Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2000-07-11
PLEASE TURN OFF ALL PAGERS & CELL PHONF~ IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JULY 11, 2000, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent ~4genda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roil call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE AGENDA. '~' PAGE 3. *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE MINUTES: JUNE 27, 2000, SPECIAL MEETING ...... 2951 JUNE 27, 2000, REGULAR MEETING 2952-2972 *B. PAYMENT OF BILLS .......................... 2973-2985 *C. AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT AND THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT REGARDING CDBG FUNDS AND SENIOR CENTER FOUNDATION. (TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING.) *D. SET PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CASE g00-22 & 00-23: LANGDON BY PUD AND STREET/EASEMENT VACATION: July 25, 2000 ............................ 2986-3067 *E. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: APPROVE REVISION TO SECTION 320 OF CITY CODE: CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND ............ 3068-3073 e APPROVE REVISION TO SECTION 330:85 OF CITY CODE: FINAL PLAT, RECORDING FORM ............. 2074-3075 CASE #00-31: MINOR SUBDIVISION - 5212 & 5240 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, CODEN-MILLER PARTNERSHIP ........................... 3076-3108 2949 PLEASE TURN OFF ALL PAGERS & CELL PHONES IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUBJECT.) 5. DISCUSSION ON OPEN SPACE STUDY ................... 3109-3126 6. ADDITIONAL ITEMS RELATING TO RAY MAR PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT. 7. ACTION ON VFW SUGGESTION FOR NAME CHANGE FOR AUDITOR'S ROAD ............................. 3127-3134 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: MATTER OF LITIGATION ................ 3135 9. WORKSHOP: CONDUCTING MORE EFFICIENT MEETINGS ..... 3136-3139 10. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. AMM Fax News ....... ~; .......................... 3140 B. 2001 LMCD Budget ............................. 3141-3148 C. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Minutes - May 24, 2000.. 3149-3157 D. Mound Police Department Monthly Report for June, 2000 ...... 3158-3166 2950 COUNCIL BRIEFING July 11, 2000 REMINDER: Mayor and Council are reminded to bring the materials for discussion regarding making council meetings more efficient. Name Chanl, e for Auditor's Road I apologize for this making its way to the Council. Had I known the history when approached, I could have explained that a decision had been made regarding the renaming. However, I do think that the offer of a donation was an additional consideration that could not be explained away by the earlier decision. As pointed out by the supporting minutes, both the EDC and the City Council thought it appropriate to delay renaming Auditor's Road until the redevel6pment was complete and the name could reflect the character of the~new downtown. I support that decision and encourage the Council to defer to it. The offer of a donation should be separate from this issue and come through a donation of charitable gambling funds for the purpose of park benches, trash cans, etc. Open Space Discussion As the timeline contained in your packets implies, we now must stay on course with the prescribed deadlines if we are to hold a special election at the time of the primary. Before that can happen, some decisions need to be made by Council. Staff has been able to determine that the $1.3 million that the petitioners have limited the City to spending is only enough for the purchase of the land and the soft costs (i.e., bonding costs, attorney and consulting costs) involved in doing so. A report by a League of Minnesota specialist in Loss Control points to the safety hazards and OSHA violations that exist on the fields as they stand. That report makes it clear that the City would be saddled with numerous liabilities and that it has no option but to make the safety and code improvements, should it end up the owner. That fact begs the consideration of a second question on the ballot that would authorize the expenditure of funds to make the improvements. The question the decision makers should then consider is this: If the referendum passes and the park redevelopment becomes a real consideration, is Haddorff Field possibly a jewel that has gone overlooked in the redevelopment of downtown Mound? Doing simple improvements to make it safe as a play field with limited benefits to the community is one consideration; redeveloping the fields into the center piece of downtown is another. I have heard discussions of a need for a "sense of community" in Mound. A central park suited to year-round community events can bring several benefits. It can provide economic benefits through the influx of outside people and dollars into the community. It can identify the community an active and vibrant place to live and play. It can be a physical attribute that adds beauty. And ultimately, a central park becomes the community gathering spot, thus building that "sense of community" that is missing, according to some, today. How ever you see Haddorff Field in the future, whether improved minimally to meet code or improved to a community park, a second question authorizing that spending will be necessary. Should you agree with this recommendation, a final recommendation is to require, in advance, an adequate show of public support to purchase the land, to then be accompanied by an adequate show of public support to make improvements, to whatever degree. In other words, require significant support for both questions to consider the approval to even purchase the land. For as the comments the Loss Control expert imply, it could be viewed as irresponsible of the City to own and allow the use of that land as it stands today. In conclusion, costs for making the improvements to the varying'degrees will not be available until the July 25 meeting. However, before that time a decision needs to be made regarding the need and general content of a second question. Jim Prosser and John Dean will help you through this discussion, with additional supporting information to be received at the meeting. MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING OF MOUND CITY COUNCIL 2000 JUNE 27, The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, June 26, 2000, at 5:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Acting Mayor Mark Hanus, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, and Leah Weycker. Mayor Pat Meisel was absent and excused. Also in attendance were City Manager Kandis Hanson, the following Department Heads: Gino Businaro, Joel Krumm, Jim Faclder, Greg Skinner, Greg Pederson, Jon Sutherland, John McKinley, and the following City Consultants: Jim Prosser, Steve Apfelbacher. The following interested citizens were also present: None. Jim Prosser and Steve Apfelbacher of Ehler's and Associates, Inc presented the first in a series of workshops for planning Key Financial Strategies for capital purchases and programs and general operations. They explained the need for long-range financial planning and the benefits to the City for doing so. Comparisons with other cities were made, including tax capacity, level of taxation and level of bonded indebtedness. The City of Mound compared low to moderate next to other cities in the area with similar profiles. The result of this process will be the prioritization of programs and purchases to be provided for Mound residents. No future meeting date was set. Prosser and Apfelbacher will meet with Staff within the next two weeks. Motion by Weyker and second by Ahrens to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 p.m. Mark Hanus, Acting Mayor ATTEST: Kandis Hanson, City Manager MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 27, 2000 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, June 27, 2000, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Acting Mayor Mark Hanus, Council Members: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, and Leah Weycker. Absent and excused: Mayor Pat Meisel. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Loren Gordon, Finance Director Gino Businaro; Park Director Jim Fackler, and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. The following interested citizens were also present: Jo Longpre, Ken Custer, Steven Coddon, Don Richard, Barr Engineering; Lorrie Ham, The Laker; Martin Miller, Milton Hentges, Peter Meyer, Tony Clapp, John Volgstrom, John Volgstrom, Tom and Dene Fabick, Bill and Dorothy Netka, and Liquor Store Manager, Joel Krumm. *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 Council Member 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 Acting Mayor Hanus opened the meeting at 8:00 p.m. and welcomed the people in attendance. The pledge of allegiance was recited. APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Weycker asked to remove P & Z Case No. 00-28 from the consent agenda. Council Member Brown asked to remove the Minutes of the June 13, 2000 meeting for corrections. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker, to approve the agenda and consent agenda with the removal of the Minutes of June 13, 2000, and P * Z Case #00-28. The roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0. CONSENT AGENDA *1.0 SET PUBLIC HEARINGS: POSTPONED HEARING FOR LANGDON BAY SUBDIVISION: JULY 11. MOTION Ahrens, Weycker second, unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEDATION: *1.1 CASE//99-49 & 00-26: MINOR SUBDIVISION - MILTON HENTGES, 6400 LYNWOOD BLVD, LOT 6 AND NORTH 106' OF LOT 7, BLOCK 10, MOUND TERRACE, PID//14-117-24 32 0059 AND CASE #00-26: VARIANCE MILTON HENTGES, 6381 WALNUT ROAD, LOT 6 AN DNORTH 106' OF LOT 7, BLOCK 10, MOUND TERRACE, PID//14-11%24 32 0059. RESOLUTION # 00-61 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL LOT FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6200 LYNWOOD BLVD., LOT 6 AND THE NORTH 107 FEET OF LOT 7, BLOCK 10, MOUND TERRACE, PID # 14-117-24 32 0059, P & Z CASE # 99-49 AND 00-26 Ahrens, Weycker, unanimously. '1.2 CASE//00-30: VARIANCE - MARTIN MILLER. 6058 LYNWOOD BLVD. LOT 5, BROOKTON. IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WITH A NON-CONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK. PID# 14-117-24 31 0005. RESOLUTION # 00-62 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AT 6058 LYNWOOD BLVD., LOT 5, BROOKTON, PID #14-117-2g-31-0005, P & Z CASE #00-30 Ahrens, Weycker, unanimously. '1.3 CASE g00-34: VARIANCE - SHAUN TANCHEFF. 5174 TUXEDO BLVD, LOT 20. WHIPPLE SHORES, IN (~RDER TO CONSTRUCT A DWELLING WITH A NON-CONFORMING LAKESIDE SETBACK. PID #24-117-24 34 OO04. RESOLUTION # 00-63 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO REMODEL THE RESIDENCE AT 5174 TUXEDO ROAD, LOT 20, WHIPPLE SHORES, PID #24-11%24-34-0004, P & Z CASE #00-34 Ahrens, Weycker, unanimously. '1.4 APPROVE PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION. Ahrens, Weycker, unanimously. 1.5 APPROVE THE MINUTES: JUNE 13. 2000 REGULAR MEETING. Council Member Brown requested that on page 2 change Fernstall to Furnstahl and on page 3, change Voss to Hvass. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to approve the Minutes of the June 13, 2000 meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. 4-0. 1.6 CASE//00-28: VARIANCE - TOM FABICK, 2017 ARBOR LANE. LOT 3. SKARP & LINOUIST RAVENSWOOD. IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A 2~ FLOOR ADDITION WITH CONNECTION TO EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE PID//13-117-24-41-0002. Council Member Weycker questioned whether the applicant was being required to remove the windows. The City Planner stated that this was a black and white issue and the owner was aware it. If the set back was 3 feet, the windows could stay, if it was less, the windows needed to be removed. The City Planner stated that the Applicants had decided to have the second story wall built at 3 feet, but would remove the first story windows. Council Member Weycker restated that her question was whether the applicant was aware of this requirement. Tom Fabick stated that he was aware of this requirement and understood that this was a building code question. RESOLUTION # 00-64 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES FOR REMODELING OF THE RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 2017 ARBOR LANE, LOT 3, SKARP & LINDQUIST RAVENSWOOD, PID//13-117-24-41-0002, P & Z CASE//00-28 Weycker, Brown, unanimously in favor. 4-0. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT SUBJECTS NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUBJECT.} Peter Meyer, a member of Mound Park and Open Space Advisory Commission, stated that a few weeks ago Shorewood dedicated a ball field and some members of the Twins organization were there. He thought it was a very good presentation and he quoted from the speech. Mr. Meyer hopes that the City Council will support youth sports. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.7 CASE//00-29: HASBRO/CITY OF MOUND - STREET/EASEMENT VACATION OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF MORTON LANE, LOCATED BETWEEN BLOCK 9 AND BLOCK 10, OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK. The City Planner reviewed the materials including an overhead that showed the existing conditions of the site. This request is the result of a number of years of monitoring the ground water in the area. Hasbro has been notified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to do the clean up and it is necessary to address this before the ground water gets to the lake. Currently, the ground water is heading toward the Morton Lane channel. It is necessary to vacate a portion of the channel in order to combine it with Hasbro's property to do the cleanup. The site will become a wetland that will naturally treat the toxins in the groundwater. The attorneys have concluded that a vacation is necessary in order to complete this cleanup. This will impact the public use of Morton Lane for access to the lake. 400 feet of shoreline would be taken out of the City's linear footage reducing the BSU's by about 8. The idea is that the channel will be constructed so that there will be more water footage after wetland is constructed (about sixty feet more). Hasbro has indicated that they have no future use for the property and want to give it back to the City when the cleanup is complete. Staff recommendation to the Planning Commission was that it is a good idea to go forward with this. The Planning Commission agreed (6-2 vote). Hasbro does have the okay from the DNR, etc. for this project. Acting Mayor Hanus asked if Hasbro was willing to include a statement in the resolution indicating that the property will be returned to the City. The City Attorney added that this has been a point of significant discussion. The status of Hasbro's current position is that they are expecting that most of the wetland work will be completed in November 2000. At that time, they will convey a shoreline easement to the City and it is hoped that this will allow the City to calculate the 460 feet back into its shoreline count. They are also willing to convey an interest to the City for the upland portion for use as open space. Later in the year, they would finalize an agreement providing for the ultimate conveyance to the City of the lots involved at the point in time when the cie, an up is complete. Council Member Brown asked about splitting the channel down the middle. The City Planner stated that Hasbro has an agreement with the property owner on the east to take care of this. Council Member Ahrens commented that in reference to the shoreline easement, there is an ordinance in place to take care of this type of situation and she is not sure the City will get credit for 460 feet of shoreline as the Dock Commission. is calculating this differently now. Acting Mayor Hanus asked when the project would be complete as it may have an effect on whether it needed to be reported to the Dock Commission. He stated that if it was complete within the calendar year, it might not be necessary to report this. The City Attorney agreed with this. Council Member Ahrens asked for clarification on why this would be. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that rather then completely losing the property; they could just report the slight increase due to the project. Council Member Ahrens did not agree with this statement. She felt that if there was any type of change, it should be reported. The City Attorney stated that going through a licensing cycle with less property would have a greater impact than going through the next cycle with the same amount or more of shoreline. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that the point is that if the change is a net gain, they will not lose BSU's. Councilmember Ahrens stated there was a new rule that if the shoreline was not straight, it was not necessarily counted. Councilmember Weycker stated she felt that these things would need to be clarified before a vacation was approved. Acting Mayor Hanus asked what the timetable was to get answers for the questions being asked. The City Attorney stated that he did not know the process, but would investigate. Councilmember Ahrens confirmed that the choice was to vacate and lose shoreline or let the contaminants stay. The City Attorney stated there were other choices such as pumping the pollution, but the idea here is that this is passive and will enhance the wetland. The PCA and Hasbro have concluded that this option makes good sense. Councilmember Brown stated that in reference to the issue of losing eight BSU's, no one will actually lose a space who has one now. In addition, the City was gaining green space and getting the site cleaned up. One year from now, Mound could have a beautiful park. Councilmember Brown felt that the good outweighed the bad. Councilmember Weycker stated that this site woU'id be cleaned up whether the vacation was approved or not. She questioned what the public benefit is in vacating the shoreline. Councilmember Brown stated that this is a dried up channel with no boat access. The other options would include pumping stations and would not be esthetic. The City Planner stated that it just happened that the contaminants have moved toward the water, but this is the only option for the natural ponding. Acting Mayor Hanus opened the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m. Jamie Demaries, 5272 Lynwood Boulevard, stated that he urges the City to vacate. He stated his concern about pumping noise as the alternative. Mr. Demaries likes the idea of a park. He felt that the loss of shoreline is not a concern as this particular area is like a slew. Councilmember Weycker stated that shoreline was in use as it was calculated into the dock program. Ron Popagalo, 2161 Cardinal Lane, referred to the Planning Commission meeting when a statement was made by the Hasbro representative that Cardinal Lane is higher than the polluted property and so is not an issue. Mr. Popagalo stated that a portion of his property is level with the Hasbro property. He is concerned about knowing whether the pollution has leached onto his property. Mr. Popagalo also stated a concern about mosquito control with the establishment of the wetland. Councilmember Ahrens asked whether mosquito control was currently active in that area. Mr. Popagalo stated that he had not seen them there. Councilmember Brown stated the Hasbro representative mentioned that the last wellhead closest to Mr. Popagalo's property shows no pollution and it is funneling away from his land. Anthony Clapp, 2180 Cardinal Lane, stated that he approves of the plan and is an adjacent landowner. He stated that a portion of the land is level with his property. He is also concerned about future maintenance control including the mosquito issue. Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, Park Commission Member, stated that the Metro Mosquito Control could control the mosquitoes if asked. He further stated that he strongly supports this project. Acting Mayor Hanus closed the Public Hearing at 8:40 p.m. Councilmember Weycker asked Kevin England (Hasbro representative) what other options were available excluding the use of pumps. Mr. England spoke about the questions that had been raised and the options. He stated that the contaminants were moving 20 feet under the surface and moving toward the lake. As this reaches the channel, the water will move up. The source is decreasing at the building. Mr. England stated that using a wetland to do th~'~ cleanup was not his primary option. One option was to use pumping to'move water through the material, which would deplete the current small wetlands. The pumps would take thirty years to complete the clean up. An alternative is to put a chemical underground to set up a reducing environment below the surface. Mr. England does not feel it is a good solution is to put more material in the ground that could eventually require a fix in the long term. Another possibility is to build an iron wall to stop the seepage, but again that would involve putting a chemical in the ground. Because Mr. England did not like these options, he started to look at bioremediation as a solution. The benefits to the City with this solution are that the City gets 60 feet of shoreline, two acres of flood storage, additional trees, re-creation of a wetland, and creation of a park. This is a passive system that is perpetual and not intrusive. Mr. England stated that the implementation of this plan requires a series of steps that need to be addressed. The preliminary design has been approve by MPCA. Hasbro now needs ownership of land, which will require vacation of the street. After that, the plans will be made final and permits can be applied for. Mr. England stated that by regulation, wetland work must be done in the fall. The plan is to go forward with this project, which will take about 4 to 6 weeks, and finish in November. It is necessary to get the permits by July in order to do this. Mr. England stated that an agreement for the shoreline and eventual park use has not been completed because of time constraints and Hasbro wanted to work those out in November. The latest period of returning the land would be when no further sampling is necessary. Hasbro's concern was to not give the land away too soon. Hasbro needs to be sure the cleanup is working so as to avoid having to buy the land back again. Mr. England stated that mosquitoes are an issue he cannot address as that is a City issue. Councilmember Brown asked about the concerns of the adjoining properties regarding the contamination. Mr. England stated he did not believe there was pollution on those properties. He indicated where a barrier would be placed 25 feet down into the clay to ensure the flow is captured. Councilmember Weycker stated that she agreed that this is the best option, but wants to find a way not to vacate. She asked why ownership was necessary. The City Attorney stated that other options were explored such as giving Hasbro a license to construct the roadway, but the conclusion was that this was not a right that was consistent with dedication of the road. There was also a concern of whether this would then need to be a City project. The City Attorney felt that even if the road were to remain vacated, but the shoreline changed, that would also have an impact on the lineal shoreline. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that he was losing so'ne hope in the conveyance issue in that there would be a problem 'With the Dock Commission. The City Attorney suggested checking with the Dock Commission to find out what is needed. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that he would like to see stated in the resolution how the conveyance would be achieved. The City Attorney stated that at this time, he did not know what the policy of the Dock Commission. Acting Mayor Hanus wanted to leave the door open for a better resolution in the future for the conveyance. He questioned why Hasbro could not continue applying for permits under this resolution. The City Attorney stated that the type of information is received further on could greatly impact the resolution. Councilmember Ahrens restated the possibility that the shoreline would not come back into the City's account. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to approve the vacation of the Morton Lane right of way as presented. Discussion: Councilmember Ahrens requested an amendment that a provision be added that the land be proved safe and the contamination eliminated before the land is reconveyed to the City. Brown agreed to this amendment. Acting Mayor Hanus asked for clarification of the amendment as to whether it referred to the land being cleaned up or to the system working. The City Attorney stated conveyance would not happen until MPCA had approved the project. He stated that the interim discussion was for the shoreline and open space easements. The City would want the ultimate say in whether they would accept the property. The City Attorney suggested the following be added to the Motion: "Vacation is approved subject to the following: Applicant enters into an agreement with the City providing for a shoreline and open space easement and for the eventual conveyance to the City of Lots 12, 13, 14, 15, and the westerly half of Lot 16, Block 9, Abraham Lincoln addition to Lakeside Park together with the portion of Morton Lane hereby vacated and any vacated portion of Morton Lane purchased by Hasbro from others. Such shoreline easement and eventual conveyance will include the shoreline defined as 9.2.4 MSL from the current configuration and corrected later for the shoreline def'med the constructed wetland if approved by the PCA and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Such conveyance to be made no later than the time applicant is informed by the PCA that there is no further need to continue treatment of the impacted ground water. Such conveyance will be for public wetland and open space purposes only." The City Planner suggested that because this is so far out in time he would add "identified as the ordinary high water of Lake Minnetonka" instead of using today's number. Brown accepted the amendment. Councilmember Weycker questioned that if this happened on a downtown parking lot, would the City need to relinquish ownership of the parking lot to accomplish the cleanup. Mr. England stated that the legal counsels involved did not feel this was an option. Hasbro would prefer an easement and not a vacation. The City Attorney stated the issue had to do with this being a dedicated street. The City does not actually own fee title to this property. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that dedicated land for a street had to be used for a street. Councilmember Brown stated that the good outweighs the bad on this issue. Councilmember Weycker stated that the issue is losing the lakeshore. She further stated that some of the alternative options might have to be used in some of the other projects. Councilmember Brown stated that he felt that this was the best alternative for this site. The City Manager stated that this would die with one dissenting vote tonight and perhaps the vote should be taken at the next meeting. Councilmember Weycker stated she wanted clarification from the Dock Commission on the shoreline calculation issue. MOTION by Weycker to table the issue. Motion died for lack of second. Acting Mayor Hanus asked Mr. England what tabling the issue would do to the schedule. Mr. England stated that Hasbro needed to get the permits by July to begin work in October. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that he would entertain a motion. MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Hanus to table the issue. Hanus added an amendment to include asking staff to investigate the issues before the next meeting. Ayes: 2 (Weycker, Hanus) Nays: 2 ( Ahrens, Brown) Motion failed 2-2. Councilmember Ahrens stated that the issue should be explored as to what to do if the Dock Commission answer is no and how that would make a difference. The Motion by Brown was brought back. Councilmember Brown asked Councilmember Weycker if anything could be added to the Motion to resolve her concerns. Councilmember Weycker stated that the question lies with the Dock Commission and the lakeshore footage. Councilmember Ahrens stated that she feels this project is the best option whether the Dock Commission gives the go ahead or not. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that if nothing can be done to satisfy Councilmember Weycker's concerns, then the Council must vote. The City Attorney stated that if the motion to approve the vacation fails, the City would go back to square one, including petition, notification, etc. He suggested waiting until another night to make a decision when a full City Council could be present. MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Brown, to table this issue until the July 11, 2000 meeting with the contingency to check with the Dock Commission. Ayes: 3 (Hanus, Weycker, Brown) Nay: 1 (Ahrens) Motion carried. 3-1. Councilmember Ahrens stated that she felt that other options for cleanup should be brought to the next meeting because if the dock issue could not be solved, this option would not happen. The City Attorney stated that Hasbro could have property owners join in the request for vacation and then a 4/5 vote would not be necessary. Acting Mayor Hanus called a break at 9:28 p.m. Acting Mayor Hanus called the meeting to order at 9:35 p.m. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to reconsider the last motion. Ayes: 3 (Ahrens, Hanus, Brown) Nay: 1 (Weycker) Motion carried. 3-1. The City Attorney stated that Mr. Coddon would now join in on the request and as this is now a petition for vacation by the requisite property owners abutting, this changes the number of votes needed to approve the vacation. The approval now requires a simple majority vote MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to approve the vacation of Morton Lane subject to the following: Applicant enters into an agreement with the City providing for a shoreline and open space easement and for the eventual conveyance to the City of Lots 12, 13, 1,4, 15, and the westerly half of Lot 16, Block 9, Abraham Lincoln addition to Lakeside Park together with the portion of Morton Lane hereby vacated and any vacated portion of Morton Lane purchased by Hasbro from others. Such shoreline easement and eventual conveyance will include the shoreline defined as 9.2.4 MSL from the current configuration and corrected later for the shoreline defined the constructed wetland if approved by the PCA and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Such conveyance to be made no later than the time applicant is informed by the PCA that there is no further need to continue treatment of the impacted ground water. Such conveyance will be for public wetland and open space purposes only. RESOLUTION #00-65 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF MORTON LANE STREET RIGHT- OF-WAY, P & Z CASE #00-29 WITH CONDITIONS The City Attorney stated there was a need to have assurance from Hasbro that the City's costs will be reimbursed. He suggested this as an amendment to the Motion. Councilmembers Brown and Ahrens accepted this amendment. Councilmember Weycker stated that although she was not voting in favor, she is not opposed to the project, but does think another way could be found to do this without relinquishing ownership. Ayes: 3 (Ahrens, Hanus, Brown) Nay: 1 (Weycker) Motion carried 3-1. 1.8 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO DOWNTOWN ZONING. The City Planner stated that this is proposed language to create four new zoning districts for the downtown area. These have been set up to accommodate the Mound Visions plan. The districts set up various ways for a mixed use and compact urban downtown to unfold. He stated that the Planning Commission has been working through these zoning issues and there have been many changes up to this point. There have been issues with outside agency reviews that were coming forward and interfered with writing specific standards. The thought process was to get some flexibility up front to deal with the unknowns. The districts stipulate within each district what are permitted and conditional uses. There are thresholds for set backs and heights. Side yards and rear yards would be somewhat flexible. The May 8 draft is what the Planning Commission has moved on for the Council to review. If Council is comfortable with this, it should then move into an ordinance. Staff has also put together a proposed map for these districts. The idea from the Planning Commission is that when a property redevelops, the new zoning takes effect. The downside is that there is more work involved in reviewing the applications. Parking standards relax the current code to avoid parking in the pedestrian district. The sign section is stricter than current code. Councilmember Ahrens questioned whether the Planning Commission had discussed this. Councilmember Brown stated that this was contidued at the May 8th meeting and completed at the May 22 meeting. The City Planner confirmed that the draft before the Council included the Planning Commission changes. Councilmember Weycker asked whether small changes could be made in the future. The City Planner stated that this was possible, but his intent was just to bring the information to the Council for a first pass tonight. The City Planner stated that a planned unit approach would allow them to go over every proposal and put in conditions as necessary. Acting Mayor Hanus asked about the signage portion under prohibited sign, specifically plastic panel rear light signs. He wondered if the Planning Commission had discussed this. Councilmember Brown stated that this was discussed in reference to a franchise that might come in with an unapproved sign. It was felt that those people could ask for a variance to the sign ordinance. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that he felt the backlit signs were not necessarily offensive and wondered if this would scare away business. The City Planner stated this same discussion occurred in regard to neon signs during the Planning Commission meeting. Councilmember Brown stated that the Planning Commission was split on these issues, but people would have to come in for a variance. The City Manager stated that businesses that are subject to City policies have grown adept to tiffing their signage to the character of the downtown. She further stated that the sign language was only applicable to the pedestrian district. Acting Mayor Hanus was concerned that there would not be hardship to grant the variances and wanted to consider changing the code rather than granting variances. The City Attorney suggested a "special exception" to the variance. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that in reference to parking issue, the numbers were different. The City Planner stated that the Planning Commission wanted 10x20 spaces and these are subject to variance. Acting Mayor Hanus opened the Public Hearing at 10:04 p.m. Acting Mayor Hanus closed the Public Hearing at 10:05 p.m. Councilmember Brown stated he was comfortable with this as is. Acting Mayor Hanus stated he could support it, but wanted to make sure there was something in the minutes so that if someone comes in with PUD and wants to make changes, it would be possible. Councilmember Ahrens agreed with this and wants to redefine code instead of granting variances. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that even though this would become a part of the actual ordinance, he views this as a test or starting point for developers. Councilmember Ahrens asked where this languag~ came from. The City Planner stated that it was pulled out of variOUs existing ordinances. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to direct staff to prepare the ordinance. Discussion: Councilmember Weycker asked if the Council could live with this for a while before approving it. The City Planner stated that he felt there might be reason to go back in and tailor the ordinance to what is built, and then it would be more specific. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that changes could be made anywhere along the line, and even though he had some problems, he felt it was a good starting point. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that it should be understood that nothing is being rezoned, but that new criteria is being established for when the new zones are adopted. Councilmember Ahrens stated she did not want to do anything that was contrary to what the Dodds are doing. The City Planner stated that the plan was constructed to reflect the Dodds project. The City Planner confirmed the issue of property changing hands in that the prior zoning could not be kept if redevelopment was done, but if only a change of tenant occurred, the prior zoning could be kept. The City Attorney stated that in other cities, PUD's are reserved for new developments where several lots are combined. Acting Mayor Hanus wondered if there was concern from a legal perspective on this. The City Attorney stated there was not a concern. Ken Cluster, 5533 Shoreline, asked the City Attorney if approving this would change the value of his property because he could then only sell to one specific buyer. The City Attorney stated that no because until a map is adopted, this text is not specific to any point, but he may want to come back when the map is being considered. The City Attorney also stated that sometimes these changes could increase the value of property. Acting Mayor Hanus called the vote. The vote was unanimously in favor 4-0. Motion carried. 1.6 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEDATIONS: A__~. CASE//00-32: VARIANCE - JOHN VOLGSTROM, 2350 DRIFTWOOD LANE. IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A NON-CONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK, PID //13-117-24 44 0059. The City Planner reviewed this request and stated that a similar request had been made last year by a different applicant. He reviewed the proposed layout. Staff review of this case is consistent with the prior review. The cabin has been removed and, therefore, there is no current use of the property. Staff has weighed review of hardship conditions and use of the property. Staff feels this property is best served through the property to the south. The City Planner stated that the lot area, width, and current absence of use did not show a hardship and the Council should not grant the variances. He stated that the Planning Commission had voted to deny the variance request. Councilmember Brown stated that he argued with the Planning Commission on this because this is a lot of record and was approved for the prior applicant. Councilmember Weycker stated that the prior variances were for lot size. Councilmember Brown said no, there was a proposed building involved. The City Planner stated that the prior building conformed to side yard and lakeside set backs. Acting Mayor Hanus confirmed that there were no variances for the building. Mr. Volgstrom stated this is incorrect and there was confusion about the garage. Acting Mayor Hanus asked where this information came from. Mr. Volgstrom stated this came from the resolution. Councilmember Hanus stated he was looking at the resolution and did not see it. Mr. Volgstrom's son stated the numbers were off the survey. Councilmember Ahrens stated that the lot area on the original request was confusing. The City Planner stated this was because of flood plane fill. In reference to the prior applicant, Councilmember Ahrens asked if the permit for filling was ever done. The City Planner stated that no permits were issued, but he did have the approvals to build. Mr. Volgstrom restated the elevation calculations for the Council. confirmed that he was talking about the area above the flood plane. a lot of record and tax had been collected, it should be buildable. Councilmember Hanus He felt that since this is Acting Mayor Hanus confirmed that no fill was planned at this time because of the pylons. Councilmember Brown reaffirmed his feelings about this being a building site that had paid taxes, and assessments. Acting Mayor Hanus stated the current project is higher on hardcover and has an extra variance when compared to the previous request. Mr. Volgstrom stated that the requested variance being sought is very slight. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that the last time this was difficult to approve and at that time the structure was conforming. Councilmember Ahrens asked if there was an advantage to the lake in the use of pylons rather than fill. She pointed out that this might be a trade off in granting this variance. City Planner stated that the pylons put less area dOwn onto the soils and the water table. The Councilmember Ahrens asked what the practical difficulty was on the setbacks. The City Planner stated there was no deck designed and they felt it would come back later. The applicant stated that he would not be adding a deck in the future. The applicant stated that the extra 4.5 feet would make a difference in making the design of the house less of a box. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that the issues were hardcover, street setback and the potential for a deck. Councilmember Weycker agreed with Acting Mayor Hanus that if one of the variances could be removed, she could approve this request. Acting Mayor Hanus asked the City Attorney regarding a future request for a deck as to whether language be added to resolution to alert a new buyer that no deck would be approved. The applicant confirmed that the footprint was 1,300 including the garage. Councilmember Weycker expressed that Staff was concerned about the lot being overbuilt. The applicant stated that in order to conform, the garage was too small and asked whether a 3.5 foot variance would be a compromise. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that he knew of two houses that had been chopped and shaped to conform without variances. The applicant stated that they have done quite a bit of shaping to the plan already. The applicant stated that if voting down were possible, he would redesign to meet the setbacks. Councilmember Ahrens confirmed with the applicant that the issue was that there was no hardship to grant the variances and the house was quite large and could still be cut back. The City Attorney stated that Staff could prepare a resolution for this. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to direct Staff to prepare a resolution for approval including Staff's recommendations as follows: 1. The front yard setback conforms to setback requirements. 2. Approval by the MCWD. 3. Provide a finished floor elevation for the home that is at or above the RFPE. 4. Approval of the drainage plan by the City Engineer. 5. Connection to water and sewer utilities shall be installed at the owner's expense. 6. Verification of the septic tank and removal if present. The vote was unanimously in favor. 4-0. G. CASE//00-33: SIGN VARIANCE -~KEN CUSTER, 5533 SHORELINE DRIVE, GLASS PLUS ENCLOSED PORTABLE SIGN. PID//13-117-24 33 0076. Ken Custer spoke about his sign. He stated he could take the wheels off and make it a permanent structure. He felt that his problem was in applying for the permit rather than letting it go like others have. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that the other signs that are in violation would be addressed very soon. Ken Custer stated this could be tabled indefinitely. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that the City Attorney has said they could not purposely ignore a violation. Acting Mayor Hanus asked how the sign could be installed without violating the parking requirements. Custer stated he could put a motor on it and then it would be a vehicle. Acting Mayor Hanus asked whether it would be the Council's choice to allow this sign in front of every business in town. Councilmember Brown stated that if Custer could not have his sign, all the other signs in violation needed to be enforced. Acting Mayor Hanus agreed with this. The City Planner stated that signs cannot have more than two faces and it needs to be decided just how many sides this sign had. He also stated that if the sign was not advertising, it could be considered public art. Mr. Custer asked for this to be tabled so that he could consider his options. Councilmember Ahrens stated that he simply needed to withdraw his request and reapply when he was ready. The City Attorney stated this might be handled at Staff level and not need to come back to the Council. Mr. Custer stated that he was withdrawing his request. 1.7 STAFF UPDATE ON STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND BUFFERING. Dan Parks, McCombs Frank Roos Associates,Inc., reported back to the Council about what other communities are doing about buffers. He stated that he has some information, but is still looking for some from other cities. He included a technical discussion for the Council regarding the buffers. He felt that the Watershed was leaning toward a 50-foot buffer on lakes of one acre or more. Councilmember Ahrens asked if a 50-foot buffer meant it would go right up to the house. Acting Mayor Hanus confirmed that waiting to adopt would mean the 50-foot buffer would be in effect, but if the City adopted this before the change was made, it would stay at 35 feet. He asked for confirmation that if something is adopted now based on the Watershed's current rules, they cannot make the City change the rules. He also asked if they could take control back again. Mr. Parks stated that the City Attorney should answer this. The City Attorney stated that once the City has a plan in place, the Watershed is out of the process. If the Watershed changes their regulations, they will apply to cities that do not have their own plan. They cannot go back and make the other cities change. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that he was surprised to read that the cities adopted the actual watershed rules. He also questioned whether the lake was part of the buffer. Mr. Parks stated that the lake buffers are not regulated, however, many lakes do have a wetland border and that would qualify. Councilmember Brown stated that he like Minnetonka's plan, which has been adopted conditionally. The City Attorney pointed out that this still needed to go back to the Watershed. