTION DENIED. Voss voting aye; Hasse, Weiland, Burma and Michael voting nay. Chair Michael stated the Planning Commission has spent almost six months updating the Comprehensive Plan and we cannot pass this case according to the updates in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Weiland stated he would approve this case if the applicant would remove the side walls of the basement, thus bringing in the side yard setbacks which with conform to City code. Weiland would also like to see an easement approved for the shared driveways. MOTION by Weiland, second by Voss, to accept the variance request according to staff recommendations with all side yard conforming setbacks and platform size of 7 x 10 maximum of 150 square feet. Discussion. Sutherland stated the public works department of the City of Mound does not support any encroachment over the sewer and water easement. Staff would not support an encroachment with a hold harmless agreement. Burma stated the new motion does not support any change. He stated his main concern is the garage which he sees the problem of a blind spot on the driveway and the overhang over the side of the wall. Burma stated the new motion should be improved. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Plannin.Q Commission Minutes, January 10,2000 Hasse stated the motion mentioning the 7 x 10 maximum of 150 square foot platform is not the Planning Commission's right to vote. Sutherland stated there is another voting requirement besides tonight's decision and the Planning Commission does have the right to vote because it involves zoning even though this is on the commons. MOTION DENIED. Voss and Weiland voting aye; Burma, Hasse, and Michael voting nay. MOTION by Michael, second by Hasse, to move for denial of the variance request. MOTION CARRIED. Burma, Hasse, Weiland and Michael voting aye; Voss voting nay. Chair Michael stated this was a difficult case and it will be heard by the City Council on January 25, 2000. Chair Michael recommended the applicant to attend. Furthermore, Chair Michael stated the City Council has the assistance of legal counsel to help decide the applicant's case. 612-3386838 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 616 P06 JAN 05 '00 11:21 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: January 10, 1999 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Stephen Hewin OWNER: same CASE NUMBER: 99-47 ItKG FILE NUMBER: 99-05 LOCATION: 4849 Island View Drive EXISTING ZONING: One Family Residential (R-lA) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting a variances to remodel and add to the existing residence at 4849 Island View Drive. The associated variances are as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 1.5 feet 20 feet 18.5 feet Side Yard 2 feet 6 feet 4 feet Side Yard 3.4 feet 6 feet 2.6 feet Lot Area 4000 sq. ft. 6000 sq. ft. 2000 sq. ft. Hardcover 2046.72 sq. ft 1600 sq. ft. 446.72 sq. ft. The proposal will essentially provide a new home for the property using the existing foundation. The project will turn the home into a two story house with an attached 2 stall side entry garage. The existing side setbacks of the house remain essentially the same. The added garage will require the large front yard variance. Lakeside setbacks as proposed meet requirements. Hardcover will increase slightly from 49 to 51 percent. The lakeside deck is cantilevered and encroaches into the sanitary sewer easement. Staff would recommend the plans be modified to eliminate this encroachment or put a hold harmless agreement in place in the event that digging needed to occur in the easement adjacent to the house. Thc driveway is not long enough east/west to accommodate the turning radius of a typical vehicle. 123 North Third Sn'~et, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 335-6838 61~-3386838 HOISINGTON KOEGLER G16 PO? ~AN 05 '00 11:21 p. 2 #97-$9- 2552 DrO~wood Lant April 12, 1999 This will result in the sharing of thc adjacent driveway to the west. Although thc currem owners may be amenable to this now, the situation could change. One way to accommodate the proposal is to secur~ an easement over each property to accommodate vehicle turning. Due to the narrow width of Island View Drive, it may be in the City's interest to pursue this arra~¢mcnt to prevent multiple turning movements on the roadway. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommcncls the Planning Commission reco~end Council approval of the variance as rexluested with the following condition: 1. Grading and cltainage plans be approv~ by the City Engin~r prior to building permit issuance. 2. A driveway access eas~ment be secured for the property and the adjacent driveway to thc 123 North Third Sireet, Suite 100, Minn~.apolis, Minncsola 5.5401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 33~6838 Engineering Planning Surveying McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. RECEIVED MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 4, 2000 Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer Variance Case #99-47 4849 Island View Drive MFRA #12748 As requested, we have reviewed the subject variance request and have the following comments and/or recommendations: 1. The survey submitted with the application does not have any elevations shown, either existing or proposed; therefore it is impossible to determine how' the proposed house will fit the contour of this small lot. 2. The survey shows a proposed deck that encroaches into an easement for the City's sanitary sewer. The existing manhole is not shown but it appears to be only about six feet from a deck support post. The sewer main through this lot appears to be 8 to 11 feet deep which would make excavation very- difficult if any repairs to the main or manhole should become necessary. 'Arc would not recommend thc city ~tiluw thi, encroachment vcil4~vdt some type-6'l~'ho-0qd-~ -harmless agrcemc,ts aild thc ap-p~oval of Public Works. cc: Greg Skinner, Mound Public Works Loren Gordon, HKG s :\main: ,mfra:\misc :\memo 1-3 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth Minnesota · 55447 phone 612,476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra.com VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Mm/wood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROFERTY OWNER Lot Block Subdivision PID# ZONING DISTRICT Name City Planner City Engineer Public Works Address Phone (H) R-1 ('R-1A.,,J R-2 R-3 PAID DLL; 1 ? 1999 CiTY OF MOUND Application Fee: $100.00 Other B-1 Plat # B-2 B-3 (M) APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) OWNER) IW) IM) 1. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ])(~yes, ( ! no. ff yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Varia~-e Application, P. 2 Do the existing structures comply with a.ll~area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use {describe mason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REOUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: I~S E~.W) ,20 ft. I-~' ft. /C~t. 5 ft. Side Yard: ( N S~)~) ~o ft. ~ ~. ~ ff. Side Yard: ( N S E~) ~. ~,~ ~. ~O, ~ ~. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ff. fl. fl. ~keside: ( N~E W ) k. ~. ft. : (NSEW) ~. ~. ff. St~t Frontage: ~. ~ ~. ~. Lot Size: SCl ft /,~/00(:~ sq ft sq ft Hardcover: ,/~:~0 sq ft / ~I~,_~0 sq ft '~LO sq ft Does the present use of the property co~form to all regumations Tor the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use: 5. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? Please (~_' too narrow (~. too small ~ too shallow describe: N/)~'~(k,J topography ( ) soil drainage ( ) existing situation shape ( ) other: specify Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes ( }, No }i~': ff yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ~, No (). If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? i certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature PAiD CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS {IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) L~r_c ! ? 1999 O[TY OF MOUND II OWNER'S NAME: .~ TE P H ¢_ ~ L. ~ E u~ ITT- LOT AREA /-//0o0 SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA /-//~c~ S(~ FT. X 40~ = {for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .. I I *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see beck). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT 35.2' x ~'.~, f-- /oo¢. X = DETACHED BLDGS IGARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. ?PrT [ 0 DECKS Open deck~ 1~14' min. opening between boar~l with · perviou~ eu~face u~r ~ not ~un~ ~ ~ovM OTHER X ~ TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. It / X '5'0 / = "~7~O ~' x ~,~/ TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X X X TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER /o'-/0 .o0 TOTAL HARDCOVER I IMPERVIOUS SURFACE rm~,'.~ ~. UAHDARELL~ Land 3urveyor, inc. (612) 941-3031 6440 Flying Cloud Drive Land Surveyor Eden PraJde, MN 55344 Certificate of Survey. Survey For Stephen Hewitt 4849 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 ~,~.~... 'r: £ , .i~FO...~ L~,~E. Scale: '1"=20' Denotes Proposed Post for Cantilever Deck Centerline Sanitary Sewer? Doc. No.778237 Book Proposed Platform 7'x14' ...... Page File ISLAND VIEW DRIVE Proposed New House & Garage .f ~.~'"~ to be Removed 4 ~, ~'La-ke Setback Line '~ Devon Commons I~ ~4 1 LAKE MINNETON~ ~Z~,~ "~ / ,~..~.~m.,m,.,..,~...~....~.~..~,-~.....~-~.~..~,..~ I nf 3, Bl k. 14, Devon ~ ! - '~'< I~rank R. Cardarelle ~/_., State Reg. No. 6508 ., .? A p~rl~%ual eaguuen~ 20 ~ee~ ~n v~h ~ '~ ~e_npOx~r~ enseuent 30 ~',o,~ o! . R~....~....~.~k*ta ...... ~ :';':'-L'--:'. :,' :', / RESOLI ION 19545 RF.,SOLIYrlON TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCES AND & BARDCOV'I~ YARIANC~ TO ~OW CO~U~ON OF ~D~ONS AT ~9 ~ ~W D~ LOT 3, BLO~ 14, D~ON, ~ ~117-~ 11 ~ WI:liaR&S, the own=, Doug Smith, and the applicant, run Koch, have appli~ for a varianc~ to r=cognize the existing nonconforming s~backs and hardcover as listed below, in order to con.~uct an attached garage and a second awry addition on the hou.~ VARIANCES { EXISTING [PROPOSED j REQUIPWB {VARIANCE FRONT 18' 1' ~10' 19' SIDE ('EAST) .~ 3' SIDE O/g'ES~ 3.4' 3.4' 6' 2.6' HARDCOVER 2,071 SF 1,941/SF 1,600 SF 348 SF 72% 49% 405 9% ~, the subject property is located within the R-iA Single Family P.~dential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, a 15 foot rear yard setback, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and; ~AS, the applicant's original request was for a 3 foot front yard setback, however when the applicant realized that in order to have a two caz garage he needed a 1 foot front yard setback, and a one car garage is riot functional, and; WKEREAS, although the proposed garage h nonconforming m the required 20 foot front and 6 foot side yard setbacks, there does appear to be hardship and Practical ilifficulry with this site: 1) The property has limited access and side yard area due to the location of the dwelling. 2) There is a City utility easement on thc lakeside that Emits the buildable footprint. 3) There is no other reasonable location for a gm-age. W~E~S, this pr~po~ repre~m~ ~ impmvemmt to the properS; ~e amount of cover, ~he/mp~'t ~ ~ lal~, and ~.e ~ and function of the ~w~.~t~, ~ WI~/~.AS, the CiW ~ k/,~ically ,~mpted to f~-/.Iime the con~r~:~on of ~, and in thi~ ~imation the ~bslanfial variance ~ the only pm~cal solution W accommodate a ~e, and; W~) the Ck%, lm~ approv~ var~ce~ for other gaffes that have ~fl~ack to thc ~===t, undo' ~imilar r~U'i~dvc ail= cond/fion~, and; WKERF_AS, four deck~ are ~own on ~e survey, a~ follows: Deck A: May be setback 2 feet ..'=rom the ~ line if it is reduced in size to 32 square feet or less. De~k B: At second level on 1,1~-~ide of house, is conforming to setbac~ with the exception of ~e we~ fide which follows the exit/rig line of the dwelling. Deck C: At first level on lakedde of house, planned W be removed. D~ck D: Detached from house at lakedde, phnned to be removed. WI~XE~, the second story addition will follow the existing footprint of the house, and; W'I~RF~S, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended denial. NOW, TH'FR~ EFORE, BE IT I~I;-qOLVED, by the City Council of &e CiF of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City Council does hereby grant the variances as listed below to allow construction of a second story addition and gaxage addition as shown on the survey dated "Rev. March 16, 1995" (with the exception ~ the garage addition will be located 1 foot from the front ptop,.sty line), attached as Extxibit 'A'. Approval is conditioned on the following: A. Deck~ "C" and "D" must be removed. Deck "A" shall be removed or reduced in size w 32 ~:luare feet or ~ ~n order tn allow a 2 foot side yard setback. e The Cit7 Council authoziz~ the alter~oas set forth below, pursuant to Section 3:~0:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinanc= with the clear and expre~ undezzta~ding ti:az the use remains as ~ lawful, non~onfor~ning use, subject m all of the provisions and r~rictions of S~c~ion 3:5~:420. It ~s dem'mined th~ the livabilky of ~e m~idential prvpewy w~l be knproved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconform/ug use of :he property :o afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Co--on of a second story adddl/on that will follow the ~_xisl/ng footprint of the house, and a 20' x 20' (+/-) ga:age addil/on. This varianc: h gran~/for the following L-,g'ally described pro.retry: Lot 3, Block i~, Devon. This variance shMi be r~ord~ with the County h~corder or the l:lu~trar of T'itl~s in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota Smr~ Stara~, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). Th/s ~I1 be considered ~ restrict/on on how ~his property may be used. The prope:ty owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolul/on 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 h~s b~--n filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolufion was moved by Councilmember Jensen, 'and seconded by Councilmember ~'essen. The following Counc/lmemben voted in the affirmative: tlanus, Ahr~ns, Jensen, and Polston. The following Councilmembers vot~l in the negative: none. Mayor Al:l~.st: City Manager FRANK R. CARDARELLE (612) 941-3031 Exhibit 'A', ResoIutlon #95-~ Survey For Certificate of Survey Doua Smith Book Page 4849 Island View Drive Mound, MN Land Surveyor Eden Pr~de, MN 55344 Scale: 1"=20' ISLAND O. ' 2 - STORY ~ HOUSE ~.x , 0 vIEW ~ DRIVE 80 OO,' ~''''' ~'''''''' · , -- ' -. x ~7. ~ . , . ~.. I to be re i DE',/0 N 80.OO ..... COMMONS' Fie No. I hef~)f c~xlJfy thai this is I true ~ cocre~t representation of I a~J~v~y of CMARS ~, t~,,~,~, o~ th. ~ d.c.~,~ ~,~ .,~ o~ ~ ~ o~ ,m ~ D SU~E~, 1~ ' , ~. ~ ~ d ~ ~t,.,, ~.,,~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ 7 ¢~-~ G~IEL .,, ~ 18121 S59~ - 2 -.STOF HOUSE x ~4- 9.'7 MiNL~I'F_S - MOEiND CITY COU~C]~ - APRIL 11, 1995 1.4 CASE ~)5-11: ~ KOCH, a, ga9 ISLAN'I) VIEW DRIVE, LOT 3, BLOCK 1,~, DEVON, PID #25-117-24 11 0036, VARIANCE FOR .~DDITION. The Building Official explained that the applicant is ~king a variance to r~ognize the erdaring nonconforming setbacks and hardcover in order to construct an attached gm-age and a second story addition on the house. He r~pormd that although the proposed ga.rage is nonconforming to the required 20 foot front yard setback md 6 foot side yard setback, there dc~s appea.r to be hardship and practical difficulty with this site: The property has limitM access and side yard arq due to r.h¢ location of ~e dwelling. 2. Ther~ is a Clr/ufiliw, ~,~o-mmenr on We ia.kmside thg~. limi~ ~e 'ouii~bie focmr~m[. 3. There is no other reasonable Iocaffon for a =~=* The Planning Commission r~ommend~ denial of nhis request after much discussion. The Building Official explained that there are other cases similar to this, but they had additional boulevard betw~n the lot line and the s~'~t. There is a comparable ca~e right next door to this property. CouncLlmember Hanus stated that in his opinion the original proposal of a 3 foot setback from the strut would have been approved by the Planing Commission, but the applicant r~lized when he got to the m~ting that in order to have a two car gm-age he homed the I foot setback. The Council agreed that a one car gm-age is not functional. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jenson directing staff to prepare a resolution granting a variance [or the proposed garage with a I foot setback to Island View Drive and the conditions recommended by Staff. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD RCAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 5536,~-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX ~5121 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NC. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of March 27, 1995 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official .~ ~-, . Variance Request Jim Koch 95-11 4849 Island View Drive, Lot 3, E~lcck 14, Devon, FID #2_5-I ~7-2~ I ~ 00~6 R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming setbacks and hardcover as listed below, in order to construct an attached garage and a second story addition on the house. The second story addition will follow the existing footprint of the house. The garage is proposed to extend into a nonconforming location as noted on the survey. This is the second proposal reviewed by staff, the first proposal included a 16' x 24' addition on the lakeside which could not be constructed due to a City utility easement. The original proposal also had the garage doors facing the street (note Exhibits A and B). Shown on the house plan elevation is a deck off the second level (Deck "B), this deck is conforming to setbacks with the exception of the west side which follows the existing line of the dwelling. I EXISTING I PROPOSED I REQUIRED I VARIANCE FRONT 18' 3' 20' 17' SIDE EAST (DECK "A") 1' 3' 6' 3'** SIDE (WEST) 3.4' 3.4' 6' 2.6' HARDCOVER 2,071 SF 1,888 SF 1,600 SF 288 SF 72% 47% 40% 7% **If Deck "A" is reduced in size to 32 square feet, the required setback is 2 feet. l~rinted on recycled paper Staff Report 95-11, Koch Page 2 Although the proposed garage is nonconforming to the required 20 foot front and 6 foot side yard setbacks, there does appear to be hardship and practical difficulty with this site. 1 ) The property has limited access and side yard area due to the location of the dwelling. 2) There is a City utility easement on the lakeside that limits the buildable footprint. 3) There is no other reasonable location for a garage. The applicant states the nonconforming hardcover will be improved as a result of this request. I have reworked the original calculation sheet and clarified an approximate decrease of 183 square feet. Deci<s "C" and "D" as noted on the survey, are nonconforming and are pianned to be removed. The decks do not increase hardcover, however, they are nonconforming and add structure to this currently overdeveloped site. COMMENTS This proposal represents a substantial improvement to the property, and improves its nonconforming status. It is unlikely the nonconforming setback to the dwelling can be eliminated at this time. The amount of impervious surface cover, the impact to the lake, and the use and function of the property are all improved. The City has historically attempted to facilitate the construction of garages, and in this situation the substantial variance seems the only practical solution to accommodate a garage. The City has approved variances for other garages that have a similar setback to the street, under similar restrictive site conditions. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request to construct a second story and garage addition as shown on the survey dated "Rev. March 1 6, 1995 (Exhibit B to this report). This recommendation is conditioned on the removal of the hardcover and decks "C" and "D" as noted on the survey. A resolution of approval would incorporate the conditions as listed within this report. JS'pj ?'he abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on April 11, 1995. FRANK R. CARDARELLE (612) 941-3031 Land Surveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Certificate of Survey Survey For Doug Smith 4849 Island View Drive Mound, MN Book Page File Scale: 1"=20 ' (PHELPS BAY) DE ADDRESS: ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA: ~E~I~ED ST~E~ F~O~TA~E~IDTH: ~ ~ 40' qq EXIST. LOT AREA: SQ REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCI** ~U.LDING, .OUSE , FRONT(~ S E W Z O FRONT: N S J~ W SIDE: U S~ ~ / LAKESHOR~ ~(measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: ) ~ ~ ACCESSrC~Y BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT rN(~ E W "/2 FRONT: lq 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.) EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: 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: P, Or'..;... TOP OF BLUFF: /.~ "~/_ H/~_...C~,,ER CONFORMING? YES(NO~? IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YES(N~/? This Ge~r~Jral Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a po~i qu' ents outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 47~-0600. 0 C-30-mm St. Bonifacius/Minnetrista BEFORE THE OFFICE OF STRATEGIC AND LONG RANGE PLANNING OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Dean Barkley, Director IN THE MATTER OF THE MOTION TO ) INITIATE CONSOLIDATION PROCEEDINGS ) FOR THE CITIES OF ST. BONIFACIUS AND ) MINNETRISTA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA ) STATUTES 414 ) FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER AND MEMORANDUM The abovo ontitled matter came on for headng before the Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414 as amended, on July 28, 1999, at the St. Bonifacius Fire Station, St. Bonifacius, Minnesota. The hearing was conducted by Christine M. Scotillo, Executive Director of the Minnesota Municipal Board Office as designee of the Director of the Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.01, Subdivision 12,414.11 and 414.12. Also in attendance were Steve Palmer from the Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning. Desyl Peterson, Chair of the Consolidation Study Commission, represented the Consolidation Study Commission and presented its Report. Commission Members Gary Erickson, Gerry Elling and Jerry Thurk testified in support of the report. Mike Segner, consolidation Commission Member, presented a case in opposition to the Commission's Report. Testimony was heard and records and exhibits were received. All persons desidng to be heard were heard. Several members of the public gave comment for the record. After due and careful consideration of all evidence, together with all records, files and proceedings, the Director of the Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning hereby makes and -2- files the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, and Memorandum. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On March 3, 1997, the Municipal Board by its own motion pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sec. 414.041 subd. 1(c), initiated consolidation proceedings between the City of Minnetdsta, hereinafter referred to as "Minnetrista," and the City of St. Bonifacius, hereinafter referred to as "St. Bonifacius." 2. On August 5, 1997, the Municipal Board appointed the Consolidation Study Commission Chair, Desyl Peterson, Minnetonka City Attomey, who is not a resident of the affected cities, but who resides in Hennepin County; and the Consolidation Study Commission Members from a list of candidates submitted by each city pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sec. 414.041, subd. 2. 3. On November 21, 1997; July 10, 1998 and again on October 2, 1998, the Municipal Board appointed replacement members to the Consolidation Study Commission. 4. On June 4, 1999, the Municipal Board Office received the report of the Consolidation Study Commission which states, among other things, that it has studied the proposed consolidation, conducted public hearings, solicited public comments, considered the statuton/factors, and based thereon, recommends consolidation of Minnetdsta and St. Bonifacius into a new city named Minnetrista. The Commission's vote for consolidation was seventeen (17)in favor, one (1) against, and one (1) abstention. 5. Upon receipt of the Consolidation Study Commission Report, a hearing was held on July 28, 1999. Due, timely and adequate legal notice of the hearing was published, served, and filed. -3- 6. In 1990, Minnetrista had a population of approximately 3,439, and an estimated number of households of approximately 1,195. In 1996, Minnetdsta had a population of approximately 3,890, and an estimated number of households of approximately 1,368. Minnetrista is expected to have a population of approximately 4,250 in the year 2000 with 1,550 estimated households; and a population of approximately 5,500 in the year 2010 with 2,200 estimated households. 7. In 1990, St. Bonifacius had a population of approximately 1,180, and an estimated number of households of approximately 398. !n 1996, St. Bonifacius had a population of approximately 1,424, and an estimated number of households of approximately 495. St. Bonifacius is expected to have a population of approximately 1,900 in the year 2000 with 650 estimated households; and a population of approximately 2,350 in the year 2010 with 850 estimated households. 8. In 1998, Minnetfista had a population of approximately 4,093; and St. Bonifacius had a population of approximately 1,883; for a combined population of approximately 5,976. The combined population of the two cities is expected to increase by 25% in the year 2010 to approximately 7,987 with estimated combined households totals increasing to approximately 3,050. 9. Minnetrista is the most southwesterly city within Hennepin County, located on the western limits of Lake Minnetonka. Minnetdsta has rolling wooded countryside with a high percentage of lakeshore lots and marshland. The landscape ranges from easily developable, gently rolling land to extreme slopes with high well-drained areas to large wetlands to attractive lakeshore and stream valleys. -4- St. Bonifacius has gently rolling terrain and numerous Iow lying wetlands, the result of glacial action. The city is developed on a series of hills and Iow-lying areas along State Trunk Highway (STH) 7. 10. Minnetrista is located in the western part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area in western Hennepin County. It is bounded on the north by the City of Independence (Hennepin County); on the east by the Cities of Mound, Orono and Shorewood (Hennepin County); on the south by Laketown Township and the City of Victoria (Carver County), and on the west by Watertown Township (Carver County). St. Bonifacius, which is totally surrounded by the Minnetdsta, is located near Minnetrista's southwestern comer. 11. Minnetrista was incorporated as a village in 1959 and became a statutory city in 1974. St. Bonifacius became a village in 1858 with the first city election being conducted in September of 1904. 12. Minnetrista is 19,824 acres in size or approximately 31 square miles. St. Bonifacius is 650 acres in size or approximately one square mile. 13. Minnetdsta has the following land uses: approximately 8,200 acres, or 41%, in agriculture; approximately 4,330 acres, or 22%, for residential; approximately 4,264 acres, or 21.5%, for city, county, state and rail right-of-ways; approximately 2,450 acres, or 12%, for vacant, undevelopable areas including Iow-lands, watershed, streams, lakes, etc.; approximately 531 acres, or 2.7%, for tax exempt or institutional; approximately 58.4 acres, or 0.3%, for commercial; and approximately 19 acres or 0.1% for industrial. 