2000-08-22PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CEL PHONES & PAGERS l]g COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2000, 7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PAGE
2. APPROVE AGENDA.
*CONSENT AGENDA
*A. APPROVE MINUTES: AUGUST 8, 2000, REGULAR MEETING. 3580-3597
*B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF BILLS ................... 3598-3615
*C.
APPROVE A RESOLUTION OPPOSING WINE IN GROCERY
STORES .................................... 3616-3618
*D.
SET MEETING DATES:
1. ACTION MOVING SEPT 12, REGULAR MEETING
TO SEPT 13, TO INCLUDE ELECTION CANVASSING,
DUE TO PRIMARY ELECTION.
ACTION SETTING SPECIAL MEETINGS FOR 2001 BUDGET
WORKSHOP: 6:00 PM, AUG 29 & OCT 3.
ACTION SETTING APPRECIATION EVENT FOR BOARDS
AND COMMISSIONS: OCT 3.
*E.
APPROVE PAYMENT REQUESTS:
1. PAYMENT #1 TO KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION CO, INC FOR
AUDITOR'S ROAD ....................... 3619-3623
FINAL PAYMENT TO ALLLIED BLACKTOP COMPANY
FOR ANNUAL SEAL COAT PROJECT ........... 3624-3625
*F.
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:
CASE #00-39: VARIANCE - TODD HOVREN -
4552 DENBIGH ROAD ......................... 3626-3634
3578
PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CEL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY
ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.)
5. PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
FOR APPOINTMENT ............................... 3635-3642
6. DISCUSSION ON CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL, INCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
FOR WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER: SEPT 13 ................... 3643
7. CASE #00-47: VARIANCE - TOM STOKES - 5212 WATERBURY ROAD3644-3668
8. RAYMAR PROPERTIES, INC .......................... 3669-3677 A. ACTION AMENDING RESOLUTION.
B. ACTION ON AGREEMENT.
9. DISCUSSION OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT POLICY ISSUES... 3678-3680
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: POSSIBLE LITIGATION
11. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda the
night of the meeting. More current meeting agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the CitY
of Mound web site: www. tranweb, com/cityofmound.
AMM Fax News ............................... 3681-3683
Letter on Westonka Senior Center Fund Drive ................ 3684
Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative minutes: June 16... 3685-3686
Planning Commission draft minutes: August 14 ............ 3687-3698
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District newsletter: Aug 9 ..... 3699-3700
Policy Reminder: Water shortages ....................... 3701
Article: How fair are your zoning hearings? ............. 3702-3703
Open Space open house tallies and comments ............. 3704-3709
Financial reports through July 1, 2000 ................. 3710-3712
3579
PUBLIC NOTICE
Mayor Meisel has called a Special Meeting of the Mound City Council for 6:00 p.m.,
August 29, 2000. The purpose of the meeting is a Budget Workshop, for consideration of
the 2001 Budget. Food will be provided.
Kandis Hanson
City Manager
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 8, 2000
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, August 8, 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 Meisel. Also in attendance were
City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Fran Clark, City
Planner Loren Gordon, John Cameron, City Engineer, and Recording Secretary Diana
Mestad. The following interested citizens were also present: Jo Longmire; Bruce and Patti
Dodds; Amy Cicchese; Bill and Dorothy Netka; Lorrie Ham, The Laker; Peter Meyer;
Thomas Walsh; Todd Warner; Jane Carlsen; Scott Picha; Jason Lawly; Bob Best; Ron
I-Iiecmer, Rottlund Homes; Richard Palmitor, Rottlund Homes; Tim Whitten, Rottlund
Homes; Bart Roeglin; Phil Mitchum; Tom and Amy Reese; Steve Wagner; Barb Robert;
John Royer; Glenn Smith.
*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..7:30 p.m. and welcomed the people in
attendance. The pledge of allegiance was recited. ~
APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
The City Manager amended the Agenda to include her report as Item 4A. The City Clerk
amended the Consent Agenda to include Resolution g00-74 as Item 3D and Resolution//00-
75 as item 3E. Council Member Ahrens removed Item C from the Consent Agenda for
discussion. Council Member Weycker removed Item B from the Consent Agenda for
discussion.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to approve the Agenda and Consent
Agenda as amended above. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
4-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1.0 APPROVE M1NUTF3: JULY 25. 2000. REGULAR MEETING.
Brown, Ahreus, unanimously.
Mound City Council Minutes. August 8. 2000
*1.1
'1.2
APPROVE g00-72 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ELECTION JUDGES AS
RECOMMENDED FOR THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS
SEPTEMBER 12. 2000 & NOVEMBER 7. 2000.
RESOLUTION//00-72
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ELECTION JUDGES AS
RECOMMENDED FOR ~ PRIMARY AND
GENERAL ~TIONS S~ER 12, 2000 &
NOVEMBER 7, 2000.
Brown, Ahrens, unanimously.
APPROVE//00-73 RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING CITY
SPONSERSHIP OF STATED GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS.
RESOLUTION g00-73
RESOLUTION REAFFIR_MING AUTHORIZING
CITY SPONSERSHIP OF STATED GRANT-IN-AID
SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS.
Brown, Ahrens, unanimously.
1.3 PAYMENT OF BILLS.
Council Member Weycker questioned the Depot repair bill being charged against the Park
Dept. Budget. She thought that the rental monies for the Depot were being used to pay for
Depot repairs. Acting Mayor Hanus asked what specifically Council Member Weycker
wanted to do. Council Member Weycker stated that the bill should be paid, but she wished
clarification on this in the future. The city Manager stated that it had originally been
decided that this would be reviewed at budget time.-
MOTION, by Weycker, seconded by Brown to approve payment of the bills.
The roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0.
1.4 RESOLUTION OPPOSING WINE IN GROCERY STORES.
Council Member Ahrens stated that there is a Bill proposed in the next legislative session in
reference to this issue. She stated that she would like to discuss this, as she does not feel
enough information has been given.
Council Member Ahrens stated that on the surface it appeared that selling wine in grocery
stores would hurt the municipal liquor store, but that she was not sure exactly what is being
referred to as wine. Council Member Brown stated that this referred to all wines including
spicy teas and wine coolers. He further stated that he felt this made the products too
accessible.
2
Mound City COuncil Minutes. August 8. 2000
Acting Mayor I-Ianus stated that he assumes that the proposed legislation would also look into
prohibiting off sale when there is municipal liquor store in the city.
The City Manager stated that the Liquor Store Manager could be invited to a future Council
meeting to answer some of the questions.
Acting Mayor Hanus stated that there was no hurry to decide this and the issue could be
tabled.
Council Member Ahrens stated that she wished to know exactly what the proposed Bill
would include.
MOTION, by Weycker, seconded by Ahrens, to table this matter. The vote was
nnanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0.
1.5
COMME~S AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT
SUKIECTS NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER
SUBJECT.)
There were no comments from the citizens present.
1.6 CITY MANAGER REPORT.
The City Manager stated that she visited three parks that were open for the National Night
Out, and that she felt this was a great opportunity to meet Mound citizens.
The City Manager wished to inform the citizens that the City of Mound has three sirens
located throughout the community. She stated thatJ, hese are outdoor warning systems only
and are not meant to penetrate homes that are closed up. She further stated that there are
products available for purchase from electronic stores that will sound an alarm within the
home and that citizens may wish to consider this option.
The City Manager announced that the City of Mound is in the second cut position for receipt
of a Livable Communities Grant. The means that the City is still in the running for a
$900,000 grant to benefit the community. $400,000 of this grant would go to the downtown
development relevant to transportation.
1.7
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//00-38 BRISTOL CLASSICS CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT - 2642 COMMERCE BOULEVARD.
The City Planner stated that the intention of the owner was to use this site as a point of sale
and as a place to introduce customers to the wooden boat market. He stated that this facility
would not be used for restoration, but would be used for sales. The City Planner stated that
Mound City COuncil Minutes. August 8. 2000
Staff is excited to introduce the lake into the downtown with this business. He stated that
Staff has a couple of issues noted in the resolution.
In reference to these issues, the City Planner stated that one issue to be addressed is the
gravel parking lot. Staff would like a hard surface, and the Planning Commission
recommended an 18-month deadline to do this. In reference to the zoning issues, this district
is a Blwith a 45-foot separation from the neighboring residential district and a variance has
been included for this. The current hardcover is 90 percent and this issue is recognized in
the Resolution.
The City Planner stated that the general consensus is that this is a good business, but Staff
does not want this to turn into a boat storage lot and so a 72-hour limitation on keeping a
boat outside the building is recommended.
Council Member Brown stated that the Planning Commission was concerned about boats
being kept outside. He confirmed that these are expensive wooden boats and it would not be
reasonable to leave them outside to be subjected to the weather. Council Member Brown
stated that he likes the addition of this business to the City.
Council Member Ahrens asked if a boat could actually be outside for 72 hours according to
the proposal. The City Planner stated that yes, that would be possible and that the
understanding was that a boat would be in the showroom and moved in and out of building.
Council Member Ahrens stated that this is the first lake-oriented business in Mound and she
is glad to see it.
Todd Warner, Bristol Classics, Ltd., (Mahog~y Bay) stated that he has lived in Mound
since 1976. He is looking to expand his base on I.~ke Minnetonka. Mr. Warner showed the
Council a conceptual sketch of the building. He stated that the interior has been demolished
and they are working to get a building permit and occupy it in 90 days. Mr. Warner stated
that he has 10 full time employees and 17 restorers in other shops.
Council Member Brown spoke about the possibility of a cable TV program featuring Mr.
Wamer's business that would originate in Mound. Mr. Warner stated that a TV pilot has
been completed and if developed, the show would include traveling to areas around the
country where antique boats are located.
Acting Mayor Hanus opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Kirby Alexson, Kirby's Bait, stated that he was concerned about the parking lot in front of
his shop that is shared with the property owned by Mr. Warner. He stated that this area
connects to the boat landing and is a convenience for his customers. He wondered if this
shared area would continue.
4
Mound City COuncil Minutes. August 8. 2000
The City Planner stated that the curb is at the top of the rise and that is the access to the
park. Acting Mayor Hanus confirmed that people driving through would be on both private
lands.
Mr. Alexson again asked whether he would continue to have access to the boat landing in
this way. Thc City Planner stated that thc idea was to have thc access from the driveway to
the boat landing without crossing Kirby's property. The City Planner further stated that
there were no records of easements allowing cross movement. He also said that the idea was
to get this firmed up in the future, and that this was not currently an ideal situation.
Acting Mayor Hanus stated that this was more of a personal matter between the two property
owners and they should work out an agreement. The City Planner suggested that because
there is access on a public street to the landing, the City should stay out of this. If the
owners desire to enter into access easements, the City could then support that decision.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Axelson whether he would consider blacktopping at the
same time as Mr. Warner. Mr. Axelson stated that he is willing to look into this and discuss
it with Mr. Warner.
Mr. Axelson stated that there is limited parking at the adjoining park now and these parking
lots are used for park events after closing time for the businesses and feels there may be need
for No Parking signs.
Acting Mayor Hanus asked if the intent was to stripe the surface of the parking lot. Mr.
Warner stated that he had not yet given consideration to this. Acting Mayor Hanus pointed
out that the striping would create a more efficient parking system. Mr. Warner stated that he
is concerned about having a crisp and professional look to the business.
Tom Reese, 5641 Bartlett, stated that he supports this project. He feels the hard surfacing
requirement should be enforced for appemance and safety. He stated that he had been
concerned about outside boat storage, but feels this question has been answered. Mr. Reese
is concerned about outdoor lighting and would like to see some type of restrictions on this.
Tom Walsh, 5770 Bartlett, stated that he is concerned about the proposed restrictions on
parking boats outside and wonders if this will be enforceable. Acting Mayor Hanus stated
that because this is a Conditional Use Permit, both the outdoor boat parking restrictions and
the hard surfacing requirement would need to be met or the Permit could be pulled.
Mr. Walsh asked for confn'mation that there would be no boat repair on the premises.
Mr. Walsh inquired about future businesses developed on the property. Acting Mayor Hanus
stated that as long as the business conformed to the zone, it would not require an
amendment. Mr. Walsh stated that he was concerned about a boat rental business. The City
Attorney stated the he doubted that such a use would be conforming.
5
Mound City Council Minutes. August 8. 2000
Mr. Walsh wondered what the timeline for exterior improvements was. Council Member
Ahrens stated that the Conditional Use Permit would not impact exterior improvements, as
that would be a building permit process. Mr. Walsh wanted assurance that plans to improve
the property would go forward. Acting Mayor Hanus asked if that ould be made a
provision of the Conditional Use Permit. The City Attorney pointed out a Conditional Use
Permit regulates the useof the property not the agrpearance.
The City Planner stated that there was not a specific boat rental use laid out in the code, but
his first impression was that if there were another use that is complimentary it could be
regulated as a Conditional Use. Acting Mayor Hanus asked the City Planner if in his
opinion, a boat rental business would require a Conditional Use Permit. The City Planner
stated yes.
Ken Custer, 5310 Bartlett, stated that he has done work for Mr. Warner and feels that he is a
very neat person who will take good care of the property.
Acting Mayor Hanus dosed the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m.
The following resolution was moved by Brown, and seconded by Weycker:
RESOLUTION g00-74
Dicussion:
RF_~OLUTION TO APPRROVE A CONDmONAL
USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR 2642
COMMERCE BLVD. FOR THE PURPOSES OF A
BOAT AND MARINE SALES AND MER~ISE
BUSINESS, UNPLATTED LAND, PID//23-117-24 14
0008, P & Z CASE//00-38
Acting Mayor Hanus offered an amendment to change lA to read as follows:
"Require all sales or storage of any merchandise be located within the building and
outside display or storage of any boats to be limited to 72 hours."
Acting Mayor Hanus asked Mr. Warner what outdoor lighting was proposed in on the
back or side of the building. Mr. Warner stated that security lighting would be a
possibility, but no other lighting is in the plan at this time. Acting Mayor Hanus
pointed out that there are codes on the books now regarding lighting. The City
Planner stated that if a lighting plan was submitted, then Staff would review it, but
there are currently standards in the code that can be used to control the lighting.
The City Planner offered an amendment to change ID to read as follows: "A
building setback variance of 45 feet is granted from the residential district."
6
Mound City Council Minutes. August 8. 2000
Council Member Ahrens offered an amendment to change 'granted" to 'recognized'.
Council Members Brown and Weycker agreed to accept the amendments.
Mr. Warner asked for clarification on the wording. Acting Mayor I-Ianus read the
amendments back and stated that what is being removed is redundant wording from
the original resolution.
Mr. Warner stated that he d°es not want to mislead the Council and that boats might
be dropped off in the spring and fall at this site as a transfer station.
Council Member Weycker stated that too many boats are a concern. Mr. Warner
stated this would be used as a transfer station and not for storage.
Acting Mayor Hanus asked what the number of boats at any one time would be. Mr.
Warner stated that at the height of activity, the number of boats outside on the lot
could be 3 or 4 parked to the side, with maybe 2 to 4 being hunched at times.
Acting Mayor Hanus stated that there was a concern that if there were 10 boats; it
would look like a boat lot. Mr. Warner did not feel this would resemble a boat
storage lot and emphasized that he wants a professional look to this site. Mr. Warner
stated that he would not have room for more than four boats off to the side and, in
any case, felt this would be an excessive amount of boats. Mr. Warner stated that he
has a lot of storage space inside the building for the boats.
The City Attorney stated that as the resolution is written, there is no limit on the
number of boats that could be outside and if a limit is desirable, it should be included
in the resolution.
The City Planner stated there were approxin'~ately 8 parking spots in the parking lot.
The City Attorney asked how many spots were required. The City Planner stated that
8 are required.
The City Attorney asked if there was additional storage space available on the lot.
The City Planner said there was room on the north side of the building for storage.
The City Planner stated that the Planning Commission also talked about designating
an area for the boats. Council Member Brown stated there was discussion of limiting
Mr. Warner to 2 boats outside at any one time.
Mr. Warner stated that part of what has been talked about with the building plans is
to be able to have a protective canopy that boats can sit under during the day for
display.
7
Mound City COUncil Minutes. August 8. 2000
Acting Mayor Hanus suggested making this a one-year conditional use permit to
determine what the number of boats really is and to discuss this issue in one year if
there is a problem. Mr. Warner suggested seeing how the business operates through
one full season.
Acting Mayor Hanus asked about any problems with timing on this. The City
Attorney said there was no problem, but did point out that the applicant will have a
significant financial investment by the time of the second look making it more
difficult to change at that point. Acting Mayor Hanus agreed with this, but did not
want to place unnecessary restrictions on the business.
Council Member Brown stated that at the Planning Commission, the neighbors were
concerned about massive amounts of boats and he thought it was a good idea to let the
neighbors see what happens for a period of time.
Council Member Weycker stated that this could be worded so that if there were
complaints, the issue could be revisited. Mr. Warner stated that he was
uncomfortable with a conditional use with a time limit when he is investing in the
property in good faith.
The City Attorney asked the City Planner if there were general restrictions in that
district for outside storage. The City Planner stated that currently the restriction was
none, but there could be no open sales lots.
Acting Mayor I-Ianus stated that he appreciates Mr. Wamer's comments but wants
him to understand that this is next to a residential area and he is asking for a variance
to be closer to residents than the code allows.
Mr. Warner suggested letting the neighbors'decide, and further stated that he wishes
to be a good neighbor and get along.
Acting Mayor Hanus questioned whether if the Conditional Use Permit does not
address this issue, is there authority to bring the Conditional Use Permit back. The
City Attorney stated that if the conditional use permit does address these issues, and
does not place a limitation on the number of boats, he would be concerned about
bringing the CUP back. He also stated that conditional use permits move with the
property and the right for outside storage will pass to the next owner of the same type
of business.
Council Member Weycker stated that this is not an issue of trust with the current
applicant, but that the concern is that the property could change hands.
Council Member Brown stated that the City does not want to see a marina on this
spot.
8
Mound City Council Minutes. August 8. 2000
Council Member Weycker asked it~ parking requirements could be used to regulate
this. The City Planner showed a drawing indicating the proposed parking spaces.
Council Member Weycker called the question.
Council Member Hanus restated the Motion including the amendments.
Council Member Ahrens asked whether in the unlikely event boat storage becomes a
problem, can the neighborhood be appeased? The City Attorney said if it is not a
nuisance and is not violating off street requirements, there is nothing the City can do.
The vote was -nanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0.
1.8
DICUSSION/ACTION ON CASE//00-22 & 00-23: LANGDON BAY PUD AND
STREET VACATION.
The City Planner summarized the issues involved. He stated that the Wara project in
Minnetrista is planned to have access out to Westedge with about 65 lots. Minnetrista is not
moving forward until a resolution with the railroad is reached. The City Planner feels that
Westedge should be able to handle the volume from the Langdon and Wara developments if
it is improved.
The City Planner stated that in reference to tree preservation, Staff likes the idea of working
with the developer to establish grading limits. The idea is to look at the secondary area on
the lots where the grade will not be impacted as substantially. Staff recommendation is for
roping and staking of areas for preservation..
The City Planner stated that the elevation at Westetlge and Lynwood is an issue. He showed
photos taken yesterday of this area and discussed trees that are within the right of way that
would be lost to the grading.
In reference to the questions about parks, the City Planner stated that Staff was asked to look
at the contours of the land adjacent to the lake. Staff found this to be steeper than originally
thought on one portion, but the remainder is relatively flat. The City Planner showed photos
that indicated reed grass growing in the lowest spot.
Staff questioned what the value of this lake piece would be if it was not accepted as
parkland. The City Planner stated that staff feels this piece is a good one for the City to
have as it protects the area between the railroad and the lake. If the parkland were to move,
Staff suggests also looking at the trail arrangement.
Council Member Brown stated that he liked using the sliver of land for benches and feels it
is an important buffer. He further stated that he has looked at the property on Westedge and
9
Mound City Council Minutes. August 8. 2000
Lynwood and feels thc property owner will loose a lot of land. Acting Mayor Hanus stated
that this land was currently in the public right of way and that no personal property would be
lost.
Council Member Weycker asked about the width of the road and whether it had to be at the
stated width. The City Planner stated that this is a collector road and will carry more traffic
and, therefore, needs more width. Staff is recommending that the road be 32 feet in width.
The City Engineer confirmed this.
Acting Mayor Hanus asked where the dirt road runs in the right of way. The City Engineer
stated that no surveys had been done, but the right of way is 66 feet and he did not know
where it hit the road. He felt it was fairly close to the center.
Council Member Weycker asked if Minnetrista was aware of the proposal. The City Planner
stated that there have been two meetings and a number of phone calls with the City of
Minnetrista. They are aware that the road will be developed to an urban standard on the
Mound side.
Acting Mayor Hanus asked if the Council had more questions for Staff. There were none
and the applicant was invited to come forward
Tim Whitten, The Rottlund Company, stated that they are comfortable with the Resolution as
written. In reference to Westedge Road, Rottlund is not comfortable with including the
sidewalk along the Mound side. Rottlund does not feel there is a need for the sidewalk and
is not willing to pay for it. Mr. Whitten feels the sidewalk will complicate the grading and
drainage. He further stated that there is still an issue of permits for having the models open
prior to completion of the streets and the use of temporary signage during the marketing
period. In reference to the park area, they l~ave looked at an alternative to the original
proposal. The trail would remain as originally pro'posed with enlargement of the park to be
graded and seeded. The area near the lake that is upland would be dedicated to the City.
Rottlund is willing to grade that piece to make it more useable. The total amount of land
proposed is 1.9 acres, which is .8 short. Rather than the gazebo originally proposed,
Rottlund now proposes putting in a $30,000 play structure and $30,000 in cash to complete
the park package obligation.
Acting Mayor Hanus stated that one week ago he walked the property with Mayor Meisel
with the specific intent of looking at the Lake Langdon area and its potential value to the
City. They did not feel it would serve the city. To make an improved trail, it would be
necessary to cut into a hill and would require retaining walls. Acting Mayor Hanus does feel
the new proposed higher land would be a nice area for viewing the lake. He finds this new
plan more palatable.
Council Member Brown stated that he really likes the bigger property for the park with
playground equipment and the land overlooking the lake.
10
Mound City Council Minutes. August 8. 2000
Council Member Weycker asked about who would retain ownership for the area left by the
lake. l~r. Whitten said it would be the homeowner's association or the City could have the
land if they wanted it.
The City Attorney asked the City Planner ff the City would benefit from ownership of the
lower portion of the land. The City Planner stated it would probably be in the City's best
interest to have the land from a hardcover standpoint. The City Attorney pointed out that the
Lake Langdon land would allow the City credit from the DNR for the watershed.
Council Member Weycker stated that if a park was there, public access to the water should
be there.
Council Member Hanus felt that because the City had so much frontage on this lake, he did
not feel a few more feet was an issue. Council Member Weycker felt that lakeshore was too
valuable to the public to give any up.
The City Manager stated she felt there could be some issues arising because of trespassing
and garbage. Council Member Hanus stated that the delineation between the lands was a
cliff.
The City Manager asked what the maintenance issues would be and how the public would
know where the private land began. Council Member Ab_tens stated that signs were a
possibility.
Acting Mayor Hanus stated that he did not want the piece to count toward parkland, but
otherwise he did not mind if the City kept it. Acting Mayor Hanus asked Rottlund if the
land had value to them. Mr. Whitten stated, it did not, and the City could have it at no cost.
Council Member Brown asked for clarification on s~gnage for the resolution. Acting Mayor
Hanus stated it would be added as numbers 29 and 30 on page 3486. The City Planner stated
that if all were in agreement this could be part of the Motion and the details put in the
development contract and final plat.
Acting Mayor Hanus stated that on p. 3432 bottom line "WHEREAS, impervious cover for
the project .......... "is confusing. The City Planner stated this line should be struck.
Acting Mayor Hanus stated that on p.3434 No. 2 referring to the development contract
timeline is unclear as to what needs to be completed. The City Planner suggested changing
the word ~items~ in this statement to public imrovements:
Council Member Weycker stated that No. 26 on p 3436 needed work on the language.
Acting Mayor Hanus asked how Council felt about the sidewalk requirement. Council
Member Brown stated that he did not feel the sidewalk was necessary. Acting Mayor Hanus
11
Mound City Council Minutes. Auimst 8. 2000
stated that he felt some day the sidewalks would be needed, but with the current situation, he
could agree that the sidewalks not be done. Council Member Hanus asked if there was
room if the current road was in the center of the right of way. The City Engineer said there
was definitely room. Council Member Brown wanted to delete the sidewalk language.
Council Member Ahrens agreed with this.
Council Member Weycker asked how if the street would be striped and whether there would
be a bike trial. The City Engineer said there would not be room for this stripe.
The City Planner stated that discussions at Staff level determined that the sidewalk is not an
item that would be used now, but in the future it would be a heavily used connection to the
Council Member Brown stated that he felt that he did not want the Mound citizens to pay
more if Minnetrista was not contributing. The City Attorney stated that everyone agrees the
sidewalk is going in before needed, but that is because there is a funding source now that
will not be there in the future. He suggested that there could be a provision put in to escrow
money to do this in the future and to return the funds if the sidewalk was not installed in a
certain time period. Mr. Whitten stated that Rottlund did not want to pay for the sidewalk.
The City Manager asked what was happening with the trail on the east side. Mr. Whitten
stated that this was staying and Rottlund was paying for it. Council Member Weycker
pointed out that this trail could be used for walking or biking.
Acting Mayor Hanus agreed that help to pay does exist today, but that the road is far more
expensive and of more concern.
Acting Mayor Hanus stated that on p. 3435 No. 19 the word ``required" should be moved
before "permits." ~'
Council Member Weycker asked about the radius mm from the fire department that is
requested at 75 feet. The City Engineer feels this is way off.
The City Engineer stated that he wants Ms lune 26 engineering report referred to in the
Resolution as this includes points that are not listed otherwise.
Acting Mayor Hanus asked how to incorporate the new land proposal in the Resolution. The
City Planner suggested accepting the overhead as an exhibit.
The City Attorney suggested that on p. 3434, Items 5 and 6 after "Westedge Blvd." add the
following language: "such agreement shall be negotiated prior to final plat approval."
12
Mound City COuncil Minutes. August 8. 2000
Mr. Whitten asked ff the final plat might be held up in relationship to needing an agreement
with Minnetrista. The City Attorney said yes, because the project is moving into a different
city, they could hold this up.