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that he would like more time to talk with the Councilmembers in other cities. He stated that if the Watershed wanted this adopted, they should provide data showing this would do some good. Mr. Parks stated that the memo he handed out tonight was from the Watershed. Acting Mayor Hanus asked whether if this were adopted, who would interpret what is a wetland. Mr. Parks stated there are state requirements for this. Staff will make sure wetland is properly defined. Mr. Parks stated that he is still waiting for formal comments from the Watershed on the plan. He did not feel any action tonight would be necessary. Mr. Parks will get the information and recommendations in two weeks if possible. 1.8 MATTERS RELATING TO RAY MAR PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT. The City Attorney stated that this was a repeat from the HRA meeting earlier. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to approve the motion from the HRA meeting of June 27, 2000. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried 4-0. 1.9 RECOMMENDATION TO EXTEND AGREEMENT FOR CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBC} PARKING. The City Manager stated that this was a clean up issue. The agreement lapses the end of June. Staff has made suggestions to ensure continuing the agreement. She stated that the mediation process has moved forward. Staff recommends approval of a yearlong extension to allow time to see where the redevelopment progresses. This allows the City to continue the services. Councilmember Ahrens confirmed that the City would only do the basic necessary maintenance. The City Manager confirmed this ~ould be garbage pickup and snow removal. Councilmember Weycker pointed out that this had already been extended for one year. Councilmember Ahrens stated she agreed that it would be necessary to extend this for another year. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker, to extend the CBC parking program for one year. Discussion: Acting Mayor Hanus stated that the original intention was to sunset this and also to have the redevelopment further along. He is wondering at what point in the project this will end. The City Manger stated that this will sunset when the redevelopment is in place. The City Manager stated that what could take place is that there were will be districts for maintenance. This would turn parking responsibility back to the business owners. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that some districts will always require City maintained parking and there are already discussions of parking sharing between districts. He feels it will be eight years before the development would be complete. Councilmember Weycker brought up that some businesses have asked to be excluded from CBC. Councilmember Weycker asked if Staff could work on this to see it if would be possible to phase it out. The City Manager stated it would be tough to phase out during the redevelopment. Acting Mayor Hanus called the question. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried 4-0. 1.10 LIQUOR STORE PROJECT. The Finance Director pointed out the letter from the liquor store landlord indicating the lease would be expiring next year. He is looking for options to either extend the lease long term or to build a liquor store owned by the City. Councilmember Brown stated that he was behind getting a new liquor store as he thought it would be very profitable. He felt this could either be an existing building or be new. Acting Mayor Hanus thought it was premature, but he agreed with Councilmember Brown and felt that the expiring lease would force the issue. He stated that he would prefer to see some development get started first, but if not, fine. The Finance Director stated that consulting was done for ideas to meet debt. Councilmember Brown stated that one of the alternative sites from the post office could house the liquor store. He felt downtown might not be as convenient as a location that allowed people to drive up to the door. Councilmember Ahrens supports moving the store. She pointed out that while the debt is paid, there would not be as much profit to spend. The Finance Director stated that there would still be a portion of the profit in addition to the equity. Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager talked about the projections on page 2909 of the meeting packet. Councilmember Weycker confirmed that owning the building would need to be set up with a developer ahead of time versus buying privately. The Finance Director pointed out that first the direction needed to be decided on and then the details would be worked out. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to direct Staff to explore the options of f'mding a new, larger Mound liquor store and to bring recommendations back to the City Council. Discussion: Councilmember Hanus stated that he felt that another benefit was that a more substantial store might help to discourage competition from moving in or at least make Mound more competitive. The City Manager stated she has been challenged on how to incent Joel to stay and he has stated that a new store would be incentive. She also wants to look at his compensation because of the drop in profits with the new debt. Councilmember Ahrens asked where the numbers were from. The Finance Director stated they were from a consultant. Councilmember Ahrens asked when harder numbers would be available. The City Manger stated that when the future property was determined it would help these numbers be more solid. Councilmember Ahrens confirmed that new fixtures were factored into the numbers. The Finance Director confirmed this. Acting Mayor Hanus called the question. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried 4-0. 1.11 DISCUSSION ON POLICY FOR AVOIDED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. The City Engineer discussed the issue of avoided assessments that are the result of people combining lots when street improvements were rr~ade. He can easily check these assessments when people come in for' improvements. The unit charge is the issue. The City Engineer stated that the City has authority to collect these assessments. Staff is looking for direction as to whether continue. The City Attorney stated that if Council wanted to continue to collect these assessments, it should be left alone, but if Council wants to reexamine, the Staff wants some direction. The City Engineer stated that the biggest number was $1800. Councilmember Ahrens asked what the potential income was. The City Engineer guessed there were 1/2 dozen per year at $1800 or so. He stated this could help offset costs for Staff review on minor subdivisions. Councilmember Ahrens stated she felt people should have to pay these. The City Attorney stated that the people paying were not necessarily the ones who initially avoided the unit charge. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that the bottom line is that the property never paid all of its costs and should still have to pay. The City Engineer stated that if these lots were researched, they could be made aware of this possible charge. The City Attorney stated that this would be best. The Finance Director stated that a procedure has been set up to do this and a good effort would be made to find these lots. A disclaimer is added so that if it is missed, the City can still go back. The City Attorney stated this is being collected twice because originally the special assessment was collected from everyone in the City. The City Manager stated that there was principal involved in both sides of the issue and it would be difficult if one neighbor paid and another did not. Councilmember Ahrens pointed out that there could not be that many lots left in this situation. The City Engineer stated that in ten years there might only be one or two per year. The Finance Director stated that they would like to have an inventory so that they would know exactly which properties were impacted. The Finance Director stated they asking for direction from Council because they are taking a risk of a challenge. The City Engineer stated that some people are already stating that this is illegal. The City Attorney stated there is absolute legislative authority to do this. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to direct staff to recapture the assessments under section 330.12. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried 4-0. 1.12 COST ESTIMATE FOR RENOVATION OF ISLAND PARK HALL. The City Manager stated that this issue came up from a park board budget. Jim Fackler, Park Director, stated this discussion started back in 1998 and involved roof, window and mechanical replacements. There is concern abou~ the cost ($114,000). The question was brought to staff as to whether they could do subcontracting. Staff did look into this and broke it into numbers. Phase I was to preserve the exterior and Phase II the interior as far as climate. Plumbing rough ins and electrical were included. These are rough estimates. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that Council had asked for the Park Commission for uses. The Park Director stated these were not back yet from the minutes. Councilmember Weycker stated this was an information update at this time. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that he needed to see the uses. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS 1. FINANCIAL REPORTS. 2. AMM FAX NEWS. 3. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT MINUTES - MAY 10, 2000. 4. WESTONKA HEALTHY COMMUNITY COLLABORATVE MINUTES - MAY 19, 2000. 5. MOUND POLICE DEPARTME~ MONTHLY REPORT - MAY 2000. 6. FUNDAMENTALS: HOW TO BECOME A BETTER GOVERNING BOARD ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to adjourn the meeting at 12:30 a.m. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0. Kandis Hanson, City Manager Attest: Acting Mayor Hanus PAYMENT BILLS DATE: JULY 11, 2000 BILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE BATCH # #0062 #0063 AMOUNT $138,062.32 $146,110.82 TOTAL BILLS $284,173.14 PAGE 1 AP-Cu2-01 -VEND/IR --'--~ 9-O-T C E DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE N~BR DATE DATE STATUS A0111 000620 7/11/00 7/11/00 VENDOR TOTAL 7/11/00 711i/00 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR/BELLEVUE VENDOR TOTAL A0338 7607 7/11/00 7/ll/O0 ANCOH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. VENDOR TOTAL A0~49 ANOkA UOOOfSl! 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/ll/O0 TkLHKICAL INSI] IUIL 7/11/00 VENDUR 1OIAL A0404 8785 8786 6789 8790 6791 8792 8793 8794 f/ll/O0 //11/00 F/ll/OU //11/00 //li/UO fill/gU Z/ll/O0 //11/00 F/il/DO 7/11/00 //11/00 7/11/00 Z/ll/O0 7/11/00 -- 7/i1/00 7/11/00 ASPE~ ENVIkONMENTAL VENDOR TOTAL ~0549 19120900 19169200 19237300 7/11/00 7/i1/O0 7/li/O0 7/i1/00 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF ~iOUND AMOUNT 125.00 i25.00 125.00 27.83 27.~3 27.83 185.95 185.95 185.95 450.00 450.00 Z50.O0 250.00 700.00 24.79 24.79 24.79 24.79 24.79 24.79 24.79 24.79 24.79 24.79 24.79 24.79 24.79 24.79 24.79 24.?9 198.32 1,465.38 1,465.38 2,667.69 2,667.69 4,446.24 DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER DUES 08-01-00 THRU 07-31-01 01-4090-4130 JRNL-CD 1010 THRU 06-20-00 581-6405 JRNL-CD 01-4140-3220 1010 BATTERY MINITOR li 22-4170-3950 JRNL-CD 1010 TRAINING LP GAS EMERGENCIES 22-4170-4110 JRNL-CD 1010 TRAINING CAR FLAMADLE LIQUIDS 22-4170-4110 JRNL-CD 1010 06-25-00 PHILBROKE PARK 01-4340-3900 JRNL-CD 101 06-25-00 HIGHLAND PARK 01-4340-3900 JRNL-CD 1010 06-25-00 SWENSON PARK 01-4340-3900 JRNL-CD lUlO 06-25-00 TYRONE PARK 01-4340-3900 JRNL-CD 1010 06-25-00 THREE POINTS PARK 01-4340-3900 J~NL-CD 1010 06-25-00 WYCHWOOD PARK 01-4340-3900 JRNL-CD 1010 06-25-000 PEMBROKE BEACH 01-4340-3900 JRNL-CD 1010 06-25-00 CANARY ~EACH 01-4340-3900 JRNL-CJ 1010 LIQUOR 71-7100-$510 JRNL-CD 1010 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 JRNL-CD 1010 LIQUOR 71-7100-951u PAGE 2 AP-C02-0]. ~DOm ~HVOICE DUE HOLD ND. INVOICE NM6R DATE DATE STATUS 32110400 BELLSOY CORPORATION ~05o7 166744 7/11-/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 VLNDOR IOTAL 7/11/00 7/11/00 ,--~F~E~---C-Olq, U~-~Y V~NDOR TOTAL 30573 4061 -- T? 1~-7~-~'--7 ~ BETTENDORF ROHRER KNOCHE VENDOR TOTAL BOSBG 195765 7/11/00 7/11/00 i~5f66 5ILL 7/11/00 7/11/00 CLARK OIL COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL C0~59 D4~568 D33866 2HA'4PION AUTO V~NOOF: T[TIAL COvTu o13VU219 7/11/00 7/11/00 l)115 ~, 6679b COL~, bOTTLJN(~-HJDWL51 V=NL~Uk iOIAL 69220 f/ll/OO [/i1/00 (111100 (llllUO i)AHLHEIKER DISTRIBUTING CO VENDOR TOTAL 91172 321356-A 7/11/00 7/11/00 324986 P U AMOUNT 4.446.24 150.53 150.53 8729.84 34.00 17.00 17.00 68.00 68.00 660.00 060.00 660.00 293.73 293.73 293.72 881.18 148.50 148.50 148.51 445.51 1326.69 23.41 23.41 6.39 6.39 29.~0 i~.40 186.40 186.40 312.00 51Z.O0 564.00 564.00 676.00 219.~1 219.61 103.28 R C H A S E J 0 U R N CITY OF MOUND DE SC~ I PT I .J,~ NL-CD JR~-L- C D COFFEE COFFEE COFFEE JRNL-CO USOP PROJECT APPRAISALS JRNL-CD 140 OIL 140 OIL 140 OIL JRNL-CD 84.0 OIL 84.0 OIL 64.0 OIL JgNL-CD TRK GD 6LACK J~NL-CD TRK GD BLACK, MUD FLAP '~ NL-C g HIX TAXABLE JRNL-CD BEER JRNL-CD BEER JRNL-CD POST AND ~RACKET JRNL-CD EYESHIELDS A L ACCOUNT NUMBER 1010 71-7100-9540 1010 0i-4020-4120 01-4140-4120 01-~340-4120 !010 55-5880-3100 1010 01-4280-2250 73-7300-2250 78-7800-2250 1010 01-42~0-2250 73-7300-2250 78-7800-2250 1010 0i-~340-3~10 1010 0!-4340-3810 1010 71-7100-9540 1010 71-7100-9530 !010 71-7100-9530 1010 22-4170-2200 lOlO 22-417~-22~0 PR PAGE 3 AP-C02-OI --V~R INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMbR DATE DATE STATUS 7/ll/O~'---T/-ll/O0 DANKU E~ERGENCY E@UIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL D1200 997990 99791 i00603 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY £1~JO 6463~9 640360 644647 647749 650352 050353 646931 VENDOR TOTAL 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/I1/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 -C~%' SiDE BEVERAGE VCNUU~ IUIAL E1490 CC2214 CC2313 -- ?/ll/uu ?/ii/00 ESS ~ROS AND SONS ]NC VENDOR TOTAL E1515 000620 7/11/00 7/11/00 940 7/11/00 7/1i/00 E-Z RECYCLING IN( VENDOR TOTAL -bi?50 367919 PURCHASE JOURNAL EITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 103.28 JRNL-CD 322.89 938.60 BEER 938.60 JRNL-CD 41.25 !tISCELLANEOUS 41.25 JRNL-CD 3,906.50 BEER 3,906.50 J~NL-CD 4886.35 4,672.75 BEEP 4,672.75 JRNL-£D 51.45 MISCELLANEOUS 51.45 JRNL-CD 94.00 Bk~R 94.00 JRNL-CD SbV.O0 B~kR KEGS 359.00 JRNL-CD 4,223.20 JRNL-CD 6¥.bb MIbL~LLANk~U5 69.55 JRNL-CD £g~.uu ~h~N 192.00 JRNL-CD V661.95 517.59 MAN HOLE COVERS (6) 51f.~V JNNL-~D 95.85 FRAME 4" HIGH V>.Ob J~NL-tD 613.44 100.00 04-00 SHORTAGE ON CHECK iO0.O0 JRNL-CD 6,779.35 06-00 CUR~SIDE RECYCLING 6,779.35 JRNL-CD 6879.35 II.06 06-20-00 MATS 11.06 06-20-00 MATS ACCOUNT NUMBER 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9530 lOlO 71-7100-g530 10~ 71-7100-9530 IOlO 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 78-780~-2300 1010 78-7800-2300 1010 70-4270-4200 1010 70-4270-4200 1010 01-42~0-2250 75-7300-2250 P4GE 4 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF ~OUND -~qE1NDUR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NHBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NuMbER 354057 $65511 377143 372551 7111/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/I1/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 G g K SERVICES 61.752 5408390301 6ALLS INC ~1800 48~64 SARY'S DIESEL G1972 231097 Z31818 234004 234752 234753 7/11/00 7/11/00 VENDOR TOTAL 7/11/00 7/11/00 VENDOR TOTAL 7/11/00 7/11/00 SERVICE VENUOR TOTAL 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 fill/OD f/ll/O0 11.05 06-20-00 WATS 7~-7800-2250 24.26 06-20-00 UNIFORMS 01-4220-2240 24.26 06-20-00 UNIFORMS 73-7300-2240 24.26 06-20-00 U~;IFORMS 78-7800-2240 i05.95 JRNL-CD 1010 29.58 05-30-00 MATS 22-4170-2230 29.58 JRNL-CD !010 29.16 06-13-00 MATS 22-4170-2230 29.16 JRNL-CD lOlO 20.65 06-27-00 MATS 71-7100-~210 20.65 JRNL-CD 1010 98.28 07-04-00 MATS 01-4320-4210 98.28 JRNL-CD 1010 20.44 06-27-00 MATS 01-4280-2250 20.44 06-27-00 MATS 73-7300-2250 20.43 06-27-00 MAIS 78-7800-2250 24.26 06-27-00 UNIFORMS 01-4280-2240 24.26 06-27-00 UNIFORMS 73-7300-2240 24.26 06-27-00 UNIFORMS 78-7800-2240 134.09 JRNL-CD lOlO 417.71 212.98 HANDS FREE SIREN 22-4170-2200 212.98 JRNL-CD 1010 212.98 151.81 REPAIR SPEEDO DIAG ETC 01-4280-3810 151.81 REPAIR SPEEDO DIAG ETC 73-7300-3510 151.80 ~EPAIR SPEEDO DIAG ETC 78-7800-3810 455.42 JRNL-CD iOlO 455.42 292.45 WINE 71-7100-9520 292.45 JRNL-CD !010 368.4~ LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 36g.4g JRNL-CD 1010 395.22 WINE 71-7100-9520 395.22 JRNL-CD 1010 930.75 LIWUOR 71-7100-9510 930.75 J~NL-CD !010 674.94 LIWUOR 71-7100-9510 404.64 WINE 71-7100-Q520 1.079.58 J~D lOlO PAGE 5 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND --V'E-ND OR IN-RICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS -GNIGu5 LOOPER & CDHPANY VENDOR TOTAL H2010 000626 HANSON, KAND1S H2061 266557 7/il/00 7/!1/00 VENDOR TOTAL 7/11/00 7/11100 HAWKINS 2ATER TREATMENT VENDOR TOTAL ~0 00O615 7/11/00 7/11/00 :HENN CO SHERI-F-F-~--DEPT VENDOR TOTAL H2160 0002761 --- 7/11/00 ?/11/00 dENN CO TREASURER VENDOR TOTAL H2253 000622 7/11/00 7/11/00 HuME gkHUI/bmLP V:NDOR IO1AL I2309 2359145A J/Ii/go //11/00 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS VENDOR TOTAL J2579 1128601 i128802 1131493 1131494 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 JOHNSON ~ROTHERS LIQUOR VENDOR TOTAL t2~4u l-uOOO4u~4 7/11/00 7/11/00 LtAbUt O~ MN LILIES ViNDO~ IOTAL L2851 3643 AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMSER 3066.48 i98.88 MILEAGE AND HOTEL 01-4040-4110 198.88 JRNL-CD 1010 I98.88 40.60 M-HACH 444-49 SPADNS REAGENT 73-7300-2260 40.60 JRNL-CD 1010 40.60 i75.68 04-00 SERVICE 500KING FEE 01-4140-4250 i75.68 JRNL-CD 1010 i75.68 245.22 05-00 ROOM AND BOARD 01-4110-4250 245.22 JRNL-CD 1010 245.22 233.63 MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS 01-4340-2200 84.92 HOSE REEL 80-8000-2200 6.22 VALVE BOXES 01-4340-2350 324.77 JRNL-CD 101~ 324.77 46.15 SUPPLIES MAIN FLOOR COPIER 01-4320-3800 46.15 JRNL-CD 1010 46.15 300.00 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 ~00.00 JRNL-CD lOiO 2,009.20 ~NE 71-7100-9520 2,009.20 JRNL-CD 1010 1,750.47 LIQUO~ 71-7100-9510 1,750.47 JRNL-CD lOiO 2,214.45 WINE 71-7100-9520 2,214.45 JRNL-CO 1010 6274.12 195.~]-~T]~,~'FT-O-F~---A~ 21)~O-O 01-4020-4110 195.00 JRNL-CD 195.00 i,~69.26 3RD INSTALL 02/00 THRU 02-01 01-4020-3610 551.95 3RD INST%~--O~O~H-i~-O"-~T~-Oi 01-4040-3610 547.70 3RD INSTALL 02/00 THRU 02-01 01-4090-3610 PAGE 6 P U R C h A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND ~ENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD ND. INVOICE NM5R DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 7/11/00 7/Ii/00 INS T* VENDOR TOTAL NG LAKE POWER 0 5-296741 5-290748 (1Ill00 (/11/00 EQUIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 LOWELL'S ~3030 AUTOMOTIVE/ZITCO$ VENDOR TOTAL H-AI~'~ VII ~30~2 00~705 DISTRIgblUR '~CKINLEY, JOHN ~3033 7C2099 703128 HDS MATRX MEDICAL 'M317U UUU531-B 7/11/00 7/11/00 COUNL/L 7/11100 7/11/00 V~NDUH IUIAL VENDOR TOTAL 7/i1/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 INC. VENDOR TOTAL 7/11/00 7/11/00 khv]~ VLN~DK ICTAL 101.90 3RD IkSTALL 02/00 -~RU 02-01 0i-4110-3610 3,521.~6 3RD INSTALL 02/00 THRU 02-01 01-4140-3610 55.19 3RD INSTALL 02/00 THRU 02-01 01-4150-3610 547.70 3RD INSTALL 02/00 THRU 02-0i 0i-~i90-3610 3,736.27 3RD INSTALL 02/00 THRU 02-0I 01-4280-3610 220.78 3RD INSTALL 02/00 THRU 02-01 01-4320-3~10 870.38 3RD INSTALL 02/00 THRU 02-0i 01-~340-3610 3,831.80 3RD INSTALL 02/00 THRU 02-01 22-4170-3610 4,097.17 3RD INSTALL 02/00 THRU 02-Gl 71-7!00-3610 2,993.27 3RD iNSTALL 02/00 THRU 02-0i 73-7300-3610 2,993.27 3RD INSTALL 02/00 THRU 02-0i 78-7800-3610 25,438.50 JRNL-CD IOlO 25438.50 67.08 CHAIN NON-SAFETY 01-42~0-2250 67.08 CHAIN NON-SAFETY 73-7300-2250 67.08 CHAIN NON-SAFETY 78-7800-2250 20i.~4 JRNL-CD 1010 201.24 19.64 POLY-V BLT 73-7300-2310 19.~4 JRNL-CD lOlO 108.46 ALTERNATOR 73-7300-2310 10~.46 JRNL-CD 1010 128.10 1,o75.40 DEEN 71-7100-9530 1,075.40 JRNL-CD 1010 ~.~57.00 B~ER 71-7100-9530 2,357.00 JRNL-CD 1010 4~32.40 50.99 RACING SHOES 01-4140-2240 bg.gV JNNL-CD 1010 59.99 444.03 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 22-4170-2270 444.03 JRNL-CD 10!0 25.09 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 22-4170-2270 25.09 JRNL-CD 1010 459.12 2,178.00 05-00 SAC CHARGES 78-2304-0000 2,176.00 JRNL-CD 1010 2175.00 PAGE 7 AP-C02-01 --V'E~DUM INVOICE NO. INVOICE NMbR DATE 7/11/00 7/11/00 MINNLIONNA REFRIGERATION VENDOR TOTAL ~3318 779-21300012 7/11/00 7/11/00 ~N DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION VENDOR TOTAL M347U 45944 7/11/00 7/11/00 MN VALLEY TESTING LABORATO VENDOR TOTAL M35UO 000731 7/11/00 7/11/00 -MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSN VENDOR TOTAL M3611 0500 7/11/00 7/11/00 MIT-TOWN BODY AND TRUCK P* VENDOR TOTAL N3660 267145 7/i1/00 7/11/00 NAPA WATERTOWN PARTS CENTE VENDOR TOTAL NS/4U II-OU504D7 ~'~EWMAN SIGNS N3750 PTAC09 DUE HOLD DATE STATUS 7/11/00 7/11/00 VENDOR TOTAL f/il/OO 7/11/oo NORTH MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE VENDOR TOTAL 03895 3938-36453 3938-3t545 OWENS SERVICE ONE ~3g4& 000920¥ -- OOu92Ov-~ 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 VENDOR TOTAL 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 VLN~UH IUIAL PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT 245.38 245.38 245.38 50.98 50.98 50.98 72.50 72.50 72.50 8,484.17 8,484.17 8484.17 507.68 507.68 507.68 17.03 17.03 i7.03 147.61 147.61 147.61 520.00 520.00 520.00 268.72 268.72 224.63 224.63 493.35 i25.00 125.00 25.00 25.00 150.00 DESCRIPTION E~UIPM[NT REPAIR JRNL-CD RELOCATION BOOKLETS JRNL-CD COLIFORM, MF-NATER JRNL-CD JULY 2000 FIRE RELIEF JRNL-CD ROLL RITE MODEL ASPHALT TARP JRNL-CD HORN JRNL-CD STREET SIGNS JRNL-CD NORTH EMS EDUCATION JRNL-CD CLEANING/STARTUP 2.65 TON UNIT JRNL-CD CHECK 5 TON UNIT JRNL-CD 2000 SUB~RTG-~EMBER DUES JRNL-CD POLICE ~UARTERLY JOURNAL JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMBER 71-7100-3820 1010 01-4040-4170 1010 73-7300-4215 1010 95-9500-1400 1010 01-4200-2300 1010 01-4280-2310 101. 01-4280-2360 1010 01-4140-4200 1010 22-4170-3830 1010 22-4170-3830 1010 0!-4140-4130 1010 01-4140-4130 1010 PAGE 8 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-CG2-Oi CiTY OF MOUND -~NDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS 7/11/00 7/11/00 PAGENET OF MINNESOTA VENDOR TOTAL P4021 619125 619126 621219 621220 021221 7711/00 7/11/o0 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/ll/00 7/11/00 T-7~-lT6-6- 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 PHILLIPS WINE ~38 31884 32107 32108 SPIRITS, * VENDOR TOTAL 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 PIN~JACLE DISTRIBUTING /420 7/11/00 SAFelY hWUl~MiNi CO Q4171 847941-00 847981-00 850292-00 BSD293-O0 //ll/OD 7/11/00 VENDOR TOTAL V~NDUR ,IO1AL fill/U0 f/ll/O0 f/ll/OO T/lllO0 //il/D0 ~UALITY ~INE & SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL R2681 R05001248 7/21/00 7/11/00 YNOLD5 WELDING SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 181.88 0~--14-00 THRU 06-14-00 PAGERS 01-4140-3950 181.88 JRNL-CD 1010 i81.88 1,452.45 WINE 71-7100-9520 1,452.45 JRNL-CD 1010 87.00 MIX 71-7100-9540 87.00 JPNL-CD 1010 698.85 LI@UOR 71-7100-9510 698.85 JRNL-CD iOlO 3,819.88 wINE 71-7100-9520 3,819.88 JRNL-CD 1010 209.50 MIX 71-7100-9540 209.50 JRNL-CD 1010 6267.68 1,172.14 CIGARETTES AND CIGARS 71-7100-9550 1,172.i4 JRNL-CD 1010 1,185.20 CIGARETTES 71-7100-9550 i,185.20 JRNL-CD 1010 63.70 CIGARS 71-7100-9550 63.70 JRNL-CD 1010 2421.04 i75.00 C-~]q--A1E RADAR UNITS 01-4140-3820 i75.00 JRNL-CD 1010 i75.00 1,349.21 LIWUOR 71-7100-9510 1,845.59 LIDUOR 71-7100-9510 1,845.59 JRNL-CD 1010 98.68 MIX 71-7100-9540 98.68 JRNL-CD 1010 4,931.95 LIGUOR 71-7100-9510 8225.43 i9.81 AIR AND OXYGEN 22-4170-3900 19.8i JRNL-CD 1010 PAGE 9 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-CO2-01 CITY OF MOUND -V'E'ND-OR INVOICE DUE HOLD ND. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER R4199 000627 105.50 GFCI PROBLEM BY LIFEGUARD STAT 01-4340-2330 7/i1/00 7/11/00 !05.50 JRNL-CD 1010 R.C. ELECTRIC, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 105.50 -~T9--~i422 106.52 06-00 TRASH SERVICE 01-4320-3750 7/11/00 7/11/00 i06.52 JRNL-CD 1010 KANUY'5 SANiIAIION VENDOR IOIAL 106.52 R4232 440 55.00 INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP 70-4270-4110 //11/00 7/11/00 55.00 JRNL-CD 1010 RECYCLING ASSOCIATION OF M VENDOR TOTAL 55.00 R4290 65083 212.72 ICE 71-7100-9550 7/11/00 7/11/00 212.72 JRNL-CD 1010 65931 49.88 ICE 71-7100-9550 7/11/00 7/11/00 49.88 JRNL-CD 1010 65386 179.02 ICE 71-7100-9550 7/11/00 7/11/00 179.02 JRNL-CD 1010 65734 168.40 ICE 71-7100-9550 7/11/00 7111/00 168.40 JRNL-CD 1010 66287 226.48 ICE 71-7100-9550 7/11/00 7/11/00 226.4B JRNL-CD 1010 RON'S ICE COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 836.50 S4375 UOOSu2 2B5.00 PAINTED CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 01-4320-3820 7/11/00 7/11/00 285.00 JRNL-CD 1010 -~'3-H~ROCK DiVE~IFI~U b~R~ VZNDU~ IUIAL 34381 000615 ~ Q9.00 06-15-00 EDC MEETING SECRETARY 01-4020-3100 /llllUg 7/11/0~: 99.00 JRNL-CD lOlO SHIRLEY HAWKS VENDOR TOTAL 99.00 S4400 2132 15.98 VEHICLE DECALS 01-4280-4200 15.98 VEmICLE DECALS 73-7300-4200 15.97 VEHICLE DECALS 78-7800-4200 7/11/00 7/11/00 47.93 JRNL-CD 1010 G'~GNS OF THE SEASO~ V:NDU~ IUIAL 47.93 S4445 12409 142.66 INSTALL/FURNISH GASKET 01-4340-2330 //ll/Ou Fill/OD 142.66 JRNL-CD 1010 ST. BONI REFRIGERATION AND VENDOR TOTAL 142.66 S4498 130207001 436.00 AD POLICE OFFICER POSITION 01-4140-3410 PAGE 10 AP-C02-01 VENDOR NO. INVOICE NMBR STAR TRIBUNE S4030 000623 P U R £ H A S E J O U R N A L CITY OF MOUND 7/11/00 7/11/00 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC VENDOR TOTAL 54631 000719 7/11/00 7/11/00 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC VENDOR TOTAL - 54632 000618 000719 INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER //ii/O0 7/1%/00 43o.00 JRNL-CD lOiO VENDOR TOTAL 436.00 641.51 THRU 06-23-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 01-4340-2210 977.57 THRU 06-23-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 01-4280-2210 387.83 THRU 06-23-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 7~-7800-2210 204.63 THRU 0b-23-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 73-7300-2210 01-4090-22!0 lOiO 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 )WAY SUPERAMERICA LLC VENDOR TOTAL T4703 000627 T-CHEK SYSTEMS LLC T4730 131 THE LAKER --- i665i3 19o826 - 1~7559 7/i1/00 7/11/00 VENDOR TOTAL 7/11/00 7/11/00 V~NDOR TOTAL 7111/00 7/ll/O0 7/11/00 7/ii/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/il/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 16zTI-iWZT--- 17.12 THRU 00-23-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 2,226.66 JRNL-CD 2228.66 1,476.34 1,478.34 1478.34 27~.93 278.93 410.61 410.61 689.54 THRU 06-23-00 GASOLINE CHARGES JRNL-CD THRU 05-20-00 GASOLINE CHARGES JRNL-CD THRU 06-22-00 GASOLINE CHARGES JRNL-CD 25.00 07-00 TRANSWEB SEBSITE PUBLICA 25.00 JRNL-CD 25.00 33.71 CUP BOAT SALES/SERVICE 33.71 JRNL-CD 33.71 159.10 ~JSCELLANEOUS i59.10 JRNL-CU 7,099.05 BEER 7,099.05 JRNL-CD 401.00 BEER 401.00 JRNL-CD 691.00 BEEN 691.00 J~NL-CD /~.OO MISCcLLA~_UlJS--T-A-~A~---- 74.30 JRNL-CD 9,634.65 B~-'~l~ 9,634.65 J~NL-CD 469.00 BIER 469.00 JRNL-CD 01-4140-2210 1010 22-4170-2210 1010 22-4170-2210 1010 01-4320-3100 1010 01-2300-1102 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9530 i010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-o550 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-71oo-o53o 1010 PAGE I1 AP-C02-O1 -~DON N3. INVOICE 197961 NMBR THORPE DISTRIBUTING 12750 TIME SAVER OFF SITE ~4V51 065O1O U62¥39 TRUE VALUt T4985 262162-0 INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE STATUS 7111/00 7111/00 COMPAN VENDOR TOTAL 7111/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 SECRE* VENDOR TOTAL 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7111/00 7111/00 VENDOR IOIAL 261792-0 TWIN CITY OFFICE ~>030 6466~FZ-~ ;549Z 000731 7/11/00 7/11/00 T- 7/11/00 7/11/00 SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL 7111/00 7/11/00 VLNDOR IOIAL 7/11/00 7/11/00 WEST METRO BUILDING HAINT. VENDOR TOTAL ~5572 000501 PURCHASE CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION JOURNAL 294.40 BEER 294.40 JRNL-CD 18822.50 350.38 06-12-00 PLANNING MEETING 331.38 06-13-00 HRA/COUNCIL MEETING 081.76 JRNL-CD 126.88 06-15-00 DCAC MEETING 126.88 JRNL-CD 808.64 4.47 BULK BOLTS, BULK NUTS 4.47 JRNL-CD 29.28 BULK WIRE, BITS, CLAMPS 29.28 JRNL-CD 29.43 BULK SCREWS CAPS, ETC. 29.43 JRNL-CD 63.18 14.14 OFFICE SUPPLIES b2.09 OPhICE SUPPLIES 14.14 OFFICE SUPPLIES 14.14 OFFICE SUPPLIES i4.i4 OFFICE SUPPLIES 4.71 OFFICE SUPPLIES 4.71 OFFICE SUPPLIES 7.OB OFFICE SUPPLIES 7.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES 132.22 ~J~R~ NL-CD 225.90 OFFICE SUPPLIES 225.90 JRNL-CD 358.12 395.54 CURB BOXES AND TUBING 395.54 JRNL-CD 395.54 i,126.00 JULY 2000 CLEAtJING 91.3~--JlY[~0~-0~)~--- 91.33 JULY 2000 CLEANING 91.34 JULY 2000 CLEANING 1,400.00 JRNL-CD 1400.00 786.00 E~.PLOYEE r, XAH FORSMAN ACCOUNT NUMBER 71-7100-9530 1010 01-4190-4200 01-4020-4200 1010 81-4350-4200 1010 01-4340-2200 1010 01-4340-2200 1010 01-4340-2200 101~ 01-4040-2200 01-4090-2200 04-4140-2200 01-4190-2200 01-4340-2200 01-42~0-2200 71-7100-2200 73-7300-2200 78-7800-2200 iOlO 01-4140-2100 1010 73-7300-2300 1010 01-4320-4210 01-4280-4200 73-7300-4200 78-7800-4200 1010 22-4170-3140 PAGE ].2 AP-C02-01 ~DOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NHBR DATE DATE STATUS 7/11/00 7/11/00 UESTONKA HEDICAL GROUP VENDOR TOTAL w5690 21764 21910 22020 22097 22214 22505 21615 22630 21673 22817 WM MUELLER & SONS 7/1]./00 7/11/00 7/1]./00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/i1/00 7111/00 7/1i/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/ll/O0 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 7/11/00 SMALL LII l~b 7/11/00 VENDOR TOTAL 7/11/00 PUBL/bHJNb VENDgN IUIAL TOTAL ALL VENDORS PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MgUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUHBER 786.00 JRNL-CD 1010 785.00 9ii.i9 06-15-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340 911.19 JRNL-CD 1010 174.45 06-19-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340 174.45 JRNL-CD 1010 204.54 06-20-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340 204.54 JRNL-CD 1010 52.00 06-21-00 ~LACKTOP 27-5800-2340 52.00 JRNL-CD 1010 137.50 06-22-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340 137.50 JRNL-CD 1010 2,776.28 06-26-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340 2,776.28 JRNL-CD 1010 101.93 06-14-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340 i01.93 JRNL-CD 1010 1,714.73 06-28-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340 1,714.73 JRNL-CD 1010 1,607.82 06-15-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340 1,607.82 JRNL-CD 10~0 1,510.33 06-30-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340 1,510.33 JRNL-CD 1010 9190.77 99.00 ~Eg'sLETTER THRU JAN/FE3 O1 01-4040-4170 99.00 JRNL-CD 1010 99.00 146,110.82 4:00PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No. 0555 P, 2/27 CONSOLIDATED POOL SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT URBAN HENNI=PIN COUNTY' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred to as "RECIPIENT," A-2400 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, and the city of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364, hereinafter respectively referred to as "SUBRIECIPIENT," WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Recipient has received a $3,467,000 Federal Fiscal Year 2000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement allocation under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, to carry out various community development activities in cooperation with Subrecipient, according to the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 570; and WHEREAS, Federal Fiscal Year 2000 CDBG funds and any resulting program income have been approved by Recipient for use by Subrecipient for the implementation of eligible and fundable community development activity/les as included in and a part of the 2000 Consolidated Plan, Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and as set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Subrecipient agrees to assume certain responsibilities for the implementation of the approved activities described in Exhibit 1, said responsibilities being specified in part in the Joint Cooperation Agreement effective October 1, 1999, executed between Recipient and Subrecipient and in the 2000 Consolidated Plan, Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program and the Certifications contained therein. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereunto do hereby agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES The Subrecipient shall expend all or any part of its CDBG allocation only on those activities identified in Exhibit 1, subject to the requirements of this Agreement and the stipulations and requirements set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement. Bo The Subrecipient shall take all necessary actions, not only to comply with th.e stipulations as set out in Exhibit 1, but to comply with any requests by the Recipient in that connection; it being understood that the Recipient is responsible to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for ensudng compliance with such requirements. The Subrecipient also will promptly notify the Recipient of any changes in the scope or character of the activity/les which it is implementing. Jul.ll. 2000 4:00PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT N0.0555 P. 3/27 TERM OF AGREEMENT The effective date of this Agreement is July I, 2000. The termination date of this Agreement is June 30, 2002, or at such time as the activity/les constituting part of this Agreement are satisfactorily completed prior thereto. Upon expiration, the Subrecipient shall relinquish to the Recipient all program funds unexpended and uncommitted, and all accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds for the activities described in Exhibit 1, as may be amended. THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS The Subrecipient may subcontract this Agreement and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, only with the pdor consent of the Recipient and only through a written Third Party Agreement acceptable to the Recipient. The Subrecipient shall not otherwise assign, transfer, or pledge this Agreement and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior consent of the Recipient. AMENDMENTS FO AGREEMENT Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when reduced to writing as an Amendment to this Agreement signed, approved and properly executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. An exception to this process will be in amending Exhibit 1 to this Agreement. Exhibit 1, shall be deemed amended to conform to any amendments to the Consolidated Plan, as such amendments occur. Any amendments to the Consolidated Plan, which constitute substantial changes, must be accompanied by documentation that a local public hearing was conducted and by an authorizing resolution. Amendments which do not constitute substantial changes may be handled administratively. Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development staff may approve administrative amendments provided they are eligible, fundable and satis~ the objectives of the Consolidated Plan and the CDBG Program. Substantial change is defined as a change in (1) beneficiary; (2) project location; (3) purpose; or (4) scope, (more than a 50% increase or decrease in the odginal budget or $100,000, whichever is greater), in any authorized activity. The total budget of multi-community activities will be used in determining substantial change. PAYMENT OF CDBG FUNDS The Recipient agrees to provide the Subrecipient with CDBG funds not to exceed the Hennepin County authorized budget to enable the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG-eligible activity/les as described in Exhibit 1. It is understood that the Recipient shall be held accountable to HUD for the lawful expenditure of CDBG funds under this Agreement. The Recipient shall therefore make no payment of CDBG funds to the Subrecipient and draw no funds from HUD/U.S. Treasury on behalf of a Subrecipient activity/ies, prior to having received a proper Hennepin County Warrant Request form from the Subrecipient for the expenses incurred, as well as copies of all documents and records needed to ensure that the Subrecipient has complied with the appropriate regulations and requirements. 2 Jul.il. 2000 4:01PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT N0.0555 P. 4/27 o INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE The Subrecipient does hereby agree to defend, indemni~, and hold harmless the Recipient, its elected officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees from and against all costs, expenses, claims, suits or judgments arising from or growing out of any injuries, loss or damage sustained by any person or co~oration, including employees of Subrecipient and property of Subrecipient, which are caused by or sustained in connection with the tasks carried out by the Subrecipient under this Agreement. In order to protect Subrecipient and Recipient from liability and to effectuate the indemnification provisions hereinabove, each Subrecipient that is not self-insured agrees that during the term of this agreement it will carry a single limit or combined limit or excess umbrella commercial general liability policy in an amount equal to, I~ut shall not be required to carry coverage in excess of, claim limits specified in Minnesota Statutes Section 466.04, as amended. This section shall in no way be intended by the parties hereto as a waiver of the liability limits specified in Minnesota Statutes Section 466.04, as amended. CONFLICT OF INTEREST In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by the Subrecipient, the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular A- l 10 shall apply. B. In all other cases, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.611 shall apply. DATA PRIVACY The Subrecipient agrees to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Govemment Data Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended. The Subrecipient agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Recipient, its elected officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees harmless from any claims resulting from the Subrecipient's unlawful disclosure and/or use of such protected data. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION If the Subrecipient materially fails to comply with any term of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of this Agreement, this shall constitute noncompliance and a default. Unless the Subrecipient's default is excused by the Recipient, the Recipient may take one or more of the actions prescribed in 24 CFR 85.43, including the option of immediately cancelling this Agreement in its entirety. The Recipient's failure to insist upon stdct performance of any provision or to exercise any dght under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment 3 Jul.If. 2000 4:02PM HEWN CT¥ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No,0555 P, 5/27 throughout the entire term of the Agreement. Co This Agreement may be cancelled with or without cause by either party upon thirty (30) days' wriffen notice according to the provisions in 24 CFR 85.44. Do CDBG funds allocated to the Subrecipient under this Agreement may not be obligated or expended by the Subrecipient following such date of termination. Any funds allocated to the Subrecipient under this Agreement which remain unobligated or unspent following such date of termination shall automatically revert to the Recipient. 10. REVERSION OF ASSETS Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, the Subrecipient shall transfer to the Recipient any CDBG funds on hand or in the accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including CDBG funds provided to the Subrecipient in, the form of a loan. Any real property under the control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 shall either be: Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 and not used for the general conduct of government until: (1) For units of general local govemment, five years from the date that the unit of general local government is no longer considered by HUD to be a pad of Urban Hennepin County. (2) For any other Subrecipient, five years after expiration of this Agreement; or Not used in accordance with A. above, in which event the Subrecipient shall pay to the Recipient an amount equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. The payment is program income to the Recipient. No payment is required after the period of time specified in A. above. 11. PROCUREMENT The Subrecipient shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies, equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation of its activity/ies. Procurement shall be carried out in accordance with the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and all provisions of the CDBG Regulations in 24 CFR 570 (the most restrictive of which will take precedence), The Subrecipient shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, alt advertisements, negotiations, notices, and documents; enter into all contracts; and conduct all meetings, conferences, and interviews as necessary to ensure compliance with the above described procurement requirements. The Recipient shall provide advice and staff assistance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG-funded activity/les. 12. ACQUISITION. RELOCATION. AND DISPLACEMENT The Subrecipient shall be responsible for carrying out all acquisitions of real property necessary for implementation of the activity/les. The Subrecipient shall conduct all such acquisitions in its name, or in the name of any of its public, governmental, nonprofit agencies as authodzed by its governing body, which shall hold title to all real property purchased. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for preparation of all 4 2000 4'O2PM HENN CT¥ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No,0555 P, notices, appraisals, and documentation required in conducting acquisition under the latest applicable regulations of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Peal Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and of the CDBG Program. The Subrecipient shall aJso be responsible for providing all relocation notices, counseling, and services required by said regulations. The Recipient shall provide advice and staff assistance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG-funded activity/les. The Subrecipient shall comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a) and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR 42; the requirements in 24 CFR 570,606(b) goveming the residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to section 104(k) of the Act; and the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(d) governing optional relocation assistance under section 105(a)(11) of the Act. 13, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Recipient shall determine the level of environmental review required under 24 CFR Part 58 and maintain the environmental review record on all activities. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for providing necessary information, relevant documents, and public notices to the Recipient to accomplish this task. 14. LABOR STANDARDS. EMPLOYMENT. AND CONTRACTING The Recipient shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests for HUD for wage rate determinations on CDBG activities undertaken by the Subrecipient. The Subrecipient shall notify the Recipient prior to initiating any activity, including advertising for contractual services which will include costs likely to be subject to the provisions on Federal Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing regulations. The Recipient will provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient to ensure compliance with these requirements. 15, PROGRAM INCOME If the Subrecipient generated any program income as a result of the expenditure of CDBG funds, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall apply, as well as the following specific stipulations: The Subrecipient will notify the Recipient of any program income within ten (10) days of the date such program income is generated. When program income is generated by an activity only partially assisted with CDBG funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the percentage of CDBG funds used. That any such program income must be paid to the Recipient by the Subrecipient as soon as practicable after such program income is generated unless the Subrecipient is permitted to retain program income. C. Program income returned to the Recipient shall be credited to the grant authority of Ju .il. 2000 4:03PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT N0,0555 P. 8/27 18. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY Ag Dudng the performance of this Agreement, the Subrecipient agrees to the following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the County Commissioners' Policies Against Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age. sex, disability, madtal status, sexual orientation, public assistance status, or national odgin; and no person who is protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. 19. Bo The Subrecipient will furnish all information and reports required to comply with the provisions of 24 CFR Part 570 and all applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to discrimination and equal opportunity. NON-DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY A. The Subrecipient shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, to ensure that no otherwise qualified individual with a handicap, as defined in Section 504, shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination by the Subrecipient receiving assistance from the Recipient under Section 106 and/or Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. When and where applicable, the Subrecipient shall comply with, and make best efforts to have its third party providers comply with, Public Law 101-336 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Title I "Employment," Title II "Public Services"- Subtitle A, and Title III "Public Accommodations and Services Operated By Private Entities" and all ensuing federal regulations implementing said Act. 20. LEAD-BASED PAINT The Subrecipient shall comply with the Lead-Based Paint notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures established in 24 CFR 570.608. 