14. St. Bonifacius has the following land uses: approximately 350 acres, or 53%, for 5 residential; approximately 150 acres, or 23%, for city, county or state and rail right-of-ways; approximately 80 acres, or 12%, is vacant, consisting of undevelopable areas including Iow-lands, watersheds, streams, lakes; approximately 29 acres, or 4%, for industrial; approximately 19.2 acres, or 2% for commercial; and approximately 2 acres, or 0.2%, for tax exempt and institutional. 15. St. Bonifacius and the southern parts of Minnetdsta drain eastward into the Minnehaha Creek Watershed. Mud Lake and Six Mile Creek, which are both in Minnetrista, are the two largest drainage outlets for the watershed, eventually draining into Lake Minnetonka. 16. Minnetrista's pattern of physical development can be seen in its four major land uses: agriculture, single-family residential, lakes, and vacant areas, which account for over 90% of the city's total acreage. Single-family residential uses are located in the eastern part of Minnetdsta on small lake lots and on larger lots in the northeastern part of the city. Vacant land is in the eastern two-thirds of the city and agricultural uses and large lot residential dominate the westem portion of the city. Minnetrista has few commercial uses scattered in four locations. 17. The zoning pattem of Minnetrista follows a strong pattern of very Iow density in the west, Iow density in the middle and higher density in the east. Agricultural preservation and agricultural zoning cover approximately 80% of Minnetrista's land. 18. The physical pattem of development of St. Bonifacius resembles that of a small rural center consisting of single-family development and smaller amounts of commercial/industrial development. There has been an increased demand for residential development since 1990. Twelve percent, or 80 acres, of St. Bonifacius' land is vacant and unavailable for development due to wetlands, drainage ways and steep sloping terrain. -6- 19. Minnetrista and St. Bonifacius are served by several highways that run through the two communities, connecting them with the rest of the Twin Cities. STH 7 is a principal arterial which enters Minnetrista near its southeastern boundary and travels westerly through the urbanized portions of Minnetrista and east/west through St. Bonifacius. STH 7 is a two-lane expressway which connects western Minnesota to the metropolitan area and serves as an important commuter route into the Twin Cities for residents in the western suburbs. Only minor upgrades for STH 7, such as turning and passing lanes are anticipated. 20. There are three A-minor arterials that serve the area, County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 92, which extends north/south through western Minnetrista and bisects St. Bonifacius; CSAH 15, which extends east/west connecting with Mound and points east and with Carver CSAH 24 and Watertown to the west; and CSAH 110, which connects with CSAH 92 north of St. Bonifacius and runs east into Mound and then north to Branch Road in northeastern Minnetrista. CSAH 92 serves as the "main street" for St. Bonifacius. The major thoroughfares are maintained by the County or the State with the two cities able to maintain the current intedor roadway systems. 21. A consolidated city with the combined population of Minnetrista and St. Bonifacius would qualify for State Aid funding for some existing roads and streets, but would not be expected to have a substantial effect on transportation in the area. 22. St. Bonifacius currently meets the benchmark goals established by the Metropolitan Council for affordable housing. Minnetrista cannot not currently meet its goals. A consolidated city would need to work aggressively to meet and maintain the goals established for affordable housing making it eligible to access additional revenue for pollution dean-up, -7- transportation, affordable housing and comprehensive planning pursuant to the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. 23. The zoning ordinances for Minnetdsta contain more detail and are more specific. Minnetrista allows large-lot development with 20,000 or 40,000 foot minimums and a 10 acre minimum for Planned Unit Developments. St. Bonifacius has a more compact urban orientation with a 15,000 foot minimum and a 5 acre requirement for Planned Unit Developments. 24. Minnetrista's comprehensive plan allows for large open spaces with pockets of denser development. St. Bonifacius' comprehensive plan calls for higher density development. Both cities have updated comprehensive plans which call for future expansion in and around St. Bonifacius. 25. Merging the comprehensive plans of Minnetdsta and St. Bonifacius would preserve the planning focus and character of each city and provide flexibility for land use planning. 26. In reviewing St. Bonifacius' 1996 comprehensive plan, the Metropolitan Council recommended that St. Bonifacius work with Minnetrista to find mutual solutions to issues related to growth and development in the area, including jointly planned, financed and integrated municipal infrastructure and services through a vadety of. intergovernmental agreements, including consolidation. 27. Minnetrista has a municipal wastewater collection s~,stem which serves some individual homes and three school properties. Only half the homes in Minnetrista are connected to municipal sewer, the rest use septic tank/drainfield or elevated mound treatment systems. -8- There are a number of failing septic systems within Minnetrista which the city is working to resolve, and neither city is considered a responsible party in the investigation of an instance of petroleum discharge currently under investigation by the Pollution Control Agency. 28. Neither the correction of failing residential septic systems, nor the resolution of the one existing environmental matter will have an effect on consolidation of the two cities. 29. Wastewater treatment services are provided to Minnetdsta through the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services division (MCES) at its Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is located in the City of Shakopee and is part of the metropolitan sewage disposal system. Sewage from Minnetdsta's municipal urban service area is collected via lift station L24 located at STH 7 and Six Mile Creek in Minnetrista. 30. St. Bonifacius provides sanitan/sewer services to all its residents as part of the metropolitan regional sewer system. Its wastewater treatment is also provided by the Blue Lake Treatment Facility, which has the capacity to serve anticipated growth for St. Bonifacius. Sewer pipes within St. Bonifacius range from 8" diameter up to the 24" diameter trunk sewer line that feeds into the wastewater lift station. 31. The St. Bonifacius and Minnetrista/Mound interceptors join together near the junction of STH 7 and CSAH 44 and continue into the City of Victoria. Each jurisdiction is charged separately for metered flows into the interceptors. 32. Existing regional sewer pipe capacity at the City of Victoda border is sufficient to handle the urbanization of the two communities according to the Regional Growth Strategy forecasts of the Metropolitan Council through 2020 and perhaps to 2040. 33. Both Minnetrista and St. Bonifadus have adequate capacity to serve their existing -9- properties. Extension of the sewer service and interconnection with the regional system for either city, or for a consolidated city, is dependent on the decisions and policies of the Metropolitan Council. 34. Regional facility expansions will be programmed to handle growth consistent with Metropolitan Council reviewed comprehensive plans and comprehensive sewer plans from local jurisdictions. The proposed consolidation of the two cities is not expected to have an impact on the regional wastewater services system. 35. Minnetrista operates two municipal community water systems that provide water for consumptive use and fire protection. These systems serve approximately 500 residents as well as two public schools. The rest of the city is served by pdvate wells. 36. Minnetrista's community water system is served by four wells, three of which are interconnected. The fourth well is linked to a new 400,000 gallon elevated storage facility. There is capacity within Minnetrista's water system to serve exiting users and projected population growth within the area through 2005. 37. St. Bonifacius has recently expanded its municipal water system to include a third well and a water treatment plant. The system also contains one elevated storage tank. All three wells are tied to the water treatment plant and have treatment components that includes chlorination and fluoridation. This additional treatment process prevents it from being completely combined with Minnetrista's water system at this time, except in an emergency situation. 38. Consulting engineers have determined that St. Bonifacius has adequate water capacity to serve an additional 379 family units outside a fully developed St. Bonifacius, and that the water treatment plant could be expanded from 500 gpm to 1,000 gpm. -10- 39. The residential water and sewer rates per quarter differ significantly between Minnetrista and St. Bonifadus with the rates in St. Bonifacius being lower. The rates for 2000, 12,000 and 22,000 gallons in St. Bonifacius are $23.25, $53.25 and $73.25 respectively. The corresponding rates for Minnetrista are $86.00, $111.00 and $136.00. 40. Potential savings may be possible in some cases by connections to the St. Bonifacius water system, rather than to Minnetdsta's system, for future developments surrounding St. Bonifacius. 41. Each city provides police, fire, water, sewer, and road and park maintenance. Water and sewer service and road and park maintenance are provided separately by each city. Police and fire protection are provided through joint powers agreements or other contractual arrangements. 42. Minnetrista and St. Bonifacius have a joint powers agreement for the provision of police protection to both cities. Management of the provision of police services is shared equally by both cities. Police department facilities are located in the Minnetrista City Hall. St. Bonifacius has only an interest in the assets of the police department. Minnetrista gave notice of its intent to terminate the joint powers agreement at the 43. end of 1999. 44. its residents. St. Bonifacius has its own volunteer fire department which provides fire service to In addition, the St. Bonifacius fire department provides fire protection to portions of Minnetrista, Laketown Township and Watertown township. Minnetrista contracts with the St. Bonifacius, Mound and Maple Plain fire departments for fire protection services. -11- 45. A consolidated city would eliminate police and fire protection issues that currently exist between the two separate cities. 46. Street maintenance and repair services are provided in both cities by city employees and contracts with service providers. St. Bonifacius' general fund budget allocates 16% to streets and 5% to parks and recreation. Minnetdsta's general fund allocates 25% for public works. 47. A consolidated city with a population of 5,000 or more would be eligible for Municipal State Aid funds for road maintenance which is estimated at $275,000 to $325,000. 48. Estimated savings would result from eliminating one mayor and city council and the reduction of legal, administrative, engineering, accounting, memberships and other fees. In addition, savings would result from utilizing only one full-time building inspector in conjunction with the efficiencies of combining existing support staff. The two cities have paid an average of $156,000 a year over the last three years for building inspection services. A consolidated city could provide those services for approximately $91,000 a year. 49. Minnetdsta and St. Bonifacius receive seven types of governmental assistance from the state which include Local Govemment Aid (LGA), Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA), recycling aid, PERA reimbursement, Police State Aid, Local Performance Aid, County Road Aid, and Fire State Aid. 50. The potential net gain in intergovernmental aid as a result of consolidation is approximately $245,000. 51. Minnetrista's 1997 total tax capacity was approximately $6,183,246.00. Commercial and industrial property represented 2.5% of the city's tax capacity, farmland -12- accounted for 6.7% with the largest share from residential property. In 1998 and 1999, Minnetdsta's total tax capacity was approximately $6,241,815 and $6,267,977 respectively. 52. St. Bonifadus' 1997 total tax capacity was approximately $974,483.00 with commercial and industrial property representing 21.5%, 0% from farmland and the largest percent from residential property. In 1998 and 1999, St. Bonifacius' total tax capacity was approximately $1,186,459 and $1,208,052 respectively. The combined tax capacity of the two cities in 1997 was $7,157,729.00; in 1998 the combined tax capacity was $7,428,274; and in 1999 it was $7,420,310. 53. Minnetrista's outstanding bonded debt, as of 12/31/97, was $2,600,000.00. Of that amount, $1,070,000.00 is paid through general taxes, pdmadly for the construction of the The remainder was for infrastructure improvements and is paid by special Minnetrista City Hall. assessments. 54. St. Bonifacius' outstanding bonded debt, as of 12/31/97, was $2,100,000.00. Of that amount, $540,000 was for the fire station. This debt is financed from 30% from general taxes and 70% from service contracts to other governments, including Minnetrista. The · remainder of the debt is paid by dedicated revenue sources such as special assessments and water fees. The total debt per capita for Minnetdsta is $635 and $1,115 for St. Bonifacius. 55. Indebtedness that does not have dedicated revenue sources and paid by property taxes funded the St. Bonifacius fire station and Minnetrista's City Hall. Both the fire station and the city hall would be assets of a consolidated city whose citizens could assume the responsibility of this indebtedness. The combined debt per capita for the city hall and fire station -13- would be $269. Assuming no changes in revenues and expenditures, property taxes in either city are not expected to be significantly affected. 56. Minnetdsta has eleven full-time employees in the positions of administrator/clerk, city planner, deputy clerk, zoning administrator/assistant planner, administrative aide, and public works. St. Bonifacius has three full-time, one part-time, and one temporary part-time employees in the positions of clerk/treasurer, public works foreman, assistant clerk and secretary/receptionist. 57. Consolidation is not expected to change the current number of employees, rather, redundant duties would be eliminated and others re-aligned. 58. Both cities are subject to and enforce the state building code. Consolidation could achieve a savings of approximately $65,000 by hidng one full-time building inspector and using the efficiencies of combining additional staff. 59. The form of government for the most populous city govems the form of govemment for a consolidated city until such time as an alternative may be adopted at any time. Minnetdsta is the more populous of the two cities and operates under the Statutory Optional Plan A form of govemment consisting of a mayor-council format. St. Bonifacius is also a statutory city operating under the Optional Plan A form of government. 60. The council-manager form of government delegates significant responsibilities from elected city council to a professional city manager, which is generally more appropriate for larger cities with complex organization and services. The mayor-council form of govemment is -14- more common for smaller cities. 61. A newly consolidated city would still have a relatively small population and lack the complexity requiring a professional manager with separate operating authority. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Minnesota Municipal Board, and now the Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning, duly acquired and now has jurisdiction of the within proceeding. 2. Consolidation will offer residents of the Cities of Minnetrista and St. Bonifacius the opportunity to exert control over development in the entire Minnetrista/St. Bonifacius area and better accomplish the shared goals of coordinated development. 3. Consolidation will allow zoning policies and decisions to be made for the entire area rather than for just individual cities. 4. Consolidation will generate higher revenues and greater efficiencies of scale in many areas and will eliminate duplication of costs for provision of the same services. 5. A consolidated city would be eligible for more State Aid money to meet current existing needs in each city. In addition, there would be significant savings accruing to the residents as the result of consolidation of city programs and services, and from the reductions of duplication of costs and infrastructure. 6. Consolidation is in the best interests of the area residents, the City of Minnetrista and the City of St. Bonifadus. 7. The Director of the Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning should accept the Report of the Consolidation Study Commission, issue an Order approving the consolidation, request the city councils of the Cities of Minnetdsta and St. Bonifacius adopt said Order, and -15- establish a date for an election on the Consolidation. ORDER 1. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: That the Director of the Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning hereby accepts the Report of the Consolidation Study Commission. 2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the City of Minnetdsta and the City of St. Bonifacius, located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, be and the same hereby are consolidated to form a single city subject to adoption by majodty vote of the respective city councils and approval of the voters pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sec. 414.04.1. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the consolidated city shall be named the City of Minnetdsta. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the plan of govemment of the new City of Minnetdsta shall be Standard Optional Plan A. The consolidated city shall be governed by a five-member council, which consists of four council persons and one mayor, all elected at large. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the ordinances of each city shall continue in effect within the former boundaries until repealed by the governing body of the new City of Minnetdsta. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That all license privileges be maintained as permitted by each city, including the number of liquor licenses already authorized by the State of Minnesota, until repealed by the governing body of the new City of Minnetrista. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That upon consolidation, all money claims or properties including real estate owned, held or possessed by the former cities, and any proceeds -16- or taxes levied by such cities, collected and uncollected, shall become the property of the new City of Minnetdsta with full power and authority to use and dispose of for such public purposes as the council deems best subject to claims of the creditors. This will include cash reserves/fund balances of each city and all public property and equipment held by each city. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the former outstanding indebtedness, pdor to consolidation, will be the financial obligation of all property owners within the newly consolidated tax district. However, the cities may, by resolution of their governing bodies, agree that the former outstanding indebtedness, pdor to consolidation, remain the financial obligation of property owners within the former tax districts, until such time as the new city shall assume the bonded indebtedness of the former units of government existing and outstanding at the time of consolidation. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the City of Minnetdsta and the City of St. Bonifacius report their latest Population and Household estimates to the Minnesota State Demographer. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the Executive Director of Municipal Boundary Adjustments shall cause copies of this Order to be transmitted to the city councils of the Cities of St. Bonifacius and Minnetrista for their approval by majority vote and adoption; that upon receipt of such approval and adoption, the Executive Director shall issue a Supplemental Order setting an election in each city. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the ballot shall contain the words: "shall the consolidation of the City of St. Bonifacius and the City of Minnetrista be approved?" ~ Yes /--7 No -17- 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That if a majodty of the qualified voters of each city approve the consolidation Order herein, the Executive Director shall cause a further Supplemental Order for the election of new city o~cers. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That if either city councils of the Cities of St. Bonifacius or Minnetrista fail to approve this Order by February 11,2000, it shall be deemed disapproved by that city council. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: Notwithstanding a disapproval of the Order of the Director of the Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning for consolidation by the city councils of either St. Bonifacius or Minnetdsta, the Director's Order for consolidation shall nevertheless be deemed approved by a city council if ten percent or more of the resident voters of that mun. icipality who voted for Govemor at the last general election petition the city council for a referendum on the consolidation and a majority of those voting in that municipality approve the Director's Order for consolidation. 15. 2000. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the effective date of this order is January 18, Dated this 20~ day of January, 2000. Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning 300 Centennial Office Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 Christine M. Scotillo Executive Director Munidpal Boundary Adjustments MEMORANDUM The Director of the Of-rice of Strategic and Long Range Planning today has ordered the consolidation of the Cities of St. Bonifacius and Minnetrista. Based on the population of the combined Cities of St. Bonifacius and Minnetrista, the new city may be eligible for up to approximately $100,000 each year for up to four years of grant money from the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation if certain statutory criteria are met. Minnesota Statutes 465.87. While the Planning Director recognizes that the consolidation does not meet with the unanimous approval of all citizens of St. Bonifacius and Minnetrista, the Planning Director feels that it does reflect the opinion and desire of a large majority of the citizens and would certainly be in the best interests of the entire area and the larger community. The Planning Director commends the Consolidation Study Commission Members and its Chair, Desyl Peterson, as well as all of the other volunteers who gave freely of their time and talents. The Planning Director reo~nizes that the appointed Consolidation Study Commission members from each city and Ms. Peterson devoted many hours attending meetings and hearings. They spent considerable time researching data and taking into consideration . questions and comments from the citizens. They prepared an excellent and very professional Consolidation Report to the Planning Director's designee. Ms. Peterson did an outstanding job chairing the commission, marshaling additional resources, bdnging in external resource people, guiding the process in a timely and efficient manner, overseeing the report, and testifying at the hearing. Without this kind of volunteer support, these consolidation efforts would not have been possible. 2m The Planning Director wishes to acknowledge and thank the Cities of St. Bonifacius and Minnetdsta, other contributors whose financial support assisted the commission throughout its work. The consolidation of these cities should increase planned, coordinated, and economic deliver7 of services and serve the best interests of the entire community. Janua~ 19,2000 PROPOSED RESOLUTION # 00-._. RESOLUTION TO DENY A LOT AREA VARIANCE TO BUILD A HOME ON A VACANT LOT AT 2217 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 18, BLOCK 1, L.P. CREVIER'S SUBDIVISION OF LOT 36, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 43 0059 P & Z CASE #99-48 WHEREAS, the applicant, has requested a lot area variance to build a new home on the property located at 2217 Chateau Lane as indicated below Existin.a/Proposed Required Variance Lot Area 4800 sq. ft. 6000 sq. ff. ]200~sq. ft. ; and, WHEREAS, the property is located within an R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires standards as indicated above; and, WHEREAS, the property has been vacant for a number of years and recently underwent an ownership transfer. The current property owner is seeking a variance that would allow this lot to become buildable; and, WHEREAS, although the property is located in a residential district, it is vacant and is considered substandard meeting only 80 percent of the required lot area minimum; and, WHEREAS, the zoning code provides no special privileges to the property for construction of a single family residence because of the length of time the property has remained vacant; and, WHEREAS, Chateau and Fairview Lane are historically platted with small lots. A number of homes built shortly after platting still remain. Homes that have been built under the existing zoning code however, have satisfied requirements; and, WHEREAS, allowing the continued development of vacant undersized lots is not promoted by the Comprehensive Plan housing policies or the zoning ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended that the Council deny the variance as requested by the applicant; and, Janua~ 19,2000 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby deny the variance. 2. This variance is denied for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 18, BLOCK 1, L.P. CREVIER'S SUBDIVISION OF LOT 36, LAFAYETTE PARK, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. February 23, 1999 RESOLUTION NO. 99--16 ~d RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF LOT 18, BLOCK 1, CREVIER'S SUBD. LOT ~}6, LAFAYETTE PARK (2217 CHATEAU LANE FROM SUNSHINE PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AT A COST OF $1.00 (ONE DOLLAR), PID//13--117-24 43 0059 WHEREAS, Sunshine Partners Limited Partnership of Dallas, Texas, the owner of Lot 18, Block 1, Crevier's Subd. Lot 36, Lafayette Park (2217 Chateau Lane), PID #13-117-24 43 0059, has offered to sell this vacant land to the City of Mound for $1.00; and WHEREAS, the property is an unbuildable parcel (40' x 120" or 4,800 square feet); WHEREAS, it is located between two (2) other nonconforming parcels with structures; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this and recommends that the City purchase the property and if possible sell it to one of the two owners of the nonconforming parcels on either side of it to make one of the other lots conforming. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize the City Manager to purchase Lot 18, Block 1, Crevier's Subd. Lot 36, Lafayette Park (2217 Chateau Lane), PID #13-117-24 43 0059, from Sunshine Partners Limited Partnership of Dallas, Texas, for $1.00. The use of this property is not to be restricted and the property can be sold to and combined with one of the two nonconforming parcels on either side for a price to be determined by the Hennepin County Assessor as fair market value. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens, and seconded by Councilmember Hanus. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens,Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Weycker. Attest: City Clerk The following Councilmembers voted in the ~egative: none. ,, Mayor ' 21 M]NIJTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 12, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 12, 1999, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Garry & Marie Everson, Ric Williams, Mark Thiede, Para Myers, Bill Pinegar, Mary Pauly, Patty Guttormson, Carol and Rick Todd, Greg Meisel, Betsy Brown, Tom Reese, Frank & Betty Weiland, Becky Glister, Eric Meisel and Paul Meisel. 1.14 RECOMMENDATION FROM PARK AND OPEN SPACE CON'fiSSION RE: PURCHASE OF LAND AT 2217 CHATEAU LANE FOR PARK PURPOSES. The City Manager explained that Sunshore Partners Limited of Dallas, Texas has contacted the City about donating Lot 18, Block 1, L.P. Crevier's Subd. of Lot 36 to the City of Mound for $1.00 for use as a park or any other purpose the City feels is appropriate. It is an unbuildable lot as it only has 4800 square feet. The Park Commission has reviewed this and recommended the purchase for parkland usage. Councilmember Weycker stated that she voted against it at the Park Commission because they wanted it dedicated to park land usage. She felt there are houses on both sides of this lot which appear to be nonconforming because of lot size and it might better serve to be divided and attached to each nonconforming property to make them conforming. The Council discussed this and decided to do some further checking on this property and the neighboring property to see if there is a better use than park land, possibly leaving it just as green space. The City Attorney suggested checking on whether the property taxes have been paid on this parcel. Hanus felt this item should go to the Planning Commission for review because we're taking private land and putting it into public use. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to direct Staff to investigate if there are any back property taxes owing on this pamel and then refer this item to the Planning Commission for their review. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orr Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Public Present: Mr. & Mrs. Jorj Ayaz (4844 Island View Drive) and neighbors, Mr. & Mrs. John Smith (5189 Emerald Drive), Mr. & Mrs. Steve Jilek (5444 Spruce Road) and neighbors. Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 11, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to accept the minutes as written. Motion carried 9-0. Building Official Jon Sutherland asked to add an item to the agenda. Agenda item 1C will be a Variance request on 5189 Emerald Drive. The Chair accepted the addition. 3. VACANT LOT AT 2217 CHATEAU LANE The owner of this lot has offered this lot to the City for the sum of $1.00. The City can decide how it is used. The City Council has looked at this and asked the Planning Commission to look at it before approval. It is a 40 feet by 120 feet parcel. It would be nonbuildable as it is. Brown indicated that the question was asked at City Council if there is any back taxes owed on the property prior to sending it to the Planning Commission for review. This property is located between two nonconforming lots. Council member Weycker stated that she felt it could be used to help make one or both of these properties a conforming lot size. She did not want to see it restricted for "park purposes only." (Taken from the Minutes - Mound City Council, January 12, 1999.) MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, that after the Planning Commission recommend that the property be purchased, but that the use not be restricted. If it is in reasonable proximity of one of the neighbors, it probably should be sold to make one or the other lots conforming. Motion carried 7-0. MINUTES OF A MEETING MOUND PARK AND OPEN 5PACE COMMI551ON DECEMBER 10, 1998 Present were: Chair: Peter Meyer; Commissioners: Tom Casey, Norman Domholt, Tom Casey, Bev Botko; City Council Representative: Leah Weycker. Absent was Christina Cooper (without prior notice.) The following interested citizens were also present: Elizabeth and Jeff Bjerksett (2605 Tyrone Lane) and James Chelman (4786 Carrick Road). In addition, Tim Piepkorn from the School District and Loren Gordon from HKG were present. Chair Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. DISCUSS: 2217 CHATEAU LANE MEMOS It was noted that pages 72-75 of the meeting packet contained a memorandum offering the City of Mound a 40' x 120' lot for the sum of $1.00 by Sunshore Partners. It is located between two small residential lots. The offered lot is not buildable, however, should things change in the future with the adjacent lots, this situation could change. The Park Director recommends that the City go ahead and buy the property for $1.00. Weycker also recommended that the Park and Open Space Commission move to obtain this land, but not specify for what park services. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Domholt, that the City proceed with the purchase of this lot for the sum of $1.00 and dedicate it for park land usage. Motion carried with ayes from Domholt, Botko, and Casey. The nay votes were Weycker and Meyer. CITY OF MOUND 534,1 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 ~ORANDOM NOVEMBER 18, 1998 TO: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGLR FROM: JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIREC SUBJECT: 2217 CHATEAU LANE. / / I have inspected the vacant lot mt 2217 Chateau Lane that Sunshore Partners I is offering to the City of Mound for for one' dollar. As you can see from the attached portion of the plat map the lot is 40'X 120'. It is located between two smaller older homes and is not being maintained. It is level and appears that there are no major concerns like trash, brush or hazardous trees on the property that would require monies to be spent. The size and location of the property is not conducive to anything more then limited park improvements or a small green space retention area. My recommendation is to purchase this lot but not restrict its use to the city and that only limited rough mowing and ground repairs be preformed. ~I.]IN~HORE I~A,R'~I~ER$ I. LIMYI'EI) PARTNERSHIP 3131 McKINNEY AVENUE ~;UITE 4O4 DALLAS, TEXAS 73204 (214} 220-0205 October 6, 1998 Mr. Ed Shukle, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341 May'wood Drive Mound, Minnes0ia 55364 Re: 2217 Chateau Lane, PIN 13-I 17-24-43-0059 Dear Mr. Shukle: VIA FACSIMILE I am writing in cormection with our conversation today concerning the status of the referenced property. As we discussed, the property is smaller than the minimum currently required by the City of' Mound in order to be "buildable". Therefore, there are a limited number of options available to this partnership for the use of this property. I would like to donate the property to the City of Mound for $1..00 for use as a park or for any other purgose the City feels is appropriate and would appreciate your consideration in d~is regard. If you should have-any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, SUNSHORE PARTNERS I, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By: SUNSHOREI INC., its General Partner Vice President '" Tonka Inc. Crevier's S.b Lot/36 Lafaye~ Park Block 1 Lot 18 GOVT LOT 7 , C CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWCO0 ROAD MOUNO, MINNESOTA 55364ol 687 (6121 472-0600 FAX (612) 472~620 NOV~fB~q 18, 1998 SUBJECT: 2217 CHATEAU L~E. ~~ I have inspected the vacant lot at 2217 Chateau Lane that Sunshore Partners I is offering to the City of Mound for for one' dollar. As you can see from the attached portion of the plat map the lot is 40'X 120'. It is located between two smaller older homes and is not being maintained. It is level and appears that there are no major concerns like trash, brush or hazardous trees on the property that would require monies to be spent. The size and location of the property is not conducive to anything more then limited park improvements or a small green space retention area. My reconu~endation is to purchase this lot but not restrict its use to the city and that only limited rough mowing and ground repairs be preformed. printed on recycled paper / Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission December 10, 1998 The idea of park signage and information centers was raised again. This has been discussed in the past. it was mentioned that, perhaps, the Park Commission should have local neighbors "chairing" a park. Casey cited pages 18-2_.0. He wanted to know what the change in the short fall numbers was, what the demand far each park site is, and what demands can be met by the regional parks. He asked what demands have changed and further asked what percentage of Mound residents are using or going outside of Mound to get their park/recreation needs met. Additionally, what percentage of the people using Mound parks are residents of other cities. These needs must be taken into consideration. How are the parks used individually, which ones are used more o~en than others, and what facilities are not being used. Commissioners asked if a survey of the Mound citizens has been completed of what they need and want. It was discussed that neighborhood parks should be designed for use by younger children and young teens. Facilities such as baseball field, basketball courts, benches, skating rink ("bare bones"), and more lights. The parks need to be safe. clean, and drug-free. Also, it is important to inventory all existing park equipment, land, etc., per Commissioner Case,/. He commented that the City needs to know supply before one can meet demand. Meyer stated he feels there is a shortage of ball fields, soccer fields, basketball courts, and football. This may mean working with other communities to meet the demand. Perhaps, according to Casey, there are too many tennis courts. Discussions will continue in next meetings and be passed on to Gordon through the Park Director for inclusion in the planning process. A professional planner is useful since they can help put the needs, etc., in writing. Motion was made by Casey, seconded by Botko, to invite Mr. Gordon back to the January meeting of the Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission. Botko seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSS: 2217 CHATEAU LANE MEMOS It was noted that pages 72-75 of the meeting packet contained a memorandum offering the City of Mound a 40' x 120' lot for the sum of $1.00 by Sunshore Partners. It is located between two sma[l residential lots. One of these homes does not meet guidelines for size and eventually, the house would have to be renovated to be made conforming. The offered lot is not buildable, however, should things change in the future with the adjacent lots, this situation could change. The Park Director recommends that the City go ahead and buy the property for $1.00. Weycke.r also recommended that the Park and Open Space Commission move to obtain this land for park services. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Domhoit, that the City proceed with the purchase of this lot for the sum of $1.00 and dedicate it for park land usage. 7 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission December 10, 1998 Motion carried with ayes from Domholt, Botko, and Casey. The nay votes were Weycker and 1999 BUDGET This is an information only item as it was indicated by Weycker that the 1999 Budget is a "done deal." Weycker called attention to bullet #3 that was made tess specific from odginal budget documents and will allow the Park Commission to use the money for more general purposes. It was requested that the 1999 Budget be included as a January agenda item. DISCUSS: JANUARY POSC AGENDA It was requested that Staff gather information on park usage. Perhaps get volunteers to fix up and donate to service foundation or use as something like "ye!Iow bike program" from other municipalities' example. The following items will be placed on the January, 1S9~c, POSC Agenda: 19S9 Budget Tyrone Park Bicycle recycle program (bicycles remaining from police aucticn) Park Service Program - Discuss ideas on how to .clean up parks, stop vandalism, steer problem youths to helping make the parks better rather than damaging them, etc. New member handouts and swearing in of new members according to Section 255. Comprehensive Plan: allocate as much time as possible in this meeting for Mr. Gordon to finish from tonight. Commissioners should be thinking of items and perhaps visit parks between now and then. Standard "January" items per Park Director such as work rules, new chair, and officers FOR YOUR INFORMATION a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) City Council Minutes COW Minutes DCAC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes Rules of the Minnehaha CreekWatershed District adopted on November 24, 1998 Monthly Events Calender Section 255:00 Park and Open Space Advisory Commission Parks Information Resolution to appoint Domholt and Cooper 3snoH ONIJ. SIXq ~'gL I.'9~ '~ 3SflOH ~ O'4HS x ONII SIX_4 9L ±09 I I M.Ot. gL.68N -- 4 I'I ~,';,': ;,,-, ~~ a~ I "" 'X ' ~-~.~ cd, --.---.-. I DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes, January 10, 2000 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 10~ 2000 DRAFT Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Absent and excused: Commissioner Becky Glister, Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle, Commissioner Michael Mueller, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following public were present: John Beise, Steve Coddon, Stacy Goldberg, Stephen L. Hewitt, Dennis Kasin, Stephen Krause, Mick Mueller, Peter C. Meyer, Roberta Rice, Mike Schoephoerster, Scott Spanjers. Chair Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. CASE 99-48: VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A GARAGE ON A PROPERTY IN ZONE R- 2 WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT ZONE; STEVE CODDON, 2217 CHATEAU LANE, BLOCK 1, LOT 18, L. P. CREVIER'S SUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, 615701950, PID # 13-117-24-43-0059. The applicant requested a variance build a home on an undersized vacant parcel at 2217 Chateau Lane. The associated variance is as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Lot Area 4800 sq. ft. 6000 sq. ft. 1200 sq. ft. The property has been vacant for a number of years and recently underwent an ownership transfer. The current property owner is seeking a variance that would allow this lot to become buildable. A site plan is provided along with typical house plans for a manufactured home. Because the property is not used as a residential lot, the code gives it no special privileges to be used as such. Whatever use the property had for residential purposes has expired, and the code expects conformity to district lot area requirements before a residential use can be initiated. Allowing the continued development of vacant undersized lots is not promoted by the Comprehensive Plan housing policies or the zoning ordinance. This portion of Chateau has a number of small lots similar to this but are developed. Given the current conditions of the adjacent housing stock, this lot DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Plannin(3 Commission Minutes, January 10, 2000 DRAFT presents an opportunity for combination with a redevelopment project. Staff would recommend this approach be taken when the opportunity arises. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance as requested. Voss asked would the City have an opportunity to buy the property. Gordon stated the property is owned by a corporation in Texas. He stated the City of Mound had an opportunity to purchase this property for $1.00, but the deal fell through. Weiland stated to add to the case there was a building permit issued to the house next door to this property a while back which was undersized and one of the Planning Commission members stated the piece of property the applicant is presenting tonight should have been condemned or sold to the neighbor. MOTION by Voss, second by Hasse, to deny applicant's variance request according to staff recommendations. Discussion. Steve Coddon, 3615 Lerick Avenue. Mr. Coddon stated Tonka Toys owned the property and sold it to Balboa. Mr. Coddon made an offer on the property when he found out the City was not interested in this piece of property, although he was aware this piece of property was undersized. Mr. Coddon stated this piece of property could be built on with the variance he is requesting. He stated he would not have bought the property if he felt the neighborhood and the property could not be improved by having a single-family home built there. Hasse asked how close the garage was planned to be to the house. Mr. Coddon stated it would be a one car detached garage with no solid foundation under it. Sutherland stated the applicant would need to have frost footings to connect the house and the garage. Mr. Coddon stated he did not consider this extra cost because he wanted to make the house he was proposing affordable for a single family homeowner. He stated there are many homes in Mound that have detached garages. Hasse stated the new owners could without permission at some point build a breezeway from the garage to the house without putting in the appropriate frost footings. Hasse also stated if this case is approved the garage has to be built 10 feet away from the house. Mr. Codden asked staff if it is appropriate to have a floating garage as long as it is five feet away from the house. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes, January 10, 2000 Sutherland addressed the above concems. He stated there is a notation is the codes that state if a detached garage is closer than six feet from the house, it is considered part of the integral structure of the house and at that point the owner has to meet the setbacks of the house. Suthedand further stated if at one level you have a basement and another level you have a building, if they intersect at too dose of positions, this could result in the foundation to buckle. He stated both buildings need to be at the same depth if they are that close together. Mr. Coddon stated he would now like to restate his request and to include permanent frost footings with his plan as a condition of the variance. Voss asked the applicant if he knew this property was nonconforming property. He asked if there were any things pointed out in the title opinion that were wrong with the property at the time of purchasing it. The applicant stated he was not aware of problems, although he does have some building knowledge. The applicant stated there is a hardship with the land and he stated this single family home built would improve the area. Gordon stated the newest home built on Chateau was built by combining lots. He stated these lots are all undersized and they do get built on when combined with other lots. He stated the lot the applicant is presenting tonight on this block is the only lot that is sifting vacant and is undersized. Gordon stated there are four lots with homes on that may face the current situation in the future. Burma asked what the ages of the four houses are facing this current problem. Gordon stated they could be near the 1940's era. MOTION CARRIED. 5-0. Chair Michael stated this case will be heard in front of the City Council on January 25, 2000, and he would recommend the applicant attending this meeting. 612-~868~8 HOISIN~TON KOEGLER 616 POB JAN 05 '00 11:~1 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koeglcr Group Inc. IIIl TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: January 10, 1999 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Steve Codden, 3615 Lyric Ave. OWNER: same CASE NUMBER: 99..48 ItKG FILE NUMBER: 99-05 LOCATION: 2217 Chateau Lane EXISTING ZONING: One Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residemial BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting a varianc~ build a home on an undersized vacant parcel at 2217 Chateau Lane. The associated variance is as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Lot Area 4800 SCl. ft. 6000 sq. ft. 1200 sq. ft. The property has been vacant for a number of years and recently underwent an ovmership tramfcr. The current property owner is s~king a variance that would allow this lot to become buildablc. A site plan is provided along with typical house plans for a manufactur~ home. Because the property is not used as a residential lot, the code gives it no special privileges to be used as such. Whatever use the property had for residential purposes has expired, and the code expects conformity to district lot area requirements before a residential use can be iniria~ed. Allowing the continued development of vacant undersized lots is not promoted by the Comprehensive Plan homing policies or the zoning ordinance. This portion of Chateau has a number of small lots similar to this but axe developed. Given thc cun~nt conditions of the adjacent housing stock, u'~is lot presents an opportunity for combination with a redevelopment project. Staffwould recommend this approach bc taken when thc opportunity arises. 123 Norda Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 25401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 612-3386838 HOISINGTON KOEGLER ~l~ P09 JAN 85 '80 11:22 p. 2 #97-48- 2217 CluzteauLane January I0, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: StatTr~comrncnds thc Planning Commission recommend Council deny thc variance as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 5:5401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 PAID DEL; 1 1999 Applic~t~'fi (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER City Planner City Engineer Public Works DNR Other Address 22 (7 (~ ~ a '7"eE.,.t. Lc,-~e . Lot / Oe' Block I ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R~ R-3 B-I B-2 B-3 Phone APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (H) (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes,~Xno. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed description o(~oposed construction~r alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Revised 10-26-99 Variance Application, P. 2 Case NO. (~ ~ __~L.~) Do the ~structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes'~, Nc> (). If no, specify each non-conformin§ use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) FrontYard: ~(~~qsCi~.~W)) ,¢~' ~'~) ft. It~ ~Oft. -- 0 .... Side Yard: ~ ft. ~ ft. ~ O -- Side Yard: ,',C/"' E,~W) ~ ft. (~ ft. ---- ~ ~ Rear Yard: ( N S EI,,~) ~5- ft. i ¢' ft. '-- 0 '~ Lakesiae: ( N S E W ) ff. ft. (NS~W',_ j ft. ft. Street Frontage: ~'0 ft. ~ 0 ft. ---, C2 -~ LotSize: ~c'o~ sqft ~i~O0 sqft Hardcover: C;~ To i) q°,-?-Osqft O/~7~./)¢'~O sqft ~C~ ft. ft. ff. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq h Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes,,~ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil (,~) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify describe: LeT Revised 10-26-99 ',..'ari~nce Application, P. 3 Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~.' If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No,~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar oniy to the propen7 described ~n this petition? Yes (), No,/~.'lf no. list some other properties which are simiiar!y affected'; 7-/ TuS e LoT', 9. Comments: LoT' oP I~Ec~' ¢,O ~T" 2.~,,5"2 ~R ti=7"~:~o1~ L./~.4,,~ I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date Revised 10-26-99 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, January 26, 2000 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock · Save the Lake Recognition Banquet, 2/10/00, Lord Fletchers of the Lake READING OF MINUTES - 1/12/00 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. Maple Forest Association, Consideration of a new multiple dock license application to increase dock lengths at a conforming multiple dock facility. 1. Public Hearing. 2. Discussion and/or Consideration. 1. LAKE USE & RECREATION A) Staff update on proposed public safety lanes on the north end of Big Island; B) Additional Business; Mr. Kent Carlson, Consideration of new multiple dock license and variance applications for 20 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 428' of continuous shoreline on St. Albans Bay. 1. Public Hearing. 2. Discussion and/or Consideration. 2. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers (1/16/00 - 1/31/00); B) December financial summary and balance sheet; C) Additional Business; 3. WATER STRUCTURES 4. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A) (*) Minutes from the 1/14/00 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting (hand~ ~t); B) 1/14/00 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting, port; C) Additional Business; 5. Ai ;NISTRATION A) ,5taft update on the issuance of o,,-sale, intoxicating liquor licenses in 2000; B) Additional Business; 6. SAVE THE LAKE 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, January 12, 2000 Tonka Bay City Hail CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Foster called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM. ROLL CALL Members present: Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Cr3ig Nelson, Spring Park; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Sheldon Weft, Greenwood; Lili McMillan, Orono; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Bob Rascop, Shcrewood. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg I, iybeck, Executive Director: Roger Winberg, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Andrea Aherns, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Greg Kitchak, Uinnetonka; Gene Parb/ka, Uinnetrista. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Vice Chair Foster Foster stated that the annual Save the Lake Recognition Banquet Dinner would be held on Thursday, 2i10/00, at Lord Fletchers of the Lake. He encouraged the Board members to attend the Banquet Dinner. READING OF MINUTES- 12/15/99 LMCD Regular Board Meeting. MOTION: Gilman moved, Wert seconded to approve the minutes of the 12/15/99 Regular Board Meeting ~s submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agend~ (Bmin.) There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed frcm the consent agenda. Gilman moved, McMillan seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Item so app~'oved include: 3B, Mr. Rick Born, staff recommends full refund of $50 application fee received for special event application for Fireworks Display on New Years Eve. 1. WATER STRUCTURES A. Bayview Event Center, Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock and special density license applications to reduce Boat Storage Uni~[s (BSU's) from 41 to 40 and to reconfigure the existJng dock structure. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 12, 2000 Page2 Foster introduced the agenda item, noting the applications were reviewed extensively at the 12/15/99 Board meeting. He added the attorney has prepared draft Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock and special density license applications. He asked for comments from the Board or public on the draft Findings. Nybeck stated that the applicant, Mr. Bob Ziton, was not present but that he believed would be attending the meeting. He noted one of the conditions of the 12/15/99 Board approval was for the applicant to submit a letter from the Minnesota Transportation Museum (MTM) indicating they are aware of the proposed changes and that they do not oppose them. He added if Mr. Ziton was not able to attend the meeting and if the Board approved the draft Findings, he believed that the Board should place this as a condition of that approval. Gilman questioned whether the letter from the MTM was a condition from the Board at the 12/15/99 meeting. Nybeck stated th;t it was a condition of the Board and that Mr. Ziton had made contact with the MTM. He added he believed that Mr. Ziton had a letter to be submitted from the MTM. MOTION: Gilman moved, Wert seconded to apProve the Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock license and special density license applications for the Bayview Event Center, subject to the applicant submitlJng a letter from the MTM. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. B. Additional Business. Nybeck stated that Board member Kitchak was unable to attend the meeting; however, he wanted a handout that reviewed possible changes to the Code for an item that was scheduled for public hearing at the 1/26/00 Regular Board meeting. He added that Kitchak did not encourage discussion of this handout at this meeting but that he wanted it included in the agenda item for the public hearing scheduled on 1/26/00. 2. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers (12/16/99- 12/31/99) & (1101100- 1/15/00). Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. He noted that check # 12966, in the amount of $900 to Tom Reese, should be added to the vouchers for payment. He stated this payment was authorized at the 12/15/99 Board meeting. MOTION: Gilman moved, Suerth seconded to approve the audit of vouchers as amended, adding check # 12966 for $900 to Tom Reese. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. B. November financial summary and balance sheet. Nelson reviewed the November financial summary and balance sheet. He noted during the months of October and November, there has been $27,009 of deferred revenue collected for 2000 for multiple dock Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 12, 2000 Page3 and DMA facilities. He stated this should be deducted from the lg99 financial summary and that it would properly reflected in the December financial summary and balance sheet. MOTION: Gilman moved, McMillan seconded to accept the November financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. C. Additional Business. Rascop asked if arrangements have been made for the annual audit Nelson stated he understood that staff would meeting with the auditor in the near future to initiate the 1999 LMCD Audit Babcock ardved at 7:11 p.m. 3. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Consideration of Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Special Deputy Candidates. Babcock introduced the agenda item noting that Lt. Schilling had recommended two candidates who are both well qualified. He asked the Board for any comments or recommendations. MOTION: Foster moved, Nelson seconded to approve the selection of Mr. Jamie Demarais as the Special Deputy candidate to be recognized at the 2/10/00 Save the Lake Recognition Banquet Dinner. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Staff update on 2000 Lake Minnetonka Boat Density and User Attitude Surveys. Babcock introduced the agenda item by asking staff to provide an update on it Nybeck stated that these surveys are planned for the year 2000 in compliance with the Management Plan for Lake Uinnetonka. He added that staff has prepared a RFP with the MN DNR, and that Announcements for Proposals would be advertised in both the Star Tribune and the Lakeshore Weekly News. He stated that the RFP would be sent to both Clear Air, Inc. and Schoell and Madson, Inc., consultants who have worked on the project in the past. He noted that the deadline for proposals is 12 NOON on 2/14/00, and that staff would be making a recommendation at the 2/23/00 Regular Board meeting. He asked for comments or questions from the Board. Babcock recommended two changes be incorporated in the draft RFP. He stated these changes should include having an electronic copy of the Report available and a minimum target of surveys to be conducted. He questioned whether staff was looking for a motion from the Board to proceed with the project Nybeck stated he believed a motion was not necessary. He added this was more of an informational item to the Board. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 12, 2000 Page4 D. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 4. ADMINISTRATION A. Update of 11/17/99 Executi. Session to discuss performance of Executive Director (discuss compen~ 'lion adjustment, retroactive to 11/1/99). Babc~,.;k stated he would like to recomme:. J compensation adjustment for Greg Nyt' . to $48,000 per year, retroactive to 11/1/99. He noted he believed the performance of Nybeck over the past year has bee~ excellent and that he has done a good job of running the District. MOTION: Babcock moved, Foster seconded to approve compensa~on adjustment for Greg Nyoeck to a rate of $48,000 per year, retroactive to 11/1/99. Rascop asked what the -centage of increase would be on the adjustment. ,,,~,¢ock stated it would be a little over 6%. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. B. Update of 12/16/99 Annual Meeting with the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol. Babcocl !ated staff has assembled a memo that summarizes the key discussion items at this meeting. He asked staff to provide an overview of this memo. Nybeck stated the majority of the discussion of the meeting focused on the litigation that challenges the authority of Water Patrol Special Deputies. Foster stated that She~,~ McGowan was present at the meeting and that he expressed concern regarding the outcome of the case that was heard at the Appellate Court in October. He added if the outcome is negative to the District and the Water Patrol, there would be a need to sit down with officials from Hennepin County to discuss strategies. He ncted strategies were not discussed at this meeting. Wert questioned whether it would be beneficial to have a course of action in place before the court hands down the decision. Foster stated this was discussed at this meeting; however, no course of action was decided on. He added it was a~'"-mined the proper course action, if there is an adverse ruling, could be impacted based on the court o. ,, whether it be an appeal or the ~eed to get legislation changed. Nybeck added a number ~,f other items were discussed at this meeting. He stated this included 1999 Code enforcement operational review from Lt. S~ ~ ng, the ~ulation of rafting ard other activities that took place in Cruiser's Cove during 1999, goals and objectives for 2000 to supplement th~ joint and cooperative agreement, and prosecutions and the distribulJon of fine revenues collected for violation of District Code on Lake Minnetonka. He ~oncluded that Prosecuting Attorney Tallen has prepared a memo that summarizes prosecutions on Lake Minn,.tonka and how fine reven~,: s are distrih~ted. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 12, 2000 Page 5 C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 5. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE Suerth reported that he and Nybeck had a recent meeting with officials from Carrnichael Lynch regarding zebra mussel campaign plans for 2000. He stated they suggested a more focused, hands on approach might be merited for 2000. He noted they have su§gested the District consider a zebra mussel protest at the annual boating and sportsmen shows, with professionals in animated customs carrying protest signs and educational literature to get a message across to a large number of potential users of the lake. He stated cost estimates and concepts are being gathered and that staff would be reporting back on this in the near future. Eggers stated he believed it would beneficial to have zebra mussels present at the March Sportsmen Show. Nybeck stated he believed the MN DNR would be present at the March Sportsmen Show with a barrel that is encrusted with zebra mussels. Suerth stated the next EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting is planned for 8:30 a.m. at the LMCD office on Friday, 1/14/00. 6. SAVE THE LAKE McMillan stated a "Save the Lake" Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled for 1/18/00 at 11:30 a.m. in the LMCD office. , 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck stated the LMCD office will be closed on Monday, 1/17/00, in observance of the Martin Luther King holiday. He added that staff has included a Board meeting calendar for the year 2000. Babcock stated that meeting are planned on the second and fourth Wednesdays of every month, with the exceptions of November and December. He noted one meeting is planned for these months. 8. OLD BUSINESS McMillan asked about the status of the Big Island issue. Nybeck reported that the Task Force has continued to meet on this issue and that recommendations for the establishment of public safety lanes in Cruiser's Cove have been finalized. He stated these recommendations would be presented to the Board at the 1/26/00 Regular meeting. 9. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Kent Carlson ADDlicalJons Weft stated he would not be at the 1/26/00 Regular meeting; however, he wanted to make some general comments on a public hearing that has been scheduled for new multiple dock license and variance applications from Mr. Kent Carlson. He noted he understood the proposed applications are for Board Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 12, 2000 Page 6 consideration of a 20 twinhome facility, with a demand for the storage of 20 boats, on 428' of continuous shoreline in St. Albans Bay. He added he understood the proposed applications do not comply with the General Rule of one watercraft ,ar every 50' of continuous shoreline; however, he pointed there is a significant reduction in the proposed watercraft to be stored at this site when compared to what is Currently approved. He stated both he and the City of Greenwood supports the ~' 'op(~.sed development at this site. He concluded he did not know how to get to the point where the District could ~,pprove the proposed applications but he encouraged the Board to consider options to accomplish this. Gilman asked the how the B~)ard could reconcile the greater density of boats to be stored a site where the proposed density does not meet Code and there is a conversion of~ ;e of how the land would be used. He added he believed this would be a bad precedent for the District to set. McMillan stated she believed the Board should look at redevelopment as a fact of life for the future. She added she believed if the Board desired to approve this and other applications in the future, criteria should established that could be implemented on a lakewide basis, not for this specific site. She stated she believed the Board should consider how much the shoreline could handle when considering these types of applications. Babcock stated .Jne reason why there are sort~ ,xceptions to the 1:50' General Rule in the Code for public facilitie, :; that the District has better means o~ · ~trolling them. He added when a public facility is cor,,erted to a private facility, he believed the District should require them to comply with existing Codes because of this. Gilman stated he believed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), he believed it would be a bad precedent for the lake to ensure docking rights to all units in the PUD. Babcock stated he believed the 1:50' General R,.I~. has been used for r ,,,eral years to determine how many boats a shoreline could support. He noted he believed what is being di~,cussed is whether to co~ :;der fundamental changes to the General Rule, although the Board considered making the General Rule more restrictive in the last year by changing it to 1:100'. He questioned whether changing the Code in the short-term for a long-term project is in the best interest of the District. Gilman stated he believed the Board needs to discuss how important the commercial marinas are to Lake Minnetonka. He added if the Board allows these marinas to convert their use and maintain some of their grandfathered density, he questioned how many would stay in business in the future. Babcock stated the Board some years ago adopted a Code provision that allowed for greater density at commercial facilities around the lake, provided they made, available sufficient public amenities for the increased density. He noted this Code provision excluded private developments, whether they are designed for sin31e family or multiple families. Mr. Gabriel Jabbour, owner of Tonka Bay Marina, stated when the Board was considering the Code amendment that would have i[~,,, eased the General Rule to 1:100', he and a number of commercial owners around the lake suggested the Board review the current conversion of use Code provisions. He noted to address PUD's in Lake Minnetonka cities, he suggested it would be appropriate to allow these cities to petition the LMCD on th,' development proposals that would invol,,~, a conversion of use, provided there is a net reduction of bo~.,~s at that site. Babcock stated he believed the District nee'~' ~o evaluate what is the highest and best use in a set of circumstances on a parcel of land. He add~ ~e believed the ..... :or docking in the water at the proposed Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 12, 2000 Page applications have been generated by the owner. He noted he believed there is value to the land if the docks approved by the Code would comply with the current 1:50' General Rule. Gilman re-stated he believed the Board needs to evaluate the importance of maintaining commercial madnas on the lake. He noted he believed these facilities, which make up a small percentage of the lakeshore frontage on the lake, store a large percentage of the boats on the lake that are available to the public. Mr. Paul Pedersen, owner of Grays Bay Marina, stated he believed the 1:50' General Rule creates a hardship when compared to what the Code allows for boat storage at riparian residents on the lake. He noted although he believed the 1:50' density was not appropriate, he did not believe the 1:10' density allowed for in special density licenses would also not be appropriate. He suggested he believed the Board should examine the current General Rule for future planning of the lake. He concluded he believed the net reduction being proposed in St. Albans Bay would be beneficial to the lake. Babcock stated with regards to the number of boats being stored around the lake at riparian residents, he believed only a small percentage of them are storing the maximum allowed, four boats, provided they are all owned and registered to residents of the site. He added with regards to the proposed net reduction, the current density is available to the general public whereas the proposed density would not be. Nybeck suggested he believed the Board might want to consider wrapping up this discussion because a public hearing is scheduled for the 1/26/00 Board meeting and because the applicant was not present to participate in this discussion. The consensus of the Board was to continue this discussion, provided it was general and on a lakewide basis, not on the applications to be heard on 1/26/00. Wert stated if the Board does not approve the storage of the same number of watercraft as the number of units constructed, he believed the developer would be concerned with what the price of the units would be without a watercraft. Suerth stated he believed the proposed project, as an example, is good for the lake. He suggested the Board should try to find a mechanism to approve them. He suggested he believed the Board should gather the input from the cities on how many units they believe a parcel of land could support Foster stated he believed planning for the storage of boats in the water at multiple dock facilities should be done by the District to avoid arbitrary and capricious decisions. LeFevere stated he believed the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka addresses the 1:50' General Rule and strategies to implementing it. He added he believed it would be appropriate to review the Management Plan to review what it says. Current Boat Stora(~e Ordinances LeFevere stated there was a recent court case that Steve Tallen prosecuted. He noted the dock use area in question was small with four boats being stored at the residence that were not all owned and registered by the residents of the site. He stated that the District received an adverse ruling in this case because the judge determined there were ambiguities with Code Section 2.02, subd. 4 that allows for some grandfathering of docks in existence on or before 5/3/78. He suggested the Board direct staffto prepare a Code amendment to clarify this section of the Code. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 12, 2000 Page 8 MOTION: Gilman moved, Foster seconded to direct attorney to prepare a code amendment to correct this section of the Code. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the mee~ng at 8:50 p m. Douglas Babcock, Chairman Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER cALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERI~Y ADDRESS: ~.. '2. t'~/ OWNER'S NAME: ~--~'~. ~__..d ~ c~ A-FE A ~) ~)EMA~S-GnBmV. L ~ St~.~YO~ mC. 3030 Ha'bor Lane l'~erth - Suite 111 Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 RECEIVEP. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots).. .............. LOT AREA c~t ~C)(~ SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) .. · ('~- LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that' techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd..6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH .WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE ~'0, O ' X ~ (~' ~' = I I 0 (~ O X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks {1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under ere not counted es"l~ardcover '-r OTHER X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. 25.2 x ~,0 x TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ~-~o ~ -~ X~ X //,o= g~ ~.~ = ¢<~ 4.to= ~ TOTAL DECK ........................... X -- TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~ UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED'BY~"1~)~IZ'r' ~/'0/~t)lh'lA I~-- DATE STANDARD FEATURES INCLUDE: * Shingled roof with 12" eaves * Double Four Dutch style lap siding eFiberboard backer and air brace wind wrap behind siding Owens Corning pink fiberglass insulation in roof (R-22), exterior walls (R-ig) and floors (R-22) * 2 X 8 floor joists 16" on center * 2 X 6 sidewall studs 16" on center * 16" on center rafters * Residential roOf pitch * Spray-textur6d"cathedral ceilings * Heavy-duty door hinges, wrapped door jambs * Pantry * 16 X 48 skylight in kitchen * 16 X 30 skylight in main bathroom * One phone jack * Lamina~ted backsplash in kitchen * Legacy Package (thermopane windows throughout; bedroom cei 1 ing 1 i ghts; 6-panel steel white front door with storm; high density carpet pad throughout; Charlotte Oak raised-panel cabinet doors throughout) * 40 gallon electric water heater * Deluxe tub drape in second bathroom DEC 2 ~ !~ * Ventilaire II! air circulation system * Nordyne electronic ignition gas furnace Slit rear door Exterior electrical receptacle with GFI Plumbed for washer/wired for dryer 100 Amp service 15 cubic foot Frigidaire refrigerator 30" Frigidaire gas range * Finished interior overhead cabinets * Armstrong vinyl flooring in kitchen & bath * Visions sculptured carpet * Stainless steel kitchen sink '* Vinyl-covered gypsum wall panels throughout * Guest closet * Main water shut-off * Exterior frost-free faucet * Vinyl entry * Glass light fixtures throughout * See-through overhead cabinet in kitchen * Enlarged 46 X 53 window in dining area * Passage doors in utility area * Two louvered shutters on door side * Fridgidaire dishwasher * One-piece fiberglass tub/shower in second bath ~ '-'- ' ' i I mi i ,.,~,..,.-. -- L a m ~,~ ,/_t__~ ,L_t_OlNlk.U,: t._t_..a I : L L L U' -- -- --":- L L t L , ---~. I . ~ I'~_LLLLL_LLLL/_L[----~3"-~ ~' $~"~OND Jl[ _LLL. t_,L.L_L.L~x~ '~IL\ L ~'-~ x~'-~ ~1 - L. L t Kn'CH£N _y"-- ~."~ _._~N. I~ ~1 ~R :: LLLLLLLL.).~ ~] !. : :'' I _/ ...... / "'~'~ ~ ~~1 / r ~ / I ~~. / : i" I i ........ / i11 I c,,,'rm=~ ~ , '. ~'L ~ '--- BEDROOM ~ ROOM (OPT DEN} 1060 SQ. Fr. 3BR. 2BA. ELEGANT BATH RECEIVEF 1999 biff. PT iff-bBVATION 5CAL-IP.: I/~d~-I' ~1"~-I~ VINYL LAP VINYl- CC::~NDI~ I'~IM PRONI' BL...BVAT'ION 5C,/~L-I~: I/4~',"1' PL6 RECEIVEP DEC / ~ POUNI~AT1ON PLAN .SCAI. P.-: I/'q"'-I' RECEIVED DEC 2 11999 PUOOP~ .~-I~: I/4"-I' / / / / 1:2OI..~LIF:; PC2LI~ 1:2LI'rCH S1WI.-~ VINYl., LAP' I/2" C>~¢r, ¢:~4BATHIN~ 2X¢t ~'Tt]2¢ ,~' IE:," O/C ~SCAL-~: ¢,/~"-I' CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SttEET ADDRESS: LOT o~ RECORD: ~ ~ NO IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF DIRECTION N S E W N S E W NS E W NS E W N S E W NS E W ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: EXISTING LOT SIZE: R1 10,000/60 BI '7,500/0 LOT WIDTH: R~A 6. 000/40 ~2 2o, ooo/eo  ~."o-~ B3 xo. 000/60 ..... ~%A-,-eoo / 8 0" LOT DEPTH: R3 SP..E ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED I EXISTING/PROPOSED VARIANCK I 15' 50' 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SilED ..... DETACIIED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N $ E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF 4' OR6' 4' OR 6' 4' 10' OR 30' IIARDCOVER 30% OR 40% ,:ON,~ORMIN~;? ",.', '~O ' ? I"": I''mo: [ Z-- ~-?~ ~ This Zoning Infmmatio, ~hcel only summarizes a ~rtion of d~e requirements oullined in file Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For ~r~er info~ation, con.ct ~e City of Mound Planning Departmen! at 472 0600. _ -~ ~ ~~~ ...... ~'~ ...... 7 .......... ;'i5"~'6"~ ....... "a: "~b .... ' "~ ~ ~ .... ~ ..... I" ~0~'---'~ ~'"~' I~ ~ ~ ~,'~ ~' dz~ '-' ~ I: . '* ,'~'<'~ .... ?'~?"?-g~ ~ D" ~ ~ ~ ~° ~J,.,.,.,d,: '~. ,: _m, ...... ~ .~ ~ _ ~,, ~ . '*..'.... /, :~'~--; ..... ~ r ..... 0-. .' s- 5'2~' ~':~' % 6~ O~ ,U 7 6 5J4 , I' 0:4 ~ ~ '~ ' ' '~ .... r: ..... HOMES, INC. Case 99-48 VAR: L.P. Crevier's Subd. Lafay. 2217 Chateau Lane Steve Codden Often copied, never equaled. i~i.~ It f: Il ~4 II li II Jill II II ~ IL-'~/// \ ST" '[ ~dJ. S3~CI $=1140H AI~t~SI-l: 1,.40~ '=r"lJ I.~ I! Ii' II F'l II II II I-I I! IIii Jill IIII t111 ,~ "il tl II IIII IIII II II II II II ~II r-il ~Jl ~11 ~1I mil ~11 -7-,11 ~11 1 I1~ I1'" II II II IIg ~ I1~: ILl /11 t~! /11 ~1111.~ ~111 ~ n I1~,11 /~ ~ II Ii ~Jl 11 i ~lJ II ~ ~ III1~ ~LI ~Lt T~/~ ~ ~/\~' ,, '~/ //\~, Ir`' ~ II ~ I ~~ ~11 ~' '~, I~ ~J ~1 !1~ ~ ' / I !1/~1 ,/ !1//11 II//11 !~1 ,' I~1 / II/!1 ~ LEN HARRELL Chief of Police TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MOUND POLIC 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 Fran Clark Chief Len Harrell Monthly Report for October, 1999 STATISTICS The police department responded to 772 calls for service during the month of October. There were 10 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 criminal sexual conduct, 3 burglary, and 5 larcenies. There were 48 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 3 child abuse/neglect, 6 criminal damage to property, 1 NSF checks, 5 liquor law violations, 4 DUI's, 6 simple assaults, 2 domestics (1 with assaults), 5 harassment, and 16 other offenses. The patrol division issued 109 hazardous and 46 non-hazardous citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 20 tickets. Warnings were issued to 102 individuals for a variety of violations. There were 9 adults and 15 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were 1 felony adult warrant and 8 misdemeanor warrant arrests. The department assisted in 9 vehicle accidents, 2 with injuries. There were 36 medical emergencies and 14 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 13 occasions in October and requested assistance 6 times. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - October, 1999 II. III. INVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on 4 child protection issues in October accounting for 32 hours. Investigator Swensen has been placed back into patrol for the majority of the month due needs in that unit. Other cases included burglary, assault, damage to property, forgery, theft, NSF checks, absenting, counterfeiting, and domestic abuse. Formal complaints were issued for Gross Misdemeanor DWI for both a third violation in ten years and for having a BAC over .20, underage consumption, disorderly conduct, assault, worthless check, hit & run property damage accident, exterior storage, fireworks, and storage of refuse. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 93 hours of overtime during the month of October. Officers used 54 hours of comp-time, 41 hours of sick time, 203 hours of vacation, and 3 holidays. Officers eamed 63 hours of comp time. Jeanne DeBord was hired in October and began as our new secretary the first week of November. IV. TRAINING Three officers attended mandatory training through PTAC, three attended EIVlT refresher, two attended Intoxilyzer School, and I attended the International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference in Charlotte, NC. IACP workshop topics included Leadership & Organizational Ethics, School Violence, Community Policing Best Practices, Tough Enough for the Job/Fitness, Supreme Court Decisions Effecting Law Enforcement, Employment Law, Legal Issues in Use of Force, Responding to Youth Exposed to Violence, Current Issues Forum of the Police Execut/ve Research Forum, and I attended the general assembly presentation by our Attorney General Janet Reno. I was again involved in the presentation for community policing and the annual community policing awards. V. COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICERS We are currently in the hiring process to replace our community service officer position. VI. RESERVES The reserves donated 130 hours of community service in the month of October. The unit currently has eight members. LEN HARRELL Chief of Police TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MOUND POLiC 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 Fran Clark Chief Len Harrell Monthly Report for November, 1999 STATISTICS The police department responded to 863 calls for service during the month of November. There were 16 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 6 burglary, 9 larcenies and 1 vehicle theft. There were 48 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 4 child abuse/neglect, 3 NSF checks, 9 criminal damage to property, 3 narcotics, 2 liquor law violations, 3 DUI's, 3 simple assaults, 8 domestics (2 with assaults), 4 harassment, and 9 other offenses. The patrol division issued 197 adult and 4 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 9 tickets. Warnings were issued to 145 individuals for a variety of violations. There were 3 juveniles arrested for felonies and 11 adults and 8 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were I felony adult and 1 felony juvenile warrant and 4 misdemeanor adult warrant arrests. The department assisted in 14 vehicle accidents, 6 with injuries. There were 33 medical emergencies and 37 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 12 occasions in November and requested assistance 4 times. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - November, 1999 II. III. INVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on 5 child protection issues in November accounting for 27 hours. Investigator Swensen has been placed back into patrol for the majority of the month due needs in that unit. Other cases included burglary, assault, damage to properly, forgery, theft, NSF checks, absenting, and felon with a gun. Formal complaints were issued for Gross Misdemeanor DWI and DWI, assault, and no insurance. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 44 hours of overtime during the month of November. Officers used 37 hours of comp-time, 15 hours of sick time, 24 hours of funeral leave, 90 hours of vacation, and 28 holidays. Officers earned 52 hours of comp time. Jeanne DeBord was hired in November and began as our new secretary the first week of November. IV. TRAINING Four officers attended mandatory training through PTAC, one attended Intoxilyzer School, three attended domestic abuse/community policing training, and I attended the Police Executive Research Forum's Problem Oriented Policing seminar and Problem Solving for Supervisors course. V. COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICERS Our new Community Service Officer will start December 13, 1999. VI. RESERVES The reserves donated 147 hours of community service in the month of November. The unit currently has seven members. LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Fran Clark Chief Len Harrell Monthly Report for December, 1999 STATISTICS The police department responded to 779 calls for service during the month of December. There were 14 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 1 burglary and 13 larcenies.. There were 60 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 3 child abuse/neglect, 3 NSF checks, 5 criminal damage to property, 2 weapons, 1 narcotics, 14 liquor law violations, I1 DUI's, I simple assault, 11 domestics (4 with assaults), and 9 other offenses. The patrol division issued 191 adult and 1 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 34 tickets. Warnings were issued to 120 individuals for a variety of Violations. There were 27 adults and 12 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were 2 felony adult and 7 misdemeanor adult warrant arrests. The department assisted in 3 vehicle accidents, 1 with injuries. There were 43 medical emergencies and 7 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 15 occasions in December and requested assistance 10 times. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - December, 1999 II. III. INVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on 7 child protection issues in December accounting for over 20 hours. Investigator Swensen has been placed back into patrol for the majority of the month due needs in that unit. Other cases included burglary, damage to property, forgery, theft, absenting, threats, and sex offender issues. Formal complaints were issued for Gross Misdemeanor DWI and DWI, three assaults, domestic assault, driving after revocation, marijuana in a motor vehicle, 5t~ Degree controlled substance possession, reckless driving, worthless check, barking dog and expired tabs. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 58 hours of overtime during the month of December. Officers used 52 hours of comp-time, 100 hours of sick time, 32 hours of funeral leave, 145 hours of vacation, and 27 holidays. Officers eamed 50 hours of comp time. Matthew Cams was hired in December and began as our new Community Service Officer. IV. TRAINING I attended a state sponsored training updating agencies in regards to drug issues around the state. V. COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICERS No report this month. VI. RESERVES The reserves donated 138 hours of community service in the month of December. The unit currently has seven members. 68LO-~'VL (~I 9) I6£gg mosouu!lAi 'mgz/~eA~ "P^I8 g>lUO]OUU!l~ 8££8I .I. OIl:l.l. SlO NOI.L~fAI:IitSNO0 ¥)INOJ. iINNIIN :o~ £ K. reruq~zI/~q ~u. re o] tumult Association of Metropolitan Municipalities DATE: January 18, 2000 TO: AMM City Managers/Administrators FROM: AMM Staff RE: 2000 Legislative Policies/Policy Priority Brochures Enclosed is a copy of the AMM Legislative Policies for 2000. Also enclosed for distribution to your mayor and council are copies of our 2000 Policy Priorities brochure. The brochure highlights the four major areas the AMM will focus much of its lobbying efforts on during the 2000 Legislative Session. If you would like additional copies of the AMM policy document or the brochure please call the AMM office at (651) 215-4000. Thank you! cheryl/msdocs/letters/2OOO/policyltrl O0.doc 145 University A venue West Saint Paul, Minnesota 55103-2044 Telephone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-ma& amm@amm145, org Table of Contents Municipal Revenue & Taxation (I) Levy Limits (I-A) Local Government Aid (I-B) Homestead & Agricultural Credit Aid (I-C) Tax Exempt Property (I-D) Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases (I-E) Development Access Fees (I-F) Price of Government (I-G) Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution (I-H) Personal Property Taxation: Electric Utility (I4) Revenue Diversification (I-J) Class Rate Tax System (I-K) Limited Market Value (I-L) Funding Shifts (I-M) City Revenue Stability & Fund Balance (I-N) General Legislation (11) Mandates & Local Authority (II-A) Public Right-of-Way (II-B) County Plat Approval Authority (Il-C) 911 Telephone Tax (II-D) 800 MHz Radio System (II-E) 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 .~.2000 Legislative Policies Table of Contents Permit Approval: Zoning (II-F) Witness Fee Costs (II-G) Elections: Alley System Authority (II-H) Housing & Economic Development {Iii) Livable Communities Act (III-A) State Housing Policy (III-B) Housing Preservation (III-C) Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Appropriation Family & Elderly Housing (III-E) Economic Development Responsibilities (III-F) Tax Increment Financing (III-G) Property Tax Reform Impact on TIF (III-H) Development Tools (III-I) Welfare Reform/Workforce Readiness (III-J) Business'Subsidy (III-K) Building Permit Fee Surcharge (III-L) Group Homes (III-M) Metropolitan Agencies (IV) Introduction: Metropolitan Governance Structure Purpose of Metropolitan Governance (W-A) Regionally Provided Services: Funding (IV:B) Regional Systems (IV-C) Coordination of Local & Regional Plans (IV-D) Growth Management Strategy (IV-E) Local Plan Implementation (IV-F) Metropolitan Council Focus on Planning (IV-G) (III-D) 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 13 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 20 20 21 22 22 23 2000 Legislative Policies Table of Contents Budget Process & Work Program Evaluation (IV-H) Criteria for Extension of Metropolitan Governance Authority (IV-I) Restructuring of Metropolitan Agencies (IV-J) Metropolitan Council: Method to Select Members (IV-K) Parks & Open Space: Operation & Maintenance Capital Funding (IV-L) Surface & Groundwater Water Management (IV-M) Water Supply (IV-N) Regional Wastewater (Sewer) Treatment System (IV-O) Waste Stream Management (IV-P) Transportation (V) Transportation Funding (V-A) Regional Transit System (V-B) Motion Imaging Recording System (M.I.R.S.): Traffic Law Compliance (V-C) Transportation Utility (V-D) Highway Turnbacks & Funding (V-E) '3C' Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials Role (V-F) Airport Noise Mitigation (V-G) Committee Rosters (VI) 1999-00 Housing & Economic Development Committee 1999-00 Metropolitan Agencies Committee 1999-00 Municipal Revenue & Taxation Committee 1999-00 Transportation & General Government Committee 23 24 24 25 26 27 28 28 28 31 31 32 32 32 33 33 35 36 37 38 2000 Legislative Policies iii Municipal Revenue & Taxation (i) Levy Limits (I-A) The AMM strongly opposes levy limits and urges the le~slature to not re-enact them for 2001 or beyond. The AMM also opposes the imposition of artificial mechanisms such as valuation freezes, payroll freezes, reverse referenda, super majority requirements for levy, or other limitations to the local government budget and taxing process. Local Government Aid (I-B) Local Government Aid (LGA) returns a portion of statewide resources to supplement local property taxes. The AMM supports its continuation with an annual inflation index, along with additional state resources to further reduce the reliance on the property tax. In addition, any LGA formula changes considered by the legislature must have a positive impact on the metropolitan area. Homestead & Agricultural Credit Aid (I-C) The Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA) equals about 40 percent of the total local aid and should be continued as part of the local fiscal relationship, with an inflation or increased household growth factor restored for cities. The AMM strongly opposes the conversion of city HACA to school aid. Tax Exempt Property (I-D) The AMM encourages the legislature to authorize cities to establish a program of payments in lieu of taxes by tax exempt governmental and non-governmental organizations, except constitutionally exempt property (churches and schools) for the cost of services such as police, fire and streets to their facilities. 2000 Legislc]tive Policies evenue & Taxation Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases (I-E) The legislature should reinstate the sales tax exemption for all local government purchases without requiring a reduction in other aids. Development Access Fees (I-F) The A_MM supports authorization for cities to impose Development Access Fees for roads and stormwater control. In order to fairly provide for major street and stormwater improvements of primary benefit to a particular subdivision development but not directly assessable and to allocate cost so that new growth pays its fair share, the legislature should authorize cities to establish at their option a road and/or stormwater development access charge to be collected at the time that subdivisions are approved and/or at the time building permits are issued similar to park dedication fees. Price of Government (I-G) The price of government calculation in regard to local governments should be based on (1) changes in the sum of the levy and state aids, and (2) examination of long-term trends, not single year events. In addition, consideration should be given to service provision transfers between governmental units, increased demand for services by citizens and legislative mandates or tax rate changes. Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution (I-H) The AMM opposes the use of fiscal disparities to fund social or physical metropolitan programs since it results in a metropolitan-wide property tax increase hidden from the public. Personal Property Taxation: Electric Utility (I-!) The AMM opposes proposals for exempting the Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) from the personal property tax. Under no circumstances should local units of government and their taxpayers be required to shoulder the burdens of tax relief for IOUs. 2000 Legislative Policies Revenue & Taxation The personal property tax is a significant portion of the metropolitan fiscal disparity pool and, if eliminated, would have a metropolitan-wide property tax impact. Revenue Diversification (I-J) The AMM supports revenue diversification for cities to reduce the reliance on local property taxes. Some examples include authorization for local sales taxes, payments in lieu of taxes, franchise fees, deed taxes to remain with city, development impact fees, or the creation of a separate income/sales tax fund that would grow with the economy. The AMM opposes legislated reduction or limitation on various license fees, development fees, or other general fees which would force increased property tax to pay for related services. Class Rate Tax System (I-K) The AMM opposes a change from the class rate tax system to a market value system, which would cause tremendous shifts of tax burden between classes of property, or applying future levy increases to market value, since this would further complicate the property tax system. Limited Market Value (I-L) The AMM strongly opposes further extension of artificial limits in valuing property, at market for property, taxation purposes. Limiting market value increase on existing property to a non- market index or set rate will cause various property tax system problems. Similar properties will be taxed differently if new or sold and improvements will be discouraged. Tax shifts will occur mainly on lower valued homes and the ability to issue bonds may be adversely affected. Finally, it will be politically difficult as well as costly to persons owning long-term capped properties when it becomes necessary to sunset due to vast differences in tax liabilities for like properties. The AMM believes that enhanced targeting for special circumstances such as low-income persons better serves the tax system. 2000 Legislative Policies Revenue & Taxation Funding Shifts (I-M) The AMM requests the legislature to continue to reduce the imbalance of aids versus revenue between metropolitan and outstate cities and to consider how this distribution of resources affects the economic growth and vitality of the metropolitan area, and thus the entire state. Currently in the metropolitan area, about 66 percent of the state revenue is collected, while only about 49 percent of the aids and credits are redistributed. City Revenue Stability & Fund Balance (I-N) The legislature should not attempt to control or restrict city fund balances. These funds are necessary to maintain fiscal viability to meet unexpected or emergency resource needs of city governments, to purchase capital goods and irffrastructure, provide adequate cash flow and to maintain kigh-level bond ratings. I I I I I l o 2(X)0 Legislative Policies General Legislation (11) Mandates & Local Authority (II-A) The AMM opposes statutory changes which erode local control and authority, or create mandated additional tasks requiring new or added local costs without a corresponding state appropriation or funding mechanism. New unfunded mandates cause increased property taxes which impedes the ability to fund traditional service needs. Public Right-of-Way (II-B) The AMM supports the continued effort of the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) to protect the authority of cities to maintain jurisdiction over municipal public rights-of-way, to establish relevant criteria and to obtain reasonable compensation for its degradation. County Plat Approval Authority (II-C) Cities oppose county authority over plat approval for plats that are contiguous to existing or proposed county roads. While counties have a valid interest in right-of-way and access decisions, this does not warrant a transfer of approval authority. 911 Telephone Tax (II-D) The AMM supports the current distribution of the 911-access fee and the limit of 30 cents per line per month to offset basic maintenance costs and enhanced upgrade. Any fee granted legislatively in excess of 30 cents should be returned directly to the municipality or public safety answering provider (PSAP) where collected. Fee increases granted by the legislature should be a specific amount not a general authorization and only for a specific purpose. Phase 2 Wireless enhanced 911 costs should be recovered from a direct charge to cell phone users. 2000 Legislative Policies General Legislation 800 MHz Radio System (II-E) The AMM supports the continuation of the Metropolitan 800 MHz Radio System legislation and board, as long as cities are not forced to modify their current systems or become part of the 800 MHz Radio System until they so choose. The system should provide a phased transition guaranteeing uninterrupted service and be technically capable of allowing communities the flexibility to form various coordinated arrangements for dispatching and service provision. In that one of the prime advantages of this system is the fact that local public safety agencies and other units of local government throughout the region will be able to communicate with each other, regional funding of the entire system should be considered. Any such funding should take into account the reasonable useful life of current systems. Permit Approval: Zoning (II-F) The permit approval statute delineating time limit requirements should be modified so that in the case of a rezoning application, a motion which requires a simple majority vote that extends action beyond the 60- or 120-day time requirement, constitutes a denial not an approval in order to uphold the super majority requirement of the zgning statute. Current law provides automatic approval if no action is taken. Witness Fee Costs (II-G) Since one-third of fines for city-related prosecutions remain with the county and adequately fund this cost, the AMM opposes shifting witness' fees from counties to cities for these actions. Elections: Alley System Authority (II-H) The AMM supports permissive authority for statutory cities to adopt an alley system for filing for city council seats. I I I I i 2000 Legislative Policies I I I I Housing & Economic Development (111] Livable Communities Act (III-A) The 1995 Legislature enacted the Livable Communities Act (LCA) to stimulate housing and economic and community development in the metropolitan area. The act permits cities to access about $11.0 million in funding for pollution clean-up, housing and redevelopment. As a participant, a city must adopt affordable and life cycle housing goals and a plan to achieve the goals. Since its inception, the Metropolitan Council has been responsible for program implementation, including the completion of an annual progress report. The report for the 1996 calendar year indicates progress toward achieving the stated goals but also raises concern regarding the preservation of affordable housing, particularly the demolition of housing units. The AMM has maintained that the LCA should not be amended until there are progress reports and experience with the LCA. Based on the reports and experience of cities, the AMM recommends: · The LCA should be continued. The LCA should be amended to eliminate the requirement that a city annually elect to be a participant in the act and require by November 15 that a resolution to withdraw be approved. The state should appropriate funds for the LCA. The appropriation should not replace the current funding sources but should be in addition to them. The Metropolitan Council, in cooperation with the LCA participants, should develop a benchmark to measure a city's efforts to provide affordable housing. The benchmark should 2000 Legislative Policies Housing & Economic Development replace the Affordable Life Cycle Housing Opportunity Amount (ALHOA). State Housing Policy (Ill-B) The AMM recognizes and is encouraged by the efforts of the legislature regarding the production and preservation of affordable housing. Over the past several sessions the legislature has provided the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MI-IFA) with additional funds to address housing issues. For example, the 1999 Legislature significantly increased the MHFA's biennial appropriation for housing production programs. While the state of Minnesota continues as a partner with local government in addressing housing issues the federal government, the traditional leader in housing policy development, has decreased its involvement in the issue. The federal government's lack of commitment has caused the other partners -- state and local governments - to increase their housing commitments. The state and local efforts have made an impact but without a strong federal presence, the state and local efforts will be limited. Therefore, the AMM strongly encourages the federal government to be actively engaged in housing policy and programming. To continue the expansion of the state's economy, the governor and legislature should recognize the importance of housing to economic vitality and family stability and should adopt policies that preserve existing housing, permit the production of safe affordable housing and provide resources to produce and preserve housing. The AMM recommends the following: Land Use Standards and State Incentives Minnesota cities are responsible for and should retain the authority to regulate the loCation, size and amount, and type of housing within their boundaries. Minnesota cities, where the county has capacity, should partner with the county to provide affordable housing. The state, in an effort to encourage more affordable housing, should authorize cities on a voluntary basis and provide incentives for such concepts as density bonuses and mixes of housing types and price ranges. The incentives can be, but not II II ! I I I I I I I I I l I I ? 8 2000 Legislative Policies Housing & Economic Development be limited to, property tax class rates and sales tax exemptions for construction materials. · State funding provided for the incentives should not reduce existing programs. Historically, the federal government has provided funding for housing production and rent subsidies. Over the last decade the federal government has reduced its funding commitment and has caused a shortage of affordable housing. Therefore, the AMM recommends that the federal government increase its participation and funding in housing. Housing Preservation (Ill-C) Housing preservation includes the maintenance of the existing rental and owner occupied housing, as well as the retention of affordable units that were formerly subsidized by federal programs. The state should: Continue and increase funding the housing preservation program for federally subsidized housing that could be converted to market rate housing. · Expand efforts to provide resources for housing rehabilitation. Provide a sales tax exemption for construction supplies and materials used in the construction or substantial rehabilitation of affordable housing. Exempt public agencies from paying the mortgage and deed tax when developing or providing for affordable housing and redevelopment. Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Appropriation (Ill-D) The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's (MI-IFA) biennial general fund appropriation approximates $78.0 million. (The 1999 Legislature increased the general fund appropriation to $115.0 million.) The agency uses the funds for several housing programs including rental and homeownership. For the next biennium the agency should: 2000 Legislative Policies Housing & Economic Development Have its appropriation increased and the increase be used primarily for housing preservation, housing production and homeless prevention programs. Redesign, if warranted and with city input, the Community Rehabilitation Program to encourage additional participation from the metropolitan area. The redesign, if needed, could include modification of the area designation, and appropriation set aside, a multiple year funding commitment, recognition of local needs, the timing of the application process, and a linkage to the LCA. Family & Elderly Housing (Ill-E) Demographic trends indicate that Minnesota's population is aging. For example, the Metropolitan Council projects that the region's population age 65 and older will nearly double from the year 2000 to 2020. Since most of the population owns single family housing and they will be smaller households there could be a demand for smaller housing units. The elderly population will also be older than their predecessors. In the metropolitan area, the Metropolitan Council reports that the number of persons age 75 and over will increase from '- approximately 110,000 in the year 2000 to 180,000 in 2020. Being aware of the trends, the legislature should: · Provide additional resources to serve the low income elderly. Resources should include housing as well as related services. · Direct state agencies to provide information and technical assistance to local governments regarding the population changes and their impacts on public services. · Develop policies that encourage the development of housing for the elderly that is affordable and provides an attractive alternative to current housing and preserves the current housing. Economic Development Responsibilities (Ill-F) The state should continue to recognize cities as the primary unit of government.responsible for implementing economic development 10 2000 Legislative Policies Housing & Economic Development policies and land use controls. New or amended economic development programs designed to address specific economic circumstances with cities or counties should use problem definition as the criteria rather than geographic location, city size or similar criteria. Tax Increment Financing (Ill-G) The 1999 Minnesota Legislature made several changes to the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Act. Among them were amendments relating to pooling, the use of increment for public facilities and the impact of property tax changes on TIF. Pooling Clarify that any tax increment districts approved between 1979 and 1982 have the same authority to pool increments as districts certified after 1982 and prior to April 1, 1990. · Allow districts approved after April 1, 1990 to pool increments for affordable housing or pollution remediation. Local E. ffort Eliminate the LGA/HACA penalty or allow an exception from levy limits. If the penalty is not eliminated, the restrictions on the source of payment should be removed. · Authorize the use of federal grants and other local funds for local contributions. T[F Use · Exempt redevelopment districts from the five-year rule. Reaffirm that cities alone should be authorized to approve city initiated tax increment districts and that counties and school districts should continue to have the ability to review and comment on TIF. · Permit all cities to establish housing replacement (scattered site) districts and allow TIF to be used for historic preservation. 