Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2001-07-24
PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2001 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. In that event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. o OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS * CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE MINUTES: JULY 10, 2001 REGULAR MEETING JULY 17, 2001 SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 8223-8226 8227 *B. *D. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS APPROVE AWARD OF PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENTS TO STS CONSULTANTS, LTD, FOR COUNTY ROAD 15 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS RANDY MORIARTY: 4536 DENBIGH ROAD CASE #00:69: MINOR SUBDIVISION CASE #00-70: VARIANCE 8228-8244 8245-8251 8252-8282 ° DOUGLAS DUNSER: 5984 SUNSET ROAD CASE #01-24: VARIANCE *E. APPROVE CASE #00-52: REGISTERED LAND SURVEY STEVE CODDEN: 5240 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD *F. APPROVE SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #01-21' STREET VACATION - KELLS LANE JONATHAN PAUL: 4679 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.) 8283-8294 8295-8300 10. 11. 12. 13. PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. RI-I DEVELOPMENT: LANODON BAY SUBDIVISION CASE #01-20: EASTMENT VACATION CASE #01-23: STREET VACATION STAFF PRESENTATION OF COSTS AND FEASIBILITY FOR REMEDIES FOR LANGDON LANE SEWER SYSTEM ACTION ON LONGPRE BUILDING DEMOLITION & SET BID DATE: 8/22 ACTION ON RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN STREETS OR PORTIONS OF STREETS WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUND AS NO PARKING ZONES ACTION ON EXTENTION OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING PROGRAM REPORT/ACTION ON SKATE PARK TASK FORCE REQUEST(S) DIRECTION OF NEXT STEP ON ISLAND PARK FACILITIES STUDY, INCLUDING APPOINTMENTS TO TASK FORCE ACTION AMEMDING ETHICS GUIDELINES INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. AMM Fax News 8404-8405 B. Auditor's newsletter 8406-8408 C. Memo from Department of Revenue 8409-8410 D. Ehler's newsletter 8411-8413 E. Mediacom correspondence 8414 F. State Aids report 8415 G. Report on charitable gambling donation 8416 H. LMCC communications & report 8417-8419 I. Finance Report: June 2001 8420,8423 15. ADJOURN This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: www. citvofmound, c om. 8301-8321 8322-8338 8339-8344 8345 8346 8347-8351 8352-8360 8361-8375 8376-8403 More current meeting COUNCIL BRIEFING July 24, 2001 HRA MEETING, DUE TO LACK OF AGENDA. #3.C. Phase l's for County Road 15 To stay with the timeline distributed at thc County Road 15 Open House, certain work is underway, at the direction of the City. To date, that includes ordering the appraisals on the properties to be taken and, next, the Phase l's for those properties. At a meeting this spring, the Council approved an agreement with Hennepin County that asks that the County act as the fiscal agent for the City as it proceeds with the acquisition phase of the road project. The agreement has them fronting all these costs as well as a provision that allows the City to reimburse the County over five years. This proposal, being contrary to their customary agreements, is in negotiations. In order for City staffto further the position of the City in these negotiations, we are working up a very detailed budget of the acquisition and construction portions of the project, reflecting sources and uses of funds. Other expenses for the downtown include: moving the lift station and force main (Met Council), under grounding electric wires and enhancing the electric substation (Xcel Energy), the City parking lot and the creation of the greenway. Once all the estimated costs and sources of funds can be tallied, the Council will receive a detailed report, project to take place in late September. In the meantime, it is recommended that the Phase l's be ordered so that the County Road 15 project can proceed on time. #10. CBD Parking Program As discussed at a recent Council meeting, the current year CBD parking program has expired. Although in the future each district will be responsible for its own maintenance, it continues to be practical that the City provide those services prior to redevelopment. The past winter (i.e., when Mueller/Lansing Properties dropped from the was proof of the chaos that can result in the absence of the program. Although there are some known uities in the program as it exists, it continues to be my recommendation that the program be extended until a time when the maintenance districts can be established. Incidentally, the public hearing referred to at the last meeting is not related to the continuance of the program. Rather, it is the hearing that is required to assess the annual charges to the tax rolls for each business--our standard practice. #12. Island Park Task Force The Fire Department is requesting proposals from two firms for the purpose of determining the Fire Department's space needs. To avoid any possible shortsightedness, I have expanded that study to include all of the property owned bY the City on Which the Fire Station and City Hall are located. The ratiOnale is to maximize the use of the limited property owned by the City, so that the space needs can be met through the implementation ora long-range plan. It is my recommendation that the Island Park facilities and the Public Works shop also be included in the space needs study, with the Island Park Task Force providing that part of the input for the study professionals. Human Resources Update Sarah Smith will start as Community Development Director on July 30. Chris Pounder was made a contingent offer for the Public Works Maintenance position, pending positive approvals on background checks. Hope you are having a great summer! MOUND CiTY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 10, 2001 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 10, 2001, at 7:30 p.m. in the counoil chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Councilmembers Present: Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Klm Anderson and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Manager, Kandis Hanson, Acting City Clerk, Bonnie Ritter; City Attorney, John Dean; City Pl~er, Bruce Chamberlain; Jim Prosser of Ehlers & Associates; Mi ..c, hael Mueller, Lorde Ham, Michael Piepkorn, Bill and Dorothy Netka. Consent Agenda: All items li~ed under the Consent Agenc!aii~ considered to be routine in nature by the Counoil and will be enacted by a~iii~all vote. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Councilm~be~ii~i:;~tizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Con~t~::Agendgii~d considered in normal sequence 1. OPEN MEETNG AND PLEDGE OF Mayor aeisel called the meeting to order.::at 7:35 P::~::~i~.:~ii.~nd the Pledge of Allegiance was City Manager Hanson recluest~ii~iii~ove~',ili~'~ #10 with reference to the fishing dock program and replace it w. ith,~i~=, pro~d ~ering ban ordinance, along with approval of watering ban. She also :~uested?=i~':=~!ad 4A:, City Manager's Report. Meyer req~e.sted discussion of Ite~rn=~===:i~:~Mi!ii!iiii:'==~ .... %? .... MOTION y Hanu~ii~econd~,by Bi~wn to approve the agenda as amended. All voted in favor. Motion~r. ried. 3, CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Brown, se~/hd~ by Hanus to approve the consent agenda. All voted in favor. Motion car¢i.ed. ~p:mval of Minutes: June 26, 2001 regular meeting; June 27, 2001 special, meeUng at 6:00 p.m:; June 27, 2001 special meeting at 7:00 p.m.; June 28, 201 special meeting. B, Approve payment of claims in the amount of $246,516.43 C. Pass Ordinance No. 05-2001: Ordinance Amending Sections 260:00 and 260:10 of the City Code Relating to the Economic Development . Commission, D. Set date for dedication of Don Scherven Memorial Park for August 11, 2001. -8223- 'Mound City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 4, COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS Michael Mueiler of Mueller-Lansing Properties stated that he received a letter from the City Finance Director, informing them that the CBD Parking Program is no longer in effect and expired June 30, 2001. He stated that he found it discerning when the Public Works people recently pounded parking signs into a private parking lot. He feels that the council should' reinstate the CBD Program until the development is completed, since the City is utilizing the lot and has signs on private property at this time. He asked who gave the City the right to put signage up on private property if the CBD program is gone. Mayor Meisel informed him that there is a hearing scheduled for October and the program will be retroactive, if that is what is determined. 4A. CITY MANAGER S REPORT Hanson announced that Sarah Smith has been secure,d:~ii~'~=':=~i,~iiCommunity Development Director and will being the week of Ju!~ii~th. Sl~iiii~:mes with years of experience from the City of Watertown and Way~? 5, MOUND LIQUOR STORE UPDATE' Jim Prosser reported on the status of the liquor st~i!ii~'nd a need for developing Plan B. The initial plan was to locate the liquor development has been delayed and as building design aspects yet. Prosser bell{ suggests reviewing the status allow the MetrePlains issue store from a marketing for lease extensions. ~ovides the City. ~::~{~e~Plains Development. That h~'t been any investment in the is still time to pursue that, and ,nth basis. He feels there is time to this is the best location for the liquor are ongoing with the present landlord liquor store in the weekly update that he Meyer is that with contingency ~an'~uld, be in' ns case not going to court until October, a 6. RATIVf WITH MINNEHAHA WATERSHED DISTRICT MOTION by Brown, by Anderson to approve the cooperative agreement with ~ Mi~ehaha Watershed District, Discussion followed with Hanus stating that the e~fire s~ena~ has changed since they first, looked at it. Variances and minor repairs w,'~ take ie~ger if~his is adopted. The only advantage to this agreement is if the Council v~an~s, to. be. ~icter than the Watershed District, and if not, we're only .hurting our residents aRd spending money unnecessarily. The Mayor stated that it was her u~der, star~diRg from when Dan Parks was before the Council, that only new develepmer~ts and subdivisions would be affected, Hanus stated that this agreement is different ~han what originally presented. After further discussion, Brown withdrew his motion. MOT,ION by Bt, own, seconded by Hanus to table this item until the first meeting in August, te ~ Sam Smith!s input on how the City of Wayzata has reacted to this 2 -8224- Mound City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 agreement. Ayes: Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Anderson. Nayes: Meyer. Motion carried. ACTION ON ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 350:505 OF THE CITY CODF RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION OF THE ZONING CODE. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to refer this proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. All voted in favor. carried. Motion 8. ETHICS GUIDELINES City Manager Hanson explained that the proposed change i~i~sically deleting the requirement for Boards and Commissions to fill out the Fin.a~ial Disclosure Statement. Hanus stated that it was his perception that the disclosu~[~ii'~ being done away with for elected officials also .... ~ii!iiiii'.'~':~::'~' ....... ~::i~?~ili~iii~?~iiii~:~ Meyer feels that it is important to keep some for~m':!iii~disc!0sure ir~t:.for the Council. He thinks this is a common practice and should?~i!i{~e Co~il should be measured on a little higher standard than appointed Boards and:'~::~i~i~ssions members. After further discussion, there was a M~ this item until the City Attorney can information asked for on the Fin~ Meisel and Meyer. Nayes: 9. POLICY ON carried. :i by Hanus to table legality of gathering the nt. Ayes: Brown, Hanus, IENTS TO ADVISORY ~pla~!iiii~din~==~?~eappointment and reappointment process, including what questions ce~ili~e ask~aiiii~t c~'~aidate interviews. John Dean suggested that Department He~?~meet with"~'~{~e commission members before the interview process, to determine what'==~stions s~uld be asked, and what procedure should be followed. Meyer suggested goin~i~i~'~to the procedure that was used before this January 1~t. The interview process can be coordinated between the Chair and the Department Head, and there is no need for the Council or Legal to get involved. 10. Removed 10A. WATERING BAN City Manager Kandis Hanson informed the council that she and the Public Works Superintendent have determined that with the heat and watering going on, a water ban is needed to stop depletion of the water supply. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Meyer to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 3 -8225- RESOLUTION NO. 01-58: Mound City Coun=ll Minutes July 1.0, 2001 RESOLUTION DECLARING WATER SHORTAGE IN THE CITY OF MOUND. Hanson also presented an ordinance to the Council that, because of time constraints, would put authority to declare a water shortage or water pressure emergency into the hands of the City Manager and Public Works Superintendent.. MOTION by Meyer, seconded by Hanus to pass the following ordinance. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO, 04-2001: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 610:55 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO DE~'LARATION OF WATER SHORTAGE OR WATER E~SURE EMERGENCY. 11. DOCK PROGRAM FEES WORKSHOP .~:,,~i~ii?ii?~ ...... '~'~iiiiii~iiiiii~i~,~ .... * The ~~orks~i!~ii~n July 17;:~i~~, at 7:00 p,m. 12. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A, LMC correspondence ..... B. AMM Fax News C. LMCD communications E. F. G, H, I. J. K, L. M, Police Department Report: Reports: Fire Commission FYi: 2001 Mediacom Report: Meyer' HaddoE Reid ram participation Day B~:" Riley, Dettmann & Kelsey nd of Moving Permit Fee ~'that the $100 fee for moving the warming house from be refunded to the Hockey Association. It was the ~sensus not to waive this fee, lest a precedent be set.. 13. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adjourn at 9:05 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion ~ed. c ty CP k 4 Mayor Pat Meisel -8226- MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 17~ 2001 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special workshop session on Tuesday, July 17, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Councilmembers Present: Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Kim Anderson and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Manager, Kandis Hanson; Acting City Clerk, Bonnie Ritter; and Parks Director, Jim Fackler. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Mayor Meisel. WORKSHOP ON DOCK PROGRAM FEES Jim Fackler presented a fee schedule with the proposed 100% increase for multiple docks, 50% increase for non-abutters, and 25% for abutters. He also presented projected revenues from dock permits with these increases factored in, along with projected revenues and expenditures. There was discussion regarding the pros and cons of increasing fees with a fiat fee increase straight across the board versus a tiered increase. A credit system for the abutters who maintain the lakeshore was also discussed. After lengthy discussion the following issues will be referred to the Docks and Open Space Advisory Commission for their review and recommendation back to the Council: 1) Should the fees increase on a flat or tiered basis? (2) Review the content of the Administration budget of the program, (3) Decide if the docks program should be a "for profit" program or just self-sustaining. Also the Commission is asked to consider different approaches within each of the options (i.e., The current rates + the additional cost of the program spread evenly across the board; assess dock fees by the foot; and review the program's budget. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Meyer, seconded by Anderson to adjourn at 8:55 p.m. Ayes: Hanus, Meisel, Anderson and Meyer. Nayes: Brown. Motion carried. Mayor Pat Meisel Attest: Acting City Clerk -8227- PAGE 1 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOIC.E NMBR ,D,,ATE ~DATE $_.T.~U~. A~OUN~ ,~5~R.I..P.T_!..O_N A~OU.~T NUMJ~ AICPA VENDOR TOTAL 125.00 0582 256.12 REPAIR POST OFFICE 30-6000-4100 7/24/01 7/24/01 256.12 JRNL-CD 10 7/24/01 7/24/01 165.60 JRNL-CD 10 7/24/01 7/24/01 66.60 JRNL-CD 7/24/01 7/24/01 141.60 JRNL-CD lC 04119506 ~ ~ 136.80 ~£~ ...... 71-7100-9,~ £ ~t :i. O:~!ii',, ~ ~! ~:: : 7/24/01 7/24/01 85.40 JRNL-CD ARTIC GLA~E_R PREMIUM ICE VENDOR ~OTAL 825.00 ° AT & T VENDOR TOTAL 34.16 4~ :; :::,,, .:.,,~.~ :,: ,~ .:;;~i~<~2~L~: ,j~j~:~.. ~ ':':..:,:: ~ ~::'::: .~,~:gi;~:~:~,~&i~:~:~i.:~;~.:~':::; :~:: :' '" 21770100 1..682.15 LIQUOR 71-TZOO-95ZI 7/24/01 7/24/01 1,682.~.5 JRNL-CD 34167200 61.42 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-955 7/24/0i 7/24/01 61.42 JRNL-CD i -8228- PAGE 2 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD kTE 5TATI 94.99 JRNL-CD BLACKOWIAK AND SON 7/24/01 7/24/01 VENDOR TOTAL 17.76 JRNL-CD 10 BLACKOWIAK AND SON (ROLL~ VENDOR TOTAL 680.00 CHAHPZON AUTO VENDOR TOTAL Z~.76 j~4C0887 OZOT~4-A 980.45 07-OZ 95~-472-0600 7/24/01 7/24/01 341.30 07-01 952-472-1251 73-7300-322C 341.30 07-01 952-472-Z251 78-7800-322C 1,023.90 JRNL-CD ~ 010724-E 179.00 07-01 952-472-3555 22-4i70-322( 7/24/01 7/24/01 179.00 JRNL-CD 1( ~1 C0970 61352166 211.68 MIX 7i-7100-954¢ 7/24/01 7/24/01 211.68 JRNL-CD l( COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST VENDOR TOTAL C1019 10386 371.16 1,512.50 i745 WILDHURST BARGE WORK ~ cio20 0i0724 463.51 08-01 PRINCIPLE TRUE VALUE 55-5881-610( IN 49~_~08-0Z INTEREST TRUE VAL.U_~ 55-588!-611 -8229- PAGE 3 P U R C H A S E J O U RN A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION NT NUMB COPY IMAGES, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 342.80 10 CHADWICK AND MERTZ, P.A VENDOR TOTAL 4888.80 E1420 110336 VENDOR TOTAL 7/24/01 7/24/01 7/24/01 7/24/01 144.21 2,105.75 JRNL-CD 66.00 BEER 66.00 JRNL-CD '7100-9530 10 9530 71-7100-9530 10 112307 112888 7/24/01 7/24/01 7/24/01 7/24/01 28.50 MISCELLANEOUS 28.50 JRNL-CD 1,144.00 BEER 1,144.00 JRNL-CD 71-7100-955D 10 71-7100-9530 10 115526 7/24/01 7/24/01 ?/24/01 7/24/01 2,428.15 BEER 71-7100-9530 2,428.15 JRNL-CD lg 1,762.50 06-01 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 55-5880-310C 1,762.50 JRNL-CD lC -8230- PAGE 4 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD 25031 187.50 06-01 TIF DISTRICT 1-1 MODIFIC 54-5600-3100 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC VENDOR TOTAL 4362.50 01-4280-2250 16.67 06-26-01 MATS 73-7300-2250 7/24/01 7/24/01 42.27 JRNL-CD 10 ~l~°{ .... ~'8-'3~-8"~3-0 ............... 9!'20 06-26-01 MATS 0 -4340-2330 ~ 67.~59.~ 25 98 07-10-01 MATS 71 7 O0 ~ G~800 5~897 ~380.07 REPLACE REAR 5PRZNG 78-7800-38~C ~{ 7/24/01 7/24/01 1,380.07 JRNL-CD G1887 7959 494.85 STORM DAMAGE REPAZRS 22-4170-383( 7/24/01 7/24/01 494.85 JRNL-CD ~t .............................................................. 24;7~' 06-01 WATER ~5158600 ' ~ 7/24/01 7/24/01 49.56 JRNL-CD ' 1( c ~ 22.31 06-01 WATER ~5158502 01-4280-220~ ~ 9.13 06-01 WATER ~5158502 73-7300-2201 ~ ~ 9 12 06-01 'WATER ~5 ~.~ ....... .............. - - ~ - i58502 7 - - .~ · ~ .......... ~==~ ......... - .......... .=.-~?= .............................. 8 7800 22 -8231 - PAGE 5 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD 6LENWOOD INGLEWOOD VENDOR TOTAL 174.22 7/24/01 7/24/01 338.47 JRNL-CD 10 403924 ........... '~j H2010 010716 24.85 REIMBURSE MILEAGE 01-4040-3340 7/24/01 7/24/01 24.00 JRNL-CD lC 'J~ 31090 116 95 GEN,~RATOR TRA~LER ~ 78-7800-231C ~ 7/24/0~ ~/24 ~"0'~ .............. 2~}37 JRNL-CD lC 31155 167.37 GEN: RATOR TRA H2135 21067033 39.73 06-01 NETWORK SERVICES 01-4095-380( 7/24/01 7/24/01 39.73 JRNL-CD H2160 000075 645.50 05-01 ROOM AND BOARD 01-4110-425~ 7/24/01 7/24/01 645.50 JRNL-CD 7/24/01 7/24/01 233.45 VENDOR TOTAL 233.45 JRNL-CD HUTCHINSON, CITY OF -8232- PAGE 6 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO, INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION lO ~0-2140 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS VENDOR TOTAL 270.25 7/24/01 ?/24/01 75.52 JRNL-CD 1C 7/24/0~ 7/24/01 9~.75 JRNL-CD l[ 7/24/01 7/24/0~ 847.25 JRNL-CD ~( ~ ..... ~.~ ......... ~ ....................... ~,~54.~6 WINE 7i_7~00_9~3~ Z~Z.85 JRNL-CD ~[ 1~77524 29.~9 MISCELLANEOUS J2582 010724 244.12 08-01 PRINCIPLE TRUE VALUE 55-588t-610( I-~ .................................... ~---~, __ ~424.99 ~8-O~INTEREST TRUE VALUE 55-5880-611~ i l~i::::. : J ~::!: :':'i:" ~ ~ i~;::: : ~ ~ .? ~.): : ] :' : ~i :: ~:.:.:: J[ : ~: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: /J~-~] L2810 54557 98.04 ELEMENT, BLET, SWITCH, ETC I~I-L'~LI~ ~ 7/24/01 7/24/01 98 04 JRNL-CD ....... ~~ . - i-OI THRU 02-01-02 2ND INS ~ 585.64 02-OI-Ol THRU 02-01-02 2ND INS Oi 4090 -8233- PAGE 7 r ~ CITY OF ~IO~ND AP-C02-01 INVOICE DUE HOLD VENDOR T 236.07 o~-o~-o~ r~u o~-o~-o~ ~ ~s o~-~s~o-~,~_~. 79~.47 0~-0~-0[ THRU 02-OZ-O~ ~ND INS ~ 451.71 02-01-01 THRU 02-01-02 2ND INS 81-4350-36~0 7/24/01 7/24/01 26,313.00 JRNL-CD 7/24/01 7/24/0'1 50.41 JRNL-CD 10.' M3010 010701 M3016 9524 7/24/01 7/24/01 7/24/01 7/24/01 275.50 06-01 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 01-4399-3100 275 46.40 07-02-01 DELIVERY CHARGE 71-7100-9600 46.40 JRNL-CD 10 140.00 07-12-01 DELIVERY CHARGE 71-7100-960C 9573 140.00 JRNL-CD 1( 7/24/01 7/24/01 7/24/01 7/24/0l 3,593.30 JRNL-CD 1, 298895 ~.~~=,~-~ 301859 3,408 7t 7 142.50 06-01 2001 SEAL COAT PROJECT 01-4280-310 -8234- PAGE 8 AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE' JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD 7/24/01 7/24/01 733.70 JRNL-CD 36965 ~11~1 7/24/01 7/24/01 997.50 dRNL-CD 10 !~g ~3~6967 47 : 36971 '- 7/24/01 7/24/0~ 99.00 JRNL-CD~LAT 7/24/01 7124101 200.60 JRNL-CD - '~24/01 ' 7/24/6~' ..... 1-,0~2¥~0 JRNL-CD 7/24'0Z ,,,4,01 95.00 JRNL-CD __36979 47-50 06-01 EXCEL SUB-ST ON :~; 7/24/01 7/24/01 237.50 JRNL-CD J.~4j 36981 2 .~ .......... ~.~ .... ~ .!42-50 O6~.q~ S~..AT~ PARKS ENGINeeR S R 55-588 -8235- PAGE 9 AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL CiTY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR D~_T~TE DATE STATUS AMOUNT ~.SCRIPTION A C NT B I_~J 36983 427.50 06-01 CODDON SUB-DIVISION ENGI 01-230 '22 7/24/01 7/24/01 427.50 JRNL-CD 10 36985 7124101 7124101 190.00 190.00 06-01 LONGPRE BLDG DEMOLITION 55-5880-310C JRNL-CD 10 7124101 7124101 MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS AS50CI~ VENDOR TOTAL 475.00 475.00 14064.73 06101 LANGDON LANE SEWER BACK 78-7800-310C JRNL-CD 10 :10 M3111 06200115956 M3130 90 30.00 16.00 06-07-01 DRUG SCREENING L-4140-3!.~C 01-18-01 LUNCHEON 01-4040-412C 117 7/24/01 7/24/01 METRO AREA MGMT ASSN VENDOR TOTAL 16.00 16.00 64.00 03-15-01 LUNCHEON 01-4040-412 C JRNL-CD l( M3171 010626 7/24/01 7/24/01 METRO WEST INSPECTION SER~c VENDOR TOTAL 3415.50 52.50 1,110.00 1162.50 THRU 05-29-01 INSPECTIONS 22-4170-137( JRNL-CD 1{ -8236- PAGE 10 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-¢02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOIQ NMBR STATUS 010724 200.00 CONFERENCE SEPT 19-21, 2001 01-4090-411( 1 6.00 06-12-01 HARRELL DRIVING CLASS 01-4140-411C 7/24/01 7/24/01 8.45 JRNL-CD 1( 7/24/01 7/24/01 MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS VENDOR TOTAL HOUND, CITY OF 99.10 JRNL-CD 99.10 VENDOR TOTAL 33.96 1( 4,049.13 POSTAGE METER 01-4320-500l ~ P4000 71158621 129.37 MIX 71-7100-9541 !42! ............. 7/2~ ~/24/01 129.37 JRNL-CD P i 737859 630.93 LIQUOR 7/24/01 7/24/01 630.93 JRNL-CD 7/24/01 7/24/01 269.60 JRNL-CD 71-7100-955~ -8237- PAGE AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD 44779 916.16 MIX 71-7100-9540 7/24/01 7/24/01 916.16 JRNL-CD ' 01 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~,h~: :::: 'i;:::,~:!:?:[[,:: ! := :: :!!=~: ;',~:::~=: ~ :'..: : i:: :': :: ::':: .=:: .=.' ::':::' : : : '"~ ~[,;c,~ ~ul~ NEWS PUBLIC&TIJ2N ~~ :~, ~-~'~~ T:~: ~!?~ '".~' 89.~5 H[X 71-7~00-95~0 ,~ 01~039-00 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL 4694.96 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL 21.73 010710 R4238 010724 63.57 05-16-01 THRU 06-15-01 DEPOT 95.99 05-16 01-4340-3721 24.18 05-16-01 THRU 06-15-01 STREETS 01-4280-372 13.74 05-16-01 THRU 06-15-0l WATER 73-7300-372 17.03 05-16-01 THRU 06-15-01 SEWER 78-7800-372 7/24/01 7/24/01 1,180.00 JRNL-CD -8238- PAGE i2 AP-C02-O1 ~ U RC HA S E J O U R N A L ~.ITy OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR gATE DATE STATUS JNT PTION 3437 3440 195.25 TUXEDO STORM DAMAGE 01-4340-5110 7724/01 7/24/01 195.25 JRNL-CD 10 7/24101 7124101 : 213.00 SETON EHANNEL STORM DAMAGE 01-4340-5110 213.00 JRNL-CD 10 3442 7124101 7124101 279.55 THREE POINTS STORM DAMAGE 279.56 JRNL-CD 01-4340-5110 7/24/01' 7/24/01 1,182.15 JRNL-CD 01-4340-5110 lC 132714 7/24/01 7/24/01 15,751.34 JRNL-CD 15,000.00 06-01-00 THRU 04-01-01 1 01-2300-000 54430 62992 S4448 010724 7/24/01 7/24/01 7124701 7124101 99.47 LETTERHEAD 99.47 JRNL-CD 22-4170-228( lC 325.00 08-01 DOG KENNEL FEE 325.00 JRNL-CD 01-4140-427( 1( -8239- PAGE 13 AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD ' STREICHER'S VENDOR TOTAL 334.45 SUBURBAN TIRE COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 396.16 102.25 THRU 06-23-01 VEHICLE #09 78-7800-2210 56.12 THRU 06-23-01 VEHICLE #10 01-4280-2210 THRU 06-23-0 123.82 THRU 06-23-01 VEHICLE #21 73-7300-221C 122.94 THRU 06-23-01 VEHICLE #22 01-4280-221C 39.24 THRU 06-23-0~ VEHICLE #23 01-4280-2210 11.34 THRU 06-23-01 VEHICLE #07 37.49 THRU 06-23-01 VEHICLE #32 23.68 THRU 06-23-01 VEHICLE #35 01-42B0-221C 78-7800-221C 01-4280-221¢ SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC VENDOR TOTAL 1340.68 54648 010724 325.00 ADVANCE .N=ORTHSTA~..R~.?~IB. CO . ~.1.-_4._190-41~ T4730 576 46.38 07-14-01 ORDINANCE 01-4190-351( 7/24/01 7/24/0~ 46.38 JRNL-CD T4770 198547 272.00 BEER 71-7100-953( 7/24/01 7/24/01 272.00 JRNL-CD 1~ 231713 5,719.15 BEER 7/24/01 7/24/01 5,719.15 JRNL-CD 71-7100-953( -8240- PAGE 14 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMB 232504 6,621.20 BEER 7!-7100-9530 ~.~4/01 7/24/01 6,621 20 JRNL-CD 07-182 7 20,189.85 COMPUTERS 6'i~'X~6'~'~'0~ /24/01 7/24/01 20,189.85 JRNL-CD lC TMB CONSULTING, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 20264.85 ~i T4970 1244447 78.65 SERVICE/ADJUST 13 DOORS 01-4280-233( 78 65 SERVICE/ADJUST 13 DOORS 7300-2 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO VENDOR TOTAL 235.95 T4985 306406-0 1.78 $'~ELLA.NE 1.7B MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4340-210( .59 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4280-2101 .59 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES ?1-7100-2 30760i-0 307707-0 7/24/01 7/24/01 7/24/01 7/24/01 26.11 JRNL-CD 42.96 BADGES, CLIPS, ETC 87.84 JRNL-CD 26.88 BINDERS 1{ 22-4170-2 01-4140-2201 5.6B MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4090-210 5.68 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-210 5.68 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-419.0- -8241 - PAGE 15 AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD ~ 164.27 ~HITE BOARD, MARKERS 0Z-434' '00 7/24/0I 7/24/01 202.12 JRNL-CD 7/24/01 7/24/01 589.06 JRNL-CD 10 ............ 3Z.95 07-01 BALBOA PARKING 78-7800-4200 7/24/0~ 7/24/01 95.8S JRNL-CD 14.~'0 ~-'06-0i--~,'~-2'-¥~0-4351 STREETS 01-4280-3'~C 14.00 06-01 612-590-4351 WATER 73-7300-322C 13.99 06-01 612-590-4351 SEWER 78-7800-3221 28.06 06-01 612-581-6401 CHIEF HARRE 01-4140-322( 27.42 06-01 612-581-6404 BLAZER 01-4140-322C 34.19 06-01 612-581-6440 SQUAD 840 01-4140-322C 27.42 06-01 612-581-6444 SQUAD 844 0Z-4140-322( .79 06-01 612-723-7560 MOUND FIRE 22-4170-322( 1.27 06-01 612-751-3573 ENGINE 18 22-4170-322( VERIZON WIRELESS 7/24/01 7/24/01 329.43 JRNL-CD VENDOR TOTAL 329.43 7/24/01 7/24/01 51.19 AIR FILTERS 78-7800-2311 153.55 JRNL-CD 7/24/0~ 7/24/01 82.80 JRNL-CD -8242- PAGE 16 P U R ¢ H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO NMBR DA'[ 7/24/01 7/24/01 652.50 JRNL-CD 10 4439 0 2 RT I!~ W5690 40226 307.15 06-04-0i BLACKTOP 2?-5800-2340 4060Z-A .].27.60 06-:1.3-01 3/4. Hi:NUS ?3-7300-234.0 7/24/01 7/24/01 127, 40745-A 7/24/01 7/24/01 451.45 06-14-0i 3/4 MINUS 451.45 JRNL-CD 73-7300-234¢ 1( 4~160 67.72 06-20-01 BLACKTOP 27-5800-234( ~ 7/24/0i 7/24/01 67.72 JRNL-CD 257.56 06-26-01 BLACKTOP 27-5800-234( ?/24/01 7/24/01 257.56 JRNL-CD X5695 010724 1,586.68 06-01 #2245-30~-939 01-4320-37~( 21.99 06-01 #0466-607-223 01-4320-371; 587.68 06-01 #1914-601-425 139.53 06-01 #0864-508-832 01-4280-3711 139.53 06-01 #0864-508-832 73-7300-3711 ~. 39. ~.~_~2 ~~-5 ~8-832 78-7800-371 -8243- PAGE 17 P U R C H A $ E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR NO INVOICE DUE HOLD ?/24/01 7/24/01 5,204;02 JRNL-CD 7/24/01 7/24/01 !,749.88 JRNL-CD i,~: ~: :.. :;:~.:!~ !::',' :; , :: MINNESOTA WOMEN IN CITY G* VENDOR TOTAL 25 O0 ' NESOTA MUNIC~LPAL BEVE~ VENDOR TOTAL 500.00 Z6962 010626 17.50 REFUND DOG LICENSE 01-3250-000C 7/24/02 ~/24/02 27.50 Z6972 010711 20.00 07-10-01 VIDEO TAPE MEETING 02-4030-310( 7/24/01 ?