21. FAIR HOUSING Should HUD make a determination dudng the review of the Consolidated Plan that any city in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program has not affirmatively furthered fair housing or has impeded action by the County to comply with its fair housing certification, the County shall exercise its authority as contained in the Joint Cooperation Agreement to prohibit the jurisdiction from receiving CDBG funding for any activities until the violation has been remedied. 22. LOBBYING A. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the Subrecipient whose project generated the program income and shall be used for fundable and eligible CDBG activities consistent with this Agreement. The Subrecipient further recognizes that the Recipient has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any such program income. The responsibility for appropriate record-keeping by the Subrecipient and reporting to the Recipient by the Subrecipient on the use of such program income is hereby recognized by the Subrecipient. The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient in establishing an appropriate and proper record-keeping and reporting system, as required by HUD. That in the event of close-out or change in status of the Subrecipient, any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change in status shall be paid to Recipient as soon as practicable after the income is received. The Recipient agrees to notify the Subrecipient, should close-out or change in status of the Subrecipient occur. 16. USE OF REAL PROPERTY The following standards sha[I apply to real property under the control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds: Ao The Subrecipient shall inform the Recipient at least thirty (30) days pdor to any modification or change in the use of the real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvements including disposition. The Subrecipient will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR 570.505 to provide affected citizens the opportunity to comment on any proposed change and to consult with affected citizens. The Subrecipient' shall reimburse the Recipient in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations, Said reimbursement shall be provided to the Recipient at the time of sale or transfer of the property referenced herein. Such reimbursement shall not be required if the conditions of 24 CFR 570.503(b)(8)(i) are met and satisfied. Fair market value shall be established by a current wdtten appraisal by a qualified appraiser. The Recipient will have the opMon of requiring a second appraisal after review of the initial appraisal. Any program income generated from the disposition or transfer of real property prior to or subsequent to the close-out, change of status or termination of the Joint Cooperation Agreement between the Recipient and the Subrecipient shall be repaid to the Recipient at the time of disposition or transfer of the property. 17. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS The uniform administrative requirements delineated in 24 CFR 570.502 and any and all administrative requirements or guidelines promulgated by the Recipient shall apply to all activities undertaken by the Subrecipient provided for in this Agreement and to any program income generated therefrom. 2000 4'04PM HENN CT¥ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No,0555 P, 9/27 Subrecipient, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal Grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement Subrecipient will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. 23, USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES Subrecipient has adopted and is enforcing a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non- violent civil rights demonstrations; and a policy of enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. 24. OTHER CDBG POLICIES The Subrecipient shall comply with the applicable section of 24 CFR 570.200, particularly sections (b) (Special Policies Governing Facilities); (c) (Special Assessments); (f) (Means of Carrying Out Eligible Activities); and (j) (Constitutional prohibitions Concerning Church/State Activities). 25. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient in the form of oral and/or written guidance and on-site assistance regarding CDBG procedures and project management. This assistance will be provided as requested by the Subrecipient, and at other times at the initiative of the Recipient when new or updated information concerning the CDBG Program is received by the Recipient and deemed necessary to be provided to the Subrecipient. 26, RECORD-KEEPING The Subrecipient shall maintain records of the receipt and expenditure of all CDBG funds, such records to be maintained in accordance with OMB Circulars A-87 and the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and in accordance with OMB Circular A- l 10 and A-122, as applicable. All records shall be made available upon request of the Recipient for inspectionJs and audit/s by the Recipient or its representatives. If a financial audit/s determines that the Subrecipient has improperly expended CDBG funds, resulting in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) disallowing such expenditures, the Recipient reserves the right to recover from the Subrecipient such disallowed expenditures from non-CDBG sources. Audit procedures are specified below in 8 Jul,ll. tO00 4:04PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No,0555 P, 10/27 Section 28 of this Agreement. 27. ACCESS TO RECORDS 28. The Recipient shall have authority to review any and all procedures and all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by the Subrecipient in implementation of this Agreement, and the Subrecipient agrees to provide all information required by any person authorized by the Recipient to request such information from the Subrecipient for the purpose of reviewing the same. AUDIT The Subrecipient agrees to provide Redpient with an annual audit consistent with the Single Audit Act of 1996, and the implementing requirements of OMB Circular A-133 "Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Institutions," and, as applicable, OMB Circular A- l 10 "Uniform Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Non-Profit Organizations." and, to certify and assure compliance with the financial standards as set forth in Exhibit 2 to this agreement. The audit is to be provided to Recipient on July 1 of each year this Agreement is in effect and any findings of noncompliance affecting the use of CDBG funds shall be satisfied by Subrecipient within six (6) months of the provision date. Bo The audit is not required, however, in those instances where less than $300,000 in assistance is received from all Federal sources in any one fiscal year. C. The cost of the audit is not reimbursable from CDBG funds. D0 The Recipient reserves the dght to recover from the Subrecipient's non-CDBG funds any CDBG expenses which are disallowed by an audit. E. The Chief Financial Officer of the Subrecipient signs Exhibit 2. 9 Jul,il, 2000 4'05PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT NO,0555 P. ]1/27 RECIPIENT EXECUTION The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on June 6, 2000 pursuant to Resolution 00-381 and the proper County officials having signed this Agreement, the Recipient agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA Assistant County Attorney Date By: Chair of its County Board And: Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator Attest: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board Date: 10 Jul,il, 2000 4'05PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No,0555 P, 12/27 SUBREClPIENT EXECUTION Subrecipient, having signed this Agreement, and the Submcipient's governing body having authorized such approval and the proper city official having signed this Agreement, Subrecipient agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement. (Place city seal here) CITY OF By: Its: And; Its: Attest: Title: Date: ~ound CITY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to-' [~ Plan A [~ Plan B [~ Charter 11 CONSOLIDATED POOL SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK ORANT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 The City/ies, as identified in this Exhibit, will provide the Provider with Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds to assist Provider in funding the activity/les in the amount and under the stipulations individually specified in the Project Description/Projected Use of Funds. Mound - Acq/Westonka Senior Center $44,000.00 SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 2 ASSURANCE AND CERTIFICATION In connection with our responsibilities to manage the Fiscal Year 2000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program funds that have been provided to our organization, we certify and assure that we are in compliance with the financial standards set forth in Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 (Attachments F and G). Specifically, our organization's financial management system provides for the following: Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the finandal results of each federally sponsored project or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in OMB Circular A-110, Attachment G (Financial Reporting Requirements). Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federally sponsored activities. These records contain information pertaining to federal awards, authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, outlays, and income. Effective control over and accountability for all funds, property, and other assets. These assets are adequately safeguarded and are used solely for authorized purposes. Comparison of actuai outlays with budget amounts for each grant or other agreement and, whenever appropriate or required, comparisons of financial information with performance and unit cost data. Procedures to minimize the elapsed time between the transfer of funds from the county to our organization and the disbursement of funds by our organization. Procedures for determining the reasonableness, allowability, and atlocability of costs in accordance with the provisions of the applicable federal cost principles and the terms of the grant or other agreement. 7. Accounting records that are supported by source documentation. o Annual audits by a firm of independent certified public accountants to ascertain the effectiveness of the financial management systems and internal procedures that we have established to meet the terms and conditions of the federal grants and other agreements. The audits are conducted on an organization-wide basis and include an appropriate sampling of federal agreements. A systematic method to assure timely and appropriate resolution of audit findings and recommendations. 10. Organizations (subrecipients) that receive CDBG funds from us are required to comply with the financial management standards set forth in this certification. Jul,lf, 2000 4'06PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No,0555 P, 15/27 This assurance and certification is given in connection with any and all CDBG funds received after the date this form is signed. This includes payments after such date for financial assistance approved before such date. The undersigned recognizes and agrees that any such assistance will be extended in reliance on the representations and agreements made in this assurance. This assurance and certification is binding on this organization, its subrecipients, and on the authorized official whose signature appears below. Date Organization Name By: Chief Financial Officer 2000 4:06PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No, 0555 P. 18/27 THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the CITY/lES executing this Master Agreement, each, hereinafter referred to as "City," and Westonka Senior Center Foundation, hereinafter referred to as "Provider," 10709 Wayzata Boulevard, Minnetonka, MN 55305: WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City is a cooperating unit in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) by virtue of a Joint Cooperation Agreement effective October 1, 1999 and executed between the City and Hennepin County pursuant to MSA 471.59; and WHEREAS, the City executed a Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County effective July 1, 2000 which allocates funds from the Fiscal Year 2000 Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program for the purpose of supporting the activities as set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "Activities." NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties hereto mutually agree to the following terms and conditions: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES Provider agrees to carry out Activities for the City as described in Exhibit 1, subject to the requirements of this Agreement and the stipulations and requirements set forth in Exhibit 1. Provider shall take all necessary actions required to implement Activities and to comply with any related requests by the City, it being understood that the City is responsible to Hennepin C .ounty for ensuring compliance with such requirements, Provider also will promptly notify the City of any changes in the scope or character of the Activities. 2, TERM OF AGREEMENT The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 2000. The termination date of this Agreement is June 30, 2002, or at such time as the Activities are satisfactorily completed prior thereto. Upon expiration, Provider shall relinquish to the City all program funds unexpended or uncommitted for the Activities. 3. NON-ASSIGNMENT Provider shall not assign, subcontract, transfer, or pledge this Agreement and/or the Activities to be performed hereunder, whether whole or in part, without the pdor consent of the City. 3ul,ll. tO00 ~:OVP~ HENN C¥¥ PLANNING & D£VELOP~E~T No,0555 P, 17/27 o Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when reduced to writing as an Amendment to this Agreement signed, approved and properly executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. All Amendments to this Agreement shall be made a part of this Agreement by inclusion as a numbered Exhibit, which shall be attached at the time of any Amendment. Substantial change is defined as a change in (1) benefidaw; (2) project location; (3) purpose; or (4) scope, (more than a 50% increase or decrease in the odginal budget or $100,000, whichever is greater), in any authorized Activity. The total budget of multicommunity activities will be used in determining substantial change. PAYMENT OF CDBG FUNDS The City agrees to provide Provider with CDBG funds not to exceed the budget as described in Exhibit 1, to enable Provider to carry out the Activities. It is understood that the City shall be held accountable to Hennepin County for the lawful expenditure of CDBG funds under this Agreement. The City shall, therefore, make no payment of funds to Provider and draw no funds from Hennepin County on behalf of Provider prior to having received from Provider a request for reimbursement, including copies of all documents and records needed to ensure that Provider has complied with all appropriate regulations and requirements. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE Provider does hereby agree to indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees from and against all costs, expenses, claims, suits, or judgments arising from or growing out of any injuries, toss, or damage sustained by any person or corporation, including employees of Provider and property of Provider, which are caused by or sustained in connection with the tasks carried out by Provider under this Agreement. Provider does further agree that, in order to protect itself as well as the City under the indemnity agreement provisions herein above set forth, it will at all times during the term of this Agreement and any renewal thereof have and keep in force: a single limit or combined limit or excess umbrella commercial and general liability insurance policy of an amount of not less than $1,000,000 for property damage adsing from one occurrence, $1,000,000 for damages adsing from death and/or total bodily injuries adsing from one occurrence, and $1,000,000 for total personal injuries arising from one occurrence. Such policy shall also include contractual liability coverage protecting the City, its officers, agents, and employees by a certificate acknowledging this Agreement between Provider and the City. CONFLICT OF INTEREST In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by Provider, the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular A-110 shall apply. In all other cases, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.611 shall apply. 8. DATA PRIVACY 2 Jul 11, 2000 ~:07PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No. Obbb P, 18/2/ Provider agrees to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and ali other applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended. Provider agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees harmless from any claims resulting from Provider's unlawful disclosure and/or use of such protected data. SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION If Provider materially fails to comply with any term of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of this Agreement, this shall constitute noncompliance and a default. Unless Provider's default is excused by the City, the City may take one or more of the actions prescribed in 24 CFR 85.43, including the option of immediately canceling this Agreement in its entirety. The City's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall-not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. This Agreement may be cancelled with or without cause by either party upon 30 days written notice according to the provisions in 24 CFR 85.44. CDBG funds allocated to Provider under this Agreement may not be obligated or expended by Provider following such date of termination. Any funds allocated to Provider under this Agreement which remain unobligated or unspent following such date of termination shall automatically revert to the City. 10. REVERSION OF ASSETS Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, Provider shall transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand or in the accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including CDBG funds provided to Provider in the form of a loan. Any real property acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 shall either Ao Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 and not used for the general conduct of government until: (~) For units of general local government, five years from the date that the unit of general local government is no longer considered by HUD to be a part of Urban Hennepin County, (2) For any other Provider, five years after expiration of this Agreement; or Not used in accordance with A. above, in which event Pro¥ider shall pay to the City an amount equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. The payment is program income to the City. No payment is required after the period of time specified in A. above. 3 Jul.ll, 2000 4:08PM HENN CT¥ PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT No,0555 P, 19/27 11. PROCUREMENT Provider shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies, equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation of the Activities. Procurement shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of 24 CFR Part 85, and OMB Circulars A-110, A-122, as applicable. Provider shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, all advertisements, negotiations, notices, and documents; enter into all contracts; and conduct all meetings, conferences, and interviews, as necessary, to ensure compliance with the above described procurement requirements. 12. ACQUISITION, RELOCATION, AND DISPLACEMENT Provider shall be responsible for carrying out alt acquisitions of real property necessary for implementation of Activities. Provider shall conduct all such acquisitions in its name and shall hold title to all real property purchased. Provider shall be responsible for preparation of all notices, appraisals, and documentation required in conducting acquisition under the latest applicable regulations of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property ACquisition Act of 1970 and of the CDBG Program. Provider shall also be responsible for providing all relocation notices, counseling, and services required by said regulations. Provider shall comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a) and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 42; the requirements in 24 CFR 570.606(b) governing the residential anti-displacement and relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing displacement subj.ect to Section 104(k) of the Act; and the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(d) governing optional relocation assistance under Section 105(a)(11 ) of the Act, as pertaining to the Activities. 13. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Provider shall provide all necessary information and relevant documents to the City to enable the City and Hennepin County to maintain the environmental review record on all Activities, 14. LABOR STANDARDS, EMPLOYMENT, AND CONTRACTING The City shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests to Hennepin County for HUD wage rate determinations on Activities. The Provider shall notify the City prior to initiating Activity, including advertising for contractual services, which will include costs likely to be subject to the provisions of Federal Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing regulations. 15. PROGRAM INCOME Any program income generated as a result of any Activities shall be forwarded immediately to the City upon receipt by Provider and the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall apply. 16. USE OF REAL PROPERTY 4 Jut,It, 2000 ~:08PM M£NN CTY PLANNING& D£VELOPMkNI No,U~ P, ~u/zJ The following standards shall apply to real property acquired or improved through Activities, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds: Provider shall inform the City at least 30 days prior to any modification or change in the use of the real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvements, including disposition. Provider shall reimburse the City in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. Said reimbursement shall be provided to the City at the time of sale or transfer of the property. Such reimbursement shall not be required if the conditions of 24 CFR 570.503(b)(8)(i) are met and satisfied. Fair market value shall be established by a current written appraisal by a qualified appraiser. The City will have the option of requiring a second appraisal after review of the initial appraisal. 17. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS The uniform administrative requirements delineated in 24 CFR 570.502 and any and ail administrative requirements or guidelines promulgated by Hennepin County shall apply to all Activities undertaken by Provider as provided in this Agreement and to any program income generated therefrom. 18. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY During the performance of this Agreement, Provider agrees to the following: in accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the County Commissioners' PoLicies Against Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, public assistance status, or national origin; and no person protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall otherwise be subjected to discrimination. Provider will furnish all information and reports required to comply with the provisions of 24 CFR Part 570 and all applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to discrimination and equal opportunity. 19. NON-DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY Provider shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, to ensure that no otherwise qualified individual with a handicap, as defined in Section 504, shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination by Provider receiving assistance from the City under Section 106 and/or Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. Jul,il, 2000 4:0gPM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No.05bb P. 21/2/ When and where applicable, Provider shall comply with Public Law 101-336 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Title I "Employment," Title II "Public Services" - Subtitle A, and Title III "Public Accommodations and Services Operated By Private Entities" and all ensuing federal regulations implementing said Act. 20. LEAD-BASED PAINT Provider shall comply with the Lead-Based Paint notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures established in 24 CFR 570.608. 21. FAIR HOUSING 22. Provider shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funds for Activities subject to this Agreement if it impedes actions taken by the City to comply with Hennepin County's fair housing certification. LOBBYING A. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of Provider, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entedng into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement Provider will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. 23. OTHER CDBG POLICIES Provider shall comply with the general condition of 24 CFR 570.200, particularly sections: (b) Special policies governing facilities; (f) Means of carrying out eligible activities; and Constitutional prohibitions concerning church/state activities. 24. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE The City agrees to provide technical assistance to Provider in the form of oral and/or written guidance and on-site assistance regarding CDBG procedures and project management. This assistance will be provided as requested by Provider, and at other times at the initiative of the City when new or updated information concerning the CDBG Program is received by the City from Hennepin County and deemed necessary to be provided to Provider. Jul.il, 2000 4:09PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVbLOPMENT No,Obbb P, ZZ/Z 25. RECORD-KEEPING AND ACCESS TO RECORDS 26. Provider shall maintain records for the receipt and expenditure of all CDBG funds it receives, such records to be maintained in accordance with OMB Circular A-110 and A-122, as applicable. All records shall be made available upon request of the City for monitoring by the City. The City shall have authority to review any and all procedures and all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by Provider in implementation of the Activities and Provider agrees to provide all information required by any person authorized by the City to request such information from Provider for the purpose of reviewing the same. AUDIT Ao Provider agrees to provide City or Hennepin County with an annual audit report consistent with the provisions of OMB Circular A-110 ~Uniform Requiremetns for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Non-Profit Organizations," OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations," and OMB Circular A-133 "Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Institutions." (~) The audit report is to be provided to City or Hennepin County on July 1 of each year this Agreement is in effect and any findings of non-compliance affecting the use of CDBG funds shall be satisfied by Provider within 6 months of the provision date. (2) The audit is not required, however, in those instances where less than $300,000 in assistance is received from all federal sources in any one fiscal year. (3) The cost of the audit is not reimbursable from CDBG funds. (4) City reserves the right to recover from Provider the full amount of any CDBG funds found to be improperly expended or otherwise disallowed. ProvideCs assurance and certification regarding its financial management system is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by reference. Ju ,11, 2000 4'1oPM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No,0555 P, 23/27 CITY EXECUTION The City of having duly approved this Agreement on _, 2000, and pursuant to such approval and the proper city officials having signed this Agreement, the city agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Upon proper execution, this Agreement will be legally valid and binding. Dated: ,2000 CITY OF STATE OF MINNESOTA Its Mayor And: -, Its Attest: Title: 8 Jul,Il, ZOO0 4'IOFM H~NN CI~ PLANNING & U~V~LUP~ENt No,uo~u F, ~¢/~/ PROVIDER EXECUTION Provider, having signed this Agreement and the City having duly approved this Agreement, and pursuant to such approval and the proper officials having signed this Agreement, Provider agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement. Dated: ,2000 PROVIDER: By: Its; And: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ __, 2000, by and , the the of , a Minnesota behalf of said day of and on Notary Public 9 2000 ¢'IOP~ HENN C1¥ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No,0555 P, 25/t7 THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 The City/ies, as identified in this Exhibit, will provide the Provider with Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds to assist Provider in funding the activity/ies in the amount and under the stipulations individually specified in the Project Description/Projected Use of Funds. Mound - Acq/Westonka Senior Center $44,000.00 Jul.Ii, 2000 4:tOPM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No,0555 P. 26/27 THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 2 ASSURANCE AND CERTIFICATION in connection with our responsibilities to manage the Fiscal Year 2000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program funds that have been provided to our organization, we certify and assure that we are in compliance with the fihancial standards set forth in Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 (Attachments F and G). Specifically, our organization's financial management system provides for the following: 1. Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each federally sponsored project or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in OMB Circular A-110, Attachment G (Financial Reporting Requirements). 2. Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federally sponsored activities. These records contain information pertaining to federal awards, authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, outlays, and income. 3, Effective control over and accountability for all funds, property, and other assets. These assets are adequately safeguarded and are used solely for authorized purposes. Comparison of actual outlays with budget amounts for each grant or other agreement and, whenever appropriate or required, comparisons of financial information with performance and unit cost data. Procedures to minimize the elapsed time between the transfer of funds from the county to our organization and the disbursement of funds by our organization, Procedures for determining the reasonableness, allowability, and allocability of costs in accordance with the provisions of the applicable federal cost principles and the terms of the grant or other agreement. Accounting records that are supported by source documentation. Annual audits by a firm of independent certified public accountants to ascertain the effectiveness of the financial management systems and intemal procedures that we have established to meet the terms and conditions of the federal grants and other .agreements. The audits are conducted on an organization-wide basis and include an appropriate sampling of federal agreements. A systematic method to assure timely and appropriate resolution of audit findings and recommendations. Organizations (subrecipients) that receive CDBG funds from us are required to comply with the financial management standards set forth in this certification. 10. Jul,ll. 2000 4'llPM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No,0555 P, 27/27 This assurance and certification is given in connection with any and ali CDBG funds received after the date this form is signed. This includes payments after such date for financial assistance approved before such date, The undersigned recognizes and agrees that any ~uch assistance will be extended in reliance on the representations and agreements made in this assurance. This assurance and certification is binding on this organization, its subrecipients, and on the authorized official whose signature appears below. Date Organization Name By: Chief Financial Officer MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000 DRAFT Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Michael Mueller; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthefland, City Engineer John Cameron, and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. CASE #00-22 & 00-23: LANGDON BAY PUD AND STREET/EASEMENT VACATION. The City Planner stated the Langdon Bay Preliminary Plat PDA and Street Vacation request from Rottlund Homes is back on this agenda for additional review of outstanding issues from the previous meeting. The following issues were identified from that meeting along with a status/recommendation for each. The City Planner stated that in reference to the issues with Lynwood Blvd in regard to Hennepin County, it is Staff's position that this is an item that should be left for Hennepin County and the developer to work out and this should be part of the City's conditions of approval. Weiland asked if the Commission did pass on this issue, how would the Commission know the issues had been resolved. The City Planner stated that there would be no access from Lynwood without a resolution and, therefore, this is a condition of the approval. The City Planner stated that in reference to how to address the issues regarding the protection of Wetlands and Bluff areas, Staff has suggested that combinations of conservation easements, utility easements, a~l drainage easements be utilized. Staff would rather have these :areas, especially the wetland and ponding areas, remain in private ownership with easements running in the City's favor. Regarding the possibility of a establishing a homeowner's association to be responsible for pond maintenance, the City Planner stated that Staff is suggesting the development include a homeowner's association with covenants to address the maintenance of ponds, protection of sensitive areas, and general development regulations that would be imposed outside of the zoning regulations. Weiland asked how long a homeowners' association could be guaranteed to be in power. The City Planner stated that 20 years was common and after that, it would lapse, be readopted, or be revised. The City Planner stated that Staff's recommendations regarding the level of DRAFT improvement to Westedge Road is ~at the City's position should be to require improvement of Westedge Road from the southern property line to Lynwood Blvd. This level of improvement includes building the roadway to a 32 feet collector standard with curb, gutter, drainage systems and a sidewalk on the Mound side. This road is a critical component to this development. The Minnetrista side is not being considered for the additional improvements, which is a change from the last presentation. The City Planner stated that the developer's position is to improve the roadway based on the City's request minus the curb and gutter on the Minnetrista side assuming there is participation from other benefiting parties. Staff has indicated to the developer that properties in Mound along the road should be assessed their fair share based on a local road standard. The City Planner stated that Staff is anticipating that the City Council will assess the homeowners for a residential assessment and not for a collector assessment. Weiland asked why people would pay if they lived on the west side of the road. The City Planner stated that the whole road surface needed to be improved and Minnetrista has a policy not to assess. Staffhas meet with Minnetrista regarding this issue. Voss asked what the amount of the assessment would be. The City Engineer stated that he did not yet have these numbers put together, but he was in the process of getting the number ready for Council approval. He further stated that the number from many years ago was approximately $4,000 per homeowner. Brown questioned the necessity of a sidewalk as he felt this would significantly increase the cost. The City Planner stated that sidewalks should be provided with collector streets because of the need to separate pedestrians and vehicles on roadways that have higher traffic volumes and speeds. Brown stated that he could understand this policy for the downtown area, but not for a street that served three houses. The City Planner stated that it would be more difficult to add the sidewalk in the future and this is why i~'should be planned and designed up front. Brown asked the Commission to share their opinions on this. Weiland stated that the question of whether a sidewalk is necessary should be asked of the present property owners and developer. Brown asked how many homes were involved and members of the public answered that there were four homes involved and they did not feel that the sidewalk was necessary, as it would not lead to anything. Brown stated that he thought the sidewalk was a waste of money. The City Planner stated that many residents had questioned the need to vacate road sections. He went over what would be vacated including the additional right of way through the eastern cul-de-sac. DRAFT In reference to the proposed fight of way in the eastern cul-de-sac, Staff has concluded that the right of way should not be extended to the property line as previously indicated. After further review of the site conditions and adjoining property, it would be difficult to construct roadway through the site unless the fight of way were graded to an acceptable standard up front. The outlet to the adjacent wetland also runs along the property line and would require additional study to adequately address a future road connection that is unknown at this time. In addition, the roadway layout would be awkward. Staff has decided not to require this right of way, as there are too many unknowns at this point. Voss confirmed that the eastern most cul-de-sac fight of way was being dropped and the City Planner agreed. In addition, in reference to the proposed grading for the cul-de-sac lots and the 4 feet retaining wall, Staff recommends the retaining wall be removed to prevent impact on the stream and future maintenance and safety issues for the property owner. Weiland asked whether this water was currently ponded in Mill Pond. The City Planner confirmed this. Rottlund is asking for a reduction of water service fees from $1,500 to 1,000 per unit. Staff feels that this is a Council decision. Rottlund is asking to have the home models open for showing prior to street hard surfacing. Typically road surface improvements are in place prior to construction. Council would need to approve this request. There is a question as to whether street trees should be located in the fight of way between the sidewalk and curb and Staff does feel this is appropriate for this development. The City Planner stated that there is a question_regarding the bluff setbacks along Robin Lane. Staff has determined that only 1 or 2 me~t the 30 feet top of bluff setback. If there is not a willingness from -the developer to meet this setback, the existing proposal with reduced setbacks could be considered for approval as part of the development standards with the PDA final plat. Voss asked whether the 30-foot setback had been deviated from in the past. The City Planner stated that this had not happened very often. Voss stated that he thought that the setbacks had been more strict in regard to lakeshore. Staff has reviewed the status of the Alwin homestead and determined that at this time, the Minnesota Historical Society has completed a preliminary review of the property for its architectural, historical, and cultural significance. The findings to date indicate the property is probably not eligible for a state or national landmark designation. DRAFT The City Planner stated that the developer has proposed a gazebo structure for the park. The structure would mimic the architectural detail of the proposed homes. Staff is waiting for additional input from the Park and Recreation Department on this. Staff was asked to review the potential for a ball diamond on the site. The developer has reviewed this request that was discussed at the June 13th Council meeting. Their findings were that a ball diamond would require three acres of land plus additional land for parking, which resulted in a minimum of five to six acres. The developer feels this is over and above what they could reasonably be expected to provide for land. Burma stated that at the last meeting, the park dedication had gone down to two acres. The City Planner stated that this was currently a little over two acres and Rottlund is offering the trail improvements and the gazebo as dollar value toward this parkland. Weiland asked the City Engineer about the water issues noted on page 43 of the meeting packet. The City Engineer stated that at this point, the water system is not adequate. Staff is recommending that a ten-inch main be extended. The developer is dropping this to make up for the extra money that will be paid for the streets. The City Engineer stated that there have been problems with water pressure in this area for years. Brown asked for confirmation on the water main location. The City Engineer detailed the routing for this and stated that they are recommending a ten-inch size. Brown asked if there would be a water main down Robin Lane. The City Engineer stated that there is a plan to mn an eight-inch pipe. Brown confirmed that an eight-inch pipe would give 1200 gallons per minute (gpm). The City Engineer stated that this would only work with a loop into the ten-inch main. Tim Whitten, The Rottlund Company, stated that Rottlund has met with Hennepin County and they believe they can find a solution to the street issue, but that cost does remain an issue. Hennepin County is looking t~ the developer to pay all the costs. Mr. Whitten stated that R°ttlund is not concerned either way regarding the proposed sidewalk on Westedge and will work with whatever is decided. In regard to the amount requested for the water service, Mr. Whitten stated that this was the highest number Rottlund had seen in the Twin City area. Regarding the issues with the wetlands, Rottlund feels that they can work out a solution through the use of easements. In reference to the proposed homeowners' association, Rottlund is happy to take of this and it will conform to state requirements. Rottlund supports Staff's interpretation of the vacation issue. DRAFT Rottlund has a goal to have a model home available by fall. Rottlund is proposing beginning construction on this home at the same time the road is being built with the goal of fmishing both at the same time. Rottlund supports Staff's position regarding the trees. In reference to the location of the small utilities, Rottlund is looking at putting those under the sidewalks or adjacent to it. Mr. Whitten stated that the bluff setback request was because the pond was at different levels on either side of the road. Weiland stated that he would like to see specific examples of where this would be reduced and where it would not be needed. Mr. Whitten felt this was a good point. Mr. Whitten stated that they did send a fax to the City regarding the gazebo and are currently working with Staff on this issue. Mr. Whitten stated that Rottlund did detail a plan for a ballpark and feel that five acres would be necessary. Voss confirmed with Staff that the changes in the recommendation are removal of the additional right of way. The City Planner stated that was tree in addition to the level of improvements requested for Westedge Road not to include curb and gutter on the Minnetrista side. Brown stated that he wished to recommend no sidewalk in the area and wondered if that would be an issue for the City Council. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Brown, to recommend the approval of Staff's previous recommendation with the following conditions: (1) 50 foot right of way provided along Robin Ro~ad at its connection to Lynwood Blvd.; (2) The developer would provide improvements to Westedge Road consisting of an improved 32 foot face-to-face road, curb, gutter, and drainage on the Mound side only; (3) WCA provisions would apply to the development; (4) The developer will adhere to the Hennepin County transportation requirements and conditions; (5) Include the requirements of the City Engineer's report; (6) Provide conservation, utility and drainage easements for ponds, steep slopes and other sensitive areas; (7) Maintain a 30 foot bluff line setback where practical; (8) Assessments spread out City wide for the improvement of Westedge Road. Discussion: Voss further stated that he asked for regulation of the ponds in order to eliminate the homeowners' association because it was not long term and would be meaningless. The City Planner asked for clarification of the assessment. Voss stated that this road would benefit the City as a whole and not just the immediate homeowners. Voss asked if there had been precedent set to assess in this manner. The City Engineer stated he did not think there was precedent and that he disagreed with this type of assessment and felt that those homeowners should be assessed equivalent to what other homeowners have been charged in the past. Burma stated a concern about the bluff setback and wanted the developer to state how many lots actually needed the setbacks. Voss stated that he would remove that condition and Brown agreed with this amendment. Weiland stated that he would like the City to be responsible for part of the assessment and asked whether Mound proper could pick up the part of the cost that Minnetrista would not pick up. Brown questioned whether a statement should be added about the water mains and sewers being installed before the road is completed. The City Engineer stated that this is part of the plan. He further stated that Mound does not have control of the road past the south line, but there is a developer that owns that property now and the road will be improved at the time that property is developed. Hasse asked where the water line would be installed. The City Engineer stated the water line would be installed as close as possible to the edge of the wetlands. Mound will need permission from Minnetrista to build the water main. Hasse stated that he felt it would be nice to have everything done at one time and wondered if this could be coordinated with the other developer. The City Engineer stated that they have checked with the other developer and were told they hope to start work in one or two years and that there is also a third party involved with this. In regard to the enforcement of conservation easements, the City Building Official stated that it is hard to identify the line at a later date and that he would prefer to have the conservation easement line demarked in the field so that he can find it later. Michael asked who paid for the streets in the Three Points development. The City Engineer stated that the City paid 2 to 3 percent of the cost and the remainder was assessed. He again stated that he is recommending that the property owners pay for the improvements on Westedge Road. Michael stated that he found it difficult to support the Motion with the condition regarding the assessment included. Voss stated that he was willing to remove that condition, but would offer a second motion after the first was voted on. Brown agreed with this amendment. DRAFT Chair Michael called the question. Motion Carried. 