The City Attorney stated that this brought up the issue as to whether to let this development
go forward with the possibility that the rom may never be improved. Counci~ Member
Ahrens asked if this would include the watermain.
The City Engineer stated that Rottlund's obligation for the watermain extended to the border
and the City's obligation starts after that. He is recommending that this be extended, and
that this will be in Minnetrista. The City Engineer is unsure if there would need to be an
easement, but he felt the project could not be done without the watermain looping. It is the
City Engineer's opinion that Minnetrista could hold this project up.
Mr. Whitten stated Rotflund is committed to paying the funds for the watermain looping.
The City Engineer stated that the proposed loop is necessary to maintain firefighting
capabilities and water pressure.
Council Member Brown asked about directional drilling and if they could they go straight
ahead. Acting Mayor Hanus stated he thought this would require an easement from the
railroad.
The City Attorney suggested a condition for final plat approval to be resolution of the water-
main issue in order to allow time to work on this.
The City Manager stated that her meeting w~th the Minnetrista developer has indicated his
willingness to work together on the watermairi' issu~e.
The City Attorney stated that in terms of language on page 3434 No. 5, that as long as the
cost is secured, the City is not prepared to require the road to be constructed prior to final
platting.
Council Member Ahrens asked what would guarantee that the City is in possession of the
funds. The City Attorney said this would be in the development contract.
The City Manager clarified that the road was a City project and the City Planner confirmed
this.
Acting Mayor I4_anus asked if Council was clear on the City Attorney's changes. The
Council agreed that they were.
Council Member Brown confirmed that the sidewalk language was being removed and this
was agreed to by Council.
13
Mound City Council Minutes. August 8. 2000
Acting Mayor Hanus stated that a public hearing was already held on this issue and was
closed. He stated that he would allow people to bring new information forward, but asked
that it be kept to a minute or two.
The City Manager stated that should the project be assessed, there would be another public
hearing held at that time.
Acting Mayor Hanus confirmed that the assessed portion would be one-quarter. The City
Engineer stated that the City and county would also contribute to this cost and this would be
discussed at the public hearings.
Bart Roeglin, 2260 Westedge, asked how the land being offered near the lake would be
accessed, as this was private property. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that this is currently
being worked on in terms of a vacation from the railroad and that there is access from the
south. Mr. Roeglin stated that this area was fenced, but Acting Mayor Hanus stated he had
recently walked through there.
Joe Nepstanek, 6550 Woodedge, Minnetrista, wanted confirmation that if Westedge were not
developed, the development would still be allowed. Acting Mayor Hanus said no, if permits
could not be achieved from Minnetrista, money will be provided by the City to do on its
own. Mr. Nepstanek stated that he has asked Minnetrista about Mound improving Westedge
and they said they would not mind. Mr. Nepstanek also asked about the Watershed. The
City Attorney stated that would be part of the permit process.
May Sells, 2218 Westedge, asked why there has been no survey of the road elevations. She
stated that she received her house permit one year ago and there was no discussion held at
that time about the development of Westedge. She feels that she is suffering a loss. Ms.
Sells is concerned about letting this project 15egin without resolution of the road issue. She
suggested there be consideration of making Wested~e a one-way street. Acting Mayor Hanus
stated that a one-way street would not be a reasonable option.
Acting Mayor Hanus stated that as far as the elevation is concerned, he does not feel the
road will need to be raised very much.
Council Member Weycker asked where in the Resolution the tree preservation language was
contained. The City Planner stated item 17 contained that language.
MOTION, by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to accept and go forward with the
resolution granting preliminary plat approval with all the noted changes in
Nnmbers 4, 5, 6, 26, 29, 30, and 31 (the City Engineer's Report) and to include
the parkland overhead as exhibit B. The vote was upanlmously in favor.
Motion carried. 4-0.
Acting Mayor I4_anus called a break at 10:05 p.m.
14
Mound City Council Minutes. August 8. 2000
Acting Mayor Hanus reconvened the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
0.9
NOTICE REGARDING BEARD GROUP. INC. FINAL DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT.
Acting Mayor I-Ianus summarized the discussion that had taken place at the I-IRA meeting
earlier. He stated that the Beard Group has looked at the numbers and determined that they
cannot make the final numbers work and have sent the City a letter of regret. The City
would like to continue working with the Beard Group, but will also be opening this up to
other developers. Acting Mayor Hanus wished to stress that this is not that big of deal and
often happens in these types of projects. He hopes that the delay will only be 4-6 months.
Acting Mayor Hanus stated that because of the Beard Group's withdrawal, there are now no
developer agreements anywhere in Mound with the exception of the hardware store site. He
stated that it is the development agreement that places the restriction on the TIF. Now that
there is no agreement, TIF is opened up. Acting Mayor Hanus wished to make clear that if
some business owners would like to develop their own property, this is now a possibility and
that interested parties should make proposals to the City. The designs will still need to fit
the Visions plan. He wished to caution people that TIF money is not guaranteed to be made
available. Also, Acting Mayor Hanus wished to make clear that at this time, persons with a
better plan idea should also come forward. Timing is short on this window of opportunity
for both of these options.
Steve Wagner, 5440 Momingview Ct., Minnetrista, asked whether it was likely the Beard
Group would come back with a revised smaller project. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that
Staff would be discussing other options with them, but a new proposal is not guaranteed.
Council Member Ahrens added that the City ~,ttorn~ey did point out that during the
discussions with the Beard Group, they did look at downsizing the project and did not feel it
was feasible.
Acting Mayor Hanus stressed that businesses should continue to plan for the redevelopment.
1.10 DISCUSSION/ACTION ON RESOLUTION TO INCREASE HENNEPIN
COUNTY SHERIFF'S WATER PATROL PRESENCE ON LAKE MINNETONKA.
Council Member Brown stepped down as he had a personal conflict with this issue.
The City Manager stated that there is a concern about the amount of activity on Lake
Minnetonka specifically with items connected to Big Island.
Acting Mayor Hanus discussed the number of charter boats and the drinking in connection
with that. He stated that the LMCD gives the licenses and the liquor licenses for the charter
boats and should control this.
15
Mound City Council Minutes. August 8. 2000
Council Member Ahrens asked whether when the LMCD grants the licenses, could they put
on surcharges to fund extra law enforcement.
Council Member Hanus stated there is a need for licensed deputies because of the recent
lawsuit taking away the LCMD authority. He feels that this is a regional lake and much of
the problem at Big Island is brought by the people from outside the area. Acting Mayor
I-Ianus feels this is a county problem.
Council Member Weycker sated that the LMCD should look into the issue of special event
permits. She also stated that she agrees with the points in Acting Mayor Hanus' summary of
this issue.
Acting Mayor Hanus stated that he feels the City of Mound is currently paying more than its
share to the LMCD. He stated that he wants the other cities affected by this to see his points
to allow more discussion on these issues.
Council Member Ahrens stated that the layout of the funding includes 1/3 by the LMCD and
they would need to cut something else to do this.
Council Member Weycker asked about the private funding issue. Council Member Ahrens
stated that there is some public wanting to get a group together to oppose the charter boats
and those people will be asked to do some fund raising.
Council Member Weycker stated that she was not opposed to additional patrols, but felt the
LMCD needed to find a different way to pay for it.
The City Manager stated that two people eo. uld be hired, but it was possible they would not
be dedicated to the lake and could be spread'to othe~r lakes in the county.
Council Member Ahrens asked Bob Brown what types of enforcement special deputies were
allowed to do. Mr. Brown stated that special deputies could not administer a Breathalyzer
test, but could stop boat from going full speed through a channel. Council Member Ahrens
pointed out that licensed deputies could be used for the issues determined by the courts and
volunteer deputies could do the other duties.
Acting Mayor Hanus stated that lake dries are mandated to add more trailer parking and
accesses to the lakes and this adds more people from outside and is a regional problem.
Acting Mayor Hanus asked whether Council would agree 'to have the City Manager use his
sample letter as a draft. Council Member Ahrens stated that she would like the Mayor's
input.
16
Mound City Council Minutes. August 8. 2000
The City Manager stated there is a time limit of August 15 on this. Council Mcml~x
Weycker felt that from the discussion, Staff would have a good idea of what Council's
opinion was.
The City Manager asked if there was anything that Council did not want included in the draft
proposal. Council Member Weycker felt the letter was too harsh in tone. Acting Mayor
I-Ianus agreed that the City Manager could rework the language.
Council agreed that they would individually call the City Manager no later than Wednesday
afternoon with any suggestions on the draft.
Council Member Ahrens wished to inform Council that the LMCD does have the authority to
exceed their levy maximum with 10 votes from the 14 cities. She felt it was important to
send this letter to the other cities.
MOTION, by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker, to direct Staff to draft a letter to
the LMCD. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3-0.
Council Member Brown returned at this time.
0.10 DISCUSSION/ACTION ON COUNCIL SPONSORSHIP OF APPRECIATION
EVENT FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
The City Manager stated that a Boards andCommissions appreciation event was needed.
October is suggested as the next feasible date. Staff is suggesting holding the event at the
Depot in Mound Bay Pak.. There is a plan to award people with a document for years of
service and have photos in The Laker. Staff would like Council to sponsor this event.
Council Member Hanus stated this was similar to ~e holiday party usually held and
wondered if the two should be incorporated. The City Manager felt there would not be
another event for Staff this year unless it was in January.
Council felt this was a good idea.
It was suggested to try October 3 as the date for this. Council Member Ahrens needed to
double check her schedule and get back to the City Manager, but felt that picking the 3rd or
the 5th would allow her to work this out. The City Manager will let everyone know when
1.12 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. AMM FAX NEWS.
B. THE EHLERS ADVISOR.
17
Mound City COuncil Minutes. August 8. 2000
C. SUBURBAN RATE AUTRO~ MINUTES: JULY 19. 2000.
D. PLANNING COMMIglON MINWFKS: JULY 10. 2000.
E. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 20. 2000
REGULAR MEETING.
EI)C JULY 27, 2000 WORKSHOP.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTIiLY REPORT: JULY 2000.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to adjourn the meeting at 10:~0 p.m.
The vote was nnnnlmously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0.
Kandis Hanson, City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
18
I~AVMI,;N I' Ilil,LS
IIA'I'I'~; AUGUST 22, 2000
I!11,1,~ ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
BATCIlll
#0081
AMOUNT
$227,706.76
TOTAl, BILLS $227,706.76
PAGE I P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICe... DUE HOLD ........................................... PRE-
NOC' iNvoI~E ~M8~- DATE DATE STATUS AHouNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER A!
_A0111 000720
8/22/00 8/22/00 53.96 JRNL-CD 1010
_.AIR~O_U~ _C£LkULA~./Q.EL.LE~U~_V~NDq~ TOTAL ..... 53.96
B0548 25865 150.00 MOVED ONE TREE 01-4340-5110
......... 8/22/~0_.8/22/00 ..... 150.00. JRNL-CD ...... ] ......................... ~010
BENDICKSON, WESLEY VENDOR TOTAL 150.00
6~--~}~-~s~0 ............................................ a6'OW- BX~§;--P~AS~i-C,- ETC ................ 71-7100-2200
8/22/00 8/22/00 66.04 JRNL-CD 1010
32333200 50.36 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550
19468900
19509200
BELLBOY CORPORATION
B0600 10055057
10055058
10055112
10054985
8/22/00 8/22/00 50.36 JRNL-CD
1,762.33 LIgUOR
8/22/00 8/22/00 1,762.3~ JRNL-CD
-2;'~S~--'~i~U~ .....
8/22/00 8/22/00 2,988.33 JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAL 4867.06
31.66_._07.=~O_QA.RBAGE_EI~UP_~.R0120
31.66 07-00 GARBAGE PICKUP CMA0120
31.67 07-00 GARBAGE PICKUP CMA0120
8/22/00 8/22/0.0~ ......... ~$._g!___J.RNL~CD .........................
67.01 07-00 GARBAGE PICKUP CMROZ21
_ ~_/_2~/~.0 8/2_ 2/~ ............ 6~.01 .... J~NL~C D ...............
184.10 07-00 GARBAGE PICKUP CMRO308
8/22/00 8/22/00 184.10 JRNL-CD
17.76 07-00 GARBAGE PICKUP CHPO085
8/22/00 8/22/00 17.76 JRNL-CD
1005a970 67.07 07-00 GARBAGE PICKUP CHPO045
8/22/00 8/22/00 67.07 JRNL-CD
BLACKOWIAK AND SON VENDOR TOTAL 430.93
B~7~--~59~ ................................. 20-0.~ -~TOXILYEff-'~£~S~'-BORKE, JAMI
8/22/00 8/22/00 200.00 JRNL-CD
BC~FORE~S'iC-S~IE~CE L~B VENDOR' TOTAL ........ 20~.00
C0859 D50780 7.98 AIR CHUCK' ............... 8/22/00- 8/22/00 '7.98 JRNL-CD
lOlO
?1-?100-9510
lOlO
71-?100-~510
lOlO
..__~1:4280-3750
73-7300-3750
78-7800-3750
1010
22-4170-3750
_[~1o
01-4340-3750
1010
71-7100-3750
1010
01-4280-3750
1010
01-4140-4110
1010
01-4320-2300
1010
CHAMP]ON AUTO VENDOR TOTAL 7.98
C0920 000815 17.71 07-00 WATER AND SEWER 8/22/00
71-7100-37a0
1010
PAGE 2 PURCHASE .JOURNAL
AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR ___[_N_yO [_C_E_ ...... DUE. .HOLD ..................................................... PRE
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
CITY OF HOUND VENDOR TOTAL 17.71
C0930 162539 17.57 07-01-00 THRU 09-30-00 CLEANIN ?I-7100-9550
CITYWIDE WINDOW SERVICES VENDOR TOTAL 17.57
C0960 000731 46.95 07-00 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES
55.05 07-00 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES
.................................................... 22~41__07~O~_~I~CELL~NEO~.S_SU~L~E~
COAST TO COAST
970 61315199
6132017)
8/22/00
149.60 MiX
8/22100 8122/00 149.60 JRNL-CD
280.64
8/22/00 8/22/00 18~.~_
01-4340-2200
01-4340-2300
__01~_4~2~3~
9.76 07-00 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 01-4340-3820
18.06 07-00 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 73-7300-2200
................ 151.09 __07-O~_MISCELLANEOUS_SU~P~ES_._ ...... ~Z~0~3~_0 ..
76.65 07-00 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 78-7800-2200
3.77 07-00 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 78-7800-2300
20.48 __O~pO.~I.SC.ELLANEOUS_SUP~LI£S.___ ......
69.96 07-00 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 01-4320-2200
18.28 07-00 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 01-4320-2300
8122100 696.19 JRNL-CD 1010
71-7100-9540
1010
71-7100-9540
.....................
COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST VENDOR TOTAL 330.24
C1020 000930
318.56 09-00 PRINCIPLE TRUE VALUE 55-5881-6100
643.28 09-00 INTEREST TRUE VALUE 55-5881-6110
8/22/00 8/22100 961.84 JRNL-CD 1010
CONCO, INCORPORATED VENDOR TOTAL 961.84
Dl172 328890 175.13 RED HEAD MALE AND FEMALE 22-4170-2200
8/22/00 8/22/00 175.13 JRNL-CD 1010
DANKO EMERGENCY EeUIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL 175.13
D1200 104412 2 · 9~_6_;_50~_BE E__R 71-7100-9530
8/22/00 8/22100 2,946.50 JRNL-CD 1010
104424 .................. 15.75 MiX 71-7100-9540
8/22/00 8/22/00 15.75 JRNL-CD 1010
....... 1.~DO}? ............................ 1,191.BO_..BEER .......................................
8/22/00 8/22/00 1,191.80 JRNL-CD 1010
105051
_D_A_..Y__Dj_ST_R !B_UTJ N~_COMP_ANY_ _ VENDOR TOTAL
36 . 80___ ._HI SCEL L ANEOUS ........................ ~1=7100-9550
36.80 JRNL-CD 1010
4190.85 ............
PAGE 3 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND
_¥ END_ O_R_ ............... INVOICE_ _ DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
.................................. PRE
ACCOUNT NUMBER A
D~9~ ~_ ......................................... 2,403o45 8?. OLE_~T._NICK ....................... 0.1~2300,_0500 .........
8/22/00 8/22/00 2,403.45 JRNL-CD 1010
.Q_!S~LA~Y_S~LE.~ ............ VENDOR TOTAL .2403..45 ...................................................
E1420 663572 370.00 BEER 71-7100-9530
................... 8~/_00___8~2_2/00 ........ 3~O..Q~__.JRNL.:CD ........................................ ~0_1~ .....
665246 8,137.00 BEER 71-7100-9530
................... ~2~!__0.0__8~./~0 ............ 8~.137.00__.~R~:~D ....... 1010
665247 60.50 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 71-7100-9550
................. ~/~q _8~Z2/oo ............. 6o..s~_ JRNL~CD ...................................... ~01q .....
666610 230.00 BEER KEGS 71-7100-9530
8/22/00 8./~?_~00 .............. 230.O~_._~NL-__CD 1010
668275 1,727.10 BEER 71-7100-9530
668276 12.15 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 71-7100-9550
8/22/00 8/22/00 12.15 JRNL-CD 1010
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE VENDOR TOTAL 10536.75
~1472 10909 2,683.80
8/22/00 8/22/00 2,683.80
~MBEDDED SYSTEMS INC. -~E~¥~AL 2683.80
E1490 CC3061
8/22/00 8/22/00
CC296016643 918.56
8/22/00 8/22/00 918.56
SIREN BOARDS (3) 01-4150-5000
JRNL-CD 1010
3~6.31 _ff~N__ffHOLES, RINGS, ETC 78-7800-2300
316.31 JRNL-CD 1010
MANHOLES, RINGS, ETC 78-7800-2300
JRNL-CD 1010
ESS BROS AND SONS INC VENDOR TOTAL
E1513 000802
8/22/00 8/22/00
EXECUTIVE EXCELLENCE VENDOR TOTAL
F1645 9219
8/22/00 8/22/00
1234.87
279.00 SUBSCRIPTION 01-a140-4170
279.00 dRNL-CD 10~0
279.00
451.00 REPLACEMENT SPRINGS AND NETS 01-4340-2310
451.00 JRNL-CD 1010
FLANAGAN SALES, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 451.00
F1710 000810-A 174.53
8/22/00 8/22/00 174.53
REI MBURSE-HENT WI_N.ONA ].NSTI_T_U_I'E ....... 0.!.-_~_0~_0-_4_1_1_0 .........
JRNL-CD 1010
000810-B
8/22/00 8122/00
28.29 06-25-00 THRU 07-25-00 CELL PH
28.29 JRNL-CD
01-4040-3220
1010
000811
8/22/00 8/22/00
1,050.38_ I ! M~ _CO_.N~E_R_EN_C_ E_ __MA_Y__2.oo o .......... _o 1.-__~ o40-411o
1,o5o.38 JRNL-CD 1010
PAGE
AP-C02-O1
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
~NPO_~ .................... IN.VO_ICE ..... DUE_ MOLD .................................................
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NUMBER
FRANCENE CLARK VENDOR TOTAL -- ~-~J20
F1720.000801 ......... 76.00
8/22/00 8/22/00 76.00
07-00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ...... 01~4399r4.10_0
JRNL-CD lOlO
~.R_ AN~__M A_D_ D E_N_&_A_ S SO C ....... ~V E_N DO_R_ T.OT AL ....... 76. O0
G1750 400019
8/22/00
21.66 08-02-00 MATS 01-4280-2250
................ 21.66~O~?0.2~O0~HAT~ _73~7300~ 2250
2[.66 08-02-00 MATS 78-7800-2250
22.90 08-02-00 UNFORMS 01-4280-2240
.... 22.90._ O~02~O_UNFOR~S ~3~00~2240
22.90 08-02-00 UNFORMS 78-7800-2240
8/22/00 133.68 JRNL-CD 1010
395472
390899
8/22/00
10.36 08-01-00 MATS
10.36 08-01-00 MATS
............. ~._~__~8~o~ ~A~S
24.26 08-01-00 UNIFORMS
24.26 08-01-00 UNIFORMS
24.27 08-01-00 UNIFORMS
8/22/00 103.87 JRNL-CD
8/22/00 8/22/00
01-4280-2250
73-7300-2250
01-4280-2240
73-7300-2240
78-7800-22~0
1010
__19.83 07-25-00 MATS 0_1_-4280-2250
19.83 07-25-00 MATS 73-7300-2250
19.83 07-25-00 MATS 78-7800-2250
23.90 07-25-00 UNIFORMS 01-4280-2240
23.90 07-25-00 UNIFORMS 73-7300-2240
23.91 07-25-00 UNIFORMS 78-7800-2240
131.20 JRNL-CD 1010
3954?3
390901
400022
390900
98.29 08-01-00 MATS 01-4320-4210
8/22/00 8/22100 98.29 JRNL-CD lOlO
28.34 07-25-00 MATS 22-4170-2230
8/22/00 8/22/00 28.34 JRNL-CD 1010
20.65 08-08-00 MATS 71-7100-4210
8/22/00 8/22/00 20.65 JRNL-CD 1010
8/22/00 8/22/00
G & K SERVICES VENDOR TOTAL 550.44
34.4! 07-25-00 MATS 01-4340-2330
34.41 JRNL-CD 1010
Gi800 48474 234.17 REPAIR FUEL LEAK 73-7300-38~0
8/22/00 8/22/00 234.17 JRNL-CD 1010
--- -4~60~ ........................................ 430~4 RE'P£~C~ FRONT ~PRIN~ .............. 0i;~2-~'~'~'0
430.04 REPLACE FRONT SPRING 73-7300-3810
430.04 REPLACE FRONT SPRING 78-7800-3810
8/22'~0~---'~/22~0~ ........... 1,290.12 JRN[-CD ........................................... 1010
GA~J~D~E~S~__S~Y].CE ...... ?E~DP_R_._~pTAL ...... 1524.29
PAGE 5
AP-C02-01
PURCHASE .JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR I NV 0 I._C_E__ . DUE_..HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
__PREll
ACCOUNT NUMBER AM~
97.60 07-00 LOCATES 78-7800-3125
8/22/00 8/22/00 195.20 JRNL-CD 1010
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALLt INC VENDOR TOTAL 195.20
G1972 248361 1,762.68. LIQUOR .........
........................ ~/~ 6E'- 8/22/'00 1,762.68 JR aL-CD 1010
249561
......................... ~-/~0 ..... 8~2~0~
309.87 JRNL-CD lOlO
8/22/00 8/22/00
891.40.. WINE
891.40 JRNL-CD 1010
250 281 .................... 1,_050_..0! ..... L.I_eUOR _ 71_-.7_L0_0-9_~1~
8/22/00 8/22/00 1~.050.01 JRNL-CD 1010
252180
8/22/00 8122/00 55.20 JRNL-CD 1010
252)81 51[,~__~I.~E 7!-7100-9520
8/22100 8/22/00 531.45 JRNL-CD 1010
25J200 ........... ?.?Z.~.?__.L!)U.OR 71-7100-9510
8/22100 8/22/00 777.47 JRNL-CD 1010
251201 ............................ 141.~Zo__MIX 71-7100-9540
8/22/00 8/22/00 181.70 JRNL-CD 1010
251202 5X,.~..5__LlepOR
8/2~/00 8/22/00 57.95 JRNL-CD 1010
GRIGGS COOPER & COMPANY
VENDOR TOTAL 5579.71
G1977 000801-A
8/_L~/_qo____~X2_ ? / o o
190.55 THRU 08-01-00 472-1555
190.55 JRNL-CD
22-G170-1220
!OLD
O00801-B 162.29 THRU 08-01-00 472-1091 71-7100-3220
000801-C 22.14 THRU 08-01-00 472-0646
01-4340-3220
1010-
G T E MINNESOTA VENDOR TOTAL 374.98
H2061 280028 905.90 HYDROFLUOSILICIC ACID ETC 73-7100-2260
8~22~00 8122/00 905.90 JRNL-CD 1010
~-3~5~ ..................... 25.00~-CoNTAiN-~R ~E'H~RR'~G~ ........................ ~-~L~2-60
8/22/00 8/22100 21.00 JRNL-CD 1010
H--A~KINS WA~R T~E-XY~E~Y ......... ~EN~O~'~TAE ...... ~3~"~0 .........................
H2080 274.53
................ 27. !6. _ 12-GALLON..DRI LL ......................... 01_-_4_28.0_--_2_3_1.0 .
8/22/00 8/22/00 27.16 JRNL-CD 1010
PAGE 6
AP-C02-01
PURCHASE ,JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOI_CE_..DUE HOLD ..............................................
'- flO';---i~V-O~-N-MBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
27461 112.59 PARTS FOR GRILL 01-4280-2310
112.59 PARTS FOR GRILL 73-7300-2310
112.60 PARTS FOR. GRILL .... 78~7800~2310 ........
.......................... ~ ~22~0~' ~/2 ~i00 337.78 JRNL-CD 1010
..... 2~6~ ................................. 69.40_ ANGLES?_ HEAVY~.EXPANDE~ ................ ZS~tSO.O~23Lff ......
8/22/00 8/22/00 69.40 JRNL-CD 1010
__~ECKSEL MACHINE SHOP
VENDOr.. ~OT~L ........ 43.4.3~
H2085 0000001108
14,929.18 MAIN CIRCUIT BREAKER, ETC. 78-7800-5000
8/22~_._~/~/0~_ ........ 1~,92.9..18~ ~RNL~C~ ....................................... 10~0
HEALY-RUFF VENDOR TOTAL 14929.18
H2160 002799
HENN CO TREASURER
H2241 000809-A
8/22/00 8/22/00
VENDOR TOTAL
8/22/00 8/22/00
856.50 06-00 ROOM AND BOARD
856.50 JRNL-CD
856.50
112.50 07-00 LOST LAKE CANAL CONSTRUC
112.50 JRNL-CD
01-4110-4250
1010
30-5640-3100
1010
000809-B
4,036.33 07-00 TIF RELATED WORK
8/22/00 8/22/00
4,036.33 JRNL-CD
55-5880-3100
1010
000809-C
8/22/00 8/22/00
1_,r~29.25 07-00 LOST
1,129.25 JRNL-CD
30_-5__6~0-3100
1010
000809-D
8/22/00 8/22100
4,323.07 JRNL-CD
1010
000809-E
8/22100 8/22100
1,603.91 JRNL-CD
0~-4190-3100
1010
000809-F
422.50 ._ 0~-00 MISC PLANNING. CASES_ .............. 0J-4190-3100__
8122/00 8122/00 422.50 JRNL-CD lOlO
HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP,* VENDOR TOTAL
11627.56
12309 23710722
8/22/00 8/22/00
297.50 07-10-00 08-10-00 MAIN COPIER
297.50 JRNL-CD
01-4320-3800
1010
23703084
2369623A
101.89 07-24-00 THRU 08-24-00 COPIER 01-4140-2140
8/22/00 8/22/00 101.89 JRNL-CD 1010
66.98 TONER CARTRIDGE 01-4140-2100
. ~/.22/~ .... 8/22.~00 ._ . 66~9~ _~RN~-C~ ..................................... iO~.__
23719537
8/22/00 8/22/00
99.3~ 08-10-0 THRU 09-10-00 COPIER
......