/24/01 20.00 JRNL-CD 7/24/01 7/24/01 709.00 JRNL-CD 1( GEFFRE, SUSAN ~ VENDOR TOTAL 709.00 BIG DOG EVENTS AND ERIN VENDOR TAL 684.00 TOTAL ALL VENDORS 224,703.39 -8244- MEMORANDUM DATE: JULY 18, 2001 TO: KANDIS HANSON, CITY MANAGER FROM: JOHN CAMERON, CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 15 PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT I have reviewed the three proposals received for the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments for the County Road right- of-way acquisition and discussed them with Bob Lindall. We feel that the corridor approach as quoted by STS is appropriate for this project. It appears that we will still require 5 to 7 separate reports for individual parcels such as the bulk oil plant. Even with the addition of 7 individual reports, STS would still be the firm submitting the lowest quote for this work. STS has also conducted previous Phase I and Phase 2's for other City projects that lie within the area &the County Road Project. We are recommending that the contract for the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments be awarded to STS Consultants, Ltd. In the amount of $7,000, with the option of ordering Individual reports at a quoted price of $650 each. 15050 23RD AVENUE NORTH PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 -8245- JCAMERON~MFRA.COM (763)476-6010 FAX (763) 476-8532 STS Consultants, Ltd. Solutions through Science & Engineering July 16, 2001 Ms. Kandis Hanson City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Proposal for Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of Properties Along Proposed Reconstruction of County Road 15 in Mound, Minnesota; STS Proposal 965BA Dear Kandis: John Cameron of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. (MFRA) requested that STS Consultants, Ltd. (STS) prepare a proposal to perform Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs)..for a total of 17 properties along the proposed reconstruction area of County Road 15 through Mound, Minnesota. Gary Rathbun and Bill Tepley of STS met with John to discuss various approaches to accomplish the work. As you know, STS has performed several Phase I ESAs for the City of Mound redevelopment area and other Phase I ESAs for private clients in the area. We are familiar with environmental concerns in the area, know of city employees who could.help develop a history of the various sites needed to prepare the Phase I ESAs and have the capability of performing Phase II ESAs to determine whether soil and/or groundwater impacts exist. MFRA requested that an individual Phase I ESA for each of the 17 properties be prepared. We provide a scope of work and estimated cost for the MFRA proposed approach below. STS and MFRA also discussed a "corridor" approach. STS has completed several corridor Phase I ESAs for the Minnesota Department of Transportation. In the corridor Phase I ESA, each of the properties would be discussed individually within one report focused on environmental impacts to the corridor, not individual properties. We also understand that some of the properties may be purchased by the City. Individual reports for select properties may be required. A cost to prepare individual property reports in conjunction with the corridor report is provided. This will give you the flexibility to obtain reports for individual properties in addition to the cost savings of the corridor report. Individual Phase I ESAs Phase I ESAs for each of the 17 properties will be performed in general conformance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 1527-00. The proposed scope of work includes the following tasks: 10900 73rd Avenue North, Suite 150 · Maple Grove. MN 55369-5547 ° (763) 315-6300 · (763) 315-1836 Fax -8246- City of Mound STS Proposal 965BA July 16, 2001 Page 2 · Obtain a listing of state and federal environmental sites within ASTM designated search radii of the project site through an environmental database search firm. The search will include National Priority List (NPL) and CERCLIS list of sites. · Review of historic aerial photographs available at Wilson Library of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. · Interview of current property owner or site manager (for sites with buildings), if available, and local authorities knowledgeable about environmental conditions in the project site area. The City of Mound would be requested to help arrange access to buildings. · Review of topographic, soils and geologic information to ascertain soil and groundwater conditions in the project area. · A walk-over to observe current conditions on the various properties and adjacent properties as observable from within the individual property boundaries. · Review of city directories, if available, for past occupants of property site addresses. · Review of available Sanborn fire insurance maps of the area, if available. · Review of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency files, if available, for the leaking underground storage tank (LUST) and MPCA Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) site listings as appropriate in the project site area. For instance, the SuperAmerica property at Cypress Lane and Shoreline Drive is a LUST site. STS would utilize existing file information obtained during other Phase I ESAs performed for the City to minimize costs associated with file reviews. · Preparation of individual reports for each of the 17 properties presenting the results of the Phase I ESAs. The report will include a summary of all contacts, made regarding the site and a summary of the available literature sources reviewed. The report will present our interpretation of the site information and our conclusions regarding environmental concerns which may exist. If environmental concerns are identified, recommendations for a Phase II ESA will be made. It is likely that a Phase Ii ESA for the Clark Oil bulk petroleum facility at Belmont Lane and Lynwood Boulevard would require a Phase II ESA. Corridor Phase I ESA The corridor approach centers on potential impacts to the County Road 15 right-of-way (ROW) and areas within approximately 500 feet north and south of its centerline. The Phase I ESA corridor report would include the following: A list of all known or potential contaminated properties identified in the project area. The reason why each property is known or suspected to be contaminated. A summary of information from file reviews of MPCA documents completed for the project, with pertinent information such as copies of reports and associated tables, boring logs or figures showing the magnitude and extent of contamination included in the appendix of the report. -8247- City of Mound STS Proposal 965BA July 16, 2001 Page 3 · Review of readily available information as described above for the individual Phase I ESAs, including aerial photographs, city directories, Sanborn fire insurance maps, interviews with local authorities, visual reconnaissance of the corridor area and walk-throughs of buildings where appropriate (properties that the City is considering purchase). · Preparation of a single report identifying environmental concerns which could impact the corridor and recommendations for Phase II ESAs where appropriate. Individual properties can be selected to receive separate Phase I ESA reports. The City of Mound may elect separate reports based on property purchase or environmental concerns for an individual property. The number of properties to receive separate reports will be determined by the City. Cost Estimate We have prepared cost estimates for the above outlined scopes of work. STS will not exceed the cost estimate by more than 10% unless authorized by the City of Mound. Additional costs could be incurred if timely access agreements cannot be obtained by the City to enter a property(ies) causing the need for unanticipated return trips to visit properties. 17 Individual Phase I ESAs .......................... $15,000 Alternative Approach ' Corridor Phase I ESA ................................ $7,000 Additional Separate Reports ...................... '..$650 each Schedule STS is prepared to begin work on the project immediately upon acceptance of the proposal by the City of Mound. We understand that completion of the project is requested for the end of August. STS anticipates being able to complete the work by the end of August if City arrangements for access to individual properties can be arranged in a timely manner. Terms and Conditions We have attached to this proposal our General Conditions and Fee Schedule which are expressly incorporated into, and are an integral part of, our contract for professional services. Please indicate your acceptance of this 'proposal by having an authorized representative of your firm execute one copy and return it to the undersigned. If we are given verbal or written notification to proceed, without first receiving a signed copy of our proposal, it will be mutually understood that both of us will, nonetheless, be contractually bound by the proposal, even in the absence of written acceptance by you. In any event, a signed copy of this proposal will need to be returned to STS before a written report can be submitted. -8248- City of Mound STS Proposal 965BA July 16, 2001 Page 4 Your acceptance of our proposal confirms that the terms and conditions are understood, including payment to STS Consultants, Ltd. upon receipt of the invoice, unless specifically arranged otherwise in writing. Of course, should you wish to discuss the terms, conditions, and provisions of our proposal, we would be pleased to do so at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, STS CONSULTANTS, LTD. G ~~j~. R~fl, ib~n. p~s St~'~~'~ Senior Soil Scientist GJR/dn Encs.: STS General Conditions STS Fee Schedule p665al 12.doc ACCEPTED: Principal Engineer Date Firm Authorized Signature Title © 965BA, STS Consultants, Ltd., July 2001 -8249- PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES TERMS AND CONDITIONS BILLINGS AND PAYMENTS STS shall submit invoices monthly for services performed and expenses incurred and not previously hilled. Payment is due upon Client's receipt of invoice. For all amounts unpaid after 30 days from the invoice date, as set forth on STS' invoice form, the Client agrees to pay a finance charge of one and one-half percent (1-I/2%) per month, eighteen percent (18%) annually. The fees described in this agreement may be adjusted annually on the anniversary date of the effective date of this agreement. The Client's obligation to pay for the services performed by STS under this agreement shall not be reduced or in any way impaired by or because of the Client's inability to obtain financing, zoning, approval of governmental or regulatory agencies, or any other cause, reasons, or contingency. ACCEPTANCE ~n verbal or written notification to proceed, without first receiving a signed copy of this Proposal for Services, it will be mutually understood that Client and STS will, nonetheless, be contractually bound by this Proposal for Services, even in the absence of written acceptance by Client. A signed copy of this Proposal for Services must be returned to STS before a written report can be submitted. SAFETY ~sI~-~'h'-derstood and agreed that, with respect to Project site health and safety, STS is responsible solely for the safe performance by its field personnel of their activities in performance of the required services. It is expressly agreed that STS' professional services hereunder do not involve any responsibility for the protection and safety of persons on and about the Project nor is STS to review the adequacy of job safety on the Project. It is further understood and agreed, and not in limitation of the foregoing, that STS shall not be in charge of, and shall have no control or responsibility over any aspect of the erection, construction or use of any scaffolds, hoists, cranes, stays, ladders, supports or other similar mechanical contrivances or safety devices as defined and interpreted under any structural work act or other statute, regulation or ordinance relating in any way to Project safety. Client shall provide, at its expense, facilities and labor necessary to afford STS field personnel access to sampling, testing, or observation locations in conformance with federal, state, and local laws, ordinances and regulation specifically, including, but not limited to regulations set forth in OSHA 29 CFR 1926. SAMPLES gTg-~'rves the right to discard samples immediately ailer testing. Upon request, the samples will be shipped, (shipping charges collected) · or stored at the rate indicated in the fee schedule attached. STANDARD OF CARE STS represents that it will perform its services under this agreement in conformance with the care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable members of the professional engineering community practicing under similar conditions at the same time in the same or similar locality. NO OTHER WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, AT COMMON LAW OR CREATED BY STATUTE, IS EXTENDED. MADE, OR INTENDED BY THE RENDITION OF CONSULTING SERVICES OR BY FURNISHING ORAL OR WRI 1-1 k.N REPORTS OF TI-IE FINDINGS MADE. STS is not responsible for supervising, directing, controlling or otherwise being in charge of the construction activities at the Project site, or supervising, directing, controlling or otherwise being in charge of the actual work of the contractor, its subcontractors, or other materialmen or service providers not engaged by STS. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES It shall be the duty of the Client to notify STS of any known or suspected hazardous substances or constituents which are or may be present at or contiguous to the Project site or which may otherwise affect the services to be provided. Such hazardous substances shall include, but not be limited to, any substance which poses or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health or the environment whether contained in a product, material, by-product, waste or sample and whether it exists in a solid, liquid, semi-solid or gaseous form. The Client shall notify STS of all such hazardous substances of which it has knowledge or which it reasonably suspects exist upon entering into this agreement. Thereafter, disclosure and notification to STS shall be required as soon as practicable upon discovery of any other hazardous substances or upon discovery of increased concentrations of previously disclosed hazardous substances. Following disclosure as set forth in the preceding paragraph, or if any hazardous substances or conditions are discovered or reasonably suspected by STS after its services are undertaken, STS may, at its discretion, suspend its services until reasonable measures have been taken at the Client's expense to protect STS' employees from such hazardous substances or conditions. Whether or not STS suspends its services in whole or in part, the Client and STS agree that the scope of services, terms and conditions, schedule and the estimated fee or budget shall be adjusted in accordance with the disclosed information or condition, or STS may, at its discretion, terminate the agreement. In the event that this agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the Client shall pay STS for all services rendered prior to termination and all termination expenses. ALLOCATION OF RISK IT IS AGREED THAT THE CLIENT'S MAXIMUM RECOVERY AGAINST STS FOR THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PERFORMED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, IS $25,000 OR THE AMOUNT OF STS' FEE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. IT IS EXPRESSLY AGREED THAT THE CLIENT'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AGAINST STS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PERFORMED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, WHETHER BASED IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, 1S THE AWARD OF DAMAGES NOT TO EXCEED THE STIPULATED $25,000 FIGURE, OR THE AMOUNT OF STS' FEE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. IN NO EVENT SHALL STS BE LIABLE, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, FOR CLIENT'S LOSS OF PROFrrs, DELAY DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY NATURE ARISING AT ANYTIME OR FROM ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER. DISPUTE RESOLUTION All claims, disputes, controversies or matters in question arising out of, or relating to this agreement or any breach thereof, including but not limited to disputes arising out of alleged design defects, breaches of contract, errors, omissions, or acts of professional negligence, (collectively "disputes") shall be submitted to mediation before and as a condition precedent to any other remedy. Upon written request by either part), to this agreement for mediation of any dispute, Client and STS shall select by mutual agreement a neutral mediator. Such selection shall be made within ten (10) calendar days of the date of receipt by the other party of the written request for mediation. In the event of failure to reach such agreement or in any instance when the selected mediator is unable or unwilling to serve and a replacement mediator cannot be agreed upon by Client and STS within ten (10) calendar days, a mediator shall be chosen as specified in the Construction Industry Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration Association then in effect. Ifa dispute cannot be settled through mediation as set forth above, then such dispute shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association then in effect. Demand for arbitration shall be made by either party within ten (10) calendar days following termination of mediation. The date of termination of mediation shall be the date of written notice of closing mediation proceedings issued by the mediator to each of the parties. Demand for arbitration shall be made by filing notice of demand, in writing, with the other party and the American Arbitration Association. The award rendered, if any, by the arbitrator(s) shall be final and binding on both parties and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, in no event shall a demand for mediation be made more than two (2) years from the date the party making demand knew or should have known of the dispute or six (6) years from the date of substantial completion of STS' participation in the Project, whichever date shall occur earlier. All mediation or arbitration shall take place in Chicago, lliinois unless Client and STS agree otherwise. The fees of the mediator or arbitrator(s) and the costs of transcription and other costs incurred by the mediator or arbitrator(s) shall be apportioned equally between the parties. ASSIGNS ~he client nor STS may delegate, assign, sublet or transfer its duties, responsibilities or interests in this agreement without the written consent of the other party. SEVER. ABILITY In the event that any provision herein shall be deemed invalid or unenforceable, the other provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect, and binding upon the patties hereto. SURVIVAL A---l~-~tions arising prior to the termination of this agreement and all provisions of this agreement allocating responsibility or liability between the Client and STS shall survive the completion of services and the termination of this agreement. T C_.ROP.OOC 3,9S -- 8250- ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Charges for technical personnel will be made for time spent in the field, in consultation, in preparation of reports and invoices, in administrating contracts and project coordination, and in traveling. *Overtime will be charged after 8 hours per day; before 7:00 am and after 6:00 pm Monday through Friday; or all day Saturday-- technical rate x 1.25. Doubletime will be charged on Sundays or Holidays--technical rate x 2. Four hour minimum per day. Expert Witness Testimony will be billed at the rates shown here x 1.5. Laboratory test programs will be identified in our proposal and billed out on a lump sum basis. Additional laboratory work will be billed on the following hourly basis plus expenses, expendables and equipment. The cost of equipment to complete the project will be identified in our proposal. Drill rig rates include two (2) persons. Additional persons will be charged according to the technical classifications. Technical Classifications Principal Per Hour $ 90.00 Associate PerHour $ 106.00 Senior Consultant Per Hour $ 88.00 Consultant Per Hour $ 70.00 Technical Project Staff Per Hour $ 60.00 Technical Support Staff Per Hour $ 44.00 CADD Drafter Per Hour $ 45.00 Senior Environmental Technician* Per Hour $ 55.00 Environmental Technician* Per Hour $ 48.00 Technical Support Services Subsurface Exploration Drill Rig Mobilization (Local within 30 miles) (Out-of-Town) All-Terrain Vehicle Additional Drill Rig - Class I Drill Rig - Class Il Drilling Coordinator Per Trip $ 425.00 Per Mile One Way $ 10.00 Per Day $ 175.00 PerHour $ 180.00 PerHour $ 170.00 Per Hour $ 84.00 Site Safety PID Meter Per Day $ 120.00 Personnel Protection: Level D Per Person Per Day $ 50.00 Personnel Protection: Level C Per Person Per Day $ 165.00 Personnel Protection: Level B Quote Upon Request Expenses and Expendables Mileage Per Mile $ 0.35 Minnesota 2000 STS Consultants, Ltd. Consulting Engineers QO2 -8251 - RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4536 DENBIGH ROAD P & Z CASE #00-69 AND 00-70 PI]) #19-117-23-24-0008 WHEREAS, the applicant, has requested a minor subdivision of property that would require a variance to bluff setbacks to build two new residences identified as Tracts A and B; and, WHEREAS, the property is located within the R-1A Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback, a 10 feet side yards, 50 feet lake side setback, and a 10 feet top of bluff setback. Impervious surface is limited to 30 percent for each lot; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has demonstrated that both tracts A and B can meet the minimum lot area and width, building setbacks, and hardcover limits as required by the R-lA Single Family Residential District; and, WI-IEREAS, the area is defined as a bluff and would require a variance to the Shoreland Management Ordinance to build the proposed residences; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and determined that a practical difficulty exists and the proposal is in substantial compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the proposed new dwellings are consistent with the development in the surrounding neighborhood; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended that the Council approve the minor subdivision and variance as requested by the applicant; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", and subject to the following conditions: ao do f. g. h. Submit updated lot area calculations. Limit the hardcover on each parcel to 30%. Pay park dedication fees of $500/unit shall be paid at the time of building permit. Provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines, five feet wide on side lot lines and ten feet wide along both the front and rear lot lines. The new sanitary sewer and water lines either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90 shall be paid. Final grading and drainage plan to be approved by the City Engineer at time of building permit application. Recognize the entire building area as a bluff and show the bluff line on the survey submitted for a building permit. -8252- The City does hereby approve the variance with the following findings: a. The surrounding properties are also in a bluff and granting a variance to allow residential construction on these two lots is a reasonable use of the property that fits with the character of the neighborhood. -8253- THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -8254- IN CERTIFICATE RANDY OF SURVEY FOR MORIARITY LOTS 4-, 5, & 6, BLOCK 2, AVALON HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LAKE MINNETONKA IVIDING LINE R .^--c' Goto y ~VEY / %, (,3~.4y ,' LINE / ',, ' .' EXISTING ;TING HOUSE (TO BE REMOVED) /' /'/// HOUSE ,/ EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION : Lots 5 and 6, and the southwesterly 20.00 fee'( of Lot 4, Block 2, Avalon PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS~: Tract A : The southwesterly 20.00 feet of Lot 4, and '(hot part of Lot 5, lying northeasterly of the southwesterly 10.4-0 feet of said lot 5, Block 2, Avalon. Tract B : Lot 6 and the southwesterly 10.40 feet of Lot 5, Block 2, Avalon. o : denotes iron marker (908.3): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum 917 -- : denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon on assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of an existing house, and proposed location of a proposed dividing line, and proposed house thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. DESCRIPTION ~ C , ~ m,,---.,, I,,- ..... ---'-'"',~ ..... ,.,. ,,' COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. DRAWN I ~ J 7-f~.Ol J R~vi/~l ttr E,..~Y~. ~'~ G~Z ~ot~o 2'~' 1~ 9]l CONSLI. TI'~ ENGII~ERS. LAI'I) SURVEYORS, SITE PLAhHERS 952-4.75-4141 D 2001 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGI~IEER AND LAND SURVEYOR UI.,I)[R TH~ LAWS OF Ti4[ STATE or )dNK~SOTA. DATE ~ ),,'hi LICENSE NU~4eER ~ SCALE 1 "=20' DATE 1-29-0 mD NOi 01-024 Excerpts from the MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY JULY 2, 2001 Those present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Orvin Burma, Becky GliSter, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Council Liaison Kim Anderson. Absent and excused: Staff present: Building Official Jon Sutherland and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. The following Public were present: Doug Dunser Wesley Dunser Randy Moriarty 5984 Sunset Road 5984 Sunset Road 4536 Denbigh Road Chairman Michael welcomed the public to the meeting. He then called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #00-69 MINOR SUBDMSION CASE//00-70 VARIANCE RANDY MORIARTY 4536 DENBIGH ROAD Sutherland introduced the case. The Council sent this case back to the Planning Commission for further review of Option B. They wanted to see if the Planning Commission would consider inclusion of the land lying between the OHW and the 931.5 to meet lot area requirements. It is believed that the Council is generally in favor of the request. Tract A is currently conforming without the additional area. Tract B is not conforming without the addition. Under current figures, Tract B has 5,980 SF, which is only 20 SF from conforming lot area. The only requirement these lots would not meet is bluff requirements. Other houses in the area are fight in the middle of the bluff. We feel that it would be an improvement of the area. Discussion Weiland restated that that will give us a clean lot for Tract A. Ail sideyards and setbacks will be met with exceptions of the bluff requirement, which is impossible. Sutherland state that there are some conditions, that staff mentioned in a previous report dated April 9, 2001, that is part of the recommendation. We would maintain 30 percent hardcover and collect a Park Dedication fee on one of the lots. Mueller inquired as to the code requirements regarding lot area. Sutherland responded by saying that, in this zone, 6,000 SF are required above the 931 contour. Above the 929.4, or -8256- Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2001 OHW, the land is dry most of the time. Mueller was concerned that we have never formally included this area before. We need to still call this a variance even though if we include the area in question a variance wouldn't be necessary. Mueller wanted to know, if we change the elevation to include the part in question, have we given any consideration to the other variances for hardcover we have considered and denied over the past few years? Is it council's and staff's recommendation that we should allow this area to be considered in hardcover calculation? Sutherland said that is the intent and this is similar to what other communities are doing. Mueller asked if the areas under 930 have an absorption rate? Sutherland thought it did. A lot of times that area is dry. This is an inordinately wet year. Burma clarified that Lot B would still be undersized by 20 SF and that a bluffvariance is required. A variance would not be required for the lot area if it were figured to the 931. Mueller felt that, with all the development in the area (Mirmestrista and others), that the lake is going to continue to rise given the increase in hardcover. Burma inquired as to the hardships that the variances are abased. Sutherland said that the staff opinion was that most of the neighborhood is built in or impacts the bluff. Anderson reported from the Council meeting that Mr. Moriarty attended the Council meeting but the Council didn't want to act without the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Hanus brought up the change of lot area measurement but I'm not sure the Council was condoning it. Glister was concerned that we'd be setting a precedence for the furture if the ordinance doesn't get changed. Also, the applicant is asking for a variance on a new subdivision and we've said that we weren't going to do that. Clapsaddle indicated that, even if we change our way of looking at lot area, this needs to be considered as a variance. Mueller inquired why the applicant doesn't just move the lot line so Tract B has 20 SF more, eliminating the need for the lot area variance. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to accept the staff recommendation and conditions outlined in the Planner's and Engineer's memos, with the exception that the lot line be adjusted slightly to make both lots a minimum of 6,000 SF, meeting all setbacks and standards, including lot area and hardcover to the 931, with exception to the bluff requirements. -8257- Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2001 Findings of Fact: Bluff variances have been granted in the Denbigh Road area. Mueller wanted to make sure that the requirement was made to have the current house tom down before final occupancy was granted to the first house constructed. Burma said he continues to have a problem with certain areas of town being treated differently than other areas. Clapsaddle felt that, when you do a minor subdivision for profitability, that could be a justifiable reason for sticking with the bluff rules and deny. Moriarty stated that his house is about 1 foot away from the road and this creates additional vehicles on the street. This is a solution for that problem. MOTION carried. Clapsaddle, Weiland, Michael, Anderson, and Mueller voted for; Hasse, Glister, and Burma voted no. -8258- MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Illgl TO: 'Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: July 2, 2001 SUBJECT: Moriarty Minor Subdivision and Variance Request - Case #00-69 and 00-70 At their June 12th City Council meeting, the City Council sent the Moriarty Subdivision and Variance case back to the Planning Commission for further review of Option B. The Council agreed with Staff's recommendation and also wanted to see if the Planning Commission would consider the inclusion of land lying between the OHW and the 951.5 feet contour as reasons to grant a variance to lot area for each parcel. Our staff report and recommendation is unchanged. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8259- Excerpts from the Mound City Council Minutes June 12, 2001 3E. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Randy Mo~ia~i~ty,, 4536 Denbigh Road (.CaSe ~00-69, minor subdivision and Case #00- 79, va.~ia~ee~)appeared before the Council, He has two plan options that he has presented..He .did ,net attend the Planning CommissiOn meeting when' he was on the agenda, due tea ¢onfliot, It was noted that there are 4.8 days left of the extension, as far as the timeframe for action on this item. . · MOTI:ON by HaMs, se~nded by Anderson to ,refer this case back to the Planning Cemmiss!ier4~ ar~;~a~e staff a~d .