7-0. MOTION by Voss, seconded by, Brown that the assessment against the property owners on Westedge be prorated due to the fact that the improvement benefits the community as a whole. AYES: 5 (Brown, Voss, Hasse, Weiland, Glister) NAYS: 2 (Michael, Burma) Motion carried. 5-2. Memorandum Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: City of Mound Staff, Planning Commission and Council FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 22, 2000 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat PDA and Street Vacation - "Langdon Bay" - R. H. Development APPLICANT: R. H. DevelopmenffRottllund Homes OWNER: Leroy Alwin LOCATION: 1000 Robin Lane ZONING: Residential R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential The Langdon Bay Preliminary Plat PDA and Street Vacation request from Rottlund Homes is back on this agenda for additional review of outstanding issues from the previous meeting. The following issues were identified from that meeting along with a status/recommendation for each: · The comments included in the letter from Hennepin County regarding Lynwood Blvd. u This is an item that should be left for Hennepin County and the developer to work out and be part of the City's conditions of approval. · How to address protection of Wetlands and~luff areas? Staff has suggested that combinations of conservation easements, utility and drainage easements be utilized. Staff would rather have these areas, especially wetland and ponding areas, in private ownership with easements running in the City's favor. · Will a homeowner's association be established and include pond maintenance agreements or should the City take over maintenance of the ponds? Staff would suggest the development include a homeowner's association to address the maintenance of ponds, protection of sensitive areas, and general development regulations that would be imposed outside of the zoning regulations. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 p. 2 g00-22 and 23Langdon Bay Preliminary Plat PDt4 and Street Vacation - additional comments June 27, 2000 Level of improvement to Westedge Road. ca Staff has indicated the City's position should be to require improvement of Westedge Road from the southern property line to Lynwood Blvd. This level of improvement includes building the roadway to a 32 feet collector standard with curb, gutter, drainage systems and a sidewalk on the Mound side. ca The developer's position is to improve the roadway based on the City's request minus the curb and gutter on the Minnetrista side assuming there is participation from other benefiting parties. n The City has indicated to the developer that properties in Mound along the road should be assessed their fair share based on a local road standard. ROW extension of the eastern cul-de-sac to the property line. ca Staff has concluded that the ROW not be extended to the property line as previously indicated. After further review of the site conditions and adjoining property, it would be difficult to construct roadway through the site unless the ROW were graded to an acceptable standard up front. The outlet to the adjacent wetland also runs along the property line and would require additional study to adequately address a future road connection that is unknown at this time. Q Associated with this issue is the proposed grading for the cul-de-sac lots and the 4 feet retaining wall shown. Staff would recommend the retaining wall be removed to prevent impacts on the stream and future maintenance and safety issues for the property owner. Assessment amount for water service. ca Rottlund is asking for a reduction of water service fees from $1,500 to 1,000 per unit. This is a Council decision. Have home models open for showing prior to street hardsurfacing. ca Typically road surface improvements are in place prior to construction. Council would need to approve this request. Should street trees be located in the ROW between the sidewalk and curb? Staff feels this is appropriate for this development. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 g00-22 and 23Langdon Bay Preliminary Plat PDA and Street Vacation - additional comments June 27, 2000 Bluff setbacks along Robin Lane. ca Need to show the top of bluff for the lots along Robin Lane. It appears that only 1 or 2 meet the 30 feet top of bluff setback. If there is not a willingness from the developer to meet this setback, the existing proposal with reduced setbacks could be considered for approval as part of the development standards with the PDA final plat. · Status of the Alwin homestead. At this time, the Minnesota Historical Society has completed a preliminary review of the property for its architectural, historical, and cultural significance. The findings to date indicate the property is probably not eligible for a state or national landmark designation. · Gazebo structure for the park. u The developer is offering to build a gazebo structure in the park that would mimic the architectural detail of the proposed homes. Need to get additional input from the Park and Recreation department on this. · Potential for a ball diamond on the site. The developer has reviewed this request that was discussed at the June 13th Council. Their findings were that a ball diamond would require 3 acres of land plus additional land for parking. They feel this is up and above what they could reasonably be expected to provide for land. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 JUN-21-2000 16:19 ROTTLUND HOMES MN 651 638 8581 P.01/10 ROTTLUND HOMES" Corporate & Minnesota Division Offices 3065 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, MN 55113-1130 (651) 638-0500 · Fax (651)638-0501 Facsimile Cover Sheet To: Company: Phone: Fax: From: Company: Phone: Fax: Date: Pages including this cover page: Kandis Hanson City of Mound (952) 472-0609 (962) 472-0620 Tim Whitten The Rottlund Co., Inc. (651 ) 638-0500 (65I) 638-0501 June 21,2000 10 Comments: Dear Kandis: The Enclave at Tuckaweye in Maple Grove is an example of similar sized homes with 10' and 5' side yard setbacks. Rottlund did this development about two years ago. Attached are sample plans,~site plan and directions. I have indicated a "star" on the map which is your destination (Ranchview Lane). Please call with any questions. 1Fax. dot JUN-21-200~ RECEIVED V N ~ z I~ JUN-21-2000 16:28 ROTTLUND HOMES MN 651 630 0501 P.03/10 I3 12 N 8 7 6 THE ENCLAVE AT T U C KAWEYE OF MAPLE GROVE 8 7 6 5 RECEIVED JUN 2 2 ZO0O 8 J ©¢OI"~GHT 1~5 MOUND PLANNli\,U & INSP. TI~ Ro'r/ll/l~ COI~.LICY. I,NC, l~ BtlILDER IJCEN,~,~I335' ROOR I~LANS ~ EI.EVa.TION$ ARE Ti'Iii I:'.'XCLUSIYIi: PIJOI'ER'W OF TtIE ROTIIi/~ COI~ANY. IYC, COPYRIGHT INIq~IG ESll.J¢I' COULD R~UI.T ON LEGAL PRCkeEcr. rrlo~' UNDER IqZDERAL COI~'RIGFIT ~. . 5 4 3 6JU'ISIS CONCEIT ONtY, SEE BUILDF..R fOR ACTU.~L DETAIL~ ON LLN'D.W..~ING AND I~L~"';S 1~ I~QUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY 64TH ,Ave_ ~ Builder for Lif~ ~%~ ROTTLUND HOMESTM JUN-21-2000 16:21 ROTTLUND HOMES MN 651 638 0S01 P.04/10 THE ENCLAVE AT TUCKA YE STANDARD FEATURES THE GRANDVIEW 2,765 SQ. FT. 2-STORY, 4 BEDROOM THE K CAID 2,650 SQ. FT.' 2-STORY, 4 BEDKOOM THE MONTCLAIR 2,355' SQ. FT. 2-STORY, 3 BEDROOM THE STRATTON 2,229 SQ. FT. 2-STORY, 4 BEDROOM INTERIOR FEATUR~ & CONVENIENCES Top ~nt Majestic gas fi. replace with wood surround and choice of Marble or Bri& fronts Spectacular fireplace feature w'ail $1,800 lighting allowance $20.00 per yasd C,'trpetN'myl allow/ncc 6-pand white Masonite doors Oak rails of main floor stak~e Pre-finished Oak "picture-frame". cabinets All Oak millwork Ma~ter bath shower and whirlpool bath Matte white cultured marble vanity tops All white oufleu and swichplates Executive-look knock-down ceilings Rough in 3/4 bath on lower level Main ievd 9' ceilings and vaulted Main level laundry with laundry tub ALL APPLIANCES BYWHIRLPOOL Dbhw'aher Refrigerator- side-by-side Electric or Cm range Washing machine Electric or Gu clothers dryer Black-faced microwave Extended 5 yet pasu and labor ap?lian~ warranty (Appliances ~¢ as shown in model, ex&ding the d~igner white finishes which ~e optional) 506 ©coPi, m6fft, 1~26 THE OVERBROOK 1,768 SQ. FT. RAMBLER ENERGY/SERVICES RECEIVED JUN 2 2 2O0O N~0UNO PLANNING & INSP. Carrier air coMidoning, 3 - 4 tons (per phn) 50 gallon hot water heater 80% effident gas fi.trna= with a 5 ytar warranty 200 ~ electti~ sen'ice 3 tdephone pre-wkes 2 cable television pre-wire Sump pump system Smoke detmors 'EXTERIOR 3-car attached garage Full yard ofsod and 1 boulevard tree Weathenkidd wood cased windows with 'dnyt dad exteriors Designer 1/2 window grids Exterior vinyl, stone and Cedar trim Cenainteed Horizon sh~gks 4'x 6' patio (with walk-out) I(~112 roof pitch "A" front ~eather proof outlets at entries Pound concrete basement walls PLUS The Tv, in Cides best builder with over 20 .vis. experience Rorthmd Homes designs can be 10 ymr ,~cmnl Extended 5 year appli~ce wa.,'ramy Professional interior cleaning prior to move-in Rorthmd Builder Representative to assist with all your planning details Customer orientation prior to dosing EQUAL HOU$1N~ OPPORTUNrI~ ROITLUND HOMES" JUN-21-2000 16:21 ROTTLUND HOMES MN 651 638 0501 P,05/10 THE OVERBROOK THE ENCLAVE AT LODGE HOMES "50 SERIES" Tl'ffi ROITLU~ CO~..k~'Y, INC t4N BUILDF~ UCE~$E #I ALI. flOOR PLAI~,~.'q) EI.E',~TIO,~$ ~E TIIE EX¢I. USIVE FROI~RTY OF TILE RO1"tLUND ¢OM?al~, II~L COPtiUGI~I' DIFRIN~iEI~II~ ~Ob'I.D RESU1.T LEGAL BRO.~CJJTI 0.~' L~'D F.~ EI~EK~ COl~.l~I61tT LA~. ROTTLUND HOMESTM THE OVERBROOK MASTER FAMILY BEDROOM ROOM L GARAGE DINETTE DINING ROOM FOYER UVING ROOM I" ,-I RECEIVED J U N 2 '~ ZOO0 MOUNU FLAI'~VliVb 8, INSP, TH E ENCLAVE KI' TUCKAW.EYE I ('~DGE HOMES "50 SEI-~,IES -' - ~er [bt L~e~ ~OPPO~N~ 3UN-21-2000 16:23 ROTTLUND HOMES MN THE KINCAID P.07/10 II [ii ' ~, 'r THE ENCLAVE AT TUCKAWEYE LODGE HOMES "50 SERIES' 1'tlr ROI'II. UND ~,OMPANY. INC. MNBU11DERL[CF. NS£ ~I$35 AIL FI, OOR Pr.A~ ~ F. LL~O~ ~ ~ EZCLL~T,'E PROPERTY OF T~. RoI'rLUND GOl,~,~qY. I~IC. COI'YRIGItT 1MeRINGFM"~,'r fOUl. I) [EGg. PROSECu'I10~ UNDER FEDER~ coFl~Gl, rr ~11DER ~OR ACTLUI D ETAI~ ON L~T,A~G .~.~D BIANS. EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ..-- Builder for Life '~ .~ ROTFLUND HOMES~ JUN-21-2000 16:24 ROTTLUND HOMES MN 651 638 8501 P.08/10 .! I THE KINCAID BEDROOM. C0 ~ F",, Srl-[1NG k - F'-I X;:i ~ "~ BEDROOM .x I~ BEDROOM BEDROOM 13 DINE'I'TE ~ ~AM,~¥ F'"I ROOM GARAGE ~~' .I DINING ROOM UVING ROOM RFt2, EIVED J u N ? ? 21)01) MOUND PLANNING & INSP Builder [br Life ROTTL~ HOMESTM JUN-21-2000 16:24 ROTTLUND HOMES MN THE GRANDV IllW P.09/10 THE ENCLAVE AT TUCKAXVEYE [..OD(~iE HOMES "50 SERIES" INC, COi~RZGttT U~rRI~G~ COULD ~ CONC. EPY SlUE BI~ FOR At'T1.'.~ D~A.{~ ON ,~E~UAL NOUSIN~ ROTI~~ HOMES" JUN-21-2000 16:25 ROTTLUND HOMES MN obi ouo uo~i r.l~-l~ THE GRANDVIEW )o MASTER ' (', ' BEDROOM _ ~ , ~,,,~ ~(;t, ('M.-= x. Jb/ BEDRO0 OPEN TO LIVING ROOM BELOW mi UPPER LEVEL BEDROOIVl "' DINETTE ~ "-" FAMILY I I C ROOM . KITCHEN / , ~ t.__J DINING ROOM LIVING ROOM FOYER GARAGE MAIN LEVEL ~&%vd I ! ^' 1' ' I' U C KAW EYE --' -) -" I7 [.()[. ~.,t. HOMES "50 SERIES" ~ CO~l~r 01~ '11]; RO'rlT. U~ COIvlEU'~T, 131C. MN BCrlZDER UCENSE #1935 b'~ ~bll. D~ mRaCIt:..U. DET..UI2/ON · qlJ. }'I.OOR PL~S I-'~) ~-/~AIIONS ARI~ IH~ ~({X-LISB~ IqlOI~RIY O? lltE ROT~UIqD COl~t~al~; ~ COPYRIGHI INlrlI~ COtll~ ~ ~ ~I'EQUAL HOUSING [.EG.~J. PIIOSEC~O~ [.I~ER I~EllAI. COII:*~JGIIT t2~W. RFCEIVED J u N 2 ? 2001:1 MOUNO ikANNING & INSP. ild tb Life ..~--' Bu er r ROrTL TOTRL P.10 C13Ai333W TOTAL P. 02 Northern States Power Company 414 Nic0iiet M~[l Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1993 Telephone (612) 330-5500 =dE'IVED 2O00 ' !.ANNING & INS~.. June 12,2000 Planning and Inspections Cityof Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN55364-1687 SUBJECT: Langdon Bay Vacation-R.H. Development, Inc. This letter is written in reference to your memo of May 25, 2000 concerning the application by R. H. Development, Inc. for the vacation of a portion of Langdon Bay located in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 14, Township 117, Range 24, Hennepin County, MN. Please be advised that NSP needs to retain its easement rights in the property subject to the above- referenced vacation. Diane Ablan Real Estate Representative Land Services 612 330-2943 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2000 DRAFT Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Engineer John Cameron, and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 00-22: LANGDON BAY PUD; PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 00-23: LANGDON BAY, STREET/EASEMENT VACATION; PUBLIC HEARING The City Planner stated these two items are considered one project by Staff and would be discussed together. The preliminary sketch plan was reviewed in February and is the same except for some minor modifications. This is a 28-acre site; currently undeveloped with one house. The proposal is for a single-family residential subdivision with 75 lots and a density of 2 3/4 lots per acre. The project is a planned development approach intended to reduce street right of ways and pavement widths. Side yards proposed are 6 ft rather than 10 ft on one side of the lot. Lots are arranged with through streets and cul de sacs. P, ottlund is the builder and the developer on this project. Staff issues include concerns about access to the development. The plan shows a 50-foot right of way to Lynwood. There is a need to secure an additional 20- foot right of way. West Edge Road is currently a rural area and needs a 30-foot pavement width with a 60-foot right of way. West Edge also needs a full roadway section and Staff is asking for road improvd~ments. Also, this read needs an additional right of way at the eastern most cul de sac for potential future access. Dedicated park land includes two acres divided among four parcels; one along Lake Langdon, one in the corner, a trail head at the development entrance, and another connector for the trail. The developer has indicated that the trail system will be improved with a hard surface. There is still an issue with the existing residence, which was built in 1916, and is unique in character. Staff wishes to explore the option of keeping the house on the property or moving it elsewhere. Staff is waiting to hear from the Minnesota Historical Society as to their views on the house. Other outstanding issues include the infrastructure related to dealing with water, sewer, and storm water ponding. Staff is relying on the Watershed District for irrformation on the storm water issues. The proposed grading plan was shown. Narrow street widths will reduce the impact on the trees in the back of the homes. After grading, the site will have roughly 10 feet of rise and fall through the streets. Currently the site has a 20 to 30 foot rise and fall throughout. The developer is proposing to vacate portions of the street leaving the trail segment as public. Staff recommends approval of the Langdon Bay Preliminary Plat PUD and the street vacations as requested with the following conditions: 1. A 50 feet right-of-way be provided along Robin Road at its connection to Lynwood Blvd. 2. The developer provide improvements to West Edge Road consisting of an improved 32 feet face-to-face road with curb, gutter, drainage and sidewalk improvements. 3. Additional ROW be provided through the eastern most cul-de-sac to the east property line of the site. 4. The WCA provisions apply to the development. 5. The developer adhere to the Hennepin County Transportation Department comments. 6. Include the comments of the City Engineer's report. Voss asked whether it was premature to recommend approval of the plat before the amount of the assessments were known. Also, he asked whether the developer should have reached an agreement with the County in regard to the left turn lane before approval was given. Finally, Voss pointed out that in reference to the report from the City Engineer, only five of twenty-eight items that were recommended for this project are answered "yes" as being in place. He felt that Staff's recommendation for approval was premature. The City Planner stated that the memo from Hennepin County regarding the issues with access to the development was received two weeks a~go and the developer has had little time to address these issues. He further stated that Hennepin County does have a lot of control over what happens on that road, but he feels that the issue of the left turn lane is easy to address. The City Planner stated that the assessment that Staff recommends is that the property owners abutting the road in Mound would be assessed for a typical residential road assessment. Staff needs to work out exactly what the numbers would be. Voss again asked if it wasn't premature to recommend approval without this information in place. The City Planner stated that it could be recommended if the Commission wished to entertain that motion. He stated that if there was alternative wording preferred, that was also an option. The City Planner stated that he is viewing the road project as a benefit to the property owners who would be paying this assessment. He further stated that these property owners would only be assessed the amount for a regular residential DRAFT road and not for the full amount of the collector road that would be built. The City Engineer stated that in regard to his recommendations that were not yet completed, some of the items need to be flushed out such as the permits, and these are not usually applied for until the final plans are complete. Weiland asked whether County Road 15 was going to being built up and whether Minnetrista would be contributing to the cost of this improvement. He wondered if the Minnetrista property owners abutting the road were going to be assessed. The City Planner stated that this was a complicated issue. The road in question is halfway between Minnetrista and Mound and the development is in Mound. In the past, property owners have not been required to pay for future use. Minnetrista does not see a need to assist the current owners. At this point, Minnetrista participation is limited to a drainage culvert. The North Sanders Lake project has been tabled until future access is obtained; and that developer would improve that portion of the street at that time. There is a gap in Minnetrista on the street that Staff does not currently have a plan for how to get the road improved. Weiland asked if the water issues were resolved including fire and usage. The City Engineer stated that those issues still needed to be worked out. He has required the developer to pay $1,500 per unit to the City capital improvement fund to pay to extend the ten-inch water main from Minnetrista through the development. He further stated that more flows needed to be done to determine what is currently in place. This is historically a Iow water pressure area. The Fire Marshall quotes some water pressures that need to be met and the City Engineer does feel that this needs to be done. Weiland concurred with Voss that the City Engineer's report needed to be complete before approval was given. He was concerned that these items could not be corrected at a later date. Brown asked the City Engineer about the ~ssues with water flow in this area. The City Engineer discussed what he felt would be the best solutions concluding that another water tower would be optimal, but not probable. Burma asked the City Planner what was planned for the two acres of dedicated parkland. The City Planner restated the proposed uses of this land. Burma stated that the February 28 meeting handout states that 2.7 acres of parkland would be dedicated and wondered what happened to the .7 acres. The City Planner stated that this had been submitted to the Park Commission and even though it was short of the original plan, the Park Commission did approve this plan. Burma asked about the cul de sacs' proposed radius in relation to the D AFT specification from the Fire Chief for a minimum turning radius of 75 feet. The City Planner stated that no city has that size of a turn around. The City Engineer stated that he had never heard of 75 feet radius being required and that he thought this may be an error. Mueller asked whether the County was requiring a left turn lane on West Edge Boulevard. The City Planner stated that there was no comment from the County on this, and no position had been taken by the City at this point. Mueller asked whether Minnetrista had submitted the other subdivision to the County. The City Planner could not confirm whether this had been done. Mueller questioned what exactly the proposed improved trail would be. The City Planner stated the trail would connect from the right of ways through the development and that the Parks Commission had asked for 8 foot bituminous covering. Mueller asked why the Park Commission minutes were not included in the packet for tonight's meeting. The City Planner stated that Staff was present at the May meeting. Mueller stated that during the sketch plan review, he had asked to see examples of similar side lots of 6 and 10 feet and wondered if the City Planner had gotten those from the developer. He also questioned the plan to move the houses closer to the street in order to maintain the trees and wondered if there would be conservation easements in place or if there would be bylaws attached to the development. He stated that he did not understand how the trees would be saved if the lots were being cleared to the edges. The City Planner stated that this planning technique does not preserve a lot of trees and if that was a goal in this development, a different design would be needed. Mueller asked whether narrowing the streets helped the City in any way or was it only for the benefit of the developer. The City Planner stated that narrowing the streets would decrease the impact on the land. Mueller confirmed that the original plans had been for about 80 lots and now there were 75 lots planned. The City Planner confirmed these numbers stating that since the preliminary planning, additional wetlands were found on the land. Mueller asked if the wetlands would be protected from potential changes by future homeowners. The City Planner stated that the City should establish draining and utility easements for the wetlands in the final approval stage. He also suggested establishing conservation easements for any significant trees. Mueller stated his concern that approval by the Commission at this stage would be premature because only Staff would be reviewing the final plans. Voss questioned whether with the significant Iow land, would there be any assurance that there would not be flooding problems. The City Engineer stated this was part of the Watershed District review when the plans are submitted in order to get a permit. Hasse questioned whether the amount of the wetlands would be included in the 10,000 square foot lot. The City Planner stated that the wetlands are in the center area of the development and that the minimum lot area is 10,000 square feet including any wetland. He further stated that there is not an ordinance for these particular wetlands and that this is typical approach. Mueller asked if including the narrow streets, there was a total on the expected hardcover for this development. The City Planner stated that the developer would need to be asked about this issue. Weiland asked how the homeowners in the inside section of the development would get out to the trail. The City Planner stated that there was a park trailhead, and that people would have to go down the street to get to the trail access. Chair Michael opened the public headng at 8:24 p.m. Bart Rogland 2260 West Edge, stated that the development was originally presented as reducing the setbacks to save the trees, but in fact that is not really the case. Mr. Rogland stated that all the standards are coming in below normal including the setbacks, water, and parkland. He felt that the street assessments on West Edge would only benefit the builder and, therefore, the builder should pay for the street. Mr. Rogland stated that three weeks ago, he called Hennepin Parks regarding the proposed trail on the railroad tracks and was told that currently no plans are in place. He further stated that he was told that the County had until 2009 to make a decision on whether to buy this land and that it would be a ten-year minimum before trail would bp in place. Mr. Rogland asked the Commission if West .Edge Road would be improved before excavation of the development began as he was concerned about the dust from the construction traffic. Mueller stated that over the years there had been requests for improvements to West Edge and asked Mr. Rogland if he had made such a request. Mr. Rogland stated that yes he had requested improvements, and that dust control was the main issue for the request. Mueller stated that it had been determined that it was too expensive for the residents to do the improvements at that time. Mr. Rogland replied that the residents were opposed to the improvements at this time because of the high price of curb and gutter. DRAFT Joe Nastapinak, 5560 Wood Edge Road, stated that with a planned unit development, he felt that a better design could be developed to protect the 100- year-old trees that were on the property. He further stated that the amount of hardcover proposed would cause flooding in the area and that torrential rains do flood West Edge currently. Mr. Nastapinak stated that the wetland area is currently filing in and if City takes over wetland, it will need to do maintenance to keep it at its original depth. Jim Niesen, 2221 Mill Pond, commented that the Commission was behind the times in their presentation style. He stated that everything in the presentation is black and white and should have been colored in to clearly show what trees will be cut and what will be saved and also exactly where the wetlands were located. He stated that regarding the wetlands included in the lot area, the City would need to impose rules on the homeowners for years and enforce the rules because of fertilizer run off into the wetlands. Mr. Niesen wondered how the City would be able to make and enforce these types of rules. Mr. Niesen also pointed out that there were wetlands that were not part of the development to the east and wondered if there were going to be restrictions on the builder to keep runoff during the construction phase from getting into this area. Helene Borg, P.O. Box 5, Lynwood, confirmed that the 8 foot pathway was included in the 50-foot right of way. The City Planner confirmed this. Ms. Borg asked if the roadway that follows along the path in an unimproved state would ever be improved. The City Planner stated that the right of way was for a future connection. Ms. Borg confirmed that she meant the trail along Robin Lane. Gordon stated that this was correct. Ms. Borg stated that a future property owner could conceivably improve the area. Gordon stated that this was unlikely as existing wetlands would preclude any development. Ms. Borg stated that there was there a possibility that in the future there could be a development on the north side. Mueller said that the vacation would preclude any future development and that the developer was asking for a vacation from the current line up to new road if that trail remained on, the edge of property. Ms. Borg is concerned that there is a potential problem that could occur in the future. Lisa Holter, 2241 Southview Lane, asked for clarification of the right of way. The City Planner stated that they are suggesting that a possible right of way connection be secured in one cul de sac for future development. Ms. Holter asked what secure meant in this framework. The City Planner explained the need for this. Ms. Holter asked if this was equivalent to what currently exits, but not necessarily improved, for example, no road. The City Planner confirmed this. Ms. Holter also asked about vacation right of ways and how they would affect other landowners for potential future development. She wondered why right of ways were being taken. The City Planner stated that these were requests made by the developer because there was no street system currently laid out. Michael stated that the developer would speak about this issue. Jo13 DRAFT Rex Aim, owner of the property in question, stated that he had brought the problem with West Edge to the City's attention and suggested they petition the County to extend County Road 44. He also proposed a solution to Minnetrista regarding the railroad bridge that he felt was too Iow. He has proposed lowering and widening West Edge Road, which he feels is the County's responsibility. Mr. ^lm stated that he has been trying to preserve the wetlands, woodlands, and greenlands, but that his taxes have been doubling by the year and he cannot live there anymore. His recommendations have been ignored and that is why he is needs to sell. Mr. Aim feels the current plan is the best use of the property, but he wants to get the County involved to make the road improvements and not look to the neighbors to pay the cost. Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. Voss confirmed with Mueller that if approval is passed tonight, the issue will not come back to the Commission. Mueller stated that there were many issues that still needed to be addressed including the question of whether property owners are losing their ability to do something in the future with their property. Tim Whitten, Rottlund Company, stated that the issue with Hennepin County was a surprise to them. Rottlund had been operating under the impression that it was a public street. Staff had asked Rottlund to make contact with Hennepin County and they would need time to get more information. Mr. Whitten stated that the issue with the left turn lane is not as serious as the issues with the site lines. He stated that there is always a concern when there is County jurisdiction over a development. Mr. Whitten stated that the issues regarding West Edge Road were tough and the City is looking to the developer to solve the problems. The developer is prepared to make up the difference between a normal street assessment and the collector road that is needed. Normally, half the road would be considered their obligation at a cost of about $35,000. He further stated that there is an opportunity for Hennepin County to share the cost with the residents. Rottlund is estimating to take up to 3/4 of c~sts as the developer. This is being done not so much for the City and the residents, but because the Minnetrista side is a problem. It would be possible not to do curb along the Minnetrista side and possibly not on Mound side. This issue is still in the early stages. Mr. Whitten stated that he has appreciated working with the staff. In reference to the issues of saving the trees on this development, Mr. Whitten stated that the setbacks and moving houses forward does not do job they had hoped. The topography proved to be more difficult than preliminary grading information indicated. Aisc, the amount of wetland was a surprise. Mr. Whitten further stated that one side of the project is a lot lower than the other side and the pond is higher on one side which limits accessibility for the road. The developer has decided to look at individual lots in an effort to save more trees. This will be possible in the areas where the roads and homes are close in elevation. Custom grading will be used to achieve this. Mr. Whitten stated that the vacation is DRAFT considered a benefit to everyone. This is on Iow land of the site where there would never be a street and Mr. Whitten suggested that maybe an easement would help people be more comfortable with this. Mr. Whitten stated that West Edge Road is the most difficult of the issues brought out tonight. In reference to the parkland issues, Mr. Whitten stated that the trail has been considered an improvement. The developer has met with the Park Board twice. Mr. Whitten stated that they are planning to build a gazebo on the park site, but as yet have not determined the appearance of the gazebo. Mr. Whitten stated that there has been some discussion of moving the old house onto the park site. Mueller asked about his request in February to see examples of other areas where short setbacks were used. Mr. Whitten stated that he was at fault for not following up on this request and that he would provide this information shortly. He stated that he has a number of examples close by. Mueller asked what percentage of the West Edge Road cost they were comfortable with paying. Mr. Whitten stated that typically the developer would pay for half the road and that they are expecting to do more than that. Mueller confirmed that the actual dollar amount would need to be confirmed before a commitment could be reached. Mr. Whitten stated that, yes, they were just starting to do the work and that curb cost was a big part of this. Mueller asked if originally the developer had talked about utilities within the street and trees in the boulevard. Mr. Whitten confirmed that this was still in the plan subject to approval by the City and the City Engineer. Mr. Whitten stated that they are proposing to put a sidewalk in to allow access to the park for the inner residents. This would be in the same location with the boulevard and trees. Staff does not require this sidewalk, but it is something extra offered by the developer. ~ Brown asked if the developer had done the Centennial Lakes Project. Mr. Whitten said yes to this and Brown stated this was a beautiful development that is quite similar to the one proposed. Voss stated this issue has been in front of the Commission twice and that they could add requirements at the end of the Staff recommendation 5, and also add "change requirements" on 6. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Brown, to approve recommendation with the additional requirements. Staff's Discussion: Mueller stated that he was surprised that Voss was moving forward without all the answers and wondered if he was off track. Mueller questioned the site line issues and the need to rebuild a County road. Mueller also stated that he wanted to see the minutes from the Park Commission's meeting to review what they talked about in reference to this development. He also wished to see an example of an area with 6 feet between houses. Mueller stated that Centennial Lakes is a town home development not a single-family development. Mueller questioned the amount of storage available for boats, snowmobiles, etc. He further pointed out that the developer does not have all the information from Staff. Mueller wondered why they would vacate the street on the edge of the property. Burma stated that point 2 of the Staff recommendations doesn't indicate that the improvement is for the full length of West Edge Road and he would like to see that added. Currently, Staff has recommended the improvement to the south edge of the development. Burma offered this as an amendment to the Motion. Voss agreed to include this amendment in his Motion. Burma stated that he has heard more questions than answers regarding the left turn lane, the tree situation, and the current set up of the plan. Burma felt that if the street on the east was put through, two houses would need to be removed. He also mentioned that there was no resolution on the idea of putting a gazebo or the old house on the parkland. Voss stated that the City would not be able to save every tree. He further stated that the requirement in the Motion that the developer adhere to the Hennepin County requirements including the site line, would not be removed in the process through the final plan. Voss stated that the same applied to the City Engineer's report. Brown agreed with Voss and felt the developer's statement that they would do the grading on a lot-by-lot basis would be ~good thing. Chair Michael called the question. AYES: 3 (Brown, Boss, Hasse, Glister) NAYS: 4 (Weiland, Michael, Burma, Mueller) MOTION FAILED. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma, to table the issue for two weeks in order to get the answers to the outstanding issues. AYES: 6 (Michael, Burma, Glister, Hasse, Mueller, Weiland) NAYS: 2 (Brown, ross) MOTION CARRIED. DRAFT Brown stated for the record that the developer should have the opportunity to go before Council and the questions still outstanding could have been brought forward at that time rather than delaying the issue further. Michael stated that two weeks are not going to make a big difference. Chair Michael called for a break at 9:20 p.m. Chair Michael called the meeting to order at 9:26 p.m. Memorandum Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. iml k--4H TO: City of Mound Staff, Planning Commission and Council FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 12, 2000 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat PDA and Street Vacation - "Langdon Bay" - R. H. Development APPLICANT: R. H. Development/Rottllund Homes OWNER: Leroy Alwin LOCATION: 1000 Robin Lane ZONING: Residential R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant, R.H. Development/Rottlund Homes, have submitted a Preliminary Plat for a 75 lot single family development named "Langdon Bay." They have a purchase agreement with the current owner Leroy Alwin pending development plan approval. The project is located in the western portion of the community along Westedge Road, Langdon Lake and County Road 15. Specifics of the plan are as follows: PARCEL SIZE PROPOSED UNIT # DENSITY ZONING (EXISTING) ZONING (PROPOSED) '~ 'Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Width Front Yard Setback Side Yard Setbacks Rear Yard Setbacks LAND USE PLAN 27.41 ac 75 2.73 units/acre R-1 -~ R-1 PDA 10,000 sf 60 feet 25 feet 6 and 10 feet 15 feet Low Density Residential (1-6 units acre) SUBDIVISION STREET DESIGN Right-of-way width 50 feet Pavement width 28 feet/varies Park Site Dedication 2 acres The Site The property contains about 27 acres and represents the largest remaining undeveloped tract of 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 g00-22 and 23Langdon Bay Preliminary Plat PDA and Street Vacation June 12, 2000 land in Mound. The property has one home and a few outbuildings. Access to Lynwood Blvd. is via a gravel driveway along unimproved Robin Road. Big woods vegetation of maples and basswoods and wetlands characterize the property. There is about 60 feet of elevation changes on the site. The central portion of the property is a high point and has views of Lake Langdon. Development Plan The development plan suggests a curvilinear subdivision design approach for the site. The developer has indicated this design approach is preferred as it is more sensitive to the environmental features of the property than a typical grid design. The 75 single family lots are all similarly sized, averaging 12,830 square feet. This meets the minimum 10,000 square feet standard for the R-1 Single Family Residential zone. Average lot widths are about 70 feet, which meet the 60 feet minimum. Roads/Circulation The development will be served by two public road accesses from West Edge Road and Lynwood Blvd. A 50 feet right-of-way and 28 feet pavement width are proposed for all local roadways in the development. Cul-de-sacs are proposed at a 60 feet ROW radius and 50 feet pavement radius. Staff has suggested the pavement be reduced to a 45 feet radius which will reduce hardcover and provide good emergency vehicle movement. The existing Robin Road ROW at Lynwood Blvd. is 30 feet. The plans indicate a 50 feet ROW as suggested by staff will be used. The developer is securing additional land from the two abutting property owners at this time. The eastem most cul-de-sac should have additional right-of-way platted through to the property line for future connection. The neighboring property could be further subdivided and a connection point would provide a good circulation~opportunity in this area and possibly eliminate a cul-de-sac. The developer has proposed the vacation of portions Glen Lane and Interlachan Road otherwise known as Buttercup Lane. Each has a 30 feet ROW and would be split in half with each side going to the adjacent property owner. Th unvacated portion of Interlachan Road would serve the proposed trail. The other road issues with the project deal with West Edge Road and Lynwood. Blvd. West Edge is currently a gravel rural section, no curb and gutter and ditches. Staff's recommendation is for the developer to improve West Edge to a full urban section, 32 feet bituminous road face to face with curb and gutter, from the south property line to Lynwood Blvd. The City would entertain assessments for the property owners abutting West Edge in Mound along this improved portion. A typical residential street assessment charge would apply to those properties. The developer is considering the City's recommendation at this time. Minnetrista does not want to assist with this 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 #00-22 and 23Langdon Bay Preliminary Plat PDA and Street Vacation June 12, 2000 roadway project except for minor drainage improvements. Hennepin County will also contribute to the drainage improvements. Hennepin County has submitted a letter to the City asking a left mm lane be provided for west bound traffic turning into Robin Lane. Additionally, they have concerns about maintaining a 300 feet sight distance to the west of Robin Lane. The developer has been instructed to discuss this with the County. Wetlands There are a number of wetlands that impact the development layout. The plan proposed to fill some and create others in order for the development plan to work as shown. The Wetland Conservation Act applies to this development and the City would expect the developer to address all aspects of this law. Grading/Storm Water The site will be heavily graded to allow the street slopes to work and provide building areas for the homes. The grading plan shows the limits of grading on the site. This also impacts the stormwater flows on the site. Three storm water ponding sites are provided. They will treat water before outletting into wetland areas or being discharged off site. A bluff area exists along Interlachen Road that will be left untouched. Homes here will need to maintain 30 feet setbacks fi.om the top of the bluff. Parks and Trails The plan indicated the dedication of 2 acres of park land with a trail connection along Interlachen Road. The park site consist of 4 individual sites, 2 of which are more like trailheads, the other two being a useable park in the development and the other providing a lake access to Lake Langdon. ~ RECOMMENDATION: S~'~iff recommends approval of the Langdon Bay Preliminary Plat PDA and the street vacations as requested with the following conditions: 1. A 50 feet right-of-way be provided along Robin Road at its connection to Lynwood Blvd. 2. The developer provide improvements to West Edge Road consisting of an improved 32 feet face to face road with curb, gutter, drainage and sidewalk improvements. 3. Additional ROW be provided through the easternmost cul-de-sac to the east property line of the site. 4. The WCA provisions apply to the development. 5. The developer adhere to the Hennepin County Transportation Department comments. 6. Include the comments of the City Engineer's report. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Engineering · Planning · Surveying RECEIVED J UN {3 7 2000 June 6, 2000 Mr. Jon Sutherland Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Preliminary Plat - Langdon Bay Engineer's Memo MFRA #12754 Dear Jon: Enclosed is a copy of the Engineer's Memo for the Preliminary Plat of Langdon Bay (Rex Alwin property). If you have any questions regarding our review or need additional information on any items, please contact me. Very truly yours, MFRA John Cameron, City Engineer JC:pry cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington, Koegler Group, Inc. s:\main :Wlou 12754:\Correspondenceksutherland6-5 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra@mfra.com CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA ENGINEER'S MEMO TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: JUNE 5, 2000 CASE NO: 00-22 and 00-23 PETITIONER: R.H. DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT: LANGDON BAY LOCATION: Alwin property - West Edge Boulevard and County Road 15 PID 14-117-24 33 0001 and PID 14-117-24 34 0002 Lots 1 and 2, Auditors Subd. No. 231 ASSESSMENT RECORDS: N/A Yes No 1. [--I [-'-] X 2. [3 x 3. I-1 x 12] Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use. Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed use. SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are issued. Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at the time of final plat approval. Area assessments: Watermain area assessment is based on proposed 75 units at $1,500.00/unit--- $112,500.00. Other additional assessments estimated: LEGAL / EASEMENTS / PERMITS: 6. I-"] ['-] X 7. [2] x Complies with standard utility/drainage easements - The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and five feet (5') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines. All standard utility easements required for construction are provided - The City will require twenty feet (20') utility and drainage easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines were these utilities are proposed to be installed. This item will be reviewed with the final construction plans. o N/A Yes No Complies with ponding requirements - The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for ponding purposes on all property below the established 100- year high water elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive stormwater drainage plan and MCWD stormwater management plan. o x All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have been vacated - It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of- way to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic process in conjunction with the platting process. It is the Owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated: Street vacation request (Case #00-23) has been reviewed and approval is recommended as submitted. 10. 11. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the City with this application If it is subsequently determined that the subject property is abstract propert¥, then this requirement does not apply. It will be necessary for the property Owner to provide the City Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order that he may file the required easements referred to above. X '2 All necessary permits for this project have been obtained - The following permits must be obtained by the Developer: x DNR x Itennepin County x MPCA x State Health Department x Minnehaha Creek Watershed District x U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ["-] Other WCA Mitigation The Developer must comply with all conditions contained within any permit. N/A Yes No TRANSPORTATION: ~2. V1 lEI X Conforms with the City's grid system for street names - The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the City grid system for street names. The following changes will be necessary: Proposed street names for east/west street and cai-de-seas need to be submitted for approval. Robin Lane to be retained as name of north/south street. V1 [] x x Conforms with the City's Thoroughfare Guide Plan - The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan. See Special Condition No. 25. Acceleration/deceleration and turn lanes provided: See ltennepin County memo dated June 1, 2000. 15. [--] [~] X All existing street tights-of-way are required width - Additional right-of-way will be required on existing section of Robin Lane to provide total width of 50 feet. UTILITIES: ': ' 16. ['-] X [~] 17. [--] ~] X '-'2 Conforms with City standards requiting the Developer to construct utilities necessary to serve this plat - In accordance with City standards, the Developer shall be responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the development. Final utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements- The Developer has submitted the required construction plans for the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities; and has also fumished profiles of these utilities as -3- N/A Yes No. well as the proposed street system (public and private). El E] x El V1 x 20. [-'] [--I X Per the Developer's request, final plans will be prepared by the City. If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as part of its Capital Improvement Program, a petition must be submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1st of the year preceding construction, if the Developer is paying 100% of the cost. The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan - The following revisions will be required: Final Construction Plans must be submitted before final plat will be considered for approval. The proposed 8" watermain ending at easterly CDS must be extended to plat boundary for future looping. The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan - The following revisions will be required: Final Construction Plans must be submitted before final plat will be considered for approval. 21. VI x El It will be necessary to contact Greg Skinner, the City's Public Works Superintendent, 24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The Developer shall also be responsible for contacting the Pfi~blic Works Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the City right-of-way. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL: 22. El X [--'1 Minimum basement elevations - Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following lots: Any lots adjacent to wetlands and/or stormwater ponds. 23. [-'] ]'"] X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan - The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted to the City's Consulting Engineer and MCWD for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's N/A Yes No Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan and MCWD Stormwater Management Plan. All of their recommendations shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control, including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations. Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary: SPECIAL CONDITIONS REOUIRED: 24. West Edge Boulevard must be improved to City standards for collector streets from south property line of proposed plat to County Road No. 15. Cost sharing is an issue that needs to be resolved. 25. Future right-of-way should be provided between proposed Lot 5 and 6, Block 4, for future extension of street to the east. The cul-de-sac length proposed exceeds the maximum 500 feet allowed. 26. The proposed 8" watermain ending at easterly CDS must be extended to plat boundary for future looping. 27. Final plans to include additional gate valves on proposed watermain. 28. The stormwater~ pond at southwest corner of property outlets onto private property. Discharge rate cannot exceed present flow. John Cameron, City Engineer s:~main:~nfxa:~nou 12754:\Correspondencc\~ngmemo6-5 -5- Mr. Jon Sutherland City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Sutherland: Kennevin Count Re: June 1, 2000 RECEIVED JUN O 5 2OO0 MOUND PLANNING Proposed Plat-Langdon Bay (CSAH 15, SE quad West Edge Blvd.) Hennepin County Plat No. 2518 - Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require 30 days for county review of proposed plats abutting county roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments. Proposed Robin Lane · The plat will require an entrance permit for Robin Lane since there will be a change in land use and a street entrance is replacing an existing driveway. · We are particularly concerned about the safety of this entrance. In its proposed location, vehicles accessing the county road from Robin Lane will not have adequate sight distance to the west. The changed use of this entrance would not be permitted unless a minimum sight distance of 300 feet is provided. We would recommend an even longer sight distance be provided since we perceive that the operating speeds are typically above 30 mph in this area. · Turn and auxiliary lanes will be needed on CSAH-15 at Robin Lane to adequately provide for the traffic to / from the development. We recommend that at a minimum a westbound left mm lane be provided to Robin Lane. Roadway shoulders would need to be maintained through this area on both sides of CSAH-15. We would be willing to assist the city and the developer in working through these issues to arrive at an entrance and intersection design that adequately meets our safety needs and provides for the site traffic. West Edge Boulevard · West Edge Blvd. has severe grade and erosion problems that must be corrected to support this proposed development and other existing and future development in the area. · At some point in the future, the intersection at CSAH-15 will require turn lanes on CSAH-15 similar to those required at Robin Lane. This intersection would serve a number of properties thatr~volves the City of Minnetrista as well as the City of Mound. We would be willing to participate with both cities in establishing an improvement plan. A~iscel!aneous Rems · All proposed construction within county right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to access, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 745-7601 for the appropriate permit forms. · The developer must restore all areas, within the county right of way, disturbed during construction. Please direct any questions or responses to Dave Zetterstrom (763) 745-7643 or Bob Byers (763) 745-7633. As a matter of procedure, we request that the City Clerk inform us of the City Council's action on the right of way and access provisions. Sinc~erely, Thomas D. Johnson, P.E~. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ:DKZ:jrh c: Pete Tulkki - County Surveyors Office Brad Moe - Transit & Real Estate John Cameron - Mound City Consulting Engineer Wayne Tower- Pioneer Engineering Transportation Department[-/~' 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340-5421 (612) 745-7500 FAX: (612) a78-ao00 VI~D: (612) 852-6760 Recycled ?aI~er I! \ \ '. *l h I T I / Ii I ;~ i [ Ii . : It ! L MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE DRA/J~. MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MAY t8, 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 I 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 hewouid 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. 2 DEPARTMENT ~4 I 5 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD MOUND, MN 55364 6 I 2/472-3555 FAX: 6 I 2/47:~-3775 moundfiredept~earthlink, net GREGORY S. PEDERSON FiRE CHIEF DAVID BOYD ASSISTANT CHIEF MICHAEL PAlM FiRE HARSHAL April 26, 2000 RH DEVELOPMENT 2300 W. 97TM Street Bloomington, MN. 55431 Re: Langdon Bay Plat 1. Fire hydrant system plans and specifications shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. 2. Hydrant spacing. Minimum distance between hydrants 500 feet. Maximum distance fi:om any point on street or road fi'ontage to a hydrant, reduce by 50 feet for dead end street or road. 3. One and Two Family Dwellings. The Minimum fire flow and flow duration requirements having a fire area which does not exceed 3,600 square feet shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. Fire flow and flow duration having a fire area in excess of 3,600 square feet shall not be less than that specified in table A - III - A - I. A reduction in fire flow may be reduced if the dwelling is provided with an approved fire sprinkler system. 4. Minimum taming radius of 75 feet for all cul-de-sac's. 5. Road widths less than the approved widths for parking shall be posted no parking at any time. If you have any questions or concerns, Please do not hesitate to comact me at (612) 472 - 3555 or my pager at (651) 225-6884. Sincerely, Michael A. Palm Mound Fire Marshal I eng,neering Internal Memorandum Date: April 21, 2000 To: Wayne Tauer From: Nicholas Polta Re: Preliminary Hydrology Calculations for Langdon Bay, Mound Minnesota The following is a brief summary of the preliminary water quality requirements for the above referenced project. The pervious curve number and impervious fraction variables are assumed values based on similar developments (MNPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas). The site is broken into two(2) watersheds. One draining to the wetland Northeast of the site, the other draining south to the Langdon Lake. The following is a breakdown of the flow calculations: Watershed · Northeast Peak Flow 2-Year Storm (els) Exist. Prop. Peak Flow Peak Flow 10-Year Storm 100-Year Storm (cfs) (cfs) Exist. Prop. Exist. Prop. 8.27 9.60 17.57 16.41 South 16.73 21.80 39.16 34.86 The water quality ponds have been sized in accordance with the Walker PONDSIZ program. I have attached the full calculations for your review. Please see the attached ancillary information for more detail. If you have any questions or think it would be beneficial that I provide any specific details, please let me know at your convenience. 2422 Enterprise Drive · Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 · (651) 681-1914 · Fax 681-9488 PLANNING COMM, DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE: DISTRIBUTION CITY PLANNER CITY ENGINEER ' · PUBLIC WORKS PARKS ONR FIRE DEPARTMENT ASSESSING - OTHER: Application for MAJOR SUBDIVISION City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 CASE NO. O0 DATE TYPE OF APPLICATION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL PLAT S10/L.OT OVER2 LOTS O -"/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: PDA ESCROW DEPOSit VARIANCE TOTAL Please bJpe or print the following information: PROPERTY Subject INFORMATION Address West r, dp;e Road & RoDin Road Name of Proposed Plat EXISTING LEGAL I & 9 DESCRIPTION Lot Subdivision Auditors Sub No. 231 Block PID# Plat # ZONING DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-la R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 fEE S 150 $250 ~ ,000 $100 APPLICANT The applicant is: ~owner other:. Developer Name R.H. Development '~ Address ?300 W 9'~th Street, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 Phone (H) ON) (612) 831-3830 (M) OWNER (if other than applicant) Name Leroy V. Alwin Address 1000 Robin Lane, Phone (H) Mound, Minnesota 55364 ON} (M) SURVEYO~ ENGINEER Name Pioneer EnRineerinR, P.A. Address 2422 Enterprise Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 Phone (Revised 02-04-00)) Major Subdivision Application (651) 681-1914 (M) Page 2 Description of Proposed Use: 75 Single Family Lots, all of 10,000 S.F. or larger EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. An additional 75 households will obviously have some impacts on the area, i.e. traffic, public utilities, lose of vegetation etc. The lmym~ w~ d~g~d to limit these impacts wherever possible. If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Number of Structures: 75 Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: 12,830 sq. ft. Number of Dwelling Units/Structure: Total Lot Area: 962,250 sq. ft. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Ron Helmet, R.H. Development ~ S ature Print Applicant's Name Date Leroy V. Alwin Print Owner's Name (Twner's Sigr~ture Date Print Owner's Name (Revised 02-04-00) Owner's Signature Date Rev. 't2-2~-98 Application for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner: ~-~i-~'~J~ City Engineer Case No. Conditional Use Permit Fee: $250.00 / Public Works: /--{--~l'-O'~ FireDept. 'd~-~-~''-0'~ Other:. PA:D Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY Subject INFORMATION Address West Edge Road & Robin Road LEGAL DESCRIPTION Name of Business Lot 1 & 2 Block Plat # APPUCANT Subdivision Auditors Sub No. 231 PID# The applicant is: owner other:. Developer Name R.H. Development Address 2300 W 97th Street, BloominRton, Minnesota 55431 OWNER (if other than applicant) ARCHITECT, SURVEYOR, OR ENGINEER ZONING DISTRICT Phone (H) ON) (612) 831-3830 (M) Name Leroy V, Alwin Address 1000 Robin Lane, Moun~, Minnesota 55364 Phone (H) ON) (U) Name Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Address 2422 Enterprise Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 Phone (H) (651) 681-1914 (M) Circle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-I B-2 B-3 CHANGE OF USE FROM: Agricultural TO: Single Family Residential 10,000 S.F. Lot . Conditional Use Perrr~/t Application Page 2 Description of Proposed Use: 75 Single Family Lots, all of 10,000 S.F. or larger EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and descdbe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. An additional 75 households will obviously have some impacts on the ~re~. i.e. traffic, public utilities, lose of vegetation etc. The layout was designed to limit these impacts wherever possible If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ 1,125,000.00 Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, {x) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed.by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Ron Helmer, R.H. Development Print Applicant's Name Date Leroy V. Alwin Print Owner's Name Applicant's Sign'~ture Owner's Signatdre Date Print Owner's Name Rev. 12-28-98 Owner's Signature Date \\-. \\:L --~ I %\\\ ,? ! Memorandum Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. l!!ll TO: City of Mound Staff', Planning Commission and Council FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: February 24, 2000 SUBJECT: Sketch Plan Review - "Langdon Bay" - R. H. Devdopment APPLICANT: R. H. DevelopmentYRottllund Homes OWNER: Leroy Alwin LOCATION: 1000 Robin Lane ZONING: Residential R-1 COMPREItENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential R.H. Development/Rottlund Homes has submitted a sketch plan for staff and Planning Commission review and comment. They have a purchase agreement with Leroy Alwin, pending development plan approval. The proposal is for an 80 lot single-family residential development on the undeveloped 27 acre parcel with typical 70 lot widths and 10,800 square feet lots. Gross density for the project as proposed would be 2.96 dwelling units per acre, which falls within the low density residential range provided for in the Comprehensive Plan. It has been indicated that the developer will pursue a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approach for the project. The property is currently zoned R-1 Single family residential which establishes a 10,000 square feet minimum lot area and 60 feet lot width. My comments on the sketchplan are as follows: · The proposed sketch plan represents a Major Subdivision and would require preliminary and final plats if it proceeds. The developer has indicated they would like to entertain the PUD process to allow for narrower ROW and street widths. · The concept suggests a mix of typical grid and curvilinear subdivision design. The 80 single family lots are all similarly sized at 10,800 square feet. This meets the minimum 10,000 square feet standard for the R-1 Single Family Kesidential zone. The concept shows the property "lotted out" with the exception of wetland/ponding areas and two park sites. Additional attention is needed at the platting stage to remove butt/"sandwiched" lots from some areas. · The typical housing plans seem to be a good "fit" in the neighborhood and also meet community needs for 'hapscale" single-family housing. It appears that the existing residence and outbuildings would be removed. They have some unique qualities that if 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 3384838 p. 2 Langdon Bay Sketch Plan Review February 28, 2000 retained, could add value to the property. Additional consideration should be given to see what potential exists for their continued use. · The developer would like to narrow the street corridor by narrowing the right-of-way, street width and front yard setbacks. Conceptually, staff agrees with this approach to minimize environmental impacts. Less street pavement will reduce the amount of hardsurface and water runoff improving water quality. · Park site dedication requirements would indicate the need for a minimum of 2.7 acres of parkland on the property. Given the buildout of the community and the lack of parkland in this area, staffwould prefer a parksite on the property rather than fees in lieu of land. The developer has shown a connection to the railroad right-of-way, which looks to be a future regional trail connection. This is a positive feature for the development/community. Need to show additional pedestrian connections within the development. · Additional topography information is needed at a 2 feet interval. There may be some areas that could be considered bluffs. · The site has a number of natural features that will affect this development concept including slopes, wooded areas, and wetlands. Additional plans will need to be prepared showing existing site conditions to a greater detail than is provided. Tree protection policies will require attention is given to the densely vegetated areas that cover a majority of the property. Additional wetland information will be needed to satisfy the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), · Two access points are provided via undeveloped Robin Lane (Robin Lane currently serves as the driveway to the Alwin homestead) and West Edge Road. These appear to be logical connections to the roadway network. Further detail is needed from the developer to address road improvements on West Edge Road. The road is not classified as State-Aid because the Minnetrista half cannot receive state funding. · There are other dedicated public rights-of-way on the property that could be used a pedestrian trail system. · Need to show a utility plan for the development. Watermain needs looping in the development and sanitarY sewer main and connections need to be shown. · Storm drainage and ponding system needs to be further explored for the site. These are my comments based on review of the sketch plan. Subsequent changes to this plan may affect these comments. Additional comments from Public Works, Engineering, Parks, and Fire Departments would be in addition to what I have provided. Other comments not discussed may certainly arise at Planning Commission and Council at preliminary and final plat stages if pursued. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Engineering · Planning · Surveying RECEIVE .P FEB 2 2 2000 MOUND PLANNWb ~ INS~ MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: February 21, 2000 Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer City of Mound Sketch Plan Review Langdon Bay (Alwin Property) MFRA #12754 I have reviewed the sketch plan submitted and find that it is limited to a proposed street alignment and lot an'angement. With no information on proposed grading or utilities, there is very little for me to comment on. As previously mentioned, everyone needs to be aware that there are water pressure problems in this area of Mound. The City has previously considere~the extension of the ten-inch watermain from the northwest comer of the prOPe~-ty to the ten-inch main at the intersection of West Edge Boulevard and Halstead Lane. For a number of reasons the project was never undertaken. The improvement of West Edge Road is a similar situation, primarily because it straddles the boundary line between Mound and Minnetrista. cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group s:\main:kMou12754:\Coreespondence~sutherland2-2 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra@mfra.com ROTTLUND HOMFff RECEIVED. February 11, 2000 Mr. Jon Sutherland Building Official City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mr. Sutherland: R.H. Development, Inc. and The Rottlund Company, Inc. are pleased to be presenting to the City of Mound a concept site plan for the Alwin property. The site consists of approximately 27 acres and is located south of Lynwood Road and east of West Edge Road. Our concept is for an 80-lot single-family residential development called "Langdon Bay". The proposed minimum lot size is 70' in width and 144' in depth, for 10,800 square feet. One of our main concerns is to save as many trees on the site. This can be accomplished in a number of ways. First is the shape of the lot: Making the lot 70' wide and still keeping at a 10,000 square foot minimum allows the lot to be deeper. This keeps the house further form the rear lot line which is wh¢$e most of the slopes and trees exist in this concept. Also, we will be requesting some reduction of lot side yard and fi:ont yard set backs. The side yard set back at the garage to be 6' minimum instead of 10', and 20' front yard setback at the house and 25' at the garage instead of 30'. This flexibility of the front road set back allows the house to be closer to the street, and the reduction of the side yard allows the house to be slightly wider which reduces the depth of the house, both of which help keep the house away from the rear lot line. This helps keep the house away form the rear lot line to help save grading down the streets, which in mm saves slopes and saves trees. Having one builder controlling the house sizes on the lots also helps in the effort to save trees. The house designs are planned to be approximately 2000-2600 square feet and be priced at an estimated average of $250,000. There will be a mix of one-level and two-story plans. Some unique features are a decided effort to lessen the dominance of the garage and a promoting of the house entries and front porches. This is done by pushing the 3065 CEN-I"RE POINTE DRJVE ROSE'VII. J.F. MN 55113 (651) 638-0500 FAX (651) 638-0501 February 11, 2000 Page 2 garage back into the house plan and having the front porch and the house closer to the street than the garage. Some plans will have a two-car garage to the street with a tandem garage for the third stall to answer the demand for 3-car garages, but not have it dominate the front of the house. Also, to take advantage of the comer lots, side load gages will be used to promote the front porch oppommity. Another unique feature is that we are taking our theme of Architecture from Rex Alwin's existing house which is a "Craftsman" style home built in the 1930's and threading into the exterior elevations of the homes. We are exited about an opportunity to create this type of special neighborhood in Mound, and look forward to working with the City of Mound towards this goal. Sincerely, THE ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC. Timothy Whitten, AIA CC: Ron Helmer, R.H. Development John Helmer Todd Stutz, Rottlund Homes / 'I 0 © ..< i DRAFT MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank VVeiland; Council Liaison Bob Brown (dismissed at 9:05 p.m). Absent and excused: Commissioner Orvin Burma. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following public were present: Klm Anderson, Marshall Anderson, Jane and Marry Carlsen, Wayne E. Ehlebracht, Lisa Holter, Steve Howard, Tim Loberg, Peter C. Meyer, John Parker, Bart Roeglin, Sandy Roeglin, Linda Skorseth. Chair Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:39 p.m. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 14, 2000, MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Brown stated the Planning Commission would be receiving in their packets the City Council minutes in the future. He stated there have been delays in the minutes but this is being worked on. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse, to accept the February 14, 2000, Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted. MOTION CARRIED: 8-0. ~ BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 00-10: SKETCH PLAN REVIEW; ROTTLUND HOMES, 1000 ROBIN LANE, LOTS 1 AND 2, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVlSOIN #231; PID# 14-117-24 33 0001; 14-117-24 34 0002. Gordon presented this case. He stated R.H. Development/Rottlund Homes submitted a sketch plan for staff and Planning Commission review and comment. They have a purchase agreement with Leroy Alwin, pending development plan approval. The proposal is for an 80 lot single-family residential development on the undeveloped 27- acre parcel with typical 70 lot widths and 10,800 square feet lots. Gross density for the project as proposed would be 2.96 dwelling units per acre, which falls within the Iow density residential range provided for in the Comprehensive Plan. It has been indicated Mound P[annina Comm[ssion Minutes, Februaw 28. 2000 D AFT that the developer will pursue a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approach for the project. The property is currently zoned R-1 Single family residential which establishes a 10,000 square feet minimum lot area and 60 feet lot width. Gordon commented on the sketch plan as follows: a. The proposed sketch plan represents a Major Subdivision and would require preliminary and final plats if it proceeds. The developer has indicated they would like to entertain the PUD process to allow for narrower ROW and street widths. b. The concept suggests a mix of typical grid and curvilinear subdivision design. The 80 single-family lots are all similarly sized at 10,800 square feet. This meets the minimum 10,000 square feet standard for the R-1 Single Family Residential zone. The concept shows the property "lotted out" with the exception of wetland/ponding areas and two park sites. Additional attention is needed at the platting stage to remove butt/"sandwiched' lots from some areas. c. The typical housing plans seem to be a good "fit" in the neighborhood and also meet community needs for "upscale' single-family housing. It appears that the existing residence and outbuildings would be removed. They have some unique qualities that if retained, could add value to the property. Additional consideration should be given to see what potential exists for their continued use. d. The developer would like to narrow the street corridor by narrowing the right-of- way, street width and front yard setbacks. Conceptually, staff agrees with this approach to minimize environmental impacts. Less street pavement will reduce the amount of hardsurface and water runoff improving water quality. e. Park site dedication requirements would indicate the need for a minimum of 2.7 acres of parkland on the property. Given the buildout of the community and the lack of parkland in this area, staff would prefer a parksite on the property rather than fees in lieu of land. The developer has shown a connection to the railroad right-of-way, which looks to be a future regional trail connection. This is a positive feature for the development/community. Need to show additional pedestrian connections within the development. f. Additional topography information is needed at a 2 feet interval. There may be some areas that could be considered bluffs. g. The site has a number of natural features that will affect this development concept including slopes, wooded areas, and wetlands. Additional plans will need to be prepared showing existing site conditions to a greater detail than is provided. Tree protection policies will require attention is given to the densely vegetated areas that cover a majority of the property. Additional wetland information will be needed to satisfy the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). h. Two access points are provided via undeveloped Robin Lane (Robin Lane currently serves as the driveway to the Alwin homestead) and West Edge Road. These appear to be logical connections to the roadway network. Further detail is needed from the developer to address road improvements on West Edge Road. 2 Mound Plannincl Commission Minutes, February 28, 2000 DRAFT The road is not classified as State-Aid because the Minnetrista half cannot receive state funding. i. There are other dedicated public rights-of-way on the property that could be used a pedestrian trail system. j. Need to show a utility plan for the development. Watermain needs looping in the development and sanitary sewer main and connections need to be shown. k. Storm drainage and ponding system needs to be further explored for the site. Gordon stated there might be additional comments from the Park Commission, Public Works, Engineering, and Fire Departments to this sketch plan that have not been provided to him yet. Gordon stated the Westedge location would need to be reviewed with great intensity because this is the dividing lining between Minnetrista and Mound. Voss asked where the access was going to be located for the future trail system. Gordon stated a small trail head would be developed through the park location near the railroad track. The developer stated he would expand on this question when he presents the sketch. Brown stated the City of Mound is in desperate need for parkland because they will be losing some park space with the redevelopment of downtown. He asked if it would be feasible for the developer to locate one large piece of property where a nice park with swings and a Babe Ruth ballfield could be built. Tim Wittman, Vice President of Rottlund Homes, presented his sketch plan. He stated they have a valid purchase agreement with Rex Alwin regarding this property. In the beginning, Rottlund Homes would have liked building townhomes on this property, but Mr. Alwin was quite offended with that offer and made it quite clear he wanted single family homes built. After discussions, Rottlund Homes agreed to build single family homes on this property and they are very excited to be a part of this project. Mr. Wittman stated the property around Lake Langdon is being proposed for park use. He stated this park would have access to the lake with a trail or sidewalk going to and from the park through the development. He stated this property does have some steep edges, but also includes very beautiful trees. He stated there is a wetland area designated in the development that Rottlund intends to stay away from and help preserve this area. Mr. VVittman stated there are storm ponding areas that need to be worked on as well. He stated the position of the road right-of-way was in the Iow area which was odd, but workable. Mr. Wittman mentioned he met with the Park Commission. The Park Commission would like more park dedication than required, although the developer is pleased with the 2.7 acres presented, but also a little flexible. He stated the Park Commission thought the park dedication around Lake Langdon looked very attractive. The Mound Plannin(~ Commission Minutes, February 28, 2000 D AFT developer stated they would be putting in a second, small pocket park up by Lynwood that would include a gazebo and play structure. These 85 single homes would be priced around $250,000. Brown restated he would like Rottlund Homes pursue the possibility of having one large park dedicated in this development, rather than two smaller parks. Mr. Wittman stated the public appreciated the site sizes and the location of the houses on the sites for the purpose of saving as many trees as possible behind the homes. He is hopeful to reduce the right-of-way surface that would allow the homes to be closer to the street. He further stated he is proposing the setbacks not so far back and also keeping the homes more wide than deep. He further stated rather than 10 feet on the sides of the homes, a 6-foot side setback is being proposed. All of these compromises will help save the trees in this development. Clapsaddle suggested having more flexibility in each lot size. Mr. Wittman stated he would keep this possibility in the back of his mind. Mr. Wittman stated it was asked of him if they would be able to save Mr. Alwin's house or not. He stated Mr. Alwin's house would need to be brought up to the standards, but will certainly look at the opportunity of preserving his home. Mr. Wittman further stated the style of homes would be bungalow, one level, and two- story homes. He stated each home would have a two-car garage with a tandem for a third car. There would be a porch proposed for each home being built and also having a boulevard tree planted in the right-of-way. Voss suggested if this meets the upscale single family homes, he would recommend having 10 feet on each side of the homes rather than the 6 feet dimension proposed. He stated this would be more appealing to buyers. ..~ Brown stated having only 12 feet between each home might be a problem with the fire department. He stated the 20-foot dimension would help with fighting fires. Mueller stated he liked the sketch plan proposed tonight. He stated it appears Rottlund Homes is creating a nice neighborhood with parks made available for the public. He stated he appreciates the front porch on the homes. Mueller stated the 26 feet wide streets are probably workable, rather than the 28 feet wide in the City ordinance. Mueller asked if the City Engineer has commented yet about including a boulevard tree in the front yard which might be located where the utility easement has been designated. Mr. Wittman stated Rottlund Homes could be creative with the City Engineer in putting the utilities in a proper location. Mueller asked Mr. Wittman about the trail right-of-way and whether it should be sidewalk or a trail. Mr. Wittman stated he would prefer to see a sidewalk approach. Mound Plannin(~ Commission Minutes, February 28, 2000 DRAFT Mueller asked if any of the trail site is being considered for the parkland dedication and at this point, it is not. Rottlund Homes has not reached into the final details of the development of the site. Mueller asked if hardcover had been calculated where the wetland areas have been planned. Mr. Wittman stated no calculations of hardcover have been discussed up to this point. Mueller was concemed about the setbacks being considered on comer lots. Mr. Wittman stated the lots would be 25 feet setbacks. Mueller asked Mr. Wittman if after reviewing a sketch plan, the Planning Commission should be looking at something that is comfortable to them with regard to zoning and what could be agreed upon and discussed at a later date. Mr. Wittman stated this was a true statement. Mueller questioned the 6-foot side yards. He stated he would appreciate Rottlund Homes supplying the Planning Commission with examples of homes in a development they have already developed and it has been a positive experience for them and the homeowners. Mr. Wittman would be happy to demonstrate homes of this type. Voss asked about how wide the Dakota Line currently is. Mr. Wittman stated it is about 100 feet. Voss asked Mr. Wittman if this property is being considered as park dedication property at this point. Mr. Wittman stated this is not being considered as park dedication, but rather open space where grass could be planted in some fashion. Clapsaddle stated the parkland space would be increased if the Dakota Line could be redone in the suggested way by Mr. Wittman. Clapsaddle is concerned about maintaining big boats/rv's in front of homes at this development. He would like to see it written there would be restrictions with such vehicles being allowed to be parked in the front of their homes. Gordon stated this is normally covered in the covenants. Clapsaddle stated covenants tend to fade away over time. He further stated he is very excited about the plan proposed, but strongly stressed he does not want to see big boats/rv's in front of these people's homes. Mr. Wittman stated he could possibly suggest the covenants of the association run beyond the normal 20-year period. Brown stated he appreciated the concept being proposed. He stated he does not approve of the 6-foot side yard, as well as having two parks in this development. He would propose having a few of the lots located by Lake Langdon to be considered lakeshore property, and moving the park by Lake Langdon up to a location where one large park could be dedicated to this development. Mr. Wittman stated Rottlund Homes is flexible. 5 Mound PlanninQ Commission Minutes, February 28. 2000 DRAFT Voss asked the Chair if the public could speak tonight if they wished even though this was not a public hearing. Chair Michael stated this would be fine. With regard to the 6-foot side setbacks, Sutherland suggested having each house built with six feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. With these dimensions, there would be 16 feet between each home, which is closer to the 20 feet requirement. Mr. Wittman appreciated Sutherland's suggestion and will highly consider it. Mueller stated he does not recall many plats COming to the City in a drainage wetland area. He stated there often are outlots, such as in Pelican Point or Teal Point. Gordon stated this is possible by having the property part of your own property. He stated platting back through a pond is favorable. Gordon stated this sets a situation where the homeowners association would maintain. Secondly, it could be a regional pond where the City would maintain it with an outlot. Gordon prefers not handling this problem with an outlot. Bart Roeglin, 2260 Westedge Boulevard, Mound. Mr. Roeglin is concerned whether the developer will actually keep all the trees it intends. He has seen other developers make promises and do not fulfill them. Mr. Roeglin would also appreciate the Commissioner walking the property by themselves and noting areas that will need to be filled. He stated when there are areas that need filling, this of course disrupts the soil, and causes trees to die. Thirdly, Mr. Roeglin is concerned about the traffic that will increase tremendously by Westedge with this development. He would like changes if possible in the routing of the traffic. Finally, Mr. Roeglin would like to see some control of the dirt blasts that will occur with this development. Mr. Wittman noted his concerns. Brown stated the City would like to cul-de-sac the area near Westedge which would push the traffic out towards Hwy 110 and assist in the amount of traffic going in that direction. Secondly, he is confident from other reputable resources that Rottlund Homes is honest and reputable. Sandy Roeglin, 2260 Westedge Boulevard, Mound. She stated right now where she lives there are approximately eight homes and with this additional 85 homes being built in this location, she is concerned the property would be too dense with too many homes. Chair Michael wanted it clarified by Rottlund Homes that a motion be passed tonight does not represent the Planning Commission is in complete favor of the sketch plan. Mr. Wittman completely understands and stated this is not a binding situation and they still have a lot of work to do to finalize the plan. MOTION by Voss, second by Brown, to conceptually approve this project with a minimum of 2.7 acres of park dedication property and a road width minimum of 28 feet. Mound Plannin~ Commission Minutes. February 28, 2000 D AFT Discussion. Brown made a friendly motion to have the distance between houses a minimum of 16 feet and suggest the 2.7 acre park dedication be one large park, rather than 2 smaller ones. Voss did not accept the friendly motion by Brown. Mueller stated he appreciates the location of the park being proposed. Brown stated he does not see Mound people using the park as suggested. Clapsaddle stated it is premature to narrow the street at this point. He further stated the location of the park is appreciated and the trail would be an added plus. Clapsaddle stated the City needs to solve the problem of having a Babe Ruth ballfield for the citizens of Mound, but it is not realistic to suggest a developer give the City a large park being requested, but rather a park that Rottlund has suggested today. Clapsaddle suggested having the motion amended to not include the size of the road width to be 28 feet at this point. Mueller agreed at this point stating the road width should be 28 feet is premature. Voss stated he would certainly remove this part of the motion, but a nice wide street for the children to play in when appropriate would be appreciated. Mueller offered a friendly amendment to keep below the 30 percent hardcover requirement for this development. Voss agreed to this friendly motion by Mueller. Brown stated he does not want two or three parks located in this development because of the neighbors possibly saying "this is our park in our development" and not appreciating those that do not live in the development using the park. Brown further stated having one large-piec~e of property would look more city designated, although, he would be comfortable at this point removing his friendly motion. Clapsaddle stated he appreciated the boulevard concept with the sketch. He also stated he would like seeing the railroad section created as a historical thing. Brown asked if it would be possible to put the utilities down the middle of the street rather than in the location of where the boulevard would be suggested by the developer. Gordon stated having utilities in the middle of street is not done today because of access to them. He stated typically the utilities fall between the sidewalk or the back edge of the curb. AMENDED MOTION by Voss, seconded by Brown, to conceptually approve this project with a minimum of 2.7 acres of park dedication property, a 16 7 Mound Plannina Commission Minutes. February 28. 2000 DRAFT foot side yard setback, and a maximum of 30 percent hardcover for the development. Motion carried. 8-0. DRAFT Mound Advisory Park and Ot~en Space Commission February lO, 2000 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2000 Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Norman Domholt, John Beise, Christina Cooper; and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman. Absent: Commissioner Tom Casey Also present was Mayor Pat Meisel. PRESENTATION FROM ROTTLUND HOMES ON THE REX ALWIN PROPERTY Tim Whitten, Rottlund Homes, was present and addressed the Commissioners regarding the development of the Rex Alwin property. Eighty (80) lots of single family homes are planned for the property, selling in the $250,000 price range. An internal park is planned, in addition to park space on the land that is across the current railroad track, which is lakeshore. Chair Domholt questioned whether sidewalks would be part of the plan. Mr. Whitten replied that trails have taken over recently. However, in this development sidewalks are part of the plan. Commissioner Meyer questioned if having sidewalks has any bearing on the width of the street. Mr. Whitten replied that .the City would determine what the width of the streets are, especially if the streets are going to be public. Councilmember Weycker stated her satisfaction with the fact that they are planning to bring back the front porches, and downplaying the garages. The work done shows planning, and stands to be a very nice neighborhood. She asked if the original house is going to be saved. Mr. Whitten stated that if there is any way to save the house, it will be saved. However, it has never been improved, and it may not be possible to bring it up to code. Park Director Fackler questioned what size the internal neighborhood park would be. Mr. Whitten stated that it would be approximately 2.4 acres total. There are many ways DRAFT Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 10, 2000 that the developer handles the parks, and that is an issue that can be discussed with the City. He suggested the best way is to find out what the City wants, and then respond. Regarding the equipment, again the City input is very important, but the developer would definitely like to see something that fits in with the style of the neighborhood. Park Director Fackler stated that it would be better to have any trails established, and a park with equipment established before people move into the homes. He noted that once they move in and get used to an open space, it becomes somewhat difficult to begin adding things. Commissioner Meyer stated that right now the Park Commission could not emphatically state that they would prefer the trail anywhere, as there is not enough information. Mr. Whitten stated that right now the developer is just looking for some direction so that they can gather the correct information to pursue areas the City is interested in. If the Park Commission has any preference, the developer will pursue the information needed. He advised that the developer is very interested in saving as many trees as possible, and will put forth every effort to do this. Park Director Fackler questioned whether the developer gives any type of warranty to the City if a tree is left in a right-of-way and dies in the space of a couple years. He asked if the developer would take the responsibility of removing them. Mr. Whitten stated that could definitely be discussed and some amount could likely be put in escrow for that purpose. Councilmember Weycker cautioned Mr. Whitten to double check the location of any Indian Mounds, as it is a Federal offence to disturb those areas. She does not believe there are any there, but it would not hurt to make sure. SURVEY ON FILE? YES LOT OF RECORD? YES I NO FRONT FRO~ SIDE ~AR LAKE TOP OF BLU~ CII'Y OF ML)UND I AIgE DIRECTION N S E W N S E W .