Loading...
2000-06-13 PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES AND PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 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. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE APPROVE AGENDA. *CONSENT AGENDA *A. *B. *C. APPROVE MINUTES: MAY 23, 2000, REGULAR MEETING. 2408-2431 APPROVAL OF MISCELLANEOUS LICENSES .............. 2432 APPROVE DOCK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR MARK HANUS AT 4446 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, AVALON, DOCK SITE 33525 .... 2433-2436 *D. SET PUBLIC HEARINGDATE FOR ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO DOWNTOWN ZONING. (SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE 27, 2000). *E. SET DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. P & Z CASE/K)022 - LANGDON BAY PRELIMINARY PLAT/PDA (SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE 27, 2000). 2. P & Z CASE/K)0-23 - STREET VACATION REQUEST (GLEN LANE & INTERLACHEN ROAD (SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE 27, 2000). *F. PAYMENT OF BILLS ........................... 2437-2470 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUBJECT.) 4. REPRESENTATIVES FROM ROTTLUND HOMES PRESENTING CONCEPT PLAN FOR LANGDON BAY SUBDIVISION. 2406 PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES AND PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PARKING, TO INCLUDE DISCUSSION OF CBD PARKING AGREEMENT AND BRAINSTORM PARKING FOR WEST COMMERCE BOULEVARD BUSINF_~SES. . 2471-2503 STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................... 2504-2530 CONSIDERATION AND COMMENT ON OPEN SPACE TASK FORCE STUDY ........................................ 2531-2538 8. CONSIDERATION AND COMMENT ON STORM WATER RATE STUDY .................................... 2539-2541 9. STAFF SEEKING DIRECTION ON DCAC FEES .................. 2542 10. STAFF PROPOSAL FOR REVISION TO SECTION 320 OF CITY CODE: CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND ..................... 2543-2566 INFORMATION MISCELLANEOUS A. Financial Reports through June 1 ............................. 2567 B. AMM Fax News ....................................... 2568 C. LMC Friday Faxes .................................. 2569-2570 D. Draft 2001 LMCD Budget .............................. 2571-2577 E. LMC Dues Increase .................................. 2578-2580 F. Hennepin County Letter on Open Book Board of Review ........... 2581-2582 G. Notice of Awards for Westonka Senior Center .................. 2583-2584 H. LMCD Minutes - April 26, 2000 ......................... 2585-2595 I. DCAC (Dock & Commons Advisory Commission) Minutes, May 18, 2000. 2596-2601 J. POSC (Park and Open Space Commission) Minutes:, May 11 & May 18, 2000 .................................... 2602-2614 2407 MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL -MAY 23, 2000 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 23, 2000, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers: Bob Brown, Mark Hanus and Leah Weycker. Absent and excused: Councilmember Andrea Ahrens and City Clerk Fran Clark. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Planner Loren Gordon, Mounds Vision Coordinator Bruce Chamberlain, City Engineer John Cameron, Finance Director Gino Businaro, and Secretaries Sue McCulloch and Diana Mestad. The following interested citizens were also present: Susan & Terance Almquist, Cathy Bailey, Janice Beise, John & Beise, Marilyn Byrnes, Sue & Tom Cathers, Steve Coddon, Sally Custer, Cathi & Tom Desszighy, Dave Deters, Bruce & Patti Dodds, Henry Ebert, Mike Empson, June Estelle, John & Shirley Evans, Marty & Gene Garvais, Mike, Pual & Tom Gaudette, Patrick Griffen, Patty Guttormson, Brian & Theresa Gulrud, Bryan Haimes, Lorrie Ham, Gina, Jeff & Maflene Harty, Dean & Muriel Lattin, Sharon Cock, Jo Longpre, Steven Maddock, Michael Mueller, Peter Meyer, Bill & Dorothy Netka, Dotty O'Brien, Leona Peterson, Marion Poteete, Roger Reed, Jim Regan, John Roxel, Kathy Rue, Cathy Scanlon, Loren Schmidt, Mary Steen, Betty Strong, John Taffe, Margaret Thorne, Tom Turner, Greg Ward, Frank Weiland, Jack Weist, Roger Westman. *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. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 7:35 P.M. and welcomed the people in attendance. The pledge of allegiance was recited. APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Brown, to approve the agenda and consent agenda as submitted. The roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0. CONSENT AGENDA *1.0 MINUTES OF MAY 9. 2000. REGULAR MEETING. MOTION. Weycker, Brown, unanimously. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 *1.1 CASE~ 00-15: VARIANCE, THOMAS J. DIOSZEGHY, 5900 BEACHWOOD ROAD, EAST 50' OF W 200' OF LOT 47, AUD. SUBD. 168, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WITH A PROPOSED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 11', PID# 23-117-24 13 0042. RESOLUTION//00-47 Weycker, Brown, unanimously. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AT 5900 BEACHWOOD ROAD, THE EAST 50 FEET OF THE WEST 200 FEET OF LOT 47, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 168, P & Z CASE # 00-15. *1.2 CASE# 00-16: VARIANCE, TERRENCE J. ALMQUIST, 4515 MANCHESTER ROAD, LOTS 1, 2, 3, BLOCK 14, AVALON, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY GARAGE WITH A PROPOSED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 13', PID# 19-11%23 31 0060. RESOLUTION #00-48 Weycker, Brown, unanimously. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE AT 4515 MANCHESTER ROAD, THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1, 3, AND 3, BLOCK 14, AVALON, PID# 19-117-23-31-0060, P & Z CASE # 00-16. '1.3 '1.4 CASE//00-17: MINOR SUBDIVISION, THERESA GUBRUD, 6349 WALNUT LANE, LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 10, MOUND TERRACE, PID# 14-11%24 32 0065. RESOLUTION g00-49 Weycker, Brown, unanimously. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE ONE ADDITIONAL LOT FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6349 WALNUT LANE, LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 10, MOUND TERRACE, PID# 14-117-24 32 0065, P & Z CASE # 00-17. APPROVAL OF MISCELLANEOUS LICENSES. MOTION. Weycker, Brown, unanimously. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 .1.5 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION. Weycker, Brown, unanimously. Mayor Meisel read a Proclamation given by the City Council on behalf of the City of Mound honoring those that have served with courage and dedication in the United States wars in the 20~ century and accepting the flagpole and monument at Mound Union Cemetery. Mayor Meisel presented the plaque to the American Legion Representatives of Post Number 398 which included Greg Ward, Steve Maddock, Loren Schmidt, Kathy Rice, John Taffe, Gina Harry, and Jeff Harty. Mayor Meisel reminded the public there would be a ceremony held at Union Cemetery on Saturday, May 27, 2000, at 2:00 p.m. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT SUBJECTS NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUBJECT.) John Evans. Mr. Evans stated he had the privilege of attending the historical meeting on March 18, 2000. He was pleasantly reminded at the meeting by observing pictures that Mound once had a steam engine with dining cars. With that thought, he would like to see the light trail implemented back into the City of Mound and wanted to know the progress of this project. Mayor Meisel stated the light trail system is currently at the state level, so nothing has been discussed or decided at the city level at this point. 1.6 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//00-05: ZONING AMENDMENT. CHESTER J. YANIK & ASSOCIATES, LENGTHY LEGAL, NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2. 2000. CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING R-2 ZONE TO A B-1 ZONE, MAKING ALL ZONING OF THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER. City Planner stated this is a redevelopment project involving four home sites. He mentioned the redevelopment would occur at Bartlett Boulevard, Commerce Boulevard, and Bush Road and noted the VFW to the north of the project and Lost Lake to the east. He stated it would be a single-story building with an underground basement, the building would have a high pitch roof with stone and brick on the front, and the square footage of the building would be approximately 12,000 square feet. City Planner explained there would be approximately 62 parking spaces and there would be an awning located at the front of the building. City Planner stated some concerns of the project include accommodating the residents on Bartlett Boulevard with access onto Bush Road, the storm water pond being located off site and on City property, and possible drainage problems. Also, the site would need to be graded causing the destruction of quite a few trees, but with the hope of planting new maples, oaks, black spruce, and bush plantings to replace those that will be lost. City Planner further stated screening for the neighbors is a concern as well. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 City Planner stated staff is recommending the zoning for this project be changed from a B-1 and R-2 district to a B-1 zoning district. He stated this is consistent with the neighborhood and consistent with the land use for the City of Mound. Mayor Meisel stated she has been involved with the senior citizen center since day one and now 13 years later, the project is progressing favorably. She stated she has served on the board in a strictly volunteer capacity and believes strongly in the center. Mayor Meisel stated the City Attorney has made is clear there is no conflict of interest with her having discussions regarding the center. The City Attorney agreed. Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. No one responded. Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 7:51 p.m. Councilmember Hanus expressed his concern about the holding pond. He asked if the Watershed District has approved the pond at this point and if they have not, does the criteria for having it approved by the Watershed meet their needs. City Planner stated it would appear to meet the requirements, although the Watershed will make the final approval regarding the pond. Councilmember Hanus asked staff if the applicant would be building the pond. City Planner stated this was a correct statement, although the City would take over the maintenance of the pond after it is constructed. Councilmember Hanus asked if it would be possible to encourage the applicant to make the pond as large as possible to accommodate unforeseen needs of the pond, such as the trail system? City Planner stated this would be something to keep in mind for the future needs of the City. Councilmember Brown agreed with Councilmember Hanus regarding the size of the pond. Councilmember Hanus stated there may need to be some sharing in the cost of building the pond to allow it to be made larger than what the applicant had initially planned. Councilmember Weycker referred to a handout presented tonight from the Park Commission that expressed their concern with the run off going into the pond. Staff mentioned this would be addressed this evening as the meeting progressed. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to approve the following ordinance: ORDINANCE #106-2000 The vote was unanimously in favor. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-2 ONE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO ACCOMMODATE THE GILLESPIE SENIOR CENTER LOCATED AT 2600 BUSH ROAD, P & Z CASE # 00-05. Motion carded. 4-0. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 1.7 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE~ 00-06: STREET EASEMENT/VACATION, CHESTER J. YANIK & ASSOCIATES~ LENGTHY LEGAL, NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2000~ TO CONSOLIDATE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES ALLOWING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER. City Planner mentioned this is a 60-foot right-of-way serving four homes, and each of these homes would be removed and residents relocated to other housing. He stated the purpose of the road vacation is to allow the project to proceed. City Planner stated the property owner would take over the water and sewer lines after the vacation and they would be reclassified as private. Staff recommends the approval of this street easement/vacation and does not see a need for this road in future development. Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. No one responded. Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. Councilmember Weycker is concerned about vacating this easement before there is access given to the individual, who would then have no access after the vacation. Councilmember Hanus mentioned even without conditions, and if this would pass and something down the road would not pass that would render this bad or useless, this could be brought back off the table and rethought. City Planner mentioned this issue would be discussed further when the plat section of the center is presented to the City Council. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, approving the street and easement vacation as submitted. RESOLUTION//00-50 The vote was unanimously in favor. RESOLUTION APPROVING A STREET AND EASEMENT VACATION FOR A PORTION OF BUSH ROAD TO ACCOMMODATE THE GILLESPIE SENIOR CENTER LOCATED AT 2600 BUSH ROAD, P & Z CASE # 00-06. Motion carried. 4-0. 1.8 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE# 00-04: MAJOR SUBDIVISION, CHESTER J. YANIK & ASSOCIATES LENGTHY LEGAL, NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2000, IN ORDER TO CREATE A LAND MASS ADEQUATE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER. City Planner noted the preliminary plat referred to is on page 2083 of the packet. City Planner stated the plat includes about 1.2 acres of this project, which includes the vacated right-of-way and the residential properties to the north and side of the plat. He stated the plat is asking for a consolidation of the properties into one parcel called the Gillespie Addition. City Planner stated with the plat there are variances MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 included in this building, which include setbacks from the south line of a proposed 23 feet and the north setback of 13 feet. He further stated the side yard has a setback as well. He stated the Planning Commission proposed sliding the building 8 feet more north to increase the south to 31 feet and the north would change to 5 feet. City Planner stated another variance would be 62 parking stalls at 9 x 18 in size. The last variance being considered is a hardcover variance of almost 22,000 square feet. City Planner stated at the Planning Commission the topics discussed more thoroughly consisted of the setbacks, screening, ponding, and the parking stall sizes. City Planner stated staff had some further issues that were raised at the Planning Commission level and they were access to the storm water pond if the 5-foot setback would be granted between the property line and the building. First, it was discussed that there would not be enough room to get back there to clean the pond without an access easement from the VFW. Secondly, City Planner stated with this location there needs to be an access easement to the greenway trail. City Planner mentioned the grading plan needs to be approved by the City Engineer concerning the retaining wall. City Planner mentioned staff would prefer to have the building close to Commerce Boulevard and have some relationship with street frontage and some relationship with the Lost Lake area. City Planner demonstrated a drawing the applicant submitted showing how the building could be positioned on Commerce. The City Engineer added Hennepin County needs to review the project and state if they are going to request additional right-of-way, so this may affect the parking layout and other specifics. Traditionally, Hennepin County has asked for an additional seven feet to give them 40 feet, but the City Engineer is not certain at this time. Councilmember Brown clarified the Planning Commission would have rather seen 10 x 20 parking stalls than the 9 x 18 as noted by City Planner earlier. He stated this was more favorable to allow more room getting in and out of vehicles, especially for those citizens who may have walkers of some sort. City Planner agreed and stated this could be corrected in the resolution to state the larger size stalls if that is approved by the City Council. Councilmember Brown further stated the larger size parking stalls would only cause a loss of about 6 spots for the center as a whole. Councilmember Hanus stated he understands the Planning Commissions concerns but is reluctant to pass this specific project, because of qualifying terms, with the 10 x 20 stall sizes. Councilmember Weycker stated because there is a concern regarding runoff, she would not be opposed to the smaller size parking stalls. Councilmember Hanus stated the retaining wall language seemed a little ambiguous and he is confident the City cannot require something done on another owner's property. He mentioned it would be great to have the wall come down and regraded for the site and access concerns, but it can not be a recommendation from the City Council. 6 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 Couneilmember I-Ianus mentioned the language in the resolution concerning the easement should go through the property to get access. City Planner agreed. He suggested the wording in the resolution t that the easement would go across the property to provide maintenance access of the storm water pond. Councilmember Weycker is concerned about the berm that is being suggested in the resolution. She stated the berm may cause runoff problems as well as root problems for the trees being planted on the berm so she suggested using another means of screening for the neighbors besides the suggested berm. Councilmember Brown stated the berm would be helpful for hardcover and runoff, rather than having the water go directly into Mrs. Beise's yard. City Planner demonstrated a swale that would drain the property now, although the berm could possibly redirect the runoff and have it go elsewhere. City Planner suggested spruce trees be used for screening rather than a berm. Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Ben Withhart, Executive Director of Senior Citizens Services. He stated he would like to address questions by the public after everyone else has spoken. Frank Weiland, 6040 Aspen Road. Mr. Weiland stated it was definitely stated the parking sizes recommended by the Planning Commission were 10 x 20, rather than the 9 x 18, and he would appreciate having the larger stalls for the center. John Beise, 1665 Eagle Lane. Mr. Beise stated his first concern was the storm water management pond being built on city owned property. He stated this is a problem because of a dangerous precedent being set to allow the maintenance of the pond being undertaken by the City. He stated a solution maybe selling the land to the center and for them to maintain the pond themselves. Secondly, Mr. Beise stated a recent survey he received concerning Mrs. Beise's house shows problems with the elevation of the pond and the basement of her home. He is concerned there would be flooding issues. Thirdly, Mr. Beise suggested conforming to the 10 x 20 size parking stalls because there is more than enough planned for the building so why not make it more user friendly to the people of the center. Mr. Beise agreed the center is a wonderful project and is looking forward to progress. John Evans, 2025 Arbor Lane. Mr. Evans is in favor of this project as well as some of his other neighbors. He suggested resolving the ponding issue by using Lost Lake as a holding pond. Councilmember Brown stated it is required by the State to have a separate holding pond for this project. Ben Withhart. Mr. Withhart explained Mr. Yanik could not be with him tonight because of a recent back injury. He explained the Westonka Senior MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 Center wag founded in 1978. I-Ie stated the Westonka Senior Center has allowed local seniors to be active and involved and with their community and it has been a very positive organization. He thanked the Gillespie family for making this center possible in the City of Mound and is looking forward to the project moving forward. Mr. Wthhart mentioned the senior center currently serves about 1,000 seniors. He stated it provides rides, about 700 lunches daily, and over 230 active seniors reach out to help schools and other civic organizations every day. Mr. Withhart stated there are many wide-range activities to keep the seniors active and this would allow much fellowship for the seniors. Mr. Withhart introduced Michael Dean, the architect for the Gillespie Senior Center. Mr. Michael Dean reviewed the plat. Mr. Dean corrected Mr. Beise when he stated the survey in his possession demonstrated an elevation problem with drainage. Mr. Dean is confident the drainage would not be a problem and would like to discuss this with Mr. Beise. Mr. Dean pointed out the setbacks of 47 feet and 28 feet, with an average setback being closer to 37 feet because of the odd-shaped lot. Mr. Dean is confident the swale that already exists would cause proper drainage in the southerly end of the lot. Mr. Dean further agreed a berm might cause a problem with drainage and he would not recommend this for a screening remedy. Mr. Dean mentioned the topography of the site. He stated he would rather create a lower level with a walkout basement and does not want to change the retaining wall. He stated the 9 x 18 parking stalls are a metro-wide standard and does not recommend the 10 x 20 feet stalls. Further, he stated the problem with walkers would be resolved by the double-wide drive-through at the front of the center, as well as the handicapped designated areas. Councilmember Hanus asked Mr. Dean if he would consider shifiing the building 8 feet to the noah as suggested? Mr. Dean understands the idea of lessening the setbacks, but stated the soil conditions get worse the further noah the building is platted. Furthermore, he stated the service drive on the noah would be compressed to a smaller area. Mr. Dean also stated to have access to the pond from the noah would be changed with this building shifting further noah. He is confident the screening could be maximized by an appropriate use of trees. Councilmember Hanus asked Mr. Dean if the reason for having the smaller size parking stalls is due to the fact of allowing as much parking as possible in the location of the center? Mr. Dean stated he does want to maximize the parking within what the code provides because on occasion, all the parking requested would be used. Councilmember Hanus asked if other senior citizens at other centers have concerns regarding the parking or issues being addressed tonight. Mr. Dean stated other senior citizens at other centers have expressed concerns about the 8 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 ability of getting close enough to the door, but that is the only concern he recalls. He further stated the way the building is set up, to allow the basement to overlook the Lost Lake area, was appealing to seniors as well. Councilmember Brown stated if the building would be moved further north an easement would need to be obtained from the VFW. Councilmember Weycker stated she would like to rearrange the building to have it facing the south. City Planner demonstrated Councilmember Weycker's suggestion on the overhead. Councilmember Weycker stated this repositioning of the building would follow Mound's Vision planning more truly than what was presented by Mr. Dean. Mayor Meisel stated this repositioning of the building would cause problems with the turnaround. Councilmember Hanus agreed and would rather see the building as initially presented by Mr. Dean. Mr. Withhart restated the best use of the land would be to have the building facing the direction of the plat because of the plans presented in the basement for the dining area that would be overlooking Lost Lake. He stated if the plans would be changed to Councilmember Weycker's suggestion, the dining room in the basement would no longer be overlooking Lost Lake. Councilmember Brown asked Mr. Withhart if it would be feasible to move the building 8 feet north to accommodate the south setback to 31 feet? It was strongly disapproved of by Mr. Withhart and the seniors present at the meeting because they are very interested in hooking up with the trail around Lost Lake. Councilmember Weycker is confident her proposal with the building facing south would be beneficial to all concerned seniors because of access. She further stated the dining room would face the trailway with her proposal. The seniors present strongly disagreed with Councilmember Weycker. Mr. Withhart stated this center would be a great transition piece between the business sector and the residential for the downtown redevelopment process. Further, he stated it would appear to be a better scenario for the residential area to have the building facing the residential property versus the parking lot because of traffic and lighting issues. Mayor Meisel mentioned two concerns from previous discussions regarding Councilmember Weycker's building design were the drop-off and fewer parking stalls. Councilmember Brown asked the public if the 10 x 20 foot parking stalls would be needed for the senior citizens. The seniors present stated the bigger parking stalls are not needed at the center. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 John Iteise stated he has spoken to the three property owners located near the site and they would definitely prefer the building to the back of them and that would be the best use of the site. Mayor Meisel closed the public heating closed at 9:02 p.m. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to approve the resolution as recommended by staff with the following provisions: Item 6 to state: "Provide tree plantings on the south side of the building to be reviewed and approved by Staff.' e Friendly amendment by City Planner to Item 8: "Provide an access easement across the City property on the site for access to the storm water pond." o Friendly amendment by City Planner to Item 9: "Provide an access easement for access to future "Greenway Trail." Friendly amendment by City Planner to Item 10: "The City Engineer review and approve the final drainage, grading and erosion control plan." o Friendly amendment by City Planner to Item 18: "Provide an access easement for the residential garage on the south side of the site." o Friendly amendment by Councilmember Hanus to Item 5: "The south side yard setback be not less than 23 feet." Friendly amendment by Councilmember Hanus to Item 7: "Applicant is to work with the adjacent property owner and attempt to reach a resolution for the removal of the wail" or "attempt to come to a resolution of redesigning the wall to everyone's satisfaction." o Friendly amendment by City Attorney adding in Paragraph 15: "The parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement which may include the following matters relating to the storm water ponding area: Design, capacity, maintenance, construction, cost sharing for the construction and maintenance of the pond, and other issues that need to be addressed in connection with the pond." Discussion. City Manager stated the City Attorney's friendly amendment could result in an agreement that would also serve other developments that could happen in the future. The City Engineer stated there is a portion of the front part of the parking lot that does drain out into Commerce Boulevard. He stated that the area and runoff rate is the same as the street presently caries so no more would be added. He stated Minnehaha Creek would look at this information. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 Mr. Withhart stated the plan there will be less storm water freely running into Lost Lake than what currently exists. He stated he would prefer catching the water in the pond and then treating it there. Mayor Meisel stated the Watershed District should be reviewing this as well. 1.9 CASE//00-07: VARIANCE, CHESTER J. YANIK & ASSOCIATES. LENGTHY LEGAL. NOTE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED FEBRUARY 2. 2000, HARDCOVER AND PARKING SIZE. See above information in Section 1.8, Case//00-04. 1.10 CASE//00-19: VARIANCE, CHESTER J. YANIK & ASSOCIATES, LOT & BLOCK SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT C, PROPOSED WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER TO ALLOW NON-CONFORMING SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS. See above information in Section 1.8, Case# 00-04. Brown moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//00-51 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GILLESPIE ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCES FOR THE GILLESPIE SENIOR CENTER LOCATED AT 2600 BUSH ROAD. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. 4-0. Mayor Meisel recessed at 9:15 p.m. Mayor Meisel resumed at 9:25 p.m. 1.11 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//00-24: MAJOR SUBDIVISION. RAY MAR PROPERTIES (MOUND FAMILY HARDWARE). 2250 COMMERCE BOULEVARD. MOUND VISIONS 1sr ADDITION, PID# PENDING. The Mounds Vision Coordinator presented the case. He presented photographs of what the characteristics of the Ray Mar Properties project and how it would fit into the redevelopment process. He stated the placing of the building would be at the front of the street and there would be on-street parking available, with rear parking as well. The Mounds Vision Coordinator presented an overlay of what the plat would look like before and after the subdivision. He stated parking would be constructed in Block 1, Outlot A and some construction of County Road 110 in Outlot C. He stated Outlot B was going to be reserved for the future building and a concern was raised by Mueller/Lancing Properties is that Outlot B did not add enough depth to allow a construction project. The Mounds Vision Coordinator stated before the meeting a compromise was worked out with Dodds and Mueller/Lancing to extend the Outlot B 30 feet further to allow a better building depth. The 11 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 proposed depth of Outlet B would now consist of 110 feet. The Mounds Visions Coordinator stated with the project there would be a land transfer between the two property owners, the City and Ray Mar Properties. The City Attorney mentioned the "hatched" area would be changed to 30 feet further to the east. The City Planner mentioned this subdivision would involve both the preliminary and final plats. He stated this project would be referred to in the future as "Mound Visions First Addition." He showed on the overlay the current property owners and how the swapping would be projected by both parties in the final plat. He continued to state the development plat has addressed the variances. The front of the street would be future parking and a future area for a garden center. The City Planner showed the location for loading merchandise and how this would temporarily go through the city parcel and then become the access drive in the future. He stated the hardcover variance being considered is 91 percent but the trade-off would be with the pond. Councilmember Brown asked if there would be a breezeway or walkway between the buildings at this point. The City Planner stated there would be some connection between the buildings. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated there are a few components that need to be approved tonight by the City Council for the project to keep progressing positively. First, he stated that Outlot B would need to include an easement guaranteeing pedestrian access from Commerce Boulevard to the east side of the retail buildings. Secondly, the extension of Outlot B would extend 30 feet from what was shown initially before tonight's discussions. Third, the change will prompt a parking cooperative agreement between True Value and Mueller/Lancing prior to the closing of Ray Mar Properties. Fourth, the City and developer agree that the developer is not responsible for or would be compensated for additional building costs with an extension of Outlot B. Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 9:45 p.m. Bruce Dodds, 3021 Dickens Lane. Mr. Dodds stated this project has been worked on for two years and the compromise that was agreed to tonight is a compromise he is agreeable with, and he is very excited about moving the visions project along. He is also very excited about the amount of positive community support coming to him and his wife about their building being built in the downtown redevelopment area. Dave Deters, owner of the building across the street from the Ray Mar Properties. He would appreciate being compensated for parking that he will be losing at his business with the land swap having occurred between Dodds and the City of Mound. Mayor Meisel stated there would be available parking across the street but it may not be exactly where Mr. Deters would favor. She also suggested possibly buying the property behind his business that could then be used for parking. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 Mr. Deters stated this would be possible, although with his business in retail and having the parking out back is not as appealing as having it located out front for the shoppers. Mr. Deters was asked if he was aware when he bought the building three years ago of the no parking arrangements with the building. Mr. Deters was aware of this situation, but he knew there was parking across the street at that time that would accommodate his business and he was not aware of the Visions plan for Mound. Councilmember Brown asked Mr. Prosser if the area to the north of Uncharted Grounds could become parking for the retail business owners across the street, including Mr. Deters. Further, with the new development on the south side of the railroad tracks, could there be some parking as well. Mayor Meisel stated Uncharted Grounds might be something Mr. Deters would need to look into buying the parking from them to accommodate the loss. Councilmember Brown gave direction to staff to look into the possibility of acquiring having some of Uncharted Grounds property for the Visions program to help other retail businesses in the redevelopment area of downtown. Mike Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road. He stated a compromise has been worked out between Dodds and Mueller/Lancing and it is a good compromise. Mueller questioned the parking access easement granted to the Dodds. The City Attorney stated this would be shared parking and under the agreement, Dodds would have a right to approximately 20 parking stalls, but it would be nonexclusive. Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer questioned the need for such a wide roadway on Commerce Boulevard for the new redevelopment. He asked if the median between the road is really necessary. He further stated if the City does not appreciate this width, then they could go through a variance process with the county to possibly change it and make it more pedestrian friendly. Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. The City Planner circulated a revised resolution concerning this matter. The City Attorney stated the newest resolution would be approving the preliminary and final plat under the same resolution. He stated the final plat still would need approval by the county regarding how many feet they want along Commerce Boulevard, with the possibility of this including approximately one more foot than what was presented. Secondly, the resolution would need to reflect the minor revision of Outlot B and Dodd's parcel discussed previously at tonight's meeting. Brown moved and Hanus seconded the following revised resolution with the following amendments: 13 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 Compromigeg agreed upon with the Ouflot ti (Mueller/Lansing) property and Dodds property; and 2. The Mounds Vision Coordinator's four components mentioned above. RESOLUTION//00-52: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR MOUND VISIONS 1sr ADDITION MAJOR SUBDIVISION, P & Z CASE//00-24. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0. 1.12 CASE//00-25: VARIANCE RAY MAR PROPERTIES, BRUCE DODDS, MOUND FAMILY HARDWARE. MOUND VISIONS 1sr ADDITION, PID// PENDING. See discussions above, 1.11 Case//00-24. Brown moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution as presented: RESOLUTION g00-53: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A HARDCOVER VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2250 COMMERCE BOULEVARD, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MOUND VISIONS 1~ ADDITION, P & Z CASE//00-25. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. 4-0. 1.13 PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED BUSINESS SUBSIDY TO BE GRANTED BY THE CITY TO RAY MAR PROPERTIES. INC., A/K/A MOUND FAMILY HARDWARE STORE (THE "RECIPIENT"). UNDER MINN. STAT. SEC. l16J.993-116J.994. THE PROPOSED SUBSIDE INVOLVES TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ASSISTANCE TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT BY THE RECIPIENT OF A RETAIL CENTER INCLUDING A HARDWARE STORE IN THE CITY. The City Attorney stated this was approved earlier tonight by the HRA and it is required by law to have a separate hearing by the City Council to approve the Business Subsidy. The Business Subsidy Agreement entered into by the Dodds provides assistance by the HRA. The amount would be $250,000 to be advanced to Dodds in terms of the note in the development contract and the first payments would occur at the closing. He stated Dodds do have the obligation to pay the subsidy stated at the rate of interest. The Subsidy Agreement contains a wage and job provision that is honored because of law and it has been set at .5, which is a conservative number and doable for redevelopment. The City Attorney stated the legislature just changed the law to eliminate this section of a Subsidy Agreement and it will 14 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 no longer be to be included in other agreements after August 1, 2000, I-Ie stated there are penalties if these goals are not met. Councilmember Weycker asked if the .5 job goal has to be even in the agreement because it is such a low amount. The City Attorney stated it is required currently by law, but the law will be changing August 1, 2000, and this portion of a Subsidy Agreement will not have to be considered in the future. Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 10:10 p.m. Mike Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road. He asked where the minimum market value was obtained. Mr. James Prosser stated the county assessor determined the value and it would be estimated at that amount in the agreement. Mr. Prosser stated the value was determined by a cost approach. Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 10:11 p.m. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Weycker, to approve the resolution as submitted. RESOLUTION//00-54: The vote was unanimously in favor. RESOLUTION APPROVING BUSINESS SUBSIDY TO BE GRANTED BY THE CITY TO RAY MAR PROPERTIES, INC., A/K/A MOUND FAMILY HARDWARE STORE (THE "RECIPIENT"). UNDER MINN. STAT. SEC. l16J.993-116J.994. THE PROPOSED SUBSIDE INVOLVES TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ASSISTANCE TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT BY THE RECIPIENT OF A RETAIL CENTER INCLUDING A HARDWARE STORE IN THE CITY. Motion carried. 4-0. 1.14 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//00-13: STREET VACATION/EASEMENT, MARY STEEN. 5104 DRUMMOND ROAD, LOT 2, BLOCK 1. TEAL POINTE. IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, PID# 25-11% 24 12 0232. City Planner presented the case. He mentioned this was a street vacation/easement being considered at the Teal Pointe subdivision, which currently has six lots that are all built upon. The City Planner stated the request is for vacation of 10 feet of the conservation easement, a variance of a front yard setback to maintain a setback on the private outlot, and a variance for a setback to construct a deck on the north side. City Planner reviewed the elevations of the proposed home to be built on the property. He noted the extensive decking system that would be attached to the garage. City Planner stated the Planning Commission approved the 10-foot conservation easement vacation and the front yard setback, but they did not allow the 15 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 deck on the north side. Staff recommended to deny all three requests because they do not see any hardship concerning the conservation easement request and believe the house could be shifted and built in another location on the lot. Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission looked at the project proposal very extensively. He stated the Planning Commission thought the use of the property was cleverly done and it could not be placed more strategically due to the slope of the property. Councilmember Brown further stated this house would be a good fit for the neighborhood and it is not a heavily traveled road. Councilmember Weycker stated in the Park Commission Minutes handed out they agreed with the staff recommendation to deny the variances. She stated there is a lot of history with this development and the reason to deny the variances would be because the house could be built elsewhere on the lot without requesting any variances from the City, which was the intent when the land was first platted. Councilmember Hanus noted the only reason this development was platted is because the developer stated he could build on these lots without requesting any variances from the City. Councilmember Hanus is reluctant to approve the plans for the proposed house because of this exact reason. Councilmember Brown stated with the topography of the lot, this proposed house is an absolute perfect fit for the lot. He stated the variances being requested do not take away from the development and there was a lot of discussion with the Planning Commission members regarding how the house could fit on this lot, with the removal of the north deck. Councilmember Brown stated with the garage variance should not be an issue because of the dead-end street and a less traveled road. Councilmember Hanus asked if it was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting to consider an exact mirror flip of the location of the house and the garage. City Planner stated it was suggested by staff. Councilmember Brown stated the conservation easement was narrowed by 10 feet in all of the other six lots that are now built. Councilmember Weycker suggested allowing a construction easement on the lot and after the house is built, removal of the conservation easement, what was suppose to happen on the other six lots. Mayor Meisel asked what kind of easement would be needed to go just around the comer. City Planner stated this would be a construction easement and it would be lifted after final inspection of the property. Councilmember Hanus asked why there is a 10 foot conservation easement being requested, but rather a smaller sized one according to the plat. City Planner suggested the realty is that there would be about 10 feet impacted in construction of the house. He further stated staff would consider a construction easement, but it would be lifted after the project was completed. The Mayor opened the public Hearing. 