~e applicant meet- p¢ior to the Plan~i.ng Commission meeting ~{'e.diseuss options. ~. voted in. favor. Mot[on ca~ried. -8260- Excerots from Minutes Mound Advisory Planning Commission Monday, April 23, 2001 BOARD OF APPEALS ~ MINOR SUBDMSION ~ VARIANCE RANDY MORIARITY 4536 DENBIGH ROAD Sutherland offered to present the case even though Mr. Moriarity was not present. Mueller stated that the work rules, adopted in January, state that, if the applicant is not present at the meeting, the Planning Commission can table action until applicant is present. He feels it is a conflict of interest when the staff acts in the applicant's behalf when they aren't here. It jeopardizes the validity of our work rules. Clapsaddle is not comfortable with it either. It sets a bad precedence. MOTION by Commissioner Hasse, second by Weiland, to table consideration until the applicant is present or his designated representative. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. Weiland brought up an additional concern. He wanted to be sure that, if Planning Commission sends a recommendation to the Council, there would be a requirement that the other house be removed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Sutherland was in agreement. -8261 - PLANNING REPORT I-Ioisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: April 9, 2001 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision and Variances APPLICANT: Randy Moriarty CASE NUMBERS: 00-69 and 70 - Updated report HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 4536 Denbigh Road ZONING: R-lA Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City Council reviewed this case at the March 27~ meeting and asked that it be sent back to the Planning Commission for further review. The applicant has redesigned the house to conform to Staff's recommendation which is for approval with the following conditions: 1. Submit updated lot area calculations. 2. Revise the survey to accurately indicate the property as a bluff. 3. Limit the hardcover on each parcel to 30%. 4. Pay park dedication fees as established by City Council resolution 10% land value or $500/unit. 5. All recommendations contained in the City Engineer's report dated February 21, 2001. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should review the updated material and determine if there is reason to send a new recommendation to Council. As you remember the recommendation on March 12th was for denial by a unanimous vote. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8262- Excerpts from the MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 12, 2001 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Jerry Clapsaddle. Absent and excused: Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Kim Anderson. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon and Recording Secretary Jill Noflander. The following Public were present: Brad Bememann, 4476 Denbigh Road, Mound Carl & Patty Palmquist, 4520 Denbigh Road, Mound Randy Moriarty, 4536 Denbigh Road, Mound Chairman Michael welcomed the public to the meeting. He then called the meeting to order at 7:48 p.m. APPROVE MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 26, 2001 MOTION by Commissioner Clapsaddle, seconded by Commissioner Weiland, to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously. CASE #00-69 CASE #00-70 MINOR SUBDIVISION _YARIA [C RANDY MORIARTY 4536 DENBIGH ROAD Planner Gordon stated that Mr. Moriarty wants to divide his property into 2 lots and create 1 new home. Tract A is the existing home, Tract B would be the new home. Tract A home would be tom down later. The subdivision needs a number of variances. A 500 SF variance is needed on lot area. Each is in a bluff. Moriarty would like a 6 foot sideyard on Tract B which would typically be 10 feet. A 4 foot setback variance is needed. The hardcover on B is the major issue. He is over the 30% maximum. Staff feels we can recommend approval of this as long as we get within the 30% hardcover. The owner would need to reduce the building size, driveway and concrete walkway. Staff would require Moriarty to update the calculations, a survey recognizing the bluff, get the hardcover under 30% and submit park dedication fees in addition to John Cameron's recommendations. Discussion Weiland didn't think there was enough information to recommend approval. He felt it needs to be redrawn. After a site visit today, with all the snow, it was obvious why we don't want buildings to be closer to the street. Passage on the street was difficult. Glister felt the size of the house needs to shrink, that the grading will work to help the house and the hardcover needs to change. -8263- Planuing Commission Minutes Maxch 12, 2001 Clapsaddle thought that a timeframe for demolition of the house needed to be established. He sees no reason why this project should require a variance on-the southwest side since the present house is being demolished. The contour is steep but buildable. Glister felt that the Planning Commission had allowed too many small parcels in the past. Gordon explained that the area below the 921 elevation cannot be considered in the lot area calculations. This is a 6,000 SF district and these parcels are similar to surrounding parcels in that a portion of the parcel is under the 921. These parcels are 7,500 SF as platted, but hardcover is figured only on buildable elevation, above the 921. Moriarty explained the house that is currently there is very close to the road and this project will eliminate that house. MOTION by Commissioner Clapsaddle to table the cases stating that the owner should bring back a clearer plan with changes made as recommended. Motion died for lack of a second. Burma commented that subdividing two undersized parcels and variance to build into a bluff is something that we haven't done in the past. Clapsaddle said he didn't want this project to go to City Council until it is designed the way it ought to be. We should give it a table and let the owner come back with no variances except maybe one to allow consideration of the lower portion of the property in the total lot area, which isn't as objectionable as much as some other variances. Otherwise, an owner should understand that some development cannot be done on certain sized parcels and live with that fact. He also said that overbuilding is not appropriate. This will become a political issue if we send it on to Council as it is. Weiland indicated concem that we be very specific as to the requirements of the removal of the old residence and what will be allowed, possibly guaranteeing removal with a bond or other form of agreement. Also, he is very concerned with the fact that this construction is in a bluff area. He thinks lot size is extremely important. Moriarty reminded the Commission of their approval of building in a bluffzone that was done on this property about 2 ½ years ago in conjunction with the gray house in the same block. They never followed through with the plan. It was subdividing 40 of his lot with the parcel to the west. Michael stated there were two alternatives. The Commission could table action and give Moriarty a chance to bring back something else or turn it down and let it move to the City Council without a Planning Commission recommendation. Clapsaddle reiterated his desire to table the action and send Council something worth considering. Glister and Burma both felt the undersized lots are the primary issue and they couldn't vote for the project simply because of that. MOTION by Chairman Michael, seconded by Commissioner Clapsaddle, to deny the recommendation. Motion passed unanimously. -8264- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. l ln TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: February 26, 2001 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision and Variances APPLICANT: Randy Moriarty CASE NUMBERS: 00-69 and 70 ItKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 4536 Denbigh Road ZONING: R- 1A Single Family Residential COMPREItENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential FEB 2 1 00! BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted an application for a minor subdivision and associated variances to split an existing lot into two buildable lots. Variances are as follows: Sideyard Lot Area - Tract A Lot Area - Tract B Hardcover - Tract A Proposed 4 feet -5500 sq. ft. -5500 sq. ft. 2720 sq. ft. Bluff setback - house is in a bluff. Required Variance 6 feet 2 feet 6000 sq. ft. 500 sq. ft. 6000 sq. ft. 500 sq. ft. 1650 sq. ft. 1070 sq. ft. * Lot area and hardcover have been estimated by Staff at the writing of this report. The proposal is to build a new home on the Tract B, as shown on the survey and submitted building plans. Tract A would be built on at a latter time. The applicant would tear down the existing home after an occupancy permit is issued for Tract B. A portion of the existing home extends over the proposed division line and should be addressed through and easement, bond or both to secure its removal. Property closings will be difficult with an encroaching structure, but these assurances are good protective means for the City to uphold its zoning authority. The two proposed lots meet lot width standard for the R-lA district at 50 feet of width but are under for lot area at 5500 square feet. This is not atypical of the lakeshore lots along Denbigh Road however. A variance would also be needed to recognize this shortage. Hardcover is 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8265- p. 2 Moriarty Minor Subdivision and Variances February 21, 2001 approximately 50% over the standard by 20%. The property is considered a bluff under the Shoreland Management Ordinance and would require a variance to build new homes. DISCUSSION: Although the proposed minor subdivision creates two lots that are typical of other properties in the neighborhood, a number of variances are needed for the project to proceed. This hillside is considered a bluff eventhough development predates the adoption of Shoreland regulations. Staff can support the development of the two lots given the fact the area and site are already developed. The issue is not if there should be a minor subdivision, but how the property is developed to avoid other variances. Hardcover is excessive at 50%. Given the small size of the lot, a smaller home should be designed. The existing home has 2040 sq. f~. building pad. Given the allowable hardcover, the building pad should be not more than 1000 sq. i~. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision and variances with the following conditions: 1. Submit updated lot area calculations. 2. Revise the survey to accurately indicate the property as a bluff. 3. Limit the hardcover on each parcel to 30%. 4. Pay park dedication fees as established by City Council resolution 10% land value or $500/unit. 5. All recommendations contained in the City Engineer's report dated February 21,2001. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8266- Engineering · Planning · Surveying F£B 2 2 001 ME M 0 R A ND UM DATE: February 21, 2001 TO: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Minor Subdivision - Moriarty Property, 4536 Denbigh Road Case # 00-69 and 00-70 MFRA #11378 As requested we have reviewed the revised Survey mtd house plan provided with the application for a minor subdivision of the Moriarty property on Denbigh Road, and have the following comments and recommendations: COMMENTS The original plat of "Avalon" did not include drainage and utility easements; therefore, easements should be pro:tided along all new 3or lines. This property is presently served with one sanitary sewer service and one water service as shown on the survey. Upon discussing this issue with Greg Skinner of public works, we are suggesting the following: Tract B a. A new water service be installed when the new home is cOnstructed. bo The existing sewer service be replaced from the fight-of-way line to the new home with a temporary connection provided for the service that enters the existing home. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra@mfra, com -8267 Mr. Jori Sutherland February 21, 2001 Page 2 Tract A bo The existing water service could be used for the new home after removal of the existing structure. A new line must be installed from the curb box. A new sanitary sewer service must be installed from the City main in Denbigh. When the existing house is removed the temporary connection made to the sewer for Tract B must be removed. If at time of construction, the applicant's utility contractor wants to handle these services different then we have suggested, approval must be granted by Public Works. o The combination of these original lots was assessed one unit charge when the streets in this area were reconstructed in 1978. It is the City's policy to collect additional unit charges when property is subdivided creating additional building sites; therefore this property should be charged one additional unit or $1,170.90. A complete grading and drainage plan will need to be submitted Ibr Tract A when the existing house is removed and application is made for a building permit. The survey does not show the top or toe of the bluff using the definitions contained in the City Code. It appears the top of the bluff is at or very close to the curb line and the bottom is located at the 932 contour. This places the entire building area within the bluff which requires a variance from the shoreline ordinance. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend the following conditions become part of the subdivision approval. Provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines, five feet wide on side lot lines and ten feet wide along both the front and rear lot lines. The new sanitary sewer and water services either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. 3. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90 shall be paid. Final grading and drainage plan to be approved by the City Engineer at time of building permit application. Recognize the entire building area as a bluff and show bluff line on the survey submitted for a building permit. s:\main :\mou 11378\correspondence~suthertand2-20 -8268- Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: ~E.. //, ~0D 1 city counoi Date: 2I'm - Distribution: Case No. ~ Application Fee: Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges? $75.00 $1,000 /!///~'/~0 .... City Planner //,/~f~/~:9 DNR ~/~;//'~/~ Public Works .///~/~ paAs ' /~2~/~;0 Ci~ Engineer / ~ Other Delinquent T~es? VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please ~pe or print the following info~ation: PROPERTY Subject Address Y~-~ ~ D~C_~/J'~,~ ~ ~--~"~ INFORMATION j, - t EXISTING Lot Block Plat # LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subdivision PID# ZONING DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT The appli~nt is: ~wner o~er: OWNER Name (if other than applicant) Address Phone (H) ~) .(M). SURVEYO~ Has an application ;var 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. Date Owner's Signature Date Revised 07-13-00 Revised 07-13-00 - 8269- 'VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472.0600, Fax: 472-0620 NOV 1 ~ ZOOO CITY F MO (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: --~-4~- - //// ,~--~0~ Case No. d ~- 7~ / City Council Date: ~&~?. ?/ ~DD / Distribution: ,//j¢/~ City Planner ////~' DNR ,///~/d¢ City Engineer /¢q/~ Other ¢,~¢~ ~//~/~ 0 Public Works SUBdECT Address ~'~ ~ ~ ~.o~,~.'~ A ~ , PROPERTY Lot ~ ~' 3'~ ..... / '~ LEGAL Block ~ DESC. Subdivision ~ ~ ( o ~ PID~ /~/(~~ ~ ~o~ Plat~ ~--~ ~~ ZON~N6 O~STR~CT .-~ ~ .-~ .-~ e-1 ~-2 ~-~ PROPERTY Name ~!.~ ,~9~ }~ APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) (W) (M) OWNER) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, cOnditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property?~, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. Ill14197) - 8270- Variance Application, P. 2 Cas. Do the existing structures co II area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Y~ (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, "F% o SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) 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 ) : (NSEW) ~-0 ft, ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: /(~ ~ ft. Lot Size: /~--z,~;~ sq ft Hardcover: //~_.,) sq ft ft. ft. ft. G, ft. ft. ft. ft. / ~ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft 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, ,sp/ecty each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? Please ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow describe: ~)=~opography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ~'*Texisting situation ( ) shape ( ) other: specify (Rev. 11/14/97) - 8271 - 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 ha_rd/ship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No'(~). If yes, explain: /- o described in this petition? Yes (), affected? Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the properW No/~lf no, list some other properties which are similarly Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signat~~,/~, ~ Date Date (Rev. l ]/14/97) - 8272- CiTY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) iPROPERTY ADDRESS: ~ -~ (~ ./,/~.~,,.~,~ ~..~ ./,.~_ ~~ ~ 'OWNER'S NAME: ./~~~I ~~~~ LOT AREA SO. ~. X ~% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... ~ ~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = {for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1 225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. X ._. X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. DECKS 'Open decks {114." min.- opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER X~ X X ~ ,=.. TOTALOTHER ......................... May 27, 1997 RESOLUTION//97-52 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION//96-116, RELATING TO THE MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCES OF 4536 & 4552 DENBIGH ROAD PID'S 13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048 P&Z CASE//9%19 WHEREAS, the applicant Randy Moriarty requested and received from the City Council a minor subdivision and related variances for lots 5, 6, 7, 8 & Swly 1'/2 of Lot 4, Block 2, Avalon, address 4536 and 4552 Denbigh Road by Resolution g96-116, dated November 12, 1996, and WHEREAS, Resolution ~96-116 allows for the subdivision of three tracts known as A, B and C, and tracts B and C contain existing homes and the home on Tract C is in very poor condition and will be removed, and WHEREAS, the Resolution further states the home on Tract C will be removed prior to release of resolution for filing at the County, and WHEREAS, the granting of a lot subdivision must be recorded at Hennepin County within 180 days following the adoption of the resolution, and WHEREAS, by letter dated April 11, 1997, Mr. Moriarty, has requested a six month extension and a modification of Resolution g06-116, item if, to allow the house on Tract C to be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new house on Tract A, or maintain the requirement that the house be removed prior to the filing of the resolution and extend the time limit to one year, and; WHEREAS, item If, of Resolution ~)6-116 states, "The house and garage located on the proposed Tract C shall be removed prior to release of this resolution for filing (note: this resolution must be filed within 180 days). A demolition permit is required.", and WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting the above statement to be amended to state "the house on Tract C will be removed before a building permit be issued for the house on Tract A, if the extension is only granted for six months, and WHEREAS, the Staff recommends tto extend the time for the minor subdivision for another 12 months and that resolution provision 1.f. remain as currently worded. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its May 12, 1997 meeting voted by a 6-1, with Hanus voting nay, to recommend denial of the extension and modification. This recommendation was consistent with their original recommendation to deny the development in 1996. WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Planning Commission recommendations and determined, through careful consideration of the positive effects of the proposal and its relationship to the neighboring properties, and therefore approved the applicant's -8274- May 27, 1997 request to extend and modify item If, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: .. .. - To approve a 12 month extension on Resolution //96-116 and maintain the requirement that the house be removed prior to the filing of the resolution. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County sro show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City. The applicant shall also have the responsibility to pay all costs associated with such recording. Said 12 month extension in lieu of any other time period provided for, in the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The foregoing resolution was moved by Mayo~ Polston and seconded by Councilmember Hanus. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Hanus, Polston and Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Jensen. ~ Councilmember Ahrens was absent and excused. l 1 Mayor' ~,ttest: City Clerk -8275- MOUND CITY COUNCE MINUTES - MAY 27, 1907 9 .CASE 97-19: EXTENSION/MODIFICATION OF SUBDIVISION, RANDY MORIARTY, 4536 & 4552 DENBIGIt ROAD, LOTS 5, 6, 7, 9 & SWI.,Y l/z OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON, 13- 117-24 14 0008 & 0048. Councilmember Jenson stated that since she voted against this subdivision originally, she will again have to vote no. The Building Official explained that in the original approval resolution, item number 1.f. conflicts with the time that we would be extending the applicants request. The request for an extension is for one year and the resolution states 180 days. The City Attorney suggested the following language be added to the proposed extension resolution after the Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, add "3. Said 12 month extension is in lieu of any other time period provided for, in the City's Subdivision Ordinance." MOTION by Polston, seconded by Hanus to add the language suggested by the City Attorney to the proposed extension resolution. The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion carried. moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: 288 MOUND CI2T COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 27, 1997 RESOLUTION//97-52 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION//96-116, RELATENG TO THE MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCES OF 4536 & 4552 DENBIGH ROAD, PID #'S 13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048, P & Z CASE //97-19 - RANDY MORIARTY The vote was 3 in favor with Jenson voting nay. Motion carried. -8276- November 12, 1996 RESOLUTION #96-116 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCES FOR LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8, & SWLY 1/2 OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON 4536 & 4552 DENBIGH ROAD PID'S 13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048 P&Z CASE//96-31 WltEREAS, the owners of the subject property, as listed below, have submitted a request for a Minor Subdivision ia the manner required by Mound City Code Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder: Lot 5 & Swly 1/2 of Lot 4 - Randy Moriarty, 4536 Denbigh Road Lots 6, 7, & 8 - Robert Baumgarten, 4552 Denbigh Road WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-IA Single Family Residential Zoning District, which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, a 15 foot rear yard setback, a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and a 10 foot setback from the top of a bluff, and; WHEREAS, the subdivision establishes three Tracts labeled A, B and C. Tracts B and C contain existing homes. The home on Tract C will be eventually removed and replaced with a new residence, and; WHEREAS, all three tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for non-lots of record, and; WI-IEREAS, the following variances are involved with this request: A variance from the bluff setback provisions for each lot. A front yard setback for the existing home on Tract B of 15.28 feet. all three of the proposed Tracts are in an area of very steep topography, and; WltEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended denial with 7 in favor and 1 opposed, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has determined a practical difficulty exists and the proposal is in substantial compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, it is desirable to have the house on Tract C removed, and the minor subdivision and proposed new dwellings are consistent with the development in the surrounding neighborhood, and; WHEREAS, bluff. the majority of the properties on Denbigh are similarly situated as far as impacting the -8277- Re~ol~on #96-11~ Modany follows: 1. NOW, TItEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision as shown on the attached Exhibit 'A', and abject to the following conditions: A park dedication fee of $500.00 for the one new paxc. el being created shall be paid prior to release of this resolution for filing. The site contains three existing water services and three existing sewer services. One of the sewer services is located in an unusable location and as a result, the applicant will need to construct a new sewer service for Tract A. The sewer service for Tract A shall either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided such as a cash escrow or performance bond, prior to release of this resolution for filing. Co A grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be submitted as part of the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicants shall provide drainage easements along all new lot lines, 5 feet in width along all sides lot lines, 15 feet in width along rear lot lines, 10 feet in width along the front of Tracts A and C, and 4.5 feet in width along the front of Tract B. The easement descriptions and easement documents must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and then must be filed in conjunction with this resolution at the County. Proof of filing the easements must be provided to the City of Mound prior to building permit issuance. eo One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90 shall be paid prior to release of this resolution for recording. The house and garage located on the proposed Tract C shall be removed prior to release of this resolution for filing (note: this resolution must be filed within 180 days, see #7). A demolition permit is required. The City does hereby approve the following variances in conjunction with the minor subdivision: a. A variance from the bluff setback provisions for each lot. b. A front yard setback variance for the existing home on Tract B of 15.28 feet. The existing legal description is: Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 2, Avalon, and Lot 5 and the Southwesterly half of Lot 4, Block 2, Avalon. The proposed legal descriptions are as follows: 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 6, except the Southwesterly 35.50 feet of said Lot 6, Block 2, Avalon. Tract C: Lot 8 and Lot 7, Block 2, Avalon, except the Northeasterly 15.00 feet of said Lot 7. It is determined that the foregoing subdivisionwill constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. -8278- Resolution #96-116 MoriarV Page ~ The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a eert/fied copy of this resolution to the applicant upon compliance' with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the responsibility of filing this ~r, olution in the office of the Reghter of Deeds or the Reg/strar of Tifles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City Tho applicant shall also have the re~mnm%ility to pay all costs associated with such recording. 7. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. The foregoing resolution was moved by Couacilmember I-Ianus and seconded by Councilmember The foilowillg Coullcilm~cllbers voted in the afr/lrmative: Ahre~, Hmllls ~nd Polston The following Couucilmembers voted in the negative: Jensen, Jessen AtteSt: Acting City Clerk Resolution adopted: November 12, 1996 Mayor -8279- MINUTF3 - MOUND CITY COUNCIL- SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 1.13 CASE//96-31: MINOR SUBDMSION & VARIANCE, RANDY MORIARTY, 4356 DENBIGH ROAD, AND ROBERT BAUMGARTEN, 4552 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 4-8, BLOCK 2, AVALON, PID //19-117-23 24 0008 & 0048. DENIAL RECOMMENDED. Building Official Jon Sutherland reviewed the report. The Planning Commission had recommended denial of a different version of this plan in June. Part of the reason it was denied in June was that it created a new nonconforming lot and violated the bluff provisions. The new proposal establishes three Tracts labeled A, B and C. Tracts B and C contain existing homes. The home on Tract A will be eventually removed and replaced with a new residence. All three tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for non-lots of record. There are 4 variances applied for. All three of the proposed tracts are in an area of very steep topography. Sutherland stated that the creation of the third lot appears to be an economic issue and not a hardship issue. He also mentioned the survey was not clearly understandable and more information would be needed. The Planning Commission voted 7-1 to deny the request. Randy Moriarty and Jack Cook spoke before the Council regarding their efforts to make this plan workable. Hanus stated he had voted against the denial at the Planning Commission because the lots would be conforming except for the bluff area. Building on bluffs has been done before. He stated they had alleviated all nonconformities physically possible. Jensen stated she did not want another house built on a bluff. Jessen stated the Shoreland Management Plan does not allow this type of building, she was not in favor. Polston asked if the applicant could possibly redesign the plans to work around the bluff and they responded that they already had done that to remove the as many variances as possible. The only problem that is left is the bluff. (Councilmember Hanus was absent and excused from the October 8, 1996 meeting when these minutes were up for approval. He submitted comments on this item, they are as follows). "Hanus stated that in a previous variance granted on the easterly property, one of the findings was practical difficulty due to the location of the bluff line leaving a restricted building envelope and that this applies in this case as well. He said if it were possible to build outside of the bluff or even more outside of the bluff he would be strongly in favor of this. But this is not possible in this entire area. He said all conditions of the new center lot are conforming except for the location of the bluff. He also pointed out other cases that received similar approval for like conditions. Hanus stated that it is his intention that any building constructed on this lot would be fully conforming except for the bluff setback. Hanus pointed out that in the Planning Commission minutes there was reference to the easterly -8280- Minutes - Mound City Council September 24, 1996 property not having enough parking but clarified that this is an error. There actually are two spaces on this lot, one in the garage and one alongside the garage, so this property does have the required two spaces. Hanus said that there is an erosion problem that exists today because runoff is funneled into one area on the center of the proposed center lot. He felt that with proper mitigating techniques such as gutters, retaining walls, and other landscaping methods to direct and slow water flow, that an actual improvement could be realized over what exists today. Hanus said that the gain to the city is that it will get the removal of a very old, small, rundown house and get new housing in its place. MOTION by ttanus, seconded by Ahrens to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving a minor subdivision and variance for lots 4-8, Block 2, Avalon and to include the 5 conditions listed in the Planner's report and to add condition//6 to include the removal of the house to the west (Tract C) before approval of the subdivision. The vote carried 3-2, Jensen and Jessen voting nay. -8281 - CITY OF MOUND - ZONIN( SURVEY ON FILE?. YES / NO LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO INFORMATION SHEET ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH: Ri 10,000/~0 RIA 6,000/40 R2 6,000/40 R2 14,000/80 R3 gEE ORD. EXISTING LOT SIZE: · B1 '7, $00/0 LOT WiDTIt: B2 20~ 000/80 , I~3 lO, 000/60 · LOT DIA-PTH: 'fl 3ooooo/loo EXISTING/PROPOSED . VARIANCE DIRECTION REQUIRED .. IIOUSE ......... . , 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 15' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, $1IED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR N S E W LAKE 'FOP OF BLUFF ItARDCOVER N S E W N S E W YES / NO NS E W N S E W 30% OR 40% 4' OR6' 4' OR 6' 50' 10' OR 30' BY: [ DATED: This Zoning Informatim~ Sheel only summarize~ a portion of thc requirements ~utlined in the City of Mound Zouing Ordinance. For further information, comact lac City of Mound Plan~iog. Depam. nent at _4!2-0600. \ \ RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE LAKE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO REBUILD A RESIDENCE AT 5984 SUNSET ROAD, PART OF LOT 30, MOUND SHORES ADDITION, P & Z CASE #01-24 PID# 14-117-24 42 0066 WHEREAS, the applicant, has requested a lake side variance to reconstruct a residence on the property at 5984 Sunset Road. The associated variance is as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Lake Side 39.8 ft 50 ft 10.2 ft ; and, WHEREAS, the property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet fzont yard setback and a 6 feet side yard setbacks for lots of record; and, WI-IEREAS, the proposed home would encroach 10.2 feet into the lake side setback; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended that the Council approve the variance as submitted; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the variance request with the following conditions: a. The lake side shall have a setback of 39.8 feet. b. Review and approval of any grading or drainage alterations that might occur during the building process by the Building Official and City Engineer. 2. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: That part of Lot 30 lying East of the West 69.34 feet and North of the South 474.20 feet thereof, "Mound Shores", Hennepin County, MN -8283- Excerpts from the MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY JULY 2, 2001 Those present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Council Liaison Kim Anderson. Absent and excused: Staff present: Building Official Jori Sutherland and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. The following Public were present: Doug Dunser Wesley Dunser Randy Moriarty 5984 Sunset Road 5984 Sunset Road 4536 Denbigh Road Chairman Michael welcomed the public to the meeting. He then called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #01-24 VARIANCE DOUGLAS DUNSER 5984 SUNSET ROAD Building Official Sutherland stated that the applicant has submitted a variance application to rebuild a fire damaged house. The variance requested is as follows: Lakeside setback Existing/Pro. nosed Required Variance 39.8feet 50 feet 10.2 feet The survey indicates the finished floor elevation is 942.7 feet which is above the 942.0 feet Regulatory Flood Plain Elevation (RFPE) of Dutch Lake. The Floodplain Regulations would allow the existing foundation to be built upon at this elevation. The floor is a crawl space but is too small to have any utilities in the crawl space. Many of the lakeshore homes on Dutch Lake have setbacks less than 50 feet. The neighboring home to the west lines up with the applicant's home, maintaining a 38 feet lakeside setback. The home to the east is an exception along Dutch Lake being about 100 feet back of the shoreline. Staff recommends the granting of a variance in this situation for the following reasons: 1. The proposal would not increase the existing building dimensions. 2. The first floor elevation exceeds the Dutch Lane RPFE. -8284- Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2001 3. The proposal would not alter the existing character of the area. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the variance request with the following condition: Review and approval of any grading or drainage alterations that might occur during the building process by the Building Official and City Engineer. Discussion Weiland inquired about the deck. Applicant confirmed that the deck was just a couple of dock sections on the ground. Mueller noticed that there was an encroachment on the survey. Sutherland indicated that it is a private matter between the owners and the City does not need to deal with it. Mueller asked about the height of the deck being "at grade". Sutherland said that, if 8 inch joists were used, it would be considered "at grade". In addition, the Shoreland Management allows 250 SF of at grade decking. This is essentially a patio and is conforming. The applicant indicated that a 12' x 16' addition is being planned to square offthe one comer, still maintaining the current setbacks. Sutherland confirmed with the applicant that the deck is to be placed at grade and not level with the existing house floor. MOTION by Commissioner Weiland, seconded by Commissioner Mueller, to recommend approval with the grading condition outlined in staffmemo dated July 2, 2001. MOTION carried unanimously -8285- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: July 2, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Douglas Dunser CASE NUMBER: 01~24 ItKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 5984 Sunset Road ZONING: Residential District R-lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a variance application to rebuild a fire damaged house. The variance requested is as follows: Existinf Proposed Lakeside setback 39.8feet Required Variance 50 feet 10.2 feet The fire damaged most of the interior living space. The roof and exterior siding on this one story home remain in tact. The interior has been gutted of all furnishings and drywall has been removed to expose the stud walls. The applicant plans to restore the house to the original condition with a 12 feet by 16.4 feet addition to the front entry area. The survey indicates the finished floor elevation is 942.7 feet which is above the 942.0 feet Regulatory Flood Plain Elevation (RFPE) of Dutch Lake. The Floodplain Regulations would allow the existing foundation to be built upon at this elevation. The floor is a slab on grade and floodproofing issues typically associated with crawl spaces are not an issue. The lot is relatively flat causing surface water to pool in areas around the garage and house although the applicant has no plans to improve the drainage conditions. The proposal indicates a 39.8 feet lakeside setback as measured at the northeast comer of the house. Assuming the detached deck is an at grade patio, the comer of the house would establish the setback. If the deck is at the same elevation as the first floor the setback would measure 32.4 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8286- p. 2 #01-24 Variance Request - 5984 Sunset Road July :, feet. The existing detached garage was not damaged by the fire and would appear that it will remain. DISCUSSION: Many of the lakeshore homes on Dutch Lake have setbacks less than 50 feet. The neighboring home to the west lines up with the applicant's home, maintaining a 38 feet lakeside setback. The home to the east is an exception along Dutch Lake being about 100 feet back of the shoreline. Staff recommends the granting of a variance in this situation for the following reasons: 1. The proposal would not increase the existing building dimensions. 2. The first floor elevation exceeds the Dutch Lane RPFE. 3. The proposal would not alter the existing character of the area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the variance request with the following condition: 1. Review and approval of any grading or drainage alterations that might occur during the building process by the Building Official and City Engineer. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8287- CIIy of Mound Conversation Record I , o , , . ~ . . , , o ~ , %:¥¥ ! -8288- VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952-472-0607, Fax: 952-472-0620 PAID JUN 6 2001~j~ CiTY OF MOUND Application Fee:~ (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: aoo I City Planner City Engineer Public Works Case No. 0 1 -c:~(~ PARK Other~V[~C SUBJECT Address LEGAL Block DESC, Subdivision ~O~ PID~ Pla~ ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPER~ Name OWNER Address Phone (H) ~Z'~TZ- 7Z ~ (w) ~2- ?~ - 77/~ (M) APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (H) .(W) (M)~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for thi property? ( ) yes, ~' no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copie of resolutions. / o Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Revised 04/24/01 - 8289- Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE 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 ) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: fl. ~ fi. ff. fl. ff. ff. ft. ff. ft. fl. ft. ff. ft. 3~,~' ft. ___~ ft. ft. ft. ff. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft 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 describe: Re vised 04/24/0 t - 8 2 9 0 - Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the I after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Was the hardsbip created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ¢0, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official 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 Applicant's Signature Date Revised 04/24/01 - 8291 - ,~ \ SHORELINE &: OHW, 939.2 CONTOUR · ~r LINE 941.0 CONTOUR LINE~ ~ ~ ~," ~941.0 CONTOUR LINE 14,0 DECK I L 0.8-- THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 664.2 FEET I I 0 ~;~ (',1 GARAGE 12.8 1,:3.7 EXISTING MANHOLE 89.34 - THE SOUTH UNE ~ OFT HE NORTH 150 OF THE SOUTH 664.2 OF LOT 30 $ I I I I I I I I FOUND 1/2" IRON / .,. II ROAD EASEMENT AS PER DOC. 385976 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY I I I I / 60.34 -g "' ! S.88'32'49"W. ! THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH/ 474.20 FEET OF LOT 30 ,~SE~VER EASEMENT AS PER DOC. NO 3483438 ~ EASEM T !--- POINT OF COMMENCEMENT /SW CO~NER OF LOT 29 ! / ~ ~ ~'ll.DO '-,,,, mEUE, ' ,~'"/~ ~OINT, Or~ BEGINNINGs ~- (~,, MI ~ C~,.. EXISTING EXISTING SANITARY SEWER 4ANHOLE · w EXISTING WATERIvlAIN NO. OCCUPANCY CALL TYPE APARTMENT ALARM BUSINESS CO ALARM CHURCH FIRE DWELLING RESCUE LAKE SMELL OPENLAND / PARK SMOKE , ROADWAY STANDBY MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT I DATE , . ~TIME OF CALL I . IWEATHER CALL DISPATCHEI~AS: ~RE\RESC~E_CDMM~ INCIDENT REPORT ON SCENE ~, SCHOOL L I vllSC. WASH DOWN MISC. ~tNCIDENT ADDRESS: lCO PPM PATIENT NAME: tOWNERS NAME: ,... ,'"';% I ESTIMATED Lc)RS: ~ _ " DEPT. TRUCKS NO. 1¢ NO, NO. 2 1/2 OTHER TRUCK HYD TANK STAND PIPE AIR PACKS CYLINDERS IRIST.~ ~,{~-'~ CHAIN SAW- K-12 SAW LADDERS pANS - AXES~IKEPOLES EXTINGUISHER MISC. GUMBY SUITS HURST TOOL CO DECT, HEAT GUN BACK BOARD BP CUFF DEFIB: 02 COMPUTER MISC. MILES TO SCENE: ]TOTAL MILES: S.ALDEN ~' 1~' J. ANDERSEN, ~ P. BABB B.BERENT ~ D. BOYD S.BRYCE ~ J. CASEY, ~ ~ B. C~WFORD FIREPERSONNELINJURIES: . Y K. FORSMAN .- Ir '{ D. GRADY.. ~ K. GRADY ~_~ !. GUST~80~, ,~ HANLEY :HENRY,'2~, Y M. HENTGES. _f._ u. HOROSHAK · '/ U. JAKU~IK. ~ ~ IWRl'r~ ~-N BY ~ R. KRYCK ~ _~_ J. I.ARSON ~,J. MAAS, ,~.¥ ._T. MYERS o G. PALM ~ · T. PALM- II G. PEDERSON ,., D. POIKONEN · ~,~{ ~ C. POUNDER ~ R, ROGERS _~_ K. SIPPRELL ~ R, STALLMAN ?R, STEVENS · __~R. TODD ¢ E,-VANECEK R. WILLIAMS T. WILL JAMS ¥ D. WOYTCKE IOF.,..FICER !N J~GE -8293- SURVEY ON FIL,W~NO LOT OF RECORD? G / NO YARD .' [ DIRECTION cl'rY (31; MOUND -. ZONIN( INFORMATION SItEET ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH: Ri~ 10,000/60 B1 7,500/0 R1A 6.000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10.000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED EXIKI'ING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: ]LOT, WIDTH: LOT DEPTth VARIANCE HOUSE ......... FRONT N S~ E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S ~ W SIDE N S E {~ REAR S E W LAKE' ~ S E W TOP OF BLUFF 15' 50' 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUILDINGS FRONT FRONT NS E W N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR6' SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' HARDCOVER 30% OR 40% CONFORMING? YES / NO ? I BY: DATED: This Zoning Infimnation Sheel only summarizes a portion of d~e requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For filrther information, contact the City of Mound MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. To: From: Mound City Council Loren Gordon, AICP Date: July 18, 2001 Subject: 5240 Lynwood Blvd. Registered Land Survey We have received a letter from Tom Casey regarding the recording of City Council Resolution #00-99, which approved a minor subdivision of the property at 5212 Lynwood Blvd. This subdivision contains abstract and torrens property which have different recording procedures. In order to record the torrens portion, a separate registered land survey needs to be approved by the City Council. Staff has reviewed the request and have not identified any issues of concern as long as the previously approved subdivision remains unchanged. Approval of this survey by Council will allow the recording of the subdivision to proceed. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8295- July 12, 2001 Thomas E. Casey Attorney at Law 2854 Cambridge Mound, Minnesota 55364 (952) 472-1099 Fax: (952) 472-4771 Mr, Jon~Suthertand City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 HAND DELIVERED Re: Registered Land Survey - P&Z Case ~00-52 5240 Lynwood Blvd. Dear Mr. Sutherland, As you are aware, City Council Resolution #00-99 approved a minor subdivision of property located at 5212 Lynwood Boulevard. The northerly portion of the property is torrens property; the southerly portion is abstract property. The Registrar of Titles required a registered land survey prior to recording deeds for the northerly portion. This survey was undertaken and certified by Mr. David E. Crook of DeMars-Gabriel Land Surveyors - (763) 559-0908. The next step is for the Registered Land Survey to be approved and accepted by the Mound City Council. (Please note that the signatures and dates must be in black permanent marker, not ball point pen, on both enclosed copies.) If you have any questions pertaining to the legal description, please contact Mr. Crook. Please place this matter on the next Mound City Council agenda for approval. Than~ you. Ve . tr~yours, .C~a~sey TEC:rf cc: client Enclosures cf... -8296- -1-15-ol I hereby certify that in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 5OB, Minnesota Statutes of 1949 as amended, I have surveyed the foflowing described property situated in the County of Hennepin, Stage of Minnesota, to wit: All of Lots 2 and 5 and that part of Lots 3 and 4 and part of the vacated alley, all in Block 1, and that part vacated Laurel Street all described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot along the South line of said Lot 5 and its extension to the center line of vacated Laurel Street; thez~ee North along the center line of said Laurel Street to its intersection with a line drawn parallel wi~ and ?5 feet Nor~ measured af right angles from the North line of Lot 4, Block 2, and ifs extension; thence East along said parallel line 45 feet to a 'point 15 feet East from the West line of said Lot 4, Block I; thence Northeasterly ~e point on the'NorfJ~easterly line of said Lot 3, distant 82.5 feet Southeasterly from the mos% Northerly ¢~rner Lot l, said Block 2; thence Sou~easterl~ along the Northeasterly line of said Lots $ and 2 to ~he mos.~ Eas~er~ corner of said Lot ~; thence Southwesterly to the most Southerly corner of said Lot the Northeasterly corner of said Let ~; thence Southerly to the point of beginning; All in "Rearrangement Of Block 10 Abraham Lincoln Addition To Lake Side Park" I hereby certify that this Registered Land Survey is a correct delineation of said survey. Dated day of Y' , £00 . David E. Crook, Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. ~414 MOUND, MINNESOTA This Registered La~d Survey was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held this day of , 2001. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA By Mayor By Clerk TAXPAYER SERVICES DNPARTMENT, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify ~hat taxes payable in on this Registered Land Survey on this and prior years have been paid for land described day of , 20 ~ PATRICK H. O'CONNOR BY: Hennepin County Auditor , Deputy SURLY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to MINN. STAT. See. 383B. 565 (1969), this Registered Land Survey has been approved this day of , GARY F.. CASWELL Hennepin County Surveyor REGISTRAR OF TITLES, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby cern'fy f~at f~is Registered La~d Survey No. on this.~day of , 20 ... , a t~ filed 'clock Michael tt. Cunniff BY' Hennepin County Registrar of Titles ., Deputy INC. Sheet I o£ 2 $hee Mo~t northerly eor~er / // / A I line 75 feet north of as . ~ measured a~ ~Khtangles ~o ~ )rth line of Lot 4, Block 2:) I :--Most easter~, cer~er ! o! Lot ~, Btock 1. / / / ~ ~ -~12. 77 '~ ~ ~ N19'02'2~B"E --7 ' ~--- Southeasterl), corner of Lot 8, Block 2. DF. MARS-C~B~ I 4ND ~Ir~YO~Sl, J~[C. corner of Lot 5, Block 1. 44 o Denotes Iron Monument Bearing Shown are Assumed Benchmark: Invert o£ sanitary sewer as shown, Elevation = 9~7.40 feet (N.G.V.D.-19~9) 30 0 $0 O0 $owle in Eeet Sheet ~ o£ E Shee~ RESOLUTION # 00-99 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDMSION TO CREATE ONE ADDITIONAL LOT FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5212 LYNWOOD ]~LVD., LOTS 6, ?, 8, BLOCK l, REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 10, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK P & Z CASE # 00-52 WHEREAS, the applicant, has submitt~ a request for a'minor subdivision tcrcr~a~e a lot from the existing parcel at 5212 Lynwood Blvd; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Zoning District that requires a 6,000 square feet lot area, 20 feet front yard setbacks, and I0 feet side yard setbacks for non lots of record; and, WHEREAS, the proposed parcel B has approximately 10,890 square feet of lot area and 60 feet of lot width which exceed the required minimums for the district; and, WHEREAS, the proposed building setbacks as shown for parcel B are conforming to district requirements; and, WHEREAS, the minor subdivision would reclassify the proposed parcels A and B to non- lots of record, subjecting them to all applicable zoning provisions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the minor subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, 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 1.B with the following conditions: a. ProVide preliminary site and grading plan, showing how topographical issues will be 'b~.Final grading and drainage plan be approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. c. Provide drainage and utility easements along the new lot line separating the two parcels, five feet wide on each side. d. The new sanitary sewer and water services shall either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. e. One street unit charge in the mount of $1,828.15 shall be paid. f. A park dedication fee of $500.00 shall be paid. This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally described property: -8299- The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution and eas~nents with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The foregoing resolution was. moved by Counoilmember Brown and seconded by Coun¢ilmc~nber W~ckcr. The following Councilm~nb,~rs voted in the ~ve: Ahnms, Brown and Weycker The following Councilmembers voted in thc negative: Hanus. Mayor Meisel was absent and excused. October 24, 2000 Acting Mayor, Mark Hanus -8300- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION #01- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF A SLOPE EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 ROBIN LANE P & Z CASE #01-20 PID# 14-117-24 33 0001 WHEREAS, the applicant, R.H. Development, has submitted an application to a vacate a slope easement on the property located at 1000 Robin Lane as described in Exhibit ..... A , and, WHEREAS, the slope easement was established to protect the steep slopes along the north side of the land adjacent to the current Dakota Railroad line; and, WHEREAS, grading associated with the proposed Langdon Bay residential development will change the elevations of the land causing the slopes to be modified; and, WHEREAS, a Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) sanitary sewer interceptor line is located along the north side of the rail line. MCES reviewed the proposed vacation request and found that it had no impact on the interceptor; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposal finding that the Langdon Bay residential development would necessitate the need to vacate the slope easement and would have no adverse impacts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended Council approval of a the vacation as requested; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota approves the slope easement vacation as requested. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: and seconded Adopted July 24, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor -8301 - Excerpts from the MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY JUNE 4, 2001 Those present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse and Council Liaison Kim Anderson. Absent: Jerry Clapsaddle. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jori Sutherland and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. Chairman Michael welcomed the public to the meeting. He then called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #01-20 VACATION R.H. DEVELOPMENT LANGDON BAY Gordon introduced the application. This is a request from the developer of Langdon Bay to vacate slope easements along the south half of the property. The easements were originally established to protect the grades over the sanitary sewer interceptor running along the south property line. The proposed development plans for Langdon Bay will alter the existing grades and necessitates the vacation. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services has reviewed the plan and can do without the slope easement based on the grading plans for Langdon Bay. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the slope easement vacation as requested. Discussion Weiland asked who the easements were originally for. Gordon stated that the easement was for steep slopes that were cut for the railroad line. The easements protect the ground from being dug up further, protecting the sewer lines. Mueller asked to recap the issue. We needed it in 1964 but now? Gordon: yes. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Ron Helmer of R.H. Development introduced himself and offered his help and support during this process. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to approve the request in accordance with staff recommendations. MOTION carded unanimously -8302- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WF:B: www. cityofmound.com PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A SLOPE EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 ROBIN LANE Property ID: 14,117-24 33 0001 P&Z CASE 01-20 CASE # 01-20 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the C!ty of Mound, Minnesota will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 to consider vacation of a slope easement. Copies of the plans are available to the public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Jill Inspections Secretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on June 29, 2001. Published in the Laker, June 30, 2001. Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that h is an authorized agent and employee of publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed ?&7, 0:1.-20 which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each weekfor ]. successive weeks. It was first published Saturday the ].6t, b. day of 0'une 200:~, and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, the day of 20 .; Authorized Agent Susc¢ibed and SWorn to me on this Rate InfOrmation (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $15.00 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $15.00. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.73 per inch. Each additional successive week: $5.62. -8304- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 F,~X: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND ' MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A SLOPE EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT t000 ROBIN LANE Property ID: 14-117-24 33 0001 P&Z CASE 01-20 CASE # 01,20 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota will meet in the. Council Chambers, 534~1 May-woOd Road, at 7:30 p.m on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 t~ consider vacation of a slope easement. Copies of the plans are available to the public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Inspections Secretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on June'15 2001. Published in the Laker, June 16 2001. Excerpts from MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY JUNE 4, 2001 2. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #01-20 VACATION R.H. DEVELOPMENT LANGDON BAY Gordon introduced the application. This is a request from the developer of Langdon Bay to vacate slope easements along the south half of the property. The easements were originally established to protect the grades over the sanitary sewer interceptor running along the south property line. The proposed development plans for Langdon Bay will alter the existing grades and necessitates the vacation. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services has reviewed the plan and can do without the slope easement based on the grading plans for Langdon Bay. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the slope easement vacation as requested. Discussion Weiland asked who the easements were originally for. Gordon stated that the easement was for steep slopes that were cut for the railroad line. The easements protect the ground from being dug up further, protecting the sewer lines. Mueller asked to recap the issue. We needed it in 1964 but now? Gordon: yes. Chair Michael opened the public heating. Ron Helmer of R.H. Development introduced himself and offered his help and support during this process. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to approve the request in accordance with staff recommendations. MOTION carried unanimously -8306- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 4, 2001 SUBJECT: Slope easement vacation APPLICANT: R.H. Development CASE NUMBER: 01-20 I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 1000 Robin Lane ZONING: Residential District R-I- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: This is a request from the developer of Langdon Bay to vacate slope easements along the south half of the property. The easements were originally established to protect the grades over the sanitary sewer interceptor nmning along the south property line. The proposed development plans for Langdon Bay will alter the existing grades and necessitates the vacation. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services has reviewed the plan and can do without the slope easement based on the grading plans for Langdon Bay. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the slope easement vacation as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8307- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A SLOPE EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 ROBIN LANE Property ID: 14-117-24 33 0001 P&Z CASE 01-20 CASE #01-20 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Mpnday, June 4, 2001 to consider vacation of a slope easement. Copies of the plans are available to the public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. ~/l~r~-ander, Planning a inspections Secretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on May 24, 2001. Published in the Laker, May 19, 2001. I- v)..~ u~.. NO (~ I- I- ),,-2: I-3: 01,- I,-O~ 2:o. 0 (J ILl 2: Z: ,i- OZx< ~Z -8309- LL I~r,' fl., g~ .J ,~. )- ~00 ~ -8310- t! .Ozl [£8311 - oO m XcelEner y May 16, 2001 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 5540%1993 Ms. Jill Norlander Secretary City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 HAy 18 2001 Re: Proposed Vacation by R. H. Development Part of Gov't Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision 231 Hennepin County, Minnesota Dear Ms. Norlander: This is in reply to your letter of May 7, 2001, relative to the petition of R.H. Development for the vacation of a portion of Gov't Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 23 lalong the northerly right of way of Railroad. Please be advised that Xcel Energy has no objection to the subject vacation. Sincerely, Sharon M. Price Right of Way Agent Siting and Land Rights 612-330-5893 cc: Linda Machemehl -8312- ME M 0 R A ND UM DATE: MAY 9, 2001 TO: JON SUTHERLAND FROM: John Cameron SUBJECT: EASEMENT VACATION REQUEST LANGDON BAY MFRA FILE NO. 12754 As requested, we have reviewed the request by R. H. Development to vacate an existing slope easement along the south side of the Rottlund Development, adjacent to the Dakota Rail and have the following comments: This easement was granted to the City of Mound in 1964 for construction of sanitary sewer within the Railroad right-of-way. Ownership of this sanitary main has since passed to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). We contacted MCES and they have agreed that this slope easement is not necessary for them to maintain their sewer main. Enclosed is a letter from MCES stating that they do not object to vacation of the slope easement. We see no public purpose in retaining this slope easement; therefore are recommending that it be vacated. 