01-4320-3800
1010
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
VENDOR TOTAL 565.71
12339 000810
................. 17~b0--REGI'S~RATION-'IXCP CON~ER~CE ...... 01-4140-4110
PAGE 7
AP-C02-O1
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
YEN.D~R ............. INyOiCE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS'-
AMOO~T - DE S-CR'~-p-f~]-0 N ............................. A--C-c~-U-~T---N-O-~B-E-~
..................... 8/22/00 8/22/00 ........... 175.O0__JRNL-CD ............................................... ____~1~____
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION VENDOR TOTAL
175.00
12400 5591 504.67 INSTALL GEAR AND SEALS 73-7300-3810
8/22/00 8/22/00 504.67 JRNL-CD 1010
5625 193.81 CARBON VAC FUEL SYSTEM 01-4140-3810
8/22/00 8/22/00 193.81 JRNL-CD 1010
5631 25.86 OIL CHANGE 01-4140-3810
8/22/00 8/22/00 25.86 JRNL-CD 1010
5648 25.86 OIL CHANGE 01-4140-3810
8/22/00 8/22/00 25.86 JRNL-CD 1010
2656 264.09 BATTERY, ETC 01-4340-3810
8/22/00 8/22/00 264.09 JRNL-CD 1010
5669 71.33 R&R CALIPER FLUID 01-4190-3810
8/22/00 8/22/00 71.33 JRNL-CD 1010
5688 418.19 INSTALL SENDING UNIT 78-7800-3810
8/22/00 8/22/00 418.19 JRNL-CD 10
5701 154.47 BATTERY, ETC 01-4140-3810
8/22/00 8/22/00 154.47 JRNL-CD 1010
5702 69.87 REHANG EXHAUST SYSTEM ETC 01-4140-3810
8/22/00 8/22/00 69.87 JRNL-CD 1010
5731 242.56 REPLACE PADS AND ROTORS ETC
8/22/00 8/22/00 242.56 JRNL-CD
01-4140-3810
1010
5782 48.00 SCAN COMPUTER 01-4140-3810
8/22/00 8/22/00 48.00 JRNL-CD 1010
ISLAND PARK SKELLY
--~END~'-TO¥~[ ........ 2018.71
J2480 oo08n 209.00 AIRFARE NRPA CONVENTION 0i-4340-4n0
8/~27~b--~72-2/00 209.00 JRNL-CD 1010
JAMES FACKLER
VENDOR TOTAL ' 209.00
J2579 1144984
228.15 WINE 71-7100-9520
8/22/00 8/22/00 228.15 JRNL-CD 1010
1147636 1,893.65 LIQUOR
8/22100 8122100 1,893.65 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9510
1010
1147637 1,658.45 WINE 71-7100-9520
8/22/00 8/22/00 1,658.45 JRNL-CD 1010
JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR VENDOR TOTAL
3780.25
J2582 000930
116.48 09-00 PRINCIPLE TRUE VALUE 55-5881-6100
PAGE 8
AP-C02-OZ
VENDOR I NVO [ C_E____ .D_U£__~HOLD_ __
NO. INVOICE NflBR DATE DATE STATUS
8/22/00 8/22/00
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF HOUND
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
55~.6~3___O~O~_~.T_E~E~_T_T__T~U~_~A~U_~
669.11 JRNL-CD
ACCOUNT NUMBER
1010
P_R_E_-
Al
JO~,~P~¥LLIS VEHD. OB__T~T_AL ...... 6~9.11
K2699 34114-A 170.50 07-00 MISCELLANEOUS BILLABLE
........ 812~10~_ _8~22!0~ ......... 170.5~ _JRNL~CD_
34114-B
34114-C
34114-D
34114-E
34114-F
dEDY & GRAVEN
K2712 000810
KOENIG & SCHWERT
L2773 000712
2,861.13 07-00 REDEVELOPMENT AREA #1
8/2~/00 8~22/0_0 ........... 2,86.1.1}__.JRNL-CD
258.50 07-00 HOUND MAINSTREET CPO
55-5880-3100
55-5880-3100
55-5880-3100
2,464.81 07-00 MOUND HARDWARE 55-5880-3100
.~l__2~l~_Q__~22~0 ........ 2~.64._8~___J~:q_D__ .................................................. _.IQ~ .....
132.00 07-00 POST OFFICE RELOCATION
8/22/oo ..... 8/2.2_/qo ............ ~ ~. ~o__.J~=~D ......
8/22/00 8/22/00
55.00 07-00 METRO PLAINS CONTRACT
55.00 JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAL
8/22/00 8/22/00
VENDOR TOTAL
5941.94
574.50 1999/2000 CENTRAL BUSINESS DIS
5?4.50 JRNL-CD
574.50
I~_~_B~O_~0_i__-~O0 THRU 06-30-00 AGR~EME
8122/00 8/22/00 18,485.10 JRNL-CD
LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICA~ VENDOR TOTAL ...... 1~
55-5879-3100
~9~ 0
1,782.65 SUMMER 2000 NEWSLETTER
1,782.65 JRNL-CD
L2811 11088
55-5884-3100
1010
01-4280-4200
1010
01-4.0_3__0.-3100
1010
01-4020-3500
10!0
11093 445.00 BUILDING PERMIT PRINTING 01-4190-2120
B/2~/_00__$/~_~_0_____ 445.00 JRNL-CD 1010
000810 304.86 1999/2000 CENTRAL BUSINESS DIS 01-4280-4200
8/22/00 8/22/00 304.86 JRNL-CD
LARSON PRINTING & GRAPHICS VENDOR TOTAL
2532.51
L2816 000810 777.26 1999/2000 CENTRAL BUSINESS DIS 01-4280-4200
8~22~00 8122100 777.26 JRNL-CD 1010
LAUER, ROBERT DR. VENDOR TOTAL 777.26
L2821 3263
8/22100 8/22/00
1,478.00 .... e~_.A D ._ M A P_S__L_.A_M.! N_A_ T E_D. ....................01:4_15_0__- 22_01
1,478.00 JRNL-CD 1010
LAWRENCE GROUP
VENDOR TOT A_L .... 1478.00 ................................
PAGE 9 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND
VENDOR ......... !~Vg~E_ .DUE__ HOLD ................................................................... __P~E
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AHOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
_L2~ ~.$~.~9~ .................................... 142.94.__M.ISCELLANEOU$_ITEHS ..................... 01~4280p_2~5~
142.94 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 73-7300-2250
142.93 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 78-?800-2250
........................... B_~22.!00 _ 8/22/00 428.81_ JRNL-CD ...... 1010 ....
LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 428.81
-H3016 7877 ............ 19.60 07-17-00 DEL]'~E~Y-~HA~GE ............. ~1~--'~---~600
8/22/00 8/22/00 19.60 JRNL-CD 1010
7897 135.80 07-20-00 DELIVERY CHARGE 71-7100-9600
8/22/00 8/22/00 135.80 JRNL-CD 1010
7916 12.60 07-24-00 DELIVERY CHARGE 71-7100-9600
8/22/00 8/22/00 12.60 JRNL-CO 1010
7930
7943
MARLIN'S TRUCKING
M3030 179431
179432
8/22/00 8/22/00
8/22/00 8/22/00
VENDOR TOTAL
8/22/00 8/22/00
8/22/00 8/22~
155.40 07-27-00 DELIVERY CHARGE
155.40 JRNL-CD
10.50 07-31-00 DELIVERY CHARGE
10.50 JRNL-CD
333.90
562.30 BEER
562.30 JRNL-CD
2,582.85 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9600
1010
71-7100-9600
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
.... ~-7100-9.~30
1010
179433
.................... 92.00 BEER
8/22/00 8/22/00 92.00 JRNL-CD
182170
2,254.60 BEER
8/22/00 8/22/00
2,254.60 JRNL-CD
184842
8/22/00 8/22/00 1,901.50 JRNL-CD
MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR
VENDOR TOTAL 7393.25
M3080 33956
8/22/00 8/22/00
445.50 07-00 2000 SEAL COAT PROJECT
445.50 JRNL-CD
71-Z~00-9530
1010
7L-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
27-5800-3100
1010
~3957 270.00 07-00 ENG SERVICE BLDG INSPECT 01-4190-3100
8/22/_~_0_..B/2_~0 ........... ~?O~_O~.__J_~L:~L ....................... 1010
33958 135.00 07-00 ENG' SERVICES P/Z DEPARTM 01-4190-3100
8/~00____~_2~.00 ............. I~.5.~.OO.__.~NL~p- .................................. 1010
33959 45.00 07-00 ENG SERVICES WATER DEPAR 73-7300-3100
45.00 07-00 ENG SERVICES SEWER DEPAR 78-7800-3100
8/22/00 8/22/00 9~:O0---j~C-~ ...................... 1010
339~0__ ..................................... 90.00 .... ~-~O_.L~NG~O~.D.ISTR]CT_D~N~O~ ...... ~5.~.~100
8/22/00 8/22/00 90.00 JRNL-CD 1010
PAGE
AP-C02-O1
VENDOR ................... INVOICE ..... DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
..... 3 :~-~6 ~.- ............................... 598 ~ 0~0'- -~7~ 00--~URF-ACE ~AYE~ -MXI~ ~E-I~E ~-- 01-4190-3100
8/22/00 8/22/00 598.00 JRNL-CD 1010
33962 45.00 07-00 BEiGLER 'PROPERTY STORM
8/22/00 8/22/00 45.00 JRNL-CD 1010
........ 33963 .............................. 1~0 ~00 .... 07 ~'~ O- ~'IA'PLE H A~N OR ~- ~ -S ~IB~ ~-~ ~-~ O-N .... ~ ~.~' ~-:~ ~)~-~-1046
8/22/00 8/22/00 110.00 JRNL-CD
33964 200.00 07-00 BECKER PROPERTY GRADING
8/22/00 8/22/00 200.00 JRNL-CD
33965 180.00 07-00 COUNTY RD 15 RELOCATION
8/22/00 8/22/00 180.00 JRNL-CD
.........................33966 414.'00
8/22100 8/22/00 414.00
33967 311.40 07-00 ALTA SURVEY COAST TO COA 55-5881-3100
8/22/00 8/22/00 311.40 JRNL-CD 1010
...... ~9~6~ ..... 192.00 07-00 HASBRO GROUNDWATER CONTA 01-2300-1089
8/22/00 8/22/00 192.00 JRNL-CD 1010
1010
01-2300-1098
1010
55-5877-3100
1010
- 07:0~ DOW~'T-O~- T I F' D I STR~'~ ......... ~5=~--8~=-~
JRNL-CD 1010
33969 1~.00 07-00 AUDITORS ROAD 55-5883-3100
8/22/00 8/22/00 ~10.00 JRNL-CD 1010
33970 1,441.50 07-00 REX ALWIN PROPERTY 01-2300-1095
8/22/00 8/22/00 1,441.50 JRNL-CD 1010
M3170 0000709171
8/22/00
29,_828e00 09-00 WASTEWATER 7__8-7800-4230__
8/22/00 29,828.00 JRNL-CD 1010
000731 3,267.0~__ o?,O~_~C__C.HA~E~ ....................... 78-2304-0000
.................... ~)~2i0'~-'~)'22/0~ ......... 3,267.00 JRNL-CD 1010
M~ET_.R OP_OL I~TA_N £O__UN~_I L__~V_I ~ V_E_ _N _D O_ R~ _ !' O_ _I' AL ......... 33A._95_. O0
H3250 000830 26.43 06-16-00 THRU 07-19-00 01-4340-3720
................................. 5_6_. 8 ~_____O 6___- 1. _6_- _0_0 _T_ H~ ~R_U_ _p_O .7_-_. _1_ 9_-_0_00 0 1 - 4 3 4 0 - 3 7 2 0
15.98 06-16-00 THRU 07-19-00 71-7100-3720
39.36 06-16-00 THRU 07-19-00 22-4170-3720
150.65 06-16-00 THRU 07-19_-0~0
23.76 06-16-00 THRU 07-19-00 01-4280-3720
13.50 06-16-00 THRU 07-19-00 73-7300-3720
16.74 06-16-O0_THRU 07-19-00 .................... ? _8 -_ ?_8.0_0 -_ ~ ?_2_0
....... 8122100" 8/22-/00 ........ 343.3i JRNL-CD 1010
~!~NEgASC0 ................. VENDOR...TOTA~ ....... 343.3! ..............................
M3312 000810
8122100
1,401.64 1999/2000 CENTRAL BUSINESS DIS 01-4280-4200
8/22/0.0 .... 1,407.64._ JRNL,.C~ ........................................ ~O.!Q .....
PAGE 11
AP-C02-01
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF HOUND
VENDOR INVOT~_ ..... DU.E_HOLp ...................................................
NO. INVOICE NNBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
MEISEL~ PAT
.... y_E_N D_OR_T 0 _T_A_L ........ 14_ 0_'(_. 64
ACCOUNT NUMBER
M3315 000713 45.81 01-01-97 THRU 03-31-00 AUDIT 01-2300-0400
................... 35.2~___01_-01-97__THRU .~3~i~O0~AUD.!T ....... 01~402q~412~ ........
53.20 01-01-97 THRU 03-31-00 AUDIT 01-4095-3800
349.71 01-01-97 THRU 03-31-00 AUDIT 01-4140-4100
................................................. 2~,66 O~?OL,9~._~HRU_O~-31:O.O. AUpI.~ ........ 01.T~150-2200
21.24 01-01-97 THRU 03-31-00 AUDIT 01-4190-4100
1,197.83 01-01-97 THRU 03-31-00 AUDIT 01-4280-4100
...................................................... 213.9~_ 01TO!T97. THRU_O3-31rO~_~U~IT ........... 01-4340-4100
2.147.72 01-01-97 THRU 03-31-00 AUDIT 22-4170-4100
16.85 01-01-97 THRU 03-31-00 AUDIT 27-5800-2340
................................................ 128.8~ ..... 01~01-9.7 _THRU 03~31-00 AUDIT._ 71~.~0~210
219.53 01-01-97 THRU 03-31-00 AUDIT 73-7300-~100
35?.7? 01-01-97 THRU 03-31-00 AUDIT 78-7800-4100
..... 49.10_ 01-01T97._THRU_O3,31rO0_ AUDIT ....... 80-80.00~23~_0__
236.46 01-01-97 THRU 03-31-00 AUDIT 81-4350-5~10
5,370.85 JRNL-CD
5370.85
M3328 000816 3~_~C_~I~F_!~A__T_[~__ALDEN, DARRELL 22-4170-4110
8/22/00 8/22/00 35.00 JRNL-CD 1010
8/22/00 8/22/00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE VENDOR TOTAL
MN FIRE SERV CERTIFICATN · VENDOR TOTAL
3~._00
29.00 COLIFORH~ HF-~ATER TESTS
~ ~ O~ _~NL-__C D
29.00
3~686.40 1999/2000 CENTRAL BUSINESS DIS
3,686.40 JRNL-CD
1010
73-7300-4215
1010
01-4280-4200
1010
M3470 49503
8/22/00 8/22/00
MN VALLEY TESTING LABORATO VENDOR TOTAL
M3629 000810
8/22/00 8/22/00
MUELLER/LANSING PROPERTIES VENDOR TOTAL
3686.40
N3687 000803 20.qL._lZ:31:~.6NNUAL__5~BSCRIPTION 22-4170-~130
8/22/00 8/22/00 20.00 JRNL-CD 1010
~A._T_I__O~L F~RE~_~.~_E~___yE~R_.~DTA~ ........... __20.00
N3800 000831-A
1,548.07 07-00 2245-301-939 01-4320-3710
21-~-9--.-_07~A~§~6~7__'2.~3 _
668.81 07-00 1914-601-425 71-7100-3710
3,654.15 07-00 0217-606-329 78-7800-3710
..... 50.4.52 07-00 2184T407-1~? .......................
23B.~2 07-00 0047-005-229 01-43~0-1710
146.22 07-O0 0564-508-832 01-4280-3710
.................................................. 146.~2~_ 0~:00_086!:508~B12 73-7100-t710
146o22 07-00 0864-508-8~2 78-7800-3710
1,583.41 07-00 0018-802-634 78-7800-3710
..................... ~/22i00' '8/22/00 ..... 9,081.68 JRNL-CO 1010
000831-B 5,130.82 07-00 OSaZ-505.000T214 ............. 01~A~0-3710 __
8/22/00 8/22/00 5~130.82 JRNL-CD 1010
PAGE 12 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-O! CITY OF MOUND
, _V.E.ND_O_R_ ................ INVOICE ..... DUE
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE
HOLD ..............................................
STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
'--~ORTHERN STATES POW['~-'~---V--~bR--T6~ ...... i~212~-0 ............................
N3810_.3q29826
8/22/00 8/22/00
48.24 _CABLE_ASSY CONDUCTIVE ............... 73r~300~2_330
48.24 JRNL-CD 1010
NOR_T_U.ER__N__WA_TE_R WORKS_ SUpRL _.VENDOR_ TOTAL ...... 48.24 ............................
P3956 000841062 19.17 07-14-00 THRU 08-13-00 PAGERS 01-4140-3950
__ 8/~2~0__0____8/22/00 .......... 19.1~__ JRNL-CD. 101~__
PAGENET OF MINNESOTA
VENDOR TOTAL 19.17
P3994 133824
8/22/00
............... 847:0'~' ~E~R
8/22/00 847.00 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9530
1010
P4021 6_32__4_5_2 ........... 1.:455..2_0._ _WI NE ....... .7J.-__7_100-9520
8/22/00 8/22/00 1.455.20 JRNL-CD 1010
632453 90.00 MIX 71.~7~0-9340
8/22/00 8/22/00 90.00 JRNL-CD 1010
634651 65.25 MIX 71-7100-9540
8/22/00 8/22/00 65.25 JRNL-CD 1010
634652 ................... ~0.o_~.!9 LIg~pR ____7_~-___7100-9510
8/22/00 8/22/00 900.19 JRNL-CD 1010
634653 640.20 WINE 71-7100-9520
8/22/00 8/22/00 640.20 JRNL-CD 1010
PHILLIPS WINE g SPIRITS. * VENDOR TOTAL 3150.84
P4038 33360 965.91
8/22/00 8/22/00 965.91
CIGARETTES 71-7100-9550
JRNL-CD 1010
3336i 100.65
8/22/00 8/22/00 100.65
CIGARS 71-7100-9550
JRNL-C~ ..................................
33596 1,046.05 CIGARETTES 71-7100-9550
8/22/00 8/22/00 1,046.05 JRNL-CD 1010
33597 83.65 CIGARS 71-7100-9550
8/22/00 8/22/00 83.65 JRNL-CD 1010
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING VENDOR TOTAL 2196.26
p4049'-S';9526i ..........................
8/22/00 8/22/00
138.45 2709 DOVE LANE BEE SERVICE 01-4320-4200
138.45 JRNL-CD 1010
'P-L-O-N ~ E T-T~ ~;--T~'~- ................ VE-Nbo-~-"YoY AL ......... 138; 45 ....................................................
e4171 860344-00 215.67
8/22/00 8/22/00 215.67
WINE .............................. 71._7_~ _00_-952_0 ............
JRNL-CD 1010
PAGE 13 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N k L
AP-C02-01 CiTY OF MOUND
............VENDOR ..... INVOICE_ DUE
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE
HOLD
STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
8/22/00 8/22100 1,349.21 JRNL-CD 1010
861999-00 169.79 MIX 71-7100-9540
8/22/00 8/22/00 169.79 JRNL-CD 1010
862000-00 5,535.60 LIQUOR
8/22/00 8/22100 5,535.60 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9510
1010
7~-7100-9550
1010
864582-00 47.48 MISCELLANEOUS NON-TAXABLE
8/22/00 8/22/00 47.48 JRNL-CD
.... --~¥i=~-~ ........................... ~; ~'~ i~-- ' ~Uo~ ..................................... ~i=~ ~¥~s-~'~ ....
8/22100 8/22100 4,329.11 JRNL-CD 1010
864937-00 27.00 MISCELLANEOUS NON-TAXABLE 71-7100-9550
8/22/00 8~22~00 27.00 JRNL-CD 10[0
864939-00 49.45 WINE 71-7100-9520
8/22/00 8122/00 49.45 JRNL-CD 1010
QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL
11723.31
R2681 07001253 __19.81 AIR AND OXYGEN 2~-4170-3900
..... 8/22100 8122100 19.81 JRNL-CD 101~
R4290 71225 160.98
8/22/00 8/22/00 160.98
ICE 71-7100-9550
JRNL-CD 1010
71776 154.00 ICE 71-7100-9550
8/22100 8/22100 154.00 JRNL-CD 1010
70911 201.22 ICE 71-7100-9550
........... ~2_(p_O _~.~00 ........ ~01.22 JRNL-CD 1010
72048 192.38 ICE 71-7100-9550
8/22~0____~8/~/~0 ............... !~.~?~_8___.JRNL-£D 1010
RON'S ICE COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL
54381 000721
8122100 8/22/00
SHIRLEY HAWKS .............. VENDOR TOTAL
S4390 000930
708.58
156.00 07-21-00 EDC MEETING SECRETARY 01-4020-3100
156.00 JRNL-CD 1010
i5~.oo ..................................................
....... 8~2~10'0' 8)~'2i0'0 ..... 2,576.64' JRNL-CD 1010
SHORELINE PLAZA VENDOR TOTAL ..... 2576..~~ ..........................................................
S4391 2883 159.75 SETON PARK CHIPPED STUMP 01-4340-5110
8~22~00 8~22~00 ........... 159.75__.JRNL~.C~ ................. 1010__
PAGE 14
AP-C02-O1
VENDOR INVOICE
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE D~TE--STAYU~---A~-O~--~S~'flON ACCOUNT NUMBER
2891 46~.__2_5~9__~M~LD_R_D_~E~O~E_~E~_S__ 01-4340-5110
465.94 JRNL-CD
8/22/00 8/22/00
. ._SHp_R_E.WOq_D____TREE__~_ERy_I C_E_ ...... YE_NDO_R_ TOTAL ...... 62_5 .~69_ ........................................................
1010
S4400 2168 47.93 VEHICLE SIGNS 01-4280-2300
.......................................... 47.92 VEHICLE SIGNS ......................
8/22/00 8/22/00 95.85 JRNL-CD 1010
_SIGNS 0 F__T.H E~ S.E_A S_.O_ N_ .......... YENDOR _?OTAL ........ 95.85 ..............................
S4448 000930
325.00 09-00 DOG KENNEL FEE 01-4140-4270
8/22/00 8/22/00 325.00 JRNL-CD
!qlL__
SPORTING BREED KENNELS VENDOR TOTAL
T4703 000725
8/22/00 8/22/00
T-CHEK SYSTEMS LLC
T4730 154
325.00
168
172
25.00 08-00 TRANSWEB WEBSITE PUBLICA 01-4320-3100
25.00 JRNL-CD 1010
174
VENDOR TOTAL 25.00
8/22/00 8/22/00
539.28 JRNL-CD
01-4190-3520
1010
8/22/00 8/22/00
41.20 JRNL-CD
q~- 230__0~ 97
1010
8/22/00 8/22/00 20.60 JRNL-CD
O~ -._4~ o - 3_5~ o
1010
8/22/00 8/22/00
THE LAKER V~N_D~ R__T.Q~6 L ...... 6!~.81
18. _73____0~ _-- 12:_0~0~ H A pD OB F F FIELD
18.73 JRNL-CD
, __01.:~__02...0 -__~3510
1010
T4731 000731 80.70 HELP WANTED AD 07-00
................ __8~22/0.0 .... 8/22/_0~ ........... 80.7~___JRNL~CD
THE LAKER/PIONEER VENDOR TOTAL 80.70
8/22/00 8/22/00 104.00 JRNL-CD
201492
8/22/00 8/22/00
201721
8/22/00 8/22/00
201722
8/22/00 8/22/00
TH6RP~"D~STRiBUTiNG COMPA~VENDOR TOTAL
71-7100-3500
lO~D
71-7100-9530
1010
-192.75 BEER 71-7100-9530
192.75 JRNL-CD 1010
183,30- ~fscE~L~hEOos--i-~Xxd~E ..................... ~Z:~-oo-9sso
183.30 JRNL-CD 1010
4,395.~5 BEER ............................. ~i:~'i00-9530
4,395.65 JRNL-CD 1010
4875.70
T495! 065722
8/22/00 8/22/00
3.61. 2" CAP ................... 01-~340-2200
3.61 JRNL-CD lOlO
PAGE 15
AP-C02-01
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
......................VENDOR INVOICE ..... DUE MOLD ............................................................. PRE
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ~
......... ~5845 30.09 PADLOCK, KEY, ETC 01-4340-2200
8/22/00 8/22/00 30.09 JRNL-CD 1010
'TRU~ v~lu~ ........................ ~N~R"TOTAL 33.70
_T~ ,9__8 _S__~_6 6 5 0 7- 0
.............. 3.5.70 .... OFFICE_SUP_pLIES ............................
8/22/00 8/22100 35.70 JRNL-CD 1010
8/22/00 8/22/00
8)22/00 8/22/00
265290-0_ ............