16 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 Mary Steen, 4036 37h Avenue North, Robbinsdale. She stated she is the owner of the property. Ms. Steen stated the conservation easement is to protect the natural look of the area by protecting the water edge and not to infringe upon that. She stated the sole intention of the design of the house was not to take away the natural look. Mike Empson, 4036 37~h Avenue North, Robbinsdale. Mr. Empson handed out a packet to the Councilmembers with a view of the back of the house. Mr. Empson stated he is the architect of the house being presented in the case. He stated the topography is about 35 percent over the grade. He stated the foundation at the back of the house has been designed by an engineer and has had as much care as if it was a commercial building. Mr. Empson kept with the design because he felt it was in keeping a look appropriate for Mound. He stated the house has been positioned as much on the hill as possible which would allow appropriate surface water runoff. He stated a landscaping architect has also been involved in the plan of the house. With the consultants involved, he can guarantee a successful project. Mr. Empson mentioned the most recent survey in the packet does show the deck plan and also how the house touches the grade. Mr. Empson stated the decks are designed as balconies because of the look of the house and to allow more living space because it is a smaller house. Councilmember Hanus asked the applicant if the lot to the north has been developed yet. The applicant stated it has not been developed. Councilmember Hanus explained regarding variances as the resolution reads, the City Council is considering making the north side conforming and allow a front yard road variance. Councilmember Hanus stated if the vacation is approved, he would recommend it only with a construction permit and allow the minimum amount. He stated the variance for the road would be workable, but he would recommend having the side deck made conforming per the Planning Commission's recommendation. Councilmember Hanus stated again it has been shown this lot is buildable without variances, but does understand the need for the deck because of the small size of the house. Councilmember Weycker asked the applicant is she would be willing to give up the deck in exchange for the vacation and road variance being approved. Ms. Steen stated she would like to keep the deck on the north side, but she is willing to compromise because she does want to build this specific house on the lot. Ms. Steen also stated the neighbors in the Teal Pointe area are very much in agreement with the design of the proposed house. Councilmember Brown suggested making the front deck a full deck. Mr. Empson stated he would rather see the grade and not allow a complete front deck to be created. Councilmember Hanus stated he is confident this house could be flip-flopped. Mr. Empson noted there are spot elevations done and with the results of these tests, he is certain the house could not be flip-flopped. Mr. Empson further stated them would be more tree removal and mom lighting problems if that would occur, as well as water runoff problems with the repositioning of the house. 17 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 John tleige, 1665 F_agle Lane. Mr. tleise congratulated the applicant for coming up with an outstanding site plan for a difficult site. He noted also the applicant is quite a way under for hardcover. He stated to disallow this deck over the easement would be a hardship in itself because of the small footprint. Councilmember Hanus addressed the City Engineer and his recommendation regarding this site concerning the conservation easement and the other easements involved, such as utility and drainage. The City Engineer stated there would be a minimum of a 5-foot drainage easement on ail plats according to City code. He stated the drainage needs to follow the lot line and the utility easement is used for city utilities if they are needed and for private utilities as well. He explained the utility easement would never be used for utilities and the drainage is on the surface so anything above it, such as the deck, would not affect the drainage. The City Engineer did agree that in the past the City has not allowed any structure either on the ground or over these utility easements, but this may be a unique situation. Councilmember Hanus asked the City Engineer if putting in a storm drain down by the water is in the future. The City Engineer stated if anything would be done it would be at the end of Drummond Road because it is a private road. Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer asked how the sewage lift system works with a house of this nature. The City Engineer stated each home has to have a small lift station within the home that his connected with the house main and then pumped up to the city main. The City Engineer stated he does not agree with putting in a temporary construction easement because the conservation easement is really restricted and the deck foundation is so close to the easement. He would be curious to know who is going to enforce the easement after it is put back on. The City Engineer suggested vacating a portion of the easement by allowing 10 feet across the back of the house and not the whole easement. He stated this would be his recommendation rather than having a temporary easement and then putting the easement back into force again. Councilmember Hanus asked the applicant if the structure to the north side would have to be kept at the 10-foot setback what he would do with the remaining area. The applicant stated he would leave the whole thing off. Mr. Empson did suggest having a railing put in the front. The applicant is concerned about the wrapping of the corner. Mayor Meisel closed public hearing at 11:10 p.m. Councilmember Hanus suggested to have the north deck removed, but allow the 10 foot portion of the conservation easement. He further stated the house could be flip-flopped to make this house buildable without allowing variances to the side lot. 18 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 Couneilmember l~rown gtateA the Planning Commission would like to see the side variance denied. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to accept the resolution with the front yard variance as submitted. RESOLUTION #00-55: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENCE AT 5104 DRUMMOND ROAD, LOT 2, BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE, P & Z CASE gOO- 12. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. 4-0. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to approve the vacation up to a 10 feet parallel portion to the back of the house and allowing everything westerly to be vacated. RESOLUTION #00-56: RESOLUTION APPROVING A 10 FEET CONSERVATION EASEMENT VACATION AT 5104 DRUMMOND ROAD, LOT 2, BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE, P & Z CASE gOO- 13. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0. Councilmember Weycker stated she voted against the Park Commission's recommendation because she believes vacating a portion of the easement seems a better fit with keeping sensitive to the lot. 1.15 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE# 00-18: ZONING AMENDMENT. STEVE CODDEN, 1800 COMMERCE BOULEVARD, LOT AND BLOCK AS PER SURVEY, REZONE IN ORDER TO CREATE A CONFORMING R-2 STRUCTURE WHICH WILL FLOW WITH EXISTING LAND USE PATTERNS OF THE AREA, PID# 13-117-24 23 0004. The City Planner stated the property is located south of Commerce Boulevard. The applicant is requesting to rezone this area from business to residential. The applicant is planning a two-family dwelling of some sort. The City Planner stated this land use is agreeable with the Comprehensive Plan and the medium density. Staff recommended approval of the zoning amendment. Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 11:20 p.m. Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 11:21 p.m. MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Hanus, to approve the resolution as submitted. 19 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 ORDINANCE 10%2000 The vote was unanimously in favor. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE REZONING OF A PARCEL IN THE GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO R-2 ONE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1800 COMMERCE BOULEVARD, P & Z CASE//00-18. Motion carried. 4-0. 1.16 CASE//00-21: VARIANCE, TOM TURNER, 5537 BARTLETT BOULEVARD, LOT 10 AND THE EAST 20' OF LOT 9, BARTLETT PLACE, TO SCREEN IN EXISTING PORCH WITH A NON-CONFORMING LAKESIDE SETBACK, PID# 24-117-24 23 0015. The City Planner presented the case. He explained the applicant is proposing to convert an open deck to a 16 x 20 screened in porch. The applicant also requested a hardcover variance. He stated if the case would be approved, the resolution would need to be changed. The City Planner stated the Planning Commission recommended denial because of hardcover. Councilmember Hanus asked if the hardcover is over as it exists today. The City Planner stated it is over and the area under the deck has plastic under it and it is considered part of the hardcover calculations. Councilmember Hanus suggested removing the plastic under the deck, although, the applicant is not willing to support this change because of water seepage that would occur. Councilmember Brown presented a scenario of allowing a deck, and then a 3-season porch, and then another deck, which would keep encroaching on the 50 foot setback. Councilmember Brown is aware of Mr. Turner's neighbor, Mr. Hubler, being granted a variance for his three-season porch, although Mr. Hubler did not have a hardcover problem like this case does. Mayor Meisel mentioned the site line being considered. Tom Turner, 5537 Bartlett Road. Mr. Turner stated the removal of the plastic around the house could be done but it would probably cause a water problem in the basement. He stated he already has minor seepage existing now. Mr. Turner has shared his plans with the neighbors and they do not have a negative opinion about this project. There was discussion amongst staff and Councilmember Hanus on what the hardcover currently totals. The City Planner presumes about 1,900 square feet. Councilmember Hanus suggested possibly having the hardcover fixed tonight and making it conforming. Mayor Meisel asked if the retaining wall is an earth blanket or does it have plastic below it. Mr. Turner stated he is not 100 percent certain, but he believes there is plastic below the wall. 20 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 Councilmember Brown asked if the applicant would remove the plastic around the deck or elsewhere. Thc applicant stated he would remove thc hard¢over around thc garage and thc area around the lake. The applicant further stated the area down by the lake was probably put in for a weed barrier. Mr. Turner stated he is not expanding anything, but rather putting a porch where the deck is now located. Councilmember Brown restated the applicant might not intend to build a new deck onto the proposed 3-season porch, but if a new owner comes along, he may be insistent to have a deck added to the home. Councilmember Hanus suggested cutting back the porch three or four feet to allow for a wrap at the front of the porch which would connect to the current deck. Mr. Turner does not want to cut back on the porch because this space would not be useable. Mr. Turner would rather keep the deck as it currently exists and have a larger deck than a smaller screened in porch. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, to approve the resolution to deny the lakeside setback and hardcover variance. RESOLUTION #00-57: RESOLUTION TO DENY A LAKESlDE SETBACK AND HARDCOVER VARIANCE TO BUILD AN ENCLOSED PORCH ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5537 BARTLETT BOULEVARD, LOT 10 AND THE EAST 20 FEET OF LOT 9, BLOCK 9, BARTLETT PLACE, PID# 24-117-24 23 0015, P & Z CASE #00-21. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0. 1.17 CONSIDERATION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. Mayor Meisel stated this item has been pulled from the agenda because Mr. Dan Parks was not available to give a presentation. 1.18 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES RELATING TO COMPLIANCE WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE ('INTENT TO BOND' RESOLUTION}. City Manager explained when the City would be anticipating in projects that would require bonding there would be the need to have this resolution in place which would authorize staff to earmark these projects and compile costs and use the monies from the bonds to reimburse the City with City Council approval. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to accept the resolution as submitted. 21 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 RESOLUTION//00-58: Discussion. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURF3 RELATING TO COMPLIANCE WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. The City Attorney suggested filling in number 2 to state "City Manager" rather than leaving this blank. He informed the Councilmembers this is a staff directed form and the City Council would still make the decision when the bonds should be sold. The Finance Director stated the HRA would not allow the proceeds to be processed without this boilerplate form in place by staff. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0. 1.19 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. City Attorney stated this is the final arrangement concerning Dodds agreement. This resolution will allow the transfer of the parcel from the City to the HRA and then the HRA would be disposing of it in accordance with the contract. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, authorizing the transfer with the changes necessary to comply with tonight's actions. RESOLUTION//00-59: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. 4-0. 1.20 ACTION ON RECOMMENDATION TO DEDICATE ALL PROCEEDS AND INTEREST FROM THE RENTAL OF MOUND DEPOT TO A PARK AND RECREATION FUND. Councilmember Hanus asked what funds are now being used to maintain this area. The Finance Director stated the funds are coming now from the park fund. The Finance Director stated this could be kept track of in this fashion if the City Council decides to do this. Currently, it is being managed by a notation in the bookkeeping area with a line item notation because it is such a small amount including approximately $3,000. He noted a change could be made to add an expenditure notation. John Beise, 5628 Bartlett Boulevard. Mr. Beise stated the reason for the separate account is to keep the funds separate in order to draw from the fund and not lose the monies after every year. 22 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 Couneilmember I-Ianus stated the monies should go into the park budget. Mr. tleise would agree with this bookkeeping process as long as the monies in the budget would continue from year to year and not be removed and use elsewhere. The Finance Director suggested talking about this through the budget process. Mayor Meisel stated the main objective is to keep the money in an account so the park does not lose it in the general fund. Councilmember Brown suggested tabling this matter to have staff discuss the options further. The City Manager stated the City could create reports as often as a department would like them created. She did make a point that the revenues and expenses are almost a wash after the end of the budget year conceming the Depot. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to table this matter and direct staff to give direction to City Council at an upcoming meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0. 1.21 PRESENTATION OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT BY INDEPENDENT AUDITORS: STEVEN MCDONALD. The Finance Director stated by law the financial report had to be presented officially to the City Council. The Finance Director introduced Steven McDonald who would be accomplishing this formal process tonight. Mr. Steven McDonald gave a summary of the financial report and the management letter and then presented the financial report to the City Council. The City Council acknowledged receipt of the financial report and thanked Mr. McDonald for his hard work in completing the report. Hanus moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #00-60 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE AUDIT AND FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 1999 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS. 1. Financial Reports, through April, 2000, and May 1, 2000. 2. Mound Police Department monthly report: April, 2000. 3. Correspondence from Geoff Michael. 4. EDC Meeting minutes: April 20, 2000. 5. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Meeting Minutes, April 12, 2000. 23 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 23, 2000 AMM Fax news. LMC Friday faxes. LMC Legislative updates. Correspondence regarding Woodland Point. Retirement Notice: Police Sergeant Steven Grand. Resignation Notice: Community Service Officer Matt Cams. Article: Mayor Blasts OSHA at Ergomics Heating. Metropolitan Parks & Open Space Commission AP. Westonka Health Community Collaborative Minutes, April 21, 2000. Letter from Mark Saliterman on Liquor Store Lease. Handout regarding Sargent Grand's retirement. Councilmember Brown stated he would be greatly missed. ADJOURNMENT. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to adjourn the meeting at 12:34 a.m. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0. Attest: City Clerk Kandis Hanson, City Manager 24 June 1, 2000 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: FROM: SUBEJCT: CITY COUNCIL FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK LICENSE RENEWALS - FOR COUNCIL PACKET JUNE 13, 2000 The following licenses are up for renewal. The license period is July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. CLUB ON-SALE American Legion Post//398 VFW Post #5113 SUNDAY SALES American Legion Post//398 VFW Post #5113 ON-SALE WINE A1 & Alma's Supper Club House of Moy ON-SALE BEER Mound Lanes OFF-SALE BEER By the Way Snack Shop (Steve Bedell) Mainstreet Market PDQ Food Store SuperAmerica TREE REMOVAL LICENSE Rob's Tree Service TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE UNTIEDT VEGETABLE FARM - Mainstreet Market & Scotty B's Parking Lot (corner of Lynwood Blvd. and County~ad 110). M~y ~, ,~O00 RESOLUTION #00- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR MARK HANUS AT 4446 DENBIGH ROAD LOT 1, BLOCK 1,AVALON DOCK SITE # 33525 WHEREAS, the applicant, Mark Hanus, is seeking a Public Lands Permit to install a lawn sprinkler system across the commons known as Stratford Lane; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is on Stratford Lane and abuts the Hanus property at 4446 Denbigh Road; and, WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons; and, WHEREAS, the Dock and Commons Commission reviewed this request and unanimously recommend approval with conditions; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: To approve the application for a Lawn Sprinkling System as submitted with the condition that there be no cost to the City, the applicant shall restore the area and notify the Building Official when the work is complete. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: and The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk DRAFT MINUTES DRAFT MINUTES DRAFT MINUTES DRAFT MINUTES CITY OF MOUND DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION MAY 18, 2000 Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Mark Goldberg, Gerald Jones, Frank Ahrens, and Greg Eurich. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, Councilmember Andrea Ahrens, and Secretary Carla Wirth. Excused: Council Representative Mark Hanus and Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey. Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. MINUTES Motion made by Jones, seconded by Goldberg, to approve the minutes of the April 20, 2000 DCAC meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES Chair Funk noted the requested addition of Permit Request 4446 Denbigh. j,~4A. PERMIT REQUEST 4446 DENBIGH Chair Funk reviewed the permit request of Mark Hanus for a Construction on Public Lands Permit to install a lawn sprinkler system. Ahrens noted the pipe will be buried and staff is recommending approval. Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk, to approve the Construction on Public Lands Permit to Mark Hanus, 4446 Denbigh, to install a lawn sprinkler system. Motion carried unanimously. ,. 4/97 FUBI.IC LAND P~RMIT ,a, PPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywoo4 Road, Mound, MN §5364 RPR 24 '~0 13: 55 DISTEIBL~ION: BUILDINO OFFICIAL PARKS DIRECTOR DNR MCWD PUBLIC WORKS DATE RECEIVED DOCK MEETING DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERM/T- oe,~ ;o;~c~io~. NOTS: NO PERiqlT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Co~,e S¢cdo,~ 320, Subd. 1). { { PUBLIC LAND 5i&INIENANCE PERMIT- ~ a~ow rep.s m a= existmg smc~r~ (Ci~ cone s~ctio. 320, Subd. ]). I CONTINUATION OF STRUC~ - to allow = existing ¢=croackmem to remain i.u a~ 'a~ is" ¢oudieiou (City Code Section 320, Sub& 3). : ~ LAND ,aLTERATION ,'c~m.uge in shoreline, ~..i~ge. slope, trees, vege~auon, fill, erg (Ciw Code Sectio= 320, S;~d. a). ~e str~t~e or work you ~e req~g ~ ~ activity on pubRcly o~ed lau~. Structur~ Hke boat hom~, patios, she~, etc. ~e aB NONCO~O~G USES. It ~ the iment of the CR7 ~ b~g ~ ~e m~ ~to coutormance w~ch me~ t~t those st~eturm ~ at some t~e ~ the ~e have to be removed from ~e pubRc bu~. AR ~mi~ are ~auted for a ~lted t~e and are nou-t~te~ble. S~i~y co--etlon m~ meet the 5~te B~g Code when the ~it ~ for new co~ruction, or a new ~rmit ~ applied for due to c~nge ~ d~k site holder. Appl Lean: Name ~ ~ ~ .~ Phone (home) ~7~- ~¢0 ~ (work) ~O¢ -~ 707 Legal Lot ~ Block Description Subd, ~ v~ { o n _ ~:oper:y Dock Si:e ~ Shoreline T~e Coat,ac%or Name ~ O,~ ~ Address VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OP PRO3ECT (INCLUDIN0 L~0R R MATE~AL8); 1~ Signature of Applicant Date CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: MEETING DATES: TO: FROM: APPLICANT: LOCATION: SUBJECT: May 12, 2000 May 18, 2000 Dock and Commons Commission (D&C) May 23, 2000 City Council Dock and Commons Commission and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building Official Mark Hanus - 4446 Denbigh Rd Dock Site # 33525 - Stratford Lane Public Land Permit Application To Install a Ground Sprinkler System. Background: The applicant is seeking a Construction on Public Lands Permit as described in the attached application in order to install a lawn sprinkler system. Comment: The applicants request is similar to other cases for lawn sprinkler systems that historically have been approved. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval as requested with the condition that the City would not be responsible for any costs associated with the request, and the applicant shall restore any disturbed areas. JS:rkj printed on recycled paper PAYMENT BILLS DATE: JUNE 13, 2000 BILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TOTAL BILLS BATCH# #0052 #0053 $266,911.56 AMOUNT $ 87,730.35 $179,181.21 PAGE 1 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L DATE 6/08/00 AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND TIME 14.03,37 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS A0170 000607 6/13/00 6/13/00 ALEXANDER, MICHELLE VENDOR TOTAL A0250 1131 6/13/00 6/13/00 AMERICAN SECURITY CABINET* VENDOR TOTAL A0333 000522 6/13/00 6/13/00 AMOCO OIL COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL A0403 000516 6/13/00 6/13/00 000522 6/13/00 6/13/00 ASPEN EMBROIDERY & DESIGN VENDOR TOTAL A0404 9611 6/13/00 6/13/00 ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL VENDOR TOTAL A0460 25682 6/13/00 6/13/00 AUTO VISIONS VENDOR TOTAL B0549 31868800 6/13/00 6/13/00 18897500 6/13/00 6/13/00 31868900 6/13/00 6/13/00 18946600 6/13/00 6/13/00 18989900 6/13/00 6/13/00 18985000 6/13/00 6/13/00 AMOUNT 18.99 18.99 18.99 723.14 723.13 1,446.27 1446.27 138.63 138.63 138.63 29.00 29.00 29.00 87.00 26.00 26.00 113.00 49.59 49.59 49.59 2.92 2.92 2.92 289.69 289.69 737.15 737.15 146.74 146.74 1,032.70 1,032.70 1,540.25 1,540.25 -388.00 388.00 DESCRIPTION GRADUATION CAKE FOR RANGER JRNL-CD DRIVE-UP PAYMENT BOX DRIVE-UP PAYMENT BOX JRNL-CD THRU 05-22-00 GAS CHARGES JRNL-CD SHIRTS (3) HEERRING BONE POLO SHIRTS (3) HEERRING BONE POLO SHIRTS (3) HEERRING BONE POLO JRNL-CD SWEATSHIRT JRNL-CD SATILITTE SERVICE JRNL-CD TAX ON INVOICE #25572 JRNL-CD BAGS JRNL-CD LIQUOR JRNL-CD MISCELLANEOUS JRNL-CD LIQUOR JRNL-CD LIQUOR JRNL-CD LIQUOR JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMBER 01-4140-4100 1010 73-7300-5000 78-7800-5000 1010 73-7300-2210 1010 01-4280-2240 73-7300-2240 78-7800-2240 1010 01-4190-2240 1010 70-4270-4210 1010 78-7800-4200 1010 71-7100-2200 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 PRE-PAID AMOUNT CHECK CHECK # DATE BELLBOY CORPORATION VENDOR TOTAL ~134.53 PAGE 2 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L DATE 6/08/00 AP-COZ-01 CITY OF MOUND TIME 14.03.37 VENDOR INVOICE DUE NOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS BO600 10047528 1004~529 10047583 10047459 10047444 BLACKOWIAK AND SON B0603 10047078 BLACKOWIAK AND SON B0631 90905713 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 (ROLL* VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SU* VENDOR TOTAL B0710 000531 BREITNERI JOHN C0920 000515 CITY OF MOUND C0970 61359123 61365112 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 COCA COLA BOTTLING'MIDWEST VENDOR TOTAL C1019 10103 6/13/00 6/13/00 CONCEPT LANDSCAPING, INC. VENDOR TOTAL AMOUNT 31.66 31.66 31.67 94.99 67.01 67.01 184.10 184.10 17.76 17.76 73.65 73.65 437.51 400.00 400.00 4O0. O0 20.45 20.45 20.44 61.34 61.34 3,932.90 3,932.90 3932.90 22.71 22.71 22.71 78.72 78.72 191.60 191.60 270.32 1,290. O0 1,290. O0 1290. O0 DESCRIPTION 05-00 GARBAGE PICKUP 05-00 GARBAGE PICKUP 05-00 GARBAGE PICKUP JRNL'CD 05-00 GARBAGE PICKUP JRNL-CD 05'00 GARBAGE PICKUP JRNL-CD 05-00 GARBAGE PICKUP JRNL-CD 05-00 GARBAGE PICKUP JRNL-CD 50YD DELIVERED FOR T.V.~S JRNL-CD 4~ FLOURSCENT BULBS 4~ FLOURSCENT BULBS 4~ FLOURSCENT BULBS JRNL-CD 12-99, 01'00,02-00,03-00,04-00 JRNL'CD 04-00 WATER/SEWER JRNL-CD MIX JRNL-CD MiX TAXABLE JRNL'CD BLUFFS AND CHESTER SAND BLANKE JRNL'CD ACCOUNT NUMBER 01-4280-3750 73-7300-3750 78-7800-3750 1010 22-4170-3750 1010 01-4340-3750 1010 71-7100-3750 1010 01-4280-3750 1010 70-4270-4210 1010 01-4280-2200 75-7500-2200 78-7800-2200 1010 01-3254-0000 1010 71-7100-3740 1010 71-7100-9540 1010 71-7100-9540 1010 01-4340-2350 1010 PRE-PAID AMOUNT CHECK CHECK # DATE Cl104 000602 6/13/00 7,232.00 05-00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7~2~2.00 JRNL-CD 01-4110-3120 1010 PAGE 3 AP-C02-O1 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS PURCHASE CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION JOURNAL ACCOUNT NUMBER PRE-PAID ANOUNT DATE 6/08/00 TIME 14.03.37 CHECK CHECK # DATE CHADWICK AND MERTZ, P.A C1105 000517 VENDOR TOTAL CREPEAU DOCKS Dl154 66631 67088 67504 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 DAHLHEIHER DISTRIBUTING CO VENDOR TOTAL Dl172 324326 6/13/00 6/13/00 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL D1200 96028 6/13/00 6/13/00 96059 6/13/00 6/13/00 96815 6/13/00 6/13/00 96816 6/13/00 6/13/00 97339 6/13/00 6/13/00 97631 6/13/00 6/13/00 97632 6/13/00 6/13/00 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL D1300 032730 6/13/00 6/13/00 7232.00 210.00 405.00 210.00 465.00 315.00 397.00 2,002.00 2002.00 838.40 838.40 312.00 312.00 171.20 171.20 1321.60 222.05 222.05 222.05 1,239.20 1,239.20 50.70 50.70 1,149.35 1,149.35 36.80 36.80 784. O0 784. O0 15.75 15.75 1,081.50 1,081.50 4357.30 35.63 35.63 03-20-00 FAIRVIEW 14 SECTIONS 03-29-00 AVALON 27 SECTIONS 03-29-00 AHHURST 14 SECTIONS 05-01-00 PEMBROKE 30 SECTIONS 05-02-00 DEVON 21 SECTIONS 05-09-00 HIGHLAND 23 SECTIONS JRNL-CD BEER JRNL-CD BEER JRNL-CD BEER JRNL-CD AIR CYLINDER TEST ETC. JRNL-CD BEER JRNL-CD BEER JRNL-CD BEER JRNL-CD MISCELLANEOUS JRNL-CD BEER JRNL-CD MISCELLANEOUS JRNL-CD BEER JRNL-CD COUNCIL/SECRETARY PLATES JRNL-CD 81-4350-4200 81-4350-4200 81-4350-4200 81-4350-4200 81-4350-4200 81-4350-4200 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 22-4170-2200 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 01-4020-2200 1010 032746 9.37 SIGN (1) 01-4020-2200 PAGE 4 AP-C02-01 VENDOR INVOICE NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DIXCO ENGRAVING D1350 991229 000322 DUANE'S 66 SERVICE E1420 630892 630893 629233 624818 634344 634914 634991 634992 634608 636845 636846 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE E1515 812 E'Z RECYCLING INC F1548 16272 DUE HOLD DATE STATUS 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF HOUNO AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 9.37 JRNL-CD 45.00 12.00 12-29-99 GASOLINE CHARGE 12.00 JRNL-CD 12.00 03-22-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 12.00 JRNL-CO 24.00 1,435.95 BEER 1,435.95 JRNL-CD 24.30 MISCELLANEOUS 24.30 JRNL-CD 56.00 BEER 56.00 JRNL-CD 45.25 MISCELLANEOUS 45.25 JRNL-CD 2,499.00 BEER 2,499.00 JRNL-CD 425.25 BEER 425.25 JRNL-CD 1,924.15 BEER 1,924.15 JRNL-CD 45.25 MISCELLANEOUS 45.25 JRNL-CD 104.00 BEER KEGS 104.00 JRNL-CD 2,376.75 BEER 2,376.75 JRNL-CD 27.15 MISCELLANEOUS 27.15 JRNL-CD 8963.05 6,779.35 05-00 CURBSIDE RECYCLING 6,779.35 JRNL-CD 6779.35 479.25 EXTERIOR WINDO~ CLEANING 479.25 JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMBER 1010 01-4280-2210 1010 01-4280-2210 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 70-4270-4200 1010 01-4320-3800 1010 DATE 6/08/00 TIME 14.03.37 PRE-PAID CHECK AMOUNT CHECK # DATE PAGE 5 AP-C02-01 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS PURCHASE CITY OF HOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION JOURNAL ACCOUNT NUMBER PRE-PAID AMOUNT DATE 6/08/00' TIME 14.03.37 CHECK CHECK # OATE F1631 516482 6/13/00 6/13/00 FIRSTAR TRUST CO(~PANY VENDOR TOTAL G1750 344819 344822 344820 349395 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 354055 6/13/00 6/13/00 G & K SERVICES G1753 000601 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 GALLAGHER, ARTHUR J. & COw VENDOR TOTAL G1875 000512 GIBSON, SAM G1880 000606 GIESE, LEROY G1887 7377 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 2~.38 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CHARGE 2~.38 JRNL-CD 2~8.38 19.39 05-16-00 MATS 19.39 05-16-00 MATS 19.39 05-16-00 MATS 26.93 05-16-00 UNIFORMS 26.93 05-16-00 UNIFORMS 26.92 05-16-00 UNIFORMS 138.95 JRNL-CD 22.68 05-16-00 MATS 22.68 JRNL'CD 37.31 05-16-00 MATS 37.31 JRNL-CD 9.87 05-23-00 MATS 9.87 05-23-00 MATS 9.88 05-23-00 MATS 24.26 05-23-00 UNIFORMS 24.26 05-23-00 UNIFORMS 24.26 05-23-00 UNIFORMS 102.40 JRNL-CD 20.57 05-30-00 MATS 20.57 05-30-00 MATS 20.57 05-30-00 MATS 24.26 05-30-00 UNIFORMS 24.26 05-30-00 UNIFORMS 24.27 05-30-00 UNIFORMS 134.50 JRNL-CD 435.84 350.00 02-01-00 THRU 02-01-01 POLICY 350.00 JRNL-CD 350.00 200.00 BURNS RD.CAMERA INSPECT LINE 200.00 JRNL-CD 200.00 59.99 REIMBURSEMENT BOOT ALLOWANCE 59.99 JRNL-CD 59.99 36.45 VF~ LOT REPLACED TEMPERED LITE 54-5600-6120 1010 01-4280-2250 73-7300-2250 78-7800-2250 01-4280-2240 73-7300-2240 78-7800-2240 1010 71-7100-4210 1010 01-4340-2230 1010 01-4280-2250 T3-7300-2250 78-7800'2250 01-4280-2240 73-~00'2240 78-7800-2240 1010 01-4280-2250 73-7300-2250 78-7800-2250 01-4280-2240 73-7300-2240 78-7800-2240 1010 22-4170-3610 1010 78-7800-4200 1010 73-7300-2240 1010 01-4280-4200 6/13/00 6/13/00 36.45 JRNL-CD 1010 PAGE 6 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L DATE 6/08/00 AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND TIME 14.03.37 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION PRE-PAID CHECK ACCOUNT NUMBER AMOUNT CHECK # DATE GLASS PLUS VENDOR TOTAL 36.45 G1890 000531-A 6/13/00 6/13/00 28.05 05-00 WATER #5158500 28.05 05-00 WATER ~15158500 56.10 dRNL-CD 01-4020-2200 01-4140-4100 1010 000531-B 6/13/00 6/13/00 27.90 05-00 WATER ~5158501 27.90 JRNL-CD 01-4320-2200 1010 000531-C 6/13/00 6/13/00 6.93 05-00 ~5158502 2.84 05-00 ~5158502 2.83 05-00 #5158502 12.60 JRNL-CD 01-4280-2200 7'3-7300-2200 78-7800-2200 1010 GLEN~O0 INGLEWO00 VENDOR TOTAL 96.60 G1972 216598 6/13/00 6/13/00 547.63 WINE 547.63 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9520 1010 217332 6/13/00 6/13/00 2,377.95 LIQUOR 2,377.95 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9510 1010 219414 6/13/00 6/13/00 582.05 WINE 582.05 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9520 1010 220203 6/13/00 6/13/00 716.~ LIQUOR 716.~ JRNL-CO 71-7100-9510 1010 GRIGGS COOPER & COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 4224.51 G1977 000519-A 6/13/00 6/13/00 752.82 1.24 .47 .92 1.06 756.51 THRU 05-19-00 PHONE SERVICE THRU 05-19-00 LONG DISTANCE THRU 05-19-00 LONG OISTANCE THRU 05-19-00 LONG OISTANCE THRU 05-19-00 LONG DISTANCE JRNL-CD 01-4320-3220 01-4190-3220 01-4090-3220 01-4040-3220 01-4095-3200 1010 000519-B 6/13/00 6/13/00 279.29 341.84 389.30 1,010.43 THRU 05-19-00 PHONE SERVICE THRU 05-19-00 PHONE SERVICE THRU 05-19-00 PHONE SERVICE dRNL-CO 01-4280-3220 73-7300-3220 78-7800-3220 1010 000519-¢ 6/13/00 6/13/00 499.01 21.30 76.85 597.16 THRU 05-19-00 REGULATED SERVIC THRU 05-19-00 NON-REGULATEO SE THRU 05-19-00 LONG DISTANCE dRNL-CD 01-4140-3220 01-4140-3220 01-4140-3220 1010 G T E MINNESOTA VENDOR TOTAL 2364.10 H2040 1348 6/13/00 6/13/00 115.93 ALUMINUM ASPHALT LUTE RAKE 115.93 JRNL-CD 01-4280-2300 1010 HATCH, JIM SALES COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 115.93 H2080 26849 6/13/00 6/13/00 81.80 ALUMINUM 1Z-GAUGE 81.80 JRNL-CD 01-4280-2300 1010 PAGE 7 AP-C02-01 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS PURCHASE CITY OF MOUND AHOUNT DESCRIPTION JOURNAL ACCOUNT NUMBER PRE-PAID AHOUNT DATE 6/08/00 TIME 14.03.37 CHECK CHECK # DATE 26861 69.85 TRAILER STABLES 6/13/00 6/13/00 69.85 JRNL-CD 69942 66.00 ALUMINUM 14-GAUGE 6/13/00 6/13/00 66.60 JRNL-CD HECKSEL MACHINE SHOP VENDOR TOTAL 218.25 H2130 000525 10.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP DUES 6/13/00 6/13/00 10.00 JRNL-CD HENN CO FIRE CHIEFS ASSN VENDOR TOTAL 10.00 H2140 000531 337.89 03-00 SERVICE 800KING FEE 6/13/00 6/13/00 337.89 JRNL-CD HENN CO SHERIFFS DEPT VENDOR TOTAL 337.89 H2151 2000-48 127.50 CERTIFIED LIST OF LABELS 6/13/00 6/13/00 127.50 JRNL-CD HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER VENDOR TOTAL 127.50 H2160 002722 1,139.00 04-00 ROOt4 AND BOARD 6/13/00 6/13/00 1,139.00 JRNL-CD HEHN CO TREASURER VENDOR TOTAL 1139.00 H2283 000510 30.30 OUTSIDE READER WIRE 6/13/00 6/13/00 30.30 JRNL-CD 000414 118.12 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 6/13/00 6/13/00 118.12 JRNL-CD HOME DEPOT/GECF VENDOR TOTAL 148.42 12309 23-0334400 99.79 05-24-00 THUR 06-24-00 COPIER 6/13/00 6/13/00 99.79 JRNL-CD 23658737 297.50 05-10-00 THRU 06-10-00 COPIER 6/13/00 6/13/00 297.50 JRNL-CD IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS VENDOR TOTAL 397.29 I2333 000703 29.52 BLUE MARKING FLAGS 6/13/00 6/13/00 29.52 JRNL-CD INFRATECH VENDOR TOTAL 29.52 I2384 131432 127.80 BATTERIES (4) 6/13/00 6/13/00 127.80 JRNL-CD INTERSTATE BATTERIES VENDOR TOTAL 127.80 01-4280-2300 1010 01-4280-2300 1010 22-4170-4130 1010 01-4110-4250 1010 01-2300-1093 1010 01-4110-4250 1010 D-7300-2300 1010 01-4340-2300 1010 01-4140-2140 1010 01-4320-3800 1010 73-7300-2300 1010 78-7800-2310 1010 J2579 111560~ 2,298.27 EI~UOR 71-7100-9510 PAGE 8 P U R C N A S E J 0 U R N A L DATE 6/08/00 AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND TIME 14.03.37 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS 6/13/00 6/13/00 1115605 6/13/00 6/13/00 1118285 6/13/00 6/13/00 118284 6/13/00 6/13/00 1121613 1121614 1121615 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR J2610 000524 JUBILEE FOOOS L2926 011293 012032 012572 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL M2960 106883 6/13/00 6/13/00 M-R SIGNS COMPANY, INC. VENDOR TOTAL M3016 7506 7526 7538 ?560 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 2,298.27 JRNL-CD 1,051.35 WINE 1,051.35 JRNL-CD ~.15 WINE 688.15 JRNL-CD 803.35 LIQUOR 803.35 JRNL-CD 1,048.35 WINE 1,048.35 JRNL-CD 2,934.30 LIQUOR 2,934.30 JRNL-CD 1,625.90 WINE 1,625.90 JRNL-CD 10449.67 65.00 COUNCIL COOKIES 65.00 JRNL'CD 65.00 63.09 CHAIN SHARPENING ETC. 63.09 JRNL-CD 58.30 REPAIR KIT AND LABOR 58.30 JRNL-CD 48.75 RIVET, BACK PADDING, ETC 48.75 JRNL-CD 170.14 538.21 GREEN SIGN POSTS 538.21 JRNL-CD 538.21 ?.?0 05-01-00 DELIVERY CHARGE 7.?0 JRNL-CD 175.70 05-04-00 DELIVERY CHARGE 175.70 JRNL-CD 14.70 05-08-00 DELIVERY CHARGE 14.70 JRNL-CD 81.90 05-11-00 DELIVERY CHARGE 81.90 JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMBER 1010 71-7100-9520 1010 71-7100-9520 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9520 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9520 1010 01-4020-4100 1010 01-4280-4200 1010 01-4340-3820 1010 01-4340-2300 1010 01-4280-2360 1010 71-7100-9600 1010 71-7100-9600 1010 71-7100-9600 1010 71-7100-9600 1010 PRE-PAID AMOUNT CHECK CHECK # DATE 757'5 5.60 05-15-00 DELIVERY CHARGE 71-7100-9600 PAGE 9 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L DATE 6/08/00 AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND TIME 14.03.37 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS 6/13/00 6/13/00 7596 6/13/00 6/13/00 7607 6/13/00 6/13/00 7627 6/13/00 6/13/00 744O 6/13/00 6/13/00 MARLINES TRUCKING VENDOR TOTAL M3030 100211-A 6/13/00 6/13/00 148749 6/13/00 6/13/00 148750 6/13/00 6/13/00 149346 6/13/00 6/13/00 151455 6/13/00 6/13/00 151456 6/13/00 6/13/00 154244 6/13/00 6/13/00 154245 6/13/00 6/13/00 154246 6/13/00 6/13/00 154795 6/13/00 6/13/00 676 6/13/00 6/13/00 MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR VENDOR TOTAL M3316 000530 6/13/00 6/13/00 ANOUNT DESCRIPTION 5.60 JRNL-CD 123.20 05-18-00 DELIVERY CHARGE 123.20 JRNL-CD 8.40 05-22-00 DELIVERY CHARGE 8.40 JRNL-CO 105.00 05-25-00 OELIVERY CHARGE 105.00 dRNL-CD 13.30 05-30-00 DELIVERY CHARGE 13.30 JRNL-CD 535.50 .20 BEER .20 JRNLoCD 55.20 BEER 55.20 JRNL-CD 1,240.30 BEER 1,240.30 JRNL-CD 105.00 BEER 105.00 JRNL-CD 3,105.15 BEER 3,105.15 JRNL-CD 55.20 BEER 55.20 JRNL-CD 1,607.85 BEER 1,607.85 JRNL-CD 2,092.40 BEER 2,092.40 JRNL-CD 281.00 MISCELLANEOUS 281.00 JRNL-CD 376.00 BEER 376.00 JRNL-CD 4.50 BEER 4.50 JRNL-CD 8922.80 4,195.00 04-01-00 THRU 06-30-00 WATER 4,195.00 JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMBER 1010 71-7100-9600 1010 71-7100-9600 1010 71-7100-9600 1010 71-7100-9600 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 7'3-3590-0000 1010 PRE-PAID CHECK AMOUNT CHECK # DATE HN DEPT OF HEALTH VENDOR TOTAL 4195.00 PAGE 10 AP-COZ-01 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS M3370 000515 6/13/00 6/13/00 MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENC VENDOR TOTAL M3470 42402 6/13/00 6/13/00 MN VALLEY TESTING LABORATO VENDOR TOTAL M3488 28316 6/13/00 6/13/00 MORRELL & MORRELL, INC. VENDOR TOTAL M3490 000613 6/13/00 6/13/00 MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT VENDOR TOTAL M3500 000630 6/13/00 6/13/00 MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSN VENDOR TOTAL N3740 T1-0048768 6/13/00 6/13/00 NEWMAN SIGNS VENDOR TOTAL N3746 1080 6/13/00 6/13/00 NICCUM DOCKS, INC. VENDOR TOTAL N3800 0542-505-000 6/13/00 6/13/00 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO VENDOR TOTAL N3801 82229497 6/13/00 6/13/00 NORTHERN TOOL AND EQUIPMEN VENDOR TOTAL N3810 3014908 6/13/00 6/13/00 NORTHERN WATER 140RKS SUPPL VENDOR TOTAL N3821 000463RG 6/13/00 6/13/00 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 23.00 RENEWAL CLASS SB KIVISTO, SCOT 78-7800-4130 23.00 JRNL-CO 1010 23. O0 72.50 COLIFORM, MF-14ATER 73-7300-4215 7;~.50 JRNL-CD 1010 72.50 1,179.30 RECYCLING PICKUP 70-4270-4210 1,1~9.30 JRNL-CD 1010 1179.30 6,881.75 04-00 SALARIES 22-4170-1390 630.00 04-00 DRILLS 22-4170-1380 1,250.00 04-00 MAINTENANCE 22-4170-1380 8,761.75 JRNL-CD 1010 8761.75 8,484.17 06-00 FIRE RELIEF 95-9500-1400 81484.17 JRNL-CD 1010 8484.17 142.82 SIGNS (2) WITH MOUNTS 01-4280-2360 142.82 JRNL-CD 1010 142.82 9,582.56 DOCK SYSTEMS PER AGREEMENT 81-4350-5000 9,582.56 JRNL-CD 1010 9582.56 5,086.88 05-00 0542-505-000-153 01-4280-3710 5,086.88 JRNL-CD 1010 5086.88 221.58 TRAILER AND ASSEMBLY 01-4280-2360 221.58 JRNL-CD 1010 221.58 1,404.74 CURB BOX, ETC 73-7300-2300 1,404.74 JRNL-CD 1010 1404.74 98.55 O-RINGS 73- TSO0' 2300 98.55 JRNL'CD 1010 PRE'PAiD AMOUNT DATE 6/08/00 TIME 1~.05.37 CHECK CHECK # DATE NORTHWESTERN POldER EQUIP C VENDOR TOTAL 98.55 PAGE 11 AP-COZ-01 VENDOR INVOICE NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DUE HOLD DATE STATUS PURCHASE CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION JOURNAL ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE 6/08/00 TIME 14.0~.]7 PRE-PAID CHECK AMOUNT CHECK # DATE 03870 099207225-00 OFFICE DEPOT 03893 9405 OMJC SIGNAL P4000 47323604 47323674 47323712 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY P4021 608302 608304 610454 610455 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS, * VENDOR TOTAL P4038 30624 6/13/00 6/13/00 30623 6/13/00 6/13/00 30911 6/13/00 6/13/00 30908 22.42 PAPER 22.42 PAPER 22.42 PAPER 22.42 PAPER 22.42 PAPER 7.47 PAPER 7.47 PAPER 11.21 PAPER 11.21 PAPER 149.46 dRNL-CD 149.46 18.12 NE)LA FLASHER BRACKET AND BASE 18.12 JRNL-CD 18.12 94.16 MIX 94.16 JRNL-CD 60.00 MIX 60.00 JRNL-CD 6~.16 MIX 6~.16 JRNL-CD 218.32 846.3O LIQUOR 846.30 JRNL-CD 87.00 MIX 87.00 JRNL-CD 905.40 LIQUOR 905.40 JRNL-CD 510.00 WINE 510.00 JRNL-CD 830.82 CIC~RETTES 830.82 JRNL-CD 55.50 CIGARS 55.50 JRNL-CD 51.50 CIGARS 51.50 JRNL-CD 998.03 CIGARETTES 01-4040-2200 01-4090-2200 01-4140-2200 01-4190-2200 01-4340-2200 01-4280-2200 71-7100-2200 73-7300-2200 78-7800-2200 1010 01-4280-2360 1010 71-7100-9540 1010 71-7100-9540 1010 71-7100-9540 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9540 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9520 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9550 6/13/00 6/13/00 ~8.03 JRNL-CD 1010 PAGE 12 AP-C02-01 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS 31167 6/13/00 6/13/00 31168 6/13/00 6/13/00 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING VENDOR TOTAL P4075 8908 6/13/00 