15050 23RD AVENUE NORTH PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 -8313- JCAMERON@MFRA.COM (763)476-0010 FAX (763) 476-8532 06:22 F,~ 6516021640 OFFICE OF GEN. COUNSEL ~001 ~ M~etropolitan :Council .: ~orldng for th~ J~egion, Planning/or the 3'uture - · '" " TELEPHONI~NO:_ (~ v~,? q'lG,-~ ~ r~(\ TELECOPYNO: ~ I [ I I IIt ADDitiONAL ~: ' -' .-Ekes Ts o~r s ' ' -8314- OFFICE OF GEN. CO[~SEL ~002 Metropolitan. Council Environmental Services Apfill2,2001 To: LuAn_n Major Re: Slope Easement Proposed Plat of Langdon Bay From: Pete Owens Thc slope easement was written to allow construct/on of thc 24" sewer now named MCES 6-mo-650. The grading plan for building pads will remove some of the slope. I d~'-w a ~ection of the slope and grading area and reviewed th~ drawings with Tim Ke~gan. He feels we can do wSthout thc slope easements. Any work we do would bc done by sheeting along the north railroad right-of-way. Copy: Scott Dentz Bill Mocll~' Tim Ke~gan -8315- 03-16-0! IZ:O3pm , Fror-KEHNEDY & GRAVEN · +61Z3379310 T-459 P.03/04 F-$13 · 'Ck~td. Gte ~ally ~m~'Xbed oJ roz2~,. ' -8316- 03-16-01 1Z:O4pm From-~NNEDY & GRAVEN +61 Z3379310 T-469 · P. 04/04 F-513 ~_:r -'' .- --- .'.- ' -8317- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD''"''~ MOUND, MN 55364-168 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Reliant Excel Energy Citizen's Department of Natural Resources Jill Nodander, Secretary Mound Planning and Inspections May 7, 2001 Plan Review 20111 Please review the enclosed easement vacation application and submit your comments as soon as possible. If you require additional information please call me at 952-472-0607. Thank you. Reliant Energy Minnegasco has no facilities within the above-dascribed area and has no objection to its vacation. Thank you for the advance notice. ~,~ / ~ Steve~ Von Bargen Right-of-Way Administrator Reliant Energy Minnegasco Application for STREET / EASEMENT VACATION City of Mound 534t Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952-472-0607, Fax: 952-472-0620 c...o. Application Fee:__,~__~. City Planner - City Engineer ~'/?//J / Minnagasco- ' .~0./ Police Dept.-~ Please ~pe or print the followin~l Information: APPLICANT Name R.H. Development Phone (H) (iN) 952-346-8079 Adjacent Address N/A ADJACENT PROPERTY Name of Business (APPUCAN3'S PROPERTY) Lot Block F~at # SubdlMslon PID~ ZONING CJrcJe: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-I B-2 B-3 PDA DiSTRiCT DESCRIPTION Slope easement vacation OF STREET TOmE See attached for legal descripti,on VACATED REASON No longer required FOR REQUEST IS THERE A NO PUBLIC NEED FOR THIS Print Appllcant's Name Applicant's Signature Date Print Applicant's Name Applicant's Signature Date P~v~ed 0~'1 g/Ol -8319- PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO VACATE A SLOPE EASEMENT PER DOC..NO. 345690 A per;)etuol e(3sement for slope not to exceed 1-1/2 to 1 over that part of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision. No. 231, Hennepln County, Minnesota, described as follows; Beginning at the intersection of the South line of Section 14, Township 117, Range 24 and the Northerly right-of-way line of the Great Northern Railroad; thence North 69 degrees 47 minutes 45 seconds East along said right-of-way line o distance of 305.18 feet; thence North 83 degrees 25 minutes 15 seconds West, o dist(3nce of 51.62 feet; thence North 83 degrees 44 minutes 1.3 seconds West, o distance of 55.85 feet~ thence South 71 degrees 09 minutes 45 seconds West, o distance of 50.01 feet; thence South 69 degrees 47 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 50 feet; thence South 60 degrees 55 minutes 45 seconds West,o dlstonce of 50.60 feet; thence South 61 degrees 15 minutes 45 seconds West o distance of 50.56 feet; thence South 47 degrees 18 minutes 45 seconds West, to Its Intersection with the South line of s(31d Section 14; thence East along Said South line to the point of beginning; Also: That part of Lot 1, Audltor's Subdivision No. 231, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the South line of Section 14, Township 117, Range 24 and the Northerly right-of-way line of the Great Northern Railroad, thence North 69 degrees 47 minutes 45 seconds East, along sold right-of-way line, a distance of 525.86 feet to the point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence North 69 degrees 47 minutes 45 seconds East along said right-of-way line a distance of 558.2.3 feet; thence South 84 degrees 54 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 31.03 feet; thence North 88 degrees .30 minutes 15 seconds West, o distance of 5.3.81 feet; thence South 71 degrees 09 minutes 45 seconds West, o distance of 50.01 feet; thence South 61 degrees 22 minutes 45 seconds West, o distance of 50.54 feet; thence South 75 degrees 30 minutes 45 secor ' West, (3 distance of 50.25 feet; thence South 82 degrees 25 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance 51.24 feet; thence South 76 degrees 24 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 50.34 feet; these. South 61 degrees 15 minutes 45 seconds West, (3 distance of 50.56 feet; thence South 51 degrees 44 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 52.59 feet; thence South 51 degrees 13 minutes 45 seconds West, 'a distance of 52.75 feet; thence South 67 degrees 16 minutes 45 seconds West, o dis[once of 50.05 feet; thence South 67 degrees 09 minutes and 45 seconds Wes[. a distance of 28.29 feet to the point of beginning. THIS SKETCH DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENTS FROM OR ONTO THE HEREON DESCRIBED LAND, EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR UNRECORDED EASEMENTS WHICH AFFECT SAID LAND OR ANY IMPROVEMENTS 'TO S~I;D LAND. WE HEREBY CERTIFY TO R.H. DEVELOPMENT, INC. THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME, O~.,UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER' THE ~LAWS OF THE ST~MINNESOTA, DATED THIS 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2001. ~"John C. Larson, Professional Land SurVeyor /~ Minnesota License No, 19828 PIONEER engineering LAND ~URVEYOR$ · CIVIL ENOINEERS L.kND PLANNERS · LANDSCAPE ARCHI'IECTS 2422 Enterprise Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 (651) 681-19i4 FAX:681-948 625 Highway 10 N.E. Blaine, MN 554;34 · (763) 783-1880 FAX: 78.~-18~ II -8320- 1 0001 5 01-127 -8321 - (1) rt'l IS ITl CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION #01- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A STREET VACATION OF THAT PORTION OF BUTTERNUT ROAD GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF ROBIN LANE TO ITS EASTERN TERMINOUS P & Z CASE #01-23 WHEREAS, the applicant, R.H. Development, has submitted an application to a vacate portion of a public street; and, WHEREAS, the street is unimproved for its entire length and does not currently serve as a right-of-way for public access or as a corridor for utility purposes; and, WHEREAS, the £mal plat approval of the adjacent Langdon Bay residential development removes the need for Butternut Road to serve as a right-of-way; and, WHEREAS, a protected DNR wetland is located along the Butternut Road right-of-way which has been identified as a valuable community resource and providing access to the wetland is in the public's interest; and, WHEREAS, the manner in which the adjacent lands were platted would cause the 30 feet right-of-way to be split and granted to the adjacent property owners; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposal finding that the entire length of Butternut Road would no longer be needed as a right-of-way; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended Council approval of a request with modifications; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota approves the street vacation with the following conditions: 1. All utility easements be reserved. 2. A public trail easement be provided. 3. A new legal description be provided and attached to this Resolution as "Exhibit A" The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: and seconded -8322- The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted July 24, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk -8323- Excerpts from the MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY JUNE 4, 2001 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse and Council Liaison Kim Anderson. Absent: Jerry Clapsaddle. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. Chairman Michael welcomed the public to the meeting. He then called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #01-23 STREET VACATION R.H. DEVELOPMENT LANGDON BAY This is a request from the developer of Langdon Bay on behalf Harold Borg to vacate portions of Butternut Lane from Robin Lane to the eastern edge of the plat boundary. The request is prompted because of the lack of need to use it for public roadway purposes and the desire of Mr. Borg to gain additional land in his property holdings. As you remember, the preliminary development plan for Langdon Bay showed a trail along portions of Butternut Lane that provided a connection between Lynwood and the Dakota Rail line. The trail was removed from the fmal plans alter it was determined that the trail would impact the protected DNR wetland adjacent to the right-of-way. The final development approval does provide sidewalk connection along Robin Lane and serves the same purpose a pedestrian connection. Staff has reviewed the request and sees no need to retain Butternut Road for future use as a roadway. We do believe that the idea of a future trail connection should not be exhausted and would recommend that easements be retained for this purpose. Staff also believes that vacating the entire right-of-way may be a better approach to this request. From a process standpoint, as applicants, R.H. Development and Borg own more than ½ of the property adjacent to Butternut Road, which would allow the entire street to be vacated. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the vacation of Butternut Road from Robin Lane to the east plat boundary of Langdon Bay with the following conditions: -8324- Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 2001 1. A trail or public access easement be retained for the entire right-of-way. 2. Drainage and utility easements be retained. 3. The easements shall be reviewed by the City Planner, City Engineer, and City Attorney prior to recording. The final plat has been approved but not filed. Mueller wanted to know if we couldn't figure out a way to get the trail through and reduce the lot size on a parcel or two. Gordon responded that the buffer along the trail infringes on the bluff area and can't be dealt with without a considerable effort. Chair Michael opened the Public Hearing. No public wished to be heard. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to approve the vacation in accordance with staff recommendation. MOTION carried unanimously 2 -8325- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE ¢¢ 01-23 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF PORTIONS OF BUTTERNUT ROAD GENERALLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 ROBIN LANE P&Z CASE 01-23 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 to consider vacation of portions of Butternut Roa'd. Copies of the plans are available to the public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Jill~orlander, Planning and Inspections Secretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on June 29, 2001. Published in the Laker, June 30, 2001. Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full .knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.)The printed ?&z 01-23 which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for ~. successive weeks. It was first published Saturday the 16th day of June 20 01, and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, the__day of 20, , ; r"'"~ut~6r~zed Agent SusCribed and sworn to me on this 16th day of / June ,20. 01. Notary Public NOTARY PUBUC- MINNESOTA Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $15.00 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $15.00. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.73 per inch, Each additional successive week: $5.62. -8327- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE # 01-23 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF PORTIONS OF BUTTERNUT ROAD GENERALLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 ROBIN LANE P&Z CASE 01-23 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 to consider vacation of portions of Butternut Road. - Copies of the plans are available to the public upon request at City Hail. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on June 15, 2001. Published in the Laker, June 16, 2001. Excerpts from MINUTE8 MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY JUNE 4, 2001 2. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #01-23 STREET VACATION R.H. DEVELOPMENT LANGDON BAY This is a request from the developer of Langdon Bay on behalf Harold Borg to vacate portions of Butternut Lane from Robin Lane to the eastern edge of the plat boundary. The request is prompted because of the lack of need to use it for public roadway purposes and the desire of Mr. Borg to gain additional land in his property holdings. As you remember, the preliminary development plan for Langdon Bay showed a trail along portions of Butternut Lane that provided a connection between Lynwood and the Dakota Rail line. The trail was removed from the final plans after it was determined that the trail would impact the protected DNR wetland adjacent to the right-of-way. The final development approval does provide sidewalk connection along Robin Lane and serves the same purpose a pedestrian connection. Staff has reviewed the request and sees no need to retain Butternut Road for future use as a roadway. We do believe that the idea of a future trail connection should not be exhausted and would recommend that easements be retained for this purpose. Staff also believes that vacating the entire right-of-way may be a better approach to this request. From a process standpoint, as applicants, R.H. Development and Borg own more than F2 of the property adjacent to Butternut Road, which would allow the entire street to be vacated. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the vacation of Butternut Road from Robin Lane to the east plat boundary of Langdon Bay with the following conditions: 1. A trail or public access easement be retained for the entire right-of-way. 2. Drainage and utility easements be retained. 3. The easements shall be reviewed by the City Planner, City Engineer, and City Attorney prior to recording. The final plat has been approved but not filed. Mueller wanted to know if we couldn't figure out a way to get the trail through and reduce the lot size on a parcel or two. Gordon responded that the buffer along the trail infringes on the bluff area and can't be dealt with without a considerable effort. -8329- Open Public Hearing. No public wished to be heard. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to approve the vacation in accordance with staff recommendation. MOTION carried unanimously -8330- Xeel£nergF June 7, 2001 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN .55401-1993 Jill Norl'ander City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1687 RE: Plan Review--Vacation of Butternut Road Dear Ms. Norlander: Northern States Power Company, d/b/a Xcel Energy, has reviewed the easement vacation application dated May 29, 2001. We were not able to respond before June 1, 2001, however, we would like to provide our comments for the record. We have no objection to the requested vacation of Butternut Road. The plat of Langdon Bay does reference our existing easement in Document No. 5705511. The applicant is advised to contact Dave Callahan, Team Lead, Siting and Land Rights Department before any development or work in Outlot D is performed. His number is 612-330-5951. A copy of this letter has been sent to the petitioner. Sincerely, Elizabeth Van Zomeren Senior Right of Way Agent Siting and Land Rights 612-330-5575 · cc: R.H. Development, Inc. 2001 -8331- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound City Council, Planning Commission, Parks Advisory Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 4, 2001 SUBJECT: Butternut Road vacation APPLICANT: R.H. Development CASE NUMBER: 01-23 HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 1000 Robin Lane ZONING: Residential District R- 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential Commission, Dock and Commons BACKGROUND: This is a request from the developer of Langdon Bay on behalf Harold Borg to vacate portions of Butternut Lane from Robin Lane to the eastern edge of the plat boundary. The request is prompted because of the lack of need to use it for public roadway purposes and the desire of Mr. Borg to gain additional land in his property holdings. As you remember, the preliminary development plan for Langdon Bay showed a trail along portiOns of Butternut Lane that provided a connection between Lynwood and the Dakota Rail line. The trail was removed fi.om the final plans after it was determined that the trail would impact the protected DNR wetland adjacent to the fight-of-way. The final development approval does provide sidewalk connection along Robin Lane and serves the same purpose a pedestrian connection. Staff has reviewed the request and sees no need to retain Butternut Road for future use as a roadway. We do believe that the idea of a future trail connection should not be exhausted and would recommend that easements be retained for this purpose. Staff also believes that vacating the entire fight-of-way may be a better approach to this request. From a process standpoint, as applicants, R.H. Development and Borg own more than ½ of the property adjacent to Butternut Road which would allow the entire street to be vacated. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8332- p. 2 g01-23 Butternut Lane vacation request June 4, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the vacation of Butternut Road fi.om Robin Lane to the east plat boundary of Langdon Bay with the following conditions: 1. A trail or public access easement be retained for the entire right-of-way. 2. Drainage and utility easements be retained. 3. The easements shall be reviewed by the City Planner, City Engineer, and City Attorney prior to recording. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8333- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROA[. MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Reliant Excel Energy Citizen's Department of Natural Resources Hennepin County DOT Jill Norlander, Secretary Mound Planning and Inspections May 29,2001 Plan Review - Vacation of Butternut Road Please review the enclosed easement vacation application and submit your comments by June 1, 2001 for consideration by Planning Commission or City Council. If you require additional information please call me at 952-472-0607. Thank you. Reliant Energy Minnegasco has no facilities within the above-described area and has no objection to its vacation. Thank you for the advance notice. ~,..~~~~¢,~..,. ~ St ev~"'Von Berg Right-of-Way Administrator Reliant Energy M innegasco JUN ! 200! Engineering o Planning · Surveying MEMORANDUM DATE: May 31,2001 TO: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Street Vacation - Butternut Road Case #01-23 MFRA #12754 As requested, we have reviewed the subject street vacation request and have the following comments and recommendations. The application requests to vacate only the east half of the platted street. Why would we not vacate the entire right-of-way and then retain easements over that portion deemed necessary for a future trail. The westerly one half of the vacated right-of-way would then become part of the plat of Langdon Bay, which would then have a ten foot drainage and utility easement along this plat boundary. It does not appear that this platted street right-of-way serves any public purpose; therefore it would be the Engineer's recommendation to approve the vacation request and include the full 30 foot right- of-way. cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. John Dean, Kennedy & Graven s:Xmain :Wlou 12754:\CorrespondenceXsutherland5-31 -8335- 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-marl: mfra¢mfra, com CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE # 01-23 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF PORTIONS OF BUTTERNUT ROAD GENERALLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 ROBIN LANE P&Z CASE 01-23 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, June 4, 2001 to consider vacation of portions of Butternut Road. Copies of the plans are available to the public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Jill~10rl~der, Planning an'~" Inspections Secretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on May 24, 2001. Published in the Laker, May 19, 2001. pl~fllr~ Comm~slorl Date:, city Cou~al Date.'. OTREETT~E~ENT' VACATI N City of Mound 5341 Mi~rW'OOd ~Oi~j.; Mou-r~l, MN 85364 ~,h~ne:-ia~..~_.472- ..l~T, Fa~". -8337- Z0 Z 0~"4,'9 /;, .?, I ,', 8 O O -'1 -8338- Engineering · Planning · Surveying July 19, 2001 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1627 SUBJECT: City of Mound Langdon Lane Sanitary Sewer Improvements MFRA #13371 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: Enclosed is our feasibility report for providing a new lift station at the south end of Landgon Lane. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, MFRA John Cameron JR:pry Enclosure s:\main:\Mou 13371 :\CorrespondenceXmayor7-19 -8339- 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com Feasibility Report Langdon Lane Sanitary Sewer Improvements General The City has experienced two sewer back-ups within the last 18 months in their sanitary sewer main located in Langdon Lane that caused basements to flood in a number of the homes. The first incidence was attributed to a blockage in the downstream manhole of the inverted siphon located in the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) interceptor that runs parallel to Dakota Rail. A railroad tie was found in the manhole, which prevented the siphon from functioning properly and caused not only the MCES main to back up, but also the City main in Langdon Lane. The second back up was experienced on April 22, 2001 during a rain event that occurred during a period when the ground was already saturated from the snowmelt and previous rainstorms. There was no evidence found of any blockage in either the MCES main or the City lines. It is assumed that the combined systems could not handle the excessive flows generated by the rain event. The MCES trunk main was flowing full, which caused the flow to back up in the lowest City main, which is located in Langdon Lane. The highwater levels did not recede for at least 12 hours, which resulted in extensive flooding of the lower level of a number of homes along Langdon Lane. Solutions A round table discussion was held on June 27, 2001 in the Mound Council Chambers. The affected property owners were invited to meet with the City Council, City Staff, and representatives from MCES. Different solutions were discussed and McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. (MFRA) was directed to prepare a feasibility report for construction of a lift station that would isolate the flows in the City's main in Langdon Lane and pump by forcemain to the MCES mink line and thus eliminate the direct gravity connection. Two locations have been identified as a possible site for construction of a lift station. They are identified on the enclosed map as Site A and Site B. Site A, in the existing right-of-way of Langdon Lane cul-de-sac, is located in an area where the City vacated their street easement; however the utility easements were retained. Site B on Lot 7, would require acquisition of a small portion of private property to provide the area necessary for construction of the lift station. In either case, additional easements would be necessary to provide area for construction of the forcemain form the proposed lift station to the MCES manhole adjacent to the railroad. Either site would accommodate a lift station; however Site B would be preferable since it is more remote from the homes at the end of the street. Acquisition of the site, topography, and access easements will most likely make Site B the more expensive of the two. We have estimated the cost of the lift station and forcemain on Site B at approximately $75,000. Other associated costs, such as site preparation, electrical service, and engineering could easily add an additional $25,000 for a total estimated cost of $100,000. Site A could cost slightly less. These estimates do not include any land acquisition or easement costs. -8340- Conclusions We are concemed that this solution may only be a stopgap measure to a problem of greater magnitude. The next City main to the west that connects to the MCES tnmk line serves a larger area of Dutch Lake and is very similar in design to the Langdon Lane line. The big difference is that the lowest homes, which are located on Hillcrest Drive, have avoided flooding since their basements appear to be above street level. We are fairly certain that this line also backed up on April 22, 2001, since the invert and top elevations of manhole A-18 are actually lower than manhole A-23 located at the end of Langdon Lane. Also of concern, as expressed at the meeting on June 27, is the unknown volume coming from the newly reconstructed lift station in Minnetrista, located on County Road 110 north of Three Points Boulevard. All the flows from the sanitary sewers in Minnetrista north of Mound, including the High School, are pumped by this lift station to a MCES manhole located along the railroad upstream of the discharge point for both the Langdon Lane and Hillcrest Drive sewers. Recommendations It is our recommendation to not construct the lift station at the end of Langdon Lane at this time. We would suggest that MCES be given time to conduct a thorough study of their system before the City spends upwards of $100,000 to solve a problem that may not be completely their own. As discussed at the meeting on June 27, another short-term, less expensive solution to protecting the homes on Langdon Lane would be the installation of backflow valves on the individual service lines. The cost for these valves has been estimated to be between $1,500 and $2,500 per installation. It is our understanding that one home is already equipped with a such valve and it was the only one that did not experience a sewer back up on April 22. If the City chooses to assist the homeowners in offsetting the cost of installation of backflow valves, a number of options are available as outlined in the letter from your Finance Director, a copy of which is attached to this report. The City should continue to work with MCES as they study their system. Mound should also continue to try and reduce the amount of infiltration and inflow (I&I) into their own sanitary sewer system. s:\main:\Mou13371 :\Reports\feasibility7-18 -8341 - 07/16/01 16:34 FAX CITY OF MOUND ~ ENG. ~002 To: From: Re: Date: CITY OF MOUND Mayor, Council, City Manager Gino Businaro Langdon Lane Sewer Backup Short Term Financing July 16,2001 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound,com At the special meeting of June 27, 2001 the City Council met with residents of Langdon Lane to discuss issues relating to sewer backups in their neighborhood, including long term and short term solutions. At that time I was asked to provide some options on how the City could help finance for the installation of valves, if the individual residents opted to do so. If the Council chooses to defray the full cost or part of the cost for the valve installation, the City can pay for it as follows: 1. Once the installation is complete and payment is made, the City reimburses the resident for the full cost or up to a predetermined amount; or Once the installation is complete and payment is made, the city reimburses the resident for the full cost or up to a predetermined amount via monthly credits to the resident's utility billing account over a predetermined number of months. If instead the Council chooses to assist the residents with an advance for the full cost or for part of the cost of installation, the City could arrange for payback of the advance from the resident as follows: 1, Charge the residents' utility account for a monthly installment over a specified number of months; or 2. Set up a monthly payment schedule, with the residents reimbursing the City over a specified number of months. Let me know if you need additional information or assistance on this matter. Cc: Greg Skinner, P. W. Superintendent Joyce Nelson, Utility Billing prlnt~ on re~ycied paper -8342- MCES UFT STATION LAKE LANGDON -GRANDVlEW SCHOOL ii LYNWDDD t~LVD, (CD, RD, 15) -8344- ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS DEMOLITION AND SITE CLEARING LONGPRE BUILDING Sealed proposals will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. Wednesday, August 22, 2001 at the City Offices, at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud, for the furnishing of all labor, equipment and materials to complete the demolition and site cleating of the Longpre Building at 2300, 2308, and 2310 Commerce Boulevard. The bids will be considered by the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, August 28, 2001. All proposals shall be addressed to: Bonnie Ritter, Acting City Clerk City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 and shall be securely sealed and shall be endorsed on the outside with the statement "Demolition and Site Clearing, Longpre Building" and shall be on the Bid Form included in the specifications for the project. Copies of the plans and specifications and other proposed contract documents are on file with the City Clerk and at the office of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447. Plans and specifications for use in preparing bids may be obtained at the offices of the Engineer upon payment of $30.00 per set (includes MN sales tax), which is NON- REFUNDABLE. Each bidder shall file with his bid a cashier's check, certified check, or bid bond in an amount of not less than five (5) percent of the total amount of the bid. No bid may be withdrawn within sixty (60) days after the bids are opened. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and waive any informalities or irregularities therein. City of Mound, Minnesota Pat Meisel, Mayor ATTEST: Bonnie Ritter, Acting City Clerk -8345- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN STREETS OR PORTIONS OF STREETS WITHIN THE CiTY OF MOUND AS NO PARKING ZONES WHEREAS, Subsection 700.30, subd.2, of the City Code allows the City Council, by resolution, to designate certain streets or portions of streets as no parking zones; and WHEREAS, a Parking Map, dated April. 4, 2001, has been received and is a result of study and analysis by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, to adopt the Parking Map dated April 4, 2001, and made a part hereof as Attachment A; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that signs be erected in suitable locations within the No Parking areas designated on the map. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember by Councilmember and seconded The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this __ day of ,2001. Attest: Acting City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -8346- ATTACHMENT A N S 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet Parking Restrictions PARKING ALLOWED BOTH SIDES NO PARKING BOTH SIDES NO PARKING EAST SIDE NO PARKING NORTH SIDE NO PARKING SOUTH SIDE NO PAKRING WEST SIDE SEE SPECIFICATIONS BELOW Clover Circle - No Parking on residential side (Across from Philbrook Park) Pelican Point Circle - No Parking on outside ('3' I'h' (>1' ,\1( )L :,X,'l ) City of Mound Parking Map April 4, 2001 CITY OF MOUND 53,41 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com MEMORANDUM July 5, 2001 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PROPERTY OWNERS GINO BUSINARO, CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR REMINDER OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON CBD PARKING PROGRAM The City Manager, Kandis Hanson, has asked me to send you this memo as a reminder of the City Council action on June 27, 2000 regarding the CBD Parking Program. At that time the City Council took action to extend the CBD parking program until June 30, 2001 and that the program will no longer exist as of that date. In August we will calculate for the last time the July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001 CBD parking maintenance assessment, which will require a public heating before the City Council in October, 2001. You will be notified of the date and time of that heating. The lease payments also will be paid by the City of Mound for the last time in late summer. Attached please find a c~)py of the Memorandum sent to you by the City Manager, who informed you of the program termination date at the time the City Council took action on this issue. It is our understanding that, starting July 1, 2001, the City of Mound will continue to maintain parking lots that the City owns and that the lots owned by the affected businesses will be the full responsibility of those businesses. This information will be shared with the City Council members. If you have questions or concerns on this matter, please call me at 472-0608, Kandis Hanson at 472-0601 or the Members of the City Council. CCi Kandis Hanson, City Manager City Council Members Greg Skinnner, P.W. Superintendent DATE: June 29, 2000 TO: Participants in the CBD Parking Program FROM: Kandis Hanson, City Manager Extension of CBD Parking Agreement At their June 27, 2000 meeting, the City of Mound took action approving the extension of the Central Business District Parking Agreement for an additional year. It will be effective July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001. Whereas it was the hope that those involved could reach agreements for alternative programs, that did not occur. It then became the obligation of the City to continue the program to insure seamless provision of services to the participants. It continues to be the hope of the City that over the next year business owners in each district will independently address their parking needs and strike agreements with their retail neighbors, as is the case with Commerce Place, and do away with govemment involvement in this program. Naturally, under such an arrangement, the maintenance of City-owned lots would rest with the City. -8348- CITY OF MOUND MEMORANDUM 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-O62O TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PROPERTY OWNERS GINO BUSINARO, CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR ~ ~C5'. REMINDER OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON CBD PARKING PROGRAM The new City Manager, Kandis Hanson, has asked me to send you this memo as a reminder of the City Council action on July 8, 1997 regarding the CBD Parking Program. At that time the City Council took action to extend the CBD parking program until June 30, 2000 and that the program will no longer exist as of that date. In August we wilt calculate for the last time the July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 CBD parking maintenance assessment, which will require a public hearing before the City Council in October, 2000. You will be notified of the date and time of that hearing. The lease payments also will be paid by the City of Mound fo~ the last time in late summer. Attached please fred a copy of the Memorandum sent to you by the former City Manager, who informed you of the program termination date at the time the City Council took action on this issue. It is our understanding that, starting July 1, 2000, the City of Mound will continue to maintain parking lots that the City owns and that the lots owned by the affected businesses will be the full responsibility of those businesses. This information will be shared with the City Council members. If you have questions or concerns on this matter, please call me at 472-0608, Kandis Hanson at 472-0600 or the Members of the City Council. cc: Kandis Hanson, City Manager City Council Members _printed on recycled paper 8349- MEMORANDUM July 15, 1997 TO: FROM: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD)PROPERTY OWNERS ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER~.~, SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON CBD PARKING PROGRAM As you may recall, a meeting was held on Tuesday, July 1, 1997, at Mound City Hall with you regarding the future of the CBD parking program. At that meeting, we reviewed the City Council's directive that the CBD parking program cease to exist as we know it today on June 30, 1998. Those of you that attended were concerned that the program should be extended beyond that date and should coincide with the realignment of Hennepin County Road 15. (Although the County has the realignment listed on its capital improvement program to be constructed in 2000, this would be the earliest date this could possibly occur. It is likely that County Road 15 will not be moved until later.) The persons in attendance at the July 1 meeting indicated that there would be problems of ingress and egress to the private property parking lots that are currently under lease with the City for CBD parking. This could ultimately result in trespassing issues and fencing around lots impacting the availability of public parking for downtown customers. The persons in attendance asked that the staff present their concerns to the City Council at its regular meeting of July 8, 1997. These concerns were presented at that time and the City Council took action to extend the CBD parking program until June 30, 2000. Thus, the program will no longer exist as of that date. It is the goal of the City of Mound to acquire property as time goes on for public parking purposes. Municipal ramps may be a possibility for solving some of the public parking needs that will arise as the Mound Visions program becomes a reality. I wanted to keep you advised of the City Council's recent action and to enclose a preliminary draft -8350- Memorandum to CBD Property Owners July 15, 1997 Page 2 of the July 1, 1996 to June 30, 1997 CBD parking maintenance assessment. This assessment will require a public hearing before the City Council in October, 1997. You will be notified of the date .............................. ~d ti.m-e---~.~-~th-a~t~-~e~i-n~K..-~-n-~-e--m-e-.ag-tj.~e~-i-[t--wi~.gi~y-e~-~9~u--.-a~ jd_e_a_._o_f__w_h_at assessment amount for this assessment period. Please note that for this assessment period, the July 1, 1997, the lease payments or credits will be paid by the City of Mound through its general fund i.e., all taxpayers in the City of Mound, etc. Please remember that you are still responsible for 1/4 of the snowplowing charges until 6/30/2000. If you have any questions, please contact me. -8351 - July 19, 2001 2450 Wilshire Blvd. Suite D Mound, MN 55364 952-491-8058 Fax 952-491-8043 WeyckerI~ Westonka.kl2.mn.us After School Activity Bus Community Hero Card Family Support Programs Health Advocate Outreach Parenting Support Police Chaplaincy Resource Directory Summer School Bus Student Retreats Dear Mayor Meisel and Mound City Council Members, Thank you for the opportunity to explore locations that we had initially identified as superior sites to build a skate park in Mound. After lengthy research and discussion, we have found the site at the end of Maywood Road to be the best site for our needs. We request that you approve the use of that site for building the skate park. After approval of the site, we will redraw the skatepark plan to fit the dimensions that were identified by the site survey done by John Camron's firm. We anticipate that a few trees will need to be cut to avoid the water/sewer line that runs through the site. The majodty of the park will be at the street end, where the wood chip pile is located. Soil tests were done at this site and appear to be fine for this type of construction. The soil contains mostly clay, similar to most of the soils in our area. Once we have a detailed plan drawn, we will be able to give exact quotes on project costs and supplies needed. At that point, we will do a big push for fundraising and look for donations of supplies, labor and money. Thank you for your attention to this project. Our area skaters and skate boarders are anxiously awaiting the completion of this park. Youth Center Youth Connections Seeking to strengthen and connect our community in healthy creative ways. Sincerely, Skate Park Task Force Gene Hostetler and Leah Weycker -8352- Skate Park Sites We have discovered four superior sites in the Westonka area. Site 1: Shirley Hills Tennis Court-Mound @i've 2: Maywood Road Street End-Mound Site 3: Maxwell/Wolner Area-Mound Site 4: WRA/VVestonka Recreation Association-Minnetrista SITE 1 SHIRLEY HILL TENNIS COURT-MOUND Located on Wilshire Blvd. on the West side of the Shirley Hills School Site. Pros · Centrally located · Very visible · Room for expansion · Flat site/minimal excavation and tree removal · Existing slab for possible portable ramps Cons · Elimination of Tennis Court · Noise close to residential property · Need to sell idea to school district insurance agency · District in process of finding new insurance group · need to install telephone · need to create shelter · need for restroom facilities SITE 2 MAYWOOD ROAD STREET END-MOUND Near parking for Mound Police Department, between City Hall and Wolner Field Pros · Centrally located · Noise would not affect residential · High activity area, frequent adult presence · flat site/minimal excavation and tree removal · Visible to Police Department · water available/water fountain? · no additional insurance costs for city · Phone close by · Access to Wolner Field Concessions and Restrooms · Close to trail of Mound Visions · Close to SA -8353- Cons · No room for expansion · Drainage issues · Relocating wood chip pile SITE 3 MAXWELL/WOLNER AREA/MOUND West of Super America Pro · Noise would not affect residential · Possible donation from developers park land dedication · Close to SA -Visible · Access to Wolner Field Concessions and Restrooms · Close to Police Department · On Mound Visions Trail · Youth Project in Mound Visions Cons · Access to property, project timing · Cost if purchase is necessary SITE 4 WRA- WESTONKA RECREATION ASSOCIATION located close to Minnetrista City Hall Pro · room for expansion .telephone ,restrooms .water · minimal excavation · residential area not close Con · distance from Mound · lack of visibility · adults with alcohol -8354- We need: Land: water fountain restroom facility shade available (Kids prefer no bugs) phone near by not too close to traffic near stuff to buy (food, drink etc.) Money: $100,000. We will be fund raising, some ideas so far- · sell ads located at the park, on sign · cash requests · money jars around town · model and request for funds around town We will be presenting to other groups- .Jaycees -Lions · American Legion · Area Cities and Park commissions · VFW Donations: Lots of concrete Concrete pumping Excavation Rebar #3 Gravel - 3/4 minus Lumber - 2X4 and 4X4 Coping (round, metal bar for around edge of ramps) Call Leah at Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative to make a donation! 491-8058 -8355- July 18, 2001 Ms. Kandis Hanson City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 GME CONSULTANTS, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 14000 21st Ave. No. / Minneapolis, MN 55447 Phone (763) 559-1859 / Fax (763) 559-0720 GME Project No. 9565 Re: Report of Observation of Test Pits for the Zero Gravity SkatePark in Mound, Minnesota Dear Ms. Hanson: Mr. John Cameron, P.E. of MFRA, requested that we observe test pits excavated in the area of the proposed Zero Gravity Skatepark. The skateboard park will consist of outdoor skating surfaces, seating areas and short perimeter walls. The skating surface will be cast- in-place concrete supported on the ground surface. Design grades in the skate park may be at or below existing grade, and yet to be determined. Heated enclosures are not planned at this time. Test Pit Observations The test pits were excavated on July 11, 2001. During excavation, we observed the excavation and retrieved samples for laboratory classification of the soils. Test pit logs are attached, showing the type of soil observed, depth of strata change and total depth of the test pits. A Test Pit Location diagram is also attached showing the approximate locations of the test pits. In Test Pits 1 through 4, we observed topsoil over mixed sand and clay fill with roots, bituminous and organic soils to depths of 6 inches to 4 feet. In Test Pit 1 the bituminous was a distinct layer at about 4 foot depth, while the fill in Test Pit 3 had pieces of bituminous mixed in with the fill. Beneath the fill in Test Pits 1,3 and 4, there was a buried topsoil layer consisting of dark brown to black sandy clay and clayey sand with organics. In Test Pit 4, below a depth of 3 feet, the clayey sand was discolored to a dark gray and had a musty odor. We understand that this area of the site was used for washing out utility pump trucks. Beneath the surficial topsoil, fill and buried topsoil, we observed naturally-occurring sandy clay and clayey sand. At Test Pit 5, located on a treed hillside, we did not observe surface fill but topsoil directly over the natural clay and sand. Groundwater was not observed in the test pits during excavation or immediately after excavation. The Test Pits were backfilled after excavation with the excavation spoil. WILLIAM C. KWASNY, P,E. GREGORY R. REUTER, P.E., P.G. MARK D. MILLSOP, P.G. THOMAS P. VENEMA, P.E, BRYAN J. RIPP, P.E., P.G. TIMOTHY F. McGLENNEN An Equal Opportunity Employer -8356- TAMMY A. LANDERS, RE. WILLIAM E. BLOEMENDAL, P.E. ERIN J. O'BRIEN, RE. Zero Gravity Skatepark July 18, 2001 Recommendations At the time of this report, a Grading Plan has not been finalized. The soils encountered in the test pits consisted of fill and the natural soils, which are frost susceptible. The soils will heave when frozen and will loose strength during the thawing. The slabs should not be supported over this soil profile as differential movements, from settlement and frost heave could occur. We recommend that cuts to reach design grade be extended to allow for a minimum of 5 feet of non-frost susceptible sand, less than 3% passing the No. 200 sieve, below the slabs. The sand should be drained with a series of drain pipes placed at the base of the sand layer. Alternatively, the slabs could be cast as structural slabs connected to frost depth footings. Fill placed during grading and as wall backfill should be placed in lifts of 8 to 10 inches. The fill should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum Modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D1557) . For wall footings at the perimeter of the skate park, the footing base soils should be new compacted fill or natural soils. The frost embedment depth should be 5 feet. This report is considered preliminary. Once final grading plans, layout and load information are available, we can provide more detailed recommendations for additional exploration in the form of soil borings to provide information on water levels and soil parameters for design of the walls and slabs. If you have questions regarding our observations or recommendations, please contact us. Sincerely, GME Consultants, Inc. Tammy Hakanson, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Thomas P. Venema, P.E. Principal Engineer/Vice President Enclosures: Test Pit Location Diagram Test Pit Logs Cc: Mr. John Cameron, P.E. - MFRA Mr. Gene Allen, A.I.A. - Gene Allen Design Ltd. -8357- Geotechnical · I~laterlale . ~4000 2~? ^ve~m IN. ' LOCATION DtAC~ IGPE~ Project No. -8358- TEST PIT EXPLORATION ZERO ~RAVIT¥ SKATEPARK MOUND, MINNESOTA JULY 11, 2001 TEST PIT 1 0 - 4 feet 4 - 4.5 feet 4.5 - 5 feet Dark brown/black fine to coarse CLAYEY SILTY S~/~D WITH ROOTS, damp, 3 inch layer of asphalt pavement at 4 .feet (Fill) Black SANDY CLAY WITH ORGANICS (Topsoil) Brown SANDY CLAY trace gravel, stiff (CL) End of test pit at approximately 5 feet below grade. Water was not observed in the test pit during or immediately after excavation. TEST PIT 2 0 - 2 feet Dark brown/black fine to coarse CLAYEY SILTY SAND trace roots, damp, (SC-SM) (Fill) 2 - 3.5 feet Brown SANDY CLAY trace gravel, stiff (CL) End of test pit at approximately 3.5 feet below grade. Water was not observed in the test pit during or immediately after excavation. TEST PIT 3 0 - 3.5 feet Dark brown/black fine to coarse CLAYEY SILTY SAND trace roots, pieces of asphalt, damp, (SC-SM) (Fill) 3.5 - 4 feet 4 - 5 feet Brown SANDY CLAY trace roots, stiff (CL) (Topsoil) Brown/dark grey SANDY CLAY, stiff (CL) End of test pit at approximately 5 feet below grade. Water was not observed in the test pit during or immediately after excavation. -8359- Zero Gravity Skate Park 2 July 16, 2001 TEST PIT 4 0 - 0.5 feet 0.5 - 0.8 feet 0.8 - 2.5 feet 2.5 - 3 feet 3 - 7 feet Brown fine to coarse CLAYEY SILTY SAND trace roots, gravel, damp, (SC-SM) (Fill) Yellowish brown fine to coarse GRAVELLY SAlqD WITH SILT (Fill) Dark brown/black CLAYEY SILTY SAND trace roots, stiff (CL) (Topsoil) Light Brown SANDY CLAY, stiff (CL) Dark brown/grey CLAYEY SAND damp, odor detected (SC) End of test pit at approximately 7 feet below grade. Water was not observed in the test pit during or immediately after excavation. TEST PIT 5 0 - 2 feet Dark brown/black fine to coarse CLAYEY SILT trace roots, (ML) (Topsoil) 2 - 3.5 feet Brown SILTY SANDY CLAY, stiff (CL) End of test pit at approximately 3.5 feet below grade. Water was not observed in the test pit during or immediately after excavation. -8360- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 July 18, 2001 TO: FROM: REF: Mayor/City Council ~ WI ] Jim Fackler, Park Director~-~ ]. ~/ Task Force for Island Park Put~lic Facility. city Councils direction is to establish a Task Force for the Island Park Public Facility from four groups, Neighborhood Resident, POSAC Member, City Staff and Resident At Large. Listed below is the selection process; * Neighborhood Resident: The City Council is to select one applicant from the notice posted in the Laker. These applicants are; Kenneth Neukircher Tracy Walstrom Richard Dissmore Applications are attached for City Council review. * Park & Open Space Advisory Commission: The POSAC can address this at their August 23, 2001 meeting. * City Park Employee: Kandis Hanson, City Manager will assign staff member. * Citizen At Large: Kandis Hanson, City Manager will assign using the above applicants, staff recommendations and suggestions from citizens. -8361 - Final To: Mayor and Council From: City Manager Subject: Suggestions for Task Force on Island Park Public Facility At the May 8 council meeting you directed me to report back to you with suggestions concerning a task force that might be convened to make recommendations to the council about Island Park Hall and the parks maintenance shop also located on the property. BACKGROUND The proper disposition of the Island Park Hall, built in 1936, has been a topic of consideration for quite some time. Prompted, at least in part, by the deteriorating condition of the structure, the Parks and Open Space Advisory Commission began discussing the matter in late 1997. In the time since then no less that 17 meetings of the commission have included significant discussion about the repair and future uses of the hall and, to a lesser degree, the city maintenance shop. Because of a number of critical problems such as roof; windows, basement and mechanical plant, much of the discussion focused on these items. However, the commission did take the oppommity to do some visioning, and to consider the possibility of major improvements to the building. The commission also gave thought to the potential uses for the hall. In 1998 the commission retained Vedi Associates, Inc. to conduct a Visual Condition Audit of the hall. The report also contained a list of suggested events and functions for the upgraded hall. The list contained the following: · · · · · · · · Family oriented birthday parties along with outdoor activities Small wedding parties Neighborhood group meetings Family resource center Council activities City election voting station Special nei~~_p~._e~_~q~m._ eeti__~g_ Conference center for small businesses Technology center Daycare center Adult/Special educational seminars Special computer courses Continuing education learning center City department conference center Aerobic classes -8362- Although the list contains a number of desirable and worthwhile uses, it is not clear that it was the product of any canvassing of the needs or wishes of the community. There may also be other uses that would be suitable in an upgraded hall. The Vedi Audit also was not designed to examine any possible linkage or combination of the hall with the maintenance shop. CURRENT POSTURE The considerable efforts of the POSAC have presented the council with a host of interrelated and difficult questions. The ones that immediately come to mind include. 2. 3. 4. Should the hail be preserved in whole or in part, or should a new structure be built. At what price. Is Historical Register designation possible, desirable, should it be sought. Should the structure be designed to fit the uses or should the uses be conformed to fit' the structure. What is the most cost-effective way to put the property back in use. What accommodation should be given to the landmark stature of the hail. What options are available for financing whatever is done. Although the work of POSAC has brought us to this point, I believe it is important that much of the further work in examining these and other issues, and in making suggestions to the council be done by an independent task force. Input from a broad-based community oriented group that can view this matter from a multitude of perspectives will be an important addition to the work of POSAC. It will aiso give the council a public perspective on financing any work on hall. THE TASK FORCE The task force should be representative of those groups or interests that are most impacted by any decision that might be made. I see the following "clusters" of groups or interest. · The island ¥iew neighborhood · Parks and recreation !__~ facilities · Community facilities · "Other" The council may have other groups or interests in mind as well. I recommend that these "clusters" be represented on the task force in the following manner. · The neighborhood be represented by a resident of the neighborhood selected by the council. · Parks and recreation be represented by a member of POSAC selected by POSAC. · City facilities be represented by an employee of the parks department selected by me. -8363- · Community facilities be represented by an individual selected by me following input from community groups and organizations including the schools, WECAN and the chamber. * Representation for the members of the community that are not impacted by what may happen with the hall, except for possibly paying taxes to support what is done should be considered. I suggest that the council make the selection of such a person. The council may have other ideas concerning the task force makeup. I do recommend that, at least initially the number of members be kept small (perhaps 5-7). The task force may wish to augment its numbers as the matter progresses, but that should be up to them. As the council considers how to proceed on this matter, I would like you to all keep in mind that we are also in the process ofbegirming a general physical evaluation of all most of the city assets. You should expect that the analysis will likely result in a number of recommendations concerning the need to upgrade, renovate and, in some cases, replace current assets. Whatever recommendations are received from a task force on the Island Park Public Facility may have to be considered along with the other capital needs of the city. -8364- CITY OF MOUND 53,41 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364'1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com July 2, 2001 Ken Neukircher 4997 Tuxedo Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ken, You have shown interest in serving on the Island Park Facilities Task Force. You are one of five individuals who expressed an interest. Two people will be selected. The Task Force will cOnsist of two representatives from the Island, along with a city staff personnel and other interested parties. To help the City Council with the selection process, you are being asked to complete this application form. Please complete and return it to City Hall no later than July 16. The findings of this Task Force will contribute to a larger space needs study for ail City- owned facilities. Thank you for your willingness to be involved in this study. [ prfnted on recycled paper -8365- APPLICANT INFORMATION VOLUNTEER BOARDS/COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS (Please use black ink or type.) Date: Name of Board: Personal Information: Address: 1-.'/ (~ ? O 7-~ .x' ~, a/~,~ .),Z~ .] ~j d Telephone: Home: .~,~- ~ ~ ti r)o~_/$~c- Work: Place of Employment: .?~ c~ c] ~ r~ c~ Please describe work, volunteer, or life experience that you have had that would prepare you for being a member of this board/committee/commission. What skills and abilities do you have that would be helpful in doing the work of this board/committee/commission? -8366- o With what you know about this area, what do you see as the three most significant issues this board/committee/commission will need to address in the next 2 years? What one or two contributions do you think you would make, in the short term (first few months) and in the long tem~ (after a year)? Please fully disclose any potential conflicts of interest you may have serving on this board? Please return by 4:30 p.m., to: City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 -8367- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WF::B: www. cityofmound.com J~y 10,2001 Tracy Walstrom 4872 Leslie Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Tracy, You have shown interest in serving on the Island Park Facilities Task Force. You are one of five individuals who expressed an interest. Two people will be selected. The Task Force will consist of two representatives from the Island, along with a city staff personnel and other interested parties. To help the City Council with the selection process, you are being asked to complete this application form. Please complete and remm it to City Hall no later than July 16. The findings of this Task Force will contribute to a larger space needs study for all City- owned facilities. Thank you for your willingness to be involved in this study. {arks Dii~,t.o'~ · printed on recycled paper -8368- APPLICANT INFORMATION VOLUNTEER.BOARDS/COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS Name of Board: (Please use black ink or type.) Personal Information: Address: ~4a~ Telephone: Home: ~',~) i~.,j,-//~; Work: Place of Employment: ~ ~ 7 1. Please describe work, volunteer, or life experience that you have had that would prepare you for being a member of this board/committee/commission. 2. ~at sMlls ~d abilities do you hh~q~ ~i ~o~d be help~ ~n do~g ~e work of ~is bo~Wco~aee/co~ission? -8369- With what you know about this area, what do you see as the three most significant issues this board/committee/commission will need to address in the next 2 years? What one or two contributions do you think you would make, in the short term (first few months) and in the long term (after a year)? __: ~.rx )oc~,,t ~ ~,~ ~oor/c /ac ~,/ Please fully disclose any potential conflicts of interest you may have serving on this board? ¢xcm~ ._~_.. c~ 4.¼',,~L. o> 0.4- -~',~ Please return by 4:30 p.m., to: City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 -8370- ~~~UND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 CITY OF MOUND WEB: www.cityofmound.com July 2, 2001 Dick Dessmore 4765 Manchester Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Dick, You have shown interest in serving on the Island Park Facilities Task Force. 'You are one of five individuals who expressed an interest. Two people will be selected. The Task Force will consist of two represematives from the Island, along with a city staff personnel and other interested parties. To help the City Council with the selection process, you are being asked to complete this application form. Please complete and return it to City Hall no later than July 16. The findings of this Task Force will contribute to a larger space needs study for all City- owned facilities. Thank you for your willingness to be involved in this study. [ printed on r~cycled paper -8371 - APPLICANT INFORMATION VOLUNTEER BOARDS/COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS (Please use black ink or type.) Date: Personal Information~) -, . ~ . ~..