265437-0
266688-0
8/22/00 8/22/00
3.60 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01~4040-2200
............................ 3.~-- MISkELL~NEous--'O~ICE-sUpPLIE~ ......... 01-~'0~2~0~
3.60 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-2200
......................... 3.60~_ MISCELLANEOUS._OEFICE~SU~PLIES ..... 01~419.0~200
3.60 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4340-2200
1.20 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4280-2200
1.20 MISCELLANEOUS._.OFEICE_SUpPL_IES ........
1.80 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 73-7300-2200
1.80 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 78-7800-2200
3~_~.ISCELL~NEO~._O_[[I~_S~L~.~S .... ~_6~-~00
27.33 JRNL-CD 1010
69.61 OFFICE SUPPLIES
69.61 JRNL-CD
21.40 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
21.40 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
21.40 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
21.~0 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
7.13 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
7.13
10.71 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
10.71 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES
TWIN CITY OFFICE SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL 275.32
U5030 6584269 543.13 WESTERN REPAIR LID
8/22/00 8/22/00 543.13 JRNL-CD
01-4060-2200
1010
01-4040-2200
01-4090-2200
01-41&0-2200
01-4190-2200
01-4340-2200
01-4280-2200
7 ~Q~=2 2__o 0
73-7300-2200
78-7800-2200
1010
73-7300-2300
1010
-- 6616252 .................................... ~6~':'~--~U~--~-~- .......................... 73-7300-2300
8/22/oo 8/22/oo 166.98 dRNL-CD iOZO
US FILTER VENDOR TOTAL 710.11
31.95_ 09-00 BALBOA PARKING
u~102 pOq9~O
31.95 09-00 BALBOA PARKING 73-7300-4200
31.95 09-00 BALBOA PARKING 78-7800-4200
8./22_~_~0 _.8/22/00 ....... 95.8~_.~RNL:CD ................................. 1010__
UNITED PROPERTIES VENDOR TOTAL 95.85
.....................................................................................................W5571 27761 38.50 PART OF SILLCOCK 7~-7300-2300--
8/22100 8/22/00 38.50 JRNL-CD 1010
PAGE 16
AP-C02-01
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
_yENDO~ ............ jNVOICE ..... DUE._ HOLD ............................................................
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
8/22/00 8/22/00 227.94 JRNL-CD 1010
23098 1,104.21 07-07-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340
8/22/00 8/22/00 1,104.21 JRNL-CD 1010
23236
8/22100 8/22/00 205.90 JRNL-CD 1010
23347 786.68 07-11-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340
8/22100 8/22/00 786.68 JRNL-CD 1010
-2-34--0-9- ................... ~25~27--'07-12-00 BLACKTOP 27-5B00-2340
8/22/00 8/22/00 625.27 JRNL-CD 1010
23473 684.75 07-13-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340
8/22/00 8/22/00 684.75 JRNL-CD 1010
23474 3,708.28 07-13-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340
8/22/00 8/22/00 3,708.28 JRNL-CD 1010
23627 182.00 07-14-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340
8/22/00 8/22/00 182.00 JRNL-CD 1010
23628 7,416.25 07-14-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340
8/22/00 8/22/00 7,416.25 JRNL-CD 1010
23748 1,485.96 07-17-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340
8/22/00 8/22/00 1,485.96 JRNL-CD 1010
23966 328.36 07-19-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340
8/22/00 8/22/00 328.36 JRNL-CD 1010
24019 135.43 07-20-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340
8/22/00 8/22/00 135.43 JRNL-CD 1010
24208 104.34 07-24-00 BLACKTOP 27-5800-2340
8/22/00 8/22/00 104.34 JRNL-CD 1010
8/22/00 8/22/00 4,167.09 JRNL-CD
27-5800-2340
1010
8/22/00 8/22/00 242.28 JRNL-CD 1010
........ 2~7[~ ......................................... 123.67 07-31-00 BLACKTOP .............................
8/22/00 8/22/00
WM MUELLER'& SONS ....... VENDOR TOTAL'
16483 000810
..................... ~/22~0~-'-8/22/0~
LONGPRE, JERRY VENDOR TOTAL
123.67 JRNL-CD
21528.41
1010
130.77
130.77
1999/20.00. CENTRAL BUSINESS_DIS 0.L~4280~200
JRNL-CD 10i0
130.77
PAGE 17
AP-C02-O1
VENDOR
NO. INVOICE NMBR
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF HOUND
INVOICe_ _ _~..UE__.BOLD ........................................................................ __PRE
DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ~
Z6711 000809 lOo28__~E~[R_R[~UND
8/22/00 8/22/00 10.28 JRNL-CD
._ ~.I_D~_S_H~_ S__T~ ~ E__N ......... ~VE NDOR _ TO~AL ...... !~. 2.8 ...........
Z67~2 000811 20.97 CYCLING PUBLICATION
...................... 8/22/0~__8/22/00 ..... 2.0,.~_._J~NL,~D
PATROL BIKE ~$T~MS VENDOR TOTAL 20.97
Z671~ 9S169~ ]SO.O0 GRANT WRITING SEMINAR
~.0o PUBLICATION
........ 8/22./00.__8/22/00 ............... &!S._OO___JRNL~C~ .....................
JUSTIC PLANNING AND MANAG= VENDOR TOTAL ~1S.00
TOTAL ALL VENDORS
79-389.5-0000
1010
01-4140-4170
10~0~ .....
01-~150-4110
01-4140-&170
OFFICERS
PRES10ENT
Candice
Li,,chfietd
VICE PRE,~DENT St~
SECRETARY/
TREASURER
Brandon
DIREC'TOR~
D~RECTOR-AT-DCROE
S¢o~ Ol~¢m
Park
DIREC'/OR-AT-LAR GE
CanOe
LJt¢~flel{
DISTRICT
Mary Ehler
DISTRICT 3
S~lly
Herman
DISTRICT 4
Steve O~$on
Tt~iet River F~
DISTRICT Tom
OISTRICT 6
Mike ~
St. Ant~
Way~ H~
DISTRI~ ?
Bo~ L~e
8randon
~ul Ka~k
Tom R~n
~12-572~
~. ~25
Minnesota Municipal Beverage Association
INCORPORATE0
An organization composed of the municipally-operated dispensaries of Minnesota
FAX TRANSMITTAL
DATE
TO:
LOCATION
FAX NUMBE. E/~
~.o~ ~~/
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS ONE)
COMMENTS:
MMBA TELEPHON--'-'~'~'~: -572~222 or
1-800-848-4912 EXTENSION 3925
MMBA FAX NUMBER: 6-1-Z-572-8163
/
MMB_A. Minnesota Mun ¢¥al Beverage Association
~~ .,:.-~ An organization composed of the municipally-operated elspensarles of Minnesota
' Position A(3ainst Allowing Grocery (General Food)
OFFICERS
PRESIDENT
Cendice Woods
t.l~cNlel~
VICE PRESIDENT
Steve Ol~on
Thief Rl~r
SECRETARY/
TREASURER
OIRECTOR-AT-LARGE
Park I~
DIRECTOR-AT.4~RGE
Cendice
Utehtield
D~STRICT 1
Mary Ehier
Spdng Grove
DISTRICT
Rm~ Fledke
Tracy
DISTRICT
Sally CarSOn
H®n~an
DISTRICT
Steve Olson
Thief Rh'e~
DISTRICT 5
Tom ayrn~
Silver ~
DISTRICT
Delarto
Mike
St. Anthony
Wayne Howe
Rogem
DISTRICT 7
Brendo~
Pa~ Ka~k
Tern Ryman
Pi~ancl*,l
Fax: 612-$72.,81~3
Stores To Sell Wine
BACKGROUND
In Minnesota, wine intended for consumption offthe licensed premises (off-sale) may
only be sold by an Exclusive Liquor Store. The proposal would allow wine to be sold in
grocery stores.
POSITION
MMBA is opposed to this legislation due to its negative affect on preventing drunk driving
and underage alcohol sales and consumption. In addition this legislation would have a
significantly detrimental economic Impact on current off-sale retailers.
REASONS
1)
2)
3)
This legislation would significantly inczeasa the number of off-sale establishments
allowed to sell wine (alcohol) - a controlled substance. This increase would put a
large economic an(I personnel burden on regulatory bodies.
These establishments would be allowed to sell all types of wine products including
wine coolers, fofiifled wine, sweet "pop' wine and jug wine - products most strongly
desired by underage indlvtcluals.
The minimum age to purchase alcohol in Minnesota is 21 years old. The majority of
current off-sale retailers do not allow persons under 21 to enter their facility to
purchase any items, unless a~ompanied by an adult. Common industry practice
allows ind'~icluals under 21 years of age to enter and purchase products in a grocery
store including cigarettes and lottery tickets. This customer base would make it
dilTKadt to ensure consistent legal sale of beverage alcohol.
4)
The economic impact to current off-sale retailers would be devastating. Current off-
sale retailers am statutorily limited to the types of items they can sell. Grocery stores
are not limited and will be able to simply utilize wine as a new and significant preffi
~enter to complement their existing inventory. Current off-sale retailers will not be
s)
This legislation opens the door for the elimination of 3.2~, beer in Minnesota. (3.2
beer contains not less than one-half of one percent alcohol by volume nor more than
3~ percent alcohol by weight).
Minnesota law allows grocery stores, gas stMions, convenience stores and wherever
beer is sold to sell 3.2 beer. Due to the same regulatory issues concerning regulation
of alcohol and wine, 'Strong' Beer (ever 3.216) can only be sold in exclusive liquor
stores. If wine can be sold in grocery stores, there will be little to preve~ them from
eventually soiling strong beer. Since beer accounts for approximately 60"6 of off-sale
revenue, most, If not all, small and medium sized off-sale retail operations would be
fomegl out of business and the alcohol retail distribution system in Minnesota would
be dramatically altemcl forever.
CTI'Y COUNCZL RESOLUTION 00-07-08
A RESOLUI~ON OPPOS]:NG THE CONCEPT OF ALLOWZNG FURTHER
PROL[FERAT]:ON OF I T(~)UOR SALES FROH D]:$PENSARJ:ES OTHER THAN
DULY AUTHOILT, ZED OFF-SALE L.ZQUOR STORES.
WHEREAS
~he sale of 3.2 beer by convenience stores, grocery s~ores, gas stations,
and other associated retail outlets for off premise consumption is
currently allowed under Minnesota law, and
WHEREAS the check out clerks at the aforementioned types of retail outlets are not
generally fully tTalned to recognize fake identification or in other alcohol
management techniques normally required for the employees of duly
authorized off-sale liquor dispensaries, and
there Is a proposal before the Plinnesota Legislature that, if adopted and
made law, would allow convenience stores, grocery stores, gas stations
and other similar retail outlets to sell wine including sweet 'pop' wines,
wine cra)lets and associated products for off premise consumption, and
WHEREAS the city of Undstrom is endeavoring to curtail youth access to alcohol and
tobacco produc~s, and
WHEREAS
the proliferation of the types of outlets where the sale of alcohol
provides additional opportunities fOr youth tO have access to alcohol,
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lindstrom that they hereby oppose the
concept of allowing the further proliferaUon of liquor sales from
dispensaries other than duly authorized off-sale liquor stores.
Adopted by the Undstrom City Council on this the 20~ day of July, 2000.
SEAL
Attest: Hark H. Kamowski,
City Administrator
Peter C. Nelson, Hayor
Engineering · Planning · Surveying
Associates, Inc.
August 16, 2000
Ms. Kandis Hanson, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Auditors Road Street Improvements
SAP 145-108-02
MFRA #9968
Dear Kandis:
Enclosed is Kusske Consmaction's Payment Request No. 5 for work completed through
July 31, 2000 on the subject project. The amount of this payment request is $14,836.37.
We have reviewed the payment request, find it to be in order and recommend payment in
the above amount to the Contractor.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
John Cameron, City Engineer
JC:rth
Enclosure
s:~nainh-nou9968~correspondence~hanson8-15
15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota . 55447
phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532
e-ma#: rnfra@mfra, com
0000000000~000000000000000000~ · ~
O~O~gg~ooo O00~O~gO0~ oo00 ~00
0000 o0oo~°°°~° O0.ggOOOO~.~OOg
o.oo-,~oo ~ o~om o oo~o o~o o ~ ooo oo o~oo o o
oooooooooooooooo,o~oooooooooooooooo
000000000000~
ggggggggooo~oggggggg~OOOooooo oooogooo~°°°*~ggg
0
Z
0 I~ ~ ~ 0000000000~ 000 O0 h) 0 ~ 0000000 (.,"* 000000 ~
bb~bbbb b bbb bbb b ~ b b ~i,0 bbb bbb bbbb~i,0b bb bb
00 ¢.1~ ~ 0000000000 ¢.,'1000 ~.,'10000000000 U'I 00000
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb~bbbbbbb~bbbbb ~ bb
00000ooo0oo000ooo~0~oo00oo000o0oooo
~ .
0000~000000000000000000000000000
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
0
:> ~
OmO0OOoo000~o~o00~o000000000~o0oo0
bbbbbbbbbbb' bbbbbx' bbbbbbbbb~bbbbb
0000oooo00o~ooo00o~0o00oo0o000oooo0
:
88ooooooo8888o8o8oo888ooooo~ooooooo
~ ~ o
0 ~ ~o~
_ _. ~ ~ ..
~z.. ~ ~z
O~
~ : ·
Engineering
· Planning
· Surveying
' IcFRA
August 16, 2000
Ms. Kandis Hanson, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
2000 Seal Coat Program
Final Payment Request
MFRA #6173
Dear Fram
Enclosed is Allied Blacktop's Final Payment Request in the amount of $27,315.90 for the 2000 Seal
Coat Program. The contract price for the project was $27,500. Because this work is fully completed,
we do not recommend that any amount be retained.
We have reviewed this project with Greg Skinner, your Street Superintendent, and find that the work
was completed in general accordance with the plans and specifications. It is our recommendation
that the Contract be paid in full for this project.
Very truly yours,
John Cameron, City Engineer
JC:rth
Enclosure
cc: Greg Skinner, Street Superintendent, City of Mound
s:kmain:\6173Xhanson8-16
15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota o 55447
phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532
e-mail: rnfra@mfra, com
8610 'oN
RESOLUTION # 00-
RESOLUTION TO DENY VARIANCES TO BUILD A LAKESIDE
DECK WITHIN A BLUFF ON THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 4552 DENBIGH ROAD,
PID # 19-117-23 24 0048
P & Z CASE #00-39
WHEREAS, the applicant, has requested a bluff setback variance and variances to
recognize existing front yard setbacks to build a deck on the property located at 4552 Denbigh
Road as indicated below:
Proposed
Bluff 0 feet
Front yard (house) 14 feet (existing)
Front yard (garage)3.4 feet (existing)
Required Variance
10 feet 10 feet
2O feet 6 feet
20 feet 16.6 feet
WHEREAS, the property is located within the R-2 One and Two Family Residential
District which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback, a 6 feet side
yard, and 50 feet lake side setbacks; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed deck will encroach into the bluff impact zone which prohibits
structures except for stairways used to traverse the slope along with associated landings; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended that
the Council deny the variance as requested by the applicant finding that other building locations
for the deck are available that would not encroach on the bluff; and,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City does hereby deny the variance.
This vadance is denied for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 7 AND 8, BLOCK 2, AVALON,
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: August 14, 2000
SUBJECT: Variance Request
APPLICANT: Todd Hovren
CASE NUMBER: 00-39
ttKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5
LOCATION: 4552 Denbigh Road
ZONING: Residential District R-2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to build a deck within a bluff setback
area. The variance request is as follows:
proposed Required Variance
Bluff setback
Front yard setback
Front yard setback
0 feet 10 feet 10 feet
14 feet (exis~g) 20 feet 6 feet
3.4 feet (existing) 20 feet 16.6 feet
The house currently sits within the 10 feet bluff setback area. The proposed deck would encroach
into the bluff that has a slope of about 56% where the deck is proposed. Other nonconforming
setbacks include front yards for the house and garage.
It is difficult for staff to recommend a further encroachment within the bluff impact zone. This is
clearly an area where building is prohibited. Staff would suggest a deck location on the west side
of the house that does not further the existing encroachment.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
deny the variance request.
123 North Third S~xeet, Suite 100, Minnea~li.q, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN ~5364
Phone:_472-0607, Fax: 472.0620
Application Fee: $1OO.OO
City Planner (.P'~-/70 DNR
City Engineer [~ '~,~- C~O -Other ~Ptp..K~
Public Works Other
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
Address /~ 5~'~-
Lot ~ -~ ~
Block ~
Subdivision
ZONING DISTRICT
Name ~ b~
Address ~ E ~
Phone
B-1
Plat~
B-2 B-3
APPLICANT Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone
OWNER) (H)
(VV) (M)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure
for this property?. ( ) yes, ~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and
provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
io'x be.c_J o-,..., L.-,tk
V'ar{ance Appl~, P. 2
Do the existing structures comply with a~'area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district'
in which it is located? Yes (), No j~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance
request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS:
REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or exi~ng)
Front Yard: ( N S E W )
Side Yard: ( N S E W )
Side Yard: ( N S E W )
Rear Yard: ( N S E W )
Lakeside: ( N S E W )
~L.~A~I= : (NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover.
ff. ff. ff.
ff. ft. ff.
ff. ft. ff.
ff. ft. ff.
ff. ff. ff.
ff. 0 ff. i0 ft.
ft. ff. fL
sq ff sq ff sq ft
sq ff sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located?
Yes (), No ~). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Please
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses
permitted in that zoning district?
too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation
too shallow ( ) shape (,~)~other. specify
/:,/,.,_-/-7'
V~r~ce Application, P. 3
Was the hardship described above creat~l by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after-
the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No }0- If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No,(~. If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in
this petition? Yes (), No ,{~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
!
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining
and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature
Date
~ Ap_plicant's Signature -,~-~-~ ~,~._
Date
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIO.._US SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ..............
LOT AREA ~-~ooo
LOT AREA
SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I ~n~O0 I
SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .. I I
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
HOUSE ~ X 3 ~ = ~
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
i% x =
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
X
X =
X
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ...................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X
X =
TOTALOTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
I
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... I 5 o~ 0
PREPAREDBY ~ ~
DATE (~-;L~- ~O
,½
//
'Z~/] g Z- //
7zoo
~4~ £~.~.
TRACT A
The Northeasterly 15.00 feet of Lot 7 and the Southwesterly 35.50 feet of Lot 6, Block 2, Avalon.
TRACT B
The Southwesterly Half of Lot 4, all of Lot 5 and Lot (~, except Ihs Southwesterly 35.50 feet of said Lot6, Block 2, Avalon.
TRACT C
Lot 8 and Lot 7, Block 2, Avalon, except the Northeasterly 15.00 feet of sald Lot 7.
] I hereby certify that this plan. Survey or report was
SCHOB OR~ prepared by me or unde~ my dlrecl supervision a,d that I am
~D SURVEYING a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the Slale
OI Mlnnesola. ~ ~
.... '0"~ Date: ~ ~//~& Re'ration No. 147~
.oo -
Scale
· I
~f
\
· . 5:~'7- -~- k~}~'' ;~,-=:: ":~? '!',~
.. .~ ..... , - . .
z. ~ tl V' a L ,o /,/. -.-
CiI'Y OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO
YARD ' [ DIRECTION
,lOUSE .........
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
R~ ~0.000/S0 nX ~.S00/0
C RZA e,000/40./ ~: :0,000/80
~2 6,000/40 ~3 ZO,O00/60
R2 14,000/80
R3 S~ ORD. I1 30.o00/100
REQUIRED ] EXISTING/PROPOSED
15'
50'
10' OR 30'
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTH:
LOT DEPTH:
VARIANCE
GARAGE, SIlED ..... 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
LAKE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF
4' OR 6'
4' OR 6'
4'
50'
10' OR 30'
llARDCOVER 30% OR 40%
CONFORMING~ YES / NO / ? [BI': [DATED:
This Zoning Info[matlon Sheet only summarizes n portion of ~he requirements oullinc~l in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For furlher information, con,ncr tile Cit~ of Mound
Plannino l}en~rtment at 472-0600.
\
\
-f;nVT lOTS
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
July 14, 2000
Memorandum
TO: Mayor/City Council ~~~v/)i
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director
SUBJECT: Appointment to the Park & O~ sory
Commission.
'Two applicants for the one vacant POSAC term were
interviewed at the July 13, 2000 meeting. From the
interviews the POSAC is recommending Schelly Young be
appointed to complete the term of Christina Cooper that ends
December 2000.
Attachments: Letter/Resume
print~l on recycled p4per
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
JULY 13, 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 Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Absent: Commissioner Christina Cooper
Chair Beise called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
3. INTERVIEW APPLICANTSFOR~POSAC VACANCY
Schelly Young, 6190 Red Oak Road, addressed the Commission first. She has lived in
Mound for 7 years and would like to get involved in the community. She indicated that
seeing the ad in the paper seemed like a very good way to proceed with her desire for
community involvement.
Chair Beise asked which of the parks in Mound Ms. Young uses the most.
Ms. Young replied she lives very near Philbrook Park and uses that very often.' She also
has played and attended softball games at other parks.
Commissioner Casey asked if Ms. Young has heard about any issues that have been
before the Park Commission in the past.
Ms. Young stated she was very interested in the skate park issue tonight, and remembers
a controversy regarding putting a softball field at Philbrook Park that she was involved in.
Commissioner Casey asked about Ms. Young's studies of ornithology.
Ms. Young expressed her interest in the open spaces, particularly in Mound, and definitely
as habitat for birds. This habitat needs to be monitored and she would welcome the
opportunity to help in any way with education or support for this open space.
Commissioner Domholt questioned if Ms. Young has had any experience with City
government.
Ms. Young replied she has not. She has been involved in various organizations and teams
where group effort was necessary.
Councilmember Weycker asked where Ms. Young would apply $100,000, if available, for
the parks in Mound, not including the skate park.
3
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
July 13, 2000
Ms. Young stated she would plant mom trees, and possibly add bird houses for specific
varieties of birds and so on.
Chair Beise thanked Ms. Young for her interest, and she stepped out.
Mr. Ron Motyka, 1545 Bluebird Lane, then addressed the Commission regarding his desire
to serve on the Park Commission. Mr. Motyka has lived in Mound since 1989 and would
like very much to get involved in the City.
Chair Beise asked which park Mr. Motyka uses most in Mound.
Mr. Motyka replied he lives a block from Canary Beach, and he and his family use that park
quite often.
Councilmember Weycker asked if them were $100,000 available, where would he spend
this amount, .not including the skate park.
Mr. Motyka stated the City of Mound has great parks right now, but he is very concerned
about the open spaces that are not being kept up. There are vacant areas that look really
trashy, and the money would go well towards maintenance.
Commissioner Domholt asked about the travel included in Mr. Motyka's job and if it would
interfere.
Mr. Motyka stated he spends much of his time out of town, and out of state, but could
arrange to be in town for the one night a month for the meetings, and would be happy to
put in any additional time on the weekends that is needed for the Commission's issues.
Commissioner Casey questioned what other issues Mr. Motyka has with the City.
Mr. Motyka replied that there are some very good things the City is doing. Also, there is
a ball diamond at Three Points Park that is seldom used, and this would be a good site for
the skate park discussed earlier.
Commissioner Casey asked what his thoughts were on the referendum soon to be before
the voters.
Mr. Motyka stated he is against it, as the City does not own the property at this point.
There is enough parkland now, and them would be somewhere else to put the skate park.
4
8C. VOTE FOR APPLICANT FOR POSAC VACANCY
Park Director Fackler announced that after counting the POSAC ballots,
will be recommended to the City Council as the new Park Commissioner.
Schelly Young
6
July 4, 2000
Park and Open Space Advisory Commission
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Park Commi~qsion,
I am interested in serving on the Park and Open Space Advisory Commission. I feel
strongly about the Mound community and it's wonderful setting of parks, lakes and
recreation I would enjoy the opportunity to be able to serve the Mound community in
this way.
I have always enjoyed parks and nature all of my life. I worked for the Youth
Conservation Corps as a young adult. This was a US Forest Service program that
employed youth to maintain trails, construct fire breaks, maintain and upkeep of the
forest parks.
I also worked for the Santa Barbara, California Parks Department as a park maintenance
worker for 2 years maintaining the pristine beach parks of the Santa Barbara area.
I have studied ornithology at the Un/versity of Minnesota as a hobby, s/ncc I have found
the wonderful migration of birds in this State incredible!
I have been living in Mound for almost 7 years and I have also been worldng for the Toro
Company since I moved here. I started with Toro here at the Mound plant and have been
working at the corporate office in Bloomington for 4 years or so. I choose to commute
because I truly have found my home here in Mound and I never want to leave!
In addition to my passion for the outdoors, I also understand the need for impartiality
when considering the needs of the community as a whole, and I have strong skills in this
area.
I look forward to speaking with you at the interview.
Sincerely,
Sehelly L. Young
6190 Red Oak Rd.
Mound, MN 55364
4724276
$CHELLY L. YOUNG
6190 Red Oai~ Rd Mound, MN 55364-9280 952-472-6276
SUMMARY
Experienced agency compliance technician, also skilled motorcycle mechanic, loe. k.~mith and cardiology technician.
Knowledgeable field service representative recognized for ability to troubleshoot consumer and Landscape Contractor
Group power equipment breakdowns. Reliable, t~am player, re~ur~ and capable. Comput~ skills in C~eway, Paltsmart,
Intranet, Windows 9:5, LAN, Crroupwise, MS word and Excel, SAP and Access.
Toro Circle of Excellence award recipient in 1995.
Agency Standards Experience: Underwriters Laboratory (UL), European Standard (ELI) (CEN), Canadian Standards
Association (CSA, CUL), DEMKO, Machine Directive, American National Standards
Institute (ANSI). And Toro Safety Standards.
EMPLOYMENT HLqTORY
THE TORO COMPANY, Mound and Bloomington, MN 1993- Present
Promoted within six months from manufacturing to the test department; and, thereafter, to corporate headquarters.
Increasing responsibility with technical and service expertise required.
Technical Representative, Consumer Service Division Bloomington, MN 1998- Present
· Primary accountability for hand-held product line. Technical writing, editing and final approval of operator's manuals.
Assist in developing new product as a part of a team with sales, marketing and engineering. Trouble shoot quality and
warranty cost issues.
· Resolve all incoming questions from calls, faxes, emalk and letters fi.om dealers, distributors and customers for all Toro
Consumer Products.