2000 Legislative Policies 11 Housing & Economic Development Housing Modify the housing district income qualification requirements to allow the levels to vary according to individual regions of the state or counties. · Remove the LGA/HACA penalty imposed on housing districts established between 1990 and 1993. Reporting · Authorize the publication of TIF financial information in a format so that it provides taxpayers with useful information. Clarify that the Office of State Auditor (OSA) must give cities 60 days to respond to a violation of the TIF law prior to sending a notice of the violation to the county attorney. The notice to the city must also state that at the end of the 60-day period any resolved issues will be sent to the county attorney for possible action. Require the county attorney to decide on action regarding violation within ninety days of receipt of the notice from the OSA. Authorize the OSA to conduct a compliance review of a tax increment district within 12 months of the date the district is decertified or the increment is completely expended, whichever is later. The State Auditor, upon completion of the review and resolution of outstanding issues, must issue a certification that the district is complete and not subject to further actions by the office. I I i ! [ 1 Clarify that an error of a non-substantive manner is not a violation of the law and therefore the city should not be formally cited for a violation of the reporting provisions of the TIF Act. Require that the OSA provide reporting entities with a checklist of specific items that will be part of a compliance or final review of a district. 12 2000 Legislative Policies Housing & Economic Development Redraft the reporting section of the TIF law to simplify the TIF reporting forms, consolidate reports and request similar infm:mation for the reports submitted annually to the State Auditor. Property Tax Reform Impact on TIF (Ill-H) During the past two legislative sessions, the property tax class rates have been compressed and as a result commercial industrial property taxes should decrease. The decrease could also result in revenue shortfalls in TIF districts. The shortfalls could impact bond payments and other contractual obligations. Being aware of the impact, the 1997 Legislature authorized a $2.0 million grant program to be administered by the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the 1998 Legislature authorized cities to establish special service districts to offset possible shortfalls. Being aware of the impacts, the legislature should: · Authorize the grant program for 1998 tax change impacts in addition to the 1997 tax changes. · Provide additional funding for the program and extend the sunset to the year 2003. Include the changes in class rate definitions such as maximum market value limits and number of parcels per class in the calculations to determine class rate compression impacts. · Move the application and payment dates to coincide with the city budget time frames. Permit city councils to transfer funds from one city development agency to another to prevent shortfalls due to property tax changes or TIF law changes that would result in a deficit in paying outstanding contracts or obligations. Development Tools (111-1) Over the past several sessions, the legislature has provided cities with development tools to redevelop property, clean up polluted sites and encourage business retention and expansion. The tools include, but are not limited to, TIF, tax expenditures and loans and 2000 Legislative Policies 13 '" ' .............. Hbusing & Economic Development grants. Many of the state tools have supplemented local efforts. To continue this state local relationship, the legislature should: · Continue the Minnesota Investment Fund. Support increased funding for the pollution clean-up program administered by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED). Require condemnation commissioners to consider the cost of correcting pollution problems in determining the final value of property. Establish an indemnification fund to provide financial security for institutions and individuals as they invest in developing and clean-up of polluted sites. · Eliminate the requirement to match a port-ion of the clean-up grant program with local general funds. · Make permanent the Redevelopment Fund established in 1998. Welfare Reform/Workforce Readiness (Ill-J) In developing workforce policies, the legislature has considered the impact of such factors as the robust economy and federal welfare reform. The economy has produced employment opportunities in several business sectors that are not being satisfied due to the lack of skilled workers. To address this issue the legislature has responded by restructuring and expanding its workforce programs to meet the needs of the state's employees. With the passage of federal welfare reform and enactment of Minnesota's new welfare program - the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP), public policy is placing an emphasis on work and job readiness. The purpose of MFIP is intended to support work and not to replace income when people are not working. To accomplish the goal of getting people to work Minnesota has adopted a work first program that expects, supports and rewards work. 14 2000 Legislative Policies I I § I I I 1 Housing & Economic Development Among the program elements established by the legislature to implement MFIP are jobs training, transportation, medical assistance and housing. As MFIP is being implemented statewide, the state is experiencing record low unemployment and economic growth, and as a result there are now employment opportunities. If the economy, however, declines, employment opporturdties for MFIP participants will decrease and the state's human service system could be over extended. Being aWare that a trained work force is a major part of an economic development strategy the legislature should: · Provide state funding to match the maximum amount of available federal training funds. · Continue and increase funding for state job train/ng programs including Pathways and the Job Training Partnership. Modify the Pathways Program to provide public agencies with the flexibility to contract with training programs of employers, as well as those of public institutions. · Continue and increase funding for the transportation and childcare programs including sliding fee daycare. Examine the delivery system for state services (training, daycare) to determine and ensure that administrative procedures are implemented uniformly throughout the state. Continue the policy of nor reducing a person's or household's MFIP monthly grant if they are residents of the public or section 8 housing. Business Subsidy (Ill-K) The Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) and local governments provide financial incentives to businesses to relocate, expand or remain in the state or specific city. The provision of the incentives is usually part of a development agreement between the business and the public entity. The agreement contains a description of the incentive and the type of development to be completed in terms of market value or square 2000 Legislative Policies 15 Housing & EcOnomic Development footage and penalties for non-performance. The agreements also contain job and wage goals as required by current Minnesota law. In reviewing the issue of corporate subsidy the legislature should: .... · Clarify the reporting requirements in terms of time frames and reporting entity. · Exclude redevelopment and housing TIF districts from the reporting requirements of current law. · Maintain the reporting of job and wage goals in current law but do not require a specific wage amount. The Business Subsidy Law approved by the 1999 Legislature will need to be amended during the 2000 Session. The amendments are needed so that DTED and the cities can implement the act. Among the amendments that should be adopted by the legislature are: The exclusion of tax exempt revenue bonds issued on behalf of a non-profit entity. The bonds are used to finance such facilities as health care and housing and the bonds are not included in the existing federal bond'limits,' Clarify that pollution clean-up, soils projects and rehabilitation of buildings exempted as a business subsidy does not need to submit a report to DTED. 3. Define that the rehabilitation of buildings does not include the rehabilitation of housing. Eliminate the requirement that the business receiving the subsidy must continue to operate at the same site for at least five years. 5. Provide DTED with an appropriation to implement the law. Building Permit Fee Surcharge (Ill-L) Local governments collect a half-percent surcharge on building permits. The proceeds of the surcharge are paid to the state and are used to-support the State Building Codes and Standards Division. 16 2000 Legislc~tive Policies I I ! I | [ I Housing & Economic Development i Prior to 1991, any excess proceeds were remitted on a prorate basis to the local governments. To help with the development of affordable housing it is recommended that: The proceeds from the building permit surcharge fee be paid to the Mt-IFA for the support of affordable housing and that the building codes and standards division be funded from the state general fund. Group Homes (Ill-M) State and county agencies must provide timely notification to cities of facility license requests and renewals and provide adequate opportunity to respond. Cities must also be aware of the special care needed by residents of such facilities in case of public safety emergencies. Clustering of community residential facilities because of economic, geographic or other factors should be avoided. Standards of non-concentration for state or county-issued Requests for Proposals (RFPs) should be established. There must be an ongoing screening process, particularly in the correction area, to insure that persons placed in a residential facility will benefit from such an environment and will not be a danger to themselves or others. The licensing authority must be responsible for removing any person found incapable of living peacefully in such an environment. Facilities licensed by the corrections department should not be exempt from reasonable local land use regulations. A fair share concept should be considered within the metropolitan area. However, this concept should consider other factors including transportation facilities, job availability and other needed support services. The licensing authority and/or legislature should allow cities to participate in the search for facility locations in order to meet needs of the providers, facility residents and the neighborhood. 2000 Legislative Policies 17 ! ! Metropolitan Agencies (IV) Introduction: Metropolitan Governance Structure The Metropolitan Council was established in 1967 to coordinate "the planning and development" of the seven county metropolitan area. To fulfill its responsibilities, the Metropolitan Council has worked with local governments to establish policies regarding growth and development in the region. Over the years, the Metropolitan Council has been authorized by the legislature to be involved in the development of regional parks and the operation of regional services. In the following years the Metropolitan Council was mostly advisory, but was given responsibility for regional policy development and coordination in the areas of wastewater treatment, transportation and airports. The Metropolitan Council was given limited approval authority for development proposals, which were of metropolitan (regional) significance but was not given direct operational authority. The Metropolitan Council's responsibilities have been expanded over the years. The Metropolitan Council was given direct operational responsibility for regional transit and wastewater treatment in 1994. In the following year, the legislature directed the Metropolitan Council to implement the Livable Communities Act (LCA). The Metropolitan Council's role with the LCA is to negotiate affordable and life cycle housing goals for cities and provide grant funds for the clean-up of polluted lands and demonstration projects that foster a mix of land uses and housing types. The Metropolitan Council's role has evolved since its inception to long-range planning and the operation of regional services. 2000 Legislotive Policies 19 Mefropolifcm Agencies Purpose of Metropolitan Governance (IV-A) The AMM affirms its support for the existence of a metropolitan governance system to deal with appropriate regional issues and concerns. The purpose of the metropolitan governance system should be: · To facilitate region-wide planning with the cooperation and consideration of the affected local units. To provide certain region-wide services that do not duplicate those that can be provided by local governmental units, either individually or jointly. · To fulfill other specific responsibilities mandated by the state and federal governments. Regionally Provided Services: Funding (IV-B) The Metropolitan Council should continue to fund its regional services and activities through the existing combination of user fees, property taxes, and state and federal grants. The current revenue system provides better visibility to the customers. The Metropolitan Council should be responsible for determining user fees. The fees should be consistent with regional system plans and goals assure that the service quality can be of high quality as measured by industry or public policy standards and be established by an open, visible procedure including, but not limited to, public notice and hearings. A clear linkage between revenue and service should be maintained. Fee proceeds from one service should not be used to fund another regional service. Regional Systems (IV-C) The regional investment in metropolitan systems must be maintained and preserved by preventing adverse impact because of the lack of integration and coordination between regional and local planning. £ ! I t I I 1 I 20 2000 Legislc~tive Policies Metropolitan Regional system designation should only be approved if there is a compelling metropolitan problem or concern that can best be addressed through the designation. Prior to requesting legislative approval for a system, the MetroPolitan Council must discuss the proposal with the region. Coordination of Local & Regional Plans (IV-D) The regional planning process must, on a continual basis, have the input of local government officials. To ensure input, the Metropolitan Council should hold hearings and provide public notice and copies of proposals regarding amendments to the Metropolitan Development Guide. Metropolitan system plans must be specific in terms of locations, capacities and timing to allow for consideration in local comprehensive planning. System plans should clearly state the criteria by which the local plans will be judged for consistency. The system plans should also clearly state the criteria that will be used to find that a local plan has a substantial impact on or contains a substantial departure from the metropolitan system plans. The Metropolitan Council should continue to offer assistance to cities. The assistance should include but not be limited to staff support, research, policy guidelines, system statements and procedures for the review and evaluation of plans and amendments. The Metropolitan Council, in its review of local plan amendments, must have a procedure that will: Recognize that the Metropolitan Council's role is to review and comment, unless there is a substantial impact on or departure from the system plans. · Establish an open dialogue between cities and the Metropolitan Council, including public meetings and public hearings. · Be aware of the statutory time constraints imposed by the legislature on plan amendments and development applications. 2000 Legislative Policies 21 Mefropollfan Agencies · Provide for immediate effectuation of plan amendments, which have no potential for substantial impact on systems plans. Require the information needed for the Metropolitan Council to complete its review, but not prescribe additional content or format beyond that is required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA). Growth Management Strategy (IV-E) The Metropolitan Council should continue its flexible guided growth policy regarding Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) expansion requests as outlined in the Regional Blueprint. The Metropolitan Council in cooperation with State Planning and the counties adjacent to the region should develop growth management strategies for the collar counties. The strategies should focus on policies that can be implemented by local governments within the adjacent counties and state agencies rather than extending the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Council to additional counties. All strategies should complement and recognize growth policies being implemented within the region. ! I I If regional services are. to be extended to the collar counties, the services should only be extended if there is a specific problem (environment or transportation) that can be best resolved by extending the service. The area receiving the services must pay for the service extension and agree to growth management strategies consistent with those of the metropolitan area. In developing and providing incentives for implementing its regional objectives, the Metropolitan Council should consider and give credit for a city's experience in implementing its comprehensive plan and the Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint. Local Plan Implementation (IV-F) Local governments are responsible for zoning. These zoning decisions should not be conditioned upon approvals by the Metropolitan Council or other governmental agency. The AMM is open to the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures prior to judicial remedies. l I I 1 I 1 22 2000 Legislative Policies Metropolitan Agencies Alternative dispute resolution could reduce costs and time for all parties involved in the dispute. The AMM strongly opposes the creation of an appeals board that could supersede city planning or zoning decisions. Metropolitan Council Focus on Planning (IV-G) Long-range planning should continue to be the primary function of the Metropolitan Council. In conducting long-range planning, the Metropolitan Council should periodically update and revise the vision for the region. As part o£ its long-range planning, the Metropolitan Council should include analysis of trends, plans, policies and programs that could impact or link the regional growth centers in Greater Minnesota to the metropolitan area. In addition to its long-range planning function, the Metropolitan Council should maintain and expand its technical and research services to cities. The services should assist cities in completing its planning mandates but also in conducting special studies and projects. For cities to meet their planning mandates, the Metropolitan Council must ensure that its planning, data collection and dissemination functions are fulfilled in a timely manner and are consistent with its statutory obligations. Budget Process & Work Program Evaluation (IV-H) The Metropolitan Council's annual budget should present revenue and expenditure budgets by the services provided. Mandated and non-discretionary projects should be identified along with their funding sources. Previous year's history should also be provided. The annual budget should maintain linkages between expenses and revenues. In addition, the funds or reserve funds raised for a particular service should not be used or commingled with the funds raised for any other service or activity. The Metropolitan Council's work program should meet four tests: · The issue or problem identified is important to the region's well-being. 2000 Legislative Policies 23 Metropolitan Agencies Metropolitan Council intervention or activity will produce a positive result. The Metropolitan Council's action does not duplicate or serve as a substitute for a state level program or effort or what should be a state level activity. · The Metropolitan Council is the most appropriate agency to intervene or perform the activity. Criteria for Extension of Metropolitan Governance Authority (IV-I) The legislature, if granting the metropolitan governance structure additional responsibility or authority, should be specific in the grant. New or expanded authority should be considered only when one or more of the following exist: The service, function or activity has been shown to be needed and it can be demonstrated that it cannot or is not being effectively or efficiently provided through existing general purpose units of government. The service, function or activity is not an appropriate state level or local government level activity or function. · Regional intervention is needed for protection of the region's investment in an existing metropolitan system. Restructuring of Metropolitan Agencies (IV-J) The Sports Facilities Commission and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) are currently metropolitan commissions. The legislature should make the sports facility commission a local commission if the back-up tax is limited to one city or is expanded to additional cities. If the tax is extended to other cities, the commission should be restructured to have membership from those cities. 24 The legislature should clarify the status of the MAC so that it becomes either a metropolitan or state directed agency. The determining factor in the agency decision is the nature of the commission's back-up tax. If the tax will be a metropolitan area tax, its membership should come'from the metropolitan area. If the 2000 Legislative Policies Metropolitan Agencies back-up tax is statewide, then the MAC should have statewide representation. In selecting membership on the MAC board, the governor should give primary consideration for representation from communities impacted by the operations of the MAC airports. Metropolitan Council: Method to Select Members (IV-K) The legislature has debated proposals to amend the process to select Metropolitan Council members. Proposals to elect the members directly or to elect county commissioners as Metropolitan Council members have been discussed but not enacted into law. The AMM has studied the governance issue and has released a separate "Metropolitan Governance Report" (October 1998). The report notes that there is no regional crisis that requires a governance change, but did recommend that Metropolitan Council members serve fixed, staggered terms. The AMM further recommends that no changes be made to the Metropolitan Council unless a governance proposal meets a set of criteria. The intent of the criteria is to fashion a regional governance structure that has a distinct mission, but does not establish a political subdivision with local government powers or one that is a state agency. The Metropolitan Council should have a distinct mission of long-range planning and operation of legislatively- authorized regional services. The criteria include: :rems of o. gice Members should serve fixed, staggered terms. Metropolitan Council Powers The Metropolitan Council should continue to be a long-range, planning agency and potentially an operator or oversight agency for regional services. As such, the Metropolitan Council must maintain planning, coordinating and local assistance as a high priority. 2000 Legislative Policies 25 Mefropoliton Agencies Additional Powers New powers must not expand or override city responsibilities, especially land use regulation authority. The Metropolitan Council must not become an agency with general local government powers. State Role The legislature should focus on broad oversight of the Metropolitan Council's mission and services. Local Government Local elected officials must be involved in the selection process of Metropolitan Council members and there must be a mechanism to facilitate meaningful dialogue and input between the Metropolitan Council and cities. Collar Counties The metropolitan region clearly includes the seven designated counties and the adjacent eleven Minnesota counties, as well as three Wisconsin counties. The needs of the entire metropolitan region beyond the current seven county region must be addressed. Metropolitan Council Members The selection process must strive to appoint Metropolitan Council members who have an understanding of and will be responsive to the district represented, as well as be responsive to the best interests of the region. The selection process should limit the potential influence and support (including financial) of special interests. Parks & Open Space: Operation & Maintenance Capital Funding (IV-L) The governor and the legislature should continue to appropriate funding for the operation and maintenance of regional parks. The level of funding should be equal to the statutory goal of 40 percent of the total budget. Regional parks essentially serve the role of state parks in the metropolitan area and the acquisition, development and improvement of the parks should continue to be funded, in part,.with state resources. : 26 2000 Legislative Policies Metropolitan Agencies Surface & Groundwater Water Management (IV-M) If legislation is considered for surface water management, it should be based on the following principles: The legislature should provide full funding if it mandates additional water management planning or implementing .activities by local units of government. Local units of government should continue to be responsible for the organization and operation of surface and groundwater management, since they are the closest to the problem. Therefore, legislation enacted in 1999 limiting representation on boards of Water Management Organizations (WMOs) should be repealed. · New state requirements should not add to local costs and duplicate reviews/approvals should be reduced or eliminated. The AMM would support the following initiatives/action: A state grant program similar to those currently administered by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BOWSR) should be established to assist WMOs in the metropolitan area to implement their plans. The legislature should clarify that the joint power WMOs can, with the approval of its participating governments, separately levy a tax for its programs. A thorough assessment of the BOWSR structure and authorities to ascertain if it should continue to be the approval and oversight agency for surface water management planning and activities in the metropolitan area. A thorough assessment of the metropolitan area surface water management planning and permitting process with the objective of developing improvements in conflict resolution, better coordination between state and local agencies, and streamlining the project permit approvals process. · Compliance by local units of government located outside of the metropolitan area with the same standards and requirements 2000 Legislative Policies 27 Metropolitan Agencies for surface water management as those imposed on local units within the metropoIitan area. A teclxrdcal evaluation of the impact of 2:1 wetland replacement in the urbanized area on the goal of greater urban densities as stated in the Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint. Water Supply (IV-N) Additional legislation pertaining to local or regional water supply planning is not warranted. If legislation, however, is proposed it should be based on the following principles: · Local units should retain the basic responsibility for water supply planning and management as in current law. · The state should fund additional mandates. · Potable water should not be designated a regional system. Regional Wastewater (Sewer) Treatment System (IV-O) The regional wastewater treatment system has improved the water quality of the region's major river and lakes. The .system should not be permitted to break up or to diminish its effectiveness. Since all users benefit equally, the regional user rates should be uniform by type of user. Waste Stream Management (IV-P) The legislature should enact legislation which will: Establish goals to reduce, recycle and reuse packaging materials and establish fees, taxes or deposits to encourage accomplishment of the goals. The revenues would be waived when the goals are met. Available revenues would be used to promote or enhance local programs to achieve the goals. Continue the Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA) as an agency that primarily assists local governments to manage waste effectively. 