6/13/00 PREMIER GRAPHICS VENDOR TOTAL Q4171 836712-00 6/13/00 6/13/00 836724-00 6/13/00 6/13/00 837867-00 839198-00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 839468-000 6/13/00 6/13/00 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL R4209 1377 6/13/00 6/13/00 RANDY'S SANITATION VENDOR TOTAL R4290 61240 61101 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 61757 62044 62582 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 62872 6/13/00 6/13/00 RON'S ICE COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 55.00 CIGARS 55.00 JRNL-CD 911.79 CIGARETTES 911.79 JRNL-CD 2902.64 143.50 COMMUNITY POLICY MANUALS 143.50 JRNL-CD 143.50 108.77 MIX 108.77 JRNL-CD 4,937.50 LIQUOR 4,937.50 JRNL-CD 2,740.25 LIQUOR 2,740.25 JRNL-CD 4,603.51 LIQUOR 4,603.51 JRNL-CD 95.49 WINE 95.49 JRNL-CD 12485.52 106.52 05-00 TRASH SERVICE 106.52 JRNL-CD 106.52 63.18 ICE 63.18 JRNL-CD 43.16 ICE 43.16 JRNL-CD 109.28 ICE 109.28 JRNL-CD 118.74 ICE 118.74 JRNL-CD 79.39 ICE 79.39 JRNL-CD 63.60 ICE 63.60 JRNL-CD 4'r7.35 ACCOUNT NUMBER 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 01-4140-4170 1010 71-7100-9540 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9520 1010 01-4320-3750 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 DATE 6/08/00 TIME 14.03.37 PRE-PAID CHECK AMO(JNT CHECK # DATE S4311 000601 1,255.00 SAFE-ASSURE CO-TRAiHIHG CLASSE 01-4280-3100 PAGE 13 AP-CO2-O1 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS 6/13/00 6/13/00 SAFEASSURE CONSULTANTS INC VENDOR TOTAL S4381 000518 SHIRLEY HAWKS S4430 61827 SOS PRINTING 54580 6345 5217 5951 STERNE ELECTRIC CO S4600 160108.1 138629.2 151237.1 166521.1 STREICHER~S S4605 204792 STS CONSULTANTS LTD S4610 131666 SUBURBAN TIRE COMPANY S4630 000618 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENOOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT 627.50 627.50 502.00 3,012.00 3012.00 118.00 118.00 118.00 83.44 83.44 83.44 204.68 204.68 205.05 205.05 158.00 158.00 567.73 32.52 32.52 14.30 14.30 191.59 191.59 32.52 32.52 270.93 2,500.00 2,500.00 2500.00 807.99 807.99 807.99 336.26 1,524.91 DESCRIPTION SAFE-ASSURE CO-TRAINING CLASSE SAFE-ASSURE CO-TRAINING CLASSE SAFE-ASSURE CO-TRAINING CLASSE dRNL-CD 05'18-00 EDC MEETING SECRETARY JRNL-CD BUSINESS CAROS FOR NELSON, SAM JRNL-CD REPAIR UNDERGROUND WIRE JRNL-CD CROSS WALK LIGHT JRNL-CD STREET LIGHT FIXTURE dRNL-CO INTOXILYZER MOUTH PIECES JRNL-CD PATCHES JRNL-CD SPOTLIGHT JRNL-CD INTOXILYZER MOUTH PIECES JRNL-CD PROPOSED POST OFFICE dRNL-CD TIRES dRNL-CD THRU 05-23-00 GASOLINE CHARGES THRU 05-23-00 GASOLINE CHARGES ACCOUNT NUMBER 73-7300-3100 78-7800-3100 01-4340-3100 1010 01-4020-3100 1010 01-4140-3500 1010 01-4280-3710 1010 01-4280-2360 1010 01-4280-2360 1010 01-4140-2100 1010 01-4140-2100 1010 01-4140-2100 1010 01-4140-2100 1010 55-5880-3100 1010 7'3-7300-2310 1010 01-43~0-2210 01-4280-2210 PRE-PAID AMOUNT DATE 6/08/00 TIME 14.03.37 CHECK CHECK # DATE 216.95 THRU 05-23-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 80.44 THRU 05-?.3-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 78-7800-2210 7"3-7"~J00-2210 PAGE 14 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L DATE 6/08/00 AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND TIME 14.03.37 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT 6.17 17.56 6/13/00 6/13/00 2,182.29 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC VENDOR TOTAL 2182.29 T4703 000526 25.00 6/13/00 6/13/00 25.00 T-CHEK SYSTEMS LLC VENDOR TOTAL 25.00 T4730 868 29.96 6/13/00 6/13/00 29.96 874 44.94 6/13/00 6/13/00 44.94 875 44.94 6/13/00 6/13/00 44.94 THE LAKER VENDOR TOTAL 119.84 T4731 352 2~9.25 6/13/00 6/13/00 279.25 THE LAKER/PIONEER VENDOR TOTAL 279.25 T4733 000530 3,510.30 6/13/00 6/13/00 3,510.30 THE MERCER GROUP VENDOR TOTAL 3510.30 T4T'/'O 193331 24.20 6/13/00 6/13/00 24.20 193332 3,336.55 6/13/00 6/13/00 3,336.55 193788 1,201.50 6/13/00 6/13/00 1,201.50 159636 361.00 6/13/00 6/13/00 361.00 194022 48.40 6/13/00 6/13/00 48.40 194023 9,208.10 6/13/00 6/13/00 9,208.10 194490 114.50 6/13/00 6/13/00 114.50 166189 303.00 DESCRIPTION THRU 05-23-00 GASOLINE CHARGES THRU 05-23-00 GASOLINE CHARGES JRNL'CD 06-00 TRANWEB WEBSITE PUBLICAT JRNL-CD 05-13-00 BUSINESS SUBSIDIES JRNL-CD 05-13-00 MOUND VISIONS SUBDIVI JRNL-CD 05-13-00 ZONING AMENDMENT JRNL-CD 04-17-00 ADVERTISEMENT JRNL-CD CITY MANAGER SEARCH JRNL-CD MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE JRHL-CO BEER dRNL-CD BEER JRNL-CD BEER JRNL-CD MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE JRNL'CD BEER JRNL-CD BEER JRNL-CD BEER KEGS ACCOUNT NUMBER 01-4090-2210 01-4190-2210 1010 01-4320-3100 1010 01-4020-3510 1010 01-4020-3510 1010 01-2300-1092 1010 71-7100-3500 1010 01-4040-3100 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 PRE-PAID AMOUNT CHECK CHECK # DATE 6/13/00 6/13/00 303,00 JRNL-CD 1010 PAGE 15 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS 194170 194677 194678 166534 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO~4PAN VENDOR TOTAL 14790 40048 101948 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 THURK BROS CHEVROLET T4801 00024 TIM BUSSE T4808 12660 12672 12674 12688 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 TIME SAVER OFF SITE SECRE* VENDOR TOTAL T4831 319756 6/13/00 6/13/00 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY VENDOR TOTAL T4951 061553 6/13/00 6/13/00 TRUE VALUE VENDOR TOTAL PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT 562.50 562.50 62.20 62.20 6,101.20 6,101.20 283.00 283.00 21606.15 45.42 45.42 426.00 426.00 471.42 700.00 700.00 700.00 312.38 312.38 100.00 100.00 124.38 124.38 94.63 404.50 499.13 1035.89 63.75 63.75 63.75 191.25 191.25 12.44 12.44 12.44 DESCRIPTION BEER JRNL-CD MISCELLANEOUS JRNL-CO BEER JRNL-CD BEER JRNL-CD FILTERS JRNL'CD BLAZER CD RADIO JRNL-CD WINTER 2000 CITY CONTACT JRNL-CD 05-09-00 HRA/COUNCIL MEETING JRNL-CD 05-18-00 DCAC MEETING JRNL-CD 05-11-00 POSC MEETING JRNL-CD 05-22-00 PLANNING COHMISSION M 05-23-00 CITY COUNCIL/HRA MEET dRNL-CD WELDING SUPPLIES WELDING SUPPLIES WELDING SUPPLIES JRNL'CD DgV PIPE, ETC JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMBER 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 01-4280-2340 1010 01-4280-5000 1010 01-4020-3100 1010 01-4020-4200 1010 81-4350-4200 1010 01-4340-4200 1010 01-4190-4200 01-4020-4200 1010 01-4280-2250 73-7300-2250 78-7800-2250 1010 01-4340-2200 1010 PRE-PAID AMOUNT DATE 6/08/00 TIME 14.03.37 CHECK CHECK # DATE T4965 247973 6/13/00 6/13/00 147.92 06-00 ELEVATOR SERVICE 147.92 JRNL'~O 01'4320'4200 1010 PAGE 16 P U R C ti A S E J 0 U R N A L DATE 6/08/00 AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND TIME 14.03.37 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS THYSSEN LAGERQUIST ELEVATO VENDOR TOTAL T4970 100035 6/13/00 6/13/00 TWIN CITY OARAGE DOOR CO VENDOR TOTAL T4985 256796-0 257419-0 255376-0 258101-0 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 TWIN CITY OFFICE SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL U5030 6385360 6322377 US FILTER U5050 721 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED V5175 000613 VERIZON WIRELESS W5297 1079254 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 WARNING LITES OF MINNESOTA VENDOR TOTAL W5492 000630 AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 147.92 127.93 127.93 127.93 14.54 44.36 14.54 14.54 14.54 1.21 1.21 10.92 10.91 126.7-/ 102.20 102.20 292.88 292.88 169.70 169.70 691.55 437.73 437.73 409.18 409.18 846.91 40.50 40.50 40.50 27.8~ 27.83 27.8~ 66.95 66.95 66.95 1,126.00 REPLACE SPRING, ADJUST, ETC JRNL-CD OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES JRNL-CD BLANK CARTRIDGES JRNL-CD CHAIR JRNL-CD FEMININE PROOUCTS DISPENSER JRNL-CD SEAT WRENCH JRNL-CD B/O KIT, ETC. PARTIAL JRNL-CD UNIFORM VANAUKEN, JEFF JRNL-CD THRU 05-20-00 CELL SERVICE JRNL-CD ROAD SIGNS JRNL-CD 06-00 CLEANING ACCOUNT HUMBER 01-4320-3830 1010 01-4040-2200 01-4090-2200 01-4140-2200 01-4190-2200 01-4340-2200 01-4280-2200 71-7100-2200 73-7300-2200 78-7800-2200 1010 01-4140-2100 1010 01-4040-2200 1010 01-4320-2200 1010 73-7300-2300 1010 73-7300-2300 1010 01-4140-2240 1010 01-4140-3220 1010 70-4270-4210 1010 01-4320-4210 PRE-PAID AMOUNT CHECK CHECK # DATE 91.33 06-00 CLEANING 91.33 06-00 CLEANING 01-4280-4200 7'3-7"300-42O0 PAGE 17 P U R C H A $ E J 0 U R N A L DATE 6/08/00 AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND TIME 14.03.37 VENDOR iNVOiCE DUE HOLD NO. iNVOiCE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS 6/13/00 6/13/00 WEST METRO BUILDING MAINT. VENDOR TOTAL W5630 328O 6/13/00 6/13/00 3287 6/13/00 6/13/00 WIDMER INC VENDOR TOTAL W5690 18971 6/13/00 6/13/00 19331 6/13/00 6/13/00 19662 6/13/00 6/13/00 19988 6/13/00 6/13/00 20277 6/13/00 6113/00 20584 WM MUELLER & SONS Z6478 6595 6661 JiM BROWN'S SO0 FARM 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 6/13/00 VENDOR TOTAL TOTAL ALL VENDORS AMOUNT 91.34 1,400.00 1400.00 558.00 558.00 930.00 930.00 1488.00 960.09 960.09 794.79 349.21 349.21 806.18 806.18 446.01 446.01 240.79 DESCRIPTION 06-00 CLEANING JRNL-CD 04-24-00 ISLANDVIE~ DR TRACTOR JRNL-CD 0~-24-00 5340 BARTLETT BLVO JRNL-CD BLACKTOP JRNL-CD BLACKTOP JRNL-CD BLACKTOP JRNL-CD BLACKTOP JRNL-CD BLACKTOP JRNL-CD BLACKTOP 240.79 JRNL-CD 3597.07 29.52 SOO 29.52 JRNL-CD 7.03 SOO 7.03 JRNL-CD 36.55 179,181.21 ACCOLINT NUMBER 78-7800-4200 1010 78-7800-3800 1010 78-7800-3800 1010 27-5800-2340 1010 22-5800-2340 1010 27-5800-2340 1010 27-5800-2340 1010 27-5800-2340 1010 27-5800-2340 1010 73-7300-2300 1010 T3-TSO0-2310 1010 PRE-PAID AMCXJNT CHECK CHECK # DATE CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 4.72-0620 May 1, 2000 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PROPERTY OWNERS GINO BUSINARO, CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR ~ ,~. REMINDER OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON CBD PARKING PROGRAM The new City Manager, Kandis Hanson, has asked me to send you this memo as a reminder of the City Council action on July 8, 1997 regarding the CBD Parking Program. At that time the City Council took action to extend the CBD parking program until June 30, 2000 and that the program will no longer exist as of that date. In August we will calculate for the last time the July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 CBD parking maintenance assessment, which will require a public hearing before the City Council in October, 2000. You will be notified of the date and time of that hearing. The lease payments also will be paid by the City of Mound for the last time in late summer. Attached please find a copy of the Memorandum sent to you by the former City Manager, who informed you of the program termination date at the time the City Council took action on this issue. It is our understanding that, starting July 1, 2000, the City of Mound will continue to maintain parking lots that the City owns and that the lots owned by the affected businesses wffi be the full responsibility of those businesses. This information will be shared with the City Council members. If you have questions or concems on this matter, please call me at 472-0608, Kandis Hanson at 472-0600 or the Members of the City Council. cc: Kandis Hanson, City Manager City Council Members prtnte~ on recycled paper MEMORANDUM August 4, 1999 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PROPERTY OWNERS FRAN CLARK, ACTING CITY MANAGER 1999 CBD ASSESSMENT ROLL Enclosed is the proposed assessment roll for the period July 1, 1998- June 30, 1999. As you know, the City Council took action on July 8, 1997 to extend the existing CBD program until June 30, 2000. After this date, the program will no longer exist. The enclosed assessment requires a public hearing before the City Council in October 1999. Thc date of the public hearing is Tuesday, October 12, 1999, 7:30 p.m., Mound City Hall. Please note that for this assessment period, the lease payments or credits will be paid by the City of Mound through its general fund i.e., all taxpayers in thc City of Mound, etc. Please remember that you are still responsible for 1/4 of the snowplowing charges until 6/30/2000. The enclosed assessment roll represents the snowplowing charges. If you have any questions, please contact me. o o° o° ~ o o oo oo o o o o o ~ o o ~ °o ~o o oo o o~ o r~ ~ oo EE e MEMORANDUM July 15, 1997 TO: FROM: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD)PROPERTY OWNERS SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON CBD PARKING PROGRAM As you may recall, a meeting was held on Tuesday, July 1, 1997, at Mound City Hall with you regarding the future of the CBD parking program. At that meeting, we reviewed the City Council's directive that the CBD parking program cease to exist as we know it today on June 30, 1998. Those of you that attended were concerned that the program should be extended beyond that date and should coincide with the realignmem of Hennepin County Road 15. (Although the County has the realignment listed on its capital improvement program to be constructed in 2000, this would be the earliest date this could possibly occur. It is likely that County Road 15 will not be moved until later.) The persons in attendance at the July 1 meeting indicated that there would be problems of ingress and egress to the private property parking lots that are currently under lease with the City for CBD parking. This could ultimately result in trespassing issues and fencing around lots impacting the availability of public parking for downtown customers. The persons in attendance asked that the staff present their concerns to the City Council at its regular meeting of July 8, 1997. These concerns were presented at that time and the City Council took action to extend the CBD parking program until June 30, 2000. Thus, the program will no longer exist as of that date. It is the goal of the City of Mound to acquire property as time goes on for public parking purposes. Municipal ramps may be a possibility for solving some of the public parking needs that will arise as the Mound Visions program becomes a reality. I wanted to keep you advised of the City Council's recent action and to enclose a preliminary draft Memorandum to CBD Property Owners July 15, 1997 Page 2 of the July 1, 1996 to June 30, 1997 CBD parking maintenance assessment This assessment will require a public hearing before the City Council in October, 1997. You will be notified of the date and time of that hearing. In the meantime, it will give you an idea of what to expect for the assessment amount for this assessment period. Please note that for this assessment period, the lease payments or credits are still the responsibility of the program participants. Beginning July 1, 1997, the lease payments or credits will be paid by the City of Mound through its general fund i.e., all taxpayers in the City of Mound, etc. Please remember that you are still responsible for 1/4 of the snowplowing charges until 6/30/2000. If you have any questions, please contact me. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-!687 (812) 472-1155 FAX (612) 472-0620 July 30, 1992 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CBD PROPERTY OWNERS CBD TENANTS CITY STAFF ~, ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PARKING PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The Central Business District (CBD) Parking Program has been in existence since approximately 1970. This program was developed by downtown Mound merchants in cooperation with the City of Mound for the purposes of providing municipal parking to businesses and consumers doing business and shopping within Mound's downtown area. The merchants at that time wanted to assure themselves as well as potential customers that there was adequate public parking available. I am told that the original mission of the CBD parking program was for the purposes of retiring debt issued to cover the cost of improvements to parking lots in the downtown area. The program has become basically a common area maintenance program where private ownership of lots is still in tact, but availability and use of these lots for the general public has been created through a formula to address the maintenance issues of the district 1 printed on recycled paper and providing credits to those who "lease" their lots to the CBD program. Currently, 445 customer parking spaces are required. A total of 169 spaces are allotted for employee parking. The number of spaces provided by property owners is 296.5. The CBD formula dictates that you add the customer parking spaces required and the employee parking spaces required and subtract the number of spaces provided. Based upon the above figures, 316.5 spaces are currently available within the CBD district. The formula goes on to dictate the amount of front footage, market value and then has factors which determine the ultimate cost for 'each property owner. Since 1986, the City of Mound has absorbed many of the CBD costs, i.e., street sweeping, (labor and equipment), garbage pickup, installation and take down of Christmas decorations, weed trimming and mowing, Christmas decoration supplies, maintenance material and special assessments. In addition, the railroad leases went from 100% paid for by the CBD to one-fourth paid by the City of Mound to one-third of the cost paid by the City. In short, the City has been understanding of the CBD's concerns and has tried to cooperate in many ways, particularly financially, to keep the parking program viable. The City of Mound believes the CBD program is vital to the downtown economic climate. In order to do business in the community, parking must be available. Without municipal ownership of property, it is vital that private land owners cooperate with the municipality to provide the parking necessary for economic growth. When complaints have arisen from property owners and/or businesses the City has responded by trying to alleviate the problem by working with the property owners and the businesses. The best example of this cooperation has been in the acquisition of property from Dakota Rail. The City has spent numerous amounts of money and time to assure that public parking would remain in the downtown area. The process of attempting to acquire properties began in March of 1990. As you know, the matter is still unresolved due to a number of legal problems that have taken place since the negotiations that were finalized in September of 1990. As you know, the property owners became involved in an assessment program where' 50% of the cost of the acquisition of the properties has been assessed to the property owners. The remaining 50% is being paid for by the City. In addition, the City has incurred significant number of legal, engineering and planning costs that have not been passed on to the CBD property owners. Although, complaints arise from time to time regarding the program, in general over the years the program has been a excellent example of a partnership between the private sector and the public sector. We owe a lot of credit to the merchants that were astute enough to develop this program along with the City in 1970. CURRENT STATUS Dakota Rail: As you know, the City of Mound is in litigation with Dakota Rail in two lawsuits: 1). Fraud and misrepresentation and 2). Condemnation. Both lawsuits are proceeding and will take much time and expense. By condemning the properties that were to be acquired, the City has gained title to these properties. They will eventually become municipal lots. What is yet to be determined is if the City will have some sort of assessment on these lots for maintenance or if the City will absorb the maintenance costs within the City's general fund budget. Pat an4 Paul Meisel Request The City of Mound received a letter dated June 17, 1992 and received June 26, 1992 from Paul and Pat Meisel, a copy of which is attached. The letter requests that the City Council allow Mr. and Mrs. Meisel to be removed from the CBD parking program effective June 30, 1992. Mr. and Mrs. Meisel have indicated that they are "unfairly subsidizing those businesses who do not have adequate parking." In response to Mr. and Mrs. Meisel's request, I wrote a letter dated July 6, 1992, a copy of which is attached. My letter indicates that we had received their correspondence to be removed from the district. It also indicates that I was concerned that their request would have a severe impact upon the future of the CBD program. I told them that I would share the letter with the City Council and discuss it at the July 14, 1992 regular meeting. Mr. and Mrs. Meisel appeared at the July 14, 1992 regular meeting and asked the City Council to take action on their request. The City Council directed that the City staff put together some additional information about this subject and bring it back to the August 11, 1992 regular council meeting for discussion. Upon this direction, I felt it was appropriate that background information be prepared for all interested persons. In addition, I felt it was appropriate that a meeting be held with the CBD property owners to discuss this matter with them. Future of CBD Parking Pro,ram What we are really talking about here is the parking maintenance program. This is the annual assessment that is placed against all property owners contained within the Central Business District parking program to cover maintenance costs associated with the parking lots. The amount of expenses incurred each year by the parking district program has varied. Essentially, there are three costs associated with the CBD maintenance assessment: 1) Railroad leases; 2) Property leases and 3) Snow removal. Lease expenses over the past four - five years have been relatively stable. However, snowfall amounts have varied which dictates snow removal requirements. Hence, we end up with varied amounts for snow removal. With the Meisel request at hand, a major question arises: Is the program necessary any more? Certainly one could argue that the program should be abandoned. Property owners are capable of maintaining their own properties and they could provide parking to their customers and others in whichever way they see fit. This may include, but not be limited to, restrictive parking areas, fencing off of lots, leases between property owners and tenants and/or other businesses and property owners, etc. Under this scenario, the City of Mound is removed from any administration of the program and basically leaves it up to the private property owner for maintenance. Basically, without a CBD parking program, Darking needs and requirements are left to the property owner and/or tenants and those that demand or need parking. With the City of Mound acquiring lots from Dakota Rail, there will be essentially four public parking areas available for use by the general public. As mentioned above, it is yet to be determined whether the City will attempt to assess the maintenance of these lots to benefiting property owners through some sort of an assessment program. The City Council will have to determine if they feel it is appropriate for the City to assume total responsibility for these lots or share in some assessment program with benefiting property owners. I see Meisel's as being the first of a list of property owners who wish to be removed from the CBD program. The property owners and/or businesses that have little or no parking are going to be the ones that are going to have to struggle to find parking within the district that will meet their needs. I am not convinced that maintenance will be any cheaper, nor will I be convinced that it will be done any faster or better. Certainly the municipal parking areas will be available, but this may not satisfy everyone's demands for parking up to or near their building or business. Maintenance costs are going to continue, although they would be borne by the property owner in whatever fashion he or she chooses. Jerry Longpre, in a letter dated July 25, 1992 and attached to this memorandum, requests that the City Council consider directing the City staff to study and analyze the mission of the CBD program. He suggests that it need restructuring and he suggests that more time be spent on this. I raise to you the following questions: 1. What impact would the granting of Meisel's request have on the future of the CBD maintenance program? 2. As a property owner do you wish to be removed from the CBD parking program? 3. If abandoned, where do we go from here? 4. What other ideas, suggestions or comments do you have? At our Thursday, July 30th meeting with the CBD property owners, it is my hope that we can focus on these and other questions that come to mind with regard to this entire issue. It is difficult to take an immediate action on something that has worked successfully for over 20 years. I realize that many things have changed over the past 20 years, but something hasn't changed; that is, the downtown area is still a downtown area. For businesses to survive parking demands must be met. For economic growth to be achieved, parking must be available for businesses to expand or new businesses to develop. The CBD program has been the rationale used by several businesses in order to locate in Mound. Had CBD parking not been available, some businesses would not be in downtown Mound. Please remember what I stated earlier in the memorandum; that is, this program was originally developed by the downtown businesses so that public parking would be assured for business and for persons shopping within the downtown area. If the program is 7 abandoned, it is even more critical that the downtown businesses cooperate with one another to assure that parking needs and requirements will be met. ES:ls 272 December 18, 1990 R~$OLUTION NO. 90 - 153 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE AND THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF RAILROAD ADDITION. W~EREAS, the preliminary plat, final plat and variance application for Railroad Addition have been submitted in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Code of Ordinances, Section 330 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statutes and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and WHEREAS, the City COuncil on December 18, 1990, held a hearing pursuant to Section 330 of the City of Mound Code of Ordinances, to consider the issuance of a variance and the approval of the preliminary and final plat for Railroad Addition located on property described as follows: That part of Government Lot 8, Section 14, Township 117, Range 24 lying west of the west line of the east 33.00 feet of said Government Lot, north of the north line of Lot 53, "LYNWOLD PARK", LAKE MINNETONKA and Lot 1, KENNEDY'S SUBDIVISION OF LOT 56, LYNWOLD PARK, LAKE MINNETONKA, according to the recorded plats thereof, easterly of the northerly extension of the west line of the east 30.00 feet of said Lot 1, said 30.00 feet being measured along the north line of said Lot 1 and which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Government Lot 8; thence on an assumed bearing of North along the east line of said Government Lot. 784.75 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 84 degrees 42 minutes OO seconds West 26].4? fee~ to the intersection with the northerly extension of the west line of the east 30.00 feet of said Lot 1 said 30.00 feet being measured along the north line of said Lot 1 and said line there terminating. ALSO That part of the Government Lot 8, Section 14, Township 117, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Government Lot 8, Section 14; thence on an assumed bearing of North along the east line of said Government Lot 8, 818.39 feet: thence South 84 degrees 42 minutes 00 seconds West ]].14 feet to the intersection with the west line of the east 3].00 feet of said Government Lot to the point of beginning: thence continue on last described course 8.0] feet; thence on a bearing of South 10.04 feet: thence South 84 degrees 42 minutes OO seconds West 112.65 feet; thence North 05 degrees 18 minutes 00 seconds West 41.50 feet to the intersection with the south line of Lot 52, "LYNWOLD PARK" LAKE MINNETONKA; thence easterly along said south line to the west line of said east ]].00 feet: thence southerly along said west line to the point of beginning. ALSO 273 December 18, 1990 That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 117, Ra~ge 2~, lying southerly of the south line of Lot ~6, "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof, and its easterly extension, easterly of the east line of the west 33.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13, west of the west line of the east 17.40 feet of Lot 33, said "Koehler's Addition to Mound". Lake Minnetonka and its southerly extension, said 17.40 feet being measured along the most southerly line of said Lot 33 and which lies northerly of the following described line: Commencihg at the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North along the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, 814.87 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 84 degrees 42 minutes O0 seconds East 566.40 feet to the intersection with the southerly extension of the east line of Lot ]8, said "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka; thence southerly along said extension 5.02 feet: thence North 84 degrees 42 minutes 00 seconds East 233.55 feet to the intersection with said southerly extension of the west line of the east 17.40 feet of said Lot 33, said 17.40 feet being measured along the most southerly line of said Lot 33 and said line there terminating, except that part of the north 96.00 feet thereof measured at a right angle from said easterly extension of the south line of Lot 46 which lies between the southerly extension of the east line of Lot 38, said "Koehler's Addition to Mound, Lake Minnetonka" and a line drawn parallel with and 317.00 feet west. measured at right angles to said east line of said Lot 38 and its southerly extension. ALSO That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 117, Range 24, lying northerly of the northerly line of COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 15, PLAT 68, easterly of the east line of the west 33.00 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, west of the southerly extension of the west line of the east 17.40 feet of Lot "Koehler's Addition to Mound". Lake Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof, said 17.40 feet being measured along the most southerly line of said Lot 33 and which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North along the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, 791.27 feet, to the point of beginning: thence North 84 degrees 42 minutes 00 seconds East 203.87 feet; thence on a bearing of South 6.53 feet: thence North 84 degrees 42 minutes 00 seconds East 596.08 feet to the intersection with the southerly extension of the west line of the east 17.40 feet of said Lot 33. said 17.40 feet being measured along the most southerly line of said Lot 33 and said line there terminating. That part of the north 96.00 feet of that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter lying southerly of and measured at a right angle from the south line of Lot 46, "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, and its easterly extension which lies between the southerly extension of the east line of Lot 38, "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka. and a line drawn parallel with and 317.00 feet west measured at right angles to said east line of said Lot ]8 and its southerly extension. ALSO Lots 38 and 39, "Koehler's Addition to Mound". Lake Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof, except the north 20.00 feet of said Lots. 27~ December 18, 1990 That part of Lots 53, 54 and 55. "LYNWOLD PARK". LAKE MINNETONKA. described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 53: thence South along the east line of said Lot 53 and 54 to the southeast corner of of said Lot 54; thence westerly a distance of 30.00 feet along the southerly line of said Lot 54; thence north parallel with said east line a distance of 10 feet; thence at right angles west a distance of 120.00 feet; thence at right angles south to the south line of said Lot 54; thence easterly along said south line to a point 50.00 feet east of the southwest corner of said Lot 54; thence south parallel with the west line of said Lot 55 to the south line of said Lot 55; thence westerly along said south line to a point distant 30.00 feet east measured at a right angle from the west line of said Lot 55; thence north parallel with the west line of said Lots 53. 54 and 55 to the north line of said Lot 53; thence easterly along said north line to the point of beginning. That part of Lot 33, "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying westerly of the west line of the east 17.40 feet of said Lot 33, said 17.40 feet being measured along the most southerly line of said Lot 33. ALSO That part of Lot 34. "Koehler's Addition to Mound". Lake Minnetonka. according to the recorded plat thereof, lying easterly of a line 60.00 Feet westerly of and parallel with the west line of the east !7.40 feet of Lot 33. said "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, said 17.40 feet being measured along the most southerly line of said Lot 33- ALSO The north 20.00 feet of Lots 38 and 39, "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof. ALSO That part of Lot 1, "KENNEDY'S SUBDIVISION OF LOT 56, LYNWOLD PARK". LAKE MINNETONKA, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying easterly of the east 30.00 feet of said Lot 1. said 30.00 feet being measured along the north line of said Lot 1. ALSO The west 30.00 feet of Lots 53, 54 and 55, "LYNWOLD PARK". LAKE MINNETONKA. according to the recorded plat thereof. WMEREAS, the Central Business (B-I) district requires a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet; and WHEREAS, Lot 1, Block 2 as identified on the preliminary and final plat drawings contains 5,838 square feet of area resulting in a lot area variance of 1,662 square feet; and WHEREAS, with the exception of the aforementioned variance, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the Code of Ordinances of the City of Mound. 275 December 18, 1990 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: AO Preliminary and Final Plat approval is granted for Railroad Addition upon compliance with the following requirements: 1. As per Preliminary and Final Plat drawings, Exhibits A and B respectively. me Lot 1, Block 2 shall be combined with the parcel lying immediately to the north. In the absence of such combination occurring, all future development and/or redevelopment of Lot 1, Block 2 shall be required to obtain approval of a site plan from the City Council with recommendations provided by the Mound Planning Commission. The submittal required for requesting site plan approval shall be the information that is outlined in Section 23.505.3 (la - ld) of the Mound Zoning Code. ® Due to drainage and utility concerns that cannot be addressed at this time, all future development and/or redevelopment proposed for Lots 2-5, Block 3 shall be required to obtain approval of a site plan from the City Council with recommendations provided by the Mound Planning Commission. The submittal required for requesting site plan approval shall be the information that is outlined in Section 23.505.3' (la - Id) of the Mound Zoning Code. ® Water and sewer services for Lot 2, Block 3 are to be extended to the south right-of-way line of Lynwood Boulevard as part of a City project and the cost assessed 100% to Lot 2, Block 3, Railroad Addition. 5 A watermain extension and installation of sewer and water services will be required as a prerequisite of the development of Lot 5, Block 3, Railroad Addition. Details of such extension are to be developed with City staff during the required site plan approval process. The City does hereby authorize the lot area variance for Lot 1, Block 2, Railroad Addition. Ce It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. De The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owner and subdivider after the completion of requirements for their use as required by Minnesota State Statutes. December 18, 1990 The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing Resolution. The final plat shall be filed and recorded within 60 days of the date of the signing of the hardshells by the Mayor and City Manager in accordance with Section 330 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and shall be recorded within 180 days of .the adoption date of this Resolution with one copy being filed with the City of Mound. BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with M.S.A. 462 and the City of Mound Code of' Ordinances. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Johnson and seconded by Councilmember Jensen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk ggT-06~ E o 0 277 December 18, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 90-154 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CBD PARKING LOT ACQUISITION & IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT ROLE, AS P=MENDED, PER THE FORMULA USING 50% CITY - 50% PER PARCEL SPLIT WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the CBD Parking Lot Acquisition & Improvement and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems just. Areas within the following boundaries proposed to be assessed: Belmont Lane on the East Lynwood Blvd. to the North 700 feet West of Commerce Blvd. 700 feet South of Shoreline Drive NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: Such proposed assessment, as amended, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first installment to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1992, and shall bear interest at the rate of (8%) eight per cent per annum from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1992. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount .of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must 278 December 18, 1990 be made before November 15 or interest will be charge through December 31 of the next succeeding year. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk ooo~~~~~~~oooo o ooo o o oo o 203 December 18, 1990 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING - DECEMBER 18, 1990 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Tuesday, December 18, 1990 in the Mound City Hall Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Skip Johnson. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., Secretary Peggy James, Attorney Curt Pearson, City Planner Mark Koegler, City Engineer John Cameron, Finance Director John Norman, and the following interested citizens: Cynthia and Ryan Smith, John Royer, Greg Keller, Curt Johnson, Judy & Don Bryce, Ken Smith, William Thal, Jon Scherven, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, Michael Mueller, Vernon Schwalbe, Gerry Dodds, Mike Mueller Sr., Philip Lansing, Darrel Monteith, Walter Wolfe, John Madson, Calvin Drews, Stephen Kakos, Dick Schwert, Jerry Longpre, Phyllis and William Johnson, Peter W. Johnson, Dale Sherburne, Bob Brown, and Paul Meisel. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to approve the minutes of the December 11, 1990, Regular Meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER A REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAN AND FINAL PLAT FOR CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED IN DOWNTOWN MOUND (RAILROAD ADDITION) City Planner, Mark Koegler, explained to the Council that two actions need to be taken, one being the rezoning, and two being the replatting. Koegler recommended approval of the rezoning as proposed. Koegler reviewed the conditions in the proposed resolution to approve a variance and the preliminary and final plat of Railroad Addition. Koegler explained that the bank building, Lot 2, Block 4, has now been added to the plat per the request of Mr. Mills. He explained the lot size variance for Lot 1, Block 2, which is proposed to be combined with the lot to the north (Ben Franklin). 204 December 18, 1990 The City Engineer reviewed the easement for Belmont Lane. Lot 5, Block 3 will not meet the lot area requirement of 30,000 square feet if the land being used for Belmont Lane is not allowed to be figured into the lot area, therefore, Mr. Mills is requesting that this portion of land be easement rather than right-of-way. Approval was recommended by both the City Planner and the City Engineer. Mayor Smith opened the public hearing. There were no comments from citizens present. Mayor Smith closed the public hearing. Cameron commented on the letter from Hennepin County, Department of Public Works requesting that an additional 7 feet of right-of- way along both sides of County Road 15 and County Road 110 be dedicated to the County. He explained that after discussions with Hennepin County, the plat now meets with their approval; it has been modified by dedicating a 7 foot wide strip of land along the east side of County Road 110 from Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 3, and also a corner out of Lot 1, Block 2 on the west side of Commerce. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded approval of the following: ORDINANCE NO. 46-1990 AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN LANDS FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I-1) TO CENTRAL BUSINESS (B-l) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #90-153 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE AND THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF RAILROAD ADDITION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ASSESSMENT: CBD PARKING LOT ACOUISITION & IMPROVEMENTS The City Manager gave an update on the status of the purchase of the lots from Dakota Rail. He explained that Dakota Rail is experiencing problems clearing the title with the State. It was noted that the Department of Transportation has expressed an interest in the property.. The City Attorney explained procedures of the assessment hearing. 