~ ./ Telephone: Home: [72-b¥7c/ Work: 772- Place of Employment: //~/~/~J/d't~ ~/~ ~ 1. Please describe work, volunteer, or life experience that you have had that would prepare you for being a member of this board/committee/commission. 2. ~at s~lls ~d abilities do you have ~at would be help~l in doing ~e work of this bo~co~aee/co~ission? -8372- With what you know about this area, what do you see as the three most significant issues this board/committee/commission will need to address in the next 2 years? What one or two contributions do you think you would make, in the short term (first few months) and in the long term (after a year)? Please fully disclose any potential conflicts of interest you may have serving on this board? Please return by 4:30 p.m.,. to; City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 -8373- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-168; PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com 2, 2001 Eve ;dell 4828 Road Mound, 55364 Dear Eve, You have shown of five individuals Force will consist and other interested in serving on the st. Park Facilities Task Force. You are one Two people will be selected. The Task the Island, along with a city staff personnel To help the City Council with application form. Please comp findings of this Task Force owned facilities. Thank you for Your will to be process, you are being asked to complete this it to City Hall no later than July 16. The to a larger space needs study for all City- in this' study. prlnted on recycled paper -8374- CITY OF MOUND 5~,41 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952-) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com July 2, 2001 Earl Burt 4657 Manchester Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Earl, '~ You have shown interest ~rving on the Island P~ Task Force. You are one of five individuals who expres'~an interest, will be selected. The Task Force will consist o.f two. represen~a~es from Island, along with a city staff personnel and other interested parties. ~ To help the City Council with the sele~ you are being asked to complete this application form. Please complete ,xCity Hall no later than July 16. The findings of this Task Force will to a largc~,~pace needs study for all City- owned facilities. Thank you for your to be involved in this study.~ Sinc, , Park ' ~ prlnted on recycled paper -8375- MEMORANDUM July 18, 2001 To: Mayor and City Council From: John Dean Subject: Disclosure Report At your last council meeting, concern was expressed about whether the disclosure requirement for advisory commissions needed to be contained in a city ordinance, rather that in the form in which it was adopted. We have reviewed the applicable laws and regulations on the subject; and have had discussions with Don Gemberling of the Minnesota Department of Administration. On that basis, it is our conclusion that the requirement of written disclosure by commission members is valid as long as it is the result of an official action by the council. The action taken by the council to adopt the policy and the disclosure requirement would be such an official action. -8376- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www, cityofmound.com July 5, 2001 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: KANDIS HANSON BONNIE RITTER ETHICS GUIDELINES At the workshop with the Commissions regarding ethics guidelines, it was perceived that the intent was to eliminate the Financial Disclosure Statement for members of Boards and Commissions. The enclosed Ethics Guidelines for City Council and Advisory Commissions has been revised to eliminate.the Financial Disclosure Statement for Board and Commissions, however State Statute does allow the City to collect this information from elected officials. I'm enclosing copies of Roseville, Blaine and Minnetonka's policies regarding this subject. CITY OF MOUND ETHICS GUIDELINES FOR CITY COUNCIL AND ADVISORY COMMISSIONS BACKGROUND: The lVlound City Council makes the following findings: The confidence that the community has in its public institutions is directly related to the standards followed by the elected and appointed officials. Not ordy is it important that elected and appointed officials act ethically in their public lives; but it is equally important that they establish and follow clear principles and guidelines to guide them in their a~ions. The existence and adherence to such guidelines can result in a high level of public trust and acceptance in the actions of elected and appointed officials. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council has adopted the following Ethics Guidelines, to be observed and followed by the City Council and the members of the advisory commissions of the City, (collectively, "Officials"). ETHICS GIJIDELINES: (Per State Statutes: 471.87; 412.311; 471.895; and 471.705) 1. No Official shall misuse the office to secure special privileges or exemptions for such person or a~y other person. No Official shall directly or indirectly receive or agree to receive or solicit, any compensation, ~[ reward or gratuity in payment for the performance of his or her official duties except as may be provided by law; nor shall any Official give or offer to give any compensation, gi~ reward or gratuity to any individuals in connection to their official capacity. No Official ~all enter into any contract with the City that is prohibited by law. Any public official who has a proprietary interest in an entity doing business with the City shall make known ~ int~est ~ writing tothe City Council and the City Clerk. Any Official, who in the discharge of said Official's duties would be required to take an action or make a decision which would substantially affect such official's financial interest or those of a busiaess wit. h which tach official is associated (except as the City's representative), unless the effect on ~ official is no greater than on any other citizens or other members of such official's Im~ness classification, profession, or occupation, shall not participate in either discussion or vote on the matter, and shall additionally take the following actions: -8378- A written statement shall be prepared which will include the name, address, office held, action presenting the potential conflict of interest, the nature of the financial interest, the lXa'son notified of the potential conflict of interest, the member's signature and the date; b. Said member shall deliver copies of the statement to the City Clerk; If a potential conflict presents itself and there is insufficient time to comply with the provisions of clauses "a" and "b" of this section, the member shall verbally inform the City Clerk of the potential conflict. The Official shall then file a written statement with the City Clerk within one week'after the potential conflict presents itself which statement shall state the reason for the delay. The provisions of this paragraph 4 should not, absent unusual circumstances, prevent the Official fi.om appearing before the City Council or any commission on a matter where such Official is, as property owner, requesting some action or decision fi.om the City on such property, providing that such participation is as a member of the public and not as an Official. An Official must not act as an agent or attorney for another before the City Council or a commission in a matter where a conflict of interest exists or may exist. An Official may accept compensation or expense reimbursement for the performance of the Official's public duties only fi.om the sources listed below. a. Compensation and expenses paid by the City. Compensation and expenses fi.om other employment, if the person happens to conduct public business while being paid for the other employment and if the other employment does not interfere with, influence, or compromise the person's public position, and Compensation and expenses paid by another governmental agency or municipal association to an Official who serves as a City representative for that agency, but only if the City does_not also pay the person for the sarneactivity. An Official must not use public money, time, personnel, facilities, or equipment for private gain or political ~paign activities except when: a. the use is required or authorized by law, or b. the use is no greater than that allowed for the general public. This para~,aph does not prohibit correspondence at any time to individual residents in response to ~the resident's specific inquiries, or general surveys of residents that are conducted before the time of filing for candidacy for elective office. J'BD-lg5381v2 MU220-1 -8379- o It is important to public confidence in the operation of government that decisions of the City Council and the advisory commissions of the city (unless subject to certain specific exceptions) be made in public, following discussion among members also taking place in public. For that reason, the following guidelines will be followed by Officials: a. At any gathering that is attended by a majority of the Council, or of an advisory commission ( unless such gathering has been duly noticed as a meeting of the Council or such advisory commission), such Officials will refrain from participating, as a group, in any discussion, either between the members, or others in attendance at the gathering, involving matters that are pending, or are likely to come before the Council or such advisory commission. At any special meeting of the Council or of an advisory commission, the Officials will refrain from engaging in discussion or taking action on any matter which was not contained on, or reasonably related to, the items in the meeting notice. Co The Council and each advisory commission will, from time to time, and at the recommendation of the City Manager, conduct study sessions to familiarize new Officials and update other Officials with the requirements of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. While openness is an important comerstone of good government, it is occasionally necessary to limit disclosure of certain types of data that may come into the hands of Officials. For that reason, Officials will become familiar with the requirements of the Minnesota Data Practices Act, and will seek advice prior to disclosing data in thek possession that might be considered as not public. Further, an Official must not disclose information received, discussed, or decided in conference with the City Attorney that is protected by the attorney/client privilege, unless a majority of theCity ~Council: has authorized that.disclosure, I hereby acknowledge and will uphold these ethics guidelines as provided under Minnesota Statute. Sign~.~e Date JB~185381v2 MU2~0-1 -8380- City of Mound Financial Disclosure Statement Within 30 days after taking the oath of office or being appointed to a position, each Council member must file a report with the City Clerk on a form prepared by the clerk, which contains the information specified below for the preceding year. Thereafter, each person shall file a supplemental report on the first day of February of every year and within 30 days of any change in information provided in the disclosure. The information shall be for the individual, the individual's spouse, and all minor children (collectively referred to below as "you"). marne Address City State Zip Office phone I Home phone 1. List any business entity in which you are an officer, director, member, or employee, and the position held. 2. List any business entity in which you have an ownership interest, either legal or equitable. List name and address of each entity from which you receive income, compensation, fees, or commissions for employment, for services rendered, or from pensions, except the employment, services rendered or pensions of minor children. JBD-188004vl MU220-2 -8381 - 4. List all non-profit organizations in which the person is a member or serves on the governing body, and the positions held, except if serving in that capacity as the City' s representative. 5. LiSt all real property within the city °~ed bY You or in which you have a beneficial interest. Signature Date JBD-188004v 1 MU220-2 -8382- EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF ~fEET!NG OF TEE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 23rd day of July, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. The following members were Present: JohnSOn, Maschka, Thomas, and Rog, and the following were absent: Cushman. Member Johnson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 8593 CODE OF ETHICS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN TEE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ~ WHEREAS, it is imperative that the officials in the public service not oqly maintain the highest possible standards of ethical conduct in their transactions of public business, but that such standards be clearly defined and known to the public as well as .to the public officials; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PdESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ROSEVILLE' that following be a Code of Ethics for the public officials of Rose- pille. Section 1. Declaration of Policy. The proper operation of democratic government requires that public officials be independent, impartial and responsible to the people; that government decisions and policy be made in the proper channels of the government structure; that public office not be used for personal gain; and that the public have confidence in the integrity of its government. .~ ~ In recognition of these goals, there is hereby established a Code of Ethics for all Public officials of the city of Roseville. The purpose of this Code is to establish ethical standards of conduct for all such officials by setting forth those acts or actions that are incompatible with the best-interests of the city, and by directing disclosure by such officials of private financial or other interests in matters affecting the city. The provisions and purpose of this. Code and such rules and regulations as may be established are hereby declared to be in the~best interests of the City of Rosevil!e. Recognizing that education on ethics in government is the key to having good government, this code requires that yearly seminars be held to discuss the meaning of this code with new public officials, and in addition such seminars shall involve trained experts on govern- ethics that are outside of the Roseville government itself. The y Manager shall be the coordinator for these seminars. These seminars will keep the'subject of ethics in government fresh in every- one's, mind. -8383- Resolution No. 8593 Section 2. Definitions of Terms. Pag'~ Public official Any person that has been elected to office, appointed .by the City Council, appointed to a city board or commission, or hired by the City to serve as a department head or assistant department head. This list includes the following: a. A member of the City Council and Mayor. b. The department heed and assistant department head of each City department. c. A member of any city board or commission. d. The city Manager. e. The city Attorney and attorneys, in the City Attorney's firm performing work for the city. f. Any other person hired as a consultant or designated by the City Council from time to time to handle City matters. Anythinq of Value Money, real or personal property, a permit or license, a favor, a service, forgiveness of a loan or promise of future employment. It does not mean reasonable compensation or expenses pa~d to a public official by the government of Roseville for work performed. Compensation A payment of "anything of value" to an individual in return for that individual's services of any kind. Association A business entity o'f any kind, a labor union, a club or any other group of two or more persons 'other than the immediate family. Immediate Famil~ A reporting individual, spouse, minor children, minor stepchildren or other person residing in the same household. Gift The payment or receipt of "anything of value" unless consideration of greater or equal value is provided in return. city Manaqer The person that heads up the administration of the operating govern- ment of Rosevi!le. Section 3. Ethical Considerations. Public officials are to serve all persons fairly and equitably without regard to their personal or 'financial benefit. The credibility of Roseville government hinges on the proper discharge of duties in the public interest. Public officials must assure that the independence of their judgment and actions, without any consideration for personal gain, is preserved. -8384- esol~tion No. 8593 Page 3 Specific ethical considerations are enumerated below for the guidance of public officials, but these do not necessarily encompass all the possible ethical considerations that might arise. Other offices or Employment. An elected public official shall not hold another incompatible office as that term has been interpreted from time to time by statute, the courts, and by the Attorney General. Employed public officials shall not hold such incompatible office nor shall they engage in any regular outside employment with- out notice to and approval by the city Council, in the case of the City Manager, and the city Manager in the case of other employed public officials. Elected and appointed public officials shall not hold other office or employment which compromises the~perfor- mance of their elected or appointed duties without dis- closure of said office or employment and self disqualifi- cation from any particular action which might be compro- mised by such office or employment. b. Use of Confidential Information. No public official shall use information gained as a public official which is not generally made available to and/or is not known to the public, to'directly or indirectly gain anything of v~l~, c. Solicitation of or Receipt of Anything of value. A public official shall not solicit or receive anything of value from any person or association, directly or indirectly, in consideration of some action to be taken or not to be taken in the performance of the public official's duties. d. Holdinc ~nvest~nts. No public official shall.hold any investment which might compromise the performance of the public official's duties without disclosure of said investment and self disqualification from any particular action which might be compromised by such investment, except as permitted by statute, such as Minnesota Statute 471.88. Reoresentation of Others. A public official shall not represent persons or associations in dealings with the city in consideration of anything of value. fo Financial Interest. Where a public official or a member of the public official's immediate family has a financial interest in any matter being considered by the public official, such interest, if known to the public official, shall be disclosed by the public official. If the public official has such a financial interest or if the minor child of a public official has such a financial interest, the public official shall be disqualified from further participation in the matter. -8385- Resolution No. 8593 g. P.ag~ ~ \ city Propertv~ No public official shall use city owned property such as vehicles, equipment, or supplies for personal convenience or profit except when such .property is available to the public generally, or where such property is provided by specific city policy in the conduct of official city business. h. Special considerations. No public official shall grant Uny special consideration, treatmentl or advantage to any citizen beyond that which is available to every other citizen. i. ~ NO public official shall exceed his or her authority, or breach the law, or ask others to do so. j. Givin~ Anythin~ of Value~ No elected public official shall give anything of value to potential voters in~~ return for their votes, promises, or financial, considera- tions which would be'prohibited by the State Minnesota Fair Campaign Practices statute. k. Public Funds, etc~ No public official shall use public funds, personnel, facilities, or equipment for private gain or political campaign activities. 1. ~ Public officials shall provide complete docu- mentation to Support'requests for expense reimbursement. Expense reimbursement shall be made in accordance with City policy. m. Donations. No public 'official shall take an official action which will benefit any person or entity because of a donation of anything of value to the city by such person or entity. n. officiai ACtiOh-.. No public official shall take an ~fficial action which will benefit any person or entity where such public official would not have otherwise have taken such action but for the public official's family relationship, friendship, or business relationship with such person or entity. o. ComDliance with La~s~. Public officials shall comply with all local ordinances and State and Federal Statutes including, but not limited to, the criminal Code, Fair Campaign Practices Act, and laws governing the function- ing of municipalities, their elected and appointed officials, and employees. Section 4. ~pecial Considerations- Situations can arise where a member of a c°mmission~ a board,.or th~ city Council abstains from voting because of a conflict of interes% but his or her abstention becomes a vote either for or against the matter because a majority are required to pass or reject that matter. This can happen where four-fifths vote is needed to pass an issue, or .the vote has to be a clear m '~%~ and a split vote does not pass or ~ol~tion No. 8593 Page 5 When this happens, the City Attorney must be consulted and the final vote should carry a public notice.explaining-what took place, and how it was resolved. Section 5. Handlinq Alleged Violations of Code of EthiCs. An Ethics Commission is hereby established. The Commission shall be composed of three individuals, two of whom shall be residents of the City and the third shall be a nonresident. Initial appoint- ments shall be for terms of one, two, and three years respec- tively. Thereafter, appointments shall be for three year terms. The City Council shall appoint a chairperson and secretary from the Commission membership. Allegations of violations of this code against public officials, except employees who are subordinate to the City Manager, shall be referred to the Ethics Commission for investigation.. Allegations which may constitute a violation of a federal, state, or local statute shall be referred to the appropriate criminal authority, Results of the investigation of the Ethics Commission shall be reported to the City Council along with the Commission's recom- mendation for disposition. Thereafter, the City Council shall take appropriate action which may include censure of a Council Member, discipline .of. City Manager, or no action. The Commission shall conduct an organizational meeting during January of each year, and thereafter meet only at the request of the City Council or City Manager. Allegations against public officials who are subordinate to the CitY Manager including the Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief~ shall be handled by the City Manager. The City Manager.may take appropriate d~sciplinary action against employees violating this code. ~ .." Section Disclosure of Financial Interests. Not later than ninety (90) days after the date of approval of this code, each public official of the City shall file as a public record, in the office of the City Manager, a statement containing the following: A list naming all business enterprises known by the public official to be licensed by or to be doing' business with the City in which the public official or any member of the public official's immediate family is connected as an employee, officer, owner, investor, creditor of, director, trustee, partner, advisor, or consultant; and A list of the public officials and members of the public officials' immediate family's interests in real property located in the City or which may be competing with the interests of the City located elsewhere, other than property occupied as a personal residence. -8387- Resolution No.. 8593 D~~ Each person who enters upon duty after the date of this code in an office or position as to which a statement is required by Chis code shall file such a statement on forms to be provided by the City not less than thirty (30) days after the date of his/her entrance on duty. Each pers0n~'who made an initial filing shall file a new statement by January 30 of each year thereafter giving the information called for above as of the time of the new statement. If a change in financial interest or property ownership occurs between filings, a new filing shall be made within thirty (30) days of the change. The interest of any member of the immediate family shall be considered to be an interest of a person required to file a statement by or pursuant to this ordinance. This code shall not be construed to require the filing of any informa- tion relating to any person's connection with or interest inany pro- fessional society or any charitable, religious, social, fraternal, educational, recreational, public service, civil, or political orga- nization, or any similar' organization not conducted as a business enterprise and which is not engaged in the ownership or conduct of a business enterprise. However, if any of such organizations seeking any action or benefit come before a Roseville commission or the Council, then membership in the organization shall Se a potential conflict of interest and must be reported as such to the City Manager bY the public official in an amended disclosure Statement. The other stipulations of this code then apply. The city Manager shall inform each person who is required to file of the time and place for filing. The City Manager shal~ inform the CoUnCil whenever a person Who is required to fite a statement fails to do so. The motion for the adopt~°n of the foregoing resolution WaS duly seconded by Member Maschka, and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Johnson, Maschka, Thomas, and Rog, and the following voted against the same: NOne. W~EREUPON said re'solution was declared duly passed and adopted. STATE OF MiN/qESOTA) ) SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the. city of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that. I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 23rd day of July, 1990, with .the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HA~D officially as such Manager this 24th day of July, SEAL Steven~ Sa?~oz~, city Man~ger -8388- CITY OF ROSEVILLE DISCLOSURE OP FINANCIAL INTERESTS STATEMENT NAME ADDRESS PHONE NLrMB ER CITY POSITION The City of Roseville Code of Ethics (e'nclosed) provides that Roseville public officials shall file a Disclosure of Financial Interests Statement with the City Manager. Each person shall file the report within thirty days after assuming the position of a public official. Each person shall file a new statement by January 30 of each year thereafter during the time of service as a public official. If a change in financial interest or property ownership occurs between filings, a new filing shall be made within thirty days of the change. The interest of any member of the immediate family (spouse, minor children, minor stepchildren or other persons residing in the same household) shall be considered to be an interest of the public official. DISCLOSURE Names of all business enterprises known by you to be licensed by _or to be doing business with the City in which you'or any member of ygur immediate family is connected as an employee, officer, owner, ..investor, creditor Of, director, trustee, partner, advisor, or consultant. -8389- Disclosure of Financial Interests List your and members of your immediate family's interests in real property located in the City of Roseville, Or which may be competing with the interests of the City located else- where, other than property you occupy as a 'personal residence. If you have any questions regarding the Code of Ethics or this form, please contact the city Manager. Date Signed -8390- CiTY'OF ROSEVILLE ETHICS COMMISSION HOW TO MAKE COMPLAINTS HOW THE COM/~ISSION PLANDLES COMPLAINTS Purpose of These Procedure~ In July, 1990, the Roseville city Council adopted a Code of Ethics for Public officials and created the Roseville Ethics Commission (,,Commission").. The Council's Ethics Resolution No. 8593 is attached to these procedures. Under the Ethics Resolution, the Roseville Ethics Commission is to: investigate ethics complaints that people may make against public officials as defined in the Ethics Resolution, except complaints against department heads 'and assistant department heads. recommend to the City Council what the Council should do when a complaint has been made. These procedures explain how to make a complaint to the Rosevitle Ethi. cs Commission and how the Commission will handle the complaints it receives. (The City Manager is responsible for receiving and investi- gating ethics complaints against department heads and assistant department heads.) II. ,'Comolainant" And ,,Respondent" Defined · As used in these procedures: "Comp!ainan~" means a person who makes a complaint to the Commission. ,,Respondent" means the person the Complainant is complaining about. III. How To Start The Complaint Process Who may make a complaint? 1. Any person 18 years or older may make a complaint to the Commission. A person 18 years or older may make a complaint based on information received from a person younger than 18 years of age. -8391 - Can a person ask c~uestions and talk inf0rmall¥ with. t%~ Commission before making a complaint? Before filing a complaint, a person may talk informally with a member of the Ethics Commission to discuss questions the person may have about these procedures and the complaint process. THIS STEP IS OPTIONAL. C. How does a person make a comDlaint? To make a complaint, the person complaining (the "Complainant") must first write down: a) the name of the person the Complainant is com- plaining about (the "Respondent"); b) what the Respondent did that the Complainant believes was unethical; and c) a statement that the Complainant believes the complaint' is true and not frivolous. The written complaint must be specific enough and understandable enough to enable the Commission to make a reasonable investigation. 2. The Complainant must then sign the complaint, print his or her name under the signature, and give an address and telephone number where the Commission can contact him or her. 3. 