28 2000 Legislative Policies ! I I I 1 I 1 i f i, f Metropolitan Agencies Continue the role of cities in waste stream management un/ess a state or metropolitan system is established to achieve the same goal. Distribute all proceeds from any funding system for solid waste management activities and require distribution of funds to all entities involved in the system. Provide that host communities for solid waste facilities will not have a financial liability for costs associated with operating and monitoring the facility. Such costs should be borne by the operator and in the absence of regulations should be assumed by the state. Maintain, at a minimum, the current compensation level permitted through surcharge fees and increase the level as well as making the compensation available to all types of solid waste facilities. · Define municipal solid waste not to be a hazardous substance. The definition would enhance the ability of local governments. 2000 Legislative Policies 29 Transportation (V) Transportation Funding (V-A) The AMM strongly supports increased funding for transit and highways, both of which are a crit-ical need in the metropolitan area. In addition, funding for mass transit including transit ways, light rail or heavy rail in existing corridors should be dedicated in a manner consistent with current highway funding. Funds allocated to the metropolitan area should be flexible so that the most efficient and cost effective transportation solution may be chosen and the main metropolitan problem (congestion relief) can be addressed. The AMM opposes any reduction to the sources of current constitutionally dedicated transportation funds including auto license tab fees, unless equivalent replacement funding is also constitutionally dedicated to the current or a new multimodal transportation fund. If an alternative to the transit property tax in the metropolitan area is adopted, current opt-out transit systems should continue to be funded at comparable levels. Regional Transit System (V-B) In order to reduce congestion and automobile dependency the Regional Transit System should be a combination of integrated traffic management systems which include use of HOV lanes, express buses, exclusive transit ways, light rail transit, and commuter rail corridors built to connect residents to job, retail and commercial centers, plus a variety of other transit modes, including taxi, bus, pedestrian and bicycle. The AMM supports an increase in Metropolitan Transit Funding of at least $3.7 million for the current biennium so that the present system can be maintained. 2000 Legislative Policies 31 .. ~-:~'~'~-:-' · ....... ~ :-?.: ;~ :~T~-`~-``~?:-~-~.~_*`~.~-.-x~.:~'~.~`~.-~`-.`p.~;...R~J~j~~`~i~' __ Transportation Park-and-ride facilities for mass transit modes adequate to connect the regional centers, major trip generators and communities, both urban and suburban, should have integrated feeder systems to accommodate local buses, automobiles, van pools, bicycles, as well as walking facilities. The Metropolitan Council should work with local units of government to encourage appropriate land use controls along designated transit corridors to promote transit ridership. Motion Imaging Recording System (M.I.R.S.): Traffic Law Compliance (V-C) The AMM requests legislative action authorizing utilization of motion imaging recording system technology for governmental units, including cities, on streets and highways to assist promotion of safety and traffic law compliance enforcement. The technology has been proven and is currently used for law enforcement by numerous states, municipalities and other countries. The state should consider a pilot project on municipal streets in the metropolitan area. Transportation Utility (V-D) The AMM requests the legislature to authorize cities to.establish a transportation utility for street maintenance and reconstruction of aging infrastructure, similar to the existing storm water utility, so that costs of improved facilities can be more fairly charged to the users rather than the general population as a whole. Highway Turnbacks & Funding (V-E) The AMM supports jurisdictional reassignment or tumback of roads on a phased basis using functional classification and other appropriate criteria subject to a corresponding mechanism for adequate funding of roadway improvements and continuing maintenance. Cities do not currentiy have the financial capacity other than significant property tax increase to absorb the additional roadway responsibilities without new funding sources. The existing municipal turnback fund is not adequate based on contemplated turnbacks. 32 2000 Legislative Policies Transportation '3C' Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials Role (V.F) The AMM supports continuation of the Transportation Advisor), Board (TAB), a majority of local elected officials membership on the TAB itself and the TAB process, which was developed to meet federal requirements for designation of the Metropolitan Council as the Metropolitan Planning Organization that is responsible for the continuous, comprehensive and cooperative (3C) transportation planning process to allocate federal funds among metropolitan area projects. This process requirement was reinforced by the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the 1998 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). Airport Noise Mitigation (V-G) In 1996, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) was charged with developing a mitigation package for legislative consideration in 1997, but the package was never developed. Costs associated with all types of noise mitigation should be borne by the airport (MAC) and the state since the airport is considered a statewide facility and provides tremendous economic benefit to the region. That benefit does not come without responsibility, to those adversely impacted. The airport and state should seek additional funding mechanisms on a yearly basis. Funding may include, but is not limited to, those funds recommended by the 1999-2000 Governor's Community Stability Funding Task Force. Equitable noise mitigation programs need to be developed to address the increased traffic and noise due to the expansion of the MSP International Airport. Impacts, including environmental and low frequency noise, must be identified at ail MAC airports and applicable mitigation measures implemented by MAC. By 2003, the year the new North/South runway will be operational, the Environmental Quali~, Board should establish guidelines for airport noise (including Iow frequency) in consultation with the MAC, Metropolitan Council, MSP Noise Mitigation Committee and affected cities. Noise mitigation programs should not only be implemented as soon as possible to the 60 DNL-as enacted by the legislature in 1996, but extended as far as the 55 DNL. 2000 Legislative Policies 33 Committee Rosters (VI) Housing & Economic Development Craig Waldron (Chair), Administrator, Oakdale Janis CaIlison, Councilmember, Minnetonka Dave Ca]lister, Clerk-Administrator, Osseo Mike Campbell, IGR Director, St. Paul Tom Goodwin, Councilrnember, Apple Valley Regina Harris, HRA Director, Bloomington Andrea Hart Kajer, IGR Director, Minneapolis Brian I-Ierron, Councilmember, Minneapolis Nancy Mancino, Mayor, Chanhassen Lonni McCauley, Mayor, Coon Rapids Joan Molenaar, Councilmember, Champlin Ron Rankin, Community Development DirectOr, Minnetonka Don Rye, Plarming Director, Prior Lake Char Samuelson, Councilmember, New Brighton Mark Sat. her, Manager, White Bear Lake Betty Sindt, Councilmember, Lakeville Kathy Thurber, Councilmember, Minneapolis Jerry Tumquist, Councilmember, Oak Park Heights Liz Workman, Councilmember, Burnsville 2000 Legislative Policies 35 Commit'~ee Rosters Metropolitan Agencies Sandra Krebsbach (Chair), Councilmember, Mendota Heights Mary Anderson, Mayor, Golden Valley Bill Bamhart, Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis Kevin Batchelder, Administrator, Mendota Heights Cathy Busho, Mayor, Rosemount Joan Campbell, Councilmember, Minneapolis W. Peter Enck, Mayor, New Hope Matt Fulton, Manager, New Brighton Ken Hartung, Admirdstrator, Bayport Susan Hoyt, Administrator, Falcon Heights Anne Hurlburt, Director of Community Development, Plymouth Marvin Johnson, Mayor, Independence Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator, Prior Lake Larry. Lee, Director of Community Development, Bloomington Tom Link, Director of Development & Prot. Serv., Inver Grove Heights Paul Malone, Councilmember, Arden Hills Lyrm Moratzka, Councilmember, Hastings Mark Nagel, Manager, Anoka Dave Schaaf, Mayor, Oak Park Heights Terry Schneider, Councilmember, Minnetonka 1 I I I ! Charlotte Shover, Councilmember, Burnsville Russ Susag, Councilmember, Richfield Chuck Whiting, Administrator, Mounds View Dorm Wiski, Councilmember, Roseville 1 I 36 2000 Legislotive Policies Committee Rosters Municipal Revenue & Taxation Frank Boyles (Chair), Manager, Prior Lake Karen Anderson, Mayor, Minnetonka Leslie Anderson, Director of Finance, Burnsville Larry Bakken, Councilmember, Golden Valley Curt Boganey, Manager, Brooklyn Park Edward Burrell, Treasurer & Finance Director, Roseville Thomas Burt, Administrator, Rosemount Dave Childs, Manager, Minnetonka Tom Cran, Budget Analysis, St. Paul Dan Faust, Finance Director, Maplewood John Gretz, Administrator Apple Valley Terri Heaton, Chief Finance Officer, Bloomington Jon Hohenstein, Administrator, Mahtomedi James Keinath, Administrator, Circle Pines Nan,' Mancino, Mayor, Chanhassen Peter Meintsma, Mayor, Crystal Tom Melena, Administrator, Oak Park Heights John Moir, Finance Officer, IviLrmeapolis Mike Mormon, Manager, St. Anthony Jim Norman, Administrator, Ramsey Steve O'Malley, Deputy City Manager, Burnsville Ryan Schroeder, Administrator, Cottage Grove Jerry Splinter, Manager, Coon Rapids Deb Sturdevant, Councilmember, Champlin Kathy Thurber, Councilmember, Minneapolis Gene Van Overbeke, Finance Director, Eagan 2000 Legislotive Policies 37 Commitiee Rosters John W~llin, Finance Director, Edina John Weaver, Councilmember, Anoka Jim Willis, Administrator, Inver Grove Heights Transportation & General Government Veld M,Hzrdeks (Chair), Councilmember, St. Paul Park Dick Allendorf, Councilmember, Minnetonka Gene Anderson, Councilmember, St. Paul Park Bill Bamhart, Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis Lyle Berg, Engineer Traffic & Transportation, Bloomington Scott Botcher, Manager, CharLhassen Bob Bruton, Councilmember, North St. Paul Mike Campbell, IGR Director, St. Paul Charlie Crichton, Councilmember, Burnsville Dan Donahue, Manager, New Hope Jerry Dulgar, Manager, Crystal Wayne Houle, Assistant Engineer, Edina Barbara Johnson, Councilmember, Minneapolis Steve Larson, Councilmember, New Brighton Charles Lenthe, Director of Public Works, Blaine Jan LeSuer, Councilmember, Golden Valley Sandra Masin, Councilmember, Eagan Mark McNeill, Administrator, Shakopee Dore Mead, Councilmember, Minneapolis Jerry Newton, Councilmember, Coon Rapids Dave Schaaf, Mayor, Oak Park Heights Ceil Smith, Assistant to City Manager, Edina James Smith, Councilmember, Independence ! I I I I ! ! 38 2000 Legislative Policies Committee Rosters John Weaver, Cou_ncilmember, Anoka Dawn Weitzel, Community/Special Project Assistant, Rich,field Dorm Wiski, Councilmember, Roseville Bret Woodson, Assistant City Manager, Prior Lake Duan Zaun, Mayor, Lakeville 2000 Legislative Policies 39 From: AMM '[o: Fran Clarl<-Le~singer L)ale: II2{,I/UU ~me: 5:05:32 PM Page 2 of 2 AMM FAX Jan. 17-21, 2000 Allociation of Metropolitan Plunicipaliti¢l Governor announces bonding proposal Plan includes regional projects, but local capital projects are left out In announcing his $462.4 million capital budget, the governor did not include any of the $496.0 million in local government requests. The budget proposal does include funding for such regional projects such as greenways and trails ($1.5 million), transitways ($10.0 million) and regional parks ($5.0 million). funded by the issuance of $400.0 million in state general obligation bonds, $30.9 million in user financed bonding (higher education), $1.3 million in general fund and $26.8 million in trunk highway funds. The budget also includes funding for housing and flood mitigation, and bridge replacement programs that Local governments - cities, counties and school districts - submitted 62 capital projects. Among the metropoli- tan area projects were several public safety training centers, schools, museums and art centers. The metro- politan area local projects were located in such cities as Maple Grove, Minne- apolis, St. Paul, Mahtomedi and t~he budget as proposed would be have been used by cities. Lakeville. etropolitan Council to revise regional parks policy plan The Metropolitan Council will begin an 18-month process to revise the Regional Parks Policy Plan. The Council and Open Space Commission staff intends to initiate the process this month by identifying a list of policy issues. At the this week's Livable Communi- ties Committee meeting, Open Space Commission staff began the process by identifying issues raised from customer surveys and discussions with 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. 1999 AMM I45 University Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: amm(~amm14 5. org regional parks staff and legislators. Among the issues identified to date are: INVESTMENTS The investment issue includes not only the financing source for the regional parks but what type of im- provements should be included in the plan. For example should regional parks have athletic fields such as soccer and softball fields? TRAILS Can the regional trails be linked to the region's transportation improve- ment program? PRESERVING OPEN SPACE The policy plan will need to address LMC hosts linkages between the greenways and the park policy plan. REGIONAL PARKS & OTHER URBAN SERVICES The policy plan will attempt to identify if there are any links between the regional park plan and other regional systems, like transportation. The plan could also discuss if there should be such links. Once the issues are identified the Council will draft issue papers for public comment. It is anticipated that the public discussion regarding the plan will occur this winter. If you need additional information please contact Gene Ranieri at AMM (651) 215-4001. Day on the Hill 'event Feb. 3 In an effort to establish better commu- nications between local government and the legislature the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC), is sponsoring a local government day at the capitol. Scheduled for Thursday, Feb. 3, the event will include briefings on legisla- tive issues, meetings with legislative committees, a keynote address by John Brandl, dean of the Humphrey Institute, and a reception with legisla- tors in the Capitol Rotunda. If you wish to attend, please call the LMC by Jan. 21 (651) 281-1200. There are a limited number of tickets for spme of the events. DRAFT MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION January 13, 2000 Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Norman Domholt, Tom Casey, John Beise; and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman. Absent: Commissioner Christina Cooper 1. APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 9, 1999 POSC MINUTES Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Beise to approve the minutes of the December 9, 1999 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting, as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES The agenda was approved as presented. 3. ELECTION OF NEW OFFICERS Councilmember Weycker nominated Commissioner Domholt for the position of Chair. Domholt respectfully declined, due to the fact that he is moving to Minnetrista in July. Motion made by Councilmember Weycker to nominate Commissioner Casey for the position of Chair. Commissioner Casey stated he would rather see the Chair be filled by one of the newer members, as it introduces new ideas and leadership styles, and gives people the chance to try new skills. Commissioner Casey then suggested rotating the position of Chair. Councilmember Weycker withdrew her nomination of Commissioner Casey. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey to rotate the position of Chair, with Commissioner Domholt acting as Chair for February, March and April, and Commissioner Beise acting as Chair for May through August. The last 3 months of the year to be determined. Motion carried unanimously. Motion made by Meyer, seconded by Weycker to rotate the position of Vice Chair, to be held by the next Commissioner in the rotation for the position of Chair. Motion carried unanimously. Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission January 13, 2000 DRAFT Councilmember Weycker took the opportunity to present Commissioner Meyer with a "green thumb, brown hand" award, in thanks for his service as Chair for the last two years. 4. REVIEW: 2000 CALENDAR Motion made by Beise, seconded by Weycker to approve the 2000 DCAC Agenda Calendar. Motion carried unanimously 5. DISCUSS: STREET VACATION ADJACENT TO 2537 & 2541 WATERFORD RD. Mr. Steve Behuke, Mr. Thomas Stokes, and Mr. Oliver were in attendance to discuss this issue. Park Director Fackler summarized the request for vacation in order to put in a dock. This request did pass at the Planning Commission. However, they did not have the memo from Fackler, and the letter from Martha Reger who is with the Department of Natural Resources, both of which are not in favor of the vacation of the property. However, staff does recommend supporting a side setback variance from the LMCD. The reason for this is that the City of Mound is getting rather close to having to count every BSU right now, and lineal footage is the key factor in this equation. Vacation of this property would cost the City 38 feet of lakeshore, which may have an impact on the total number of BSU's the City of Mound can license. Commissioner Casey asked for clarification on what variance the City of Mound would need to grant. Park Director Fackler clarified that the variances needed would actually be from the LMCD. The City of Mound would supply a supporting statement to the LMCD regarding the variances needed in order to avoid the necessity of vacating the property but still allowing the applicant's the ability to build their dock. Councilmember Weycker questioned why the stem of the dock could not be moved south, thereby avoiding the need for vacation or variances. Mr. Behuke then addressed the Commission, stating that the LMCD would like to keep the length of the dock as short as possible, and moving the stem would lengthen the stem quite a bit. Commissioner Casey questioned whether the vacation of the property was a benefit to the citizens of Mound, as that is the criteria needed for the POSC to support this application. Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission DRAFT ~ooo Mr. Behuke stated that, while the City would lose 38 linear feet of its shoreline, it would effectively gain three docksites. While the 38 linear feet may cost the City one public docksite, it would allow the 3-finger dock to be installed, thereby providing a place for at least one, possibly two boats that are now in the dock program to move to this private dock. There would be a net increase in the dock sites in the City, whether public or private. Councilmember Weycker stated that with a side setback variance from the LMCD, the applicants would be able to build their dock, and the City would keep the 38 feet of lakeshore in their BSU equation, and this seems to be the best situation all the way around. Commissioner Domholt questioned whether this 38 feet would be much of a loss, since it is rather marshy and cannot be used to install a city dock. Councilmember Weycker stated that the city uses a lot of "unusable" shoreline in it's equation, as the BSU's are figured on a total number of linear feet, not on any specific area. Unusable shoreline is figured in, and docks are more dense in usable areas. Commissioners Casey and Meyer both stated that vacating this property does not seem to be in the best interest of the citizens of Mound, especially since a side setback variance would accomplish much the same thing. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey to recommend denial of the vacation of the Waterford Road property. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioners Casey and Beise stated that if the variances were not granted from the LMCD allowing this dock, it would affect the attitude of what is in the public's best interest. The side setback variance would be a much better answer for the City of Mound. If the variances are not granted, this issue should be revisited. 6. REVIEW: WORK RULES Item D3: Change start time from 7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Beise suggested stressing item BT, setting a 15-minute time limit on each item. Motion made by Meyer to extend the meeting end time to 10:30 p.m. No second was made to this motion. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Beise to accept the Work Rules as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission 7. UPDATE: THE REX ALWIN PROPERTY January 13, 2000 DRAFT Park Director Fackler stated that there is an agreement between Rottlund and Rex Alwin for sale of the property for single family homes. No further details are known as yet. They want to come in front of the Commission in February to find out what the feelings are regarding park dedication, money or land. Councilmember Weycker stated that the City Council had stated they would prefer a park dedication of land, rather than money. Fackler stated that would be his preference as well. Commissioner Casey stated his disappointment that the City cannot obtain this land for park space. Commissioner Meyer stated this would be a good subject for discussion at the Committee of the Whole meeting on January 18, 2000 that the Park Commissioners were invited to. Meyer questioned whether the Commissioners were going to be present at this meeting. All present stated their intention to attend. 8. UPDATE: STORM MANAGEMENT PLAN Commissioner Meyer reported that the Planning Commission has a subcommittee working on this issue right now. Some of the concerns in the plan were the buffering and possibly adopting a "no phosphorous" ordinance for all of the buffer zones, and actually everywhere in Mound as all the water from all the yards that eventually runs into the lake. Councilmember Weycker stated that she has been told this is mandatory, dictated by the State, or the Watershed District. It may not even take discussion at this level. Commissioner Casey stated that the purpose here is to agree that the City take over some of the regulatory structure, which is conforming to the Watershed District rules. Some suggestions on how to improve on what is mandated by the Watershed District may also be discussed. Commissioner Beise stated he was not in agreement with the buffer zones as they are defined right now. His belief is it hinders the property value to the property owner, as they cannot improve their yard right up to the water. Regulating that people cannot make adjustments to the property that they own should not be allowed by any government. Commissioner Meyer disagreed, noting if there are no regulations, people do not take into account any long term effects of what they do on this land. Discussion followed by all regarding the disagreement on these buffer zones. Many differing opinions were presented, but no agreements were reached. Beise stated he 4 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission DR AFT ,January '13, 2000 supports buffer zones on most commercial property, but on personal property, people buy lakeshore in order to use it. Commissioner Meyer stated he was under the impression that if the City makes the decision to not uphold the buffer zones, and any restrictions on phosphorous, the Watershed District would then uphold these rules themselves. So, what the City decides may not make much of a difference in the final outcome. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Beise to support the concept of the Surface Water Management Plan. Motion carried unanimously. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Meyer to approve and endorse the language contained on page 48, draft number 2 of the Surface Water Management Plan, section C, paragraph 1: The City will require natural, unmaintained wetland buffers around lakes, wetlands and waterways in development proposals. In addition, the City will encourage the placement of 20 foot natural buffers around all City lakes, wetlands and water bodies. Buffer widths will be based on the size of the abutting wetland, as shown on table 6. Motion carried 411 (Beise opposed). 10:15 p.m. Chair Domholt tabled the meeting. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Beise to continue the meeting for an additional 15 minutes. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion followed regarding the disagreement with the buffer zone, the definition of "development proposals," and the definition of "the City will encourage." No agreements were reached. Councilmember Weycker did state that there is a variance system in place, and each case would be examined on its own merits. The Surface Water Management Plan is a planning document, not an ordinance. Commissioner Beise would like to hear a little bit more about this plan, receive an updated plan, and any additional information and decisions that have been made. This subject could be revisited at the next meeting. Park Director Fackler stated he would make sure that any additional information is in the packet for the February meeting. 9. POSC FEBRUARY AGENDA Some items for the February POSC agenda are: 1. REVIEW: SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 5 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission January 13, 2000 3. 4. 5. UPDATE: REX ALWIN PROPERTY 2001 CAPITAL OUTLAY REQUESTS DEPOT REPORT BRICK COUNT D2AFT 10:30 p.m. Chair Domholt tabled the meeting. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Beise to extend the meeting an additional 15 minutes, or to finish the agenda, whichever is shorter. Motion passed unanimously. 