· Assist in developing Service School programs and Distributor Service Managers Conferences, traveling to these events
and representing Toro while presenting technical, admini._,~ation and warranty information.
Technical Coordinator, International Division, Bloomington, MN- 1997
· Effectively diagnose equipmem failures, accessory interchangeability, product and parts specifications on riding
products, walk power mowers, hand-held appliances and irrigation for consumer and commercial.
Researched queries fi.om consumers, servicing dealers, distributors as well as other Toro employees in Canada and
world wide using the phone, faxes and written correspondence with quick successful responses on repair, serviceability,
warranty and maintaince issues with consistent level-headedness.
Field Service Representative, Consumer Services Division, Bloomington, MN- 199 7
· Effectively diagnose walk power mowers, consumer hand-held products and rider mower equipment faiha~ and
accessory interchangeabilities, providing telephone assistance to more than 50 callers daily.
· Researched queries fi.om consumers, servicing dealers, distributors and company personnel, succes,ff-u~ responding to
repair, serviceability, warranty and maintenance issues with consistent level-headedness.
Certified Test Technician, Mound, MN1993-1997
· Tested hand-held electrical consumer products, ensuring compliance with domestic and international agency safety
standards for updated component parts and new product line.
· Achieved agency certification in half the time normally required based on consistently exceeding performance
expectations.
Trained new and contract test technidam in understanding agency compliance standards and company laboratory
procedures for Toro's electrical and gas powered walk-behind and riding mowers.
Core Team Member, Assembly Line, Mound, 1993-1994
· Efficiently and acoarately assembled parts for Toro's electrical hand-held comer product line.
· Provided quality audits, inventoo] control and parts accountability staying productive in highly pressured environment.
HIGmJAND HOSPITAL, Oakland, CA - 1991
Cardiology Technician InternsMp in routine and emergency environmenta
ADEPT PAINTING AND LOCKS, Oaidand and San Jo~, CA 1986 - 1990
Lock Technician/Paint Technician
GOLDEN GATE KEY AND LOCK, Oakland, CA 1984- 1986
Lock Technician
City of Santa Barbara Parks Department, Santa Barbara, CA 1981 - 1983
Park Maintenance Worker I
US Forest Service, Santa Barbara County, CA 1979 - 1980
Youth Conservation Corp.
EDUCATION
· Certificates, Motorcycle Technician Program (975 Hours), Harley-Davidson Early Model Elective
(150Hours) and Harley-Davidson Factory Elective (300Hours), Motorcycle Mechanics Institute, Phoenix,
AZ, April, 1992-August, 1993
Certified Cardiology Technician (600 Hours), Loma Vista Education Center, Concord, CA, 1991
· General Studies coursework, Laney College, Oakland, CA, 1988-1989
· Certified Locksmith Technician (400 Hours), Golden Gate School of Lock Technology, Oakland, CA, 1984
Ifeel my ~ews m,~ in line with msny or*the pmjle oFthis co ........ ,.k% ~m~lI sm w;l~E to ~'k
1.~45 B~~
(612) 472-7813
MEMORANDUM
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
i ln
To: Kandis Hansen, City Manager
From: Loren Gordon, City Planner
Date: August 18, 2000
Subject: Final Plat approval
It has been an unwritten policy to hold public hearing at City Council for final plat approval.
Although the subdivision regulations do not specifically call for a hearing, it has been a matter of
course to do so in most circumstances. I would suggest that if the Council would like to hold a
public hearing the code be revised to reflect that procedure. If it is the Council's pleasure not to
hold a public heating, the code can remain as written. Public hearings are required at both
Planning Commission and City Council for preliminary plat approval. Council approval of a
preliminary plat lends confidence to the developer that the project is acceptable to the City with
whatever conditions the City may impose to attain 'good and reasonable development.' Council
review of the final plat is largely a procedural mechanism to ensure consistency with the
preliminary plat and obtain necessary signatures for recording with the County.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
RESOLUTION # 00-
RESOLUTION TO DENY A VARIANCE FOR A SIDE YARD
SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE
ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5212 WATERBURY ROAD~
P & Z CASE tt00-47
WHEREAS, the applicant, Tom Stokes, has requested a side yard setback variance to
construct a new house on property located at 5212 Waterbury Road as indicated below:
Proposed Required Variance
Side yard 6 feet 10 feet 10 feet
WHEREAS, the property is located within the R-2 One and Two Family Residential
District which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback, a 10 feet side
yard, and 15 feet rear yard setback for tiffs non lot of record; and,
WHEREAS, the property was recently subdivided through the minor subdivision process
approved by Resolution #00-39; and,
WHEREAS, the builder proceeded with the construction of the west side yard
foundation 6 feet from the property line, violating the approved 10 feet side yard setback as
stipulated in Resolution #00-39; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended that
the Council deny the variance as requested by the applicant finding that the situation was self
created and not a pre-existing condition of the property; and,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City does hereby deny the variance.
2. The variance denial is supported by the following findings:
The variance request was created by circumstances that are the result of the
applicant.
The circumstance is not related to irregular lot dimensions, topography,
unusual conditions of the property.
The neighboring properties would be unfairly burdened with a setback that is
less than was approved by Resolution # 00-39.
The granting of the variance would confer special privileges to the applicant
by allowing reduced setbacks that would not be allowed under the code for
similar circumstances.
This variance is denied for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System: ALL OF LOT 13 AND THAT PART OF LOT
14 LYING WEST OF THE EAST 5.00 FEET THEREOF, ALL IN BLOCK 18, "WHIPPLE", HENNEPIN
COUNTY, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: August 14, 2000
SUBJECT: Variance Request
APPLICANT: Brenshell Homes/Tom Stokes
CASE NUMBER: 00-47
HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5
LOCATION: 5201 Waterbury Road
ZONING: Residential District R-2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to grant a side yard setback variance
for a foundation that was poured with a 6 feet setback. This is a parcel that was a newly approved
minor subdivision that required 10 feet side yard setbacks as stipulated in Resolution #00-39.
The builder submitted plans to pour the foundation at a 6 feet setback and was inadvertently
missed by staff. The error was caught by a neighbor who alerted the City of the situation. A stop
work order was placed on the project to prevent any additional work that encroached or would
cause further problems in the sideyard.
Although the City approved a permit for the foundation, it does not supercede the approved
Resolution and zoning regulations for the parcel. This is difficult matter but staff cannot find a
practical difficulty for this case because the builder initiated the situation.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
deny the variance request. This recommendation suggests that the building be modified to meet
the required 10 feet setback.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
~/~ C~ OF MOUND
5341 Ma~ood Road, Mound, MN
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
oomm,ss,on ?
City Council Date: 4U~I[~,~T Z'~---, '~
Distribution: ~' ~.'OC) City Planner
~2:'- ~_- OO City Engineer
~: ",-,~ 'O'?) Public Works
Ap plig..At~'er~ee2 I"11~1100.00
Cji Y uh ivlC~U~,~L~
Case NO. ~-~
DNR
PARK
Other
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
Address
Block
Subdivision
R-2 R-3 B-1
Plat~
B-2
PROPERTY
OWNER
Name ~.~.-~ k ~. /-~'~,~
Address
Phone
(M)
APPLICANT Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone
OWNER) (H)
(W) (M)
Has an application evegbeen made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure
for this property? (~es, ( ) no. ~ list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and
provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Revised 07-11-00
Vadance Application, P. 2
Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with all, ama, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district
in which it is located? Yes (), No (~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for
variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS:
REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: (N~/) ~--O ft. ~...c..J ft. (~) ft.
Side Yard: ( N S ~ ! 0 ft. ~ ft. ~ ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) /0 ff. / 0 ff. - 0 ff.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) /.5' fi:' ,,r .5"- ff. C.~ ff.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
: (NSEW) ft. ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ') '5 ff. '~- ff. C..) ff.
Lot Size: ~0~ sq ft ~1,~ sq ft C.,) sq ft
Hardcover: ]'~ I'~ sq ff sq ff t'3 sq ff
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning distdct in which it is located?
Yes (), No~)~. If no, specify each non-conforming use:
o
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses
permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( ) too shallow ( ) shape
Please describe:
( ) soil
( ) existing situation
(t,,)~ther: specify
Revised 07-11-00
Variance Application, P. 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain:
Was the hards, l.hip created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No ,~. If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of~ardship for which you request a vadance peculiar only to the property described in
this petition? Yes (~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9. Comments: "--'r' i~j~c,_~ ,~,, Ce~,,. c,,...
~ lOt
I certifij that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining
and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signatur~
Date ~--~--
Applicant's Signature
Date
~evised 07-11-00
From: Steven Behnk:e To: Tom Si'ok:es
Fine Line
DE. i n
group, inc.
Dde: 8/11100 Time: 11:3~:54f
I of 1
August 1, 2000
Mr. Thomas Stokes
Brenshell Homes
5201 Waterbury Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Mr. Stokes
The siting of the home at 5212 Waterbury Road was done on June 1, 2000
After review./ng the resolution regarding the lot split, We found that the resolution was lacking in information
regarding the status of'Parcel A'.
A phone call was placed to Mound CiD' Hall and we were given a sideyard setback of 6' by a female staff member.
The siting of the home x,~as completed with this information.
Sincerel~;
Steven Behnke
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)SS
COUNTY OF 14~.N-NF. PIN)
DUPLICATE
I. the undersigned, being the duly qualified and Clerk-of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
hereby attest and certify that:
City or Morned RECEIVED
JUN 3 0
MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
As such officer, ! have the legal cuatody of the original record from which the attached
and foregoing extract was transcribed.
o
I have car~ully compared said extract with aaid original record.
I find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the original minutea
of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date indicated in said extract,
including any resolution adopted at such meeting, insofar ns they relate to:
RESOLIYrION # 00-39
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5200 WATF, RBURY ROAD,
LOTS 13, 14, 15, AND 16, BLOCK 18, WTOPPLE,
PID # 25-117-24 21 0149, P & Z CASE # 00-09
Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof ns required
by law on March 28, 2000.
WITNF, SS my hand offic~ally as such Clerk, and the aeal of said City,
this 12th day. of Sune, 2000.
TRANSFER ENTERED.
H~N COUNTY TAXPAYER
SEAL
CITY CLF, RK
RESOLUTION # 00-39
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT $200 WATERBURY ROAD,
LOTS 13, 14, 15, AND 16, BLOCK lit, WllIPPLE,
PID # 25-117-24 21 0149
P & Z CASE # 00-09
WHEREAS, Randall and Erica Beyreis, have submitted a request for a minor
subdivision to create one additional lot from lfle existing lot of record at 5200 Waterbury
Lane; and,
WI~REAS, 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,
WIIEREAS, proposed Parcel A would encompass 6404 square feet with 80
· feet of street frontage on Waterbury Place. Proposed Parcel B would encompass 6568
square feet with 80.8 feet of street frontage also on Waterbury Place. Each parcel meets the
R-2 minimum requirements for 40 feet of street frontage and 6,000 square feet of lot area;
arid.
WltF_REAS, the existing home on proposed 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 hardcovez to 30 percent of the lot area and sideyard setbacks
to 10 feet; and,
WIiERF~S, as proposed the existing home would have nonconforming side
and rear yard setbacks and hardcover, t~xistin~ parcel B currently has conforming hardcover
and sideyard setbacks, with and existing nonconforming rear yard setback of 14.5 feet; and,
M~EIEREAS, an existing sanitary sewer service stub is provided to proposed parcel A;
and,
WHEREAS, water service to proposed parcel A is not curre, utly provided and would
require a service extension from Tuxedo Blvd.; and,
WI:IPREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the minor subdivision as recommended by staff; and,
NOW, THERP.~I~ORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City
of Mound, Minnesota as follows:
The City does hereby grant a minor subdivision of the property pursuant to
Section 330:20, Subdivision I.B. with the following conditions:
Final grading and drainage plan be approx~"by the City Engineer at the time of
a.
building permit application,
b. Provide utility and drainage easements along all new lot lines, five (5) feet wide
on side lot lines and ten (10) feet in widt~ along front and rear lot lines.
c. The water service for Pn~x~el ^ either be installed from thc city main in Tuxedo
Boulevard or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or
l~rformance bond.
d. Any deficient watennain charges shall be collected.
e. The lot line between Panel A and B be moved to ~llow the sideyard s~back of
the house on Parcel B to conform tn a 10 feet setback.
f. The hardeover of Parcel ls conform to the 30% non lot of record standard.
g. Park dedication fee of $500 be paid at the time of building permit issuance.
2. This Minor Subdivision is gnmted for th~ following rmw legally descsibed property:
P&RCKt. A - (AREA - 6,011
ALL OF LOT 1~ AND THAT PART OF LOT 14 LYING WEST OF THE KA~T
~;.00 FEET THEREOF, ALL IN BLOCK 1~ 'WHIPPLE', ItENNI~IN COUNTY
PARCEL B - (AREA 6965 SQ. FT. +4
ALL OF LOTS l~ AND lt~ AND THE EAST $.00 FEET OF LOT 14 ALL IN
BLOCK 1~, *WitlPPLE~ ItENNEPIN COUNTY.
3. The prope~ owner ~hall haw th~ tesponsibllity of filing this resolution wifl~ Nennepin County
and pa:xlng all eoms for such recording.
The fom§oll~ t~olutlon was moved by O)uncilmember Brown and seconded by Councilmember
Weycl~r.
The following voted in the at'firmetive
Brown. Meisel and Weycke~.
'me following vomd i~ the negative:
Cmmcilmembers Ahrens and Hanus we~ absent and excusr~
: Cit~ Clerk
SS/PAT MEISEL
Mayor, Pat Meisel
5£8 P.i.- i
DF_~~TION O1~ EASEML:rNT ,
DUPLICATE
~ H~ stol Wi~ e'C,r~tors"), to il~ City of Mmmd. ~ Minne~ mtmici~a
All of Lot 13 stol ~ pm o£ Lot 14, lying W~st of' the F.~ 5.00 fix~ th~r~ zll in block
18. Whi~, Itennepin County, Mi~ota
All ~Lm~ 1~ azai 16 ~ Ibc East 5,00 f~t of L~ 14. all i~ Bl~k 18, Whil~le~ Head.in
C~m~y, Mim~ota
~rout~ ~ ~, ~s providaiin ~is maUmna~ md C~ dcsires to acc~t ~.
Thc Fuut Fivc (t) f~t a~l V/cst Five (~ tecr ~xt the N~ Tm (10) feet end South T~
(10) fee~ ofth~ f~llowing dcscnl~d properS. Lot 13 aud that part of Lot 14, lying West
of the East 5.00 feet fluereo~ ~ in Block 18. *Whipple, Henncpin Coum~, Mim~ote
P. 1/'1
TI~ North Tau (I0) fe~: and Sou;h Tm (10) f~ci nd oho 'Wust Fiv~ (~) ~'c~ and ~
South~m~l, iy Fivo (5) f~! ~f th~ following doaoribed pr01~. Lots 1S aug 16 and th~
Fast s.00 f~: of Ix~ 14, all m Blook 18, 'Whippl~, H~na~min County, Minnesota
Itt wi.mess, the undet'sik, ncd haw =~cutcd ~s declantion of cas~nnmt on th~ date first
s'r~Tg m, M~n~SO~A )
COiAgI',Y Om, ~~ )
MINUTES - crrY COUNCIL -MARCH 28, 2000
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in r~ular session
on Tuesday, March 28, 2000, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood
Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers: Bob Brown and Leah Weycker.
Absent and excused: Councilmcmbers Andrea Ahrens and Mark Hanus. Also in attendance
were City Attorney John Dean, Acting City Manager Fran Clark, City Planner I.oren
Gordon, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following interested citizens were also present:
Randy Beyreis, Jane Carlsen, Walter Couden, Blair Lindemyer, Peter Meyer, Mike Pfeiler,
Frank Weiland, Ann Hiltsley.
1.5
CASE/~0-09: MINOR SURDM,qION: TO CREATE TWO PARCELS FROM
ONE EXISTING PARCEL: 5200 WATERBURY ROAD. BLOCK 18, LOTS 13-
16. WHIPPLE: pID# 25..117-24 21 0149.
Councilmember Brown wanted it clarified by staff and the applicant that items listed on page
1074, specifically e. and f., would be agreeable to both staff and the applicant and would
make the lots conforming. The City Planner agreed with Councilmember Brown, as well as
the applicant who was present tonight.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, m approve the resolution for the minor
subdivision as discussed above.
RESOLUTION
RF3OL~ON TO APPROVE A MINOR
SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 5200 WATERBURY ROAD, LOTS 13, 14,
15, AND 16, BLOCK 18, WHIPPI.F., PID~
117-24 21 0149, P&Z CASE
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Mound Plannin(~ Commission Minutes March 13, 2000
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2000
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky
Glister, Cklair Hasse, Bill ross, Frank Weiland. Absent and excused:
Commissioners Michael Mueller and Jerry Clapsaddle, Council Liaison Bob
Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon
Sutherland, and Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: Janice Beise, John Beise, Kristin Beise, Edca
Beyreis, Randy Beyreis, Tom Bordwell, Marilyn Byrnes, Linda Kladstrup, Steven
Kladstrup, Sharon Cook, Marge Driesser, Tom Driesser, David Dvorak, Mic
Gronberg, Jerry Kohls, Ted Lentz, Peter Meyer, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka,
Duane Norberg, Brad Nordgren, Dotty O'Bden, Lowell Olson, Leona Peterson,
Larry Peitiorski, Roger Reed, Amy Reese, Tom Reese, Jeff Ritnal, Betty
Weiland, Roger Westman, Ben Withhard.
CASE*#~{)4)~: MINOR SUBDIVISION; TO CREATE TWO PARCELS FROM
ONE
EXISTING PARCEL; 5200 WILSHIRE ROAD, BLK 18, LOTS 13-16, WHIPPLE;
PID~25-117-24-21-0149.
Gordon presented this case. He stated the applicant submitted a request for a
minor subdivision to create one additional lot from an existing lot of record. The
property is located at the corner of Tuxedo Road and Waterbury Place consisting
of lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, Block 18 of Whipple. The lot has approximately
12,972 square feet of area as is currently held.
Gordon stated, as proposed, the property would be split into two lots. Parcel B
would remain for the existing home and would conform to lot area and width
standards for the R-2 zoning district. Structure setbacks are conforming for front
yards along both roads but are nonconforming for side and rear setbacks at 5.9
and 14.5 feet respectively. With the minor subdivision the status of the property
as a lot of record changes to a nonlot of record, reducing the allowable hardcover
to 30 percent of the lot area. The total hardcover for parcel B is 41 percent over
that requirement by 739 square feet.
Gordon stated Parcel A, as proposed, would consist of lots 13 and 14. Total lot
area as proposed is 6,404 square feet with 80 feet of frontage on Waterbury
Place. The new parcel would also be subject to nonlot of record hardcover
provisions of 30 percent impervious surface. Although a house plan is not sited
on the survey, all applicable R-lA district bulk provision would be applicable.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Mound Planning Commission Minutes Marct~ 13. 2000
Given the dimensions of the lot, attention to setback will be needed for a new
home to meet all district requirements.
Gordon stated most of the drainage on the block is routed through the property.
The survey indicated where drainage will be directed along property lines but
given the unknown house plans, additional grading and drainage information is
needed to insure there is not an inhibited flow through the property. Drainage
swales will be most likely be needed along side and rear property lines to provide
for proper drainage. Additionally, easements for drainage and utilities will be
needed as required by the City Engineer.
There is not a water line in Waterbury Place and water service will need to be
connected from the main in Tuxedo Road. No plans are shown on the survey
indicating how service will be provided.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the
minor subdivision as requested with the following conditions:
2.
3.
4.
Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be approved by the City
Engineer prior to release of an approved resolution.
Provide utility and drainage easements consistent with the City Engineer's
recommendation.
Water service plans be submitted to the City Engineer for review and
approval pdor to release of an approved resolution.
The sanitary sewer service stub for Parcel A either be installed or some
type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance
bond.
The lot line between Parcel A and B be moved to allow the sideyard
setbacks of the house on Parcel B to conform to a 10 feet setback.
The hardcover of Parcel B conform to 30 percent standard.
Park dedication fee of $500 be paid at the time of building permit
issuance.
Weiland asked if by moving the lot line four feet, would there be enough footage
in Parcel A. Gordon stated by this move, it would have to be carefully
monitored, but both parcels would be conforming. He further stated the
hardcover would be very close to the 30 percent, but the City Engineer would
have to calculate this in more exact terms.
Voss asked why the survey does not show the correct numbers. Gordon stated
this was the survey presented to the City at this time and this is what is being
proposed by staff with the information given to them.
ross stated he would be hesitant to pass this on to City Council without an
appropriate survey showing the exact lines and the conformities.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Mound Planning Commission Minutes March 13.
Randy Beyreis, the applicant, stated the survey has errors on it and staff
recommended to him to have this corrected.
Chair Michael stated it would be for the benefit of the applicant to table this case
until updated information has been received by the Planning Commission to
make an appropriate recommendation to City Council.
The applicant stated before tabling it, he would like to present his suggestions
and recommendations.
The applicant stated the sewer has already been stubbed in properly, although
the water has not been installed. He would like to wait with the water until the
building permit has been requested and not having an escrow figured in with the
subdivision.
Mr. Beyreis stated the hardcover is the big issue. He stated he would like the
boulevard to be used as part of green space for the hardcover calculations rather
than moving the lot line. He stated they currently take care of this boulevard.
Mr. Beyreis stated if they include this area, the hardcover would be
approximately 33 percent.
Gordon stated this boulevard is City owned and public right-of-way property.
Burma asked if Gordon could explain in general what 5.9 feet entailed. Gordon
stated this is 5 and 9/10ths feet. Burma stated by moving the lot line, a
nonconformity would still exist in the hardcover calculations. Gordon stated this
could be corrected by removing part of the ddveway or closing the throat of the
driveway as well.
The Applicant stated he would prefer not to change the ddveway because of the
steep slope on his ddveway (about 30 percent).
Weiland stated would not vote on this subdivision unless it is up to building code
on both subdivisions.
Voss asked if the boulevard has ever been included in a subdivision. Burma
stated the boulevard has been considered in a variance, but not in a subdivision.
Voss asked staff how the City would enforce having the ddveway removed to
meet the hardcover requirements. Gordon stated the amount would be
calculated and then the City would come in and remove it.
Chair Michael stated Commissioner Mueller presented a written statement to the
Planning Commission stating he recommends the subdivision according to staff
recommendations.
DRAFT
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Mound Plannina Commission Minutes March 13. 2000
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Glister, to approve the minor
subdivision according to staff recommendations 1-7 listed above,
and changing number 6 at the end of the statement to read "by
granting the City easement rights."
Discussion.
Burma stated he has calculated this subdivision to be conforming on both parcels
if the lot line was moved over 5 feet and the flag on the ddveway would be
removed.
Weiland asked if a vadance has ever been granted on a subdivision. Gordon
stated this has not been granted by the Planning Commission.
The applicant stated he would appreciate the driveway staying as it is and having
the subdivision granted with a variance.
Voss stated if this subdivision is not properly performed regarding the 30 percent
hardcover, there would be drainage problems in the future for the applicant.
Gordon further stated to the applicant that filtering of this water is an important
factor to be considered in a city like Mound to benefit the water quality of the
surrounding lakes.
Chair Michael reminded the applicant that the Planning Commission is a
recommending body and he could certainly present his case to the City Council
where legal counsel is present and another solution may result at that point.
Mr. Beyreis asked again if the escrow could be deferred until the building permit
is requested. Gordon stated the building permit would not be issued without
sewer and water hookups already in existence. He stated these hookups need
to be done upfront. He suggested the applicant address this as part of a
purchase agreement at the sale of the property.
MOTION CARRIED. 6-0.
Chair Michael recommended to the applicant that he attend the City Council
meeting on March 28, 2000, when his case will be discussed.
Seyreis, .a.dy
Staff Recommendations with A licant's Comments:
1. Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plan to be approved by the
City Engineer prior to release of an approved resolution.
· Applicant requests that this be done with application for building permit.
2. Provide utility and drainage easements consistent with the City
Engineer's recommendation.
3. Water service plans be submitted to the City Engineer for review and
approval prior to release of an approved resolution.
Tho sanitary sowor sorvico stub and (The sanitary sewer stub exists) The
water service for parcel A either be installed or some type of financial
guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond.
· Applicant requests that this be done with application for building permit.
The lot line between parcel A and B be moved to allow the sideyard
setback of the house on parcel B to conform to a 10 feet setback.
· Applicant requests a variance to 6 feet.
The hardcover of parcel B to conform to 30% standard.
· Applicant requests a variance to 41%. See attached for more information.
7. Park dedication fee of $500 be paid at the time of building permit
issuance.
PI"
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: March 13, 2000
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision
OWNER: Randall and Erica Beyreis
CASE NUMBER: 00-09
HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5
LOCATION: 5200 Waterbury Road
ZONING: Residential District R-2
COMPRERENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted'a request for a minor subdivision
to create one additional lot from an existing lot of record. The property is located at the comer of
Tuxedo Road and Waterbury Place consisting of lots 13, 14, 15, and 16 Block 18 of Whipple.
The lot has approximately 12,972 square feet of area as is currently held. "
As proposed, the property would be split into two lots. Parcel B would remain for the existing
home and would conform to lot area and width standards for the R-2 zoning district. Structure
setbacks are conforming for front yards along both roads but are nonconforming for side and rear
setbacks at 5.9 and 14.5 feet respectively. 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% of the
lot area. The total hardcover for parcel B is 41% over that requirement by 739 square feet.
Parcel A as proposed, would consist of lots 13 and 14. Total lot area as proposed is 6404 square
feet with 80 feet of frontage on Waterbury Place. The new parcel would also be subject to non lot
of record hardcover provisions of 30% impervious surface. Although a house plan is not sited on
the survey, all applicable R-lA district bulk provisions would be applicable. Given the
dimensions of the lot, attention to setback will be needed for a new home to meet all district
requirements.
Most of the drainage on the block is routed through the property. The survey indicated where
drainage will be directed along property lines but given the unknown house plans, additional
123 North Third Street, Suit~ 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
gO0-09 Beyreis Minor Subdivision
March 13, 2000
grading, and drainage information is needed to insure there is not an inhibited flow through the
property. Drainage swales will most likely be needed along side and rear property lines to
provide for proper drainage. Additionally, easements for drainage and utilities will be needed as
required by the City Engineer.