- N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZEIWIDTH: EXISTING LOT SIZE: R1 10,000/60 B1 '~, 500/0 LOI WIDTIt: RiA 6.000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/SO LOT DEP'I ti: R3 Slil~ ORD. I1 30,000/100 ] F_.XISTINGIPROPOSED VARIANCE I 1000 Robin Lane Aud. Subd. //231 Leroy A1 v~,i n 61310 Lots 1 & 2 14-117-24 33 0001 14-117-24 34 0002 GARAGE, SIlED ..... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE 'FOP OF BLUFF DETACHED BUILDINGS N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W Survey no R-iq~ ItARDCOVER '30% OR 40% CONFORMING? YES / NO , ? I B¥: IDATED: This Zoning I.form~lion Shcel onl~ sumiriz~s ~ D~o. of ~e requircmcnB oullimd in ~e CiI~ of Mou~ Zonin~ ~i.~e. For ~r~cr infom~iom P"~'"'~"'"~"'"'~'t,~2' ...- ..:'~,t;,. ~--... ~ I ' ~..~)Y.'t:.,~,~:.:~l ..... ' ..... ~~~.. I / ! I.¢;;~-(~~ ~1 ~~~2~. ~ t ~ ..~-.G",!.~;~,,~,~h 2:1 ,-~--~, , , ~ .... - .,.,~ :-' .., .... , · ~ .... ' ~ J ~',. '~ ~ _ ~',~, ~l.TM,- .,,~ ~-~ ~-~Sr, L RFr:,F.!VED NAY Z ~ 2000 Application for STREI::T ! EASEMENT VACATION City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date:JU"~ I z City Council Date:3L ¢? q Distribution: ~' ~"OO City Planner ~', ~z~/--¢O City Engineer 5' 2.~.00 Public Works ,,' Z~°OOMinnegasco ¢~-0~ Police Dept. · Z'"¢ "Ob Fire Bept. NSP GTE Other Please type or print the following information: APPLICANT Name Address Phone (H) Adjacen[ Address ADJACENT PROPERTY Name of Business (APPLICANT'S PROPERTY) Lot Subdivision ZONING Circle: ~) R-lA DISTRICT R.H. Development, Inc. 2300 W. 97th Street, Bloomington, Minnesota (~) 612-831-3830 See Attached R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Block PID~t (M) Plat DESCRIPTION OF STREET TO BE VACATED See Attached t4~.4yTn~ .l~pt. REASON FOR REQUEST IS THERE a PUBLIC NEED FOR THIS LAND? Unused right~0f~ay NO Print Applicant's Name Applicant's Signature Date Oint Applicant's Name (Revised 02-04-00) Applicant's Signature Date RFnF.!VED MAY Z ~ 2000 N~OUND D~.~" .... .? ,~ ~ ",~.-'~.. Application for STREET / EASEMENT VACATION City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-06:20 Planning Commission Date: c I (.,U~lC { '~ Case No. City Council Date:J(../t,~{~'. ¢~ ~ Distribution: ~;-[~'OO City Planner ~'. ') 4-00 City Engineer 5· ? ~J~-00 PuDlic Works Please type or print the following information: A~LJCANT ADJACENT PROPERTY ~PPLICANT'S PROPERTY) ZONING DISTRICT DESCRIPTION OF STREET TO BE VACATED REASON FOR REQUEST IS THE~E A PUBLIC NEED FOR THIS LAND? Oh - Name R.H. Development, Inc. A(:eress 2300 W. 97th Street, Bloomington, Minnesota Phone (M) (W) 612-831-3830 Actjacem Ack,tess See Attached Cimle: ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 ~1 B-2 ~3 ,./ Print Applicant's Name pplican s Signa ure Date Print Applicant's Name Applicant's Signature Date SURVEY ON FILE? YES /(N~j) LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO YARD ' I DIRECTION ItOUSE ......... FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W ,SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF ZONING DISYRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 10,000/60 B1 7,500/0 R1A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 R.E,~UIRED ] EXISTING/PROPOSED 15' 50' I0' OR 3O' EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE GARAGE, SHED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W iLAKE N S E W FOP OF BLUFF 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' 10' OR 30' ItARDCOVER 30% OR 40% CONFORMING? YES / NO / ? I By: ]DATED: This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of die requirements oullincd in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, comac! the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. "".'~'-',-.~'~" ~" ' ' - I ./L,,//t.;,, i'".. .'-'~ ' I":,-~':~ 9'~.~.,,t,'-I .... ' .... ~.' --- .' - r /.<.'<d~.-"'" ~ff ~,.'L~'~, ~ r I ~ ", /,'~ ':'\'~ /.'7 I_',_*~'!a~'' ... ~ ___t'..~-- - - ' N, '~ , j ~ .'_ '.*.,~ ; ' . ,~ . · .t :;~ '. -- ~ ' ~ 'TW ..:i"'.. '~ I I ~ ~' ,,, , .: .... ',' ',,-:o-..,,.,., I I , ".._::':- 'i I i /f "."" , i ! :M,',,/~.:...~ w + ., ,.,,c ., '// "~ ~ ,xC- ;; I GOVT LOT 10 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, by thc City 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 simple majority vote of att 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. Pnblic Land Maintenance Repair Permits. No person shall conduct any structural repair on or maintain any boathouse or other structure on public lands without first receiving there for a special maintenance 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 maintaining repairing existing boathouses or other structures may be obtained from the Building Official at the City offices. All applications for special maintcnancc repair permits shall be reviewed by the City Council. The Council shall determine if the maintenance repair permit shall be granted or denied, and may order any structure to be removed. $peeia~ permits arc required for any maintenance such as maintaining retaining walls, stonework, concrctc or othcr types of to'fmprovcmcnts 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, concrctc, or other improvements on public lands arc required to havc a public land maintenance pcrmit 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 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 simple majority four fifths vote of ali the 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) Subd. 5. Exceptions to City Council Approval. 11 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 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. 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: A.) The Building Official shall conduct an inspection of each Public Commons every four years on a rotating basis and evaluate the permitted encroachments for safety and condition. The Building Official shall issue correction notices as needed. B.) The Building Official shall follow up with a complete status report to the City Council to be completed each year by the end of Jnne 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. 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 City Council may amend or change the Public Lands Procedural Manual by Resolution. (ORD. #62-1993 - 4/19/93) Section 320.05 Continuation of Ccvtain Structures constructed on or bcfovc April 1. 1 (t~ Subd. 1. Statement of lntcnt. Thc City finds and determines that certain structures which were either constructed or placed on lakcshorc public commons on or bcforc April 1, 1976, should be permitted to remain subject to thc provisions contained or rcfcrencod in this Section. Thc structures which arc covered by this section include buildings (including boathouses) platforms, fcnccs, flagpoles and birdhouse. ("Subject Structure"). Thc term "maintenance"as used in this Section shall also mcan thc usc or keeping of any Subject Structurc. Subd. 2. Special Permit for Subject Structures. No person shall continue to maintain any Subject Structure on lakcshorc public commons without first recciving a special permit from thc City Council. Permit applications may bc obtained from thc city building official. Subd. 3. Critcria for Issuance. Thc City Council shall issuc thc special pcrmit unless it finds any of thc following conditions to bc present: A. significant safety problems exist which thc structure's owner is unable or unwilling to rectify within a rcasonablc timc period; or B. safcty hazards cxist for which thc cost of rcpair is equal to 50 % or morc of thc dcpreciated rcplaccmcnt valuc of thc Subject Structurc prior to rcpair; or C. thc functional usc of thc Subject Structure is impaired such that rcstoration to functionality would cost 50% or more of thc depreciated rcplaecmcnt value of the Subject Structurc before rcpair; D. acsthctic appcarancc of thc Subject Structure has bec, omc so dcficicnt that a restoration to an acccptablc appcarancc would cost 50% or morc of thc depreciated replaccmcnt value of thc Subject Structure bcforc rcpair. E. thc strfi~turc significantly hindcrs thc usc of thc public commons by othcrs and thc owncr is unwilling or unablc to alleviate thc hindranec within a reasonable time. Findings by thc City Council on thcsc mattcrs shall bc deemed conclusive. Subd..~l. Permit Duration and Fcc. Permits shall bc for a five year pcriod commencing on January 1 of thc year of issuancc. Thc fcc shall bc in an amount as set by thc council in Section 510. [$75.00] which is payable in five equal annual installments of $15.00 each. Thc first annual installment is duc at thc time of application and subsequent installments arc duc on or before thc last day of February of each year during thc term of thc permit. In instances in which thc permit holder is also thc holder of a city dock license, thc annual dock license will not bc issued until thc annual installment has been paid unless thc Subject Structure permit holder provides the City with a written statement relinquishing all intcrcst in thc Subject Structure and consenting to its rcmoval by thc City. Subject Structure pcrmit fees will bc placed in a scparatc account which will bc dedicated to cxpcnditurcs incurred in thc administration and cnforecmcnt of activities under this Section. Subd. $. Transfer of Permit. Permits issued under this section may bc transfcrred by thc pcrmittcc to third pm'tics who becomc thc owncr and occupant of thc propcrty primarily bcncfitted by thc Subject Structure. Such transfcr shall not confer to thc transfcrec any furthcr rights than those held by thc transferor at thc timc of transfer. Requests for transfer shall bc made in writing to thc City Building Official who shall approve thc transfer in writing unless conditions exist which would constitute grounds for action pursuant to subdivision 8 below. Subd. 6. Conditions for lssnanec. Thc City Council may attach conditions to pcrmits granted under this section. Such conditions may include, without limitation: A. a writtcn agreement, backed with security deemed rcasonablc by thc City Council, providing for thc rcmoval of thc Subject Structurc when it is no longcr under permit, and aclmowledging thc structurc owners obligation to rcmovc thc structurc and/or pay for thc cost of doing so. B. A covcnant, to bc recorded among thc County land records, cxecuted by thc applicant in form aeccptablc to thc City indemnifying, holding harmless and agreeing to &fend thc City against any claims based upon thc continued maintcnancc of thc Subject Structure. $ubd. 7. Repair, Modification and Alteration of Subject Structure. Exccpt to thc extent inconsistcnt with thc provisions of this Section, unlcss provisions undcr Subd. 3 apply, repair, modification or alteration of thc Subject Structurc will bc trcated as if thc Subject Structurc wcrc a non conforming structurc located on privatc property in accordance with thc provisions of Section 350:420, subdivisions 1 through 8. Subd. 8. Termination of Permit. Pcrmits issued undcr this section may bc terminated and thc transfer may bc declined upon a dctcrmination by thc City Council that any of thc following conditions cxist: A. Any of thc Criteria &scribed in Subdivision 3 of this section arc found to exist; B. Thc Subject Structurc has been abandoned. C. Thc permit fcc has not been paid. D. Thcrc has been a violation or lapsc of any condition imposed on thc pcrmit. Following noticc of such tcrmination, thc City may cxcrcisc whatever remedy is available to it cithcr by contract or at law to securc thc rcmoval of thc Subject Structure. (ORD. #101 1998 11 28 98) 4 ORDINANCE #108-2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 320:00 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO PRIVATE STRUCTURES AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON PUBLIC LANDS The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 320:00 is amended to read as follows: 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 simple majority vote of the Council members. Subd. 2. Types of Construction Requirin~ 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 b~ 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 ob~ined from the Building Official 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 simple majority vote of the 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. 1 11-28-98 (ORD. #54-1991, 12-23-91) Subd. 5. Exceptions to City Council Approval. The installation of a stairway to provide aec. ess 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 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. 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: Ao The Building Official shall conduct an inspection of each Public Commons every four years on a rotating basis and evaluate the permitted encroachments for safety and condition. The Building Official shall issue correction notices as needed. Bo 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.~ublic Lands Procedural Manual and to establish necessary forms a~d procedures to administer the program and permit procedures set forth in this Section 320. The~anual 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) ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk Adopted by the City Council on Publish in The Laker Section 330:85. Final Plat, Recording Form. The plat shall contain a form for recording the approval of the City Council as follows: Approved by thc City of Mound, Minncsota this of ,19~ day Signed: Mayor Attcst: City Clcrk MOUND. MINNESOTA This plat of was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Mound. Minnesota. at a regular meetinl, thereof held this day of _20 . If applicable, the written comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of Transportation and the County Highway Engineer have been received by the City or the prescribed 30 day period has elapsed without receipt of such comments and recommendations, as provided by Minnesota Statutes. Section 505.03, Subd. 2. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND. MINNESOTA By: Mayor By: , City Clerk "2 ORDINANCE #109-2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING gECTION 330:85 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO FINAL PLAN, RECORDING FORM The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 330:85 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 330:85. Final Plat. Recording Form. The plat shall contain a form for recording the approval of the City Council as follows: MOUND, MINNESOTA This plat of was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this day of ,20 If applicable, the written comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of Transportation and the County Highway Engineer have been received by the City or the prescribed 30 day period has elapsed without receipt of such comments and recommendations, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA By: By: Mayor City Clerk Adopted by the City Council: Publish in The Laker Newspaper JuDy 7, 2000 RESOLUTION # 00- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5212 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD & 5240 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, REARRANGEMENT OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK-BLOCK 10, PID # 13-117-24 34 0091 & 13-117-24 34 0019 P & Z CASE # 00-31 WHEREAS, The Codden-Miller Partnership has submitted a request for a minor subdivision to create two new parcels from an existing two parcels; and, WHEREAS, proposed tax parcel 2 would be split from parcel B and combined with tax parcel 1 to create the new configuration as identified on the survey dated June 19, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Two Family Residential Zoning District which, according to City Code, requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet; and, WHEREAS, proposed parcel A would encompass 35,659.94 square feet, and proposed parcel B would encompass 32,892.53 square feet. Each proposed parcel meets the R-2 minimum requirements for 40 feet of street frontage and 6,000 square feet of lot area; and, WHEREAS, the existing home on parcel B will remain; with the minor subdivision, the status of the property as a lot of record changes to a non lot of record, reducing the allowable hardcover to 30 percent of the lot area and side- yard setbacks to 10 feet; and, WHEREAS, the proposed and existing home on the two parcels are conforming to setbacks; and, ~ WHEREAS, propoSed parcel A would not require any additional water or sewer services at this time; and, WHEREAS, final grading, drainage and erosion control plans have been completed; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the minor subdivision with an amendment that requires all easements be identified; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: July 7, 2000 1. The City does hereby-grant a minor subdivision of the property pursuant to Section 330:20, Subdivision I.B. with the following conditions: ao All existing and/or new easements need to be reviewed by the City Engineer and Attorney to guarantee that access is provided for all parcels. 2. This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally described properties: PARCEL A: See attached PARCEL B: See attached 3. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember and The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: SS/PAT MEISEL Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk P~RC~7~ ~ ($5.659,9~ S9. Yt. 0.82 Iota 6, ?, 8, and 9, Block ~, J~earran&ement of Block 10, Abraham Zakemlde Park; ~ 6, ~nd ~at part of ~t 4, Bloc~ ~, 'Re~rraniement of Bloc~ 10, Abr~am ~co~n Addi~o~ to ~kes~de P~' ~n~ $ou~ of a ]Jne d~s~ para,el ~ and ~0 feet Sou~, measured at r~ht an~le~, from the Nor~ line of ~aid ~t 4 and t~ ez~n~lon, ino/udt~ ~oroM it of ~e ~u~ ~ae of ~t ~ and I line me~ur~d~.~ r~t a~]e~.. ~om the ~grth line of ~aid ~t 4, accordJ~ to ~e recordpd .: PARCgL J~ (32,89~.53 S9. Ft. 0.78 acres) Iota 6, ?o 8, Block 1, RearraaEement of Block JO, abraham /~noo/n 4dd/~o~ To all of vaceled ~uml 4zenue a~o~i~ said ~ ? a~d 8, ~le~er wit~ easement for road B~oek lO, Abraham ~noo~ AddiU~ to ~keeide P~, d~oribed ae follows: Commenc~ ~g ~e Sou~e~g oo~e of ~e 5ou~ fine · e~t to a po~t ~0 ~eet ~e~t o~ ~e ~a~er~ line o~ ~ald ~t ~, ~look ~, ~ measured at r~ht eagles [o ~e easg~ line ct sa~d Block a; ~ence ruan/n& ~o~er~ to a point on ~Jock ~; ~ence ~a~t a]on~ act out on reeo~ ~d ~ed document No. Lot 8 and 8 and part of Iota 3 end 4, Block l, 'Rearr~nEement of Block 10. Abraham L/hooCh Addition to ~keJide Pa~k,' inoludJn~ ~at part of ~e vacated efl~y in enid Bloo~ ~ and J~c2udl~ ~at part o~ vacated ~urei Street described and be&~nln~ at t~e Sou~eaat Corner o~ acid ~t 5; ~eace ~eaterl~ alon~ ~e Sou~ fine of ~d ~t O and J~ exten~lo~ to the center line of vacated ~urel S~eet; thence North ~lonl ~e canter fine said ~u~l S~eet tO ~ ~ter~ec~o~ wJ~ a i~.e dra~ p~aflei ~ and 76 f~t North, line ~a~d ~t 4. Block 1, ~,~oe Nor~ea~ter~ to a point on the Nor~eas~r~ fine of ~d ~t 3, di~t~oe 82.6 feet 8ou~ei~te~ ca the mo~t ~o~ber~ oo~aer of ~t l, ~aid B~ook 2; ~eace Sou~eaater~ ~loa~ ~e Nor~ea~ter~ line of ~aJd ~ 3 end 2 to ~e mo~t Sae~r~ oo~er of enid Lot 2; ~eaoe Southea~ter~ to ~e meet Souther~ corner of said poJnt of b~Jnn~g, acco~ to t~e ~corded pt4t. Proposed U~llit~ ~.-',eement -('F~ter Service) A lO. O0 goer easement for utflit3' purpoeee over, ~der ~d ~oe~ · ~0.00 ~oot ~lp o~ p~pert~ ~ oenterJ~4 ct w~oh ia described ss follo~: mlnutel 48 seconds F4et, a/on/ ~e /ou~ line of s~d ~t 8, a dJ~ce of 17.05 ~eet to the point o! ba~aniz~; t~enoe North 2 de, teen 21 minutes 48 ascends gnat 81.01 feet; thence ~Vort. b 13de, tees ~ minutes21 ~eeonds ~eet 111.68 feet ~o · ILne which is 20.00 and e~eme~t ~do~ne~ ~ere tem/na~oa. ~e sideline~ of a~d easement are intended to ~sed Ut~tlt.~ ~eseme~t (~ete; Se~oe) C~eno~ it ~e ~u~t ~rner o~ ~ ~ ~Ee~ of ~oe~ 10, Abraham ~oo~ Xdd~U~ to ~e~de Par~: ~e~oe o~ ~ ~u~ed be~r~ ~ ~ou~ 89 deg~e~ ~ Lhmnoe North 1~ degz'eeJ 5~ mtnutea ~,.! seconds Peet 111.88 feet to · line .,t~ioh 1· 20.00 ·nd euement ~de~ine~ ~ere termJn~Uo~. The eldeUne~ of acid easement ~re intended to be~(ln et the south line of enid Lot 8. P~opo~ed Utlllt. y Euemeat (~ater Set. ce) vaelted ~u~l ~eet, ~. dediolged on Rearra~ement of ~]ook 10, Abraham Additio~ t0 ~ke~de Park. ~cb lJe~ ~ou~er~ of · ~lne dra~ par. lie] wi~ and a Jine dr~wn ~m a po~t on ~e ~ld par~l]e] line ~.84 fee~ e~erJ~ of i~ Jater~eo~o~ wi~ ~e cente~Jlne of ~Jd vacated ~urel ~eet to a point on ~id oenteHine 44 ~ou~er~ of i~ Jnter~eo~on ~ ~d parall~ line. Lots 8, ?, 8, Block ~. Rearrangement of Block ~0, Abzeham Lincoln Addition To ~ke~ide Par~, toEe~er ~itb cae h~ of ~oated ~ureJ Avenue a~o~i~ ~a/d Lot 8 ~i of v~c~ted ~u~l Avenue i~o~lng said ~ ? and 8. toge~er ~ith e~eement for ro~d ~oo~ JO, Abraham ~nco~n AddiUon to ~e~ide Par~, described e~ course of ~e Sou~ line of ~t 5, Block 2, e~ended, to ~e center ]~e o~ vacated ~u~eI ·elt to s polar gO ~eet ~est of ~e ~ter~ U~e of said ~t 5. BJoo~ 2. as measured at r~t ~n~le~..to ~e e~t~ ~e of ~ld Bloc~ ~; ~e~e ru~i~ ~ou~eP~ ~ ~ ~olnt on Block £; thence Jist alone t.~e $ouU~ line of Lot 5, Bleak · to t~e point of beginning, ee est out on record and flied in Document dated July 18. 195~, filed August 29, 1955 es document ~[o. ~992707; Lot./ 9, ?', 9. and 9, BloeJr £. Rearrangement o! Block lO. Abr(ham Llz~coln Addition To 'rJ. kesJde Per&:: .i~ Lot 5. and that part o! Lot 4. Bleak £, 'Rearrangement of ~ook 10. Abraham ~uooln AddiSon to ~e~ide ~' ]~J~ $ou~ of · ~e drawn ~r~lJe] w~th and ~0 feet ~out~, me~ured et rJ~t a~/le~, [~om ~e Nor~ line o~ ~ald ~t 4 and it~ ezten~lon, t~c~udin~ ~t p~rt of ~ ~e~t ~1[ o~ adjoini~ vac~ ~urel ~tree( ~n~ between ~e exten~on~ · ~oae..lt.,'.ef ~e Sou~ .l~e o~ ~t ~,~nd · ]~e 4t~wA ~aralle] to aad ~0 feet $ou~,' : menaced at right uglet,- ~om ~e Nor~ lin~ of ~aJd ~t 4. aoco~l~g to the recorded ~t · and '~ and p~t of ~ ~ and 4. Bleak ~, "Reatta~ement ct Block JO, ~braham ~noo~ ~ddl~oa to ~eglde Park,' inclu~g ~at part of ~e ~acated alIey In ~aid Block J and lnolu~n~ ~].at part of vaoa~d ~urel Street described ~d be~laal~ at ~e Southeast Cot'.er of said ~t 5; ~enee Fe~ter~ tloai the Sou~ ~ne og ~Id ~ot 5 and t~ ezten~on to ~e caner l~e of v~oated ~urel ~eet; ~enee Nor~ ~o~ ~e .center line of Jaid Mural ~eet to J~ l~weotJon ~ ·lJae dra~ p~ra~le] wl~ and ~ feet No.th. mei~ed it rl~t ~[iew ~ ~e ~or~ ~ne of ~t 4 ~nd Jt~ extofl~Jon, Bloc~ ~, Maid addison; ~eaoe gilt along I~id parallel line 46 feet to a point 16 fe~t ~t from t~e West ~te~ ocher ct said ~t ~; ~eaoe 5ou~eatger]~ to ~e most Southe~ corner o~ elid ~t ~; thence ~ou~we~r~ to ~e ~eu~r]~ corner of Lot 5; ~enoe ~ou~er~ to ~e pel~t of beg~n~, accor~ to ~e recorded pl~t ~ereo~. g AFT MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Michael Mueller; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Engineer John Cameron, and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. CASE #00-31: MINOR SUBDIVISION, 5212 LYNWOOD BLVD, CODDEN- MILLER PARTNERSHIP. The City Planner stated that this was a revised plan since the last meeting. This plan protects the interests of one lot for possible development for the interim and neither the City Planner nor the City Engineer has a problem with this. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the minor subdivision as requested. Voss inquired about p. 109, paragraph 2 in the meeting packet where it is stated that there are concerns about emergency access to the driveway. The City Planner stated that because a new house was no longer going to be added along the lane, there was no longer a concern about this. Voss inquired about p. 109, paragraph 4 in the meeting packet where it is stated that there were concerns that had not yet been addressed by the City Attomey. The City Building Official stated that since Mr. Codden has received his building permit and the foundation has been started, it has been discovered that the soil is poor. A soils engineer is working with Staff to resolve this. There is also a wetlands on the property that will impact the garage. -~ Weiland asked about the copper lines that were undersize and wondered if they should now be replaced with the proper size. The City Engineer stated that he had concerns about this with the previous plan and that the latest plan does not change these concerns. He stated that the existing home already has water service and will not be impacted by this. The City Engineer stated that he would like the City Attorney to look at the documents to ensure that both the homes and the City are protected by easements. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Burma, to recommend the Staff recommendation. Discussion: Weiland requested an amendment requiring that all the easements be identified. D AFT Voss asked Staff about the previous recommendation on page 115 of the meeting packet and wondered if these six items should be included in the Motion. The City Engineer stated that no, not all of these needed to be included. The recommendations and their resolution are as follows: Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plan to be approved by the City Engineer at time of building permit application. This step has been completed. o If long water services are allowed, they should be sized to provide adequate water pressure. The new services should either be installed from the main to the City right of way line or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. All existing and/or new easements need to be reviewed to guarantee that access is provided for all parcels. This is not required with the new plan. The City Engineer felt this could be added and the City Attorney could review all easements. Provide a T turn around on Parcel B located within an easement for emergency vehicles. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,828.15 shall be paid. Any deficient sanitary sewer or water mmn unit charges shall be collected. This is no longer necessary. This has been eliminated because the prior plan was three parcels that had paid two charges. This has been eliminated as no additional sewer or water services are requested. Brown amended his Motion to include item no. 3 "All existing and/or new easements need to be reviewed to guarantee that access is provided for all parcels." Burma agreed with this amendment. Chair Michael called the question. Motion carried. 7-0. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. I IH TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 26, 2000 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision - 2"a revision OWNER: Steve Coddon CASE NUMBER: 00-31 HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 5212 Lynwood Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant, Coddon-Miller Partnership, has requested a minor subdivision to split and combine property. The proposal represents a revision to the previous request that was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the June 12, 2000 meeting. As proposed, tax parcel 2 would be split from parcel B, combined with tax parcel 1 to create a new Parcel A. The lot meets all zoning requirements and would not require any additional water or sewer services at this time. The applicant is currently building a home on tax parcel 1. The remaining Parcel B would continue to satisfy all zoning requirements. RECOMMENDATION:-Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the minor subdivision as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Jun, 22, 2000 II'lOAM MCCuMI~S t~ kAIiK Engineering No. 6826 P, 2/2' · Planning . Surveying MEMORANDUM DATE: June 22, 2000 TO: 'FROM: ' SUBJECT: I I I : Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zonl.g John Cameron, City En~in~. r Minor Subdivision D~beste Pmpcxty 5212 Lynwood Boulevard Case No. 00.-31 MFRA #12576 } We have reviewed the revised plan dated Jlme 19, 2000 and submitted to our office on June 20th by i M.r. Cas~j. This plan eliminates one parcel which in ess~ce also eliminates our concerns regarding ',access and utility issues. From our original review letter dated June 6th thc only item under i recommendations that would still pertain would be it,m No. 3 and it appears the>' may have even :met that condition. s:~m~in~nou 12576~.arrcspond~ce~nd~ ' ' 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth. Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfm~rnfra, com June 19, 2000 Thomas E. Casey Attorney at Law 2854 Cambridge Lane Mound, Minnesota 55364 (612) 472-1099 Fax: (612) 472-4771 Mr. Loren Gordon, AICP Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 RE: Case #00-31: Minor Subdivision 5212 Lynwood Blvd., Mound, MN Coddon-Miller Partnership Dear Mr. Gordon, As you are aware per my previous correspondence, Coddon-Miller Partnership was willing to comply with all stated objections, subject to the city of Mound's approval of the minor subdivision request. However, you subsequently stated to Mr. Coddon that a major subdivision is now required or Coddon-Miller Partnership can apply for a variance. Both of these alternatives are unacceptable at this time. Therefore, enclosed please find Coddon-Miller Partnership's revised minor subdivision for your review and comment. This proposal is merely an adjustment of lot lines to make the existing parcels more orderly. Please place this matter on the Planning Commission agenda for June 26, 2000:and send me a copy of your planning report. Thank you again for your kind assistance. TEC:rf cc: Coddon-Miller Partnership John Cameron, City Engineer (with enclosures) Jon Sutherland, City of Mound (with enclosures) file i 'ti I " I ill o~]~ ,, ,oo. \ / /-E). It /', ".\ iI Il June 12, 2000 Thomas E. Casey Attorney at Law 2854 Czmbridge L~ne Mound, Minnesota 55364 (612) 472-I099 Fax: (612) 472-4771 Mr. Loren Gordon, AICP Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 RE: Case #00-31: Minor Subdivision 5212 Lynwood Blvd., Mound, MN Coddon-Mil!er Partnership VIA FAX ONLY (612) 338-6838 Dear Mr. Gordon, I have been retained to represent Coddon-Miller Partnership in the above-entitled minor subdivision application. This matter is scheduled before the city of MoUnd Plmnning Commission thi~ evening. Your June 8, 2000 Planning Report refers to the City Engineer's report, dated June 6, 2000. My comments will reference the issues outlined in the city Engineer's report. ~eneral 1. My client agrees to submit a final grading and drainage and erosion control plan when an application is made for a building permit. 2. This paragraph has been satisfied; the easements are shown on the proposed plat. 1. My client agrees to provide the easements. My client agrees to provide, at client's expense, a public water main, fire hydrant with gate valve, etc., with placement agreeable to the City ~ngineer. Parcel A has street access. Parcel O's access is described in the proposed plat. 2. My client disagrees that the pave~ driveway, where it crosses 5226 Lynwood, is outside the Road Easement contained in doctunent $2961469. The resolution of this matter can be made a condition of subdivision approval. If the T turnaround is not within the easement, my client will place the T within the easement as a condition to plat approval. My client would be happy to schedule an appointment to review the T turnaround with the Fire Department. If necessary, my client will modify the turnaround to make it acceptable to the Fire Chief. The enclosed Declaration of Covenants and Easements was included in the subdivision application. A copy is enclosed for your review and comment. My client agrees to pay the unit charge~, if that is the City policy. 2. My client agrees to pay for any deficient unit charges. Recommendations My client agrees to the recommendations, as a condition for approval of the subdivision. CONCLUSION In summary, Coddon-Mi!ler Partnership has already resolved or has agreed to resolve a%~ of the issues outlined in your June 8, 2000 Planning Report and the June 6, 2000 City Engineer's report. Please advise me at your earliest convenience how we can move Coddon-Miller Partnership,s application forward in an expeditious manner. My client would appreciate your review of this memo and attached documents today so that the Planning Commission ~can receive your favorable recommendation this evening. Thank you again for your kind assistance. cc: Coddon-Miller Partnership John Cameron, City Engineer -2- {via fax: (763) 476-8532) MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2000 D AFT Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Engineer John Cameron, and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. CASE # 00-31: MINOR SUBDIVISION, 5212 LYNWOOD BLVD, CODDEN- MILLER PARTNERSHIP. The City Planner stated this issue was tabled at the last meeting and that since that time there has been a reapplication. Staff is in agreement with the conditions addressed in the letter. There are no plans that reflect the items that are agreed to in the letter. The applicant is creating one additional lot from an existing parcel. The new lot would have frontage on Lynwood and Lake Minnetonka and involves the creation of new lot line. There are concerns about emergency access to the driveway and Staff is waiting for comments from the fire department as to the accessibility of the T turnaround. The City Planner asked if the Commission wanted plans that reflected the letter received at last minute. Weiland stated that pages 178-180 were Unreadable and unacceptable. Brown stated that page 163 was incomplete. The City Planner stated that a page was missing and a copy was provided to the Commission. The City Planner stated that one of his outstanding issues is how the covenants would be handled and how further improvements for water and sanitary would be addressed and by who. The City Planner stated that the City Attorney has not reviewed this. This minor subdivision request is a modification of the previous request #00-20. The changes in the case are: 1. The creation of public street frontage on Lynwood. 2. The provision of lakeshore frontage for the new lot and the existing home. 3. The exclusion of the property on the west side of the private roadway from the request. 4. The addition of a T turnaround at the end of the private driveway. 5. The provision of a 1" water service through the new lot rather than along the private drive. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the minor subdivision as requested. D AFT MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weiland, to deny the request as per Staff recommendation. Discussion: Michael told the applicant that it was unfair to give this letter to the Commission so late. Tom Casey, Esq. stated that they are agreeing to everything in the June 8 letter. He handed out another letter stating that the driveway could be moved over to take care of that issue. Mr. Casey felt that nothing further could be added by tabling the issue. Brown stated he could not move forward because conditions were not listed. Michael asked Mr. Casey how much time he had to get information to the Commission. He stated he saw the applicant on Friday afternoon and put the memo together today and faxed over. Mueller stated that he was in opposition because it does not meet any of current zoning conditions. The City Planner stated that it did in fact meet the requirements of the subdivision. Michael informed the applicant that he should have given the Planning Commission more time to review the information. Mr. Casey stated that when the letters were written, all the points were in the file. He stated that he has not added anything new, and is just saying he agrees with the Commission. Michael stated that they needed the agreement of the City Engineer and the City Planner. Mr. Casey stated that the City Engineer and the City Planner have not said that they disagree. Michael stated that if the City Engineer and the City Planner would agree tonight he would also agree. The City Planner stated that the approval stated that he requested an updated plan set and he did not-recommend forwarding a long list of conditions on to the City Council. Mueller stated that there was no driveway maintenance in covenant. Mr. Casey pointed out where this information was listed. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Voss, to table this issue. AYES: 8 MOTION CARRIED. Michael again stated that he felt it was unfair to ask the Planning Commission to consider this at such short notice. The applicant stated that he originally filed a month ago and after reading the report requiting conditions, he withdrew his application. This time he thought he had taken care of the issues. He came in Thursday, saw the conditions and was willing to comply. The applicant apologized for the last minute information. The City Building Official stated that if the information is received in time for a response, then it will be put back on the agenda. The applicant asked for the time frame. The City Building Official stated it needed to be back to the City from the City Planner by the Wednesday preceding the meeting. The City Planner stated that he would need the information tomorrow. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Michael, to extend the work rules to 11:45 p.m. AYES: 8 MOTION CARRIED. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. in-i i ln TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision OWNER: Janet Den Beste and Larry Cable CASE NUMBER: 00-31 HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 5212 Lynwood Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant, Miller-Codden Partnership, has submitted a request for a minor subdivision to create an additional lot fi:om the property at 5212 Lynwood. The new parcel would be created fi.om the eastern half of the existing property with Lynwood and lakeshore fi.ontage. This minor subdivision request is a modification of the previous request #00-20. The changes in the case are: 1. The creation of public street frontage on Lynwood. 2. The provision of lakeshore frontage for the*hew lot and the existing home. 3. The exclusion of the property on the west side of the private roadway fi.om the request. 4. The addition ofa T turnaround at the end of the private driveway. 5. The provision of a 1" water service through the new lot rather than along the private drive. Aside fi'om these modifications, many of the engineering issues present in the previous request remain unaddressed. The City Engineer's report dated May 3'~ and June 6~h, 2000 address these items. The May 8* Planning Report also details planning issues with the request. In terms of the planning issues with this request, Staff's position is unchanged from Case #00-20. This version again provides no provisions for the public watermain, fire hydrant, private roadway easements (or public access), homeowner's association documentation. This proposal only tries to skirt the issues addressed in the previous Planning and Engineering reports. Staff cannot 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 gO0--31 Minor Subdivision- 5212 Lynwood Blvd June 8, 2000 recommend approval of this request given the outstanding issues still present. If the applicant is able to resolve these issues with an updated planset, the Planning Commission should have an opportunity for review. Staff would not recommend forwarding this on to Council with a long list of conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the minor subdivision as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minn~ota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Engineering · Planning · Surveying RECEIVED J U N 0 7 2000 MOUND PLANNING & I/qSP MEMORANDUM DATE: June 6, 2000 TO: FROM: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer (~E SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision Denbeste Property 5212 Lynwood Boulevard Case No. 00-31 MFRA #12576 Comments General The plan submitted with the application shows only proposed building footprints and only a few proposed contours; therefore a final grading and drainage and erosion control plan will be required when application is made for a building permit. This is another old plat,, which did not provide d~nage easements along the lot lines. Drainage and utility easements are sh-0wn along all new lot liens. That portion of the property located in the floodplain is also covered by a drainage easement. Utilities The two existing homes 5220 and 5226 Lynwood Boulevard are served with city water by long individual services from the watermain in Lynwood Boulevard. These services are shown on the plan, but according to the documents that were provided, there may not be complete easements for these private services. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning June 6, 2000 Page 2 This proposed minor subdivision would add one (1) more home on a long water service bringing the total on this private driveway to four (4). This area should have a city main with a fire hydrant to provide adequate domestic water service and fire protection. An engineering report for a watermain extension was done in 1987 when the most northerly home (5220 Lynwood Boulevard) was built. The project was not ordered and the home was built allowing a long water service to be installed from the Lynwood Boulevard watermain. A City waterrnain is still the option preferred by Public Works and myself. It appears from the plan submitted that access to the two (2) new building sites (Parcel A and C) are already provided by a private driveway with road easements; however these documents should be reviewed to insure that all existing homes as well as the two new building sites are provided permanent access. The plan shows that a portion of the paved driveway where it crosses 5226 Lynwood is actually outside the Road Easement contained in document #2961469. The paved driveway within the easement is only 11 feet wide at this point. 3. A proposed T turnaround is shown on the plan, but there is no easement included. The Fire Department should be given an opportunity to comment on this proposal. In a new subdivision were access is provided by a private roadway, some type of documentation such as a homeowners association provides for furore maintenance of the roadway. How will this private roadway be maintained? Assessments The combination of all the lots in question app¢,ars to have been assessed for two (2) unit charges when the streets in this area were reconstructed in 1980. If it is the City's desire to continue the policy of collecting deferred unit charges when properties are re-divided and additional building unit's created, then this property should be charged for one additional unit or $1,828.15 2. The original sanitary sewer and watermain assessment records should also be checked for deficient trait charges. Recommendations We recommend that the following conditions become a part of any subdivision approval: 1. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan to be approved by the City Engineer at time of building permit application. PAID Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND city of Moa.a, S341 Maywooa Roam, Moa.a, MN SS3~4 R[;CEIVED Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 MAY 1 7 2000 Case No. 0DM0~/PLANNING &INSP. Distribution: ~' I-/' (~ City Planner ~'.17-0L) DNR ~, 17- OD Public Works ~. I '7-/~) Qther ~/t17.~ ~' ~ '/, OD City Engineer Application Fee: $75.00 Escrow Deposit: $1,000 Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? v^.,^.cE.Eou,.~o? //0 Please ~pe_ or print the following information: PROPERTY Subject Address ~-~'~ INFORMATION DESCRIPTION Subdivision ZONING (~ DISTRICT Cimle: R-1 R-lA R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPUCANT OWNER (if other than applicant) Phone(H~'~. ~ ¥7 ~-y(7/~ (M) - SURVEYOR/ E.~,.~. ^.~ Sc; s ~ Nn~o~ c.n~,~ W, rL ~c~7~4, Has an applic~on ever b~n made for zoning, vadan~, ~nd~onal u~ pe~ or o~er zoning pro.ute for ~ pro~~y~, ( ) no. E y~, I~ d~e(s~ of ap~i~on, a~on ~ken, r~on numbers) a~pro~de copi~ of r~ol~ons, t~ ~ This app~must ~igned by ~ owne~ of ~e subj~ pm~, or an explanaUon g~en ~y ~is is ~t ~e case. ~~ Sign~ Date ~ Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning June 6, 2000 Page 3 If long water services are allowed, they should be sized to provide adequate water pressure. The new services should either be installed from the main to the City ROW line or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. All existing and or new easements need to be reviewed to guarantee that access is provided for all parcels. Provide a T mm around on Parcel B located within an easement for emergency vehicles. One deficient s~'eet unit charge in the amount of $1,828.15 shall be paid. Any deficient sanitary sewer or watermain unit charges shall be collected. cc: Loren Gorden, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. sSmain:hMou 12576:~correspondence~sutherland6-5 RECEIVEC DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND EASEMENTS I~AY 1,7 Z000 ' THIS DECLARATION, made__ day Of , 2000, by COtillon ~l~e~, partnership consisting of Steven Coddon and Robert B. Miller, hereinafter referred to as "Declarant". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as: shown in Exhibit A attached hereto; and WHEREAS, said property adjoins a parcel on the north and east designated as "5226 Lynwood Boulevard" legally described as: shown in auached Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, said property adjoins a parcel on the north and east known as "5220 Lynwood Boulevard" legally'described as: shown in attached Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, said property is subject to driveway easements as shown in Doc. Nos. 2961468, 296'1469 and 2962707 recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, said easements have been used by the occupants of parcel "5226 Lynwood Boulevard" and parcel "5220 Lynwood Boulevard"; and WHEREAS, said property as shown in Exhibit A is being divided into three parcels as shown in attached Exhibits D and 1~; and F '- WHEREAS, the Declarant desires to create and confirm easements and provide a maintenance agreement for driveways; NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares~that all of the properties described in the attached Exhibit A shall' : be : held, sold and conveyed subject to the following easemems, covenants and conditions, which shall run with the real property and be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the described property or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each owner thereof. ARTICLE I Said driveway easements recorded as Doc. Nos. 2961468, 2961469 and 2962707 are hereby declared to be appurtenant to the land described in Exhibits B, C, D, E and F. ARTICLE II The cost of snowplowing and the maintenance of blacktop surfacing over said easements shall be borne equally by the owners of land described in Exhibits D, E and F. The owners of two or more of parcels described in Exhibits D, E and F shall have authority to order snowplowing, maintenance including repair of blacktop and surfacing of driveways described in Doc. Nos. 2961468, 2961469 and 2962707. By accepting conveyance of a parcel described in Exhibits D, E or F, the owner covenants to promptly pay his or her share of the cost of snowplowing and maintenance. Such costs shall be borne equally by the owners of land described in Exhibits D, E and F. The right of any owner to contribution from any other owner, under this article shall be appurtenant to each respective lot and shall pass to such owner's successors in fire. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto caused these presents to be executed this day of ,2000. Coddon and Miller STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this by Steven Coddon, Partner of Coddon and Miller. By Steven Coddon, Partner day of ,2000, Notary Public Drafted by Reed & Pond, Ltd., 5424 Shoreline Drip, P.O. Box 9, Mound, MN 55364. 952/472-2222. - ~ Phone: 2 EXISTING LEGAL RECEIVE HAY 1 ? 2000 D E C RfPT'I N Lots 6, 7, 8, Block 1, Rearrangement of Block 10, Abraham Lincoln Addition To Lakeside Pork, together with one half of vacated Laurel Avenue od joining said Lot 6 and oll of vacated Laurel Avenue adjoining s(3id Lots 7 and 8, together with easement for road over all of that part of vacated Laurel Street and Lot 5. Block 2, of Rearrangement of Block 10, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lokeslde Park, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast comer of Lot 5, Block 2; thence running East along the course of the South line of Lot 5, Block 2, extended, to the center line of vacated Laurel Street; thence running North along said center line; a distance of 26 feet; thence running West to a point 20 feet West of the E<3stedy line of said Lot 5, Block 2, as measured at right angles to the Easterly line .of said Block 2; thence running Southedy to o point on the South line of Lot 5, Block 2, which is 20 feet West of the Easterly line of said Lot 5, Block 2; thence East along the South line of Lot 5, Block 2 to the point of beginning, as set out on record and filed in Document dated July 18, 1954, filed August 29, 1955 as Document No. 2962707; Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9, Block 2, Re(3rrangement of Block 10, Abraham Lincoln Addition To Lakeside Park; Lot 5, and that ~art of Lot 4, Block 2, "Rearrangement of Block 10, Abraham Lincoln Addition Lakeside Park lying South of o line drown parallel with and 20 feet South, measured at right gles, from the North line of said Lot · and its extension, including that part of the West Half of od joining vacated Laurel Street lying between the extensions across it of the South line of Lot 5 and o line drawn parallel to and 20 feet South, measured at right angles, from the North line of said Lot 4, according to the recorded .plat; Lot 2 and 5 and part of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, 'Rearrangement of Block 10, Abraham Uncoln Addition to Lakeside Park," including that part of the vacated alley in said Block 1 and including that part of vacated Laurel Street described anti'beginning at the Southeast Comer of said Lot 5; thence WesteHy along the South line of said Lot 5 and its extension to the center line of vacated Laurel Street; thence North along the center line of said Laurel Street to ItS intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 75 feet North, measured at right angles from the North line of Lot 4 and its extension, Block 2, said addition; thence East along said parallel line 45 feet to o point 15 feet East from the West line said Lot 4, Block 1, thence NortheasteHy to o point on the Northeasterly line of said Lot 3, distance 82.5.feet Southeasterly on the most NortheHy comer of Lot 1, sold Block 2; thence Southeasterly along the Northeasterly line of said Lots ;5 and 2 to the most Easterly comer of said Lot 2; thence Southeasterly to the most Southerly comer of said Lot 2; thence Southwesterly to the Northeasterly comer of said Lot 5; thence Southerly to the point of beginning, according to the recorded plot thereof. GE RECEIVED NAY 1 7 2000 MOUND PLANNING & IIVS~ S-22o ~~ ~ ~L To $~ FIECEIVEL') MOUND PLANfvINtj ~ INS, FIECEIVED MAY t 7 2000 /-'7, MOUND PLANNING & INSt ~X~t I6 IT E ~ECEIVE[~. tv~OuNr, i PLANNIN6 & IN~'/ RECEIVED HAY I 7 2000 MOUND PLANNIA IIV$, L ii.l.t · , lJ JJ MhI,BI,I:, l,:,i,:li;Ri, -Il :lilll:JJl Il :::Ell,u:: 3(o-7 PLEASE REFER TO THE LARGE SURVEY HANDOUT FOR CASE # 00-31 Mound Open Space Referendum Communications Plan 1. Background The City of Mound has called for a referendum in the September primary election to allow residents to decide if the City should issue up to $1.3 million in bonds to purchase a 10-plus acre school district-owned athletic field site. The site is part of the larger 19-acre "community center" property located at The WestTonka School District, which owns the property, has signed a purchase agreement with Metro Plains Development. If the referendum fails, Metro Plains would redevelop the entire 19-acre parcel. While there is no formal plan for the site, initial plans are to construct new multi- unit housing and a complimentary retail development. If the referendum passes and the City decides to issue bonds to purchase the 10-plus acre recreational site, Metro Plains would proceed with the commercial portion of the development on the remaining parcel. The City is currently considering adding a second referendum question which would ask voters if bonds should be issued for necessary improvements to the athletic fields. 2. Communications Need By calling for a referendum, the City recognizes the strong feelings in the community about this issue and the importance for the voters toprovide input to the City Council through this referendum. The City recognizes the critical importance of providing voters with opportunities to learn about the referendum question(s) and the .impacts of voting "yes" or "no" on the questions. The City also understand the need to for the information to be completely neutral, factual and objective, allowing voters make their own decisions on the ballot questions. 3. Target Audience The voters of the City of Mound. 4. Communications Goals · Inform and education voters about the referendum questions and the impacts of "yes" and "no" votes. i J~r~e's~ P'l:°S{e'~: 2 ~f(~°'m~i~anld~c Encourage eligible voters to cast their votes on the referendum question in September election. Key Messages A referendum question on the September 12 balbt will ask Mound voters if the City should issue up to $1.3 million in bonds to purchase a 10-plus acre parcel of the old "community center" site to use for recreational athletic fields and open space. If voters vote "yes" and the referendum passes, the City Council would be authorized to issue bonds to purchase the property so it could continue to be used as athletic fields. ^ second referendum question would authorize funding to make the necessary improvements to the fields. If voters vote "no" and the referendum is defeated, the entire 19-acre old "community center" site would be developed into new multi-unit housing and related retail, with some limited open space incorporated into the design. It is important that every eligible voter becomeinformed about the referendum questions and vote on Tuesday, September 12. Tools Q&A - A Q&A which provides the facts and answers to resident{ questions about the referendum questions and what"yes" and "no' votes will mean. News Releases-A news release pri0~to the election providing the facts and quotes from the mayor for the open house and one prior to the election. Tactics & Strategies Q&A in City Newsletter- Publish an issue of city newsletter with the referendum Q&A inside. Open House- About 30 to 45 days prior to the election, hold an open house to provide information on the referendum question(s). Provide a news release to the newspaper so that an article will be published prior to the Open House. Q&A Mailing - Revise Q&A based on public input and have it mailed to all 1 j'ame~ Prs~'~er: ~ef~0~Pianld°c households two weeks prior to the election. Referendum Q&A- Draft List of Questions June 30, 2000 o 10. 11. 12. Introduction -VVhat voters will be asked to do on September 12~ and the purpose of the Q&A. What are the referendum questions? What will a "yes" vote mean? What will a "no" vote mean? What are the plans for the redevelopment of the old"community center" site? What if the voters approve the question authorizing the purchase of the property but do not approve the question authorizing bonding for improvements to the property? Does passage of the referendum automatically mean the City Council will issue $1.3 million bonds to purchase the property? If the fields are already being used, why is it necessary to spend $ make improvements? to Will there be any maintenano~ costs for the athletic facilities, and if so, who will pay them? How will purchasing the property, making the necessary improvements and maintenance impact my property ta .~es? What are the t~x benefits to the City of having the entire 19-acre site redeveloped with housing and retail property vs. 10-plus acres of athletic/open space? If the referendum fails and the area is redeveloped will it include any recreational or open space? Who currently uses the athletic fields and facilities and how will tley be replaced if the referendum fails? Does this referendum have anything to do with the Ponds Arena? Are there any plans to build a community center on the 19-acre site? 13. When and where do I vote? 205.16, subd. 4 204B.21 204B.16 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOND ELECTION TIMELINE STATUTORY CITY OR TOWN Written notice to county auditor (not less than 49 days prior to election) stating the date of the election and the title and language for each ballot question to be voted on. Election judges for the election must be appointed at least 25 days before the election. If the location of a polling place has been changed, each affected household with at least one registered voter in the affected precinct must be sent a nonforwardable mailed notice stating the location of the new polling place at least 25 days before the next election. o 205.16, subd. 1 205.16, subd. 2 205.16, subd. 3 205.16, subd. 3 205.185, subd. 3 209.021(1) Provide two weeks published notice of the election, that is, publish notice of election once each week for two weeks prior to the date of the election, stating time of election, location of each polling place and questions to be voted on (except for 4th class city or town not located in metropolitan county defined in {}473.121, where 10 days' posted notice is sufficient). Sample ballot published at least one week before the election, in the official newspaper (except for fourth class city or town not located in a metropolitan county (see {} 473.121)). Sample ballot posted in clerk's office at least 4 days prior to election. .~ Sample ballot posted at each polling place on election day. Canvass of returns of election must be within two days by the governing body of a city or town conducting the general election in November. Canvass of returns must be within seven days of the election by the governing body of a town conducting the general election in March. Notice of contest must be served within 7 days after the canvass is completed. SMS 1 - 182347v 1 SC455-2 10. 205.10, subd. 3 203B.06 203B.07 203B.08 203B. 11 No municipal special election may be held within 40 days of the state general election. ABSENTEE VOTING MUNICIPAL SPECIAL ELECTION City Clerk prepares and prints a sufficient number of blank application forms for absentee ballots and delivers one to any voter who requests one pursuant to Section 203B.04 by submitting the application to the municipal clerk not less than one day before the election. The clerk must mail ballots to the voter who has signed the application, or deliver directly to the voter if the application is submitted in person, or deliver to the agent of a person in a health care facility (see 203B. 11), together with a voter registration form if the applicant is not a registered voter. Responses to applications from outside the continental United States must be given priority, and ballots must be mailed air mail and marked "OFFICIAL ELECTION BALLOTING MATERIAL - VIA AIR MAIL" The City Clerk must prepare return envelopes and directions for casting an absentee ballot in accordance with the requirements of section 203B.07. When absentee ballots are returned, the clerk must stamp and date the return envelope with an official seal of the office and place the envelopes in a secure location. The Clerk must deliver the envelopes to the election judges on election day. The Clerk shall designate two election judges to deliver absentee ballots to hospital palients and residents of health care facilities .:-_who have applied for absentee ballots pursuant to the process set forth in 203B.04, subd 1, that is, the application has been mailed or delivered to the clerk by a person other than the voter no later than six days before the election. Such ballots may be delivered to residents of hospitals or health care facilities during the 20 days preceding an election. Designated judges may deliver absentee ballots on election day only to eligible voters who on the day before the election became a resident or patient in the health care facility or hospital and who applied for absentee ballots under section 203B.04, subd. 2 - that is, requested absentee ballots by telephone or submitted an SM S I - 182347v I SC455-2 o o 203B. 12 203B. 16 to 203B.27 absentee ballot application to the election judges engaged in delivering absentee ballots under 203B. 11. Election judges or the absentee ballot board receive the ballot envelopes, examine them and mark them "accepted or "rejected." Accepted ballot envelopes are opened and counted after the last regular mail delivery to the United States postal service on election day. These sections provide alternative procedures for eligible voters who are absent from the jurisdiction because they are in the military or temporarily or permanently residing outside the territorial limits of the United States. These sections provide that the county auditor must record the name and address of the voters applying under these sections and retain such records for four years, and require that ballots sent outside the United States be given priority in mailing. SMS 1-182347vl SC455-2 ,EAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST Loss Control Services Administration: c/o Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC 8441 Wayzata Boulevard, Third Floor, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426-1344 Phone: (763) 591-7416 Fax: (763) 525-5712 Web Site: www. lmnc.org June 6, 2000 Ms Kandis Hanson City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms Hanson: A routine loss control survey was recently conducted concerning certain premises and operations for the city. This was in conjunction with the City's participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) property, liability and workers' compensation program. The purpose of my visit was to assist the city in the reduction of potential loss through loss control and risk management activities. As you are aware, I visited the property which the Mound -Westonka School District primarily used as athletic fields. Since this property might purchased by the city for development or used in its current form, I have some recommendations for loss control. We have found that compliance with loss control recommendations can assist in minimizing the potential for loss. 1/6/00 The concession building near the ballfields on the northwest comer of the property (see photo) has restrooms, sinks and concession area on the upper floor. On the first level, it has lockers and a storage area for equipment. This building should undergo a structural inspection. In addition, the electrical wiring in the building should be inspected by a qualified electrician to ensure that it has been properly installed. Ground -fault circuit interrupters should be installed within six feet of any water source. The restrooms on the upper level are not accessible"rto persons protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. They should :be made accessible to persons with disabilities who might attend or participate in events at the sports complex. 2/6/00 The built -in bleachers at the football field also have no provisions for accommodating persons with disabilities including access to seating and restrooms. In addition, these bleachers should be inspected and certified to meet the requirements of the Minnesota Bleacher Safety Act. It appears, for example, that there may be some cracks in the concrete structure and possibly that aisleways are needed for spectator entry to and exit from seating. Finally, the structural soundness of the press box and stairs leading up to it should be reviewed either by a building inspector or structural engineer. The portable bleachers in either side of this built in seating will also need inspection and certification. For example, the loose fabric, which has been connected to these guardrails, will not meet the requirements for netting or non-climbability discussed in the Minnesota Bleacher Safety Act. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ElVPLOYI~ EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC C) To: Kandis Hanson From: Jim Prosser LIJ Subject: Referendum Questions Date: July 11, 2000 The Mound City Council has previously accepted a petition to conduct a referendum on the question of issuing bonds to purchase ten+ acres of open space and athletic fields (Haddorff Fields). At the same time the Council authorized a task force to address a number of referendum related issues. A report and analysis of the response were previously presented to the City Council and is attached. The initial report identified four unresolved issues including: Does the referendum question include the purchase of all of the athletic field space included in the Haddorff field complex or just the portion which is not zoned commercial? There is approximately 1.8 acres of the athletic field space that is zoned commercial. How much will it cost to bring the field into compliance with city and state building and safety codes? In addition to building and safety codes how much will it cost make improvements to make the fields reasonably convenient for public use? Should the City Council add a second referendum question to the ballot requesting approval to issue bonds to make improvements to Haddorff fields? Detailed response to these questions follows: Parcel Size The issue of parcel size has not been finally resolved. It does appear that the intent of the petition was to seek approval to issue bonds to purchase the entire athletic field area. The estimated cost to purchase the residentially zoned portion (11 acres) of the site is $1.1 million. The cost to purchase the entire athletic field and open space site (12.8 acres) is estimated at $1.4 million. Indirect cost including legal fees, bond issuance, public information and related costs are estimated at $100,000. This means that the city would have to locate an additional $200,000 to purchase the property. In addition some minimum safety and code corrections need to be made adding $150,000 to city costs. Obviously a smaller parcel size would reduce the acquisition cost. However if the clear intent of the petitioners was to include the entire athletic field site, then the size of the parcel LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE T 3060 Centre Pointe Drive 651.697.8503 fax 651.697.8555 Roseville, MN 55113-1105 jim@ehlers-inc.com June 11, 2000 should not be revised to exclude the commercial portion regardless of the impact. This sets up a potential conflict. The referendum may succeed but not provide sufficient funds to pay for the land purchase and code/safety corrections. While there is no way to revise the referendum question to address this possibility, a second referendum question may provide a solution. A second question could seek authority to issue a specific amount of bonds to pay for "betterment" and/or the additional cost (above $1.3 million) to purchase the described parcel. The Council may wish to make it clear that if the passage of both questions will be required to acquire the property. Another option is for the Council to attempt to secure grant funding for the balance if the referendum is successful. Building and Safety Codes The Haddorff field property has been inspected by qualified code and safety inspectors. Their report is attached. The cost to bring the property into compliance is estimated at $150,000. The city has several alternatives in order to pay for these costs. An effort could be made to reduce the purchase price on the basis that the corrections are necessary. However, it is likely that the highest and best use of the property for value purposes would have already considered the impact of these corrections. A second alternative would be to locate another revenue source such as grants or city funds. It does not appear that there are adequate city funds for this purpose Grant funds are a possibility but have not been identified at this time. Third, the city could request the owner to make the necessary corrections. This will likely increase the sale price. Finally, the city could reserve a portion of the $1.3 million to cover the correction cost. Public Convenience Improvement Costs ~ ~ In addition to the code and safety improvements, there are other improvements that are recommended in order to make Haddorff Fields reasonably convenient to the public. These improvements include items such as paved parking lots, signage children's play area, concessions, toilets and paths. The estimated cost of these improvements is $300,000 in addition to the $150,000 for building code and safety improvements. These improvements would not alter the present use. The referendum question as petitioned would not permit use of bond proceeds to be used for this purpose. A second referendum question could be used to seek authorization for these improvements. Second Referendum Question The second referendum question has already been addressed within this memo. The unresolved issue is the purpose and level of funding requested within this question. The ranges of purposes include funding for purchase alone to full redevelopment to a community athletic field standard. Other options are identified within the report from Don Brauer which is attached. June 11, 2000 Purpose Amount Land cost for athletic fields (11 acres) Unknown at this time. Estimated value is $1.1 exclusive of commercially zoned parcel (1.8 million. acres). Additional land cost for athletic fields/a~v~°°~ Unknown at this time. Estimated value is $1.4 inclusive of commercially zoned parcel (12.8 acres total). Code and safety improvements. Public convenience improvements (inclusive of code and safety improvements). Central Community Park Standards (inclusive of code, safety and public convenience improvements). Community athletic field standards. million. $150,000 $450,000 $870,000 $1.45 million Recommendations It will be necessary for the City Council to take action regarding the referendum question on or prior to July 18. The last date to send the request to the County Auditor for inclusion in the September 12, 2000 Primary election is July 25. However the City Clerk has advised that due to the National Primary, submission of a referendum question after July 18, may pose a logistical problem for the County. The decisions which should be made by July 18 include: June 11, 2000 [SSIle Include commercially zoned portion of site in referendum question. Advantage Analysis 1. This appears to have been the intent of petitioners. 2. Not including parcel may provide basis of challenge to referendum results regardless of outcome. Disadvantage Analysis 1. Cost is likely to exceed referendum authority. 2. No other source of funds to make up purchase difference is readily apparent. 3. Council cannot increase amount requested in petitioned referendum question. 4. Inclusion of land will reduce building area on remaining commercial parcel by about 24,000 s. f. (40%). Include a second "contingent" referendum question to authorize funding for the additional land purchase cost and improvement. This question would, by a declaration of Council intent, require a positive vote on both referendum questions for the acquisition to proceed. Declare Council intent that the open space/athletic field will be acquired only if the referendum is successful and the property can be acquired for $1.3 million net of indirect cost including issuance costs. 1. Sufficient funds would be made available for purchase and improvements. 2. The council would be able to set an amount of funding to match the desired level of improvement. (Code and safety - $150,000, public convenience - $450,000, community park - $870,000 or community athletic fields- $1.45 million. This would be in addition to the increased direct and indirect cost of land acquisition estimated at $200,000. 1. Preserves apparent intent of referendum petition. 1. Requires approval of both questions to proceed with park acquisition. 2. May cause public concern if only one question is approved and acquisition in not completed. 3. Precludes potential for securing grant funds. 1. It appears unlikely that the property can be acquired for this amount. 2. The second referendum question will probably adequately address this issue, if adequate public information is provided. In order to resolve these questions the City Council may wish to consider a special workshop or appointing a Council committee. N :\Minnsota\Mound\7.10.00 open space.wpd ~~07/10/2000 14:26 6129151484 BR~UER GROUP PAGE 01 The Brauer Group Inc. 6116 Parnell Avenue, Edlna, MN 55424 Tel (612) 720-4888 FX (952)915 1484 E-Mail ..... brauergruup~elec~ronet, com Home Page...electronet.com/bgroup/ TO: FROM: RE: Jim Prosser Don Brauer MOUND ... HADDORFF FIELDS SITE EVALUATION I have gone over the site and facilities on several occasions, had an inspection by a qualified (licensed) building inspector, and reviewed the structures with my consulting structural engineer and sul~mlt the following estimate of costs for your consideration in making a recommendation to the City for referendum questions. I will present the cost figures first in tabular form, and follow up with the facts and reasoning behind them in the text of this report. Three categories of costs are shown. The first column is my estimate of the cost of removal/restoration of unsafe or out of compliance facilities and site features only. The second column is my estimate of the cost to replace the facilities or features that should properly be retained to se~e the curt'eat uses. The third column shows what I believe should be provided in a community park of this size, nature, and location In trte City. ITEM. DESCRIPTION REMOVE / RENOVATE / COMMUNITY RESTORE REPLACE PARK 1. Perimeter Fencing $ 29,000 $ 13.000 $ 0 2. Football / Soccer Stands & Bleachers 33,000 0 0 3. Drainage (Should be Included in Commercial Area Redevelopment) 0 0 4. Parking Area Curb and Pavement 70.000 5. Slgnege (Identification, Warning, Rules) 1,000 5,000 6. Plant Materials (Dead Tree Limbs, etc) 3,000 0 7. Lighting (Security and Safety Only) 5,000 5,000 8. Children's Play Area 5,000 35,000 9, Goal Posts & Baseball Backstop 0 0 10. Baseball Dugouts & Fencing 0 0 11. Concession / Ticket Btdg (SW Comer) 8,000 0 12. Storage Bldg ...Play Area .. Move 1,500 0 13. Concession, Press Box, Toilets (Baseball) 10.500 80,000 14. Football / Soccer Press Box 10,000 0 15. Regrede, Upgrade Turf 0 0 18. Add Paths, Furniture, Feature 0 0 17. Engineering, Management & Overhead Costs 20,000 40,000 18. Contingencies 24,000 52,000 TOTALS $150,000 $300,000 0 0 5,000 100.O00 15,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 105,000 55,000 65,000 65,000 420,000 page I 0 0 ~00~0~0~0~0000000~ ~ ~ ~ 00000000000000000000 i00000000000000000000 ~ 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 dddddddddddddddddddd I-- 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 z 0 0 0 oJ ct) >- ~~~0~~~0~ 00000000~~~~ 00000000000000000000 ~~~0~~~0 000000000~~~~ 00000000000000000000 0~~~0~~~ 0000000000~~~~ 00000000000000000000 00 ,,--~ 0 O0 000 3/6/00 The chain link fencing and other fencing around the complex has protruding ends sticking up over the top of the fence in many areas. Individuals in other cities have been injured while catching a ball or coming in contact with the top of the fence with these types of protrusions. In addition, some sections of the fence are rusting and damaged. I recommend that the fencing around the entire complex be reviewed and repaired or replaced. 4/6/00 The hockey rink on the south side of the property has boards with uneven surfaces, protruding metal supports and rusted, jagged connectors. I recommend that the boards be removed and redesigned to provide an even surface for hockey players and other users who skate at the rink. 5/6/00 The concrete steps, on the southeast comer of the property near the street, has broken and spalled concrete as well as a rusted handrail. I recommend that the steps be removed or repaired. 6/6/00 The building on the southwest comer of the property and the maintenance shop near the hockey rink were not open at the time of my survey. I recommend that electrical wiring and the heaating systems be inspected by qualified individuals. For example, I noticed that propane gas cylinders are standing outside the building at the southwest comer of the property. They may be an am-active nuisance to vandals in the area. The long-term benefits and successes that can be enjoyed by a cooperative, self-insurance organization depend upon serious and careful consideration of loss control recommendations. In that context, we ask that you keep us informed of the steps you take to address these loss control recommendations. Therefore, please respond witl~'~ 60 days of your receipt of this letter regarding the status of how you intend to respond to these loss control recommendations. I appreciate the time and courtesy extended to me at the time of my loss control visit. If you need any clarification on this report or if I can be of any assistance before my next visit, please do not hesitate to contact me. S.~cerely, ,0 ~- Mark E. Casey~, CSP,ARM,ALCM Senior Loss Control Consultant: Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC C~ R.L. Youngdahl and Associates 10261 Yellow Circle Drive Minnetonka, MN 55343 Recommendations and comments are provided for loss control and risk exposure improvement purposes only in conjunction with the insurance program referenced above. They are not made for the purpose of complying with the requirements of any law, rule or regulation. We do not infer or imply in the making of these recommendations and comments that all sites were reviewed or that all possible hazards were noted. The final responsibility for conducting loss control and risk management pro,ams must rest with the insured. Via an inspection of the premises under consideration, Staff has also determined that it would be DJK Draft 7/7/00 Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota the City of Mound, Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a [regular] [special] meeting of the City Council of Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at the City Hall in said City on , ,2000, commencing at p.m. The following members were present: and the following were absent: The following resolution was presented by Councilmember its adoption: RESOLtmON O. RESOLUTIi~q DETERMINING THE NECESSITY FOR THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION THEREON who moved follows: BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota (City) as DJK-182787vl MU200-84 The City Council hereby finds and determines: The required number of voters of the City have, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 205.10, petitioned the Council requesting the submission to the voters of a proposition authorizing the issuance of City general obligation bonds (Acquisition Bonds) for the acquisition of ten acres of the community center site (Site) in the City for recreational purposes. b) if the City is authorized to issue and sell the Acquisition Bonds and the City does in fact sell the Acquisition Bonds and acquire the Site, it is in the best interests of the residents of the City that the City equip and improve the land so acquired with the necessary facilities for a useful recreational site (Project). c) the City is authorized by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 (Act) to issue its obligations to finance the Project in whole or in part and to pledge its full faith, credit and taxing powers to the payment of those obligations; d) it is necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of the affairs of the City that the Project be f'manced in whole or in part by the issuance and sale of the City's general obligation bonds pursuant to the Act in an amount not to exceed $ I,~$ ~ (Facilities Bonds) if the Acquisition Bonds are in fact issued and sold and the Site acquired; e) the City Council has approved the use of electronic voting machines by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members and has complied with the 60- day notice and six week demonstration requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 206.58, Subdivision ~ and has adopted special rules and instructions for use of the electronic voting machines which have been approved by the Secreta~;y of State; and the City Clerk has certified to the Secretary of State that an electronic voting system will be used in the City and the date of commencement of the use thereof. 2. The propositions for the issuance of the Acquisition Bonds and the Facilities Bonds will be submitted to the voters of the City at a special election to be held on Tuesday, September 12, 2000. The election will be held and conducted in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota relating to special municipal elections. DJK-182787vl MU200-84 3. The City Clerk is directed to cause a notice of election or sample ballot, or both, in substantially the forms set forth in Exhibit A and paragraph 5, to be posted and published as required by law as follows: (a) The notice of election will be published once in the official newspaper of the City at least two weeks prior to the election; (b) The notice of election and a sample ballot will be posted at each of the polling places at least ten days prior to the election; (c) The notice of election and a sample ballot will be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least four days prior to the election; and (d) The sample ballot will be published in the official newspaper at least one week prior to the election. 4. The polling places, hours of election and the respective judges for the election will be those established by the City for special elections. The election will be held in conjunction with the state primary election. The polls will be open fi.om _.m. until _.m. 5. a) The City Clerk is authorized and directed to prepare the ballots for the election in substantially the following form: DJK-182787vl MU200-84 CITY QUESTION BALLOT SPECIAL ELECTION CITY OF MOUND Tuesday, September 12, 2000 INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: Voters desiring to vote in favor of the following proposition must make a cross mark (X) in the square opposite the word YES. Voters desiring to vote against the foregoing proposition shall place a cross mark (X) opposite the word NO. CITY QUESTION NO. 1' ACQUISITION OF 10 ACRE COMMUNITY CENTER PLAYFIELDS SITE. Shall the Mound City Council be authorized to issue and sell its general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,300,000 for the purpose of acquiring the 10+ acre "community center" playfields site in the city as part of a development program consisting of the acquisition and betterment of recreational facilities on the site? BY VOTING "YES" ON THIS BALLOT QUESTION, YOU ARE VOTING FOR A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. YES ( ) NO ( ) The City of Mound is asking for voter approval to issue and sell its general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,300,000 for the purpose of acquiring the 10+ acre "community center" playfields site in the City. The amount of taxes that would be raised in the first year of the property tax levy to pay the principal and interest on the bonds is estimated to be approximately $ . The maximum amount of taxes that would be raised in any subsequent year for the purpose is estimated to be approximately $ This maximum increase in property tax levy is estimated to be approximately % of the taxable market value of property in the City. DJK-182787vl MU200-84 CITY QUESTION NO. 2: ACQUISITION AND BETTERMENT OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. If the City of Mound acquires the ten acre recreational site located at the 19 acre community center complex at the old Mound High School, should the Mound City Council be authorized to issue and sell City general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $ I. 'q.~'~o finance the cost of equipping the Site with recreational facilities? BY VOTING "YES" ON THIS BALLOT QUESTION, YOU ARE VOTING FOR A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. YES ( ) NO ( ) The City of Mound is asking voter approval to issue and sell its general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $ to finance The amount of taxes that would be raised in the fn'st year of the property tax levy to pay the principal and interest on the bonds is estimated to be approximately $ The maximum amount of taxes that would be raised in any subsequent year for the purpose is estimated to be approximately $ This maximum increase in property tax levy is estimated to be approximately % of the taxable market value of property in the City. DJK-182787vl MU200-84 b) The City Clerk is authorized and directed to prepare separate ballots, ballot strips, or ballot booklets for the elections for use in conjunction with the electronic voting system, on blue paper with black ink pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 206.61. The City Clerk will provide each polling place with at least two sample ballots, which are facsimiles of the ballot strip or ballot booklet. Such samples must contain illustrated instructions for their use along with the electronic voting system or illustrated instructions will be posted adjacent to each sample ballot. 6. The City Council intends that this resolution be considered the initiating resolution with regard to the proposed bond issues as required by Section 475.57 of the Act. 7. The City Council will meet in the City Hall on p.m., C.T. to canvass the results of the election and to declare the results thereof. ,2000, The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. DJK-182787vl MU200-84 EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF SPECIAL ELECTION CITY OF MOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special election will be held in and for the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, on Tuesday, the 12th day of September, 2000, at which the following propositions will be submitted to the voters of the City for their approval or rejection: CITY QUESTION NO. l: ACQUISITION OF 10 ACRE COMMUNITY CENTER PLAYFIELDS SITE. Shall the Mound City Council be authorized to issue and sell its general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,300,000 for the purpose of acquiring the 10+ acre "community center" playfields site in the city as part of a development program consisting of the acquisition and betterment of recreational facilities on the site? YES ( ) NO ( ) CITY QUESTION NO. 2: ACQUISITION AND BETTERMENT OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. If the City of Mound acquires the ten acre recreational site located at the 19 acre~ community center complex at the old Mound High School, should'lhe Mound City Council be authorized to issue and sell City general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $ to finance the cost of equipping the Site with recreational facilities? YES ( ) NO ( ) The polling places for the election are as follows: DJK- 182787v 1 MU200-84 The polls for the election will be open at __ __ p.m. p.m. and will remain open until closing at Any qualified registered voter of the City is entitled to vote at the election, and any resident of the City not previously registered as a voter may register on election day. Dated: ,2000. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ City Clerk DJK-182787vl MU200-84 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPiN CITY OF MOUND ) ) )ss. ) ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a [regular] [special] meeting of the City Council of said City held on ,2000, with the original thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, mae and correct copy thereof, insofar as the same relates to the calling of a special bond election for the issuance and sale of $ General Obligation Bonds of the City. WITNESS My hand as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this __ day of ,2000. (SEAL) City Clerk City of Mound, Minnesota DJK-182787vl MU200-84 VFW VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE U.S. CHAMBERLAIN-GOUDY POST NO. 5113 2544 Commerce Blvd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 June 13,2000 Ms. Kandis Hanson City Manager, Mound, MN Mound City Hall 2450 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms. Hanson: Here is the written communication for which you asked during our meeting Monday afternoon, June 12, in regard to the Mound VFW's suggestion for a new name for Auditor's Road and our offer of $2,500 to pay for signage, benches and other relevant needs. As of this date, the post has not established a deadline for the acceptance or rejection of our offer. Our membership has voted to request that the new name for the road be Veterans Way in recognition of the many contributions of time, effort and money that Mound area veterans have made to the Lake Miunetonka community. However, this offer is not made on a quid pro quo basis. The money is currently available for whatever name is chosen. We feel this philosophy best expresses the spirit of "Veterans Way." For your information, we have previously doff~ted $1,000 for two engraved stones at the site. Each one will read:""Been there. Did that. Proud of it. In memory of our fallen comrades. Chamberlain-Goudy VFW Post 5113, Mound~Minnesota." As well as I can understand it, the Mound City Council tabled about 35 new road name suggestions, including our own nomination, after rejecting the suggestion of "Park Place" a few months ago. Thus, the naming project lies somewhere in a limbo-like councilspace until it is resurrected. Our membership urges an expeditious resolution of this matter by the Mound City Council in the belief it would tend to mitigate further controversy about the Mound Visions Re-development Program. Almost everyone has one or more veterans in their family. VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UN TED STATES ,"~lc~'-~ In addition, because "Veterans Way" is about equidistant between the American Legion Post and our VFW Post, we are fairly certain the American Legion members would support this name. Sincerely, on behalf of our members, Philip W. Schrader Public Information Officer PS/ss P.S. If you have any questions, my home phone number is 612/471-7908. AUDITOR'S ROAD RENAMING The article in the LAKER Newspaper generated 38 responses from citizens for the renaming of Auditor's Road. After considerable discussion, and because of the importance of the name, it was determined that though many of the suggestions were good, none stood out as being the choice of everyone. Keeping in mind the definitions of street, lane, drive, etc, a decision was made that each member should make up a list of new suggestions and give them to Fran a week before the September meeting so she can put them in the packet. A vote on a name will be made at that time. AUDITORS ROAD RENAMING Five new names were accepted for the possible renaming of Auditors Road. Boardwalk, Cobblestone Lane, Greenway Blvd. Main Street, and Park Place were the new names. MOTION made by Mark Brewer, seconded by Lonnie Weber for each person to select one name and submit it as their choice for Auditors Road. Stan Drahos requested it be changed to two ~ames per person. Mark Brewer amended his motion to be two names per person as their selection for the renaming of Auditors Road. The motion was seconded by Jerry Pietrowski. The motion carried umsnimously. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - SEFI'.~IBER 16, 1999 AUDITORIS ROAD There were six votes for the renaming of Auditors Road to Park Place and two for Boardwalk. There were no other names with more than one vote. Lonnie Weber made a motion to present to the City Council the recommendation of the EDC Commission to consider a rename change from Auditors Road to Park Place. The motion was seconded by Mark Brewer. Discussion: Bob Brown suggested we try to get Milton Bradley to allow the little guy with the hat next to the name. The motion passed unanimously. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 12. 