205 December 18, 1990 Cameron reviewed the history of the proposed assessment. He explained the formula used, the land acquisition costs, improvement costs, and the splits available for consideration, they are: 35 City / 65 CBD, 40 City / 60 CBD, 45 City / 55 CBD, or 50 City / 50 CBD. Mayor Smith opened the public hearing. The following people spoke in favor of the 50/50 split: John Royer, Paul Meisel, Curt Johnson, Dick Schwert, Peter Johnson, Walt Wolfe, Mike Mueller Sr., Michael Mueller, and Dorothy Netka. In addition to agreeing with the 50/50 split, the following objections were voiced. John Royer of Ben Franklin would like credit for the parking spaces he will gain when he purchases the lot to the south of him. The Council did not agree with this request, Jessen noted that this area is used for outdoor seasonal retail sales, and therefore, is not always available for parking. Curt Johnson objected to the number of spaces required by the CBD plan of 15, versus the Zoning Code requirement of only 6. The Finance Director explained that all of the CBD parking requirements are calculated the same way, and it has always been calculated this way. The CBD formula does not correlate with the Zoning Code. The City Attorney reminded Mr. Johnson that he may file a written objection if he chooses. Walter Wolfe, representing the Masonic Lodge asked if his previous request to be dropped from the CBD was granted. The City Manager commented that it was not. The Council reviewed Parking requirements for the Masonic Lodge and discussed how they benefit from the CBD parking. It was determined that they currently do not have adequate parking, and according to the Zoning Code they could be required to have up to 100 spaces. Jerry Longpre stated that he and Bill Netka were involved in the creation of the original CBD plan and the original formula. He raised the topic of the distance factor which involves measuring how far the businesses were from acquired parking lots; the closer the businesses were to the lots the more they were assessed and the further away they were the less they were assessed. Both Mr. Longpre and Mr. Netka agreed that the distance factor should be implemented into the current formula. The City Engineer stated that the distance factor was not ignored when the current formula was created. The distance factor has not been used in the formula since 1981. He explained that there were flaws in using the distance factor because it was difficult to determine where to start and stop the measuring. In addition, 206 December 18, 1990 there is the issue of the access between Johnson, Wood, Phleger & Bigelow and the railroad tracks; would you measure from the access? If so, this would then result in a large assessment for Netka's building, the Johnson & Wood building, and others in that area. Ahrens questioned what formula would be more beneficial, the currently proposed 35/65 or using the distance factor? Staff replied that it would be difficult to determine what the figures would be if the distance factor was used because of the question, where do you measure from? Ail the Councilmembers and the Mayor stated they were in favor of the 50/50 plan. Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following'resolution: RESOLUTION #90-154 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CBD PARKING LOT ACQUISITION & IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT ROLE PER THE FORMULA USING 50% CITY - 50% PER PARCEL SPLIT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 REOUEST TO WITHDRAW FROM CBD - CURT JOHNSON, WEST LAKE STENO SERVICE, INC., 5545 SHORELINE DR. Mr. Johnson referred to his letter dated November 6, 1990 which lists his reasons for wanting to withdraw from the CBD Parking Program. They are: 1) 2) We provide our own parking and this is more than adequate for the use of our property. We have provided our own maintenance for half of the ten years we have been in the program, and we will furnish it in the future. 3) Dissatisfaction with parking lot maintenance that has been provided by the City. The Zoning Code requires Mr. Johnson to have 6 parking spaces for his business; the CBD requires he have 15 spaces. His parking lot has 10 parking spaces available. Jessen stated that due to the location of his business, people assume they are to park across the street. Johnson stated that his parking lot is never full. 207 December 18, 1990 Mayor Smith commented that if this request is denied, criteria for denial should be documented. The Council determined that this request would be discussed at the next Committee of the Whole Meeting. Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to discuss Mr. Johnson's request at the next Committee of the Whole meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.4 APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR RECYCLING COLLECTION. Mayor Smith commented on Section 1.A. " . . . and other City designated collection stops in the City . . ." What are the designated collection stops? Does this refer to Drop Off sites? Apartment buildings? Motion made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens to approve the Agreement for Recycling Collection as submitted, upon the condition that the City Manager and Joyce Nelson add an Exhibit 'B, defining the "designated Collection stops.,' The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 CITY HALL PROJECT UPDATE. The City Manager reviewed the Project Cost Review. 1.6 PAYMENT REOUEST #2 - 1990 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS - $42,750.00. Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen, to approve Payment Request %2 - 1990 Lift Station Improvements for a total of $42,750.00. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $236,748.38, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Invitation from LMCD to attend Open House at news quarters in Wayzata. It is scheduled for Tuesday, December 18, 1990, Noon - 6 P.M., Norwest Bank Building, 900 East Wayzata Blvd., Suite 160, Wayzata - first floor. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMO June 9, 2000 To: Kandis Hanson Mound City Manager From: Bruce Chamberlain Mound Visions Coordinator Re: Parking on the John's Variety Block Enclosed is a concept drawing for parking on the John's Variety block in downtown Mound. You can see that the parking is placed on the vacant lot west of the retail buildings. The lot would allow the addition of approximately 20 parking stalls on the block. The concept would require access coordination with the adjacent apartment property since their driveway is on the parcel. The parcel consists of approximately 13,725 square feet. At values similar to other properties recently appraised in downtown Mound, acquisition costs would likely be $60-80,000. A wetland likely exists on the property, which would need mitigation if developed for parking. Parking lot development costs including paving, lighting and landscaping would likely be in the range of $120,000. If soil corrections are needed, the cost could be significantly higher. We have also reviewed the possibility of parking on the Unchartered Grounds property (if it were to be acquired and demolished). The property has been the subject of recent discussions between the City and Hennepin County. The County's position thus far is that the property is too close to the new 15/110 intersection to allow curb cuts. We have a meeting with the County today and we will discuss the issue again and review one particular scenario we have in mind to determine if there is some flexibility in their stance. If so I will bring a revised concept drawing to the meeting. I will be at the Council meeting to discuss the issue. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 Property Information Search by Property ID Result page Page 1 of 2 Search By: Address Additk3n Name Property ID: 1!4-117-24 44 0033 Property Information Search Result (The property information database is updated at the beginning of each month.) Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 2000 Property ID: 14-117-24 44 0033 Property Address: 5631 LYNWOOD BLVD Municipality Name: MOUND Construction Year: Owner Name: View Map I School Dist: 277 Watershed: 3 Sewer Dist: Parcel Size: 75 X 183 PETER S GOSHGARIAN Taxpayer Name & Address: PETER S GOSHGARIAN CIO LAKE STONE MGMT 1987 WAYZATA BLVD W/POB 237 LONG LAKE MN 55356 Most Current Sales Information Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estate Value and are not warranted to represent arms-length transactions. NO SALE INFORMATION ON FILE FOR THIS PROPERTY. Tax Parcel Description Lot: 052 Addition Name: Block: LYNWOLD PARK LAKE MTKA Metes & Bounds: W 75 FT OF E 200 FT Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 2000 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 1999 Estimated Market Value: Limited Market Value: Taxable Market Value: Total Improvement Amount: Total Net Tax: Total Specials: Solid Waste Fee: Total Tax: 12,100 11,900 11,900 254.59 2.19 256.78 http://www2, co. hennepin, mn. us/pins/IdS rchRes, stm 6/8/00 Property Information Search by Property ID Result page Page 2 of 2 Property Information Detail for Taxes Payable 2000 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 1999 Values: Land Market 12,100 Building Market Machinery Market Total Market: Land Limited Building Limited Total Limited: Qualifying Improvements Classifications: Property Type Homestead Status Relative Homestead Agricultural Exempt Status 12,100 11,900 11,900 VACANT LAND - RESIDENTIAL NON-HOMESTEAD 297 Questions or problems with this database search should be directed to Don. Kopel@co. hennepin, mn. us Hennepin County is providing this information as a public service. Please send comments on our Web Site to Henn. Net@co.hennepin.mn.us or use our Feedback Form Home Copyright © 1998 Hennepin County http://www2.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/IdSrchRes.stm 6/8/00 Metropolitan Council Working for the [~egion, ,D]anning for the ~uture June 6, 2000 Kandis Hanson City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms. Hansen: Over the last year there has been considerable confusion on what the Council requires local cities to include in its Comprehensive Plan as far as storm water management is concerned. To help clarify this I would like to invite you to a meeting at the Orono City Hall on Friday June 30 at 9:00. I have invited Glenda Spiotta from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to explain what the watershed district needs to have an acceptable local water management plan. The watershed district has created a guidance document on what additional items are specifically needed in your local plan if the city incorporates MCWD plan into the city plan. Even if your city is currently fully developed over the next twenty years there will be a likelihood that portions of your city will redevelop. As redevelop occurs there is an opportunity to incorporate many of the latest water quality treatment techniques into the new development, which will improve the water quality of Lake Minnetonka. I encourage all cities that have not completed its local water management plan to attend this meeting. It will take more than the efforts of MCWD to protect Lake Minnetonka. It will take a strong leadership position of each city in the watershed as well as all citizens that live in the watershed. Lake Minnetonka is one of the exceptional lakes in the state and we all need to do our part in keeping it clean. Please let Jack Frost, watershed coordinator, for the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services know if you will be able to attend this meeting. Jacl4s telephone number is 651-602- 1078. If you have any questions please let me know. Sincerely, ~M;~;llli~uncil District No. 3 Cc; Phyllis Hanson, Acting Sector Rep., Comprehensive Planning Tom Caswell, Sector Representative, Comprehensive Planning Terry Kayser Lake Minnetonka Liaison Community Development Division 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 (651) 602-1000 Fax 602 - 1550 An Equal Opportunity Employer TDD/TTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 602-1888 Creative Solutions [or Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Oroup Inc. MEMO May 16, 2000 To'- Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound CC: John Cameron, MFRA, City Engineer Loren Gordon, HKGi, City Planner From: Bruce Chamberlain Mound Visions Coordinator Re: Wetland buffer requirements related to the Lost Lake Canal/Greenway project. The question was asked by Mark Hanus on the Mound City Council whether the wetland buffer provision included in the first draft Surface Water Management Plan would render the canal/greenway project unbuildable. The answer is that a variance would be necessary to build it as currently designed. When the Canal project was permitted by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in 1997, it came under the review provisions of MCWD Rule D, which requires that a 35 foot buffer of native vegetation groundcover be established around a wetland. It is important to note that the primary reason for the buffer provision is to filter runoff from the surrounding landscape before it enters the wetland. The permit that was granted to the City for the Canal/Greenway project (enclosed) sites several findings-of-fact justifying a variance from the buffer provision. In the case of the greenway, runoff from the Auditors Road area of downtown is completely captured by the street curb and will be directed to stormwater ponds before entering Lost Lake. The only runoff entering the wetland in the Auditors Road area will be the precipitation landing on the narrow greenway itself. In this area the plans do include a narrow buffer strip (8-12 feet) of perennial grasses and flowers between the wetland edge and the trail. In the NE comer of Lost Lake (Super America side) there is opportunity for a much wider vegetative buffer of 35 to 50 feet which is envisioned to be planted with a combination of perennial grasses, flowers, shrubs, trees and only a small amount of turf. Even though the trail is within the buffer area, the buffer provisions would be exceeded. There is a natural tendency to envision a wetland buffer as a patch of weeds. In the case of the Lost Lake Greenway, the buffer will be planted and managed as a garden of ornamental plants. M: IMO UNDI99-241DOCShvtl_buff doc 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 MINNEHAI-IA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS RESOLUTION GRANTING PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER 96-280, CITY OF MOUND February 27, 1997 Manager Maple moved, seconded by Manager Love, that the following Resolution be adopted by the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District: I. FINDINGS I. On December I9, I996, the City of Mound submitted a permit application to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for certain activities to take place in and around Lost Lake, a DNR public water wetland. Lost Lake is below the ordinary high water mark of Lake Minnetonka as established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2. The permit application was assigned permit application number 96-280 and placed on the agenda for the January 23, 1997 MCWD Board of Managers meeting, the first meeting for which the permit application was eligible for review. 3. Prior to receipt of the permit application, representatives of the MCWD had met with the City of Mound on numerous occasions to discuss the proposed project and the requirements of the MCWD Rules. The MCWD also reviewed the environmental assessment worksheet performed for the project and provided comments on the worksheet. 4. The specifics of the project are contained in the permit application, which is part of the record before the MCWD and upon which the MCWD's decision is based. The project involves several activities which are regulated by the MCWD pursuant to its rules. 5. The project involves dredging in a historic channel that connects the City of Mound's property to Cook's Bay of Lake Minnetonka. The original channel width was 30 feet. The Applicant proposed dredging the channel to a width of 70 feet, one-half mile long, with proposed side slopes at a 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) ratio. Dredging is regulated pursuant to MCWD Rule E. 6. The project involves the installation ora seawall and riprap. These activities are regulated pursuant to MCWD Rule F. 7. The project involves placement of structures around the perimeter of Lost Lake. These activities are regulated pursuant to MCWD Rule D. 8. On January 21, 1997, the MCWD received a Notice of Intervention to intervene in the permitting proceeding and a Memorandum in Support of the Notice of Intervention from John Edewaard. 9. At the Board meeting of January 23, 1997, the MCWD Board of Managers voted to table the permit application pending review of the Notice of Intervention and supporting documents by each Manager and District Counsel. The Board then voted to continue the Board meeting to February 6, 1997. 10. At the February 6, 1997 MCWD Board meeting, after receiving comments from interested individuals, the Board voted to grant the permit application with conditions and direct Distr/ct Counsel to prepare draft Findings and Conclusions. 11. Draft Findings and Conclusions in the form ora draft resolution were made available to the public and transmitted to the permit applicant and Intervener on February 13, 1997. 12. The record for submittal of written comments remained open until close-of-business day February 20, 1997. 13. At the February 27, 1997 MCWD Board meeting, the MCWD voted to approve this resolution. A. DNR General Permit 95-6140 14. The MCWD is not reviewing the City of Mound's permit application under its general permit with the DNR, general permit 95-6140. 15. The DNR general permit allows the MCWD to issue a permit for certain types of activity without the permit applicant also obtaining a permit from the DNR. The MCWD can issue permits under the DNR general permit for, among other things, riprap, retaining walls, and excavation for navigation. 16. The MC WD will not be permitting the City of Mound's project under the DNR general permit because the DNR has exercised its right pursuant to special provision 5 of the general permit to require a separate individual permit for the project. B. MCWD Rule C - Floodplain Alteration 17. The MCWD regulates activities taking place in a floodplain pursuant to MCWD Rule C. Rule C requires that floodplain filling "shall not cause a net decrease in flood storage capacity below the projected 100-year flood elevation unless it is shown that the proposed filling, together with the filling of all other properties on the affected reach of the waterbody to the same degree of encroachment as proposed by the applicant, will not cause high water or aggravate flooding on other properties and will not Unduly restrict flood flows." 18. The permit application meets the requirements of MCWD Rule C because the record before the Board establishes that the project will actually increase flood Storage capacity in the area. 2 C. MCWD Rule D - Wetland Protection 19. The MCWD regulates wetlands pursuant to Rule D - Wetland Protection. Rule D primarily regulates wetlands regulated under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA wetlands). While the MCWD does not regulate work in DNR protected water wetlands, the MCW-D does regulate activities surrounding DNR protected water wetlands by requiring that those activities not take place within a certain area around the wetland. This is the buffer zone requirement. 20. Rule D provides that a buffer zone of 35 feet be maintained around a wetland that is larger than five (5) acres, such as Lost Lake. A buffer zone is defined in the MCW'D rules as "an area of native, unmaintained, vegetated groundcover abutting or surrounding a wetland." Activities such as mo~ving, disposal of yard waste and fertilizer application are not allowed within the buffer zone. 21. The record indicates that certain aspects of the project as proposed will take place within the 35 foot buffer zone around the perimeter of the wetland. The record also indicates that the project involves creation of significant wetland revegetation areas and other green buffer areas which do not exist today. These buffers are significantly wider in areas than the 35 feet required by the rule. 22. Because a 35 foot buffer will not be maintained around the entire wetland, a variance is required. MCWD Rule I governs issuance of a variance. 23. In this case, a variance is warranted. Special conditions apply to this property that do not generally apply to other land or structures in the District. The area around the wetland is public land that will be used as parkland. Construction of a "floating" boardwalk around the perimeter of the wetland which will serve as an educational tool on wetlands is a condition unique to this project. The use of the site for public enjoyment and education is unique to this site. 24. The granting of the variance is not merely a convenience to the applicant. The applicant has made significant efforts to minimize the activities around the wetland and has provided for extensive revegetation around portions of the wetland and a green buffer around other parts of the wetland. A buffer zone does not currently exist around the wetland. Granting of the variance is necessary to allow the applicant access to the docks. 25. Granting the variance is not contrary to the intent of the rules. The intent of Rule D is to provide protection for wetlands and DNR protected water wetlands. The extensive revegetation proposed by the applicant around a portion of the perimeter of the wetland combined with the use of a green buffer around an additional portion of the wetland and the use of curbed gutters around the parking area will minimize the impact of upland activities on the wetland while allowing access to the docks. D. MCWD Rule E - Drede/n~ 26. The MCWD regulates dredging pursuant to MCWD Rule E. Rule E sets out four (4) circumstances where dredging will be permitted and five (5) circumstances where dredging will not be permitted. Rule E also sets out general standards that apply to dredging. The MCWD finds that the project complies with the terms of MCWD Rule E. I. Compliance with Rule E ¶ 4 27. Paragraph 4(a)(2) of Rule E provides that dredging will be permitted "[t]o implement or maintain an existing legal fight of navigational access." "Riparian fights" are certain fights enjoyed by ovmers of land abutting waterbodies. 28. The City of Mound owns land surrounding Lost Lake. Lost Lake is entirely located below the ordinary high water mark of Lake Minnetonka, and therefore considered part of Lake Minnetonka. As a result, the City of Mound has a riparian fight of navigational access to Lake Minnetonka. 29. The exercise of riparian fights is not unrestricted, but rather is subject to regulation in the public interest. 30. The MCWD finds that the City of Mound has an existing legal fight of navigational access and the dredging is necessary to implement or maintain that legal right. 31. The MCWD has consistently allowed riparian owners to use dredging to accomplish access only if other means of access are not available. Both MCWD Rule E and the Lake Minnetonka Dredging Joint Policy Statement entered into between the MCWD, DNR, and Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD), require that dredging be the "minimal impact" solution to achieving navigational access. This requirement is also reflected in DNR's rules regulating dredging in public water wetlands. Minn. R. 6115.0201, Subp. 4 (1995). 32. Intervener claims there is no need to dredge to obtain access because the land has access to the Bay via canoes and kayaks. The MCWD and DNR have consistently applied the depth requirements set forth in the Lake Minnetonka Dredging Joint Policy Statement to establish what constitutes "navigational access" on Lake Minnetonka. Pursuant to the Policy Statement and MCWD practice, an appropriate dredging depth for multiple-user channels is five (5) feet or less. As a result, the MCWD has consistently determined that "navigational access" for a multiple- user channel is a channel with a depth of five feet. The record establishes that the City proposes to dredge to a depth of five feet. 33. Because the MCWD finds that the City of Mound has an existing legal fight of navigational access and the dredgir~g is necessary to implement or maintain that legal fight', the dredging meets the requirements of MCWD Rule E ¶ 4(a)(2) and a permit may be issued. 4 2. Compliance with MCWD Rule E ¶ 4(a)(1) 34. The MCWD also f'mds that a permit for the project may be issued under MCWD Rule E ~ 4(a)(1 ) with a variance allowing the dredging to exceed the original channel width. 35. Paragraph 4(a)(1) provides that dredging may be permitted "[t]o maintain, or remove sediment from, an existing public or private channel, that does not exceed the originally permitted requirements." In order to issue a permit under this section, it must be established that: a. there is an existing channel; b. the dredging is for the purpose of maintaining or removing sediment from the channel; and c. the maintenance does not exceed the originally permitted requirements. 36. The MCWD finds that the first condition is met because a channel through Lost Lake currently exists. 37. The MCWD finds that the second condition is met because the proposed dredging is for the purpose of removing sediment from the channel. 38. The MCWD finds that the third condition is not met because the dredging will exceed the historical dimensions, but that a variance is warranted to allow dredging to the proposed dimensions. 39. The record establishes that the original channel was 30 feet wide. The channel is proposed to be dredged to a width of 70 feet. As a result, a variance is required. MCWD Rule I governs issuance of a variance. 40. In this case, a variance is warranted. Special conditions apply to this property that do not generally apply to other land or structures in the District. The granting of the variance is not merely a convenience to the applicant. The applicant originally requested permission to dredge the channel to a width of 50 feet with three boat pull-out areas. The MCWD in conjunction with the DNR proposed the wider channel in order to reduce the frequency of maintenance dredging and, as a result, reduce the frequency of disruption of the wetland and wildlife. 41. Granting the variance is not contrary to the intent of the rules. The intent of Rule E is to provide for sound and responsible dredging that provides the minimal impact solution for reasonable navigational access. The increase in the width of the channel promotes sound dredging and the objectives of the rules in that the wider width allows for safe passage of boat traffic in both directions and requires less frequent maintenance dredging, thereby resulting in the minimum impact solution. 42. Because the project meets the criteria for a variance set out in MCWD Rule I, the MCWD finds that granting of a variance for the wider channel width is appropriate. c St© 5 i 43. The fact that a permit was not issued by a government agency to construct the original channel does not mean that the channel cannot be maintained. The MCWD has interpreted the language "does not exceed the originally permitted requirements" to mean "historic channel" in cases where the original channel was dredged prior to any dredging regulation. The language "does not exceed the originally permitted requirements" sets limits on the extent of the dredging, not on the types of charmels that can be dredged. The intent of the provision ~vas to "grandfather" in channels that were dredged prior to imposition of the rule. The rule provided for a grandfather clause in part because of the history of the creation of Lake Minnetonka. Lake Minnetonka was created by the dredging of channels between many small lakes to create one large lake. The rule is intended to recognize that those channels and others that were created prior to implementation of Rule E can be maintained as originally constructed. 44. The MCWD finds that the project meets the requirements of MCWD Rule E ~ 4(a)(1) and a variance is warranted. 3. The dredging is not prohibited under MCWD Rule E ¶ 4(b) 45. In addition to establishing circumstances where dredging may be permitted, Rule E also established certain situations where dredging will not be allowed. The MCWD finds that the project is not prohibited under MCWD Rule E. 46. Paragraph 4(b) provides that dredging will not be allowed: 3 4. 5. Above the ordinary high water level or into the upland adjacent to the lake or watercourse; Which would enlarge a natural watercourse landward or which would create a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas for navigational purposes; Where the dredging will alter the natural shoreline of a lake; Where the dredging might cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage; or Where any portion of the dredged area contains any slope steeper than 3: I in a marina or channel, or steeper than 10 to 1 for an area adjoining residential lakeshore. 47. Rule E also provides that, if a dredging proposal falls under category 1, 2 or 3, the dredging may be allowed if the project complies with applicable DNR rules. MCWD Rule E, 4¢). a. Dred~in~ above the ordinary high water level or into the upland adjacent to the lake or watercourse 48. The MCWD finds that the dredging will occur in an upland area adjacent to the lake but that this dredging will be allowed if approved by the DNR. As a result, the permit will not be issued until the DNR approves the project. 49. The record indicates that dredging would occur in upland adjacent to the watercourse. The City, of Mound has proposed to dredge upland in a small area at the north end of the channel to create the mm-around area. The record indicates that this area was at one time part of the channel but was subsequently filled. b. Dred~in~ which would enlarge a natural watercourse landward or which would create 'a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas for naviaational purposes 50. The record indicates that the project as proposed by the City of Mound would enlarge a natural watercourse, Lake Minnetonka, landward. The City of Mound has proposed to dredge landward in a small area at the north end of the channel to create the turn-around area. The record indicates that this area was at one time part of the channel but was subsequently filled. 51. The MCWD finds that the dredging would enlarge a natural watercourse, Lake Minnetonka, landward but that this dredging will be allowed if approved by the DNR. As a result, the permit will not be issued until the DNR approves the project. c. Where dredgin~ mizht cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage 52. The MCWD finds that the dredging will not cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage and, aS a result, the dredging is not prohibited under this section. 53. The record contains the professional opinion of the District Engineer that the dredging will not cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage. The District Engineer's opinion was based on, among other things, the geotechnical evaluation completed for the project and also contained in the record. d. Dredged area contains anv slope steeper than 3:1 in a marina or channel, or steeper than 10 to 1 for an area adjoinin~ residential lakeshore. 54. The MCWD finds that the slope will not be steeper than allowed by MCWD Rule E and, as a result, the dredging is not prohibited under the rule. 55. The record indicates that the slope will be 5:1. 4. The Proiect meets the eeneral standards for dredeine and the recluired exhibits have been provided to the MCWD 56. The MCWD f'mds that the project meets the general standards for dredging and that the required exhibits have been provided to the MCWD. 57. MCWD Rule E requires that all dredging comply with the following standards: ° ° o The spoil disposal site must be identified and found not to be below the OHW of a public water or public water wetland, wetland subject to the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, or floodplain and not prone to erosion. In cases of an identifiable source of sedimentation under the control of the applicant, the plan shall include remedial action to minimize deposition of sediment into a waterbody or off-site. Prior to review by the District, all dredging proposals that involve docking shall be submitted to and approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and, in the case of Lake Minnetonka, by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. The proposed project shall represent the "minimal impact" solution to a specific need with respect to alt other reasonable alternatives such as dock extensions, aquatic nuisance plant removal without dredging, beach sandblankets, excavation above the bed of public water, less extensive dredging in another area of the public water, or management of an alternative water body for the intended purpose. The dredging shall be limited to the minimum dimensions necessary for achieving the stated purpose (Reference DNR General Permit 95-6150, "Excavation for Navigation," ~I 5). If the dredging will be accomplished by means of hydraulic dredging, additional conditions must be met. a. Identification of the spoil disposal site 58. A spoil disposal site has not been identified for the project. It is common for municipalities to seek permits before a construction contract has been let. Most construction contracts provide that the contractor is responsible for proper disposal of materials. 59. It is appropriate and consistent with the MCWD's past permitting experiences to approve the permit application conditioned upon the project receiving a Spoil Disposal Site (SDS) permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 60. As a result, the MCWD finds that the permit may be issued with the condition that the project receive a SDS permit from the MPCA. b. Minimization of sources of sedimentation 61. The MCWD finds that there are no significant sources of sediment under the control of the Ci,ty and that the project does include activities designed to reduce sedimentation into the channel and wetland. 62. The rule requires that, prior to allowing dredging, an applicant must establish that sources of sediment under the control of the applicant and which may contribute to the on-going need to dredge have been controlled. The record indicates that there are no significant sources of sediment under the control of the City. The record also indicates that the project does include activities designed to reduce sedimentation into the channel and the wetland. For example, a buffer zone will be maintained around much of the wetland perimeter associated with the project. In addition, riprap erosion protection will be installed along portions of the shoreline to prevent erosion. c. Approval bv the LMCD and the DNR 63. The proposed project requires approval from both the LMCD (docks) and the DNR (dredging and docks). It is appropriate and consistent with the 1MCWD's past permitting practices for the Board to issue the permit conditioned upon approval by the LMCD and DNR. 64. The MCWD finds that a permit may be issued conditioned upon approval of the project by the LMCD and the DNR. d. Minimal impact solution 65. The MCWD finds that the project as proposed represents the minimal impact solution to achieve navigational access. 66. The rule lists several alternatives that should be considered. Extension of a dock is one alternative the Board should consider. In this case, the canal is approximately ½ mile long. The MCWD finds that construction of a dock is not a realistic or reasonable alternative in this case because of the length of a dock. 67. The MCWD finds that aquatic nuisance plant removal without dredging is not a reasonable alternative. Aquatic nuisance plant removal would not provide the depth necessary for navigational access as set forth in the Joint Dredging Policy. 68. The MCWD finds that the use of sandblankets is not a reasonable alternative. The MCWD considers sandblankets an appropriate alternative to dredging in circumstances where the placement of sand over a mucky area would provide access. Sandblanketing in this circumstance is not a reasonable alternative due to the fact that filling would result in more environmental degradation and further reduce the depth of the channel. 69. The MCWD finds that excavation above the bed of public water is not an appropriate alternative because dredging above the bed of a public water would not provide navigational access for this site. 70. The MCWD finds that the proposed dredging is the least impact dredging necessary to maintain navigational access. The record indicates that the channel as proposed provides the most direct access. In addition, as discussed above, the proposed channel design provides the least impact of other dredging alternatives. There is no evidence that management of an alternative water body would provide navigational access for the City. e. Minimum dimensions 71. The MCWD finds that the dredging is limited to the minimum dimensions necessary for achieving navigational access. 72. Paragraph 5 of the Excavation for Navigation section of the DNR general permit provides the standards for determining necessary dimensions for dredging. Paragraph 5 provides that the maximum depth for multiple user channels and moorin~maneuvering areas is 923.6 feet. The record indicates that the depth of the Lost Lake channel will be 923.6 feet. 73. Paragraph 5 also provides that sideslopes of excavated channels should be 3:1 (horizontal to vertical), "unless substrate conditions and other mitigating factors warrant a steeper or more gentle slope." The slope of the proposed channel is 5:1. The record contains several documents, including an opinion from a geotechnical engineering consultant, that the 5:1 slope is appropriate and will result in a stable slope. f. Conditions applicable to hydraulic dredeine 74. The record indicates that hydraulic dredging will not be used. As a result, the MCWD finds that the additional conditions applicable to hydraulic dredging set forth in the role do not apply. E. MCWD Rule F - Shoreline Alteration 75. Alterations to shoreline are regulated pursuant to MCWD Rule F - Shoreline & Streambank Improvement. The project involves the placement of riprap and reconstruction and construction of retaining walls, both of which are regulated under Rule F. 76. With one exception, the record indicates that the project as proposed meets the requirements of Rule F. The one exception is that the riprap cross-section does not contain all of the information contained in the text portion of the permit application. 77. As a result, issuance of the permit is conditioned upon receipt of a revised riprap detail and approval of the detail by the District Engineer. F. MCWD Rule K - Performance Bond or Letter of Credit 78. MCWD Rule K provides that a performance bond or letter of credit be submitted to the MCWD for projects regulated by MCWD Rules E and F. A performance bond or letter of credit has not yet been submitted for the Lost Lake project. 79. The MCWD has in the past conditioned issuance of a permit on r~ceipt of a performance bond or letter of credit. Issuance of a permit for the project is likewise conditioned upon receipt of a performance bond or letter of credit covering the work regulated by Rules E and F. I0 G. Compliance with Water Manaeement Plans 80. The proposed project is in compliance with the MCWD's current water resources management plan dated 1993. The plan states on page V-8 that the policies of the MCWD in regard to dredging are: Allow dredging projects to improve the recreational, wildlife, and fisheries resources of surface waters, and when necessary, to implement or maintain an existing legal right of navigational access. Prohibit dredging in the watercourses, waterbodies, or wetland areas.., which would enlarge a natural watercourse landward to create a channel to connect adjacent bac~vater areas for navigational purposes. Allow maintenance dredging to remove harmful sediment. 81. The project is in compliance with policy 1 because, as set forth above, the Board has determined that dredging is necessary to implement or maintain an existing legal right of navigational access. 82. The project is in compliance with policy 2 because the dredging does not enlarge a natural watercourse landward to create a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas. The dredging does enlarge a natural watercourse landward, but does not create a channel that connects adjacent backwater areas. The channel is not being created, but rather it is being maintained and expanded. Lost Lake is not a backwater area that is being connected to a waterbody. Backwater areas are areas unconnected to a waterbody. Lost Lake is already connected to Lake Minnetonka. 83. Policy 3, allowing maintenance dredging to remove harmful sediment, is not applicable to the proposed project. H. Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) 84. The MCWD finds that (1) barfing a determination by the MPCA that the project will increase levels of PCB's to a threshold exceeding acceptable standards, the project does not result in "impairment, pollution, or destruction of the air, water, land or other natural resources" and (2) there are no feasible and prudent alternatives. 85. Minnesota Statutes section 116B.09 requires an agency in issuing a permit to consider any alleged "impairment, pollution, or destruction" and forbids an agency from allowing an activity that results in "impairment, pollution, or destruction .... so long as there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare and the state's paramount concern for the protection of its air, water land, and other natural resources from p~llution, impairment, or destruction." Minn. Stat. § 116B.09, Subd. 2. 86. MERA only forbids actions which will result in "impairment, pollution or destruction" of the environment. The statute defines "pollution, impairment or destruction" as: 11 bo Any conduct by any person which violates, or is likely to violate, any environmental quality standard, limitation, rule, order, license, stipulation agreement, or permit of the state or any instrumentality, agency or political subdivision thereof which was issued prior to the date the alleged violation occurred or is likely to occur; or Any conduct which materially adversely affects or is likely to materially adversely affect the environment. Minn. Stat. § 116B.02, Subd. 5. 87. The MCWD has conditioned issuance of a permit for the project on approval of the project by the LMCD, DNR, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and approval of the spoil disposal site by the MPCA. The MCWD has also conditioned issuance of a permit for the project on additional testing for PCB's by the applicant and a determination by the MPCA that the project will not result in increased levels of PCB's which exceed acceptable standards. If each of these agencies approve the project, then the MCWD may conclude that the project will not be in violation of an environmental quality standard. 88. The MCWD finds that in regard to the presence of contaminants other than PCBs, the MPCA has established standards and found that the project does not exceed those standards. The MPCA testified at the February 6, 1997 MCWD Board meeting that the dredging of the channel would not result in harm to the water quality of Lost Lake or Lake Miunetonka. The MCWD accepts the testimony of the MPCA in this regard due to the expertise of the agency. 89. In regard to PCBs, the MCWD finds that the MPCA did not make a determination as to whether PCB's were present at a level of concern or whether the project would result in increased levels of PCB's which exceed acceptable standards. As a result, the MCWD has placed a condition on the issuance of the permit that the City will perform sediment testing for the presence of PCB's based upon the method for sampling and analysis prescribed by the MPCA to determine whether the project will increase levels of PCB's to a threshold which exceeds acceptable standards. The results in conjunction with mitigative measures prescribed by the MPCA (as necessary) must be determined by the MPCA to meet or be below acceptable standards, which determination the MCWD shall consider final. 