There is not a water line in Waterbury Place and water service will need to be connected from the
main in Tuxedo Road. No plans are shown on the survey indicating how service will be
provided.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approve the minor subdivision as requested with the following 'conditions.
1. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be approved by the City Engineer
prior to release of an approved resolution.
2. Provide utility and drainage easements consistent with the City Engineer's
recommendation.
3. Water service plans be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval
prior to release of an approved resolution.
4. The sanitary sewer service stub and the water service for Parcel A either be
installed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or
performance bond.
5. The lot line between Parcel A and B be moved to allow the sideyard setback of
the house on Parcel B to conform to a 10 feet setback.
6. The hardcover of Parcel B conform to 30% standard.
7. Park dedication fee of $500 be paid at the time of building permit issuance.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Engineering o Planning · Surveying
RgP, glVED
NAR 0 9 ZOO0
MOUND PLANN b & INSk
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 7, 2000
TO:
Jon Sutherland, Planning & Zoning
FROM:
John Cameron, City Engineer
SUBJECT:
Minor Subdi{4sion
Beyreis prOpertY 5200 Waterbury Road
Case #00-09
MFRA #12809 ·
Comments
The survey submitted with the application does not include a proposed house location or any
proposed elevations; Therefore a detailed grading and drainage plan will be required when
application is made for a building permit. The property to the north and northwest presently
drains across Parcel A, which will need to be taken into account when the final grading plan
is prepared.
2. The original plat of "Whipple" did not include any drainage and utility easements along lot
lines; Therefore, drainage and utility easement should be provided along all new lot lines.
It appears from City utility records that there is an existing sanitary sewer service to Lot 14,
however there is no city watermain located in Waterbury Road. The closest city main is
located in Tuxedo Boulevard. I have discussed this with Greg Skinner and it appears the most
feasible solution is to install a long service fi'om the main in Tuxedo Boulevard, across the
from of Parcel B, just behigd the curb. A 10. foot easement would be required for this service.
The cost of installing this service would be the responsibility of the applicant and would need
to be constructed to City standards.
15050 23rd Avenue North . Plymouth, Minnesota . 55447
phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532
e-mail: mfra@mfra.com
Jon Sutherland
March 7, 2000
Page 2
The combination of these 4 lots as one parcel was assessed one (1) unit charge when the
street improvements were done in 1980. If it is the City's desire to continue the policy of
collecting deferred unit charges when properties are m-divided and additional building units
are created, then this property should be charged for an additional unit in the amount of
$1,828.15.
5. The original watermain assessment records should also be checked for an deficient charges.
6. The survey needs to be revised to show the correct lot numbers both on the drawing and in
the proposed legal description for both new parcels.
Recommendations
We recommend the following conditions become a part of the subdivision approval:
1. Final grading and drainage plan to be approved by the City Engineer at time of building
permit application.
2. Provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines, five (5) feet wide on side lot
lines and ten (10) feet in width along front and mar lot lines.
3. A new water service either be installed from the city main in Tuxedo Boulevard or some type
of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond.
4. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,828.15 shall be paid.
5. Any deficient watermain charge shall be collected.
s:hmain\mou 12809~sutherlandmemo3-7
Application for
MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0800, Fax: 472-0820
PAID
B 1 ? 2000
Commission Date:
City Council Date: pA -.-"'~"- "Z.~,, 'z-~oc>
Case No. C~O--~) --~Y~
OF
MOUND
Application Fee: $75.00
Distribution:
3- I -('~ City Planner 3~ ) - 0~DNR-
~_l-O~ Public Works ,,~ Other-
( - (~1) City Engineer
Escrow Deposit:
Deficient Unit Charges?
Delinquent Taxes?
$1.000
VARIANCE REQUIRED?
Please type or print the following information:
PROPERTY Subject Address
INFORMATION
EXISTING Lot I'~, · J~J ~ I ~'~ ! ~, Block
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
Subdivision ~,-~
P~D~ 25- - l (7- ~..¥-2/-~/Y~
ZONING
R-'IA~'~-2~ R-3 Bo1 B-2
DISTRICT
Circle:
R-1
APPLICANT
OWNER
(If other than
applicant)
The applicant is: .~owner other:
Name
Address
Phone (H)
Name
Address
~,(M) ~
Phone (H) ON) (M)
Name LoT- ~--,~-~-,1 ~' ~',. ..
SURVEYOR/
ENGINEER Address -7~O I ~ ~ ~u.~u. ~,. ~
Phone(H) ~ ~) ~[~. ~O, ~O~ (M) ~
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, ~ndifional u~ peril or o~er zoning procedure for ~is pmpe~? ( ) yes,~
no. If yes, list date(s) of appli~fion, a~on ~ken, resolution numbers) and provide ~pies of resolutions.
This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case.
wn . Date
~~re~/ ~e/t '5-/
Dat
Rev. 10-27-99
EStablished in ID02
LOT SURVEYS COMPAHY, IHC.
LAND SURVEYORS
REGISTERlqD UND~/.R THE LAWS OF STATIC OF M[NNF,~OTA
?80t ?:]rd Avenue North a12-seo-8009
Fax No. ~0-55~
Minneapolis, Minnesota §§480
STEVE
P~operty located in Section
24, Tmmshfp 117, Range 24,
Henneptn County, Minnesota
Benchmrk: ldanhole shown on survey.
Area of lot 6Oll sq. ft.~-
INVOICE NO. 5692o
F.B.NO. 857-17
SCALE:
O Denot# Wo~d Hub Set
f~ ~cavotk~
~rOOO. O De~ot# Eslsll~l Elevation
I)~otel Elevetlo~
Proposed
~ D~motem Surfoe~
NOTE: PropoHd grod~ are ~ubject
to re~utls of ~ t~ts.
Proposed
~t ~
~s~'rl ~o*~ Lowell
fY:
I- ~..oc(. t
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
All of kot 12 aM that part of Lot 14 lying ~est of the [est
5.O0 feet thereof, all tn Block 18,~hipple', Hennepin County,
Minnesota, accm-ddmj to the recorded plat thereof.
Subject to easements of Keco~d, ~f any.
RECEIVED
JUN 15 2000
MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
BO~E: Locations and tu~roveuents free survey done February 10, 2OOO.
The a~y ealemonll ~hoet are hmn plots of ,scold o~ bdorm, llm~
~ovlded by client.
Wa heceby Cellf¥ riel lids Is o true and ce. eel reMeoeflloll(m of
o i~rv4y o! the boufldtwles nf the above described krKf and tim
location of df buikflngl (md vbNdo eflcro~cls~nll. If any. from or mt
lcdd Iond.
Suer#yeti by uo lids 5th ~kW of JuIle ~(~O__
Ch~t# F..~Jor.o~ Idtr~ RM. No.21?tS3 or
G~ooery I~ Proud% !~ R~g No. 24992
CJJ'Y DJ; MOUNt) - ZONING INFORMATION $1tEET
Lo'r 0I' RECORD? YES I NO
YARD '' I
IIOUSK .........
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLU~
~k.~R2
R3
DI RF.x.'rlON I R~UIR~D
NS E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E 'N
N S E W
N $ E W
ZONING DISTRICr. LOTSIZFJWIDTH:
R1 10,000/60 BX. 7,$00/0
e,ooo/lo"~Ba ~0,ooo/eo
14,000/80 J '
BEE ORD. Il 30.000/100
F..XISTINOIPROPOSED
IS'
~0'
10' OR ~0'
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTIt:
LOT DEPTIi:
VARIANCE
GARAGE, $11ED ..... DETACllED BUILDINGS
FRONT N S E w
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N $ E w
$1Di] N S E W
REAR N S E W
L~KE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF
4' OR 6'
4' OR 6'
4'
~0'
J0' OR 30'
,^RUCOV~R 30~ OR 405
CONi"ORMIN({? YE~; I NO I ? J UY: J DATED:
This ?~n[n$ Infmma~im~ Sheet oniv summarizer · portion of the teqniremenls outlined in the City of Mgund Zoning Or.~anc¢. For further information, coutact Ihe City of Mound
Pla~in] L~pmun~nl al 472-0600.
Ma~ 23, 2000
RF.~OLUTION
A RF_~OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND
GRANTING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR MOUND VISIONS
1~r ADDITION MAJOR SUBDIVISION, P & Z Case//00-24
WHERE&S, the co-applicants, Ray Mar Properties and the City of Mound, have
submitted and are seeking approvals fOr a Preliminary and Final Plat, Mound Visions 1"
Addition, under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statue and as defined by City Code Section
330:00. All proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and,
WHEREAS, the development is located in the B-1 Central Business Zoning District
which requires a minimum of ?,$00 sq. ft. lot area; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on May 8, 2000, held a public hearing pursuant
to Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the
Preliminary Plat for Mound Visions 1'~ Addition Major Subdivision located on property described
as follows and shown on the attachment:
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, fee owner of the following described property situated in the County of Hennepin,
State of Minnesota to wit:
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 117, Range
24, lying Southerly of the South line of Lot 46, "Koehler's Addition to Mound', Lake
Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof, and its Easterly extension, Easterly of the East
line of the West 33.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13,
West of the East line of Lot 38, said "Koehler's Addition to Mound', Lake Miunetonka and its
Southerly extension, and Northerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Qugrter; thence
on an ~ssumed bearing of North along the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter, 814.87 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 84 degrees 42 minutes 00 seconds
East 566.40 feet to the intersection with the Southerly extension of the East line of Lot 38, said
'Koehler's Addition to Mound', Lake Minnetonka; thence Southerly along said extension 5.02
feet; thence North 84 degrees 42 minutes 00 seconds East 233.55 feet to the intersection with said
Southerly cxtea~ion of the West line of the East 17.40 feet of said Lot 33, said 17.40 feet being
measured along the most Southerly line of which lies between the Southerly extension of the East
line of Lot 38, said 'Koehler's Addition to Mound*, Lake Minnetonka, and a line drawn parallel
with and 317.00 feet West, measured at right angles to said East line of said LOt 38, and its
Southerly extension.
and Ray Mar Properties, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, fee owner of the following described
property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota to wit:
Lots 38 and 39, Koehler's Addition to Mound except the Northerly 20 feet thereof.
The Northerly 96 feet of Burlington Northern right of way, running through the Southwest Quarter
of Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 117 North, Range 24, West of the 5th Principal
Meridian, which lies between the Southerly extension of the East line of LOt 38, 'Koehlcr's
Addition to Mound', Lake Minne, tonk* and the line drawn parallel with .nd 317 foet West
measured at right angles to said East line of Lot 38 and its Southerly exteasion thereof.
Have caused the same to be surveyed and platted as MOUND VISIONS lST ADDITION.
; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, on May 23, 2000, held a public hearing pursuant to
Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the
Preliminary and Final Plat for Mound Visions 1' Addition Major Subdivision located on property
as described above; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability
of the preliminary and final plat, taking into consideration the requirements of the City,
topography, water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, lot size and arrangement, the present and
future development of adjoining lands and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other
official controls; and,
WHEREAS, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed project as
it might affect public health, safety or welfare and imposed conditions upon the approval
addressing those considerations; and,
WItEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and density
of development contemplated subject to the conditions imposed herein, and the proposed
subdivision as conditioned is consistent with the existing land use in the area and the future
downtown redevelopment goals as stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other neces~ facilities as
required by the City subdivision regulations are being provided; and,
WHE~S, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
and the regulations and the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code
of Ordinances of the City of Mound; and,
WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission has recommended Council approval of the
subdivision with 7 to 2 vote finding the subdivision and land transfer is consistent with the
general planning goals as stated in the Comprehensive Plan; and,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL~ by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota approves the Preliminary and Final Plat for Mound Visions 1" Addition with the
following conditions:
1. The preliminary plat drawing labeled Exhibit A is here by incorporated into this
Resolution.
The final plat drawing labeled as Exhibit B is hereby incorporated into this Resolution
and all improvements shall be as shown on the plans or as modified under the approval
of the City Engineer. The final plat shall also be reviewed by Hermepin County
regarding right-of-way for C.S.A.H. 110. The location of all buildings shall be only as
provided on the City's Zoning regulations, or as modified by official action of the City
Council.
The developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities. The utilities
shall not be installed until the boulevard or utility easements have been graded and the
grade elevations are approved by the City Engineer. All utilities shall be located
underground.
The Developer shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building Official of all
required and reviews and permits from the Minnesota Department of Health and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, or any other applicable permits, prior to beginning
construction. The Building Official will not authorize construction until permits are
secured.
5. The City Attorney shall examine title to the property and shall render a tire opinion to
the city showing the ownership status of the property prior to filing.
The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within one hundred eighty (180) days of
the City Council approving the final plat. If the plat is not filed within that time period,
it shall become null and void.
7. The MPCA's Best Management Practices shall be applied to the development and
subsequent management of the property.
BE IT RY_.SOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the Mayor
and City Manager shall be conclusive showing compliance therewith by the subdivider and City
Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality,
all in compliance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 and the City of Mound Code of
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Brown and seconded by
Councilmember Hanus.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Councilmember Ahrens was absent and excused.
Attest: City Clerk
SS/PAT MEISEL
Mayor
RESOLUTION #00-
RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND
AMENDING RESOULTION APPROVING PLAT FOR
MOUND VISIONS ADDITION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound did, on May 23, 2000, approve
Resolution #00-52 entitled: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mound Granting
Preliminary and Final Plat approval for Mound Visions Addition Major Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to such approval, the Council has received the recommendation of
staff that an amendment to said resolution should be approved.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound that
Resolution #00-52 is amended by amending paragraph 4 thereof to read as follows: (Underlined
text indicates new material)
4. The Developer shall secure and provide copies to the City"s Building Official of all
required and reviews and permits from the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, or any other applicable permits, prior to beginning consmtction. The
Building Official will not authorize construction until permits are secured, or in the reasonable
judgment of the Building Official, are likely to be secured prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Councilmember
and seconded by
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Pat Meisel, Mayor
Attest: Francene Clark, City Clerk
JBD-18481 lvl
MU220-4
DRAFT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the day of
,2000, by and between RAY MAR PROPERTIES, INC., a Minnesota
corporation ("Ray Mar") and CITY OF MOUND, a Minnesota municipal corporation
(City).
Recitals
A. Ray Mar is the owner of a parcel of land in the City of Mound legally describes
as Lot 1, Block 1, Mound Visions Addition.
B. Ray Mar has made application for the issuance of a building permit from the
City to permit the construction of certain improvements on the Property.
C. The City has been informed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
CMCWD") that construction of the improvements requires the issuance of a permit
form the MCWD (the "MCWD Permit"); and that no permit has been issued.
D. The Building Official of the City delivered a letter to Ray Mar on or about
August 11 outlining the conditions under which he would consider the issuance of a
building permit notwithstanding the fact that the MCWD permit had not been
obtained. A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit A.
E. This Agreement is made in partial fulfillment of the conditions imposed by the
City on the issuance of the building permit.
Agreement
In consideration of the City's issuance of a building permit, Ray Mar, for itself, its
successors and assigns, agrees as follows:
1. Indemnity:. Ray Mar hereby agrees to indemnify, release, defend and save
harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees, and contractors, from all c].ims, of
whatever nature, occasioned by or arising out the issuance by the City of the building
permit prior to the issuance of the MCWI) permit, or from the delay or failure of the
MCWD to issue its permit.
CAH53416
RB160-99
2. No waiver intended. The provisions of this agreement are not intended and
should not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any governmental immunities or the
liability limits contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466.
3. Ray Mar acknowledges and accepts the following:
a. The Building official will not issue a Certificate of Occupancy until the
MCWD Permit has been issued.
b. If the District denies the permit request, Ray Mar may be required to
take certain actions with respect to the Property, which might include, by example
removal of all or part of the improvements.
c. Ray Mar specifically accepts any and all risks from proceeding with
construction prior to the issuance of the MCWD Permit.
d. Ray Mar understands that this Agreement does not effect what ever
right the MCWD may have to independently challenge the continuation of
construction prior to the issuance of the MCWD Permit; or to what ever remedy may
be available to the MCWD.
e. The issuance of the building permit shall also be subject to compliance
with all the customary requirements imposed on the issuance of such permits by the
building code.
~v Mar represents to the City that it has put its lenders on notice of this
' *he conditions under which the building permit will be granted, and
-~usented to such conditions.
have caused this agreement to be
.IBD- 184809v I
MU220..4
~is M. Hanson
Manager
RAY MAR PROPERTIES, INC.
By:
Its:
JBD- 184809v 1
MU220-4
Dodds Letter
Dear
On or about July 18, 2000, I issued a permit to
grade work on your new development.
authorizing certain site and sub-
On August 8, 2000, the City of Mound received a copy of a letter from the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District informing you that you have not received certain permits from the District
needed in connection with the development.
In approving the plat for Mound Visions Addition, the City Council directed that I "not
authorize construction until all permits are secured." Consequently, I must inform you that under no
circumstances will I be able to issue further building permits to you until, at least, a permit
application has been made to the District. Even then, I will not be able to issue a building permit
until the following has occurred:
1. I am satisfied based upon information provided me by the Mound city engineer that
you do qualify for the issuance of a District permit; and that one is likely to be issued by the time
construction is complete.
2. You acknowledge that I will not issue a certificate of occupancy until the District
permit has been granted.
3. You acknowledge that if the District denies your permit request, you may be
required to take certain actions with respect to the property. Those actions could include, by
example, the removal of all or part of the new improvements.
4. You acknowledge that you accept any and all risks from proceeding prior to the
grant of the District permit; and you waive and release the City from any claims you may have as a
result of my issuance of the building permit, or from the delay or failure of the District to issue its
permit.
5. You furnish me with evidence that you have put your lenders on notice of this
matter, and of the conditions under which the building permit is granted; and that they have
consented thereto.
6. The city council has consented to a modification of the restriction described above
so that I am authorized to issue the building permit.
This listing of conditions is based upon information currently available to me, and it may be
necessary to impose additional conditions as more information becomes available.
You should also understand that any accommodations .that you may reach with the City
have no effect on what ever right the District may have to independently challenge the continuation
of construction prior to the issuance of a District permit; or on what ever remedy may be available
to it.
The City is willing to assist you in the preparation of the District permit application, and is
willing to make our consultant engineering firm available for that purpose. You would, however be
responsible for their fees as well as for any application fee required by the District. Because of the
urgency that the matter proceed expeditiously, please let me know by noon on Monday if you wish
to proceed with that assistance. If our assistance is requested, we will also require that the waiver
and release described in paragraph 4. above also apply to the city and its consultants for any claims
regarding the preparation and presentation of the application.
If you have any questions concerning the matters contained in this letter, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Aug' 18, 2000 l l'14AM MCCOMBS FRANI{ ROOS
Iio. 0288--?. 2/4'
Engineering · Planning · Surveying
FRA
MEMORA ND UM
DATE: August 18, 2000
TO:
Kandis Hanson, Mound City Manager
FROM:
Daniel Parks, MFRA
sUBJECT: Mound- SWMP Update
As requested, I have prepared this update for your review and for further discussion by
the City Council. This memorandum presents results of our recent discussions with the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 0VICWD), an additional work authorization request,
and a suggested schedule to complete the SWMP.
On August 3, 2000 we met with the MCWD to discuss their review of the City's SW'MP.
In attendance at the meeting were Kandis Hanson and Daniel Parks representing the City,
and Glenda Spiotta, Lisa Tillman and Scott Thomas from the Watershed. Mr. Thomas is
a Board Manager residing in Minnetrista. The main issues we discussed were the items I
presented to you in my 1uly 20, 2000 memorandum. Namely:. required ordinances and
regulations; additional stormwater analysis; wetland functions and values; and, wetland
buffer~. The following is a summary of our discussion and su~estions towards
proceeding on the SWMP approval.
Ordinances and Regulations. State Law requires Cities to implement their SWMP within
120 days after its approval by the Watershed and to amend its official controls within 180
days. This means that the City has 4 - 6 months to prepare or Update its orrl(nauces and
regulations consisten! with the SWMP. The watershed understands that ordinances take
time and may approve the SWMP contingent upon those ordinances being prepared in a
timely fashion. Ordinances that will need to be updated include wetlands (including
buffers), erosion control standards, subdivision requirements and perhaps a few others. I
suggest that the City begin review of its ordinances later this fall and try to complete and
adopt them by Spring 2001.
15050 23rd Avenue North · POfrnou~h, Minnesota · 55447
phone 763/476-6010 . fax 753/475-8532
e-mail: tarfa@tarfa, corn
Aug. 18, 2000 I I:14AM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS No, 0288 P, 3/4
It would be ideal to have the ordinances as the only condition for plan approval by the
MCWD. The Watershed may not want to approve of the SWMP in the near future (i.e.,
yet this fall) if there are other conditions.
Stormwater Analysis. The MCWD has asked for additional stormwater analysis as part of
the SWMP. They are asking for more specificity on the subwatersheds, storage areas, and
how the City can address stormwatea- flowrates on more of a regional basis. This is
mainly a technical issue that MFRA can complete as pan of our current scope/proposal
for the SWlVlP. The results of the analysis will provide Mound with additional
information on drainage issues within the City and will help the City or the MCWD with
future water quality analysis within the City and adjacent lakes.
Wetland Functions and Values. The Watershed is strongly in favor of the City preparing
a functions and values assessment of its wetlands. As I stated in my previous
memorandum, it is my opinion that the assessment would mainly provide the City with
primarily academic knowledge rather than a study or document that would be actively
used. However, at this time, I doubt that the MCWD will approve the SWMP without the
wetland assessment. Some of the possible City benefits for preparing the assessment
include: receiving approval of the SWMP allowing the City taking on its own permitting
authority; a knowledgeable approach to addressing wetland buffer widths and adjacent
land use practices; and perhaps some benefits in dealing with the stonnwater/weflands
issues related to the downtown redevelopment.
MFRA does not cun'ently have the cost of preparing a wetlands functions and values
assessment in our SWMP proposal/contract. If the CounciI desires us to undertake that
effort we would need an additional authorization of approximately $I5,000-20,000. We
are actively talking with the Met Council about obuaining grant assistance for this effort.
We will report our fmdir~gs to you on the prospect of a grant in the near future.
Wetland Buffers. Wetland buffers will need to be satisfactorily addressed for the MCWD
to approve of the SWMP. The City can either adopt the ~um standards presented by
the Watershed or determine a different standard possibly fled to the wetlands functions
and values assessment (ass~r~i-g the assessment is conducted).
It was suggested at the meeting that a subcommittee be brought together of City Council
and MCWD Board members to further discuss wetlands functions and values Md buffer
issues. This would help the Watershed better unde~d issues and concerns of the City
and items absoluteIy necessary to obtain approval of the SWMP. City staffis in favor of
this meeting since it will help both Comacil and staff better understand how to strategize
and det~mine our options.
A~K, 18. 2000 11'15A~ ~CC0~35 ~AN~ ~005 ~o. 0288 ?. ~/~
Suggested gch~ule. I suggest the following schedule for ~mpleting the SWMP and
approval by the MCWD:
September I, 2000. Prepare letter to MCWD identifying City's intent to conduct a
wetlands functions and values assessment and address wetland buffers. Also that the
additional stormwater analysis and review of ordinance~ is underway. Request extension
of SWMP review/approval until November or Decembtr, 2000,
October 1, 2000. Complete wetland functions and values assessment,
November 1, 2000. Resolve wetland buffers issue with City Council and draft ordinance.
November/December 2000. Obtain MCWD approval of SWMP with only condition of
futura ordinances.
December 2001. City staff begins drying updated ordinances and regulations.
April 2001. Council approves updated ordinances and regulations.
May 2001. Approval of SWMP by MCWD without conditions.
If desired, I can be at the August 22, 2000 Council meeting to discuss any aspee~s of this
memorandum. However, if possible I would like to discuss these issues with you and
intcrcstcd Council members by tclcphonc prior to the meeting so I can best answer your
questions. I will be available both Monday and Tuesday before the meeting if you or the
Council would like to call me. My tclcphone number is 763476-6010. Thank you.
Jul Z? Z888 1G:9?:Z? Via Fax
AMM FAX
lIEI
-> l{andis Hanson Page BElt Of ElEl3
'S Associati!n
Hetropol tan
Hunicipalities
July 24-28, 2000 (no. 2) {page 1 of 3)
Analysis indicates that TIF trends
in 1996 auditor's report continue
Staff representing the AMM,
League of Minnesota Cities
(LMC) and others indicated to
the Senate Tax Committee
yesterday that trends in Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) as
reported in the 1996 Legislative
Auditor's TIF Report are con-
tinuing.
AMM Executive Director Gene
Ranieri, Robbinsdale City Man-
ager Dennis Kraft, Andrea
Stearns of the LMC, and Bonnie
Balach with Minnesota Solutions
were among several presenters
before the committee, which
met to analyze a recent Citizens'
League report on TIF.
Ranieri and Stearns presented
TIF information by type of dis-
trict and by timeframes that
correspond to legislative actions
(pre-1979, pre-1990 and post-
1990). A similar analysis was
included in the 1996 legislative
auditor's report.
The following is a list of ob-
servations that the AMM and
LMC presented to the Senate
committee:
· Average captured tax
capacity for a district de-
creases from 1979 to the
present.
· Average size (number of
parcels) decreases over time.
· Use of housing districts is
increasing.
· Tax compression and
termination of districts (eco-
nomic development) has con-
tributed to the decrease in
captured value for pre-1990
districts.
· Number of pre-1990 dis-
tricts decreased by 213 or 23
percent.
· Fifty-nine percent of all
captured tax capacity (1999)is
in districts established prior to
Dec. 31, 1985. (The pre-1990
districts comprise 83 percent of
all captured tax value.)
· Seventeen percent of all
captured tax capacity (1999)is
in the post-1990 districts. The
See TIFTables comparing 1995 & 1999
figures on pages 2 and 3...
post-1990 districts comprise 54
percent of all districts.
· Pre-1979 districts will be
impacted by the April 1, 2001
effective date of section 469.176
sublc, which states that district,,'
can only use increment to pay
debt service on bonds issued
prior to April 1, 1990.
· Districts established after
July 31, 1979 and before July 1,
1982 are limited by the 1999
amendments (section 469.1764).
· The decertification of the
pre-1979 districts, which are
exempt from fiscal disparities,
will impact fiscal disparities.