10. FOR YOUR INFORMATION: a. City Council Minutes b. DCAC Minutes c. Planning Commission Minutes d. Wellhead Protection Plan e. Capital Improvement Plan f. Donation from V.F.W. (For $500.00, in response to the letter sent by the POSC). g. Park Dedication Account ($117,892 currently) h. Variance Granted for Sunset Landing & letter to City asking if there is interest by the City for purchase of property 11. REPORTS: a. City Council Representative Councilmember Weycker stated she hopes to see all Commissioners present at the Committee of the Whole meeting on January 18, 2000. b. Park Director No report at this time. Motion made by Domholt, seconded by Weycker to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 6 January 6, 2000 Dear Commission Member: We would like To thank you for the opportunity to represent the Pembroke Park Neighborhood group at the January Dock & Commons Commission meeting. We understand that the Dock Mop for the 2000 boating season was approved at The December meeting, leovin9 the current dock layout in place in front of Pembroke Pork. We ore assuming that you ore not aware of The strong opposition the current layout has in our neighborhood. At the May 11, 1999 City Council meeting, in excess of 50 people showed up to express their opposition to the "proposed" dock layout - directly in front of The beach at Pembroke Pork. Little did the people who came to the meeting know that a decision had already been made and a deal already struck w,th the neighbor adjacent to ?he pork in c "pre-negotiated agreemer,J'". It only tokes o small amount of common sense To realize That boots, motors, gasoline, o~l, chopped up masses of weeds, no,se from motors, etc. are not compatible w,th a swimm~n9 be~ch. I have enclosed o copy of the ~Zay IIth City Council meeting minutes for your reading pleasure (or embarrassment) and o copy of the pe?ition circulated in our neighborhood containing more than 90 signatures. Our point of view, the health, safety and well-being of our children and our community were not even considered. We did not receive due process and the City Council did not follow procedures by including the Dock and Commons Commission or the Park Commission in their decision. We would like you to know about the strong opposition and work with us To figure out o bet?er way - to benefit everyone. We hove reviewed the current Dock Map and would like to make the following suggestions: 1. Perhaps Mr. Watson could have his sail boats on bouys. 2. Mr. Mund? moved - leaving D or 4 (depending on which map you look or) open. 3. Rumor is that the person on The end, Mr. Helgeson is not renewing. 4. Mr. Subnder lives closer ?o Priest Bay and may be willing/interested ~n moving. 5. Todd I~ask is willin9 To move back to his old spot. Everyone would be happy: the beach would be free of the obvious hazards, commons dock permit holders would have slips for their boa?s (they are not happy about the location of the docks in front of the beach), the neighbor adjacent to the perk who threatened To sue the city would be satisfied and The beauty of the area would be restored. Again, ?hank you for agreeing to meet with us, we appreciate your time and consideration. Sincerely, Ann Hiltsley Todd Rask Pembroke Park Neighborhood (~roup 10/15/99 10:39 FAX CITY OF ~IOUN'D ~002 ........ OCT 15 '99 ll:4~AM~ MOUND CITY ¢OUN~ MINU'IE5 - M~4Y II. 1'9"29 CONiTINIJED DISCUSS'ION: PEMtlROICE MULTIPLE DOCK CONFIGURATION Faclder indicat~l that the mad shown on page I630 (estimate #3) of the paq. ket is the recommended configuration with the exception of ~l.ip #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. I~I lohnson of 1531 Park asked what would happen to the beach and the park area with the dock configured like this and locatext here. Mayor Meisel indicated that the beach would be left as is and roped off for safety sake. Mr. Johnson indicated that he doemn't understand why the dock nc,~Is to be moved to the commons area since it is not in it now. ABo, he is concem~ that ge kids could run onto the docks and jump off creating a potential h~?nrd. Mayor Nleise! di~uss, ed that one of the things they were looldng into was to gate off the dock area. Hanus stated that ~ome people like the dock for jumping off, so he was thinldn$ the gate could be mounted on the dock. That would allow s~:ur~ry for the boats, but yet allow people to jump off thc dock for swimming: 349 10/[5/99 3.0:40 FAX CITY OF ~{OUND ~003 ' oc' MOUND cng COUNCE. MINUT~ - MAY II, 1999 Weycker asked where the dock was last year. Faclder .said it was c. los~ to thc mine axea as the 28.25-foot mark on'the drawing. (The cLmwing was displayed on the overhead for all ro se{:.) 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. 'Suhnder 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 tl~t it was a difficult area to maneuver around in. Hanus stated that 11 and 12 were to be as,signed to Mr. Watson and that he had sailboats on lifts which required le~ depth than other boats. Hanus believes the water depth at this point is d~.mr than last year. Mr. SuPander ask~ if the system has worked we~ in ~e last few years, why is it beLng changed. He asked why it couldn't be left alone and evenma!ly d~rea_~ to seven slips as originally agra. ti to by ~e people. He suggested relocated the other slips on other commons to be deve!o.-~:L 2915 Tuxedo ]~ulevard a_qk~ why the people were relocated from other commons and if .anyone on City Council was a.f-.%cted by the ¢tumges. Mayor Mdsel stopped the discussion at that point and stated that the discussion would not go that direction tonight. They have discussed these ~ints previously and viewpoints had txen .aired. If anyone wanted to review the past m~ting minutes they were awihhle. She also stated she could be called and she would discuss the issues personally with them. Eve.D, meeting in 1999 has had thi~ topic discussed and now it was time to move on and make some decisions. John Zuccaro of 3136 Isled View Drive rated that he lives three doors away from ',.he proposed dock configuration. He has lived there for 46 years and ail his children grew up talcing 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 israes he had. Brown discussed the option on page 1631 of the packet. He stated that on tiffs 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 h now. · 350 10/15/99 10:41 CITY OF MOUND OCT 15 '99 004 11:4~M MOUND Cf'IT COUNCIl- MINUT'F~- MAY i1, 1999 Hanus stated the'primary reason for the change was to allow more room. That is why the multiple dock versus individual docks was in/tially installed. However, he stated, it was not desi~ned to be so totally in front of one person's picture window as it has ended up since after the first year. This b the impetus for change to reduce the negative hnpact to the southerly neighbor, he stated. Stan Stralev of' 450! Island View Drive stat~ he was the property owner.north of the park. He asked about his view. He stated this relieves the visibility for the neighbor tn the south, but makes it a visibility problem for him. No the 'imrina" is in front of my house. Hanus stated that he shared his con ~c, em, but that all the LMCD rules and regulations had been followed in the new dock confi~rations. Mr. Straley stated that the plan last Council meeting would have r~uited him to file for a variance and that he was informed ~ ,he LMCD believed he was in Hvor of that plan. He stated that no one had contact~ hkn with any plans. He wonder~ if the presenm~on last time was an anemp~ to convLnce the LMCD tha~ ~ owners had a~_,~a__ m the new config',~-'afion. Hanus stated that this was not the intention, lVL-. Sn-aley wanted..it stated publicly that he was not in favor of the dock in the middle of the beach area. I-Janus stated that it wu 5 - 6 feet from the south access road. Mr. Su-aley asked why the #1 slip had a 10 foot setback to thc propevo, hne. He asked why it was not on the south side of the dock. Fackier 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 tn fit this ~ of a boat. Fackler stated that the #I could be changed with #10. Ha.nus stated that would make it difficult to accommodate the sailboa~ on #10 and 11. If you moved it to the other side, he sa.id, it would put it in the beach a.rea more. Nonetheless, stated Hanus, he did not have a problem with minor rearmngementa to the configura~on. He would like to stay within the negotiated 143-foot measurement, however. 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 n~ds. 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: .351 10/15/99 10:42 FA_I CITY OF ~OUND OCT 1~ '99 OO5 ll:4~H MOUND C17Y COUNCIY., MINU'IW_S - MAY 11. 1999 Is it a public dock? Can anyone w-Ak on it? I-Ianus stated that it was intended for dock lea~s only. What is the legal distance out an adult swimmer could go from the beach? Brown stated that a swimmer could go aa far out as they were comfortable with. They could swim across thc lake, he indicated. She was looking at thc 1630 configuration and azkcd how it would keep thc cMldrcn from swimming under thc rope. Hanu$ aakcd her how they kc-pt the children within thc rope area today. She itated 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 thi_~ meeting. Wcycker indicated ',ha: only the people with slips on the dcck had been notified. Craig Watson of 4610 Tuxedo Boulevard stated that he had a petition signed by 90 people objecfi_ng 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 thc Pembroke Beach area, feel that the proposed dock configuration will offer a hazard and inconvenience to the children who use the beach. Thc 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. 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. 352 10/15/99 10:43 FAX CITY OF ~Ob%~ ~006 OCT 15 '99 ll:44DM MOUND CITY COUNCrr MINUTES- MAY 11, 1999 He stated the neighbor to the south, Rod, indicated to him that last year's configuration was ali 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 kis own private dock. Sometime ha 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 awa.v. He stated that was untrue. Last Sunday, there were 15 kids and parent~ 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 afl.aid 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 ~at 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 pa.v $150 per slip. I~ the City going to charge him more he asked. The Mayor indicated that she felt the ordinances needed a thorough rev/ew to bring them in l/ne w/th 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 fight. 1VLr. 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 Shervem 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 le~ of a safety is.sue and they should move it closer to Plaza's property. 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 fi.om the audience stated that might work on paper/board, but it won't work on the beach. Mr. Watson said the configuration wa~ about 10 feet further north of where he is. He was 15 feet from the light pole. 353 10/15/99 10:43 FAX CITY OF J0U~B ~007 OCT 15 '99 ll:44AM MOUND CITY COUNCIL I~IINLrIF~- MAY II, 1999 Janet Petersen ~sked about other's views. She stated that they had a picnic down at thc 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 Counc~ meeting when the park issue came up for Philbr°ok Park the decision was to leave it as it was, a quiet neighborhood park. Now, he said, you want to come and destroy thi~ quiet neighl~orhood 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 M.r. Watson for the petition. Nix. 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 drculated the petition-everyone on the dock. Hanus asked what confi~ration they were told about. Mr. Watson stated that it was' Option A and B from the last Council.meeting. 'That was ;,vhat they had then. He stated he didn't see any podia'es to the move. "I"ne kids get screwed, the people and boats on He 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, l~lr. 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 hamme~ against the dock in the wind. Faclder commented that several people had stated this to h~rq 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 will;ng 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 be~n working on it in October, do you think everyone can agree with a configuration they can live v,~th? Mr. Watson stated that when you jam 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 mm 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. 354 10/15/99 10:44 FA_~ CITy OF ~0UN~ OCT MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY I1~ I999 A citizen asked why not put the additional people on another cornmon~. 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 ori~nal 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 caged a i>oi~t of order that things were ge.'~ug argtmuentafive. Bob Schmidt o£ 4708 Island View Drive stated that they should eliminate ~e non-abutters. Then the only. people m realize the privilege would be the abuners. Dean Sulander that when the multiple dock was pul in three yearn ago, it created a lot of upheaval. However, he stated, we were able to work it out. We did not dig in our heels amd came to aa agTeement The first year became a problem when they added the additional slip. Enlarging the dock is what made it a '~na_rina." 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 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 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 CiV was not closing the park, he did not care what happened to the dock. 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 hav.e a good relationship w/th 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.' 355 10/15/99 10:45 FA.]. CITY OF MOUND ~009 MOUND CITY COU'NC1L M1NU'IF.3- MAY 1I, t999 Hanus stated that he did not agree that Mr. Plaza was content with the way it was. He believes there is a miscommunicafion somewhere. He will not support putting the dock back in the-way it was. Brown asked if they used the coufigurafion shown on page 1630 for ~is year and worked with the neighborhood to work out a 'better" plan for next year that meet .everyoue's concerns would Hanus vote for it. Hauus responded' that he would agree provided it isn't put in beyond the 143-£oot pre-negotiated location and provided that City Council doesn't mind wo.r.]dng with this again. Brown suggested that ~he CiV work with four neighborhood representatives. He was willing to repr~ent the Council. Weycker asked why they were working .with Hanna and not ~e Dock Commission. Hanus stated that he'was the one coutaaed on the issue last'year. Weycke: asked why he didn't go through the Dock and Park Commissions first_ She stated for the pubiic that Hanna byp~ssed the two appropriate advisory boards prior to coming to thc 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 '~mafina." There are three beaches on the island including this one. She feels th.is is creating another "Al and Alma'sn situation. She asked the attorney to rule on the City's responsibility on liability if anyone were to get hurt. Th~ 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 p. ointed out that the records for the ori~/n.al 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. Brown stated that the mpc was separating the beach area and the dock area. Could the rope be extended over further to keep the docks from entering, he asked. Faclder stated it co.uld be and you could use an upright buoy with an anchor of double bricks to stop something fi:om floating into the area. 356 I0/15/99 10:46 FAX CITY OF MOL~D ~010 OCT 15 '99 11:47~M MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTE~ - MAY 11, 1999 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. Faclder stated the lifeguard had' been taken from this area and used elsewhere. talk with Tim Piepkorn and see what his recommendation is. He could Mayor Meisel asked what would happen if they m~ved the dock ~fteen feet closer to the light pole. Hanus stated that it was outside the pre-negotiated area of !43 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. A.hrens suggested moving the stick back to be~een slips 7 and S. The mayor agreed. Mr. Watson posed the following ques~on to the Council. You have had all the usem say we will work together towards a mutually acceptabie plan. Leave the dock as it is. The City Council is elected and works for the people. They have tetally 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 IBore. Maflene 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. Hanu~ said it doesn't work ,that's Why...~.The response was, it doesn't work according to one pe,,-~n. Tkis same citizen wanted to know wh,v the Docks commission didn't review thi~. 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 ~Iuly before the dock was put in. Hanus stated that the individual slips and depth of water and distance fi:om the beach had not changed. 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." 357 10/15/99 10:47 FM[ CITY OF MOUND ~ Oil OCT 15 '99 ll:48AM MOUND ¢~I7 COUN¢~ ~NUTE~- ~Y H, The Mayor cami back to the need to review the ordinances. Ahrens suggested extendi,g section one rewards the-~hore. That would give him room for hfs boat and protect the be~ch more.' Mr. Hel§eson stated that would work for him, but he stffl couldn't see why the dock had to change. He asked if the reason was to relocate pe6ple from Roanoke onto'this dock. He still wanted to know why the); couldn't work w/th what was there and change for next year. Hanus responded that Plaza has absorbed the entire dock f~r too long. The citizens asked why he (Plaza) wasn't, at the meeting. Mr. Helgesou stsmd he felt like thc City Counc~ was hold/ng ~s over their heads, if they didn't a~ree, then the docks wouldn't go in at ~11. Ahrens stated that they needed :o fit 12 boats into the dock. Mr. Watson stated that if they left it ~s it w~s, there would 11 of the 12 boats t~ere. Hanus asked where they should locate- the other peep]e, elsewhere/n the Ci~. Weycker asked Hanu~ if t. his was stol impac, ed b.v the Roanoke area. The attorney was asked if it was a con, ct of Luterest to have .~arens participating ~u this discussion. Dean came back after attempting to ~isten to the tape (which had been s~tched .off unbetm0wnst to the-Council ~u the audio/visual rc~m 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 inierest 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 dis~a~ion. 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 boaL The stick would be located 1325 fee~ from the light post. The Beach area would be roped off from the rest of the area and this would be revisited in October to determine how it worked. This season would be a trial peri'od. In conjunction with his second, Brown asked that a representative neighborhood group work with people from the City to come to some comprumike 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. 358 10:4~ OCT ~5 '~D ll:~gAM ~OUND CIIY ¢OUNC2~ MINUIE~- MAY II, 19~ At ~east one of the neighborhood representatives needed to Hve ~n the neighbor hood, the other three could be on the dock or residents or both. The Mayor accepted Brown's amendment. Discussion I-lanus asked that along with the motion be an amendment which .would direct the City ,Attorney to dra~ an agreement between the City of Mound and the neighbor to the south of Pembroke Park, Rodrigo Plaza Navarrette ai 4539 Island View Drive. ~ document will state that Mr. Plaza agrees that the city may freely utili:~_e a portion of the property in ~ront 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 agre~ that it will not expand, extend, or shift the dock/boat complex area beyond a point 143 feet southwest along the shoreline as measured fi'om ',he north property line of Pembroke Park. Weycker went on record to say that this wa~ "truly a scary pre.dent" that the City would allow themseNes to be tied :o a particular limit on public property. She feels tt~ will become an issue and follow them through discussions on all the different commons. She asked Dean what '-he City's liability would be if anyone got hun 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 a=d Alma's" situation. The motion was called. Moticm carried 4-1. (We. ycker stated she was very. opposed and voting nay.) 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 inter, esting that a council member can just pre-negotiate an agreement with one individual without considering others or even incIuding them in the negotiations. 359 i0/15/99 Z0:48 FAX dll'Y 0F MOUND OCT 013 MOUIVD Cl'IY COUNCI~ MIArUT~$ - MAY II, 19t~ Dean stated that ii 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 45i2 Clyde Road stated that the City Council did not even consider the 90 signatures on the petition as iadicati~ their preference. Since thatwas the case, why would four member~ of the council m~¢ a difference. Weycker publicly pointed out that ther~ 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 ..,:,!th the ueighborhood: Start Straley, John Mundt, Dean Sulander, Todd .Rask, Tim Williams. Brown volunteered again from the City Council. '4 MAR 81 '88 08:05PM P iTiON WE, AS RESIDENTS Of Tile PEMBROKE BEACH AREA, FEEL TliRT THE PROPOSED DOCK CONFIBURRTION WILL OFFER A XRZZRRD AND INCONUENIENCE TO THE CHILDREN WHO USE THE BEACH. THE HAZZARDS RS WE SEE THEM ARE: Ii AN A'iTRR~iUE NUCRNCE - INTHE PHYSICAL DOCK THRTTHE CHILDREN CAN CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OF'F THE STRUCTURE. 21 THERE WILL BE FLORTSRM ON THE BERCX AREA CONSISTING OF WEEDS, TRASH, AND OIL SPILLAGE, MAINLY DUE TO THE BLOC[AGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE DOATS. THIS WE BELIEUE WILL BE R HEALTH TXREAT TO THE CHILDREN AS THEY USE THE BERCX. TRE DOCK WILL EXTEND i.NTO THE SWIMMING AREA CAUSING LESS US~iSL£ AREA TO PLAY AND SWIM. NAME ADDRESS PHONE Pt-TiTiON WE, AS RESIDENTS 01: THE PI~MBROKE liEitCit itREtl, i:££L TXitT THE PIIOPOS£O DOCK CONFIGURATION WILL OFFER A ltAZZRRD AND INCONVENIENCE TO THE CXILDREN WHO USE THE BEACH. THE XAZZARDS AS WE SEE THEM ARE: i) AN ATi'RACTIUE NU£RNCE - IN THE PHYSICAL DOCK THAT THE CHILDREN CAN CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. 21 THERE WILL BE FLDRTSRM ON THE BEACX AREA CONSISTING OF WEEDS, TRASH, AND OIL SPILLAGE, MAINLY DUE TO THE BLOCI~AGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THIS WE BELIEVE WILL BE R HEALTH THREAT TO THE CHILDREN RS THEY USE THE BEliCX. THE DOCK WILL EXTEND INTO THE SWIMMING LESS USItBL£ fiREA TO PLAY RNO SWIM. AREA CAUSING ADDRESS PHONE ¥7? - o'Z ~2/Z5/99 09:16 FA.Z C1'1'¥ UP' MUUNU MAR 01 '00 08:0~PM P~ITiON WE, RS RESIDENTS 0FTHE PEMBROKE BEACH AREA, FEEL TiiRT THE PROP{I~E9 DOCI~ CONFIGURATION WILL OFFER R IIRZZRRO AND INEONUENI£N£[ TO THE £HiiLDREN UJHD I]~E THE BEACH. THE HRZZRRDS RS WE SEE THEM RRE: I ! AN RTTRRCTIUE NUCRNCE - IN THE PHYSICAL DOCK THAT THE CHILDREN CAN CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. 21 THERE WILL BE FLDRTSRM ON THE BEACH AREA CONSISTING OF WEEDS, TRASH, AND OIL SPILLAGE, MRINL¥ DUE TO THE BLOC1CAGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THIS WE BELIEUE WILL BE R HEALTH THREi:iT TO THE CHILDREN RS THEY USE THE BEACH. THE DOCK WILL EXTEND INTO THE SWIMMING RREi:i CAUSING LESS USABLE AREA TO PLiq¥ AND SWIM. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 12/15/99 09:L7 F/tX CITY OF ~UUND MAR 01 PE'TiTiON WE, RS RESIDENTS OF TX£ PEMBROK£ B£ACii [IREii, i:££L TH~iT TX~ ~[ID~{IS[D DOCK CONFIGURATION WILL OFFER R HAZZARD AND INCONVENIENCE TO THE CHILDREN WHO USE THE BEACH. THE HRZZARDS AS WE SEE THEM ARE: RN A1TRRCTIUE NUCRNCE - IN THE PHYSICRL DOCK THATTHE CHILDREN CAN CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. 21 THERE WILL BE FLOATSRM ON TIlE BEACH AREA CONSiSTiNG OF WEEDS, TRASX, AND OIL SPILLAGE, MAINLY DUE TO THE BLOCKAGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THIS WE BELIEUE WILL BE A HEALTH THREAT TO Tile CHILDREN RS THEY USE THE BEACH. '00 08:07PM THE DOCK WILL EXTEND iNTO THE SWIMMING AREA CRUSING LESS USABLE i:tREA TO PLAY AND SWIM. NRi~'tE ADDRESS PHONE 9,7,]..,. / - · 00 08:0~PM P£,",4,,R,.,,.,,. B[RE}! fIR"R, 1~[1. 'r ,' oo,',o,',,',:,, ,,,,,',, (~NF~GURI:ITiON WiLL Orl~ER fl XAZZ,'IRD RNO INCONUENIENCE TO THE CHILDREN ~YflO E TXE BEACH. THE HAZZARD$ AS WE SEE THEM ARE: 1) AN ATTRA£TIUE NU£ANCE - IN THE PHYSICAL CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. DOCK THAT THE CHILDREN CAN 2} THERE WILL BE FLORTSAM ON THE BEACH AREA CONSISTING OF WEEDS, TRASH, AND OIL SPiLl. AGE, MAINLY DUE TO THE BLOCKAGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THIS WE BELIEVE WILl. BE fl HEALTH THREAT TO THE CHILDREN AS THEY USE THE BEACH. 3} THE DOC~ WILL EXTEND INTO THE SWIMMING AREA CAUSING LESS USABL£ AR£A TO PLAY AND SWIM. .19 12/15/99 09:18 FA[ CITY OF MOUND MAR 01 '00 ~gO07 08:0~PM PETiTiON WE, R'S RESiDENT~ Oi: Tt. iE PEMGAOKE GERCii itRER. FEEL THAT Tii£ ~AGPQ~.G OOCK CONFIGURATION WILL OFFER R HAZZRRD AND INCDNUENIENCE TO THE CHILDREN WHO USE THE BEACH. THE HAZZRRDS RS WE SEE THEM ARE: I ) AN R'Fi'RRCTIUE NUCRNCE - IN THE PHYSICAL DOCI( THAT TFIE CHILDREN CAN CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. 2} THERE WILL BE FLDATSRM ON THE BEACX AREA CONSISTING OF WEEDS, TRASX, AND OIL SPILLAGE, MAINLY DUE TO THE BLOCX~AGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THiS WE BELIEUE WILL BE A XERLTFi THREAT TO THE CH i LDREN AS TXEY USE THE BEACX. THE DOCK WILL EXTEND INTD THE SWIMMING RRE.:i CAUSING LESS USABLE AREA TO PLAY AND SWIM. NAME ADDRESS PHONE ! 09:19 Fi[ PgiTiO~ CITY OF ~OUND MAR 01 '00 008 08:0SPM Z/ WE, lis AESIAENTS OF THE PEMBROKE BEACii AREA, FEEL THAT T'HE PROPO~F.O DOCK CONFIGURATION WILL OFFER R HAZZRRD AND INCONUENIENCE TO THE CHILDREN WHO USE THE BEACH. THE HAZZARDS AS WE SEE TXEM ARE: 11 AN RTI'RACTiUE NUCRNCE - IN THE PflYSICAL DOCK THAT THE CHILDREN CAN CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. 21 THERE WILL BE FLORTSAM ON THE BERCX AREA CONSISTING OF WE£DS, TRASH,-AND OIL SPILLAGE, MI)INLY DUE TO THE BLOCKAGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THIS WE BELIEUE WiLL BE A HEALTH THREAT TO T).IE CHILDREN RS THEY USE THE BEACH. 5) THE DOCX[ WILL EXTEND INTO THE SWIMMING AREA CAUSING LESS USABLE i:tREFt TO PLAY AND SWIM. PHONE 767 12/15/99 09:19 F,,.~ Cl'l~ OF ~OUNB MAR 01 ~009 08 :~SRM P~ITiON WE, its RESIDENTS .OF THE PEMBROI~E II£R£X AREA, i~£EL TiiflT Tile PitOPfiS£[i DOCK CONFIGURRTiON WILL OFFER R HRZZRRD AND INCONUENIENCE TO THE CHILDREN WHO USE THE BEACH. THE HAZZRRDS AS WE SEE THEM ARE: i) AN ATrRACTIUE NUCANCE - IN THE I~YSICRL DOCK THAT THE CHILDREN CAN CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. 21 THERE WILL BE FLOATSRM ON THE BEACH AREA CONSISTING OF WEEDS, TRASH, AND OIL SPILLAGE, MAINLY DUE TO THE BLOCKAGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THIS WE BELIEUE WILL BE A HEALTH THREAT TO THE CHILDREN AS THEY USE THE I~ERC}t. 5) THE DOCK WILL EXTEND INTO THE SWIMMING AREA CAUSING LESS USABLE AREA TO PLAY AND SWIM. ADDRESS .Z/,~.~' ~,~-~ PHONE # 12/15/99 09:20 F,A~ CITY OF MOUND M~R 01 ~.J U J.U 08: llPM P~iTiQN DOCK CQNFI6URRTiON WILL OFFER R HRZZRRD RNO INCONUENIENCE TO THE CHILDREN WHD USE THE BEACH. THE XAZZARDS AS WE SEE THEM ARE: AN AITRACTIUE NUCRNCE - IN THE PHYSICAL DOCK THAT THE CHILDREN CAN CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. 21 THERE WILL BE FLOATSRM ON THE BEACH RRER CONSISTING OF WEEDS, TRASH, AND OIL SPILLAGE, MAINLY DUE TO THE BLOCKAGE QF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THIS WE BELIEUE WILL BE R HEALTH THREAT TO THE CHILDREN RS THEY USE THE ]~EACH. THE DOCX: WILL EXTEND INTO THE SWIMMING RRER CRUS1NG LESS USABLE AREA TD PLAY AND SWIM. PHONE 12/15/99 09:21 F.,~ ~x~z ur ~uul',u ~,,,.,. MIAR 01 '00 08:11Phl PETITION WE, AS AE~IGENTS OF 'PAE P£MRBOI~E BERCii AREA, FEEL 'fliRT T-liE PROPG~E[i DOCX~ CONFIGURATION WILL OFFER R HRZZRRO RNO iNCONUENIENCE TO THE CHILDREN WHO USE THE BEACH. THE XAZZARDS AS WE SEE THEM ARE: 1 ) AN R'i'FRRCTIUE NUCANCE - IN THE Fqt¥S!CRL DOCK THAT THE CHILDREN CAN CLIMB ON - RUN ON- AND JUMP OFF THE STRUCTURE. 2) TXERE WILL BE FLOATSRM ON THE BEACH AREA CONSISTING OF WEEDS, TRASH, AND OIL SPILLAGE, MAINLY DUE TO THE BLOCi~AGE OF WATER FLOW BY THE BOATS. THIS WE BELIEUE WILL BE A HEALTH TXREAT TO THE CHILDREN AS THEY USE THE BEACH. THE DOCK WILL EXTEND INTO THE SWIMMING RRE~ CAUSING LESS USI:iBLE RRER TO PLAY AND SWIM. ADDRESS PHONE