90. If an environmental standard is established by an agency and a project is not in violation of that standard, then the project does not result in "pollution, impairment or destruction" of the environment as set forth in the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. 91. The MCWD also finds that the project does not result in "pollution, impairment or destruction" because the project is not likely to materially adversely affect the environment. 92. In MERA cases, courts consider the following factors in determining whether the conduct in question materially adversel] affects, or is likely to materially adversely affect, the ' environment: Whether the natural resource involved is rare, unique, endangered, or has historical significance; Whether the resource is easily replaceable (e.g,, by replanting trees or restocking fish); Whether the proposed action will have any significant consequential effect on other natural resources (for example, whether wildlife will be lost if its habitat is impaired or destroyed); and Whether the direct or consequential impact on animals or vegetation will affect a critical number, considering the nature and location of the wildlife affected. State of Minnesota. ex rel. Wacouta Township v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp., 510 N.W.2d 27, 30 (Minn. App. 1993). 93. Wetlands are an important natural resource, but the record shows that the proposed project will actually generate a net gain of wetland acreage in the area. 94. The record shows that the proposed dredging project will not eliminate water or fish fi.om the area in question. The record shows that cattail vegetation would be eliminated in the dredged area, but that this vegetation is not endangered and would be present elsewhere in the area. 95. Even if the MCWD determines that the project will result in "impairment, pollution or destruction," the MCWD may issue a permit for the project if there are no "feasible and prudent alternatives." Any "feasible and prudent alternative" must be consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare and the state's paramount concern for the protection of its air, water, land, and other natural resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction. Economic considerations alone shall not justify the proposed conduct. 96. The "no feasible and prudent alternative" analysis is intended to strike a balance between the fights of property owners and the protection of natural resources. In this case, the fight of the City to navigational access must be balanced with the protection of natural resources. 97. As discussed at length above in the discussion of MCWD Rule E, the MCWD finds that the dredging as proposed represents both the "minimal impact" solution and is the most feasible and prudent alternative. 98. The only alternative suggested by Intervener is to allow the City no navigational access, except by way of canoe and kayak. The City's riparian right, however, encompasses navigation for which Lake Minnetonka is reasonably used. Lake Minnetonka is used substantially for motor boat navigation, and therefore the City has a legal right of navigational access by way of motor boat. Completely denying that right to the City is not a feasible or prudent alternative, particularly if the City's proposed dredging project is consistent with MPCA and DNR standards and permits. Nor does Intervener's suggested alternative strike a balance between property owner rights and protection of natural'resources. The MCWD and DNR Lake Mirmetonka , Dredging Joint Policy Statement, on the other hand, does strike a balance. 13 99. As a result, the MCWD finds that (1) if the agencies listed in the permit conditions approve the project, then the project will not result in "pollution, impairment or destruction" of the environment and (2) the project represents the most feasible and prudent alternative for the exercise of the City's right to navigational access. II. CONCLUSIONS I00. The project as proposed in permit application 96-280 subject to the conditions set forth below and the variances discussed above meets the requirements of MCWD Rules C, D, E, F and I. 101. The project as proposed in permit application 96-280 subject to the conditions set forth below is in compliance with the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. III. RESOLUTION NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers, by a vote of 5 yeas and 2 nays as follows: Permit number 96-280 will be granted to the City of Mound for the activities set forth in permit application number 96-280 pending approval of the activities by the Lake Mirmetonka Conservation District, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and with the following conditions: 1. Revised riprap detail be approved by the MCWD; 2. Documentation must be submitted to the MCWD that multiple silt flotation curtains will be installed within the channel during dredging; 3. The project receives a SDS permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to dispose of the dredge spoils; Lighto& buoys are placed around the entire mm-around area at the north end of the channel; 5. The City will perform sediment testing for the presence of PCB's, based upon the method for sampling and analysis prescribed by the MPCA; the results in conjunction with mitigative measures prescribed by the MPCA (as necessary) must be determined by the MPCA to meet or to below acceptable standards, which determination the MCWD shall consider final; and 6. receipt by the MCWD of a performance bond for the project. c_~5 ~5~ 14 YEAS NAYS BLIXT X GROSS X LABOUNTY X LOVE X MAPLE X REID X THOMAS X Upon vote, the Chair declared the Resolution passed. Dated: t~~~ ~ ,1997 Monica Gross Secretary 15 Minnehaha Creek 0 Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (952) 471-0590 Fax: (952) 471-0682 REVIEW OF LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS IN THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT CHECKLIST Email: admin @ minnehahacreek.org Web Site: www. minnehahacreek.org Board of Managers Pamela G. Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Scott Thomas Malcolm Reid Robert Schroeder MUNICIPALITY: BASIC REQUIREMENTS: MN STATUTE 103B.235 Included Requirement Comments Describe existing and proposed physical environment and land use Define drainage areas and the volumes, rates, and paths of stormwater runoff Identify areas and elevations for stormwater storage adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan Define water quantity and water quality protection methods adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan Identify regulated areas Set forth an implementation program, including a description of official controls and, as appropriate, a capital improvement plan i~ Printed o~ retrial paper containing al least 30% ~:x3st consumer waste. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (952) 471-0590 Fax: (952) 471-0682 Email: admin @ minnehahacreek, org Web Site: www. minnehahacreek.org Board of Managers Pamela G. Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Scott Thomas Malcolm Reid Robert Schroeder recycled paper co~taining at least 30% i~osl coe, sumer waste. Review of Local Water Management Plans in the MCWD -- Checklist REPORT STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS: MN RULE 8410.0170 Included Specifies Purpose of programs Include agreements Requirement "Purpose" Water resource management related agreements Executive Summary Land and water resource inventory All relevant data on: Precipitation Geology and topographic data Surface water resources data -Public waters and ditches -National Wetlands Inventory Map -Functional values of wetlands inventory or plan -Hydrologic characteristics of public waters table if provided by DNR -Maps showing areas served by stormwater systems identifying ponds and ouffalls -100-yr flood levels and peak discharges of existing and proposed stormwater ponds and channels -Known flooding problems -Flood insurance studies -Water quality data and PCA, DOT, etc. information -Monitoring sites -Surface water appropriations Soil data Land use and public utility services Water based recreation areas and land ownership Fish and wildlife habitat, management plans, surveys Unique features and scenic areas 2 of 6 Comments Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (952) 471-0590 Fax: (952) 471-0682 Email: admin@minnehahacreek.org Web Site: www. minnehahacreek.org Board of Managers Pamela G, Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Scott Thomas Malcolm Reid Robert Schroeder Review of Local Water Management Plans in the MCWD - Checklist REPORT STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED): Included Requirement Specifics Comments Land and water All relevant data on: resource inventory Establishment of policies and goals Assessment of problems Corrective actions Financial consideration Implementation priorities and program "Amendments to Plan" Appendix Pollutant sources (landfills, hazardous waste, feedlots, etc.) Consistent with MCWD and Establish the relation to local, state, federal plans Nonstructural, Programmatic, and Structural Cost of plan On the local level: Regulatory controls Design performance standards Information program Monitoring program Management program Procedure for amendments {Pnnled o~1 recycled paoer coataininO at least 30% post consumer waste. 3 of 6 Mtnnel al a reek Watershed District Iml~roving Quali~y of Water, Quali~y of Life Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (952) 471-0590 Fax: (952) 471-0682 Email: admin @ minnehahacreek.org Web Site: www. minnehahac~eek, org Board of Managers Pamela G. Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Scott Thomas Malcolm Reid Robert Schroeder Review of Local Water Management Plans in the MCWD - Checklist CONTENT/POLICY REQUIREMENTS: CONFORM WITH MCWD WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN, 1997 Municipality currently has responsibility for: Municipality is submitting plan to assume responsibility for: Included Regulation Specific Requirement Comments Wetland WCA regulation __Buffers required __No net loss of quality, quantity, or biodiversity MPCA standards, BMP's Erosion and Sediment Controls Erosion and Sediment Control Enforcement Local Shoreland and Floodplain Ordinances Water Quality Public Nuisances Stormwater and Drainage Design Performance Standards In-Lake Nutrient Concentrations Erosion and sediment control for development and redevelopment sites and BMP enforcement DNR shoreland ordinances Restrict use of phosphorus fertilizer __Lake long term average phosphorus concentrations or __Based on lake depth as in the table below: Maximum Lake Target Phosphorus Depth Iml Concentration (lag/Il > 20 30 5 - 20 50 < 5 90 whichever is lower {Print~ on recycled I~o~r containing at leas~ 30% ~ c~sumer waste. 4 of 6 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (952) 471-0590 Fax: (952) 471-0682 Email: admin @ minnehahacreek.org Web Site: www. minnehahacreek.org Board of Managers Pamela G. Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Scott Thomas Malcolm Reid Robert Schroeder Review of Local Water ManaEement Plans in the MCWD -- Checklist CONTENTfPOLICY REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED): Included Regulation Specific Requirement Comments Stormwater and Drainage Design Performance Standards (cont.) Maximum Permissible RunoffRates Floodplain Standards Design Criteria for Stormwater Outlet Structures Pond design methodology Pollutant loading requirements Existing peak rates should not be exceeded for 1, 1 O, and 1 O0 year events in the subwatershed. (Rule B) __Preserve existing water storage capacity below 100-year flood elevations and All structures shall be constructed so that all windows and doors are a minimum of two feet above the 100- year flood elevation (Floodplain alteration rule) Remove floatables fi-om runoff of 1-year event and __Stormwater facilities required to be located on drainage, utility, and/or flowage easements (Rule B) MPCA standards (efficiency at 40- 70 percent) MPCA standards {~ Printed On rec!~ied paper containing at teasl ~ oo~ c~nsum~ waste. 5 of 6 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (952) 471-0590 Fax: (952) 471-0682 Email: admin @ minnehahacreek.org Web Site: www. minnehahacreek.org Review of Local Water Management Plans in the MCWD -- Checklist CONCLUSIONS OF REVIEW: Board of Managers Pamela G. Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Scott Thomas Malcolm Reid Robert Schroeder Reviewer Date 6 of 6 i~ Printed on rec'fc~d pape~ conlanin~ at least 30% post ceflsum~' waste. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINIY~S - APRIL 11. 2000 1.8 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC FIEARING REGARDING TIlE SURFACE WATER MANAG~ PLAN. Mr. Dan Parks gave the background on the Surface Water Management Plan ("SWMP") and reported its final presentation is derived from information received from Planning Commission, the public and staff over the past months. If the plan is approved tonight, it will proceed to the Minnehaha Watershed District for approval and at that point, the Plan would be included as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Weycker wanted to be assured the fee scale on the utilities is appropriate to mention. Mr. Parks agreed. Councilmember Weycker stated on page 48, she would like the words "unmaintained" removed when referring to the buffer zone. Councilmember Hanus stated if this was adopted the way it currently is presented the green way downtown would be gone as well as the grant. Councilmember Mayor would like a better definition of a buffer zone. Mr. Parks explained the buffer zones requirements in great detail that would include buffers on platted land. He stated for the SWMP to be approved by the Watershed District, it would need to include some mention of a buffer zone in the Plan and how it will be incorporated into the City of Mound. He stated a buffer zone would help restore the shoreline, reduce migration of geese, and hold back chemicals being sent to the lake at large levels. Councilmember Hanus asked what percentage there is that states weeds will provide better filtering versus mowing the lawn and why would the geese stay away more when they now would have more protection in these high weeds, and easy access to food by wandering up to the grass. Mr. Parks stated there is no scientific study he is aware of that having a buffer zone will be any better than mowing the grass and, secondly, he stated the geese will go where they want to go and will go where there is grass, which seems more assessable when it is right down to the lake. Councilmember Brown stated he would appreciate the document when it refers to the buffer zone to have it not say it will be 'required", but rather 'recommend~ or something to that effect. Mayor Meisel asked why the City of Mound want an ordinance that the City Council would not want to enforce. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL I 1, 2000 Councilmember Hanus stated he is opposed to buffer zones. He stated he would suggest turning the SVqlM1~ into the Watershed District with no mention of including a buffer zone and show that the City of Mound is totally against this idea. Mayor Meisel agreed. Mayor Meisel is very concerned with having a buffer zone in the commons area. She stated a buffer in the commons would basically mean the commons would be gone at some point. Mr. Parks wanted to clarify that the Watershed District will not accept the SWMP without a buffer zone inclusion, although, he would surely present the SWMP without a buffer zone if that is what the City Council approves, and then we will see what happens. We could discussing the SWMP again in 90 days. Councilmember Hanus would like to know what cities have adopted a buffer zone. Mr. Parks stated Chanhassen, Wayzata, Minnetrista, and Shorewood have presented a buffer zone in their SWMP. Councilmember Weycker stated the definition of what a buffer zone is not clear in the SWMP. The Acting City Manager suggested Teal Point with its surrounding wetlands as an example of buffer zones that exist in City of Mound. Councilmember Hanus stated he feels having a buffer zone would depreciate property values in the City of Mound. Councilmember Weycker stated if this is mandated by the Watershed District, then why is the City of Mound rejecting this idea. Councilmember Hanus suggested if the Watershed District receives a lot of opposition, they may change their requirement role. Mayor Meisel excused herself as Mayor and Councilmember Hanus took over as Acting Mayor at 10:39 p.m. Mayor Meisel returned and reconvened at 10:55 p.m. Orv Burma, 3011 Island View Drive. Mr. Burma stated he has three comments. (1) Mr. Parks eluded to the local control issue of the buffers and if the City leaves the buffer zone section in the SWMP and it gets approved, the City of Mound could enforce the buffer as vigorously as Wayzata; (2) the SWMP should include the words ~up to 75 percent" for a buffer zone consideration; and (3) the word "encourage" should be put in rather than "require" regarding buffers. Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 10:56 p.m. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hans, to adopt the Surface Water Management Plan as presented by staff. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL I 1, 2000 RF.~OLUTION g00.43 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AS RECOM34ENDED BY STAFF. AM1OqDMgNT MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to amend the motion with Nos. 1-5 listed below: Indicate on page 48 to say the City will "recommend" natural nnmaintained wetland buffers around lakes, wetlnnds or water ways .... ® Indicate on page 48, the buffers shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide and cover "up to" 75 percent of lot frontage .... Indicate on page 48, the City will encourage the placement of 20 feet natural buffer of all city lakes, wetlands, waterbodies and commons. ® Counciimember Weycker made a friendly amendment of removing the word "unmaintained' throughout the buffer requirement section. Councilmember Brown accepted Councilmember Weycker's friendly amendment. Counciimember Weycker made a friendly amendment that the word "vetative' to be changed to say "vegetated." This is merely a spelling error. Councilmember Brown accepted the friendly amendment. e Mayor Meisel made a friendly amendment striking the buffer zone paragraph on page 48 which states: "In addition, the City will encourage the placement of 20 foot natural buffers around all City lakes, wetlands, and waterbodies.' Councilmember Brown accepted Mayor Meisel's friendly amendment, although Weycker did not accept this amendment as the seconder of the motion. Amendment motion failed 2-3, with Brown & Weycker in favor. Ahrens, Hanus and Meisel voting nay. Amendment motion by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens, to remove all references to buffer zone requirements which include pages 6, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 37, 40 and 48. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 11, 2000 Amsndm nt motion carried 3.2, with Ahr ns, Hanus and Meisel in favor and Brown and Weycker voting nay. Discns_~on: Councilmember Brown stated if the SWMP is approved without any information about buffers, we will need to review it again in 90 days. Mayor Meisel stated she would rather send the SWMP forward without a buffer reference which would then allow the Councilmembers more time to investigate what other lake cities have passed regarding buffer zones in their SWMP and after that point the Councilmembers might be in better agreement about a buffer zone. Councilmember Alu'ens agreed. Councilmember Hanus stated this will show that the City of Mound is being proactive by passing the SWMP on for the Watershed District's review. Councilmember Weycker suggested having the buffer zone on a case-by-case basis and she does not agree the buffer zone is a bad thing because of what the experts have discovered about buffer zones. Motion on RESOLUTION//00-42 as amended above, carried, 4-1. Weycker voting nay. 1.9 PEMBROKE PARK MULTIPLE DOCK NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION. Mayor Meisel suggested opening discussions up to the public regarding this. Orv Burma, 3011 Island View Drive. Mr. Burma stated this has gone on way too long and there has been some mishandling of this matter from beginning to end. He further stated in his opinion with regard to what failed in this matter are the following items: The issue should have been presented in front of the DCAC and the POSC before it was addressed by the City Council. The Committee that was requested by the City Council should have been formed long before this past week. When this item was agreed to be placed on the DCAC agenda, staff and/or the Acting City Manager should not have removed this from the agenda. Having done this, staff should have notified individuals involved in this matter that this specific item was removed. More restraint by individuals should and could have been avoided both in writing and verbally. Mr. Burma stated to resolve this issue we need to think about all persons involved. Mr. Burma stated the group came up with a good solution regarding the three dock sites. He Haddorff Field Reconstruction ! ~ ,i (full reh bilitati°n/reC°nstructi° e'~ rio) i a n sc a ~ i _pr_elim!nary Estimate of Probable Costs - June 8, 2000 Prepared by Hoisington Koegter Group Inc. -~)escription -[ Unit :~' unitP~iC~ ~ Totals Site Preparation ~1 ~)i~iiiz~ti~ ....... Ti ~ L~rnp-S~ ~ ~-2~o,oo0 $2o,oo0 _Er0s~°n control ..... ! ! ._Lum~p Sum i $8,000 $8,000 Ma~s_s~Gra~ding ....... ' 1 .~ump Sum Utility Extension (san., storm, water, elec.) 1 Lump Sum ! $80,000 $80,000 Subtotal Site Improvements ~ ~ 'Lum 60 Car Parking Lot ' -- Hockey Rink w/boards, paving, lighting i 1 Lump Sum I $125,000 $125,000 ~Seb~ii Field w~dug-0uts & ii~-hting ~-~ ~ [.~mp~m ; ~14~,000 ' ~-45,000 ' ~0~tball Fijid ...... !i 1 Lum~ Sum ! ' $45,-00~ '~ $745,000 B~tting C~ge 1 'Lump~Sum ' -$15,000 ! ' Soccer Field w/Goals 2 EACH , $25,000 ~i $50,000 Play structure .... : i i · Lump ~um $50 000 [' $50 000 Site Trails i ~ 1 Lump Sum i $15,000 ~i $15,000 ~a-rkSign ..... ~ ~ ~-L. ump~ ' $10,000 !I $~0,000 Site Fencing ~ i 1 Lump Sum i $25,000~ $25,000 Security Lighting _ 1 Lump Sum [ $25,000 $25,000 Landscaping ..... General sit~ To~p_so_ii_&_T_ud .... 1 Lum~ Sum i $20,000 I $20,000' Site Buildings Concession Bldg. w/Restrooms ~ 1 Lump Sum i $80,000 [ $80,000 / ~/arming- House ...... .... ~ub tota~l Contingency/2 yr. Inflation factor ~)e sign/Engine~'n~-n~ ~n./~ !t_ing~ " ~onstruction Sta~i~in~? Grand Total' Suggested BUdget EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 0 To: ~ From: LIJ Subject: ~: Date: Kandis Hanson Jim Prosser Storm Sewer Rate Recommendations June 7, 2000 The City Council has previously received the Storm Sewer Rate Study prepared by Ehlers & Associates. The Council directed that recommendations be provided regarding the level of funding required for the storm sewer program. Based on discussions with Public Works Director Greg Skinner, City Engineer John Cameron, and Finance Director Gino Businaro the following recommendations are provided: Fundine Level Use Estimated Annual Cost Funding for storm sewer projects (see attachment) debt service-15 years $75,000 Annual maintenance and improvement projects 10,000 Annual operations and maintenance 15,000 Total $100,000 Based on this funding level, the residential rate would be $4.89 per quarter. Sample rates for other users is shown in Table One. Implementation The ordinance enacting the Storm Sewer Utility Rate requires that a public hearing be conducted prior to implementing the rate. In accordance with this requirement the following implementation steps are suggested: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Prepare newsletter/Laker article explaining storm sewer utility and rates. (July) Prepare Q&A sheet on storm sewer utility and rates. (July) Schedule open house for storm sewer utility and rates. (Late July) Conduct public hearing. (Early August) Consider rate ordinance. (Early - late August) Install rates in billing system. (September) Begin billing with rates effective December, 2000. LEADERS IN PUBLIC 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, MN 55113-1105 FINANCE 651.697.8503 fax 651.697.8555 jim@ehlers-inc.com Table 1 Estimated Sample Billing for Various Customers Property Type Single or Two Family Residential Apartments (Mtka - 2360 Commerce) 1 unit Condominium (Lakewinds - 4379 Wilshire) 192 units. Small Commercial (Glass Plus - 5533 Shoreline) Large Commercial (Jubilee Foods) Church (Lady of the Lake) School (Shirley Hills Elementary) $100,000 Annual Revenues Area .2 Acre $4.89/quarter Per $10,000 Annual Revenues $0.49/quarter .49 Acre $19.98/month $2.00/month $170.25/month $8.56/month $140.24/month $155.82/month $150.74/month 6.96 Acre .21 Acre 3.44 Acre 6.55 Acre 14.79 Acre $17.06/month $.86/month $14.02/month $15.58/month $15.07/month STORM SEWER PROJECT & COST -CITY OF MOUND YEAR 2000 PROJECT Halstead/West Edge Storm Sewer Improvement ESTIMATED COST $65,000 2001 Storm Water Ponding $150,000 CSAH 15 - Row Acquisition 2002 Storm Water Ponding $50,000 CSAH 15 - Construction 2003 Dakota Rail/Cottonwood LN $70,000 (2 Projects) 2004 Swenson Park $45,000 Storm ~Sewer Improvements 2004 Jennings/Dove $25,000 Storm Sewer Improvements 2005 Highland Blvd. Parkway $54,000 Storm Sewer Improvements 2006 Glendale/Avon $43,000 Storm Sewer Improvements 2006 Carlow LN/Black Lake LN $40,000 Storm Sewer Improvements TOTAL: $542,000 *Estimates are construction costs only and do not include engineering or administrative costs. Estimation at 1999 cost. Source: McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum May 19, 2000 TO: Kandis Hanson/City Manager FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director SUBJECT: 2001 Dock Fees. At the DCAC meeting, while discussing the June agenda, the commission talked about addressing increasing the Dock fees, for 2001. Council member Ahrens was present and noted that she was in the process of putting together a recommendation. I know that Mayor Meisel has expressed that this is a issue that needs to be dealt with for the upcoming season. I believe this process needs up front direction from the council to the DCAC on general expectations of where they want to see the fees. In the next couple of weeks I will be putting information together for the June DCAC meeting beginning the 2001 fee discussion. At your convenience I would like to discuss this with you. printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 9, 2000 City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~, PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CITY CODE SECTION 320 Attached is a draft and related background information for the proposed revisions to City Code 320 as directed at the Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting of 11-1-99. As you recall, the suggested changes came about as a result of the negative citizen reactions to fees and the redundancy of the renewal process. In addition, the changes streamline what has historically been approved by the council. Collectively the commissions comments were positive and supportive. I will attend the council meeting to answer any questions and I look forward to this discussion. After the discussion, the Council may wish to direct staff to prepare the ordinance for publication with a resolution for the first meeting in July. Enclosures printed on recycled paper PROPOSED REVISIONS TO SECTION 320:00 Mound City Code Section 320:00 Section 320 - Private Structures and Private Construction Activities on Public Lands Section 320:00. Special Permits for Certain Structures on Public Land. Subd. 1. Construction on Public Land Permit. Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, is unlawful unless a special construction on public land permit is issued as provided in this section. Any proposed construction, special use or land alteration shall require the applicant to provide necessary drawings to scale, specifications of materials to be used, proposed costs, and purpose for change. All special permits shall require a survey by a registered land surveyor before a special permit will be issued. Survey shall comply with the Mound Building Code survey requirements. Copies of such surveys, drawings, specifications of materials, proposed costs and statements of purpose shall be furnished to the City and kept on file in the City offices. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all the Council members. Subd. 2. Types of Construction Requirint, a Special Construction on Public Land Permit. All retaining walls, fences, temporary structures, stone work, concrete forming, or any type of construction shall require a special permit. No special construction permit shall be issued for construction of boathouses or other buildings on public land under Section 320 or any other ordinance of the City. Subd. 3. Public Land Repair Permits. No person shall conduct any structural repair on any boathouse or other structure on public lands without first receiving a special repair permit from the City in accordance with this subdivision. Staff recommendations for structural repair shall be consistent with current applicable zoning regulations. Applications for repairing existing boathouses or other structures may be obtained from the Building Inspector at the City offices. All applications for special repair permits shall be reviewed by the City Council. The Council shall determine if the repair permit shall be granted or denied, and may order any structure to be removed. The Council shall have the right to impose any reasonable conditions it may deem advisable to protect the public's use of the public shoreline. Subd. 4. Land Alteration. A special land alteration permit shall be required from the City before any alterations are made on public lands which would result in any changes to the following: shoreline, drainage, grade, pitch, slope, trees, or which require the removal or placement of any fill, or which eliminates, adds or develops any access road or land. This section specifically includes any alterations to uses which are nonconforming on the date this ordinance becomes effective. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all Council members. Structures located on public lands which are ordered removed by the City Council or by the City Building Official under any code or law may proceed under the supervision and direction of the City Building Official without the necessity for obtaining removal permits from the City Council. (ORD.//54-1991, 12-23-91) 6-8-00 Subd. 5. Exceptious to City Couucil Approval. 1) The installation of a stairway to provide access to an approved dock location is a recognized need, and does not require the prior approval of the Council. The Building Official may approve permits for the installation, replacement, and maintenance, of stairways for individual dock site holders. All stairways shall be constructed according to the Building Code as approved by the Building Official. A permit is required with a fee to be charged according to the building permit fee schedule in effect at the time of the permit application. All Permits shall be issued consistent with the Procedure Manual for Public Lands, the current Use Plan for each area and the Zoning Ordinances as applicable. General Public Access Stairways are not exempt and require full City Council approval. Subd. 6. Street Excavation Permit Required. Any permit issued under the provisions of this Section 320 is in addition to and not in lieu of any street excavation permit which may be required under the provisions of Section 605. Subd. 7. Certain Encroachments to continue. A) All encroachments (structures, buildings, boathouses, decks, sheds, retaining walls, fences, flagpoles, birdhouses, and other miscellaneous items) existing on April 1, 1976 or that has received prior written City Council approval (approval consists of a permit or recognition by City Council resolution or other written City approval), are hereby recognized and allowed to continue subject to the following. B) The Building Official shall conduct an inspection of each Public Commons on a rotating basis of every four years and evaluate the permitted encroachments for safety and condition and issue correction notices as needed. The Building Official shall follow up with a complete status report to the City Council to be completed each year by the end of June at which time the Council may advise any corrective action. Any action or staff recommendations shall be consistent with The Procedure Manual for Public Lands, the current Use Plan for each area, and the Zoning Ordinance as applicable. Subd. 8. Public Lands Procedure Manual. The City Manager and designated staff are authorized and directed to promulgate a Public Lands Procedural Manual and to establish necessary forms and procedures to administer the program and permit procedures set forth in this Section 320. The manual and procedures set forth in said manual shall be revised according to these regulations and reviewed and approved by the City Council by Resolution. The City Council may amend or change the Public Lands Procedural Manual by Resolution. (ORD.//62-1993 - 4/19/93) 2 6-8-00 MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTE~ - NOVEMBER 1, 1999 Councilmember Hanus stated he does not like any type of land trust agreements. There was the consensus tonight that the resolution put together by the Park the Comprehensive Plan is bypassing the City Council and this is incorrect. upon as 1.7 FROM COUNCILMEMBER WEYCKER TO POSC AND PARK ',ECTOR REGARDING THE REX ALWIN The con decision by that the above letter was prematurely regarding the before there was a group 1.8 FROM THE POSC 'DIE COMPRI 3 THE DOWNTOWN ;IVE PLAN. Councilmember Brown was un~imously rejected. within the Resolution, i.e., the The information about Commission. It was that this Comprehensive Plan. was looked at by the Planning Commission and tuber Brown stated there were inco~ect statements third, and fourth Whereas paragraphs on page 3675. was not appreciated either by the Planning of resolution does not belong in the 1.9 FROM THE POSC THE REX ALWIN AND THE COMPREH! E PLAN. Weycker was concerned why the first ~t of the resolution concerning the Rex property got rejected by the Planning Commissi~. See above comments in Items  1.6. , ~ There was no discussion from the City Engineer regarding the Surface Wal~Management Plan or the Councilmembers. See also Item 1.2 above. . ~ 1.11 ENCROACHMENT POLICY.. ~ The Building Official stated the Encroachment Policy is appropriate and has minimal additions and he would recommend it be presented at the next City Council meeting for adoption. Councilmember Weycker wanted to be assured all of Mr. Casey's questions were addressed in the Policy and the Building Official stated they had been addressed. Mayor Meisel stressed any new items that will come regarding land alterations will have to come before the City Council for approval. There was discussion regarding the subd. 1 section and instances where that would apply. The Building Official stated instances of retaining walls, right-of-ways and public ways. 809 MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTF~ - NOVF. MBER 1, 1999 The Building Official stated he will present a report of all encroachments in June, and if there is something that is not agreed upon, then the City Council can address it then. The Building Official stressed this encroachment policy is an improvement from the past and it does not give up anything in the code. Councilmember Hanus stated this is trying to recognize encroachments in areas that will do no harm to any citizen of the City of Mound. Staff was directed to reword page 3862, subd. 7B to include an inspection of properties on a rotating basis of every four years. This would havw Staff inspecting a quarter of the city each year. INFORMATION ITEMS Information from Mercer was distributed to Councilmembers tonight. ADJOURN. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to adjourn at 12:10 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Francene C. Clark, Acting City Manager Attest: Council Secretary 810 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 29, 1999 City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SUGGESTED CHANGES TO CITY CODE SECTION 320 Attached are the minutes and related information from staffs introduction to the advisory commissions of the suggested changes to City Code 320. Please note the suggested changes came about as a result of the negative citizen reactions to the $75.00 fee in addition to the redundancy of the renewal process. An item that receives a permit will generally outlast the duration of the permit (10+ years longevity vs 3-5 years permit cycle). Essentially the proposal only streamlines and does not change what has historically been approved by the council. Collectively the commissions comments were positive and supportive. The Dock and Commons Commission's main concern is that the requirement or need for a four- fifths vote should be reviewed by the council. The Planning Commission thought "structural repair" should be clearly defined, that 320 should be consistent with the use plan and procedure manual as once the ordinance was changed there could be some stairways installed that were not really necessary (the proposed section states that if you have a dock you automatically could get a stairway). The Park Commission (who should be applauded for there request for me to attend more that one meeting for discussion of the changes to which I resisted due to the fact that I needed to get further direction from the council), comments began with a concern with plantings that may spread and block access. Staff is not proposing any changes to 320:00 Subd.4.whigh regulates plantings. If there are existing plantings or issues that inhibit public access they will be addressed on a case by case basis and may be observed more readily by the proposed annual site inspection and report. printed on recycled paper Subd. 1: was discussed questioning to what lands would 320 apply? Generally it applies to a dedicated commons and not for instance to a road right of way. 320 could be clarified by the attorney when it comes to this issue and I will be ready to explain examples at the COW meeting. Subd.4: was the subject of some language modification to include shrubs or other vegetation. Subd.5: language modification to encourage a shared stairway. This could also be incorporated into the use plans for a specific area. Subd.7,B: it was suggested to change commons to lands. The issue of amortization language was suggested however this is an issue that staff has suggested in the past that historically has not been utilized. The issue of tying encroachments to the property owner was discussed and the attorney can assist in addressing this problem. A general discussion of what has been our experience over time should be included. My experience tells me that tying anything to the dock permit gets pro active attention from the person involved and also eliminates the need to discuss the issue with the council. A followup letter was also received with regards to amortization and the formal link between the encroachment and the perpe~tual property owner. This is more information for the city attorney to advise~and the council to discuss. / sPleen. So; ~1~. t~oS~gf~Strw~ar~rtdi~sc;isa~nu~.ent 320.~5 and a copy of our current ordinance Enclosures / TO: Dock & Commons Commission 5-20-99 EXHIBIT A Mound City Code Section 320 - Private Structures and Private Construction Activities on Public Lands 5ecti0n 320:00 Section 320:00. Special Permits for Certain Structures on Public Land. Subd, 1. Construction on Public Land Permit..Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, is unlawful unless a special construction on public land permit is issued as provided in this section, by thc Cit5- Council Any proposed construction, special use or land alteration shall require the applicant to provide necessary drawings to scale, specifications of materials to be used, proposed costs, and purpose for change. All special permits shall require a survey by a registered land surveyor before a special permit will be issued. Survey shall comply with the Mound Building Code survey requirements. Copies of such surveys, drawings, specifications of materials, proposed costs and statements of purpose shall be furnished to the City and kept on file in the City offices. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all the Council members. Subd. 2. Tvpes of Construction Requiring a Special Construction on Public Land Permit. Ail stairways, retaining walls, fences, temporary structures, stone work, concrete forming, or any type of construction shall require a special permit. No special construction permit shall be issued for construction of boathouses or other buildings on public land under Section 320 or any other ordinance of the City. Subd. 3. Public Land Maintcnancc Repair Permits. No person shall conduct arty structural repair on maLutain any boathouse or other structure on public lands without first receiving thcrc for a special maintcnancc repair permit from the City in accordance with this subdivision. Staff recommendations for structural revair shall be consistent with currem applicable zoning regulations. Applications for maintain~g repairing existing boathouses or other structures may be obtained from the Building Inspector at the City offices. All applications for special maintcnancc repair permits shall be reviewed by the City Council. The Council shall determine if the maintcnancc repair permit shall be granted or denied, and may order any structure to be removed. Spccial pcrmits arc rcquircd for any maintcnanec such as maintaining rctaining walls, stoncwork, eoncrctc or othcr typcs of to improvcmcnts on public lands. The Council shall have the right to impose any reasonable conditions it may deem advisable to protect the public's use of the public shoreline. Ali structurcs, rctaining walls, stoncwork, concrctc, or othcr improvcmcnts on public lands arc rcquircd to havca public land maintcnnncc pcrrrfit from and aftcr April 1, 1976. Subd. 4. Land Alteration. A special land alteration permit shall be required from the City before any alterations are made on public lands which would result in any changes to the following: shoreline, drainage, grade, pitch, slope, trees, or which require the removal or placement of any fill, or which eliminates, adds or develops any access road or land. This section specifically includes any alterations to uses which are nonconforming on the date this ordinance becomes effective. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all Council members. Structures located on public lands which are ordered removed by the City Council or by the City Building Official under any code or law may proceed under the supervision and direction of the City Building Official without the necessity for obtaining removal permits from the City Council. (ORD. #54-1991, 12-23-91) Sub& 5. Exceptions to CRv Council Approval. 1) The installation of a stairwca, to provide access to an approved dock location is a recognized need. and does not require the prior approyal of the Council. The Building O~cial may approve permits for the installation, replacement, and maintenance, of stairways for individual dock site holders. All stairwcrvs shall be constructed according to the Building Code as approved by the Building Official. A permit is required with a fee to be charged according to the building permit fee schedule in effect at the time of the permit application.~ All Permits shall be issued consistent with the Procedure Manual for Public Lands, the 'current Use Plan for each area and the Zoning Ordinances as applicable. General Public Access Stairways are not e:cempt and reauire full City Council approval. Subd.---5 6. Street Excavation Permit Required. Any permit issued under the provisions of this Section 320 is in addition to and not in lieu of any street excavation permit which may be required under the provisions of Section 605. Subd. 7. certain Encroachments to continue. A) All encroachments (structures, buildings, boathouses, decks, sheds, retaining walls, fences, flagpoles, birdhouses, and other miscellaneous items) existing on April I. I976 or that has received prior written Cin, Council approval (approval consists ora permit or recognition by Ci~' Council resolution or other written Cirx, approval), are hereby recognized and allowed to continue subject to the following. B) The Building Official shall conduct an annual inspection of each Public Commons, evaluate the ~ermitred encroachments for safety and condition, and issue correction notices as needed. The Building O~cial shall follow up with a comz~lete status report to the Cin, Council to be comoleted each year bx' the end of June at which time the Council max, advise an,: corrective action. AnY action or staff recommendations shall be consistent with The Procedure Manual for Public Lands. the current Use Plan for each area, and the Zoning Ordinance as applicable. Subd. 6-.8_ Public Lands Procedure Manual. The City Manager and designated staff are authorized and directed to promulgate a Public Lands Procedural Manual and to establish necessary forms and procedures to administer the program and permit procedures set forth in this Section 320. The manual and procedures set forth in said manual shall be revised according to these regulations and reviewed and approved by the City Council by Resolution. The CiD' Council may amend or change the Public Lands Procedural Manual by Resolution. (ORD. #62-1993 - 4/19/93) Section 320.05 Continuation of Ccrtain Structurcs constructcd on or bcforc April 1, 1976. 2 11-28-98 $~_bd. L Statcmcnt of Intcnt. Thc City finds and dctcrmincs that ccrtain structurcs ~'llicl~ ~crc cithcr constructed or placed on hkcshorc public common~ on or bcforc Lpfil I, 1976, should bc pcrmitted to rcmain subject to thc pro¥isiom contained or rcferc, rteed in this Section. Thc structurcs which arc covcrccl by this section includc buildings ('including boathouscs) platforms, fcnccs, flagpolcs and birdhousc. ('Subjcct Stmcturc"). Thg.t¢~ :.maintcnancc"as used in this $cction shall also mcan thc usc or kccping of any Subject Stmcturc. Subd." Special Pcrmit for Subject Structurcs. No pcrson shall eontinuc to maintain any Subjcct Structurc on lakcshorc public ~mmons without first rccciving a aPecialpcrmit from thc Cit')' Council. Pcrmit applicatio~ may bc obtaincd from thc city b~djng official. Su.~d' 3., Critcria for Issuancc. Thc City Council shall issuc thc spcciai pcrmit ~ss it finds an}' of thc following conditions to bc prcscnt: A. significant safcty problcms cxist which thc strucmrc's owncr is unable or unwllling to rccfif-y within a rc~onablc timc pcriod: or B. safct5' hazards cxist for which thc ~st of rcpair is cqual to 50 % or morc of thc dcprcciatcd rcplaccmcnt valuc of thc Subjcc: Struc:urc pr:~or to rcpair; or C. thc functional usc of thc Subjcct Structurc is impaircd such that rcstoration to functionality would cost 502 or morc of thc dcprcciatcd rcplaccmcnt valuc of thc Subjcct Strucmrc bcforc rcpair; D. acsthctic appcarancc of thc Subjcct Structurc has bccomc so dcficicnt that a rcstoration to an acccptablc appcarancc would cost 50% or morc of thc dcprcaintcd rcplaccmcnt valuc of thc Subjcct Srmcmrc bcforc rcpair. E. thc strucmrc significantly hinders thc usc of thc public commons by others and thc owncr is unwilling or unablc to allcviatc thc hindrancc within a rcasonablc biound City Codc Scction 320:05., Subd. I. F¢~ings by thc City Council on thcsc ma~crs shall bc dccmed conclusivc. Sub.cl. 1. Pcrmit Duration and Fcc. Permits shall bc for a fivc year period eommcncing on January 1 of thc ycar of issuancc. Thc fcc shall bc in an amount as act by.thc council in Scction 510.[*o75.00] which is payablc in fivc cqual annual inst~llmcnts q.[ ~15.00 cach. Thc first annual installmcnt is duc at thc timc of application and _s3..'.b,_s. qqucnt installmcnts arc duc on or bcforc thc last day of Fcbruary of cach ycar during th.c. Jcfm of thc pcrmit. In instanccs in which thc pcrmit holdcr is also thc holdcr of a city dock Iiecmc, thc annual dock liccnsc will not bc issued until thc annual imtallmcnt has becn paid unlcss thc Subjcct Structurc pcrmit holdcr providcs thc Cit'}' with a writtcn statcmcnt rclinquishing all intcrcst in thc Subjcct Structurc and conscnting to its rcmoval by thc City. Subjcct Structurc pcrmit fccs will bc placcd in a scparatc account which win 3 ll-28-qa b_c.d_edicated to cxpcnditurcs incurred in thc administration and cnforecmcnt of activifics Undcr this Section. Subd. 5. Transfcr of Pcrmit. Pcrmits issued undcr this scction may bc transfcrrcd by thc pcrmittec to third panics who bccomc thc owncr and occupant of thc propcrty primarily bcncfittccl by thc Subjcct Structurc. Such transfcr shall not eonfcr to thc transfcrec any furthcr rights than tho,sc hcld by thc transfcror at thc timc of transfcr. Rcqucsts for transfcr shall bc madc in writing to thc City Building Official who shall approvc thc tramfcr in writing unlcss conditions cxist which would constimtc grounds for '6~suant to subdivision 8 bclow. Subd. 6./ Conditions for Issuancc. Thc City Council ma)' attach conditions to ...p~grantcd undcr this scction. Such conditions may includc, without limitation: A.. a writtcn a~ccmcnt, backed with sccurity dccmcd rcasonablc by thc City Council, providing for thc rcmoval of thc Subjcct Strucrurc whcn it is no longcr undcr pcrmit, and acknowlcdging thc structurc owncrs obligation to rcmovc thc strucmrc and/or pa)' for thc cost of doing so. B. A covcnant, to bc rccordcd among thc CounU land rccords, cxecutcd by thc applicant in form acccptablc to :hc Cit5' indc:-rmi~'ing, holding hn?'m.lcss and agrccing to dcfcnd thc City against any clainxs bascd upon thc continucd maintcnancc of thc Subjcct Strucmrc. Subd. 7. RcPair. Modification and Altcration of Subjcct Structurc. Exccpt to thc CXtcnt inconSistcnt with thc provisions of this Scction, unlcss provisions undcr Subd. 3 apply, rcpair, modification or altcration of thc Subjcct Structurc will bc trcatcd a~ if thc Subjcct Strucmrc wcrc a non conforming strucmrc locatcd on privatc propcrty in accordancc with thc provisions of Scction 350:420, subdivisions 1 through 8. ~9~.u~.~d Cit5' Codc Scction 320:05., Subd. 8. Subd. 8. Tcrmination of Pcrmit. Pcrmits issucd undcr this section may bc tcrminatcd and thc transfcr may bc dcclincd upon a dctcrmination by thc City Council that any of thc following conditions cxist: A. ny of thc critcria dcscribcd in SubdMsion 3 of this section arc found to cxist; B. Thc Subjcct Structurc has bccn abandoned. C. Thc pcrmit fcc has not bccn paid. 4 11-28-98 E~o~,Y~-.fi..~.~fi'~b~_s~,c~ ,~tion, thc C~ may cxcrcisc whatcvcr rcmcdy ~S availnbl'c tg:~ c~,~.c.~.b~/~o~_tr~c~ or at lnw to secure thc rcmov~l of thc Subject Structurc. (ORD. #101 199-~ 11-28-98) 5 11-28 -98 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 9, 1999 Park Commission Jon Sutherland, Building Official PROPOSED CHANGES TO CITY CODE SECTION 320 You have requested that I attend tonight's meeting in order to answer questions raised relating to the suggested ordinance amendments to section 320 and commisioner Casey's memo of July 9"'. I am not ready to bring anything back until myself and the City Planner compile the initial information and comments from each commission and report back to the City Council. We will also include the input of the City Attorney prior to going to the council. The Ordinance will not be presented for any changes without your continued input. Essentially the proposed amendments were well received and staff did get some good feedback that needs to be addressed. It is likely that we could report to the council and get some direction by the end of October. Please call me directly if you have any questions regarding our progress and I will try to keep this issue high on the priority list. JS: prinled on recycled paper Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission August 12, 1999 4. REVIEW: ENCROACHMENT POLICY Commissioner Meyer stated no new draft has been done yet. Commissioner Casey presented the following memo, which was sent to Building Official John Sutherland on July 9, 1999: "Last evening the Mound Park and OPen Space Advisory Commission discussed the proposed revisions to Mound City Code Section 320.00, during which time we discussed legislative changes to the city's power to "amortize" non-conforming uses. For your review, I have enclosed Chapter 96 of the 1999 Minnesota Legislative Session Laws. In my opinion, this new law does not affect the city's ability to remove or amortize encroachment on its own property. Unfortunately, the proposed ordinance provides little guidance about how to remove or amortize encroaching structures. As we discussed at last evening's meeting, it is best to draft ordinance language that specifies the criteria to consider when deciding to remove a structure or other encroachment. What are your thoughts about this and could you describe the criteria the city intends to use? Also, what is your latest advice on the city's legal power to remove encroachments? Finally, you mentioned that the city will formally "link" responsibilities for new encroachments to adjoining property owners in a way that will bind future property owners. Could you provide a sample legal document that reflects how this arrangement will be made? Thanks for your help." Commissioner Casey stated no answer has been received as yet. Councilmember Weycker asked if Building Official Suthedand should return to the POSC with answers to these questions. Commissioner Casey stated he would like to schedule Sutherland to attend the next meeting. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey to include in the next agenda a meeting with Building Official Jon Sutherland to hear answers to the questions raised at the July 8, 1999 POSC meeting, and in the memo of July 9. Motion carried unanimously July 9, 1999 TO: Jon Sutherland FROM: Tom Casey RE: Proposed Changes to Mound City Code Section 320. (Private Structures and Private Construction Activities on Public Lands.) Last evening the Mound Park and Open Space Advisory Commission discussed the proposed revisions to Mound City Code Section 320.00, during which time we discussed legislative changes to the city's power to "amortize" non- conforming uses. For your review, I have enclosed Chapter 96 of the 1999 Minnesota Legislative Session Laws. In my opinion, this new law does not affect the city's ability to remove or amortize encroachments on its own property. Unfortunately, the proposed ordinance provides little guidance about how to remove or amortize encroaching structures. As we discussed at last evening's meeting, it is best to draft ordinance language that specifies th9 criteria to consider when deciding to remove a structure or other encroachment. What are your thoughts about this and could you describe the criteria the city intends to use? Also, what is your latest advice on the city's legal power to remove encroachments? Finally, you mentioned that the city will formally "link" responsibilities for new encroachments to adjoining property owners in a way that will bind f9%ure property owners. Could you provide an sample legal docq~ent that reflects how this arrangement will be made? / / Thanks for your help. / Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission July 8, 1999 4. DISCUSS: REVISION TO PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION Building Official Sutherland presented suggested changes to Section 320 of the City Code, and requested suggestions for changes from the POSC in order to present these suggestions in conjunction with ones made by the other Commissions to the City Council. When presenting these suggested changes to some citizens who were affected, the response to the $15.00 annual fee was very negative. Building Official Suthedand pointed out which objections he agreed with, specifically and most often regarding fences which were put on the commons. Commissioner Casey pointed out that there is no language pertaining to bushes planted by residents which spread and eventually inhibit public use or access of commons property. Park Director Fackler explained that the fee was arrived at by using the average dollar amount the City spends on maintenance of encroachments per year, divided by a rough estimate of how many encroachments exist. Building Official Suthedand proceeded to address each change as Presented in the redlined copies of Section 320 distributed to the Commissioners. Some discussion occurred, and the following additional changes and concerns were suggested: Subd. 1: Some question arose of what Public Land Section 320 would apply to. Building Official Suthertand reported that the City Attorney's interpretation was only for commons land. Park Director Fackler and Councilmember Weycker disagreed with that interpretation, citing the very first sentence which reads: "...on any public way, park or commons..." Subd. 4: Subd. 5: Subd. 7,B: Commissioner Casey suggested the following addition:"...shoreline, drainage, grade, pitch, slope, trees, shrubs, or other veaetation, or which require...' Commissioner Casey suggested adding language to the effect that any time it is possible to construct a shared stairway, this option would be encouraged by the City. Park Director Fackler suggested the following wording change, in order to be more consistent with the first sentence of the section: "...inspection of each Public Commons Lands, evaluate the permitted..." Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission July 8, 1999 Commissioner Casey suggested adding language for amortization of encroachments, as right now this ordinance is set to allow the encroachments to stay-into infinity. Building Official SUtherland stated that the subject ~ amortization has been discussed to no avail in the past. More discussion followed regarding amortization, as follows: Chair Meyer tabled discussion at 10:00 p.m. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Cooper to continue the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Councilmember Weycker questioned the definition of amortization as pertains to this discussion. Commissioner Casey and Building Official Sutherland provided explanation of amortizing all encroachments to be off Public Lands in 'X" amount of years. Councilmember Weycker agreed that this should be addressed, as the ultimate goal is tc have all encroachments off Public Lands in the long run. Commissioner Boise questioned who owns an encroachment when a citizen sells a home and moves on. If the encroachment is not tied to the property, or included in the closin~ documents, the City ends up responsible for these items. Retaining walls are of the most concern as it can cost the City a lot to repair or replace. Building Official Sutherland stated that tying these items to the property clearly and permanently is the answer to that question. This is how the new ordinance would address this issue. This has not been done well in the past, and needs to be improved. Councilmember Weycker restated her concern that there is no guideline on how to go about having all encroachments removed over time. Commissioner Casey questioned the time flame, and whether this discussion could be tabled to the next meeting. Building Official Suthedand stated the comments need to be entered into the minutes tonight, and then reviewed and passed on to the Council. Also, additional written comments could be submitted. Chair Meyer tabled discussion at 10:30 p.m. Motion made by Domholt, seconded by Casey to continue the meeting 5 additional minutes. Motion carried unanimously. Mouncl Planning Commission Minul, es June 28. 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY~ JUNE 28, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller. and Frank Weiland. Absent with notice: Commissioners Jerry Clapsaddle and Bill Voss; Council Liaison: Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. -. DISCUSSION Section 320:00 - verbal report from Sutherland. Sutherland reported that this regarded an ordinance that regulates public land usage. Concern was raised that went to a task force and out of the task force comes the modifications he is discussing. He wanted the Planning Commission to have a chance to hear the changes and comment. Once enacted, he will be asked to enforce the new ordinances. Sutherland has met with over seventeen customers and with the Dock and Commons Commission. Some of the Commons are for use by the general public and other Commons are for specific neighborhoods. Permits will need to be issued for encroachments on these lands. Any new regulations will require a City Council approval unless in the land use plans. Mueller suggested that in Subd. 3, "structural repair" needs to be very clearly defined to avoid confusion or issues at a later date. Weiland indicated that Subd. 1 and Subd. 5 should be consistent in what vote is required from the City Council for approval of changes/uses. Mueller also indicated that Subd. 5 needs to be consistent with the Use Plan. He has a further concern that by adopting this prior to adopting specific o3mmons use plans could lead to other issues. He feels that the specific use plans should be looked at first,. Sutherland indicated that he would entertain comments from the Planning Commission to recommend that staff consider the impact of adoption of this ordinance prior to the review and update of specific use plans first since these plans need updating. The other option would be to have a motion to prevent any new structures on the Commons until the Use Plan is reviewed and modified as needed. Weiland asked the following question: if he didn't have a boat and was located on lakeshore, could he still have a stairway to get down to the lake. Burma stated that perhaps a mor'atodum would be a good thing to avoid these types of issues. Sutherland stated that the docks are approved only once a year. It was suggested that no manipulation of the system should occur pdor to the update of the Use Plans. Further, it was suggested that the Use Plans and the Procedure Manual need updating and perhaps could be accomplished with joint commission meetings. Mueller suggested language changes to Subd. 7, Paragraph B that he felt would allow staff act more effectively. Sutherland indicated that this code embodies the zoning codes. MoTION-by'v~eiland, soconY'ed by Mueller to adjourn the'Planni.ng COmmission meetino at 8:44 p.m;'~3TION CARRIED: 6-0. ' Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission May 20, 1999 Building Official Sutherland explained the proposed changes allow staff more freedom to deal with many of the issues without having to come before the Commission and/or Council. COmmissioner Ahrens asked if current boathouses on common space had to apply for repair permits. Building Official Sutherland stated the permit was still needed but would be handled at a staff level and only extreme cases with numerous concerns would be brought before the Commission and/or Council. Building Official Sutherland reviewed the one-time permit for Building Code issues as being stairways and decks. He stated the Procedure Manual and Current Use Plan both need updating with comments from the Planning Commission, Docks Commission, and Park Commission. Building Official Sutherland stated he would provide a status report to the Council every year in June to advise them of any corrective action that would be needed. He stated an update of the Procedure Manual and Use Plan would allow staff to be better prepared to handle issues at a staff level. Mayor Meisel stated that after reviewing the current Ordinance with Mr. Sutherland, she was amazed at the paperwork and "hoops" that residents were having to go through. She encouraged the Commission to allow staff to regulate these issues with the residents. Mayor Meisel added she didn't want to see over regulation in this area due to the fact staff can handle these situations. Commissioner Ahrens stated the changes were ideal for these situations. He explained the intentions were still the same within the Ordinance but the "hoops" were eliminated for the residents. Beth Anderson, 3001 Brighton Boulevard, stated a number of the encroaching structures within the City were preexisting before the current owners moved into the area. She stated she would tear down her encroached fence before paying the $15 fee because it would not be worth it. Robert Anderson, 3001 Brighton Boulevard, thanked Mr. Sutherland for his work on this issue and for keeping the residents in mind when revising this policy. Commissioner Goldberg applauded the efforts of staff and the Mayor on this Ordinance. He stated common sense simplified the process for all involved. Building Official Sutherland asked the Commission to allow him to bring this Ordinance to the Planning Commission and Park Commission for their review, in addition to reviewing the Procedure Manual and Use Plan. Commissioner Hanus asked if a four-fifths vote was needed for public property repairs versus a simple majority for private property. Commissioner Goldberg stated he 2 Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission May 20, 1999 understands the common space procedures and respects the extra protection. Commissioner Hanus noted the four-fifths vote makes issues more difficult to approve. Building Official Sutherland explained the four-fifths vote does not happen of[en. He stated that birdhouse and retaining walls are much more prevalent and are allowed in the commons. CommissionerAhrens asked what other issues require the feur-fifths vote. Building Official Sutherland stated a Zoning Code amendment is the only issue that requires a four-fifths vote. Commissioner Hanus stated the Planning Commission may have a concern with staff approved variances. Building Official Sutherland explained staff cannot grant variances under the revised Ordinance and they would still have to be brought to the Planning Commission and Council. Commissioner Hanus asked why retainir~ walls were not included as a staff level issue. Building Official Sutherland stated these'are complex issues due to the change in grade, new plantings, and additional landscaping which needs Council approval. Commissioner Goldberg asked if the flow chart was being incorporated into the new policy at this time. Building Official Sutherland stated this was in the policy at this time but the Commission will have time to review this Ordinance again at a later date. Motion by Funk, seconded by Goldberg, to forward the revised encroachment ordinance to City Council and other commissions, in addition to directing staff to work with the City Planner to propose revisions to the Procedure Manual which will be moved to the June meeting after review from staff. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ahrens asked that the four-fifths vote from Council be changed to a simple majority of the Council. Chair Funk stated he would be in favor of this amendment. Substitute motion by Funk, seconded by Goldberg, to forward the revised encroachment ordinance with a simple majority vote required, to City Council and other commissions, in addition to directing staff to work with the City Planner to propose revisions to the Procedure Manual which will be moved to the June meeting after review from staff. The motion passed unanimously. 3 Mound City Code Section 320:00 Section_ 320:00. Section 320 - l~'ivate Structures and Private Construction Activities on Public Lands Special Permits for Certain Structures on Public Land. Subd. 1. Construction on Public Land Permit. Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, is unlawful unless a special construction on public land permit is issued by the City Council. Any proposed constructiorl, special use or land alteration shall require the applicant to provide necessary drawings to scale, specifications of material, s to be used, proposed costs, and purpose for change. All special permits shall require a survey by a registered land surveyor before a special permit will be issued. Su~ey shall comply with the Mound Building Code survey requirements. Copies of such surveys, drawings, specifications of materials, proposed costs and statements of purpose shall be furnished to the City and kept on file in the City offices. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all the Council members. Subd. 2. Types of Construction Requiring a Special Construction on Public Land Permit. All stairways, retaining walls, fences, temporary structures, stone work, concrete forming, or any type of construction shall require a special permit. No special construction permit shall be issued for construction of boathouses or other buildings on public land under Section 320 or any other ordinance of the City. Subd. 3. Public Land Maintenance Permits. No person shall maintain any boathouse or other structure on public lands without first receiving therefor a special maintenance permit from the City in accordance with this subdivision. Applications for maintaining existing boathouses or other structures may be obtained from the Building Inspector at the City offices. All applications for special maintenance permits shall be reviewed by the City Council. The Council shall determine if the maintenance permit shall be granted or denied, and may order any structure to be removed. Special permits are required for any mnintenance such as maintaining reining walls, stonework, concrete or other types of improvements on public lands. The Council shall have the right to impose any reasonable conditions it may deem advisable to protect the public's use of the public shoreline. All structures, retaining walls, stonework, concrete, or other improvements on public lands are required to have a public land maintenance permit from and after April 1, 1976. Subd. 4. Land Alteration. A special land alteration permit shall be required from the City before any alterations are made on public lands which would result in any changes to the following: shoreline, drainage, grade, pitch, slope, trees, or which require the removal or placement of ahy fill, or which eliminates, adds or develops any access road or land. This section specifically includes any alterations to uses which are nonconforming on the date this ordinance becomes effective. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all Council members. Structures located on public lands which are ordered removed by the City Council or by the City Building Official under any code or law may proceed under the supervision and direction of the City Building Official without the necessity for obtaining removal permits from the City Council. (ORD. //54-1991, 12-23-91) 11-28-98 Mound City Code Section 320:00, Subd. 5. Subd. 5, Street Excavation Permit Required. Any permit issued under the provisions of this Section 320 is in ffddition to and not in lieu of any street excavation permit which may be required under the provisions of Section 605. Subd. 6. Public Lands Procedure Manual. The City Manager and designated staff are authorized and directed to promulgate a Public Lands Procedural Manual and to establish necessary forms and procedures to administer the program and permit procedures set forth in this Section 320. The manual and procedures set forth in said manual shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council by Resolution. The City Council may amend or change the Public Lands Procedural Manual by Resolution. (ORD.//62-1993 - 4/19/93) Section 320.05 Continuation of Certain Structures constructed on or before ^pall 1. 1976. Subd. 1. Statement of Intent. The City finds and determines that certain structures which were either constructed or placed on lakeshore public commons on or before April 1, 1976, should be permitted to remain subject to the provisions contained or referenced in this Section. The structures which are covered by this section include buildings (including boathouses) platforms, fences, flagpoles and birdhouse. ("Subject Structure"). The term "maintenance'as used in this Section shall also mean the use or keeping of any Subject Structure. Subd. 2. Special Permit for Subject Structures. No person shall cOntinue to maintain any Subject Structure on lakeshore public commons without first receiving a special permit from the City Council. Permit applications may be obtained from the city building official. Subd. 3. Criteria for Issuance. The City Council shall issue the special permit unless it finds any of the following conditions to be present: A. significant safety problems exist which the structure's owner is unable or unwilling to rectify within a reasonable time period; or B. safety hazards exist for which the cost of repair is equal to 50% or more of the depreciated replacement value of the Subject Structure prior to repair; or C. the functional use of the Subject Structure is impaired such that restoration to functionality would cost 50%. or more of the depreciated replacement value of the Subject Structure before repair; D. aesthetic appearance of the Subject Structure has become so deficient that a restoration to an acceptable appearance would cost 50% or more of the depreciated replacement value of the Subject Structure before repair. E. the structure significantly hinders the use of the public commons by others and the owner is unwilling or unable to alleviate the hinderance within a reasonable time. 2 11-28-95 Mound City Code Section 320:05., Subd. 4. Fin~inD b~/thc £~t,j Council on thcr~ mattct~ ~hall be decmcfi conclu~i¥c. 5ubd. 4. Permit Duration and Fee. Permits shall be for a five year period commencing on lanuary 1 of the year of issuance. The fee shall be in an amount as set by ~e council in Section 510.[$75.00] which is pay~le in five equal annual installment~ of $15.00 each. The first annual installment is due at the time of application and subsequent installments are due on or before the last day of February of each year during the term of the permit. In instances in which the permit holder is also the holder of a city dock license, the annual dock license will not be issued, until the annual installment has been paid unless the Subject Structure permit holder provides the City with a writmn statement relinquishing all interest in the Subject Structure and consenting to its removal by the City. Subject Structure permit fees will be placed in a separate account which will be dedicated to expenditures incurred in the adminisU'ation and enforcement of activities under ds Section. Subd. 5. Transfer of Permit. Permits issued under this section may be transferred by the permittee to third parties who become the owner and occupant of the property primarily benefited by the Subject Structure. Such transfer shall not confer to the transferee any further fights than those held by the transferor at the time of transfer. Requests for transfer shall be made in writing to the City Building Official who shall approve the transfer in writing unless conditions exist which would constitute ~ounds for action pursuant to subdivision 8 below. Subd. 6. Conditions for Issuance. The City Council may attach conditions to permits granted under this section. Such conditions may include, without limitation: A. a written agreement, backed with security deemed reasonable by the City Council, providing for the removal of the Subject Structure when it is no longer under permit, and acknowledging the structure owners obligation to remove the structure and/or pay for the cost of doing so. B. A covenant, to be recorded amoung the County land records, executed by the applicant in form acceptable to the City indemnifying, holding harmless and agreeing to defend the City against any claims based upon the continued maintenance of the Subject Structure. Subd. 7. Repair, Modification and Alteration of Subject Structure. Except to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this Section, unless provisions under Subd. 3 apply, repair, modification or alteration of the Subject Structure will be treated as if the Subject Structure were a non-conforming structure located on private property in accordance with the provisions of Section 350:420, subdivisions 1 through 8. 3 11-28-98 Mound City Code Section 320:0f, Subd. 8. Subd. S. Termination of Permit. Permits issued under this section ma), be termin~ted and the transfer my be declined upon a determination by the City Council that any of the following conditions exist: A. Any of thc criteria described in Subdivision 3 of this section are found to exist; B. The Subject Structure has been abandoned. C. The permit fee has not been paid. D. There has been a violation or lapse of any condition imposed on the permit. Follow/nE notice of such termin:~tlon, the City may exercise whatever remedy is available to it either by contract or at law to ~cure the removal of the Subject Structure. (ORD. #101-1998- 11-28-98) 4 11-28-98 0 0 0 0 Hay Z5 Z008 15:89:45 Via Fax -> Kandis Hanson AMM FAX lie May 22-26, 2000 ?age 881 Of 881 Hetropolitan Hunicipalities Top Met Council official to retire The Metropolitan Council's top staff person, Regional Administra- tor Jim Solem, announced his retire- ment yesterday at a Council meeting. "It's been fun," Solem said. "There's no other organization like the Metro- politan Council anywhere else in the U.S. I'm going to miss the day-to-day engagement of interesting and fasci- nating discussions." Solem came to the Met Council in 1994 and oversaw the merger of the two divisions of the Met Council -- The Regional Transit Commission (RTC) and the Waste Water Commission. "Mergers are difficult on people and on organizations," he said. "1 couldn't have done without the support of the governing body and my wonderful staff." Solem will continue to work in a part-time capacity with the Met Council until January 2001. In that time, he will work on some special projects, including writing down his knowledge and observations about the region in an article entitled, "Minnesota Approach." Jay Lindgren, currently the Met Council's chief counsel, will serve as the interim regional administrator until a replacement is hired. Met Council Chair Ted Mondale said that Solem will be missed and that he "brought this agency respect" during his tenure at the Council. Met Council seeks AMM's opinion on wastewater rates The Metropolitan Council adopted a rate schedule for wastewater treatment yesterday. For the calendar year 2001, the rate is $118 per 100,000 gallons compared to the current annual rate of $120. The rate is projected to be $118 in 2002 and then rise to $130 by 2006. Councilmembers Roger Williams and Todd Paulson, who are also former local elected officials, questioned if cities would prefer a rate that is more stable and increases at a slower rate than the adopted rate. The adopted rate and the alternative ~M.~'ews Fax is faxed to ail AMM city managers and administrators, legislative contacts and Board members. Please share this fax with your mayors, councilmembers and staff to keep them abreast of impor- tant metro city issues. ~Copyright 2000 AMM I45 University Avenue West St. Paul, .~IN 55103-2044 Phone: (65l) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 £-mail: amm~amm145, org (stable-slower increase) are illustrated below. Both rate schedules will yield the same revenues. Although the Council did approve the adopted rates, the Council staff was directed to work with AMM to determine if cities prefer the alterna- rive rate plan over the adopted plan. Please review the rates, indicate your preference on the survey form at right, and fax (6`51-281-1299) back to the AMM by Wednesday, May 31. If you have questions, call Gene Ranieri at (6`51) 21,5-4001. WASTEWATER RATES YEAR ADOPTED ALTERNATIVE RATES RATES 2000 $120 $120 2001 $118 $120 2002 $118 $120 2003 $122 $122 2004 $126 $12`5 2005 $129 $127 2006 $130 $129 AMM SURVEY What do you think? Please check your wastewater rate p refere rice: - Ad°pted Rates Alternative Rates COMMENTS: Please fax (6`51-281-1299) this form to the AMM by Wednesday, May 31. Thank you! lllllllllllllllll f4ag 1~ Z000 14~4B'.Z~ ~ia Fax -> ~dainistrator FRIDAYFAX A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities Page 881 Of 88Z Number 15 May 19, 2OOO New Ulm Mayor Dies We were saddened today [o learn [hat Ber~ Schapenkahm, mayor ol New UIm since 1994, died on Thursday. Bert was one of those genuinely nice people who cared deeply about his community and thoroughly enjoyed being mayor. He will be missed by many throughout Minnesota. Services are tentatively set for 11 a.m., Monday, May 21 at St. Paul's Evangelical Lutheran Church in New UIm. Visitation is tentatively scheduled for 4-9 p.m. Sunday and 7:30-8:30 a.m. that day and then at the church until the service. Session ends The 2000 legislative session officially came to an end on Thurs- day morning as the House ad- journed at 5:30 a.m. The final legislative day was nearly a repeat of the all-night session held last Tuesday. Together, the 1999 and 2000 sessions became the longest biennial session in state history. Although the day was most notable for the debate over a compromise in the profiles of learning, several other pieces o! legislation that will impact municipal operations were approved and sent to the governor. Legislature overrides governor's vetoes On the last day of session, [he Legislature voted to override/our of the governor's line-item vetoes. The votes resuscitated $1.5 million for multicultural development grants for the cities ol Pelican Rapids and St. James, $135,000 for an organ donor vehicle, $1 mil- lion for the Lanesboro Center for the Ar[s, and $3 million/or the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis. A vote in the House to save $30,000 /or grants for drug-detecting dogs was not successful. Other final day action On the final day, the House and Senate passed several bills of interest to city officials. The county plat review bill and the public finance bill were approved and sent to the governor. The plat review bill essentially clarifies the process for city, town, and county plats to be reviewed by the county and state. It directs counties to promulgate guidelines /or ingress and egress and right-of- way onto county roads. In the event there are insurmountable disagree- ments between the city or town and county over a particular plat's access to county roads, the city or town must meet with the county to discuss the plat and the implica- tions the plat will have on the transportation system. The out- come of the conversation is not binding on the final plat approval by the city or town. The public finance bill contains language authorizing the cities of Minnetonka and Shorewood to opt out o1 the metropolitan transit service. Also included are provi- sions related to the sale of bonds to finance the costs o1 constructing, enlarging or improving airports or other air navigational facilities, an extension o1 the special servioe district law, greater authority to issue variable-rate bonds, and special assessment authority/or Interne[ access improvements. The public finance bill also includes a program that will guarantee payment of certain county debt obligations. With the state's back- ing, a county will be able to issue debt at a reduced interest rate. However, the state backing comes with state strings attached. This provision is modeled on a law that currently applies to certain school district debt. The county program is administered by the state public facilities authority (PFA) and the commissioner of finance and used to finance correc- tional facilities, law enforcement lacilities, social services or human services facilities, solid waste facilities, courthouses, administra- tive buildings, roads, and bridges. The county will have to enter into a qualified agreement with the state public lacilities authority, and if default occurs the county could have their state aid payments garnished or be required to in- crease their property tax levy. Legislative review sessions The League IGR staff will be conducting three legislative session review sessions next week. We will also be holding a review session at the annual conference in St. Cloud on Wednesday, June 14, 3:15- 4:45 p.m. Space is still available in Benson and St. Paul; contac[ Mary Diedrich or Donyelle Mikacevich at [he League to register. For more Information on ca), legislative Issues, contact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations team. Hag 19 2088 14:49:21 Via Fax -> R&ministrator Page 882 O[ 882 FRIDAYFAX M~v ~19, 2000 -- PAGe · May 23, Benson City Hall 1410 Kansas Avenue Registration begins at 3:30 p.m. · May 24, Owatonna City Hall 540 West Hills Circle Registration begins at 3:30 p.m. · May 25, St. Paul, League Offices 145 University Avenue West Registration begins at 8:30 a.m. Cities Bulletin publication schedule With the adjournment ol the Legis- lature, the Cities Bulletin will re- sume a bi-weekly publication schedule. Watch your mail for the May 31 issue that will include summaries of new laws, an over- view of initiatives that failed during the 2000 session, and estimates of the 2001 Local Government Aid and Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid distributions. They've had enough? Although the/all election could yield new faces in the Legislature, we are certain to see many new faces due to announced retire- ments. Below is a list of announced retirements, several which were not known until shortly at[er the ses- sion adjourned on Thursday morning. Don't be surprised if the arduous session ultimately takes a lew more/aces. Anyone interested in running? Representatives retiring Sherry Broecker (R-White Bear Lake, District 53B) Ann Rest District (DFL-New Hope, District 46A) Doug Reuter (I-Owatonna, District 28A) Peg Larsen (R-Lakeland, District 56B) Myron Ortield (DFL-Minneapolis, District 60B) Jim Rostberg (R-Isanti, District 18A) Bern/McCollum (DFL-Nor~h St. Paul, District 55B) Alice Johnson (DFL-Spring Lake Park, District 48B) Lee Greenfield (DFL-Minneapolis, District 62A) Phil Carruthers (DFL-Brooklyn Center, District 47B) Steve Trimble (DFL-St. Paul, District 67B) Linda Wejcman, (DFL-Minneapolis, District 61B) Senators retiring Allen Spear (DFL-Minneapolis, District 60) Carol Flynn (DFL-Minneapolis, District 62) Ember Reichgot~-Junge (DFL-New Hope, District 46) Linda Runbeck (R-Circle Pines, District 53) MINNESOTA CITIES; BuiLding_, Quah.ty Commumt]es League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference 2000 LMC's 87'~ Annual Conference June 13-16, 2000 St. Cloud, Minnesota Mark your calendar now and plan to join us for LMC's premier conference event! Attending LMC's Annual Conference 2000 is a smart way to collect strategies and information, renew,- your enthusiasm, investigate new products anct services, anti spend time with colleagues who will remind you of your commitment to outstanding leadership. Plan now to join us in St, Cloud, and we'll warmly welcome you there: See future issues of Cides Bulletin and the April issue of Minnesota Cides magazine for more information on how to register for this event, or download the housing and registration ~.CC~ forms from our Web site: www. lmnc.org. BOARD MEMBERS Douglas E. Babcock Chair, Tonka Bay Bert Foster Vice Chair, Deephaven Eugene Partyka Secretary, Minnetrista Craig Nelson Treasurer, Spring Park Andrea Ahrens Mound Bob Ambrose Wayzata Kent Dahlen Minnetonka Beach Craig Eggers Victoria Tom Gilman Excelsior Greg Kitchak Minnetonka Lili McMillan Orono Tom Skramstad Shorewood Herb J. Suerth Woodland Sheldon Wert Greenwood LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. · DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 · FAX 612/745-9085 Gregory $. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR May 30, 2000 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LMCD Member Cities LMCD Board of Directors Greg Nybeck, Executive Director Draft 2001 LMCD Budget Enclosed is a copy of the draft 2001 LMCD Budget for your review. A meeting has been scheduled for 12 NOON on Tuesday, 6/6/00, in the LMCD conference room to review and allow your input on it. The District values your review and input on the draft 2001 LMCD Budget. If you are unable to attend this meeting and would like to comment on it, please forward your comments to the District office by Wednesday, 6/21/00. Feel free to call the office at (952) 745-0789 if you have any questions or concerns relating to the draft 2001 LMCD Budget. We look forward to your attendance at the 6/6/00 meeting! 50% Recycled Content 20% Post Consumer Waste Web Page Address: http://www.winternet.com/-Imcd/ E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com 0 0~- --> g° o~, I--o LLIc~ Z Z 000000000000000 000000000000000 0 rn 888 888o8 o ooooo o § ~ q~ qqq q q o ~ o880808 88 § ~ ~ ~8_oO.D.~8_ qqqqqqq qq 888 oo8OO°°° ...... o88°§°°~oo ooooo88 oO ~ oooo8888§8§o -~ o~ oo o ~ ~ §§8 88°00 ooo o o o ooo o ooo 8000880 ~ ooo~ ~ o ~ 8 ~ . . . 0000000 ~W ~o~o o o ~ mmm ooOO oO oO o~ §§§§ §8° qq q ~ ~ .~8 o~ ~ ~ ~ §§§8 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2001 BUDGET The following assumptions were made in the preparation of the draft 2001 LMCD Budget: Salaries (la) Executive Director Admin. Tech. Admin. Ass't. Admin. Clerk (hourly rate) Employer Benefit Contributions (lb) ?.E.R.A. (4.75%) NCPERS Life Ins. Prudential Life Ins. F.I.C.A. & Medicare Medical Ins. Office Lease & Storage (2a) Office & storage ($1,630/mo.) Off-site storage Telephone (3b) U.S. West AT&T Insurance, Bonds (3g) Property Inland Marine Municipal Liability Excess Liability w/Waiver Bond Contingency (7) (includes salary increases) EWM Salaries & Employer Taxes/Insurance (la) Salaries F.I.C.A. & Medicare (7.65%) Insurance (Auto & Workers Comp.) Current Hours 2001 $48,000 $48,000 $29,000 $29,000 $24,000 $24,000 $12.10 825 $10,000 $111,000 $5,272.50 $432.00 $70.00 $8,491.50 $7,200.00 $21,466.00 $19,560.00 $240.00 $19,800.00 $4,200.00 $240.00 $4,440.00 $150.00 $1,100.00 $4,300.00 $1,700.00 $250.00 $7,500.00 $10,000.00 $35,555.00 $2,945.00 $3,500.00 $42,000.00 2000 12/31/99 Balance Budgeted Reserve Fund Allocation Trausfer to Equip. Repl. Fund 2001 Projected 12/31/00 Balance Reserve Fund Allocation Transfer to Equip. Repl. Fund Projected 12/31/99 Balance Administration $111,300 $0 $0 $111,300 $111,300 $0 $0 $111,300 EWM/Exotics $93,426 ($10,000) ($ o,ooo) $73~426 $73,426 $0 $0 $73,426 APPENDIX A DRAFT 2001 LMCD BUDGET NOTES ADMINISTRATION · $111,000 has been budgeted for Salaries for three full-time employees and one part-time employee at current salaries and hourly rate (line item la). Salary adjustments for these employees have been budgeted as part of Contingency (line item 7). $17,040 has been budgeted for Office Lease & Storage (line item 2a). It is projected that Office Lease & Storage expenses for 2001 will cost the District approximately $25,000. The balance of these expenses will be off-set by funds received frem the Freshwater Foundation in the Fall of 1998 move. · $12,000 has been budgeted for Prefessional Services (line item 2b). This includes funds for the 2000 LMCD Audit and for the District Bookkeeper. · $4,000 has been budgeted for Printing, Publications, & Advertising (line item 3d). This includes for the re-printing of Summer Rules and other District literature. · Boat and Water Safety Education (BWSE) expenses (line item 3j) generally offset revenues received (line item le) for this twice a year course for boaters who get BWI's on Lake Uinnetonka. · $3,500 has been budgeted for Computer Software & Hardware expenses (line item 4b). This includes operating systems and word processing software upgrades, and the replacement of one desktop computer. $40,000 has been budgeted for Presecution Services (line item 5b). This can be attributed to the change in BWI legislation in 1998 and the recent challenges of authority of Special Deputies of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrel. No reserve fund contribution has been budgeted for 2001. With a projected Administrative reserve fund balance of $111,300 by 12/31/00, the District should attain the agreed upon six-month reserve for the Administrative Budget by year-end of 2000. EWM/EXOTICS MANAGEMENT · It is anticipated that the MN DNR will fund the District with a grant of appreximately $24,000 to assist in the management of Eurasian Watermilfoil. · $5,000 has been budgeted for Zebra Mussel expenses (line item 2). These funds will be spent on related operating expenses for the spraydown pregram. · No reserve fund contribution has been budgeted. With a projected EWM reserve fund balance of $73,426 by 12/31/00, the District should attain the agreed upon 12 month reserve for the EWM/Exotics Management pregram. League of Minnesota Cities Cities promoting excellence 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Ph .... (6gl) 2g1-1200 · (gOO) 02~-1122 TDD (651) 281-1290 IaxlC Fax: (651) 281-1299 ' I31CIT Fax: (651) 281-1298 Web Site: http://www.lmnc.org May31,2000 Dear City Official: At its May 4, 2000 meeting, the LMC Board of Directors voted to recommend maximum membership dues increases of 3%, 5% and $% for the next three years. The Board will determine the actual amount, including for 2001, when it approves the League's budget each August, but it cannot exceed the maximums allowed in the dues schedule. The dues schedule must be approved by the membership at the Annual Meeting which will begin at 12:45 p.m. on Thursday, June 15 in the Glenn Carlson Hall of the St. Cloud Civic Center as part of the Annual Conference. Enclosed is a "Q&A" sheet that provides more detail on the Board's reasoning behind its recommendation, some additional background information, and the maximum dues schedules recommended for fiscal years 2001, 2002 and 2003. If you have any comments or questions about this recommendation, I encourage you to contact me at 651-281-1205 or jmiller~lmnc.org in advance of the Annual Conference, or you may also raise any concerns at the Annual Meeting in St. Cloud. Sincerely, James F. Miller Executive Director AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Constitutional Amendment for Membership C0nsidcrati0n 2000 Annual Business Meeting Amendment: Maximum 3% dues increase for the 2001 fiscal year, and a maximum 5% dues increase for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Why is the LMG Board of Directors recommending these levels of dues increases, and why a three-year package? The Resources and Services Task Force, a membership committee, recently reviewed service needs, revenue sources and the dues structure. The Task Force determined additional service needs in several areas, particularly in moving toward 24-hour access to League resources, greater on-line provision of services, and enhancing our advocacy efforts through contracted services. The Board agreed with the Task Force's findings and is recommending a multiple-year dues increase to allow the Board and staff the ability to develop multi-year strategies to meet these service needs. How can my city expect to benefit from these dues increases? As in past years, the majority of the dues increases would go toward ensuring the maintenance of current products and services, as well as excellent customer service through retention of a high-quality staff. A 1% dues increase roughly equals a 1% increase in salary and benefits, so most of a dues increase goes toward meeting normal cost of living salary and benefit adjustments. The recommended maximum dues increases above current inflation are designed to address priorities identified in the new 2000-03 Strategic Plan, the majority of which were also identified by the Task Force. For example, one of the major new goals of the Strategic Plan is to maximize the potential of technology to connect cities to the League and to their constituents. This will involve making the LMC Web site a model communications vehicle, working to ensure all Minnesota cities have a high level of Internet access, facilitating establishment of an effective Web presence for all member cities, and providing on-line opportunities for member participation. We expect that these initiatives will require a significant investment over the next three years. Other priorities the Board bas identified are contracted lobbying support to deal with the major legislative initiatives, enhanced assistance in the Research and Inquiry service, and the Building Quality Communities public education campaign (which we expect to have a two-year lifespan). Has a three-year plan for maximum dues increases been done before? Yes, for fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999, which were maximum increases of 2%, 3% and 3% respectively. What does a "maximum" dues increase mean? Don't you use the full amount anyway? Not necessarily. Dues increases approved by the membership at the Annual Meeting are always maximum dues increases, where the Board is given the flexibility to set dues up to the level approved. Most recently, in 1998, the Board implemented 2% ora 3% authorization received from the members in 1996. (~0~ How would these maximum dues increases impact my city's dues? If the maximum increases are approved, annual dues would increase by the following amounts (assuming average statewide population growth): 2ooo-ol (3%) $10 for a city of 1,000 $69 for a city of 2,500 $241 for a city of 10,000 $755 for a city of 50,000 2001-02 & 2002-03 (5%) $43 for a city of 1,000 $100 for a city of 2,500 $350 for a city of I0,000 $1,096 for a city of 50,000 What is the recent history of dues increases? For the past ten years (starting with FY2000), 5%, 3%, 2%, 3%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, and 0%. 99 DUES SGHED~.~. MAXI M~ XIMUI~ ess $254 $88 $703 10,000-19~9 $1,520 plus 20,000-49,999,~ $5,199 plus 50,000-299,999 ~ $15,394 plus 300,000 and over ~ plus OF 3% 2001 67.34 Cents per capita 55.03 Cents per capita 46.85 Cents per capita 28.46 Cents per capita 8.08 Cents per capita 4.56 Cents per capita DUES FOR FY 2002 5% 249 or less ~267 250-4,999 $92 plus 70.71 fita 5,000-9,999 $739 plus 57.78 Cents per capita 10,000-19,999 $1,596 plus 49.20 Cents per capita 20,000-49,999 $5,459 plus 29.88 Cents per capita 50,000-299,999 $16,164 plus 8.48 Cents per capita 300,000 and over $27,246 plus 4.79 Cents per capita __ MAXIMUM FOR FY 2003 MAXIMUM INCREASE OF 50/0 249 or less $280 250-4,999 $97 plus 74.24 Cents per capita 5,000-9,999 $776 plus 60.67 Cents per capita 10,000-19,999 $1,676 plus 51.66 Cents per capita 20,000-49,999 $5,732 plus 31.38 Cents per capita 50,000-299,999 $16,972 plus 8.90 Cents per capita 300,000 and over $28,609 plus 5.03 Cents per capita How would these maxinlurn dues increases impact my city? dues?i ~ ,' .... , If the maximum increases are approved, annual dues would increase by the following amounts (assuming average statewide population growth): 2000-01 (3%) 2001-02 & 2002-03 (5%) $10 for a city of 1,000 $69 for a city of 2,500 $241 for a city of 10,000 $755 for a city of 50,000 $43 for a city of 1,000 $100 for a city of 2,500 $350 for a city of 10,000 $1,096 for a city of 50,000 ~Vhat is the recent hlstoFy of dues increases? For the past ten years (starting with FY2000), 5%, 3%, 2%, 2%, 3%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, and 0%. 249 or less 250-4,999 5,000-9,999 10,000-19,999 20,000-49,999 50,000-299,999 300,000 and over 249 or less 250-4,999 ~ 5,000-9,999 10,000-19,999 20,000-49,999 50,000-299,999 300,000 and over $88 plus 67.34 Cents per capita $703 plus 55.03 Cents per capita $1,520 plus 46.85: Cents per capita $5,199 plus 28.46 Cents per capita $15,394 plus 8.08 Cents per capita $25,949 plus 4.56 Cents per capita DtmS SCl-mDtrI MamMUM FOR P/2002 MAXIMUM INCREASE OF 5% $267 $739 plus 57.78 Cents per capita $1,596 plus 49.20 Cents per capita $5,459 plus 29.88 Cents per capita $16,16a~ plus 8.48. Cents per capita $27,246 plus 4.79 (gents per capita DUES SCHEDUI.F~ MAXIMUM FOR FY 2003 MAXIMUM INCREASE OF 5% ? 249 or less 250-4,999 5,000-9,999 10,000-19,999 20,000-49,999 50,000-299,999 300,000 and over 8280 $97 plus ' '7~:24 c~nts per $776 plus r60.67 Cents per $1,676 plus 51.66 Cents per $5,732 plus 31.38 Cents per $16,972 plus 8.90 Cents per $28,609 plus 5.03 Cents per ca'"itav capita capita capita capita capita Hennepin County An Equal Opportunity Employer June 2,2000 Kandis Hanson ~., Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Open Book Meeting Ciiy of Mound This year 70 Mound property owners called with concerns about their January 2, 2000 Estimated Market Value notices. Most of the callers had their questions and concerns satisfied by talking with one of our appraisers. Twenty-five of the calls did result in the need for a physically inspected of the owner's property. Most of the taxpayers' concerns were satisfied prior to the Mound Open Book Meeting. The Open Book Meeting had nine attendees. I have listed the attendees below, with their original January 2, 2000 Estimated Market Value, and any changes we made after a final review of their property. Original Open Book 2000 Value Action Daniel & Sandra Strot 1566 Eagle Lane 12-117-24-43-0002 $287,500 No Change John & Marty Derosier 4908 Three Points Blvd. 13-117-24-11-0078 $360,000 No Change Paul & Mary Kaster 1625 Finch Lane 13-117-24-12-0190 $53,000 $48,000 County Assessor Department A-2103 Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0213 Recycled Paper Hennepin County An Equal Opportunity Employer Local Board of Review June 2, 2000 Page 2 Kevin Johansen 2148 Basswood Lane 13-117-24-32-0013 Original Open 2000 EMV Book Action $81,400 $70,000 Catherine Ann Younes 4962 Bartlett Blvd 13-117-24-44-0049 Beatrice Barnes 1909 Lakeside Lane 18-117-23-23-0058 $128,000 No Change $272,000 $248,000 Michael Furnstahl 4594 Denbigh Road 19-117-23-31-0007 Irene Bazewicz 6323 Bay Ridge Road 23-117-24-33-0011 Scott & Linda Mack 4657 Island View Drive 30-117-23-22-0086 $380,400 No Change $137,000 No Change $346,000 No Change The "Open Book" format appears to work quite well. If you have any questions regarding this years meeting or any other assessing issues please call Keith Rennerfeldt or myself at 348-3046. Sincerely, Thomas Carroll Appraiser, C.M.A. County Assessor Department A-2103 Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0213 Recycled Paper Jun, 6, 2000 8'37AM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No,015] P, 1/2 Post4t' Fax Note 7671 Date 'Co./DepL I/,t~Ou,,,tg[ Co. Fax # Fax # pages ~ ~ DATE: May 10, 2000 TO: FROM: Hennepin County Consolidated Pool 2000 Applicants  Rod Waara, Administrative Manager, Office of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Consolidated Pool Selection Committee 2000 CDBG Funding Recommendations The Consolidated Pool Selection Committee has recommended the following proposals for CDBG funding. GENERAL PROJECTS: ltennepin County Sin~e Fam!!y Rehabilitation Program - $100,062 Provide rehabilitation to low- and moderate-income homeowners wlthtn the Consolidated Pool Osseo ltomeownerstfip Assistance Program - $120,000 Acqms~tion and demolition of older homes having a bhghtmg influence on the neighborhood, and replacement with new homes that are made available to qualifying low- and moderate income households. Orono Affordable Itomeownership Project - $64,000 Financial assistance to allow low-and moderate-income households to buy townhouse units in new development. Mound/Land Acquisition For W'estonka Senior Center - $44,000 Fundmg assistance for acquisition of site at new Westonka Senior Center in Mound. NOTE: The Committee also voted to recommend County Board approval of a reprogramming of 1999 funding from Minnetrista to the Westonka Senior Center FoundaUon for land acquisithon, ttennepin County Office of Planning & Development, Development Planning Unit, 10709 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 260, Minnetonka, MN 55305 Mail Code: 604 Phone: ff952) 541-7080 trax: (952) 541-7090 TDD/'FrY: (952) 541-798] Ludel~¢nclencedDelano ~eaior Center - Land acqu:siuon to allow expansion ofDelano S~ C~t~. Nlore ~ h~f of ~e chants of ~s c~ reside ~ H~epm Co~, Sojourner Project Ba~ered Women's Shelter - $25,000 F~g to assist ~e cons~c~on of a new sh¢It~ to assist more domes~c able ~c~s ~d pro.de ~proved s~ce deliv~. PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS: Osseo/Senior Center - 6,963 Funding to assist the various needs of seniors at thlS center. v//Westonlm Commullit~r Action Network Program - $11,250 Funding to assist ro provision of numerous services offered by WcCAN. St. Anthony-New Brighton Senior Center - $7;241 Funding to assist the semor and mult~generat~onal prong originating at tins center Senior Commulxity Services Senior Center Programming - $33,000 v~u~ding to assist operauon of programs at Dela~o, Westonk?, Tamarack and Southshore Semor Senior Transportation - $8,263 Funding for ~ransportation serrates to semors and disable households m northern suburban area. Eh~ble app!icants submitted $I,324~593 m requests for $~.~. a, ,779 m available funding. Committee members completed a diligent review to arrive at their recommendations. The funding recommendaUon ~s part of the pubhc heanng on the 2000 Consolidated Plan and wall be before the Hennepm County General Government Committee at 2:00 p.m. on. May 23, in the County Board Room. Final action by the. County Board will occur on ~une'6, 2000. Please contact ~im Ford at 952/541-7091 ~f you have any questaons. Cc: Hermepm Couray Comnnssioners County Admi~strator Consolidated Pool Sele¢~on Comrmttee members Consolidated Pool Cities Consolidated Pool 2000 Applicants LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING ?:00 PM, Wednesday, April 26, 2000 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Foster called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Lili McMillan, Omno; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director. Members absent: Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Tom Gilman, Excelsior. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Vice Chair Foster There were no Chair announcements. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 rain.) 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 from the consent agenda. Kitchak moved, Partyka seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Item so approved included: 2B, Meadowbrook Boat Club, staff recommends approval of 2000 renewal w/o change multiple dock license application. · Barefoot Bay Charters new on-sale non-intoxicating Malt Liquor and Wine License applications for the charter boat, Barefoot Bay. Foster opened the public hearing at 7:01 p.m. He asked the applicant and public if they had any comments. There being no comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. MOTION: Ahrens moved, Dahlen seconded to approve the new non-intoxicating malt liquor and wine license applications, for the 2000 season, for the charter boat Barefoot Bay. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 1. FINANCIAL A. Abdo, Abdo, Eick,& Meyers, discussion of draft 1999 LMCD Audit. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 26, 2000 Page 2 Wed arrived at 7:05 p.m. Foster asked Nybeck for background on this agenda item. Nybeck stated that Steve McDonald was in attendance from Abdo, Abdo, Eick, and Meyers to provide an overview and answer questions about the draft 1999 LMCD Audit. McDonald made the following comments on the draft 1999 LMCD Audit: · The General Fund balance as of 12/31/99 was $111,300, a decrease of $7,230 from the prior year. He stated this represented approximately 44% of expenditures, noting this was within the six-month reserve policy for the District agreed to by the member cities. He suggested that although the General Fund balance is slightly below the policy for the District, it is adequate on a working capital basis. He noted the budget variances for the General Fund include an approximated $16,000 shortfall in court fines and forfeits, an increase in prosecuting attorney fees, and a public access signage project that was not conducted. · The Special Revenue Fund balance, which consists of Save the Lake, New Equipment Acquisition, Eurasian Milfoil, and Equipment Replacement, was $651,839. He noted two of these reserve funds, Save the Lake and New Equipment Acquisition, totaled $404,002 and were provided by donations. He added that the other two reserve funds, Eurasian Milfoil and Equipment Replacement, totaled $247,837 and were provided by dues. ' · The Eurasian Milfoil Fund balance as of 12/31/99 was $93,426, a decrease of $56,765 from the previous year. He stated this represented approximately 100% of expenditures, noting this was within the 12-month policy for the District agreed to by the member cities. He added the major decrease in the Eurasian Milfoil Fund balance was a transfer of $35,000 to the Equipment Replacement Fund. · He concluded he believed all Fund balances were in good shape, as of 12/31/99, with regards to established policies and for equipment needs. He entedained questions or comments from the Board. Foster thanked McDonald for attending the meeting to provide an overview on this agenda item. MOTION: Wert moved, Skramstad seconded to accept the 1999 LMCD Audit as conducted by Abdo, Abdo, Eick, & Meyers. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Ambrose arrived at 7:10 p.m. B. Audit of vouchers (4/16/00 - 4/30/00). Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers as submitted, noting that check numbers 13102 - 13104 should be added for first of the month bills to be paid. MOTION: Skramstad moved, Ahrens seconded to approve the audit of vouchers as amended, adding checks 13102- 13104. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 26, 2000 Page 3 C. February financial summary and balance sheet. Nelson reviewed the February financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. MOTION: Skramstad moved, Ahrens seconded to accept the February financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Additional business; There was no additional business. WATER STRUCTURES A. Trillium Bay HOA, consideration of new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a conforming structure (previously continued at the 4/12/00 Board meeting). Foster stated he believed the proposed applications were continued at the previous Board meeting to allow staff to determine whether a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) should be conducted for the proposed project. Fie noted that staff has provided this documentation and that they have indicated that a mandatory EAW is not required. He added he believed it has not been the policy of the District to conduct a discretionary EAW when a mandatory one is not required. He entertained feedback from the Board on the proposed project. Nybeck stated he had contacted both the MN DNR and the City of Minnetrista to assist in determining whether a discretionary EAW should be conducted. He noted based on these discussions, he believed one does not need to be conducted. Foster asked if the Board had any questions or concerns for the applicant. Nybeck recommended that any Board approval include a condition that the applicant submit an amended site plan that identifies the approved BSU's numerically. MOTION: Ahrens moved, Dahlen seconded to approve the new multiple dock license application from Trillium Bay HOA for the 2000 season, subject to the applicant submitting a new site plan that identifies the BSU's numerically. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Ordinance Amendment, Second reading of an ordinance relating to the density of watercraft storage on Lake Uinnetonka; amending LMCD Code Section 2.11 by adding new Subd. 6. Foster opened the agenda item by entertaining a motion to approve the second reading as submitted. MOTION: Wert moved, Dahlen seconded to approve the second reading of the ordinance amendment as Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 26, 2000 Page 4 submitted. Foster entedained comments or discussion from the Board on the proposed ordinance amendment. McMillan stated there is no discussion in the ordinance relating to restricting the number of slips to the same number of residential units. LeFevere stated that subd. 6 a)(iii) would prohibit the storage of more watercraft than the number of residential units. Nybeck stated that he believed three changes were made to the ordinance amendment from the previous meeting. They included subd. 6 a)(iii) as noted by LeFevere, the insertion of the word "licensed" in subd. 6 a)(i), and language in subd. 6 b) that required adequate water depth to support the proposed facilities. Wed stated that he believed that the Board had requested that a condition be placed in the ordinance amendment that did not allow the expansion of land. LeFevere stated that he believed the 1999 date referenced in subd. 6 a)(iii) would prohibit this. He noted that he also added subd. 6 i) that would deem these facilities as a nonconforming Outlot Association Facility under this Section. Partyka stated that he was unable to attend recent meetings and that he was curious whether there had been discussion on allowing one restricted watercraft for each 25' of shoreline rather than one for each 20'. Foster stated that he would prefer maintaining this number at 1:20' because there would be substantial reductions in the number of BSU's approved from their current grandfathered status. McMillan stated at recent meetings, there had been discussion by the Board on these two numbers but that there was not total consensus. She noted there had been some discussion that there might be a need to further restrict boat size as the density of these sites approach 1:20'. Wert concurred that there has been no consensus of the 1:20' number; however, there has not been enough pressure by the Board to change it to 1:25'. McMillan stated that she believed there is no rational behind the 1:20' number other than there is a pending application. She added she would prefer to write ordinances for the future, not just the moment. Partyka stated that he believed there is logic behind the 1:25' number because it is derived from the 1:50' General Rule. He added he believed the 1:20' number could be considered arbitrarily chosen. McMillan concurred with Partyka. Foster stated that commercial marina's on the lake are allowed to store density of up to 1:10' and that the 1:20' number would cut this density allowance in half. He noted another factor to consider in this ordinance amendment is the significant reduction in boats being stored from what is currently approved. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 26, 2000 Page Partyka re-stated he believed that because what would be proposed would occur in a residential situation, he would prefer the 1:25' number rather than the 1:20' number. McMillan stated because the proposed ordinance would take a public marina and privatize the approved BSU's, she would prefer to key the reductions off of the 1:50' General Rule. She added the 1:10' rule is for special density licenses that provide public benefit and she questioned whether this should qualify as public benefit. VOTE: Ayes (10) Nayes (2; Partyka and McMillan) motion carried. D, Additional Business. There was no additional business. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A. 2000 EWM Harvesting Program, staff overview of project. Foster asked for background on this agenda item from staff. Nybeck provided an overview of the 2000 EWM Harvesting Program. He made the following comments: · The vast majority of the personnel from 1999 have indicated they will be returning for 2000. He noted staff is still working on the vacancies created by persons who have indicated they would not be returning and for the increase in positions based on the recommendations of the EWM Harvesting Program Improvement Task Force. · The recommendations of this Task Force include launching the harvesters in the water earlier, operating five harvesters rather than four, operating these harvesters for a greater number of hours during what has been typically been the peak season, and operating a skeleton crew from mid August through at least Labor Day. · A budget of $100,500 is planned for the 2000 season, which is $11,500 over what was budgeted for 2000. He suggested that this could be absorbed from EWM reserves for 2000 but that it should be reflected in future budgets beginning in 2001. · He recommended the following hourly rates for employees in 2000: 1) Todd Grams, EWM Project Manager, $18 per hour, 2) Jeff Paulsen, EWM Site Supervisor, $12 per hour, and 3) all other employees, $9.50 for 1st year plus an additional $.50 per hour for each successive year they return. · He asked for questions or comments from the Board. Nelson stated he had received some feedback from the public that milfoil is already causing problems in some bays. He asked if it is possible to conduct some early season harvesting if needed. Nybeck stated when the Task Force discussed how the program could be improved, there were a number of reasons to launch the harvesters earlier. He noted this included allowing Grams to train before the typical season begins and to allow the mechanic to ensure the equipment is running properly on the water. He added the Task Force also believed that some potential early season harvesting could be conducted if the weed growth merited it. Foster stated that he believed the plans for the 2000 season make a lot of sense. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular l]oard Meeting April 26, 2000 Page 6 Nybeck stated that full-time harvesting is planned to commence on June 12, with employees working 10 hour work days on Mondays through Thursdays, and one eight hour work day on Fridays. He noted that permits have been secured from the MN DNR and that trucking bids and chemical proposal around selected public accesses would be presented at the next Board meeting. MOTION: Suerth moved, Nelson seconded to authorize the hiring of employees for the 2000 EWM Harvesting Program as recommended by staff. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Additional Business; There was no additional business. 4, LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Ordinance Amendment, Second reading of an ordinance prohibiting anchoring and rafting in public safety lanes; adding new Subd. 25 to LMCD Code Section 3.01. Foster entertained a motion from the Board to approve second reading, to waive third reading, and to adopt the ordinance amendment. MOTION: Partyka moved, McMillan seconded to approve second reading, to waive third reading, and to adopt the ordinance amendment. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Review of issues that need to be discussed for a policy to be drafted relating to the issuance of Intoxicating Liquor license for charter boats on Lake Minnetonka. Foster introduced the agenda item by asking LeFl~vere to provide an overview of the letier included in the Board packet. LeFevere stated in order for a policy to be drafted, he believed four potential situations need to be addressed by the Board on prioritizing preference to existing licensees. He noted these situations include: 1. When the licensee wishes to have a license reissued to himself or herself for the same boat. 2. When he or she wishes to keep the license but have it applied to a different boat. 3. When he or she wishes to transfer a license without selling the licensed boat to that new licensee. 4. When the licensee wishes to sell a boat and transfer the liquor license together to a new licensee. He stated an argument against allowing the transfer of a license from one party to another is that the liquor license could artificially inflate the value of the business, similar to the New York taxicab system. He added the other side of the argument is that the liquor license is an element of the business and that the transfer of it is necessary to sell the business. Foster stated that he has past experience owning and selling restaurants. He noted based on his experience, he believed the liquor license should transferred with the sale of the business, provided the new owner passes the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 26, 2000 Page 7 necessary background investigations. He suggested the Board should approach the legislature to increase the number of liquor licenses available on Lake Minnetonka for charter boats. Nelson stated that he believed the liquor license should not go with the sale of the boat and be distributed by the current owner of the boat. He added he believed it would be much fairer to have liquor licenses associated with boats that have been sold to go into some form of lottery system because it would inflate the price of the boat. Kitchak stated he believed that the policy needs to take into account a charter boat that has operated for a few years with a beer and wine license application that might want to upgrade up to a liquor license. Wert stated that he believed it makes sense to approach the legislature to increase the number of liquor licenses that can be issued by the District. He added if this occurred, he believed there would not be more liquor licenses issued on the lake than the number of charter boats that can profit from them. He noted he believed the Board needs to establish a policy in the shod term on how to deal with the transfer of a liquor license when a business is sold. Foster stated that he totally supported the idea of approaching the legislature to increase the number of liquor licenses that can be issued by the District on Lake Minnetonka. Nybeck stated that if the Board desires to increase the number of liquor licenses issued on Lake Minnetonka, Chair Babcock has recommended that Board members discuss this with their member city to get their input. He added if the District approaches the legislature and increases the number of liquor licenses available, he believed the first boating season that it would apply to would be 2002. Foster stated he believed the District treats the individual boat as the place of business for which the liquor license is issued to. LeFevere stated that in the past, the license has been issued for a specific charter boat. He added that the Board in the past has generally allowed it to be transferred from one boat to another, provided it is still owned by the same business. Suerth stated when an owner has spent time building up a business, he believed it is reasonable for them to expect that the liquor license would be transferred in the sale of the business. Nelson stated that he believed that the Board needs to understand that the legislature might not be agreeable to increase the number of liquor licenses issued to charter boats on Lake Minnetonka. He added because of this, the Board needs to understand that the language in the proposed policy would be the basis for issuing liquor licenses in the future. LeFevere stated that the number of 14 intoxicating liquor licenses that can be issued on the lake correlates to the number of member cities. He added a distinction between the District and cities is that a city can increase the number of liquor licenses they can issue through an election. He suggested that the legislature would probably react more favorably to a request to increase the number if the Liquor Control Division and the member cities support the request. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 26, 2000 Page Partyka stated that because it appears that the policy might be in effect for two years before a decision could be made by the legislature, he suggested that the lottery system might make sense because there should be no value added to the business just because they have an intoxicating liquor license. LeFevere stated that there might some value for the Board to determine the difference in value of a business when sold depending on whether they have an intoxicating liquor license. He added he did not know the answer to this. Mr. Mark Lee, owner of Wayzata Bay Chaders, stated that he believed businesses are built with the assumption that the liquor license could be transferred in the sale of a business. Mr. Jon Kietzer, owner of Seanote Cruises, stated that he believed it would difficult for him to make the investment in a new charier boat without the idea of a full-service intoxicating liquor license being transferred. He expressed concern with the idea that these liquor licenses could be distributed through a lottery system. Kitchak stated that the transfer of the liquor license could be made a condition of the sale of the business. Foster and Suerth expressed concern with the lottery system consideration. Mr. Jori Vant Hull, owner of A Day in the Sun Charters, stated that he recently purchased the business with the general understanding that the liquor license would be transferred. He added he understood the position of the District because the:e currently is not a policy established. He questioned how to proceed with 2000 when he was unsure whether the liquor license approved for the previous owner would be available to him. Suerth asked if there has been precedent with the transfer of liquor licenses in the past in the absence of a policy. LeFevere stated in the past, the transfer of a liquor license was not an issue because it was treated as a new application. He noted this was true until the past couple years when the demand for liquor licenses equaled or exceeded the number available for Lake Minnetonka. Foster stated that he believed the fundamental question for the Board to consider is whether to allow the transfer of a liquor license when a business is sold or whether to require it go back into a lottery system. He suggested that he suppoded allowing the transfer with the business, subject to the new owner qualifying based on the background investigation. Nelson stated he does not support the transfer of liquor license when there is more than one business that would like to secure it. He recommended that the Board make the decision on the allocation of the liquor licenses available, not the owner of the business. LeFevere stated the main issue that staff needs direction from the Board on whether a liquor license transfers with a business to the nsw owner when it is sold. He added if the Board decides to allow the liquor license to be transferred in the sale, he believed the policy would be easy to draft for the next Board meeting. Partyka stated that he believed the main step to address this situation would be to begin the process to get additional liquor licenses from the legislature. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 26, 2000 Page 9 The consensus of the Board was that the legislature was a long term approach and that the Board needed to consider a short approach in the meantime. MOTION: Suerth moved, Skramstad seconded to direct attorney to prepare a policy that would allow the transfer of liquor licenses for charter boats on Lake Minnetonka for the 14 existing licenses when their business is sold. LeFevere stated that there is no reason why an application for a new intoxicating liquor license cannot be done concurrently with the review of the policy by the Board. Kitchak proposed a friendly amendment that would allow for the transfer of these liquor licenses only for the 2000 season, provided they sell the charter boat and business, and meet all other criteria. Suerth and Skramstad agreed to this friendly amendment. VOTE: Ayes (8), Nayes (4; Ambrose, Nelson, Partyka, and Wed); motion carried. The consensus of the Board was that a line-item should be placed on a future agenda on how to proceed with the legislature on be allowed to issue more intoxicating liquor licenses for charter boats on Lake Minnetonka. C. Minnesota Lakes Association (MLA), update on MLA proposal to revise Minnesota Statutes 86b, "Surface Water Use Policy". Foster stated that this agenda item is for informational purposes. He suggested that District might want to establish a group to assist in moving this proposal forward in the future. D. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 5. ADMINISTRATION A. LMCIT Liability Insurance, discussion on whether to waive the monetary limits on tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04. Nybeck stated that staff is currently working on the insurance renewal policy with the League of Minnesota Cities. He added that the Board needs to decide on whether to waive the monetary limits on tort liability established by state law, noting that the Board has not in past years. MOTION: Nelson moved, Suerth seconded to not waive monetary limits on tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 26, 2000 6. SAVE THE LAKE A. Consideration of requests for "STL" funds from Fodin Consulting and LMA. Page 10 McMillan stated that a meeting was held on 4/19/00 and that the Advisory Committee has recommended approval of proposals received from Fortin Consulting and the LMA. She noted the LMA has proposed a sampling kit to be received from the Minnesota Sea Grant that would be used by their volunteer network for detection of zebra mussels. She stated that the Task has recommended approval of this request for a budget not to exceed $500. MOTION: McMillan moved, Ambrose seconded to authorize up to $500 of"Save the Lake" fund to the LMA for the purchase of a sampling kit from the Minnesota Sea Grant. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. McMillan stated that the second proposal was received from Fortin Consulting. She noted they have proposed an informal, demonstration workshop on Long Lake where a lakescaping project was done in the past year. She added she believed this project would be beneficial to show the public what they can do with their shoreline and that the Task Force has recommended approval of this request for a budget not to exceed $500. MOTION: McMillan moved, Ambrose seconded to authorize up to $500 of "Save the Lake" to Fortin Consulting for an informal, demonstration workshop regarding lakescaping on Long Lake in the fall of 2000. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck made the following comments regarding lake levels on Lake Minnetonka: · The lake level as of 4~26/00 was 928.28', compared to 929.06' one year ago. He noted that the MCWD has a policy with the MN DNR that they cannot discharge water from the lake when lake levels are below 928.60'. · Based on discussions with the MN DNR, average precipitation during the month is approximately 4', which would result in the lake generally maintaining its current lake level. He noted approximately 7" of rain was received dudng the month of May in 1999, which resulted in a .7 of a foot increase in the lake level. · If the current lake level drops below 928.0', the Board has the authority to declare Iow-water which would potentially allow both residential and multiple docks to extend their docks further out in the lake on a case by case basis. LeFevere stated if the Board declares Iow-water, all docking situations on the lake would need approval to extend their dock out beyond their authorized dock use area. He added for multiple dock licenses, they would be required Board approval, with the required public hearing notice waived. Foster stated that the Wayzata Yacht Club recently had an article from the MCWD relating to the control of lake levels on Lake Minnetonka. He suggested that staff should get a copy of this article and forward it to the Board for their Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 26, 2000 Page 11 review. 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business 9. NEW BUSINESS LeFevere stated the City of Mound has submitted an application for new multiple dock license and variances to store watercraft at six street ends. He noted these applications have been submitted as a proposed settlement in litigation in one area of the Mound Commons between residents that abut the Commons and those that are inland. He continued that a conflict problem exists because Kennedy and Graven represents both the District and the City of Mound. He recommended that both padies secure different legal representation before the public hearing for the applications submitted. He stated that George Hoff, who has worked on previous District issues through the LMCIT, has indicated that he would be willing to represent the District on these applications at the rate he charges the LMCIT. MOTION: Nelson moved, Wert seconded to authorize the Chair to enter into a contractual agreement with George Hoff to represent the District at the rates he charges the LMCIT on the applications submitted by the City of Mound. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Vice Chair Foster adjourned the meeting at 9:39 p.m. Bert Foster, Vice Chairman Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary CITY OF MOUND DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION MAY 18, 2000 Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Mark Goldberg, Gerald Jones, Frank Ahrens, and Greg Eurich. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, Councilmember Andrea Ahrens, and Secretary Carla Wirth. Excused: Council Representative Mark Hanus and Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey. Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. 1. MINUTES Motion made by Jones, seconded by Goldberg, to approve the minutes of the April 20, 2000 DCAC meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES Chair Funk noted the requested addition of Permit Request 4446 Denbigh. Greg Knutson, 4701 Island View Drive, stated he has two boats on his dock and is thinking about adding a third but has heard a rumor that a regulation will be considered restricting the number of boats per dock. Chair Funk stated this issue will be added to the agenda as well. Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk, to accept the agenda as amended above. Motion carried unanimously. 2A. DISCUSS BOAT RESTRICTION QUESTION Chair Funk asked Mr. Knutson if the rumor related to private or common docks. Mr. Knutson stated he understands the municipal docks are restricted to one boat. He stated he is an abutter with a private dock and asked if the number of boats will be restricted. Ahrens stated that to the best of his knowledge, a discussion has not been held about restricting the number of boats on docks. Chair Funk commented on the regulations by the LMCD on the number of BSUs allowed. Ahrens stated the City of Mound is about 100 boats under the limit allowed and provided an explanation of what is counted toward a BSU. Mr. Knutson stated it appears this is not a concern today so he should be able to add a third boat to his dock. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission May 18, 2000 Goldberg concurred noting, however, that the number of BSUs increases each year and at some point in the future the limit will be hit. Mr. Knutson suggested that the DCAC agenda be published in The Lakerso residents can be made aware of what will be discussed. Chair Funk agreed that could be considered. Ahrens commented on the lawsuit in the Three Points area which may impact BSU numbers. 3. DISCUSS: JOINT OWNERSHIP OF BOATS IN THE MOUND DOCK PROGRAM Chair Funk reviewed staff's memorandum indicating there is a total of 15 boats that have two names on the license. Ahrens noted that Hanus raised this issue and suggested it be tabled until he and Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey are present. Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg, to table this item until the June 15, 2000 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 4. DISCUSS: STAIRWAY DESIGNS FOR PUBLIC LANDS Chair Funk noted the pictures and information provided of stairway designs. Ahrens noted this is a budgeted item and he and Hanus have both indicated concern about the placement of stairs to assure it comes before the DC^C prior to the City proceeding to erect stairs. He stated his concern that sidewalks be made available to the neighborhood but not be used to denote public lands and act as a "welcome sign." Goldberg suggested the DCAC review each stairway request on a site-by-site basis and determine which design would be the best for that location without acting as a "welcome mat." Ahrens concurred with the use of a variety of stairway designs. Eurich stated that would also provide better aesthetics. Goldberg suggested staff identify the potential stairway sites so the DCAC can view the locations prior to the next meeting. Ahrens stated if it is the City's intent to install stairways, he would like that issue to come before the DCAC so it can be considered as a June agenda item. Chair Funk noted the indication that three of the eight stairways are intended to be replaced. The DCAC directed staff to identify the stairway locations so the DCAC can view the sites prior to the June 15 meeting when it will be considered as an agenda item. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission May 18, 2000 4A. PERMIT REQUEST 4446 DENBIGH Chair Funk reviewed the permit request of Mark Hanus for a Construction on Public Lands Permit to install a lawn sprinkler system. Ahrens noted the pipe will be buried and staff is recommending approval. Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk, to approve the Construction on Public Lands Permit to Mark Hanus, 4446 Denbigh, to install a lawn sprinkler system. Motion carried unanimously. 5. REVIEW: 2000 CALENDAR WITH CHANGES Chair Funk reviewed the 2000 Calendar. Goldberg commented that the October agenda looks quite heavy. A duplication of two topics was noted on the October 19 agenda. Goldberg stated that given this correction, the October calendar should be manageable. No other comments were made. 6. DISCUSS: JUNE DCAC AGENDA Ahrens asked that direction from the Mayor and Council be received on the 2001 dock fees prior to the June meeting so it can be considered at that time. Goldberg asked if the issue of dock fees should be delayed until the pending law suit is concluded. Jones agreed the lawsuits will impact the dock projects and capital outlays. Ahrens suggested staff provide an update on this issue and potential impact on the budget. Park Director Fackler stated another hearing will be held with the LMCD on the Woodland Point lawsuit. He stated he will provide an update at the June 15, 2000 meeting. With regard to the dock fees, he explained they will be set with the budget in December. Ahrens asked staff to provide information from the Mayor about the fee schedule for 2001 dock fees. If that information is not yet available, he suggested it be scheduled for a later agenda. Park Director Fackler stated he will request that information. Councilmember Ahrens commented on a recent newspaper article indicating Excelsior public slips cost $700. She stated she got a sense from the DCAC that the Mayor may be asking if something should be done with the way the dock fees are structured. However at a COW meeting, a lengthy discussion was held that the dock fees are out of line and she believes the Georgia East case brought that to light. She suggested it be tied to the boat sizes at the multiple docks and joint ownership of boats. Councilmember Ahrens indicated support to bring the dock fees into line and indicated the DCAC will be asked to provide input on the fairness of the fee structure. She stated she is already working on this issue and would welcome the DCAC input. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission May 18, 2000 With regard to joint boat ownership, Councilmember Ahrens commented that if someone from another community jointly owns a boat with a Mound resident, she believes they should pay at least as much as a Mound resident is paying. Jones stated it has been discussed to charge non-residents a commercial rate for their boat. Councilmember Ahrens advised that Wayzata requires that the names of both owners be placed on the insurance policy, which greatly reduced the number of joint ownership boats in their program. She stated the Woodland Points settlement will result in the purchase of a number of multiple docks for inlanders as well as construction of stairways which will considerably deplete the fund. Councilmember Ahrens stated if the City is going to be in the marina business, they should charge a high enough fee to cover the resulting costs. Goldberg inquired regarding the magnitude of the proposed increase. Councilmember Ahrens stated she would like to work with the DCAC on where they are going, if they plan to add multiples, and what they will cost. Ahrens asked if nonabutters will pay the same $150. Park Director Fackler stated there is an additional surcharge of $50 for nonabutters. Councilmember Ahrens stated the surcharge cost is to fund the stairways to the multiple docks. She stated it is not fair for other Mound residents to be paying for stairways they are not using and she is a proponent of user fees. Ahrens stated he also supports user fees and understands the City's costs need to be covered for the stairways and docks, but he also believes user fees should stay in the fund that it was designated for. He noted there will be additional work needed such as rip rap and he does not want to see the fund "raided" for other uses. He suggested the fee structure plan include how the dollars would be spent. Councilmember Ahrens stated this is why it makes sense to work with the DCAC. She commented on a recent case heard where a nonabutter expected the City to provide a dock, at a very Iow cost, for his boat. She commented that the purpose of the multiple program was to reduce congestion but allowing too many large boats in a location like Devon defeats that purpose. Discussion ensued regarding the impact larger-sized boats have on the number of slips that can be offered. Park Director Fackler stated an addendum was approved to the dock location map which restricts the size of boats on the multiple slip docks. The existing boats are grandfathered in but new large boats are no longer allowed in that program. Also, the boat owner must notify the City if they intend to purchase a different boat. Councilmember Ahrens emphasized the importance of consistency when making dock decisions to avoid establishing an adverse precedence. She encouraged the establishment of reasonable rules and consistently applying them. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission May 18, 2000 Parks Director Fackler stated if there is clear direction to staff (such as on size) then staff will administer those regulations. Ahrens proposed a fee schedule to charge by the size of the slip rather than the size of the boat. Goldberg stated the DCAC has been operating within defined parameters and this discussion is opening them somewhat. He stated he would like to assure there is a balance between abutters and nonabutters. Councilmember Ahrens stated her agreement and explained this is why the initial investigation occurred to determine how fair things are right now. Ahrens noted that public hearings will be needed if the fee structure is changed and the DCAC needs to be able to "sell" it. Councilmember Ahrens stated when her plan is completed, she would like to present it to the DC^C and then it can be determined if a joint discussion with the City Council should be scheduled. Parks Director Fackler stated he will research when the last dock fee increase was approved. With regard to stairway construction, he suggested those projects be delayed until it is known if other lawsuits will be filed since the Woodland Point case was resolved. Discussion ensued regarding the materials to be used for stairways and rip rap. Added to the June agenda are: 1. Discuss: Joint Ownership of Boats in the Mound Dock Program 2. Discuss: Stairway Designs for Public Lands 3. Discuss: Impact of Woodland Point Law Suit Motion made by Funk, seconded by Goldberg, to approve the June 15, 2000 agenda as revised. Motion carried unanimously. FYI A) B) C) D) E) HRA SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11TH AND APRIL 25TH. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 11TH AND APRIL 25TH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES MONTHLY CALENDAR 8. REPORTS A) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE No report at this time. May 18, 2000 Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission g B) PARK DIRECTOR No report at this time. C) DOCK INSPECTOR No report at this time. ADJOURN Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg, to adjourn the meeting at 8:59 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. MtNU't'ES OF A MEF_.'t'tNG OF 't'tiE MOUND PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION MAY 11, 2000 DRAFT Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Tom Casey, Norman Domholt, John Beise; and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Heidi Guenther. Chair Beise called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 13, 2000 POSC MINUTES Motion made by Casey, seconded by Weycker to approve the minutes of the April 13, 2000 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting, with a change on page six, item 9, paragraph 1, to have the second to last sentence read "which leaves it open to be rezoned," and changing all references to "swamp" to "SWMP." Motion carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES The agenda was approved as amended adding discussion of an appointee to the POSC committee for open space, prioritizing POSAC 2001 line item request, discussion on island park hall uses if restored, item 12A. as discussion of the comprehensive plan and item 12B. and update on Morton Lane mitigation. The agenda was approved as amended. DISCUSS: APPOINTEE FROM POSAC TO COMMITTEE FOR OPEN SPACE AT WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY Chair Beise asked for a volunteer for the Westonka School District Open Space Committee. Commissioner Meyer explained the Council decided to form a task force to gain information for the Westonka School District Property consisting of a Park Commissioner, 2 green space members, and 2 residents at large. Commissioner Casey asked what the Park Commissioner would contribute to this task force. Chair Beise stated the committee would be asked to address questions posed by Mr. Proser to make a recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Casey asked if this item would come before the Park Commission again. Councilmember Weycker stated this item would only go before the Council. Commissioner Casey explained he would like to see this item move along and not be delayed any further. He asked if there was a consensus among the members as to the use of the open space. Chair Beise stated he was in favor of preserving the open space available and leave it up to the voters to determine its use. The Commissioner members concurred. Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission Commissioner Meyer stated the Task Force Committee would be meeting on May '17, 2000 to answer and review the questions at hand and to make their recommendation. Chair Beise noted the Park Commission is in favor of saving the space for recreational use. Chair Beise asked for volunteers for the Task Force Committee position. Commissioner Meyer stated he would be interested in this position. Commissioner Casey asked that this item be placed on the June agenda for further discussion of the May 17, 2000 Task Force meeting. Chair Beise encouraged all Commissioners to pass along comments to Commissioner Meyer. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Beise to nominate Commissioner Meyer for the Open Space Committee. The motion carried unanimously. 4. DISCUSS: PRIORITIZING POSC 2001 CAPITAL/LINE ITEM REQUEST Chair Beise called for a five minute recess to allow the Commission members to review the POSC 2001 Capital/Line Item request. The meeting was recessed at 8:06 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:10 p.m. Chair Beise explained the Commission is to prioritize the Capital Outlay and Line Items for Parks and Open Space for the year 2000. Park Director Fackler asked that the Capital Outlay and Line Items to be prioritized separately. Councilmember Weycker indicated the Council is looking for direction from the Park and Open Space Commission as to the funding needed. She explained the Council is looking for direction on the proposed uses for IP Hall as well. Park Director Fackler asked that the Commission consider what must be done in the near future to protect and preserve the park and open space within the City. He noted that Music in the Parks and Adopt-A-Green Space programs could be in jeopardy if not put forward for 2001. Chair Beise stated he would like to see the Depot/Mound park information sign made a top Capital Outlay priority and to place the IP Hall the third priority. Commissioner Casey stated he would like to see the Council make all recommended issues a priority and if one was not completed, issue two could be completed. Park Director Fackler suggested having the Swenson Park equipment as priority one with the Depot/Mound park information sign as the second priority. The Commission members concurred. Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission Councilmember Weycker suggested the Commission submit a letter to the Council indicating all items on the list are priorities but that the first two would need funding for 2001. Park Director Fackler stated he could draft a letter and attach the 22 item list to give the Council an explanation that all items are significant. He stated the letter would serve as a cover letter to the Commission's request. Park Director Fackler explained that once the Park Commission is on the budget schedule, to will be easier to achieve funding each future year. Councilmember Weycker asked that the historical status of IP Hall be discussed with the Planning Consultant. Park Director Fackler stated he would check into this and report back to the Commission. Chair Beise directed staff to draft a letter to the Council and have this item at the next meeting for review. Councilmember Weycker explained she would assist in the drafting of this letter. Motion made by Beise, seconded by Weycker to prioritize the Capital Outlay projects as presented. The motion failed for lack of a second. Chair Beise suggested separating the Capital Outlays from the Line Items for a single motion. The Commission took the time to prioritize each item. Motion made by Beise, seconded by Casey to prioritize the capital outlay projects as follows: 1.) Playground Equipment at Swenson Park, 2.) IP Hall Restoration; and 3. ) Depot/Mound Bay Park Information Sign and having the line item requests prioritized as follows: 1.) Park and Open Space Planning, 2.) Winter Skating Rink, 3.) Music in the Parks, 4.) Adopt-a-Green Space, 5.) Tree Plantings, 6.) Crescent Park Improvements, 7.)Basketball Court; and 8.)Sorbo & Highland Parks Grounds Improvement. The motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Domholt asked if the rental of the Mound Depot would go to a separate fund for parks. Chair Beise stated the Park Commission made a motion in March to approve such a fund designation to be used for park improvements. Councilmember Weycker stated funds from the fishing tournament would also be allocated to a park improvement fund. Park Director Fackler stated this change will be made effective January of 2001. 3 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission Chair Beise asked if there was a way to get the Park and Open Spare recommendations better discussed by the Council. Councilmember Weycker stated the best way to get these items before the Council would be to have them placed on the Council agenda. She explained only action items should be forwarded onto the Council and all other items should stay at the Commission level. Chair Beise stated he would also like to see the Commission updated on Council action for Commission recommendations. Park Director Fackler stated the simplest solution would be to sit down with the City Manager before each meeting to see which items would go onto Council. Councilmember Weycker stated she would like to see this left up to the City Manager as to what would go before the Council and what could be handled at the staff level. 5. DISCUSS ISLAND PARK HALL USES IF REQUESTED Chair Beise asked for the uses list for Island Park Hall from past meeting discussions and requested that this item be tabled for discussion to the June meeting. The Commission agreed. REVIEW: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PROPOSED SENIOR CENTER CASE 00- Chair Beise stated this item was put on the agenda by mistake but a recommendation could be made to Council on this item. Park Director Fackler concurred and stated the item was sent out in the packet without a recommendation from the City Planner and the packet process needs to be reevaluated. He stated a correction will be made at the staff level to correct the process. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Weycker to strike this item from the agenda and to hold a special meeting on May 17, 2000 or May 18, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. to fully consider the application for the Senior Center with the City Planner present. DISCUSSION: Chair Beise expressed concern for the lack of information and encouraged that the Commission make a recommendation before the next Council meeting. Commissioner Casey asked if this item could be eliminated from the City Council agenda. Park Director Fackler stated this item could not be taken off the agenda but suggested that the Park Commission could hold a special meeting to discuss this item in more detail. The motion passed unanimously. 4 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission 7. REVIEW: VARIANCE REQUEST SUBDIVISION CASE 00-'12 AND CASE 00-'13 Commissioner Casey removed himself from discussing of this item. Chair Beise asked that this item be moved to the special meeting for discussion as well. Motion made by Beise, seconded by Meyer to review this item at the Special Park and Open Space Commission meeting to be held on May 17, 2000 or May 18, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. The motion passed. (Commissioner Casey abstained). 8. DISCUSS: SKATE PARK Councilmember Weycker stated she has set up several meetings with youth interested in a skate park and further information would be available at the June meeting. She explained local youth would be present at the June meeting to address the Commission. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Domholt to continue this item to the June Park and Open Space Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 9. DISCUSS: FALL PLANTING DAY The Commission decided to strike this from the agenda and have the Commission focus on Arbor Day and a spring event for the City. 10. DISCUSS: DNR FORESTRY PROGRAM Commissioner Meyer stated he reviewed several tapes on becoming a tree city and asked if other Commission members would be interested in viewing the tapes. Commissioner Domholt stated he would like to view the tapes and would pass them on at the special meeting to the next Commission member interested. Commissioner Casey stated there is bill before the County to have the County preserve a Big Woods Heritage Forest. He explained if the Commission was interested, a Resolution could be drafted and passed by the City to the County. Chair Beise stated he would be in favor of this suggestion. Commissioner Domholt asked if there was a minimum for the big woods forest. Commissioner Casey stated the size would have to be 10 acres or larger. He explained that even if the City does not have 10 acres available for the "big wood forest" the City could find a parcel to recognize this effort. Councilmember Weycker encouraged Commissioner Casey to draft a Resolution and it be passed on to neighboring cities for their approval as well. 5 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission May 11, 2000 DRAFT '1'1. DISCUSS: ARBOR DAY Commissioner Domholt stated this discussion item arose out the lack of plantings this spring and the need for a public display of plantings for this year. Chair Beise asked for comments from the Commission on a Fall Planting Day. Commissioner Domholt asked if a planting celebration could be done in conjunction with a fall clean up. Councilmember Weycker stated the parks clean up is best done in the spring before the grass and shrubs are in bloom. Commissioner Domholt stated he would like to see the City become more involved with Arbor Day and spring plantings. Chair Beise suggested the Commission work this summer and fall to plan for an eventful Arbor Day next spring. Councilmember Weycker stated the Jaycees would be interested in working with this event and planning would benefit the group if done now. Chair Beise asked that the Jaycees be contacted to inquire regarding their level of interest and a member of the Jaycees be present at the June meeting for discussion. Commissioner Domholt explained his brother was a forester and could be brought in on the planning process for the celebration to offer suggestions. Park Director Fackler stated a tree sale could also be sponsored by the City for the event. Park Director Fackler stated the City newsletter could be an avenue to reach all residents with order forms for tree species. Chair Beise stated the paper had a nice article on the City of Minnetonka's Arbor Day celebration which could give the City of Mound suggestions for next year's event. Commissioner Casey asked that through the planning process of Arbor Day, that an environmental green space improvement be looked at to enhance the City. He stated that tax forfeit parcels and City owned properties could be improved and beautified through this event. Councilmember Weycker noted the County is willing to advertise all Earth Day/Arbor Day events for municipalities which would provide an additional venue for the Park Commission to advertise the event. Chair Beise asked for an updated nature conservation areas plan from staff and the publicly held parcels within the City. Park Director Fackler stated he would look into this. Commissioner Domholt stated his brother could be present at the July meeting to assist in planning. Councilmember Weycker suggested having an educational booth and asked that the event be held at the Mound/Bay Park on April 28 and 29, 2001. 6 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission DR TT ooo 12. DISCUSS: PARKS PUBLIC RELATIONS/PROMOTIONS Chair Beise stated this will be handled by the Arbor Day event by the Park Commission. Commissioner Meyer asked that the park clean up done throughout the summer not be lost through the Arbor Day event. 10:00 p.m. Beise tabled the meeting. Motion by Weycker, seconded by Beise to continue the meeting for an additional 10 minutes. Motion carried unanimously. 12A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Councilmember Weycker noted nothing has come back yet and the Park Commission would be updated when the Council hears more on the plan. 12B. UPDATE ON MORTON LANE MITIGATION Councilmember Meyer updated the Commission on the Morton Lane Mitigation. He explained chemicals were poured on the site in the 1980's and clean up is needed to keep the chemicals from reaching Lake Minnetonka. Park Director Fackler stated a wetland is going to be created to break down the chemicals. He explained they are receiving cooperation from the DNR and the watershed district. Councilmember Weycker noted the clean up is being done by free will at this time. 13. POSC JUNE AGENDA Chair Beise indicated the Arbor Day event, IP Hall uses, and the skate park would be discussed in June and asked that the agenda be relatively light to allow for discussion. Park Director Fackler stated the budget may be up for review at the June meeting as well. 14. MAY CALENDAR Chair Beise reviewed the May calendar with the Commission members. 15. FOR YOUR INFORMATION HRA Minutes April 11th & City Council Minutes of April 11th HRA Minutes of April 25th & City Council Minutes of April 25th Planning Commission Minutes Dock & Commons Advisory Commission Minutes LMCD Information 7 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission May 11, 2000 DRAFT t6. REPORTS: a. City Council Representative No report at this time. b. Park Director No report at this time. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Domholt to adjourn the meeting at 10:09 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 8 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMI,5$10N MAY 18, 2000 Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Norman Domholt, John Beise, Tom Casey; and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler and City Planner Loren Gordon. Absent: Commissioner Christina Cooper Chair Beise called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. LANGDON BAY / ROTTLUND HOMES Discussion of appropriate park land dedication City Planner Gordon introduced Mr. Tim Whitten of Rottlund Homes, who was present to acquaint the Park and Open Space Commission with the development at Langdon Bay and to get the Commission's input into a workable development plan. A 10% land dedication had been discussed. Chair Beise questioned what the current park layout is for the development. Mr. Whitten presented the preliminary plans for discussion, noting that 2.8 acres have been set aside for parks and trails. This is very close to the amount needed on this 28 acre parcel Chair Beise asked if any park structures were planned. Mr. Whitten replied that they had been considering sidewalks on both sides of the street and some sort of gazebo structure, or play structure, would also be agreeable. Chair Beise asked if there had been some consideration of leaving out the parks and making a trail around the entire perimeter of the project. Mr. Whitten replied that there would be many areas that a trail would not work due to either extreme grades or wetlands. Councilmember Weycker stated she sees the layout as isolating this neighborhood and would like to see some change to incorporate this neighborhood into the surrounding neighborhoods a bit more. Mr. Whitten replied that with sidewalks on all roads, walking from this neighborhood to surrounding neighborhoods would be very simple, and encouraged. Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission May Chair Beise expressed his opinion that it looks like a lot of the changes suggested the last time this plan came before the POSAC have been incorporated, and this plan looks very good. Commissioner Casey questioned whether some of the parkland could be around and including the Alwin house, rather than having it torn down. Mr. Whitten stated there are some problems with this as the house sits on a very high point, and the surrounding roads have a much lower elevation. To update the house would likely cost around $100,000 which makes it not financially feasible. If the City would like to keep the house, the whole plan would likely have to be changed to move roads and so on since the elevations are so different. Chair Beise asked whether the house could be moved, but did not know where it could go as the City does not have enough land in one parcel to accommodate this house. Commissioner Domholt stated that there would have to be a retaining wall all the way around the house to hold the elevation. Commissioner Casey stated he would like to see this possibility explored, why it may or may not work, and what changes would need to be made to keep the house. Chair Beise believed it would be hard to get public support to keep this house. He noted that even public support to fix up Island Park Hall is Iow, and that would take much less money and have more uses when done. Park Director Fackler stated he would like to see it moved and someone else improve it. But, as for the City taking on this responsibility, he questioned what use the house would be to the City. He noted this is an additional project to take on, in view of the current Island Park Hall project. Chair Beise stated he would be in favor of moving the house to a more central site if it is worth saving. This would be the most important question. The house really would not fit into this development, so moving it would be the best option to investigate. Councilmember Weycker suggested that City Planner Gordon check the house, and report back to the Commission on the structural soundness of the house, and the possibility, from his opinion, of moving the house. Chair Beise summarized that Rottlund should move forward with their plans, while the Commission looks into the possibilities discussed regarding saving the house. The whole plan will not have to be redone to save the house. Mound Advisow Park and Open Space Commission REVIEW MAJOR SUBDIVISION, ZONING AMENDMENT, STREET VACATION AND VARIANCES FOR THE SENIOR CENTER Case Numbers 00-04, 00-05, 00-06, 00-07, and 00-19 Location: 2600 Bush Lake Road Chair Beise stated he would abstain from discussion and voting on this subject, and turn the Chair position over to Commissioner Domholt, due to conflict of interest as his mother lives in one of the adjoining houses. Councilmember Weycker stated that she does not see this as a conflict of interest, since he has no financial gain in this situation. Commissioner Casey questioned whether this could be seen by the public as unethical for Chair Beise to vote on this issue. Chair Beise stated he has also been representative of several sales on that block, which could be held up as some sort of financial tie. Therefore, he does choose to abstain as a Commissioner, but will definitely offer his opinion as a citizen. Acting Chair Domholt asked what issues Beise has. Chair Beise stated that the elevations are a concern, as the pond is at a higher elevation than his mother's basement. If the pond does overflow, the water would run right into the basements of the houses along that street. Also, the stormwater pond is not on the development land, but on City property. In response to a letter by the Planning Commission, the developer stated that the size of the property did not allow the pond, and the adjacent City property was available for that use. Chair Beise stated that he would like to know how they came to the conclusion that this land was available. Park Director Fackler stated that this was an assumption on their part. City Planner Gordon presented an overview of the development. Some issues discussed during this overview were the percent of hardcover; the necessity of a connection of the trails in this development to other neighborhoods; parking lot lights; the location of the VFW and parking lot; the landscaping plan, specifically using native trees and shrubs; and the stormwater pond, which is the main issue. Acting Chair Domholt stated that the recommendation of the Park Commission would be to not plant trees on top of a berm, and that native plants be used. These were direct recommendations from the DNR representative that the Park Commission met with last month. Commissioner Casey also suggested trying a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees, while still trying to screen the building. Also, he suggested to move the building to the 3 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission DRAFT May 18, 2000 front, which would help avoid some of the berms needed and also cut down on the screening needed. Acting Chair Domholt agreed that the building up front would make more sense and would be better for the trail corridor through the area. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Weycker to keep the stormwater pond off City land. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0-1, Beise abstained) Commissioner Casey questioned whether the stormwater pond being on the development site may be a legal issue as well. Acting Chair Domholt stated that the site where the pond is located in the plan is not that valuable a piece of property to the City, and to improve it, the City would likely dredge it and put in a pond. He suggested selling the parcel to the developer and allow them to develop the pond on the site. Councilmember Weycker reminded the Commission that the developer has made no offer to buy that parcel, just to use it for the pond. This does not mean, however, that the developer would not consider this option if the City offered it. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Weycker to direct City Staff to explore the greater diversion of stormwater that is untreated flowing to the south (Cooks Bay), to flow north to the treating pond. Motion carried unanimously (4-0-1, Beise abstained). Chair Beise reiterated his concern that should the pond fail, the water would run into the houses behind it. At this point, the neighborhood would file a suit, but against whom if the City still owns the property and the pond is constructed by the developer. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Domholt that the approval of the plat and the rezoning be conditional upon a dedication of adequate trail access to Lost Lake. Motion carried unanimously (4-0-1, Beise abstained). Chair Beise resumed his position and chaired the remainder of the meeting. REVIEW: EASEMENT AND VACATION AND VARIANCE REQUEST Case numbers 00-12 and 00-13 Location: 5104 Drummond Road Commissioner Casey stated his intent to withdraw as a voting member, due to the fact that he had represented a party who was opposed to this project in the past. 4 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission Dt AF sMay 18, 2000 Git), Planner Gordon provided a summary of the variance request and presented the house plans. The issues with building the house are that they want to locate the house on the north part of the lot and have asked for additional decking, which creates some conflict with a conservation easement that the house would enter. Commissioner Domholt questioned what is growing in the conservation easement. City Planner Gordon replied that it is primarily trees. Councilmember Weycker stated that when the other properties were granted a vacation of the easement, it was for temporary construction purposes only, for access. The easement still could not be built on. Commissioner Casey stated that the DNR had written letters the first time this issue came before the City, suggesting denial of any vacation of the conservation easement. At this time, Casey indicated he still feels this is a valid position. He agreed with the staff recommendation to deny the vacation of the easement. Councilmember Weycker stated that the conservation easement was set up because the slope is so steep and building on this land would not be a sound idea. Also, it acts as a buffer to the wetlands below the hill. Councilmember Weycker stated she would not have a problem with granting use of the conservation easement for construction purposes, but then reinstate a no-touch policy. Motion made by Beise, seconded by Meyer to allow the house to be build to plan, without the deck to the north, and vacate 10 feet of the conservation easement for a time period of 12 months to provide construction access, and call a variance for the landing in the front yard, with no more hardcover in the plan than what is presented. Motion failed 1-3-1 (Beise aye, Casey abstained). Commissioner Casey stated that he is opposed to allowing anything to be done to this land for 12 months, as it is needed for a buffer zone, which is why it was named as a conservation easement in the first place. Motion made by Meyer, seconded by Casey to agree with staff recommendation to deny variances and the easement vacation as requested. Motion carried 3-1-0. (Beise opposed, Casey abstained). Motion made by Domholt, seconded by Casey to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.