LMC staffer Eric Willette
compared the TIF figures as
reported by the Legislative
Auditor in 1996 to the 1999
figures. These tables are listed
on pages 2 and 3.
The AMM and the LMC plan to
annually update these TI F figures
and distribute copies to cities. If
you have questions, please
contact Ranieri at 651-215-4001.
You can access the Citizens'
League TIF report by going to
www.citizensleag ue. net or calling
612-338-0791.
Jul 27 2888 16:38:12 Via Fax -> l{an~lis Hanson
July 24-28, 2000 · AMM News Fax ·
Page 2 of 3
Table 1
1995 Captured Tax Capacity & District Size by Time of Creation
Time of Number Average Captured 1995
District's Creation of Number of Tax Caoacitv
Districts Parcels per
Distdct
% of Statewide
1995 Captured
Tax Caoacitv
Pre-1979 110 146 $ 61.1 million 30%
Aua. 1979-April 1990
Aug. 1979-Dec. 1985 336
Jan. 1986-Dec. 1988 339
Jan. 1989-April 1990 305
Subtotal 980
40 $ 68.5 million 34%
19 $ 43.0 million 21%
14 $ 21.4 million 11%
25 $132.9 million 65%
Post-1990 346 8 $ 9.3 million 5%
All Districts 1,436 30 $ 203.3 million 100%
Average
Captured
Tax Capacity
per District
$555,007
Source: Program Evaluation
$203,863
$126,971
$ 70.062
$135,622
$ 26,967
$141,568
analysis of Department of Revenue's 1995 TI F Supplemental database.
Table 2
1999 Captured Tax Capacity & District Size by Time of Creation
Time of
District's Creation
Number Average Captured 1999 % of Statewide Average
of Number of Tax Capacity 1999 Captured Captured
Districts Parcels per Tax Capacity Tax Capacity
Distdct Der Distdct
Pre-1979 111
Aug. 1979-April 1990
Aug. 1979-Dec. 1985 326
Jan. 1986-Dec. 1988 198
Jan. 1989-April 1990 243
Subtotal 767
149 $ 58,835,936 25% $ 530,053
40 $ 80,441,202 34 $246,752
29 $ 36,416,604 15 $183,922
17 $ 21.737.178 9 $ 89.453
30 $138,594,984 58% $180,698
Post-1990 1,036 9 $ 39,131,646 17% $ 37,772
All Districts 1,914 26 $ 236,562,566 100% $123,596
Source: This table was compiled by the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) using 1999 DoR data, based upon
the above table from the March 1996 TI F Report of the Off.me of the Legislative Auditor.
Jul 27 2888 16:38:43 Via Fax
July 24-28, 2000
-) Ran&is Hanson Page 883 Of 883
~ AMMNewsFax ~ Page3of3
Table 3
Type of I~istrict
1995 Captured Tax Capacity & District Size
by Type of District & Time of Creation
Numberof
I')istrict~
Pre-1979 110
Aug 1979-Apd11990
Redevelopment 495
Housing 118
Economic Dev. 362
Soils Condition 5
980
Post-1990
Redevelopment
Housing
Economic Dev.
Soils Condition
Renewal &
Renovation
All Districts
% of State's Average Number
i')istdcts ,of Parcels per r')istdct
Average Captured 1995
T~x C~fl;)~city per I')istdct
8% 146 $ 555,007
34% 30 $183,511
8% 53 $100,026
25% 8 $ 81,875
0% 19 $125,988
67%
135 9% 9 $ 14,607
49 3% 7 $ 20,968
144 10% 8 $ 37,075
13 1% 5 $ 72,564
5 0% 3 $ 9,772
346
1,436 100% 30 $141,568
Source: Program Evaluation analysis of Department of Revenue's 1995 TIF Supplemental database.
Table 4
Type of I')istrict
1999 Captured Tax Capacity & District Size
by Type of District & Time of Creation
Number of
I')istricts
% of State's Average Number
Distdct-~ of P~rcels per I')istdct
Pre. 1979 111 6% 149
Average Captured 1999
Tnx Ca~city per I')istdct
$ 530,053
~-~Lg 1979-Apd11990
Redevelopment 508 27% 31
Housing 113 6% 45
Economic Dev. 138 7% 11
Soils Condition {~ 0% 41
767 40%
Post-199g
Redevelopment
Housing
Economic Dev.
Soils Condition
Renewal &
Renovation
Hazardous Subst.
All Districts
229,285
82,658
86,290
108,733
404 21% 12 $ 32,353
192 10% 9 $ 14,228
388 20% 5 $ 49,500
30 2% 29 $ 105,848
18 1% 4 $ 37,481
4 0% 13 $ 68,219
1,036 54%
1,914 100%
Source: This table was compiled by the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) using 1999 DoR data, based upon
....~ ~..~he above table from the March 1996 TIF Report of the Office of the Legislative Auditor.
August 10, 2000
Dear Westonka Senior Center Membe~ and Friends,
We are excited to announce that we have purchased all of the pieces of land necessary to build our new senior
center on Commerce Boulevard. The property will soon be cleared and the cottstruction can begin. That is the
good news, but, the not-so-good news is that we have not yet raised enough money. We would like to begin
this building project knowing that it will be completely finished oS fully furnished and paid in full. Future
fundraising will have to be dedicated to operational expenses for the building.
Many of you have already donated and we are deeply appreciative, but many have not and we hope that this
letter will be a reminder. If you were just waiting until the project was a reality instead of a dream, the time is
here and it is a now a reality! We are sure that as a member you realize the importance ora senior center in the
community and will want to be a partner in building it. We have been blessed by the matching funds from Bill
illespie and the Gillespie Family Fund of the The Minneapolis Foundation. With this five-to-one match we
reached $400,000, but will need much more than we planned for due to land and soil issues that arose.
Don't forget ...... your donations become very valuable when matched five times!!
We hope that you will look at this donation as an investment in your community for years to come. Your
children, grandchildren and on and on will look back and realize what a gift you have given to them. Please
take the time to consider giving. Our hope is that we will be able to say that 100% of our membership shared
in this effort. We would like to thank all of you who have given over and over for memorials and honors, have
purchased sweepstakes tickets or have attended our other fundraising activities throughout the year, but hope
that you will also donate a larger giR directly to the Fund Drive. (It ha~ been pointed out to us that gii~s of
appreciated stock can be donated with a tax deduction and without capitol gains. Check with your financial
advisors, however.) All gifts $1,000 or more will be recognized by a plaque to be hung in our new center.
If you are considering a gift, but find that you need to make the donations in smaller amounts, please contact us
about this. Just a reminder to ask your children, grandchildren, neighbors and friends. You probably have
already noticed the generosity of the civic groups, churches, business folks, young people and non-members
who have come forward to this date. It takes a whole community to build a senior center!
With warmest appreciation for your ~onsideration of our appeal,
Sharon Cook, President
Westonka Senior Citiz~s Foundation
Marilyn Byrnm, President
Westonka Smior Citizens, Ia¢
Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative
Minutes · June 16, 2000
Present: Craig Anderson, Patricia Anderson, Lenny Harrell, Mike Looby, Carol Olson, Sandy
Olstad, Carolyn Schmidt, Jeanne Stortz, Edith Travers, Leah Weycker, Sandy Wing,
Guests: Jonathan
,qdditions or Changes to the ,~genda or Minutes: We added temporary budget approval, and
request for discretionary spending limit of $100 or less and a request from the Parent Work Group to
spend no more than $200 to make 12 video copies of the Youth, Law Enforcement and Your
Schools: Kids Some Times Get in Trouble. A new governance agreement also needs to be discussed.
,~nnouncements: The American Cancer Society's Relay for Life is next Friday. Please join
us at the WHCC's tent. We also need walkers to relieve us through out the night.
We talked about the desire to have Molly Layer come to our meetings. She works at the Alternative
School. Leah will call her to see if she can attend. She is already on the mailing list.
We have joined Rotary and have been members of the Chamber of Commerce. We are
thinking about other groups that you are involved in or would be willing to be involved in. We would
like good representation of the WHCC in all of the service groups.
There is a Youth Corrections meeting at Ridgedale Library-.rune 20. Any and all attend if
possible. Lenny will be attending.
Carol ~Veber - Tobacco Free Future Carol presented survey results from a survey their
group did of 435 Westonka students in 8th, 9th, and 10th grades and a random survey of adults in the
area. The findings lead to discussions of places where youth are exposed to tobacco. They are parks,
playgrounds, ball fields, and restaurants. This group hopes to get support for making these places
tobacco free.
Budget We need to approve the budget as a temporary guide until all the work groups
get in their requests for budget dollars. The new fiscal year begins July 1st. We had hoped that the
strategic planning would offer better, solid projects that could address our four priority areas. Until we
get more accurate numbers, we will need an approval of the current budget with a few changes that
had been changed a.-~d voted on s'-Lnce the last budget was approved. Lenny made a motion to
approve the current budget as a temporary guide. Craig seconded the motion. Passed.
,qdd on items- discretionary spending limit of S IO0 and Parent Work Group request for $200
We discussed these items together. Mike Looby stated that if we are within the budget line items,
there shouldn't be any need of a spending limit. Since there is money in the Parent Work Group
budget there should not be any need for approval for spending $200 for video tape copies. Leah
wanted to be clear that some unforeseen expense, such as the video tapes, didn't need special
approval. All agreed that as long as we are within the budget, it should not need special approval.
Executive Work Group Recommendation on Coordinators Contract
The Executive Work Group has done a job performance review for Leah and has recommended a
2+% increase. The increase will become effective July I, 2000 and will be in effect for one year until
the next job review. Lenny made a motion to accept the recommendation and C~il~
seconded. Passed.
Executive Work Group Recommendation on new Governance Agreement The Executive
work group did not have time to review this. We gave an overview of the new format. The state is
asking for a new format of governance agreement that also includes a section on insurance. Early
estimates, from the school district's insurance company, are $2000. Other collaboratives have
deleted the section and/or are not purchasing additional insurance. Although it seems like a good idea
to have the coverage, the price may be a factor. Craig made a motion that the Executive Work
Group have authorization to get the Governance agreement in order. Patricia seconded
the motion. Passed. Craig wanted to be sure this didn't come back to the WHCC as a whole until
the Executive Work Group works it out.
Strategic Planning and Grants We talked about the process Hopkins Collaborative
uses for spending their LCTS funds. They have a grant process that allows anyone to apply for funds
if the project meets the goals and mission of the Hopkins Collaborative. There was concern that we
don't want to be a "cash cow" for any one looking for funds. Mike thought that it would be better if
we sent out RFP's for the projects we want done. (request for proposal) This would be more
consistent with the approach we have taken in the past. Patrieia thought that we shouldn't reinvent
the wheel. We should look for someone that is doing the project we want and collaborate with them.
That is why people are at the table. We need to do a fact f'mding mission to get the priorities done
and sell the ideas.
Craig thought we should look for new and creative projects for the community. We need to
remind the recipient that the funding is for no more than 3 years. Jeanne suggested we call them start
up funds. We need to review our goals to go with our strategic planning.
Alliance Grants The Alliance for Families and Children in Hennepin County is
offering funds for three areas of County wide goals. Those three areas are Parent Mobilization and
Leadership, Children Stability and Juvenile Corrections. The Alliance funds come from 5% of the
LCTS funds from each of the Collaboratives and the County workers that are on the LCTS time
study. Right now the Alliance is lo,(king for interest from tl,.~ Collaboratives f~r addressing these
issues. We don't need any specific projects at this time. It was agreed that we will put our name in for
all three of these funds. We are already a pan of a pilot project for the juvenile justice piece. We
need to have two parents for the steering group to form the Parent Mobilization and Leadership task
force. Sandy Wing thought that Parent Connections would be a good group to connect with for
finding parents for the Parent Mobilization and Leadership task force.
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 2000
Those present: Acting Chair Bill Voss; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry Clappsaddle, Cklair
Hasse, and Frank Weiland. Absent and excused: Commissioners Becky Glister, Bob Brown,
Geoff Michael, and Michael Mueller; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building
Official Jon Sutherland and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad.
The following public were present: Jennie Carlson Baltutis, 4845 10th Ave S, Minneapolis;
Gerald D Babb, 2169 Birch Drive; Jim Crawford, 5224 Waterbury Road; Dennis Hildebrandt
5229 Waterbury Road; Todd Hovron, 4552 Denbigh Road; Stephen L. Vertnik, 5217 Windsor
Road; Phil Mitchson, 2232 Westedge Blvd.; Nicholas Espiritu, 5413 Church Road; Thomas Stul,
5201 Waterbury Road; Randy Beyrets, 5200 Waterbury Road; Betsy Alwin, 1000 Robin Lane;
Rex Alwin 1000 Robin Lane; Milt Hentges, 6400 County Road 15; Debra Vertnik, 5217
Windsor Road.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland to allow Voss to act as Chair at
tonight's meeting. Motion carried 5-0.
Acting Chair Voss welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVAl, OF THE JULY 10, 2000, MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hasse, to accept the July 10, 2000, Planning
Commission meeting minutes. MOTION CARRIED. 5-0.
DISCUSSION
Acting Chair Voss announced that Items 2.3 Case No. 00-44, 2.4 Case No. 00-45, and 2.5 Case
No. 00-46 are deleted from the Agenda.
BOARD OF APPFALS:
1.0
CASE #00-42: CONDITIONAl, USF~. PUBI,IC HEARING JF, NNIF, CARl,SON
BAI,TUTI$, 1000 RORIN I,ANF, I,OTS l& 2, AUDITOR'S SUBDMSION #231,
FID #14-117-24 33 0001.
The City Planner stated that this case involves moving a house from an adjacent lot. This action
has been prompted by the Langdon proposal. The Rex Alwin home is being given to the
applicant and she wants to take the house off the foundation and move it to the property on the
comer of Robin Lane and Lynwood. A conditional use permit is necessary for this case to allow
for a more definite review of the issues involved including public utilities, infrastructure, road
surfaces, overhead wires, and neighborhood integration. Staff feels this is an ideal situation.
Staff is concerned about protecting as many trees as possible and is suggesting that if tree
removal is necessary, the trees that are located in future home sites should be removed first.
Staff feels that there will be no impact on public utilities or mad surfaces.
Weiland asked about bringing the house up to code and whether the law does not require this
when a house is moved. The City Building Official confirmed that the law did not apply in this
case. He further stated that the applicant is ready to do substantial work on the house to bring it
into code.
The City Building Official stated that the house does not have a second story and the new
basement would be conforming. Two difficulties noted are headroom down the basement stairs
and the bedroom windows needing to b egress.
Voss asked about sewer and water in the new location. The City Building Official stated the
City Engineer had gone over this aspect of the project. The sewer will connect at Robin Lane,
and the water will connect at Robin Lane to the new water main that will be installed for the
Langdon project.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the request with
the following conditions:
1. Remove only those trees on the west side of the driveway as needed to accommodate the
move.
Acting Chair Voss opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Acting Chair Voss closed the Public Hearing at 7:46 p.m.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Burma, to approve Staff recommendation
with the noted condition.
Discussion:
Weiland amended Staff's recommendation to include adding recommendation No. 2 "All
building codes will be enforced as new construction. No variances will be granted."
The City Building official stated that the amendment is a good recommendation, but the state
statute would supercede the City regulation. He further stated that the energy code does not
apply to moved buildings.
Clapsaddle and Burma agreed to Weiland's amendment.
Momld Plarming Commission Minutes, August 14, 2000
Acting Chair Voss called the question.
Motion carried. 5-0.
1.1
CASE #0041: MINOR SUBDIVISION JENNIE CP~RI JSON B,AI,TUTIS, 6301
I~YNWOOD BLVD, I,OT 1~ BLOCK 11, MOUND TERRACI*o PID#14-117-23 33
0002.
The City Planner showed a survey of the property involved. He stated that the lot split is just
over one acre in size and meets lot width minimums. In reference to the location of the water
service, Lynwood is being resurfaced and Staff feels the County will not allow it to be dug up.
Staff suggestion is to tie into Robin Lane when that service goes in.
Clapsaddle asked if the county could withhold the tap on Lynwood. The City Planner stated that
the City Engineer thought that the County would not do it. Clapsaddle pointed out that if it were
the only option, the County would have to allow the hookup.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the minor subdivision
as requested with the following conditions:
1. A new survey be submitted indicating the proposed right-of-way along Robin Road. The
recording of the minor subdivision will also need to be coordinated with the Langdon
Bay project to ensure both plans reflect the same fight-of-way areas.
2. Water and sewer service locations be approved by the City Engineer. This could include
necessary escrow monies if needed to allow future connections to services in Robin Lane
and/or Lynwood Blvd.
3. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be approved by the City Engineer prior
to release of an approved resolution.
4. Provide utility and drainage easements consistent with the City Engineer's
recommendation.
5. Include any other recommendations of the City Engineer's and Public Works reports.
6. Park dedication fee of $500 be paid at the time at the time of building permit application.
Weiland asked for more verbiage on number 2 on page 20 and stated that theoretically this
distance would be 20 feet. The City Planner stated this would need to be done after the legal
description is completed.
Clapsaddle stated that the language contained in number 5 on page 20 was too loose. The City
Planner stated that the date of the City Building Official's letter could be referenced.
Voss asked in reference to No. 2 on page 18, who determines necessary escrow monies. The
City Planner stated that Staff, specifically the City Engineer, would detemaine the amount.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, August 14, 2000
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to approve Staff recommendation.
Motion carried. 4-0.
1.2
CASE #00-39: VARIANCE TOOD HOVREN, 4552 DENBIGH ROAD. LOT 7 & 8.
BLOCK 2, PID #19-117-23 24 Q048.
The City Planner stated that this case involved review of a deck within a bluff setback area. The
City Planner showed the survey for this property. The house currently encroaches on Denbigh
Road, as does the garage. The bluffarea is a steep 56% slope. Staff felt there were other
locations on the house to put the deck without encroaching on the bluff.
The applicant has submitted a request to build a deck within a bluff setback area. The variance
request is as follows:
Proposed Required Variance
Bluff setback 0 feet 10 feet
Front yard setback 14 feet (existing) 20 feet
Front yard setback 3.4 feet (existing) 20 feet
10 feet
6 feet
16.6 feet
The house currently sits within the 10 feet bluff setback area. The proposed deck would encroach
into the bluff that has a slope of about 56% where the deck is proposed. Other nonconforming
setbacks include front yards for the house and garage
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance request.
Voss confirmed the structure already encroached into the bluff. The City Planner confirmed this
and stated that is why the recommendation is to add the deck on the West side to maintain the
same setback.
Voss asked if other homes in the area are encroaching on the bluff. The City Planner confirmed
that quite a few homes were already encroaching and that Staff's standpoint is to minimize this
as much as possible.
Voss asked when the other encroachments were approved. The City Planner stated that the
approvals were made when the street was platted and that this was before restrictions on bluffs
and steep hillsides were adopted. He stated that in 1995 the shoreline provisions were adopted
Voss confirm that no one has been approved for encroachment after the shoreline provisions
were adopted and that no variances have been granted. The City Planner stated that variances
have been granted, but Staff feels this location offers other options.
Clapsaddle asked the City Planner to explain for the applicant why there is concern about bluff
areas.
4
Mo, md Plimnip,,g Commission Minutes, August 14, 2000
D2AFT
The City Planner stated that fi:om a building standpoint, it takes a lot to ensure the addition will
maintain integrity with the rest of the house and not fall away. Secondly, the DNR sees building
on a slope greater than 30% as a red flag. Also considered is the impact on the home, esthetics,
erosion, etc. The City Planner also stated that in some areas it is not practical to stay outside the
bluff, but when the opportunity is there, it is the path Staff chooses.
Weiland asked if construction was currently underway on this site. The City Building Official
stated that he saw some work in progress one month ago that did not require a variance. He
stated that he has talked to the applicant about some issues with the electrical, etc, and the
applicant is resolving these issues. If there is any structural work there that requires a variance,
the City Building Official has not seen it.
The City Building Official stated that the deck is the only variance issue and that no permits have
been issued other than a siding permit.
The applicant, Todd Hovren, stated that the house would inevitably be tom down within a few
years. He wants to maximize the house until it is tom down. He stated that the deck is only
10x12 and accesses an existing sliding door.
Voss asked the applicant if he had received a copy of the Staff report. The applicant confirmed
that he had.
Voss asked the applicant whether Staff's recommendation for an alternative placement of the
deck would work. The applicant stated that in order to use the west side he would have to take
down a 40 foot tree. Additionally, he would have to change the inside of the house.
Voss asked the applicant if he understood the explanation about the protection of the bluff zones.
The applicant confirmed that he understood, but stated all the houses on Denbigh have decks in
the bluff zone.
Voss clarified for the applicant that no decks were added after the limitations were set.
Hasse asked the defendant if he would be tearing down the new deck at the time the new house
was constructed. The applicant confirmed that he would tear down the deck at that time.
Clapsaddle asked where on the lot the new home would be built. The applicant stated that he had
not drawn a plan yet, but he realized he would need to follow the new setbacks and felt that he
could center the house on the lot.
Voss explained to the applicant that variances are granted for hardship or practical difficulty and
are very hard to grant when these are not present. He further stated that the Planning
Commission is an advisory group to the City Council who would make the final decision.
5
Mound Planning Commission Minute~, August 14, 2000
D AFT
The applicant stated that the deck would give him a second entrance to the house.
MOTION, by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve Staff's
recommendation. Motion carried. 4-0.
1.3
CASE #00-40: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION, MILTON HENTGES, 6400 CTY
RD 15, PID #14-117-24 32 0059, PID #15-117-24 41 0003.
The City Planner stated that this is a request to have two parcels in Minnetrista annexed to the
City of Mound. This will make the land on the Mirmetrista side more buildable. Currently the
land does not meet Minnetrista's code.
The City Planner stated there was a need to look at the benefits and weigh those against the
negatives. He stated that Staff does not have a lot of information on this case. Services to the
existing house are provided by Mound. The house is technically in Minnetrista and taxes go to
that city. The plan in terms of infi:astmcture is to continue to serve the existing house and the
new house regardless of the decision on this issue. If Mound and the City of Minnetrista approve
this plan, the Office of State Planning would review the issue and have the ultimate decision
making authority. The City Planner stated that aside from changing maps, there were no
negatives for the City of Mound to go forward with this. Staff is looking for Planning
Commission input on this.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the request and make a recommendation to
Council consistent with the findings.
Voss asked why a public hearing is not required in this case. The City Planner stated that no
official process has been set up for this.
Burma asked if having the line jog would create any problems with the street being shared by
both cities now and which would then be only in Mound for a portion. The City Planner did not
feel this would have an impact.
MOTION, by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland to recommend Staff's
recommendation. Motion carried. 4-0.
1.4
CASE #00-43: VARIANCFo NICHOLAS ESPIRITLI, 5413 CHURCH ROAD.
LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK ~ IoAKESIDE PARK - CROCKER'S PID 013-117-24 32
0082.
The City Planner stated that this case involves the conversion of a one stall garage to living space
and the addition of a two stall attached garage. Staff feels there are probably other appropriate
locations. Staff has suggested utilizing the existing one stall tuck under and adding another stall
to that and then building over the top. Another option is to move the garage as far west on the
property as possible.
Mo~md planning Commission Minutes. August 14, 2000
D AFT
The applicant has submitted a request to build an attached garage within a fi:ont yard setback.
The variance request is as follows:
Proposed Required Variance
Front yard setback
15 feet 20 feet 5 feet
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance request.
Voss confirmed there were no variances on the property now.
The applicant, Nicholas Espiritu, wants to keep the plan as presented because they have been
doing their own landscaping and have 40 foot pine trees that would be lost if the east side of the
property was used. Mr. Espiritu also stated that the gas meter was on the east side of house. He
felt that the lot would lose privacy with the loss of trees.
Burma asked about other the options offered including sliding the garage to the west. The
applicant stated that the landscaping has been put in and includes a boulder wall that was recently
completed. Mr. Espiritu stated that he is trying to utilize the front.
Burma asked if the garage was moved to the west, would the inside of the house work equally as
well as with the original plan. Mr. Espiritu stated that the garage would then be attached to the
living and dining area and they had wanted to enlarge the bedrooms on the other side.
Clapsaddle asked what the size the proposed garage was. Mr. Espiritu stated the proposed size
was 20 x 20. Clapsaddle confirmed that if the garage were put on the west side it would be right
on variance. The City Planner confirmed that this would require a variance.
The City Planner stated that the only way to avoid a variance is to add one stall onto the existing
garage. He further stated that a detached or attached garage on the backside of the house would
also be an option. Mr. Espiritu stated that he was on a hill and putting the garage in back of the
house would not be feasible.
Voss stated that hardship was necessary for a variance and in this case, Staffhas determined
there is no hardship. Voss felt if the property was conforming, it was best not to get variance.
Mr. Espiritu asked whether if the garage was not 20 feet, but rather somewhat less than 15 feet,
would it be buildable without a variance to the east. Clapsaddle suggested considering that
possibility and also projecting the upper floor into the hill for more space.
The City Building Official confirmed that the above scenario would not require a variance.
7
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, August 14, 2000
D AFT
Voss stated to Mr. Espiritu that the Planning Commission was not in favor of granting variances.
He suggested the applicant go back and work more with Staff on resolving this issue.
Weiland asked about the possibility of the garage being moved 5 feet back into the house to
avoid the variance issue.
Voss stated that as Acting Chair, he recommended this case be tabled.
MOTION, by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to table this issue to allow the
applicant to go back to Staff and address the issues. Motion carried. 4-1 (Burma).
Burma wished to state for the record that he voted Nay on this Motion because he felt that
several options are available that do not require a variance and he felt this should have gone
forward as a denial with the applicant continuing to work with Staff.
1.5
CASE #00-47: VARIANCE TOM STOKES, 5212 WATERBURY ROAD, LOT 13
& PLOT 14, BLOCK 18, WHIPPLE PID #PENDING.
Weiland asked for clarification fi.om Staffon the correct address of the property. The City
Planner stated that the address is 5212 Waterbury Road.
The City Planner stated that this lot received a minor subdivision request through Resolution 39.
The western parcel was lopped off fi.om the 5200 address to create a building parcel. Plans were
submitted with a 6 foot side yard setback. Plan review was initiated, footings were staked at 6
feet, the consultant inspector inspected the footings at 6 feet and signed off to proceed.