1999 1.18 EDC ROAD RENAMING. There was discussion regarding the name "Park Place" chosen by EDC for renaming of Auditor's Road. The work involved to reach a motion by the EDC was appreciated by the City Council, but the consensus of the Council Was not in favor of the name Park Place. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to ask the EDC for send back to EDC their motion of the n~me "Park Place" and have other possible suggestions forwarded back to City Council. The vote was unsnlmously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. &uditors Road Renaminq Bob Brown explained the City Council did not approve the renaming of Auditors Road to Park Place. He stated the consensus of the Council was that it sounded like a Monopoly Board Game and the name Park Place really had nothing to do with Mound. The Council requested we come up with a name that would identify the street and that reflected the location, i.e. something with the word "Tonka or "Mound". Bob Brown mentioned the streets in the Three Points area are all named after birds, the Highland area after different types of wood, and suggested we keep that in mind when thinking of a new name for this area. There was a discussion of possibly keeping the name Auditors Road until a later date and to put another ad in the paper requesting citizens to submit suggestions. MOTION made by Bob Brown that the renaming of Auditors Road be tabled until a future date. Lonnie Weber seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. ~u'r~S - EDC - NOVEMBER 18, 1999 The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:10 a.m. by Paul Meisel. Members present: Stan Drahos, Bob Brown, Jerry Pietrowski, Paul Meisel, Sharon McMenamy-Cook, Mark Brewer, Lonnie Weber. Others present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Linda Kohl, Sue Magraw, Kathy Rockvam, Rita B!ackowiak, Patty Guttormson, Gino Businaro, Bill Beard and Paul Bill Beard gave a presentation on the redevelopment project. Phase 1 will be the Langdon area. It was have a mix of up-scale townhomes for sale, rental townhomes, an apartment building and retail stores. Our priority is to not displace the businesses we now have. The second phase will be Auditors Road. Ail the discussion on the presentation was very positive. We are looking at a near $50,000,000 improvement for Mound. Motion: Mark Brewer made a motion that the EDC Commission fully and enthusiastically endorse the initial conceptual plan as presented by the Beard Group. Lonnie Weber seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. There was no discussion. This conceptual plan will go to the HRA on Tuesday and then be forwarded to the City Council on November 23, 1999. Mayor Pat Meisel explained that she will not be participating in the discussion regarding this subject at the council meeting due to a conflict of interest perception of some citizens. This is due to her ownership of property involved in the project. It was discussed the need to encourage citizens and to keep a positive attitude regarding this.~roject. This concept has been going on for ten years and it is exciting that we are finally going ahead with the rede%elopment of Mound. Bill Beard submitted a fact sheet showing the timing, costs, etc. of the redevelopment project. Bob Brown stated he was approached by the Veterans requesting we~ rename Auditors Road to Veterans Drive or Veterans Way. In return they would put up a lighted flagpole as a monument to all veterans that have served in the area. It was pointed out that during the / last meeting a motion was made to table the renaming of Auditors / Road until after the area has been redeveloped. [ Lonnie stated the Lions would like to contribute a Christmas tree and flowers for landscaping the new Greenway area. We would like a large tree, possibly up to 30 feet tall. The contractor will ATTORNEYS AT LAW D'BRIEN 2t00 Piper Jaffray Plaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2160 Firm (651) 290-6500 Fax (651) 223-5070 E-Mail jlolaw~jlolaw, com 211- 22nd Street S.E. Owatonna, Minnesota 55060-4417 Firm (507) 455-0076 Fax (507) 455-0151 Gerald 3,f. Linnihan Alan R. Vanasek John M. Kenned3; Jr. Eugene J. Flick Charles E. Gillin Galman Regnier Fonken e W. Kuehner Patti J. Skoglund Sean E. Hade * Timothy S. Crom La~vrence M. Rocheford James G. Golembeck James K. Helling Vic'Id M. Ahl Marlene S. Gan,is ' Karen R. Cote Joseph E. Flynn * Thomas L. Cummings Gregory R. Broos * Shari L. Johnson Katherine E. Kennedy Cara J. Debes Mark D. Malloy * Allison C. Swanson * Craig E. Shriver Some members also admitted to practice law in Wisconsin*, North Dakota, and Illinois. Jerre F. Logan (1923-1983) Donald M.Jardine (Retired) John R. O'Brien (Retired) July 5, 2000 MS KANDIS HANSON CITY ADMINISTRATOR 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MN 55364-1627 Respond to: St. Paul Office Re-' Our File: 29672 (872) In Re: City of Mound - Lake Minnetonka Conservative District Dear Ms. Hanson: As per our discussion, I would request that a portion of the July 11, 2000 city council meeting be closed for the purposes of discussing the pending litigation of Bailev. et al. vs. Lien. et al. A tentative settlement agreement has been reached in this matter pending approval of certain variances by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. We would like to take this opportunity to advise the council as to the status of the variances requested from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, as well as advise the council as to certain amendments that must be made to the tentative settlement agreement. Please advise as to the approximate time the council will be addressing this agenda item. If you have any other questions, please contact me. I appreciate your assistance in this matter. ..... Very truly yours, JARDINE, LOGAN & O'BRIEN, P.L.L.P. Allison C. Swanson Direct Dial: (651) 290-6591 E-mail Address: aswanson@jlolaw.com ACS:kky cc: Karen Cole, Esq. Established 1918 Equal Opportunity Employer CONDUCTING MORE EFFICIENT MEETINGS Each of you has been provided with a Council Briefing packet entitled: Conducting More Efficient Council Meetings. Please bring them with you to the meeting on Tuesday evening. Mayor Meisel has agreed to open discussion on the topic; and has prepared the following suggested discussion outline. At some point in the discussion you each might want to state your view concerning whether or not council meetings tend to last longer than necessary. Agenda. 1. Roles of each council member. a. Guidelines that each of us should use. b. Set time limits on council comments on each item (5 mins, 10 mins ?) c. Buy a timer-enforce the roles. 2. Stafflnput a. Include opinion page supporting recommendation on items. 3. Set time limits for each agenda item. 4. Earlier start time for meetings. 5. Procedure for public heatings. 6. Comment / Complaint Department. 7. Special staff committee to update ordinances. 8. Update roles for:appointed commissions--discuss term limits. 9. Other suggestions. This agenda is not intended to limit discussion, and any other comments you have regarding the materials or the topic will be welcome. i~UBLIC FI'F. ARING PROCIgDURES The board does nol deb'berate or discuss rhyme-rs al the public hearing part of rig meetixtg, lin/end, ~ey ~ lo ~ public's o~inion, altboag~ on~ the public oommen! p~oci Js finkhed, Ihe Board may wrtp up the pubfic l~ng. " The Board should nm .~amplc public opinion by asking lbr a show of hands. attrndiag thc hearing does not nec~,sarily reptescnl: genre, al public opinion. up.on of a q~echl group. Tlg majority of throe It i~ l~ely rn express only the Although meetings mug be open to the public, indlvi&,atS who are noisy or unruly do not have the right --~ to remain ia thc Ceumil Chamber. When indi~a,,aLs abase thcix right to be prcsc, m in ~h~ Council Chamber, the Chair, as presiding officer-subject to overrule by the Board-should ord~ theix r~mova~ from th~ room. if the presiding officer fails to ach, the Board may, by motion, is,me such an order. The Board can us~ neoeasary force, including u.nc of t~ marshal or police, to carry oul the matw~ate.. If a o-:, person is excluded from a meeting, the Board should provide aa oppommity for thc exclucled per, on to give his or lgr side of 0g exclusion Io a designated City staff member to satisfy any ds]e process ql~JOll3. If the entire audience becomes so disorderly thzg it is i _?ossible to carry on a meO'ino_, tl~ mayor should declare the meetil:tg contlnm:d lO $O1~ other lime and pla~e if no.:cssary. The Board may also move for adjournment. No matmf how disorderO/a meeting may be, it is a legal meeting 'aml my action the Boaxd takr. s in proper form is valid. Questions have arisen as lo whether city c, oat~ils can isma oontempt cilatiom against individuals whose disorderly conduct ~pt~ or interfcr~ with ~ tramaction of ely business. The Council canner Lv.we such comempt ¢ir. alions. In order m rcccss or contiaue a public ]w. ar~, ~bc Bos~d should not: formaUy end rl~ public comtm~ part of fl~c bearing. When a bearing is reo:ssed or co.hued to .moihcr time or pb~ce, no additional notice is needed if thc time and place:of.the rcccs.,~d or condn~Ued .mceliug was escab~ duriag thc previous pa~ of the hearillg sod alzo ix:coted in ~ minut~ of that pal~ of Rte meeting. Motiom are m! to be used co open or close a l:mblic bearing. The publ~.' hea.H~ is simpty 'opea~" or "cJoaod" at me call of the Chair. PU~L'HRG.FRM PUBLIC EtEARING ~ opera thc public hc~'i~g. T~nc: Chair ~: TI~ purpose of the public heari~ is to consider .... §. h. i. k. 1. m. o. P. r. Gramin~ a vacation of a public right-of-way Graining of a conditional use permit Grantin~ a vafiam~ Gra~in~ a rczoni~ A/II~ of a zonill$ ordin~oc~ or zonin~ map Amendment to comprehensive plan Establishment of special service d~trict Subdivision applkation Anncxatioa by ordinance Approval of a TI~ plan Local improvcmcnl project to be paid through special assessment Special assessment, made to a property Pm~base and improvement of waterworks, sewers, dr=irt% storm sewers gak of F. DA land Appropriations to thc munici0al liquor store Renewal of inloxka0ng on-sale liquor Iiceme Continuation of a municipal liquor store :trier a net loss of two of three years Other: N~o~ a. b. ¢. d. ¢. and d.i~lay of proof of aotificatiae. Affidavit of publication. Dates of publication: Notices mailed: protocols for ~hos¢ wisb/z~g to expre~ api'niom. ~ all l~rsoas at~adiag m siga .in ia t~om ~atr~ Set time comtraim for the heariag ms a whole Stamt '~ ~heir place or approach the podium State their name ~d address and if t~.y rcpt'cscnl an org'ani~tioa Time limit each. person may $Tca.k {two-five mlmttca), t~luirin~ _comments to be kepi gcr~, factual and concise f. If many people _~h:~rc tl~ sanz viewpoint, a ..qaokc~ shouM bc appointed g. Refrain from applause or imerruptiom I0. 11. 12. 13. St [' presenntion. Apptic. aat'~ prce~-m~on with Counc~ quc~m. ~t~ ~ ~ pubfic: ~/S~ ~ ~y ~en ~e~ ~~d. ~d on a ~ ~. Co~ e~o~ for ~~ ~d p~i~ti~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o co~, m ~ ~. ' C~k cl~ ~e ~b~ ~g. T~: ~ cal~ for Co~cfl action, ~ appmpria~: ~le. de~ or ~e. Jun 29 2888 15:06:15 Via Fax -> Xandls Hanson AMM FAX lie June 26-30, 2000 881 Of 881 A ociation or Hctropolitan Hunicipalities LMC/AMM seeks city official to serve on ramp meter hiring committee All 430 Twin Cities ramp ,meters will be shut down for a time this fall and the results of the study will be released to the legislature and to the public by Feb. 1, 2001. YOUR HELP IS NEEDED! The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC)/AMM is seeking one city official to serve on the MnDOT hiring committee, which will receive bids from consult- ants interested in conducting the ramp meter study. That city official will assist MnDOT in reviewing the RFPs and make a Remi Stone at the LMC (651- 281-1256) or Roger Peterson at the AMM (651-215-4000). The successful consultant bidder is likely to conduct field tests, analyze accident reports and use MnDOT Traffic Management Center car- counting data, as well as focus groups or telephone surveys of commut- ers and travelers. According to consultant selection. If you are interested in meet- ing once or twice with MnDOT during the month of July to select a consultant and direct the ramp meeting study contact AMM .News Pax is fazed to all A.~IM city managers and administrators, legislative contacts and Board members. Please share this fax with your mayors, councilmembers and staff to keep them abreast of impor- tant metro city issues. 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, .~I.N' 55105-2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: amm~ammI4$.org MnDOT, about a dozen consult- ants are interested in conduct- ing the study and have until July 17 to submit bids. Exactly how the study will proceed and what it will cost will remain in the air until a consultant is selected, which is expected to happen by July 31. Currently, MnDOT uses the ramps to control traffic flow on about 210 miles of freeways in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. It first began ramp meter- ing in 1969 as a way to improve freeway safety and efficiency. The study will focus on the effects of meters on traffic flow and safety in selected test corri- dors. Among factors to be exam- ined are the impacts on travel times and accident rates, as well as the effects on local streets of traffic diverted from freeways. The study will also compare the Twin Cities ramp meter system with other metropolitan areas in the nation. Three goals of the study, which was ordered by the legis- lature earlier this year are: e To determine whether the benefits of metering outweigh the costs and drawbacks. To answer this question, comparisons of traffic flow and safety will be made with the meters on and off. e To describe the effect me- tering has on local streets and freeway bus routes. e To compare Minnesota's metering system with those in other cities, describe the nationa, trend in meter use and report the results of meter studies else- where. June 29,2000 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LMCD Member Cities Gregory S. Nybeck, Executive Director Adopted 2001 LMCD Budget Enclosed is a copy of the 2001 LMCD Budget, which was adopted and certified by the LMCD Board at the 6/28/00 meeting. Minnesota State Statute 103B.635, Subd. 1 requires the LMCD Board, on or before July 1 of each year, to prepare and submit a detailed budget of the district's needs for the next calehdar-year to the goveming body of each municipality in the distdct with a statement of the ffroportion of the budget to be provided by each municipality. Per enabling legislation, the maximum levy the LMCD could forward to its member communities in 2001 is $221,269.98. We are pleased to forward an approved budget that is below the maximum levy at $217,521.00. The 2001 LMCD Budget can further be broken down into two budgets, Administration and EWM/Exotics. k general overview of the key notes of both budgets is detailed in Appendix A. The LMCD maintains five reserve fund accounts. These accounts include Administration, EWM/Exotics, Save the Lake, New Equipment Acquisition, and Equipment Replacement. Both Save the Lake and New Equipment Acquisition funds consist of dor~ated funds, which are dedved from non-taxable dollars. These funds are being held separate for the purposes foi"which they are donated. Administration, EWM/Exotics, and New Equipment Acquisition funds are dedved from tax dollars, which are levied to the 14 member communities. Equipment Replacement is for non-operating purposes and has been established to either replace or refurbish capital equipment used in the Eurasian Watermilfoil harvesting project. Both Administration and EWM/Exotics fun~ are used for operating purposes. Reserve fund balances of six months for Administration and 12 months for EWM/Exotics have previously been agreed upon. At year end in 1999, the reserve fund balances tor Administration and EWM/Exotics were well below the six-month and 12 month policies. As of 12/31/99, there was a 40% reserve for the Administrative Fund and a 90% reserve for the EWM/Exotics Fund. Overall, the adopted 2001 LMCD budget is generally consistent with the 2000 LMCD budget, with two exceptions. First, no funds have been budgeted for Management Plan implementation projects in 2001, $15,0r.,0 was budgeted in 2000. Second, there is an increase of $23,000 in the EWM/Exotics budget in 2001. This is mainly, attributed to the Distdct purchasing a fifth aquatic plant harvester and the increase in hours that these machines are being operated. In closing, your city has the ability to require the LMCD to hold a hearing if your city has an objection to the adopted 2001 budget. On behalf of the LMCD Board, I would like to thank all 14-member communities for your continued participation and support in District related activities. Feel free to call the office at (952) 745-0789 if you have questions or concerns. o CIIAI ZI-- Z ~ ~ zo~ ~P~ 0~~0 ~ ~0 ~ oo 22 ~ O0 ~ ~ O~ ~ ~ O0 000 ~ 0 O0 000 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~0~ ~00~ ~~00~ O~ 0~ ~ o~ o~ ~ ~o 0~0 ~ 0000 000 000000 0 000000 ~ 000 000 0 0 ~ 000 000 0 0 ~ 0~0000000000~ 0~00000000~0~ 000 0 O000 000 O0 0 ~ 000 000 0 0 0 0 ~ 0~ 000 0 0 0 0 ~ 0000000000000 0~00~000000~ ~~00~0~ 0 O0 00000 00000 0 ~ 000 00000 O0 0 0 000 000~ O0 0 ~ 000000000 0 000 00000 000 0 0 0 0~000~000 ~ 000 00000 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~00 ~ 0 0 ~ 000~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0000000 O0 0 0 ~ 0000 000 ooooooo oo o o ~ oooo ooooooo oo o ~ ~ oooo ~o 0000000 O0 0 0 ~ 0000 000 0000000 O0 0 0 0 0000 000 ooooooo oo o ~ ~ oooo ~o 0000000 O0 0 0 0 0000 000 O000000 00 0 0 ~ O000 O00 0000000 O0 0 ~ ~ 0~0~ ~ DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 7:00 PM, Wednesday, May 24, 2000 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Craig Nelson, Spdng Park; Gene Pa. rtyka, Minnetdsta; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Kent Dahlen, Uinnetonka Beach; Greg Kitchak, uinnetonka; Lift UcUillan, Orono; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD (~ounsel; George Hoff, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director; Judd Harper, LMCD Administrative Technician. Members absent: Craig Eggers, Victoria; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Sheldon Weft, Greenwood. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock announced that the annual lake inspection tour is scheduled for Saturday, June 3r~. He asked Board members if had any suggestions on sites to visit during this inspection tour. Nybeck announced that the starting time of the boat tour would be at 7:30 a.m. at a departure location still to be determined. He stated that the inspection tour should conclude around 12 NOON and that staff would notify Board members of the departure location once it has been determined. READING OF MINUTES- 4/26/00 LMCD Regular Board Meeting MOTION: McMillan moved, Partyka seconded to approve the minutes of the 4/26/00 Regular Board Meeting as submitted. ~ VOTE: Ayes (9), Abstained (1; Babcock); motion carded. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS · A Day in the Sun Charters, new on-sale intoxicating Liquor License application for the charter boat, Banana Winds. Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. He asked the applicant and the public if they had any comments. Thero being no comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. MOTION: Dahlen moved, McMillan seconded to approve the new on-sale intoxicating liquor license application, for the 2000 season, for the charter boat Banana Winds. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 24, 2000 Page2 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Shorewood Yacht Club, new multiple dock license, special density license, and vadance applications for 35 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 350' of continuous shoreline. The application submitted for vadance from LMCD Code is for dock length, side setbacks, and adjusted dock use area. Babcock opened the public headng at 7:06 p.m. He asked the applicant and the public if they had any comments. Mr. Walter Baker, attorney for Shorewood Yacht Club, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that he had received the staff report recently and that questions were raised regarding the need for a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). He explained that he believed that this site had previously been reviewed by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and that he wanted to do addilJonabesearch. He requested that the Board continue the public headng to the 6/14/00 Regular Board meeting. Babcock asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this application. There being no comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. MOTION: Nelson moved, Ambrose seconded to continue the Shorewood Yacht Club public headng to the 6/14/00 Regular Board meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. WATER STRUCTURES A. Seton View Association, consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of vadance from LMCD Code for dock length. Babcock opened the agenda item stating that he would like the Order to include language that requires maintaining a minimum 30' side setback for structure and boat storage4rom both of the extended side site lines. MOTION: Skramstad moved, Ahrens seconded to approve the dock length variance Order for Seton View Association, subject to adding language that requires a minimum 30' side setback from both extended side site lines. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. B. Richard Oliver & Jim Peterson, consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of variances from LMCD Code for dock length and side setbacks. Babcock opened the agenda item noting that the Order has been prepared for approval of a long dock to reach navigable water. He noted the Board addressed this some time ago and he asked Board members if they had any comments on the Order. McMillan asked why the Order is coming before the Board at this time. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 24, 2000 Page 3 Nybeck stated that the Board approved this vadance request some time ago, subject to the City of Mound vacating the street end on Waterford Road. He explained that the applicant has secured this requirement from the City of Mound and that the,,, have submitted an amended site plan that minimizes the dredging required to offset the three Boat Storage Units (BSU's) from Seton Channel. Babcock asked staff if there were any additional outstanding conditions or issues with this application. Nybeck stated that that there no additional outstanding conditions or issues. MOTION: Nelson moved, Dahlen seconded to approve the vadance Order for Richard Oliver and Jim Peterson as submitted. VOTE: Ayes (9), Nayes (1; Babcock); motion ca ..n~Jed Babcock stated that he did not support the location of this dock structure in the Seton Channel area. C. Wayzata Marine, Inc., consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of variances from LMCD Code for dock length and side setbacks. Babcock open the agenda item and questioned whether the 15' side setback from the extended lot line in condition 2 of the Order was correct. He asked for clarification from LeFevere, noting he believed it might be 20' because it is a multiple dock fa,,'ility abutting a non-multiple dock facility. LeFevere stated he was unsure how that figure was arrived at and that he would need to check into it further. He added that the double side setback requirement might not apply to this facility because it is grandfathered. Nybeck stated that if the Board desired to approve the Vadance Order as submitted, it should be made on t'.le condition that the applicant submit a revised site plan as agreed to by the applicant at the 5/10/00 Regular Board meeting. .~ Babcock expressed concern with Variance Order and whether minimum side setbacks would be maintained with the rescinding of the variance on the east-end of the facility. He suggested that a minimum 30' side setback might need to be maintained because it is a multiple dock facility that abuts a non-multiple dock facility. LeFevere stated that the double side setback provision was subject to grandfathering and that he believed that this facility would have qualified for this exception. Babcock recommended that the Variance Order be sent back to staff to secure the amended site plan from the applicant and to allow the District attomey to cladfy the proper minimum side setback to from the extended lot line on the east-end of the facility. MOTION: Babcock moved, Partyka seconded to send the Findings of Fact and Order back to staff and attomey for further review. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 24, 2000 Page 4 DJ City of Mound, consideration of new multiple dock license and six variance applications for boat storage at six street-ends on West Arm. These street-ends include Woodland Road, Eagle Lane, Bluebird Lane North, Finch Lane, Gull Lane, and Dove Lane. The proposed variances from LMCD Code are for dock length and side setbacks. Babcock introduced the agenda item by asking Hoff to provide an overview of the 5/19/00 memo he prepared on the proposed applications. Hoff stated he prepared a memo with an analysis of the presentation from the applicant at the 5/10/00 meeting, with general comments on the presentation, and where he believes the District stands. He made the following comments: · He addressed the comments made that theJ:)istdct would be dragged into litigation and that there would be a taking claim if the applications submitted were denied. He stated he believed there is little to no merit associated with these comments because these issues being evaluated by the District are separate from the issues evaluated in the Settlement Agreement. He noted the applicant has suggested that it would qualify as a taking because the Distdct would be depriving the non-riparian residents of riparian rights. He suggested that this is not ripe and he encouraged the Board to make an appropriate judgement. · He stated he has not seen anything remotely similar based on past Variance Orders he had been provided by staff. He added he believed this is the dilemma the Board is facing, noting it would be easy to deny the applications because there is a reasonable use of the remaining land without the need for variances from LMCD Code. · He stated that the LMCD ordinances are unique and that they are not governed Minnesota Land Use Planning Act. He noted because of this, it is within the authority of the Board to deal with the practical hardship standard contained in the ordinances and to determine how to apply it. · He stated that he believed the Board could determine that there are practical hardships associated with these sites based on the unique circumstances of the unique platting of this subdivision. He noted the concem that the Board might want to address is whether this would set bad precedent for other situations on the lake. He added he believed that there have been defining and limiting factors submitted by the applicant that could distinguish it from other possible applications around the lake. · He concluded he believed the Board should evaluate the proposed applications on a clean slate, noting he believed he could prepare Findings for either approval or denial. He reminded the Board that variance process established by Code has two parts, the need to establish a practical difficulty or hardship and the affirmative test to determine whether it does harm to the ordinances and to access to the lake from abutting properties. He entertained questions or feedback from the Board. Babcock questioned how to deal with an application that might fit the practical difficulty cdteria but might not fit the access criteda with abutting properties. He suggested that this could set bad precedent for 30' wide lots on a lakewide basis. Hoff recommended the Board focus on the pre-existing lakeshore dghts if the Board has a desire to approve the proposed applications. He stated that he believed that this would not set a precedent for possible 30' wide lots that have other properties in the development that do not have riparian rights. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting 24, 2000 Page5 McMillan stated that the 30' wide street end, which is public land, is being deeded to specific properties within the subdivision. She questioned whether this is a bad precedent for the lake. Hoff stated that he understood the Settlement Agreement grants the City of Mound an easement through this land for docking purposes. He noted he believed the language in the Settlement Agreement does not attach these rights to specific properties within the subdivision. Mr. Mark Hanus, Mound City Council member, reminded the Board that the dparian dghts being discussed have already been deeded to residents of the subdivision since 1906. Ahrens stated that dghts to the street ends in this development are platted only to the residents of this development. -. Mr. Dan Hergott, an attomey that represents Mike Gardner whose property abuts one of these street ends, stated he believed a previous Court Order already states these street ends are owned by the abutting property owners. Mr. Jim Golembeck, representing the City of Mound, stated generally in the State of Minnesota, when a street is vacated, the abutting properties have ownership to the middle of it. He added once there is a street there, the abutting properties have continued ownership of the street; however, there is an easement over it for public purposes. He noted the road was designed to stop approximately within 50' from the lake because the lakeshore frontage between the street end and the lake was established for Commons area for docking purposes. He concluded for the purposes of the Settlement Agreement, the parties involved have agreed this to. Babcock stated that he understood the extension of the street end into the lake for docking purposes has been defined and assigned to the City of Mound in the Settlement Agreement. Hoff stated that he agreed with the interpretation outlined by Golembeck and Babcock. Babcock asked whether the City of Mound could provide docking for these residents in this subdivision without the need for the Distdct to grant variances. He stated that he was struggling with this issue and asked Hoff for insight on this. Hoff stated that he understood there are ways to provide for docking without the need for variances. He suggested the Board needs to consider what is reasonable for the applicant. He noted he was not prepared to respond to whether requiring the use of other city property, such as Canary Beach, is reasonable. Babcock stated that he believed the City of Mound could possibly use other properties within the subdivision for docking purposes. He added he believed the City of Mound could potentially place these docks at other locations within the city and not require variances from LMCD Code. He suggested that this should be explored. Ms. Allison Swanson, representing the City of Mound, stated that the Settlement Agreement calls for 22 boats to be stored within the Woddland Point development. She questioned whether it would be reasonable to transfer a docking dght to another location in the City of Mound when it currently is within walking distance from the homes affected by the Settlement Agreement. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 24, 2000 Page 8 Ahrens stated that she believed that this dock length was determined by staff what is workable, with specific emphasis on water depths. Babcock stated in order for the variance requests to be functional, the practical sense of the vadance requires navigation over the extended side site lines of the abutting properties for the inside BSU's. He added he believed these variances would be easier to grant if these inside BSU's went away. The Board continued discussion on the need for public navigation for the front BSU's Eom the authorized dock use areas of the abutting properties. There was no consensus from the Board on this issue. Hoff stated that the application being considered by the Board was brought forward by the City of Mound with a configuration that included no input from the abutting property owners for public navigation. He noted there has been significant discussion regarding public navigatioj3 easements with no definitive measurements. He recommended that there has been adequate discussion from the Board to applicant to send it back to staff to allow them to work with the applicant on a modified application addressing the concerns raised by the Board for the 6/14/00 meeting. Golembeck stated that he understood the issues raised by the Board that need to further evaluated include public navigation with the abutting property owners and the length of the dock structure and boats to be stored at the six sites. MOTION: Nelson moved, Partyka seconded top continue discussion of this agenda item to the 6/10/00 Regular Board meeting. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. The meeting was recessed at 9:00 p.m. and re-convened at 9:05 p.m. Ahrens left at 9:06 p.m. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers (5/16/00 - 5/31/00). Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers as submitted. He noted that check 13138 for $3,000 to Eller Media should be voided. MOTION: Ambrose moved, Dahlen seconded to approve the audit of vouchers, voiding check 13138. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. April financial summary and balance sheet. Nelson reviewed the April financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. MOTION: Babcock moved, Ambrose seconded to accept the Apdl financial summary and balance Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 24, 2000 sheet as submitted. Page 9 VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. C. Review draft 2001 LMCD Budget. Nelson asked Nybeck to summarize the draft 2001 LMCD Budget. Nybeck explained that he and Nelson had met on the week of May 15· to discuss and prepare the draft 2001 LMCD Budget for first review by the Board. He noted this is the first year in some time where the agreed upon reserves for Administration and EWU/Exotics have been met and that this is reflected in the draft budget. He added a meeting has been scheduled in the Distdct office with city officials 0.n Friday, 6/2/00, at 12 NOON. He stated comments from the member cities that canno~t attend this meeting are dui in the District office by 6121100. He concluded that the budget will be brought back to the Board at both meetings in June and that the adopted budget would be forwarded to the member cities by the 7/1/00 deadline outlined in the enabling legislation. Nelson stated that there had been discussion to increase the EWM depreciation expense from $10,000 to $12,000. Babcock stated that he believed the draft budget overall looked good, with the exception that the expense for the purchase of new computers might need to be increased. He noted he would sit down with staff and finalize the draft 2001 LMCD Budget in the near future. D. Additional business. There was no additional business. McMillan left at 9:20 p.m. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Ordinance Amendment, First Reading of an ordinance relating to the licensing of adult cabaret and exotic dancing on watercraft for hire; amending LMCD Code Chapter III, by adding new Section 3.075; and amending LMCD Code Sections 5.07 and 5.27. Babcock introduced this agenda item and asked for feedback from Board members. Nelson asked why this draft ordinance amendment was on the agenda. Babcock stated that it has come to the attention of staff that this type of activity might occur in the near future on a charter boat that has been recently purchased. Nelson stated he believed most Board members would not like this activity on Lake Minnetonka. He asked LeFevere why the District cannot just prohibit it from the lake. LeFevere stated the District cannot prohibit this activity because it would violate the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution for freedom of speech. He noted the Board could impose reasonable regulations. He stated one possible regulation that the Board could decide to impose is to not allow a liquor license to be approved in Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 24, 2000 Page 10 conjunction with these activities. He added that he believed it is in the best interest to have these reasonable regulations in place before one of these businesses is established. He recommended that the Board approve first reading of the ordinance amendment, waive second and third readings, and adopt the ordinance amendment, with the idea that it could always b~ amended further in the future. Kitchak stated that although he generally supported adopting an ordinance amendment that imposed reasonable regulations on these types of activities, he stated he was uncomfortable adopting the ordinance amendment after only first reading. He added he would be more comfortable with bringing it back for second reading at the next Board meeting. MOTION: VOTE: Partyka moved, Skramstad seconded to approve first reading, to waive second and third readings, and adopt an ordinance amendment relating to the licensing of adult cabaret and exotic dancing on watercraft for hire. :" - -'~ Motion carded unanimously. B. Discussion of how to proceed with the possibility of secudng additional intoxicating liquor licenses to be issued to charter boats on Lake Minnetonka. The consensus of the Board was to direct staff to have this placed on an agenda at a future Mayors meeting for discussion purposes. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. EVVM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A. Minutes from the 5/12/00 EWM Exotics Task Force meeting. MOTION: Nelson moved, Ambrose seconded to approve l~e 5/12/00 EWM Exotics Task Force meeting Minutes as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously B. Additional Business. There was no additional business 5. SAVE THE LAKE There was no discussion. 6. ADMINISTRATION There was no discussion. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 24, 2000 Page 11 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck made the following comments: · The oral arguments for LMCD v. Lynn Homer is scheduled for the Minnesota Supreme Court at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, 5/30/00. · The lake level as of 5/22/00 was 928.24'. · The public safety buoys for Cruiser's Cove are scheduled to be placed in the water on Thursday, 5/23/00, for the Memorial Day weekend. He added a joint press conference with Lt. Schilling has been scheduled with the local media for Fdday, 5/24100, at 10 a.m. · He added he believed there is a need to evaluate boat clubs on Lake Minnetonka and whether there is a need to regulate them similar to watercraft for hire. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business [0. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjoumed the meeting at 10:01 p,m. Douglas Babcock, Chairman Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Kandis Hanson ChiefLen Harrell Monthly Report for June, 2000 STATISTICS The police department responded to 578 calls for service during the month of June. There were 29 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 aggravated assaults, 1 criminal sexual conduct, 5 burglaries, and 21 larcenies. There were 69 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 child abuse/neglect, 1 weapons, 8 criminal damage to property, 3 narcotics, 13 liquor law violations, 9 DUI's, 2 simple assaults, 13 domestics (8 with assaults), 4 harassment, 2 trespassing, and 8 other offenses. The patrol division issued 155 adult and 2 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 23 tickets. Warnings were issued to 79 individuals for a variety of violations. There were 3 juveniles arrested for felonies and 27 adults and 9 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. Theire was 1 adult felony warrant arrest and 5 misdemeatior adult warrant arrests. The department assisted in 21 vehicle accidents; 7 with injuries. There were 23 medical emergencies and 45 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 28 occasions in June and requested assistance 8 times. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - June, 2000 II. INVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on 5 child protection issues and 1 criminal sexual conduct case in June accounting for 46 in investigative time. Other cases included assault, burglary, theft, DWI, narcotics, absenting, damage to vehicle, trespass, violation of an OFP, harassment, found property, and NSF checks. III. Formal complaints were issued for two cases of issuing worthless checks. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 87 hours of overtime during the month of June. Officers used 51.5 hours of comp-time, 20.5 hours of sick time, 160 hours of vacation, 11 holidays and 24 hours of funeral leave. Officers earned 90.5 hours of comp time. IV. TRAINING Officer Swensen completed training with "Ranger" at canine school. Officers attended sexual harassment training, defensive tactics, road spike/pursuit training, Emergency Management training, false alarm reduction, and National Crime Information Center mining. COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER Applications have been received for a new CSO and are currently being evaluated for the selection process. VI. RESERVES The reserves donated 170.25 hours of community service in the month of June. Mound City Days was again a success, from a public safety standpoint, because of the tremendous efforts of our police reserves! MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT JUNE 2000 PART I CRIMES OFfeNSES CLEARED EXCEPT- CLEARED BY ARRESTED REPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARED ARREST ADULT JUV Homicide 0 0 0 0 Criminal Sexual Conduct 1 0 0 1 Robbery 0 0 0 0 Aggravated Assault 2 1 1 0 Burglary 5 0 0 0 Larceny 21 1 1 1 Vehicle Theft 0 0 0 0 Arson 0 0 0 0 TOTAL PART II CRIMES 29 2 2 2 Child Abuse/Neglect 2 2 0 0 Forgery/NSF Checks 0 0 0 0 Criminal Damage to Property 8 1 0 0 Weapons 1 0 0 1 Narcotic Laws 3 0 0 3 Liquor Laws 13 0 0 13 DWI 9 0 0 9 Simple Assault 2 0 1 1 Domestic Assault 8 1 1 3 Domestic (No Assault) 5 0 0 0 Harassment 4 0 1 0 Juvenile Status Offenses 4 0 0 2 Public Peace 0 0 0 0 Trespassing 2 0 1 1 All Other Offenses 8 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 10 4 8 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 TOTAL 69 4 4 35 27 9 PART II & PART IV Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations 14 7 0 23 45 28 356 TOTAL 473 HCCP Inspections TOTAL 578 37 27 12 MOUND POLICE DEPA/{TMENT CRIbIE ACTIVIT~f P. EPORT JT3NE 2000 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY Hazardous Citations Non-Hazardous Citations Hazardous Warnings Non-Hazardous Warnings Verbal Warnings Parking Citations DWI Over .10 Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Adult Felony Arrests Adult Misdemeanor Arrests Juvenile Felony Arrests Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests Part I Offenses Part II Offenses Medicals Animal Complaints Ordinance Violations Other Public Contacts THIS YEAR TO LAST YEA~R MONTH DATE TO DATE 120 680 446 22 165 ~32 18 160 118 39 394 298 88 505 481 23 162 196 8 36 25 7 31 23 14 58 40 7 17 16 0 1 0 1 7 12 32 167 137 3 10 12 9 59 44 29 120 90 69 345 235 23 173 160 45 327 326 2 257 151 356 2,433 4,378 TOTAL Assists Follow-Ups '~ .~-~ HCCP Mutual Aid Given Mutal Aid Requested 915 6,107 7,420 '~1 441 293 49 222 119 5 30 19 28 123 88 9 44 39 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT JUNE 2000 CITATIONS DWI More Than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired or No Plates Stop Arm Violations Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Code Enforcement Seat Belt Overweight Vehicles Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL 9 7 1 8 0 75 2 0 9 1 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 23 13 6 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT JUNE 2000 WARNINGS Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRANT ARRESTS Felony Misdemeanor 27 16 10 0 2 5 0 0 0 10 7O 1 5 Juveniles 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mound Police For MAN0271300 NCIC lncident. DateCommittedStart Between 05/26/00 06/25/00 CaseProperty. RecordType Equal STOLEN Property Value Report Property Class Class Extension B - Bicycles Bicycle TOTAL: B - Bicycles CD CHANGER/AMP Unknown TOTAL: CD CHANGER/AMP Consumable Goods Unknown Liquor TOTAL: Consumable Goods E - Consumer Items Cigarettes TOTAL: E - Consumer Items J - Jewelry & precious Metals DIAMOND EARRINGS/TENNIS BRACELET TOTAL: J - Jewelry & precious Metals O - Office Equipment Cellular Phone TOTAL: O - Office Fxluipment P - Personal Accessories Other TOTAL: P - Personal Accessories S - Sports Equipment Unknown Fishing Equipment Golf Clubs TOTAL: S - S0orts Equipment T - Currency, Negotiable bonds Thursday, June 29, 2000 Record Type Items Dollar Value Stolen 3 1,025.00 3 1,025.00 Stolen 1-'- 750.00 1 750.00 Stolen I 1.00 Stolen 1 9.00 2 10.00 Stolen 1 12,791.00 1 12,791.00 Stolen 1 2,500.00 1 2,500.00 Stolen 2 440.00 2 440.00 Stolen 1 274.00 1 274.00 Stolen 1 450.00 Stolen 1 725.00 Stolen 2 925.00 4 2, I00.00 Licensed to Mound Police Department Page: 1 'roperty Value Report 'ropcrt~ CLass Class Extension Mound Police For M~0271300 lqCIC Incident. DateCommittedStart Between 05/26/00 06/25/00 CaseProperty. RecordType Equal STOLEN Unknown TOTAL: T - Currency, Negotiable bonds W - Auto Parts & Equip Unknown Radar Detector TIKE, RIM, LUG NUTS TOTAL: W - Auto Parts & Eouip X- Equipment/tools Weed Cutter TOTAL: X - Equipment/tools Y - All Other Unknown 2 POTTED PLANTS CEMENT DUCK FIREWOOD GaS GASOLINE PerSIAN RUG/QUILT TOTAL: Y - Ail Other 'Fhursday, 5une 9-9, 9-OOO Record Tyl~e Items Dollar Value Stolen 2 120.00 2 120.00 Stolen I 50.00 Stolen 1 150.00 Stolen 1 160.00 3 360.00 Stolen 1 100.00 1 100.00 Stolen 2 26.00 Stolen I 40.00 Stolen I 25.00 Stolen 1 12.00 Stolen 1 50.00 Stolen 1 26.00 Stolen 1 775.00 8 954.00 OVERALL TOTAL... 29 21,424.00 Licensed to Mound Police Department Page: 2 Property Value Report Property Class Class Extension B - Bicycles Unknown TOTAL: B - Bi~cles Consumable Goods Unknown TOTAL: Consumable Goods Y - All Other Unknown TOTAL: Y - All Other Mound Police For MN0271300 NCIC Incident. DateReported Between 05/26100 06/25100 CaseProperty. RecordType Equal RECOVERED Wednesday, June 28, 2000 Record Tvoe Items Dollar Value Recovered 1 125.00 1 125.00 Recovered 1 1.00 1 1.00 Recovered 1 5.00 1 5.00 OVERALL TOTAL... 3 131.00 Licensed to Mound Police Department Page: 1