Neighbors called City Hall questioning the 6 foot setback and by that time some construction
was going on. At that time, Staff was made aware of this issue. The City Building Official met
with the developer to try to sort through what had occurred. The options are to require the
structure to be conforming at 10 feet or to entertain a variance process.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance request. This
recommendation suggests that the building be modified to meet the required 10 feet setback.
Clapsaddle confirmed that a 4 foot variance was in question.
Voss asked whether this was a lot of record. The City Planner said it was not a lot of record
because of having been split off the original lot. Ifa lot is split, the setback is 10 feet. If it is a
lot of record, the setback is 6 feet.
The applicant, Tom Stokes, gave a history of what had occurred. He stated that he relied on
information given to him by the City. He further stated that while Resolution 39 addresses parcel
B, it does not address parcel A.
8
Molmd Planning Commi~sioja Minutes, August 14, 2000
D AFT
Mr. Stokes stated that Mr. Banke called Staff regarding this issue and submitted a letter from Mr.
Banke, the home designer, to the Planning Commission regarding the Resolution, his call to
Mound, and the staff member who stated that the side yard set back was 6 feet.
The home designer used this information to design the house. The lot survey company
confirmed that they also contacted the City regarding the setback and were given the side yard
setback of 6 feet. The applicant feels that Staff was contacted twice. His assistant also called
Staff and asked for the address, legal description, and zoning information sheet. The zoning
information sheet was received on the 20th and stated it was R2 zoning, but was void of setback
information. She then called the City and was told it was a 6 foot setback. Mr. Stokes then
applied for the application. It was not until a number of weeks later when Staff brought it to their
attention that they realized the error.
Mr. Stokes stated that their position is that they regret the error was made, but the structure is too
far along to be changed. He stated that he lives at 5201 and has no interest in a one car garage on
this lot. He does not like the possibility of outdoor storage. He stated that from a builder
perspective, one car garages are difficult to sell and lower the value of the home and those
surrounding it.
Jim Crawford, 5222 Waterbury Road, stated that he called the City to find out what the setback
was and was told it was 6 feet. One of his neighbors had done some research and found it was 10
feet and the City was then notified.
Burma asked Mr. Crawford if he was willing to sell four feet of his lot to the applicant. Mr.
Crawford was not willing to do this and added that the lot was subdivided to allow for a 10 foot
setback and he wants one on the side that adjoins his lot. Burma stated that would be the reality,
but a mistake has been made.
Clapsaddle asked Mr. Crawford how he would feel about this issue if he were the owner. Mr.
Crawford stated that this was not checked out and the builder is responsible for this error.
Voss pointed out this was not an argument, but rather the Commission was trying to work
through the issues.
Debbie Vertnik, 5217 Windsor, stated that the builder was notified almost three weeks ago and
he has continued to build. She felt that because he is a builder, he knows the codes. Ms. Vertnik
stated that allegations are pending stating that the builder did not have a valid license at the time
of construction. She farther stated that the license number given to the City of Mound is not
valid and was revoked in March of 1999.
Voss asked Ms. Vermik to address only the issue of the variance request.
Ms. Vertnik stated that it appears that hardship is needed to grant a variance and this builder
created his own hardship.
9
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, August 14, 2000
Randy Beyrets, 5200 Waterbury Road, apologized to the neighbors present for creating the
problem. He stated that he does not want a one car garage to go on the lot because it would not
fit with the types of houses in the area and would lower the value of the homes. Mr. Beyrets
stated that the responsibility for this error lies with the group of people hired by the City to
approve the plans.
Mr. Stokes stated that he has spoken with the Department of Commerce and there is no issue
with the validity of his license. He further stated that he feels that he did everything he normally
does in this process and that he clarified with Staff what the setback was. He stated that it is the
responsibility of the City to review and approve or deny.
Burma asked Mr. Stokes if it was true that he found about the 6 feet versus 10 feet setback 3
weeks ago. Mr. Stokes stated that he spoke with the City Building Official and was told not to
continue building on the garage. He has continued with the rest of the structure as he is trying to
meet his deadline for his contract.
The City Building Official clarified the issue that the 6 foot setback was not given by him or the
City Planner and they are the conect people to get this information fi.om. He stated that he was
in contact with City Staff on the first day the error was realized and he directed his secretary to
let Mr. Stokes know of the error. This occurred on a Friday, and the City Building Official was
back in the office on Monday. He stated that he discussed the options with Mr. Stokes and it was
agreed that construction of the house could continue at Mr. Stokes' risk of not receiving a
variance. He also stated that another option was to construct a one car garage.
The City Building Official stated that no nonconforming portions were continued after Mr.
Stokes was notified and he was aware that continuing on the conforming portions was at his own
risk. Both parties acknowledged correct setbacks and mistakes made.
The City Building Official stated that he felt Mr. Stokes was a knowledgeable builder in the area
and that added to his comfort level when reviewing the permit.
Voss asked whether Weiland in his years of serving on the Planning Commission had seen a
similar issue. Voss further stated that this was a tough issue.
Weiland stated that he did remember a similar issue behind the church where apartments were
put in. The building inspector had done some measuring and helped with the footings. A
neighbor came over and showed where the footings were off. Block laying continued. The
decision made was that the structure be torn down and done right.
The City Planner commented that Mr. Stokes had indicated that the Resolution did not address
the parcel, but read the fourth Whereas which referred to the parcel setbacks. He stated that even
if this were not stated in the Resolution, the City Ordinance regarding this issue would still be
triggered. He further stated that there are two zoning sheets, one of which does indicate a 6 foot
10
Mound Planning Commission M~utes, August 14. 2000
setback and with the minor subdivision the setback would increase to 10, but he did not know
what copy Mr. Stokes received.
Voss stated he saw a practical difficulty as Staff compounded the situation.
Clapsaddle stated he has never been in a situation where a mistake was made by Staff. He also
stated that if indeed there was a mistake, the builder is not relieved of his responsibility to meet
code.
Burma stated that he agreed with Clapsaddle and pointed out the fourth Whereas in the
Resolution that spells out the setback.
Burma stated that one party that was not part of the mistake and would lose is the next door
neighbor.
MOTION, by Burma, seconded by Hasse, to accept Staff's recommendation to deny
the variance.
AYES: 3 (Hasse, Weiland, Burma)
NAYS: 2 (Voss, Clapsaddle)
Motion carried. 3-2.
Clapsaddle stated his reasons for voting Nay for the record. He felt that there was no question
that the variance situation is not a happy one; however, after looking past the emotions involved,
to cut 4 feet offa structure and to reduce the size of the product is probably more detrimental to
the neighborhood than 4 feet of ground.
Voss stated his reasons for voting Nay for the record. He did not think granting the variance
would have a negative effect on the properties and thinks that a one car garage will have more of
a negative effect. He felt the variance would be logical solution.
Weiland stated his reasons for voting Aye for the record. He stated that he feels sorry for the
neighbor that had nothing to do with creating the situation and feels he shouldn't be penalized.
This situation will lower his property price. He feels the issue needs to be corrected so as not to
set precedent. He feels the building code should be adhered to and that the issue of who made
the mistake is not the issue to be decided by the Planning Commission.
1.6 MISCEI,LANEOUS.
A. DRAFT HRA MINUTES OF ~ll,y 25, 2000.
B. DRAFT CITY COUNCIl, MINUTES OF JUI,Y 11, 2000.
C. DRAFT CITY COUNCIl, MINUTES OF JU1,Y 25, 2000.
11
Monocl Pl~nlfil~ Corrtmjssiorl Minutes. August 14, 2000
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hasse to adjourn the meeting. MOTION
CARRIED: 5-0.
Acting Chair Voss adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
12
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
18338 Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven, MN 55391
745-0789
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEWSLETTER
Gregory S. Nybeck
August 9, 2000
Bi.cl Island Task Force: In the fall of 1999, the Distdct received public testimony that some activities have took place
in Cruiser's Cove which are causing public safety concems. These activities included unlicensed special events,
over congestion in the area because of rafting, and the inability of the Water Patrol to patrol the area properly. A
Task Force was established to review the issues and to make recommendations back to the Board. The Task Force.
recommended the establishment of public safety lanes, delineated by buoys, in this area for the 2000 boating
season to allow the Water Patrol better access and enhanced control of the activities.
The Board conducted a public hearing on a proposed public safety lane layout in this area for the 2000 boating
season on 2/23/00. Significant testimony was received at this public headng, with concems raised about the
proposed layout. Based on the testimony received from the public, changes were made to the proposed layout of.
public safety lanes for the 2000 boating season. The buoys, which were purchased by the MN DNR, were installed
the week prior to Memorial Day weekend. To date, the District office has received no complaints on the public
safety lanes established in Cruiser's Cove.
Exotics Management: The EWM Harvesting Program commenced on 6/12/00 and is planned through 9/1/00, with
a skeleton crew of three harvesters the last two weeks. The crew has recently completed the first round of
harvesting and has initiated the second round of harvesting in Carman and Old Channel Bays. Once harvesting has
been completed in these bays, the Program will move to Lower Lake, with an emphasis on Gideon, St. Albans, and
Grays Bays. Staff believes the Program should be in Upper Lake by the end of the week of 8/14/00 - 8/18/00, the
last week the Program will be fully staffed. Harvesting priorities, which are consistent with past years, are based
upon impediment to public boat navigation on the open water.
The new aquatic plant harvester, which was order in December of 1999, arrived to Lake Minnetonka on 7/9/00. The
purchase of the new harvester, which is being paid from donated, non-levied funds from the EWM Equipment
Reserve, increases the number of harvesters in the fleet from four to five. The purchase of the new harvester was
one recommendation of the EWM Harvesting Program Improvement Task Force in the fall of 1999. Other
reCOmmendations of this Task FOrce, some of which included starting the Program eadier in the year, harvesting
later in the year, and longer work days, will be evaluated at the conclusion of the season. Please call the District
office if you have other suggestions on how to improve the EWM Harvesting Program or if we can be of assistance.
The District launched a zebra mussel billboard campaign at four Lake Minnetonka locations this past May.
Additionally, Distdct staff worked with EWM/Exotics Task Force Chair Suerth on the distribution of an educational
poster, and information at commercial facilities around Lake Minnetonka.
Review of Code for Conversion of Use Pro~sals: This past January, the District received an application to re-
develop a legal, non-conforming commercial facility to a multi-family development on St. Albans Bay. The Board, in
general, supported the proposed project; however, they recognized that there were problems with the Sections of
the Code relating to the 1:50' General Rule and Conversion of Use principles.
The concept of changing these Code Sections was discussed at a number of subsequent Board meetings. At the
6/14/00 Regular meeting, the Board adopted LMCD Ordinance 169, which provides greater flexibility to maintain
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEWSLETTER, 8/9/00, PAGE 2
some of the grandfathered status, mainly boat storage density. Certain conditions are imposed to maintain
grandfathered status, such as a decrease in boat storage density of at least 50%. The proP0sedapplication
received in January, which was from Mr. Kent Carlson, was approved by the Board at its 6/28/00 Regular meeting
under the new ordinance.
Increased Water Patrol Presence for 2001 Boatinq Season: In the past year, The District has received a number
of concems by agencies and the public at large regarding the use of Lake Minnetonka, with a common thread for the
need of increased law enforcement on Lake Minnetonka..In a previous letter, dated 7/24/00, the District has
encouraged the 14 member cities to discuss whether they support the increase of Water Patrol presence on Lake
Uinnetonka by two Deputies, for five months, for the 2001 boating season and whether they are willing to share in
the costs for it. The District has encouraged feedback from the member communities by 8/15/00. Further details will
be provided when available.
UrxJate on Special Deputy Litiqafion: In previous Newsletters, we have informed you that there have been a
number of challenges to the authority of Hennepin County Sheriff's'Water Patrol Special Deputies on Lake
Minnetonka. Just to remind you, the District has been successful on all of-these challenges with the exception of
one, where the District Court ruled in favor of the defendant. The District appealed the decision of the District Court
to the Minnesota Appellate Court in the fall of 1999, which resulted in the Appellate Court upholding the decision of
the District Court. The District petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to further review this case in February of this
year. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed to the petition by the District and oral arguments on this case were
heard on 5/30/00. The District, to date, has not received a decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court on this case.
Further details will be provided when available.
2000 Lake Minnetonka Manaaement Plan Proiects: Consistent with the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka,
three projects are currently being conducted this summer. Two of these projects, the 2000 Boat Density and User
Attitude Survey's, are currently being conducted by Schoell and Madson, Inc., with a report to be finalized sometime
in the latter part of this calendar year. The third project, a Lakeshore Inventory of Boat Storage, is being conducted
by District staff. The fieldwork has just been completed, with a preliminary report planned for Board review at a
September meeting. Finalized reports on these three projects will be forwarded to the member cities after the Board
has approved them.
2001 LMCD Budget: The 2001 LMCD budget was certified by the Board at its 6~28~00 meeting and forwarded to the
member cities on 6/29/00 in accordance with state enabling legislation. Minnesota State Statutes 103B.635 states
that the Board must on or before July 1 of each year prepare and submit a detailed budget of the District's needs, for
the next calendar year, to the governing body of each municipality in the District with a statement of the proportion of
the budget to be provided by each municipality. The approved budget has forwarded a total levy of $221,269.98 to
the 14 member communities. It is anticipated that reserve accounts for Administration and EWM/Exotics will both be
below agreed upon levels by 12/31/00.
On-.cloina Licenses/Permits: The District has completed the processing of all renewal without change applications
for licensed multiple docks, charter boats, liquor licenses, and special event permits. Currently, the District is
working on new applications submitted from the City of Mound and Shorewood Yacht Club. District staff has
completed the vast majority of multiple dock license inspections for 2000. Feel free to call the District office if you
have questions or concerns regarding a specific license/permit or a multiple dock license inspection.
· Web Pa~e: The LMCD's new Web address is: http://www.lmcd.org.
Mound City. Code
Section 610:50, Subd. 13.
Subd. 13. Water Service Outside of CitY. The City is
authorized to furnish water to places outside of the
boundaries of the City under the same rules and regulations
and at the same or greater rates as fixed for the consumption
of water within the City, provided that such furnishing may
not be detrimental to the supply of water within the City.
Subd. 14. Temporary Connections to Hydrants. The
Superintendent may permit water to be used temporarily from
any fire hydrant by attaching a reducer to one of the hydrant
openings and controlling the supply by means of a small valve.
Section 610:55. Declared Water Shortage or Water Pressure
Emergency.
Subd. 1. Prohibition. No person shall draw or use water from
the City water mains or City water works system for the
purpose of sprinkling or watering lawns or gardens, or use any
connection with the said system to sprinkle or water lawns or
gardens in the City during the period of emergency caused by
shortage or water supply or lowering of water pressure in the
City water mains, and when such emergency is found,
determined, or declared by the City Manager as provided in
Subd. 2 hereof. Except as is herein provided, such sprinkling
or watering shall not be prohibited.
Subd. 2. Declaration of Emergency. The City Council shall by
resolution declare the existence of such emergency as and when
it may become necessary to enforce the restrictions provided
by Subd. I hereof. The City Council shall determine and
declare in said resolution the necessary period and conditions
of such emergency prohibition and the termination thereof.
The City Council shall further determine and .order in said
resolution proper notification of consumers during such period
of prohibition.
Section 610:60. Violations - Termination of Service. For a
violation of any of the rules and for non-payment of charges or
violations of rules, water may be shut off and it will not be
turned on again until all charges, penalties, and fines are paid
together with the expense of shutting off and turning on of such
water as set by the Council in Section 540:00, and the City Council
may order that not water shall be furnished to any person who is
indebted to the City on account of any such charges, penalties, or
fines. (Ord. #57-1992 - 7/6/92)
v/ OW fair are your
zoning hearings?
Following a 1999 ruling in the Circuit Court in
DuPage County (one of the fastest growing counties in
the nation), municipalities all over Illinois started won-
dering if their procedures for zoning hearings could
withstand a judicial review. According to an article by
attomey Ronald Cope in the Illinois Municipal Review,
a rezoning case in the V'fllage of Lisle prompted the
court challenge. In that petition, a retailer had requested
annexation and rezoning to construct a large store.
Notice of a public hearing was mailed to property
owners within 250 ft. of the proposed store, which
brought out such a large crowd that the hearing had to
be moved from City Hall to a school auditorium.
In an attempt to bring some semblance of order
to the hearing before the village board, plan commis-
sion and zoning board of appeals, the mayor stated that
comments from the audience would be kept to two
minutes and that there would be no attempt to answer
questions that evening. He pointed out that each of the
three boards would be hearing the petition in later
meetings.
The petitioners then made a presentation that
lasted over two hours, with the public comment portion
starting around 10:30 pm. Forty-seven people had
spoken by the time the hearing adjourned at 11:30. On
at least eight occasions, the chair warned the speaker
of the two-minute deadline and cut off at least five
speakers.
A request for a preliminary injunction was filed
and in its ruling, a circuit court judge said a proper
public hearing had not been held and that any subse-
quent actions taken by the three boards were invalid.
The judge cited both state supreme court and federal
appeals court rulings as well as Illinois statute. The
precedents, some from other states, addressed the
definition of public hearing "to mean the fight to appear
and give evidence and also the right to hear and exam-
ine the witnesses whose testimony is presented by
opposing parties."
Cope notes in his article that the mayor of Lisle
testified that the public hearing "was an oppommity for
the public to provide input on what is essentially a
legislative process." He further testified that while the
hearing was open to public comment, no one except
the members of the various boards was allowed to
question witnesses for the petitioners: "that's the way
we've always done it."
"I think the mayor just wanted to bring some
semblance of order to the meeting," Cope says. "I
think he looked over the crowd and thought 'we'll
never get out of here.' He just wanted to move things
along." Despite the common temptation in local
government to expedite hearings, Cope suggests
otherwise. In his article, he lists seven ground rules for
public hearings that might ensure "a full and fair
hearing."
1. First, determine whether there are any attor-
neys representing a group of objectors. If there are,
then the attorney can serve as a spokesperson for
these objectors and present the evidence, whether in
the form of testimony, written documents, or exhibits in
an orderly fashion and in the same manner that the
petitioner presented his evidence.
2. Next, (if there is no attorney), determine which
objectors actually have evidence to present and the
nature of the evidence. Some might simply wish to
make a statement. Others may wish to present wit-
nesses and exhibits. Make some reasonable determi-
nation as to the time frame for the presentation of this
evidence. Fairness does not require redundancy.
3. Create an orderly presentation of evidence
with the petitioner going first. It is probably best to
allow questions of each witness after their presentation
by the petitioner. If a question has already been raised
by some other objector, there is no requirement that a
second objector be allowed to ask the same question.
4. During this process of the initial presentation
there is nothing to prevent members of any official
boards that are present from also asking questions.
The better scenario is to allow the petitioner to com-
plete the presentation of a particular witness, allow the
objectors to ask questions, and then allow officials to
ask their questions. There is no magic in the order of
questioning.
5. When the petitioner has finished with his
presentation, the chair should call upon the objectors
to present their case. The same process should be
4 Small Cities JUL I AUG 2000
repeated. What is a reasonable time frame is deter-
mined by general concepts of fairness. If a hearing has
to be continued to another date in order to allow for a
full presentation, then it should be so continued.
6. Witnesses should testify under oath and
exhibits should be clearly identified and entered into the
record. For all major presentations, a court reporter
should be in attendance to administer oaths and to
transcribe the testimony. The use of tape recorders,
while certainly permitted, is not a very good substitute
and it's often the case that recorded testimony is not
audible to someone (such as a judge on administrative
review) seeking to understand what took place at the
hearing.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
To: Dr. Pam Myers
From: Jodi Rahn
Date:
Subject:
August 17, 2000
Open House Totals
TOTAL OF 37 PEOPLE CAME TO THE OPEN SPACE/OPEN HOUSE
VOTING BOARD TOTALS
PASSIVE PARK WITH ONLY CODE IMPROVEMENTS = 4
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK WITH LIMITED IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES = 1
COMMUNITY PARK WITH STATE OF THE ART ATHLETIC FACILITIES
AND CENTRAL PARK THEME -- 18
HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT WITH RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
SUCH AS PATH, TENNIS COURTS AND PLAY FEATURES = 4
10 people did not vote.
cc. Kandis Hanson
~' City Manager
printed on recycled paper
FROM : JMS Communications [ Rmsmarch PHONE NO. : 715 755 3334 Aug. 17 2000 10:01AM P1
TO: Kandis Hanson
FROM: Jill Schultz
715-755-331
RE:
Questions & Comments from the Open House
I)ATE: 8-17-00
Since there were only five, I am faxing you the questions/commems sheets from the open
house. No one submitted any new questions.
FROM : JMS Communications A Research PHONE NO. : 715 ?55 3334 Aug. 17 2000 10:01AM P2
Questions & comments
I would like to know the answers to the following question(s):
I would like to provide the following comments;
I would like someone to call me and answer my question. My name and phone number are:
FROM : JMS Communications g Research PHONE NO. : ?15 ?~$ ~334
Aug. 17 2000 10:02AM P3
Questions & Comments
I would like to know the answers to '~he following question(s):
I would like tO provide the following commerits:
I would like someone to call me and answer my question. My name and phone number are:
FROM : JMS Communications & Rmsmarch PHONE NO. : 715 755 33:34 gug. 17 2000 10:02~M P4
(~ues~ions & Comments
I would like to know thc ~swers to thc following qu¢~ion(s):
I would like to provide the following comments:
I would like someone to call me and answer my question. My name and pl~one number are:
FROM : ~MS Communications & Research PHONE NO. : 715 ?55 3~4 Aug. 17 2880 10:02AM P5
Questions & Comments
I would like to know the answers to the following question(s):
I would~ like to,..~/./provide the followingp~~i..comments:~.O~, /,X~,, ~.~ ~C~Z/O~ ,
I would like someone to call me and answer my question. My name and phone number are:
CITY 0F MOUND
BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
July 2000
58.33%
GENERAL FUND
Taxes
Business Licenses
Non-Business
Licenses and
Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for
Services
Court Fines
Other Revenue
Transfers
from Other Funds
Charges to Other
Departments
July 2000 YTD PERCENT
BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED
1,344,330 166,444 702,~ (641,886) 52.25%
4,210 60 3,505 (705) 83.25%
116,200 17,359 100,631 (15,569) 86.60%
963,800 453,748 492,032 (471,768) 51.05%
85,700 8,206 62,922 (22,778) 73.42%
100,000 9,484 64,629 (35,371) 64.63%
63,500 1,047 16,964 (46,536) 26.71%
47,500 0 0 (47,500) 0.00%
13,000 1,187 8,274 (4.726) 63.65%
TOTAL REVENUE
2,738.240 657,535 1,451,401 (1,286,839) 53.00%
FIRE FUND
RECYCLING FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
CEMETERY FUND
DOCKFUND
377,470 16,232 277,347 (100,123) 73.48%
115,600 37,213 89,934 (25,666) 77.80%
1,750,000 191,822 1,043,449 (706,551) 59.63%
500,000 44,704 251,081 (248,919) 50.22%
960,000 87,482 570,352 (389,648) 59.41%
6,200 120 2,930 (3,270) 47.26%
86,000 356 68,381 (17,619) 79.51%
08117/2000
rev00
Gino
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT
July 2000
58.33%
GENERAL FUND
Council
Promotions
Cable TV
City Manager/Clerk
Elections
Assessing
Finance
Computer
Legal
Police
Civil Defense
Planning/Inspections
Streets
City Property
Parks
Summer Recreation
Contingencies
Transfers
July 2000 YTD PERCENT
BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED
77,620 7,650 50,423 27,197 64.96%
4,000 0 4,000 0 100.00%
26,000 20 416 25,584 1.60%
198,750 17,672 115,659 83,091 58.19%
12,450 113 317 12,133 2.55%
68,000 71,124 71,296 (3,296) 104.85%
175,400 13,423 103,964 71,436 59.27%
22,100 340 5,512 16,588 24.94%
146,980 14,196 63,750 83,230 43.37%
1,049,650 67,599 616,714 432,936 58.75%
12,150 1,311 3,056 9,094 25.15%
208,250 23,154 135,820 72,430 65.22%
485,990 32,458 321,003 164,987 66.05%
76,890 7,058 47,370 29,520 61.61 %
208,050 24,536 141,965 66,085 68.24%
39,570 0 0 39,570 0.00%
106,780 0 575 106,205 0.54%
166.120 13,843 96,903 69,217 58.33%
GENERAL FUND TOTAL 3,084,750
294.497 1.778,743 1,306,007 57.66%
Area Fire
Service Fund 411,520
TIF 1-2 0
Recycling Fund 124,980
Liquor Fund 238,920
Water Fund 441,360
Sewer Fund 939,410
Cemetery Fund 8,190
Dock Fund 80,640
36,208 198,330 213,190 48.19%
57,577 283,594 (283,594)
7,774 65,749 59,231 52.61%
17,847 151,062 87,858 63.23%
20,747 236,505 204,855 53.59%
48,602 484,020 455,390 51.52%
1,096 2,980 5,210 36.39%
2,310 46,517 34,123 57.68%
Exp-00
0811712000
Gino
General Fund
CDBG
Area Fire Protection Services
MSA
Sealcoat
PW Facility
Capital Improvement
CDB
Commerce Place TIF
Downtown TIF 1-2
Co Rd 15
Recycling
Liquor Store
Water
Sewer
Cemetery
Dock
Fire Relief
HRA
$1,280,549
1,756
276,684
41,679
14,467
96,018
304,507
4,066
167,254
(479,198)
7.783
87 323
391 803
790 050
718 205
4 984
259 521
(50,523)
1,891
Note:
The above schedule shows the combined cash and Investment balances
by fund for the months Indicated as recorded in the General Ledger.
The balances do not reflect receivable, payables, authorized transfers,
encumbered funds, or dedicated/reserved resources, etc.
Only some accrued transactions are reflected. Investment income will be
distributed to the funds at the end of the year and is not included.
A long and complete process is followed to record all transactions, before
we close the books, at the end of the year. In addition, the audit from the
independent auditor is performed and an official Comprehensive Report
will be presented to the City Council and made available to interested parties.
In no way this schedule is Intended to represent balances of funds
available for spending.
08/17/2000
CashReportCouncll
Gino
THIS PAGE
IS
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT
BLANK