'The Complainant must then bring or mail the~ com- plaint to the Roseville city Council, 2660 civic Center Drive, Rosevitle~ MN 55113. The Commission will not act on anonymous complaints, ekcept, if an anonymous complaint accuses someone of a crime, the Commission will refer the complaint to the Roseville Police Chief. iV. How The Commission Responds to a Complaint Notice to the Respondent and the Complainant 1. As soon as the Commission receives a complaint, the Commission: a) will notify the Complainant in writing that the Commission has received the complaint and will give the Complainant a copy of these procedures; and b) will notify the Respondent in writing of the complaint and will give the Respondent a copy of these procedures and a copy of the complaint. 2 -8392- The Commission will give both the Complainant and Respondent a copy of: a) any reco~unendation the Commission makes to the City Council concerning the complaint; and b) any supporting reasons the Commission gives to the Council to explain the Commission's recom- mendation. The Commission's first decision--whether to ~o forward with the comDlaint As soon as possible, but in any event within fourteen (14) calendar days after receivinq a complaint, the Commission will meet t~ consider: a) b) whether the Respondent. or Respondents named.in the complaint are among the officials the Com- mission has the responsibility to investigate; whether the behavior described in the complaint would, if true, be a violation of the Code of Ethics; and c) whether the complaint itself meets the require- ments of Section Iii of these procedures. The C~mmission will not dismiss a complaint for being vague or lacking specifics without first explaining its concern to the Complainant, and asking the Complainant to clarify the complaint. Otherwise the Commission will ordinarily make the decision based on th'e written complaint and will not receive oral testimony or other information from the Comptainaht or Respondent, The Commission meeting is, however, open to the public, including the ~omplainant and Respondent. If the answer to one or more of these questions is "no" the Commission will recommend that the City Council dismiss the complaint and will explain, in writing, its reasons for the recommendation. The Commission will send or give both the Complainant and Respondent a copy of the Commission's recommendations and reasons. Through one or more of its members, the Commission will present its recommendation and reasons at a Council meeting. If the answer to all four of the questions is "yes" the Commission will consider the complaint further, as explained in Section IV - C of these procedures. -8393- C o The Commission's further handlinq of the ~omDlaint ~' 1- When the Commission further considers a complaint, the Commission may take any of the following actions: a) meet to discuss the complaint; b) request a written response from the Respondent; c) request further written information from the Complainant or Respondent; d) request written information from "third parties" (that is--people or organizations other than the Complainant and Respondent);. e) authorize one of its members to communicate with the Complainant, the Respondent, or third par~ ties; f) ~hold a public hearing with witnesses testifying under oath. If the Commission has budgeted funds available, the Commission may retain private investigators, special counsel, or other experts to assist with the investigation or other consideration of a complaint. D. The Commission's recommendation to the City Council When the Commission finishes its further consideration of a complaint the Commission will, in writing: recommend to the Council, what the Council should do with the complaint; and give' ~he Commission's reasons for the recommenda- tion. ..i" The Commission will send or give a copy of its recommendation and reasons to the Complainant and Respondent. Through one or more of its members, the Commission will present the recommendation and reasons at a Council meeting. Referral for Criminal Investicatio~ If at anytime during the handling of a signed complaint, the Commission has reason to believe that an official the Commission has the responsibility to investigate may have committed a criminal offense, then the Commission will refer the matter to the appropriate authority for investigation. 4 -8394- VI. VII. Until the end of that investigation and any resulting Dro~ecuqlon, %he eommlss~on will %aka no fur%hat acqlon on the complaint. At the end of that investigation and any resulting prosecution, the Commission will again consider the complaint. Procedures For Commission Meetinqs A. Meetinqs The Chair or two members of the Commission may schedule a meeting on reasonable advance notice to other members of the Commission. B. Quorum A quorum is two members of the Commission. C. Member participation by telephone A member may participate in a meeting by telephone and may vote by telephone, but may not be counted toward the quorum. D. Open meetinq rec[uirements Ail meetings of the Commission will be open to the public unless: a) State statute permits a meeting to be closed; and b) the Commission, by majority vote, decides to meet in Executive Session, 2. If the Commission does hold an Executive Session, the Commission will either tape record the session 9r arrange for verbatim minutes. Public Nature of Information The Commission will treat as public data all written information received, considered, or generated by the Commission except when the Commission receives a written legal opinion from its attorney, stating that particular information or types of information are not public. 5 Adopted June 4, 1991 Revised February 14, 1992 Revised July 23, 1993 Revised September 14, 1993 -8395- -8396- -8397- CITY OF BLAINE CODE OF ETHICS INFORMATION Ethical standards are essential to the public affairs of the City. The purpose of the Code of Ethics is to establish ethical standards of conduct for City officials by setting forth those acts or actions that are incompatible with the best interests of the City and by directing disclosure by such officials of private, financial, Or other interests in matters affecting the City. By doing this, the Council hopes to promote the faith and confidence of the citizens of the City in their government. The following information is disclosed in compliance with the City of Blaine Code of Ethics adopted on August 2, 1979, and is applicable to all members of the City Council, Charter Commission, all advisory and committee members and top level City employees defined as the City Manager, City Attorney, and supervisory City employees, specifically Director of Public Works, Police Chief, Director of Community Services, Director of Administrative Se[vices, City Clerk, Director of Community Development, and Building Official. REAL'PROPERTY OWNED IN THE CITY OF BLAINE List all real property owned or being purchased I~y the Councilmember, Commissioner, or covered City emEIoyee, spouse, or minor child, or in which he has a legal or equitable title. The actual value of any property is not required. Include homestead property. prooertv_ Location. Owner of Property ASSETS. Identify ali ownership or interests in corporation or other business enterprises or agencies doing busine~ with the City of Blaine. Name of Organization: (Additional information requested on other side) -8398- AFFILIATIONS Corporations, proprietorships, partnerships, labor unions, or associations with organizations doing business with the City of Blaine with which Councilrnember, Commissioner, or covered City employee has an affiliation as officer, director, proprietor, partner, or employee (including such position held by spouse). Name of Or,qanization Position Held compensation Involved Yes or No Signature Title Date Received and filed in the Office of the City Clerk this day of ,19 Joyce Twistol, CMC, City Clerk -8399- 105.00 (amended 12/13/93, 'Section 105 - Code of Ethics O. rd. 93-667) confirms its determination that ethical standards amon~i~ members, as well as the members of the various commissions of the City of Minnetonka, are essential to .the public affairs of the City.. The standards of conduct herein set forth are intended to serve as a guideline for the members of the City Council and the commissioners in carrying out their duties. By eliminating conflicts of interest and providing a guide for conduct in City matters, the City Council hopes to promote the faith and .con- fidence of the citizens of Minnetonka in their government, and to encourage its citizens to serve on its Council and commissions. · 105.05. Standards of Conduct. 1. No Council member or member 'of any board or commission, shall use such position to secure special privileges or exemptions for such person or others. 2. Except as permitted by law, a Council member or members of a board or commission, must disclose a potential conflict of interest for the public-record and refrain from'participating in the discussion and vote, when a matter comes before that person which: a. Affects the pers'6n's financial interests or those of a business with which the person is associated, un- less the effect on the person or business i.s no greater than on other members of the same business classification, profession or oc6upation, or b. Affects the financial interests of "an organization in which the person participates as 'a m~e~ of the governing body, unless the person serves in that capaci, ty as the City's representative. · 3. No' Council member or member of a board.· or commission shall act as an agent or attorney for another in any matter before the City Council or .any board or commis- sion in which a conflict of interest exists o~ may exist. No Council member or member of any board or commission shall knowingly receive, accept, take, seek,' or solicit, directly or indirectly, any gift or loan for himself, herself, or another which is prohibited by state law (Minn. Stat. 471..895). (amended 8/8/94, Ord. 94-690) - 15 - -8400- 105.05 ae ~o Council member or mem~-'of any'board or commission may solicit or accept, and no person may offer or pay to a public official or employee, compensation or reimbursement for expenses for the performance of the persons' public duties, except: Compensation and expenses paid by the City· Compensation and expenses from other employment, if the outside employment does not interfere with, influence, or compromise the person's public position, and c. Compensation'and expenses' paid by another governmental agency or municipal, association to a Council member or member of a board or commission who serves as. a City representative on or for that agency, but .only if the City does not also pay the person for ~the same activity. No Council member or member of any board or commission may use public money, time, personnel, facilities, or equipment for private gain or political campaign activities except when: a. the use is required or authorized by law, or b. the use is no greater than that allowed for members of the general Public. This paragraph does not prohibit correspondence at any time to individual residents in response to the - 16 - -8401- 105.10 resident's specific inquiries, or general surveys of residents which are conducted before the time of filing for candidacy for elected office on the Council. e No Council member or member of a board or commission may disclose to the public, or use for the private gain of self or others, information which was gained by reason of the official's public position and which is not public data. ,Further, no Council member or member of a board or commissionmaydisclose information received, discussed, or decided in conference with the Council's or board's attorney which is protected by the attorney/client privilege, unless a majority of the Council or board has authorized that disclosure· No Council member or member of any board or commission shall enter into any contract with the City of Minnetonk~, unles, s authorized by law. 'Any Council member or member of a board or commission who has a proprietary interest of 10 percent or more in an agency doing business with the City shall make known that interest in writing to the City Council and the City Clerk. 105.10. Disclosures. Within 30 days after taking the oath of office or being appointed to a position, each Council member and member of a City board or commission shall file a report with the City Clerk on a form prepared by the clerk, which contains the information specified below for the preceding year. Thereafter, each person shall file a supplemental report on the first day of February of every year and Within 30 days after any change in information provided under paragraph '5. The information shall be for the individual, the individual's spouse, and all minor children (collectively referred to below as "person"). 1. Any business entity in which the..personis, an.officer, director, member, or employee, and the position held. 2. Any business .entity in which the person has an ownership interest, ei'ther legal or equitable, g~eater than 5%. Ail sources of income, compensation, fees, or commissions which are received from employment, for services rendered, or from pensions, except the-employment of minor children. Ail non-profit organizations in which the person serves on the gOverning body, and the position held, except if serving in that capacity as the City's representative. Ail real property within the City owned by the person or in which the person has a beneficial interest and which has an assessed valution in excess of $10,000. The person's homestead need not be included. The .term "business entity" includes any business, pro- prietorship, firm,, partnership, person.in representative or fiduciary capacity, association, venture, trust or corporation. - 17 - -8402- · ' 105.15 105.15. Hearing. Upon the written complaint of any perso~ questioning adherence to these principles or alleging a conflict of . interest or failure to file a required disclosure statement, or on the Council's own volition, the Council may hold a hearing thereon at which the person so accused shall have opportunity to be heard. A hearing shall be held only if the City Council determines (1) upon advise of the City Attorney, designee or other attorney appointed by the Council, that the allegations rise to the level of a violation of these principles or to the level of a legally- recognized conflict of interest, and (2) that the complaint has been lodged in good faith and not for impermissible purposes such as delay. If after the hearing, the Council finds that a conflict of interest, failure to file a required disclosure, or violation of these principles does exist as herein defined, the Council may take whatever action it deems appropriate including but not limited to referring the matter 'for criminal prosecution, imposing a civil penalty not exceeding $2,000 per violation, directing an official not to'participate in a decision, or removing an appointed member of an advisory board or commission from office. - 18 - -8403- Jul 18 2881 1G'.51:55 gia )'ax -> ~andis Hanson Page 882 DE 88Z AMM FAX lie July 9-13, 2001 II 2001 Legislature Reorganizes Transportation Advisory' Board (TAB) Association Hetropolitan Hunicipalitie The Omnibus Transportation Bill, passed during the recent special session, included an amendment that statutorily defines the member- ship of the TAB. Prior to the legisla- tion, which took effect July 2001, TAB membership was governed by the TAB by-laws. Under the new law, the AMM will di- rectly appoint ten members, rather than nominating ten members who are then confirmed by the Metropoli- tan Council. Of the ten members, one must now be from Minneapolis and one must be from St. Paul. A -- the Commissioner of Transporta- tion now appoints the freight indus- try representative, who was formerly appointed by the Metropolitan Coun- cil; and -- the TAB chair must now be cho- sen by the Metropolitan Council from among the TAB membership. The appointing authorities will shortly take action regarding TAB member- ship. The new law could require the Metropolitan Council to appoint a new chair since the current chair, Dorm Wiski, does not represent an identi- fied membership position. MCES Announces 2002 Wastewater Rates After three years of rate reductions, the Metropolitan Council's Environmental Services Division (MCES) is proposing a 4.2 percent increase in wastewa- ter rates for 2002, This would mean an increase from $118 to $123 per hundred thousand gallons. MCES considered three different rate levels for simiiaf'Pr0~S~ was used te appoint 2002, The $i23 ratethey are proposing repres&ht§ the middle range of the county commissioners, but, under three considered, and will allow MCES to meet their proposed 2002 budget the new law, county commissioners without drawing from-their reserves. will now be directly appointed by their respective county boards. Other changes from current prac- tice include: Furthermore, the proposed budget for 2002 projects annual rate increases of 2.4 percent for 2003 and 2004 and 2.3 percent for 2005 and 2006. This would mean a return to the 1998 rate of $135 by the year 2006. -- the Metropolitan Council now ap- , points one of its members as a TAB member; AMM News Fax is faxed to all AMM cl~y managers and admtnlsrrawr~, legislative contacts and Board members. Please share tkts ftt. z wlth your mtryors, counclimembers and staff to keep them abreast of Impor- tant metro city l~uer. 145 Univenity A~enue FFmt ~ Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 Far: (65l) 281-1299 E. mail: atnet~mm145.org Legislative Summaries Available Online Several summaries regarding legislation enacted during the 2001 Ses- sion are now available on the AMM web-site (www. amm 145.or.q). Sum- maries related to housing and economic development, the Metropolitan Council and property tax ref0rrn are currently available. Additional sum- maries, including transportation and the other major aspects of the tax bill, will be added within the next few days. Meanwhile, information regarding local government aids is posted on the League of Minnesota Cities web site (www.imnc.or.a). The information listed was updated July 3 and differs from a previous list. -8404- AMM FAX NEWS July 9-13, 2001 (no. 2) Association of Flctr0p01itan Hunicipalities Attention LCDA-Grantees Metropolitan Council Considering Set Aside for Livable Communities Demonstration Account Projects Impacted by Legislative Changes At its July 11 meeting, the Met- ropolitan Council discussed the impacts of property tax reform on projects funded through the Livable Communities Demonstration Ac- count (LCDA). Councit staff recentty sent a lot- tar to all LCDA grantees request- lng that [hey identify any LCDA- funded projects that are in a tax in- crement financing (TIF) district, commit[ed and ready to menu construction within the ncxt twelve months and are at risk due to the recent property tax reform. Grantees with projects that met these criteria were asked to docu- ment the date construction is sctleduled to begin, the financial AMM News Fa~is fi~ed manager3' arid adt~dtd.~trato~, l~gis~th,~ rnnlact.~ and Board ~e~. Please sha~ th~ f~ with your t~, ~uncll~rs nnd ~t~ to kee~ them a~t of lant t~t~ c~ P~one: (6~1) 215-4000 Faxr (6~0 ~1-1299 E-~ll: a~t~n 145. o~ gap resulting from the tax law changes on TIF and the amm]nt of additional assistance needed to address the shortfall dire. ctly caused by tax reform. As of July 11, Met CouncJI staff had only identified three projects that appear to fit these criteria: Park Commons in St. LouiR ParR, Heart of the City in Burnsville, and The Vi'llage in Brooklyn Park. However, because the infc~rma. tion requests went out over the Fourth of July holiday and the re- sponse time was so brief, the Council decided to extend the deadline to July 19, 2001. Therefore, if you have any questions regarding the re- questts or are not sure if you have a qualifying project please call Joanne Barron of the Metropolitan Council at 661-$02-1385. The Metropolitan Council is con- sidering the following steps to as- sist qualifying LCDA grantees: evaluating the submitted projects in the current LCDA funding cycle, in the context of property tax reform impacts on the projects' ability to move tc~ con- struction; setting aside up to one third of the $6.5 million available in the current LCDA funding round far the impaCted Proje~s; awarding grants to impamed projects earlier than other awards in the current LCDA fund- ing round, if necessan/to fill gaps caused by property tax reform. The early award is contingent upon approval ct the t. ivable Communities Advisory Council and the Metropolitan Council. Grant awards are schedt]led to be made by the end of this year. Z66 JO Z66 a6~& uosu~H slpu~ -8405- <_ xej OTA 66:ZS:ZT lggg ZT IW Loo/ein g Be~ nd Numbers. ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 -8406- ABD0 EICK & M]EYERS LLP Cert~f~l Publtc Accountants & Consultants Dear Client/Friend: As you probably know, Congress recently passed a major tax bill. Although many of its provisions won't go into effect for several years, most individuals will see at least some income tax benefits this year. These include a new 10% bracket, an across-the-board one-point cut on July 1 in each of the current tax brackets above the 15% bracket, modest relief from the alternative minimum tax (AMT), and a higher child credit. Here is a brief overview of these tax changes. New 10% bracket. The Act carves a new 10% bracket out of part of the current 15% bracket. Specifically, the first $6,000 of taxable income for singles and married taxpayers filing separately, $10,000 for heads of household, and $12,000 for married persons filing joint returns, will be taxed at 10%. Individuals will get the benefit from the new bracket for 2001 in the form of checks from the federal government of up to $300 for a single person or married individual filing separately, up to $500 for a head of household such as a single parent, and up to $600 for a married couple. Individuals who are eligible to be claimed as dependents on another taxpayer's return (such as a dependent child) and nonresident aliens won't get a check. IRS officials expect to start cutting checks (called "advance refund checks") in August at a rate of about nine million a week, based on 2000 income tax returns. The Act instructs the Treasury to send the advance refund checks by Oct. 1, but' people who filed late or got filing extensions may get their checks later. The payments will be made in numerical order based on the laSt two digits of the lead Social Security number on the tax return. Those eligible individuals who filed no tax return for 2000 or owed no tax will benefit from the 10% bracket when they file their 2001 tax return - they'll get a credit of up to $300, $500, or $600, depending on filing status. One-point across-the-board tax-rate cut. As the first installment of the individual income tax rate cuts that will unfold over the next five years, the "old" income tax rates of 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6% will each be reduced by one percentage point, effective July 1 of this year, resulting in blended tax rates for all of 2001 of 27.5%, 30.5%, 35.5% and 39.1%, respectively. The 15% rate, however, will remain unchanged. In the near future, the Treasury Department will notify employers of new withholding schedules, which will be adjusted to reflect the initial one- percentage-point reduction in tax rates. The lower marginal rates should result in slightly bigger paychecks as the amount withheld for taxes is reduced. -8407- Modest AMT relief. The Act provides only limited, temporary alternative minimum tax (AMT) relief for individuals. To find out if you owe AMT, you start with regular taxable income, modify it with various adjustments and preferences (such as addbacks for property and income taxes and dependency exemptions), and then subtract an exemption amount. The result is subject to an AMT tax rate of 26% or 28%. You pay the AMT only if it exceeds your regular tax bill. For 2001, the Act increases the AMT exemption amount by $4,000 for married taxpayers filing joint returns, and by $2,000 for other individuals. However, the AMT exemption amount phases out at higher levels of income, and the boosted exemption will only remain in place through 2004. Many taxpayers, particularly those residing in states with high income and/or property taxes, will not receive the full benefit of the new tax cuts and instead will have to pay the AMT unless Congress enacts additional AMT relief. Thus, it is still necessary to plan how to avoid or at least reduce the AMT. Higher child credit. Parents of dependent children younger than 17 may claim a tax credit per child, if parental income doesn't exceed certain dollar limits. (A tax credit reduces your tax bill dollar for dollar, as opposed to a deduction, which reduces the amount of your income subject to taxation.) Under the 2001 Act, the maximum credit per child increases from $500 to $600 for 2001, meaning that eligible taxpayers will be able to claim the additional $100 credit on their 2001 returns filed next year. In later years the credit gradually climbs until it reaches $1,000 in 2010. Looking down the road. Much of the $1.35 trillion tax cut in the 2001 Act will take longer to materialize. Many of the larger tax cuts in the Act don't kick in until 2002 or later. Some new tax breaks phase in over the next decade, while some current rules phase out over that period, creating tax-planning challenges for everyone. If you would like to discuss how the Act may affect your individual tax and financial planning situation, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP Certified Public Accountants -8408- Department of Revenue Property Tax Division Mail Station 3340 Phone (651) 296-3 I55 st. Paul, MN 55146-3340 Fax (651) 297-2166 July 6, 2001 To: School District Superintendents, ,City Finance Officials of Cities over 500 Population, and Metro Special TaXing DistPiets Re: Truth in Taxation Law Changes for Payable 2002 Special Session Laws 2001, Chapter 5, Article 3, Sections 91 and 96 provide the following changes for Truth in Taxation for levy year 2001, taxes payable in 2002: Due to the late enactment of the Omnibus Tax Bill and the massive changes in the property tax system for the taxes payable year 2002, ~,publi~ gs~m:2OOt~:~for~taxe~p'~iyailte~m~2OO2/are~not~m~d. YOu do not need to publish or post a notice of a public hearing, nor do you need to hold a public Truth in Taxation hearing this year. These hearings will once again be required for taxes payable in 2003 and subsequent years. The elimination of the requirement to hold a Truth in Taxation public hearing in 2001 does not prohibit a taxing authority ~om holding a Truth in Taxation hearing if it wants to. If your taxing authority chooses to hold a Truth in Taxation hearing this year, you should follow the normal procedures for publication/posting of a notice of a Truth in Taxation public hearing and the normal procedures for discussion of the proposed budget for payable 2002 (2001 budget in the case of school districts) and proposed property tax levy for payable 2002. You should not submit a Form TNT-2002, "Certification of Truth in Taxation - Payable 2002" to the Department of Revenue. Since Truth in Taxation hearings are not required this year, there is no reason to complete and submit this form. You may toss the Form TNT-2002 that you previously received from our office. Your taxing authority must still submit its proposed property tax levy for payable 2002 to the county auditor by September 17, 2002 (October 1 for school districts). The county auditor still needs this information to prepare parcel specific notices of proposed property taxes for each parcel of real property for the taxes paYable year 2002. Continued... equal opportunity employer -8409- TTY/TDD: (65I) 297-2196 The Truth in Taxation parcel specific notices for payable 2002 have been simplified. Only one column of tax information for each taxing authority will.be shown on this notice. This will be the proposed property taxes of each taxing authority for payable 2002. The notice will also show the new state general tax for payable 2002, as well as the actual total tax for payable 2001 and 2002 and the percent change in the total tax. For school districts, the mandated school levy line wffi show a zero levy due to the state takeover of the funding of this levy requirement through an expanded school aid program. The parcel specific notice Will 'alSo show the t~lephone numbers: of each taxing authority in case the property owner/taxpayer has qUestionS concerning the proposed property taxes for payable 2002 shown on the notice. The parcel specific notices are to be mailed on or before December 14, 2~01. The Commissioner of Revenue is granted authority to modify the contents of the parcel specific notice as necessary. Based on information supplied by a particular county, and at the request of the county bOard, the Commissioner of Revenue may waive the requirement ' for parcel specific notices Or modify the form of the notices for a specific connty. · The tax rate increase hgarings and resolutions law' (M.S. 275.078) is repealed effective for levy year 2001, taxes payable2002, and Subsequent years. County auditors do not have to certify a levy certification tax rate to the county board and to each city over '500 population this year. In addition, county boards and cities over 500 population no longer have to hold hearings on a levy certification tax rate increase and adopt resolutions approving a levy certification tax rate increase. However, there is a new requirement for the published Truth in Taxation notices for counties and for cities over 2,500 . popUlation for payable 2003 andsubsequent years that replaces the tax rate increase hearings and resolutions law. Ifyo'u have any questions conceming this-letter, please feel free t° contact me.. Sincerely, Richard B. Gardner Research Analyst Supervisor Senior 2 -8410- tive Oha The 2001 Minnesota Legislature has finally adjourned for the year. Unprecedented tax "reform" was the comerstone of the .extended session. What does it mean to cities? How will the nge new law impact budgets, tax rates and new and existing tax increment districts? The fact is nobody knows for sure right now. Ehlers & Associates is committed to assisting our clients in responding to these and other questions as soon as key information is available to preparing projections. Ehlers will publish updates as information becomes available. For now, here are some facts regarding some key issues relating to this historical legislation: Media reports have indicated that there will be a significant reduction in property taxes. How much of a reduction will our residents and businesses realize in property taxes? Several key pieces of information will need to be calculated at the state and county level before estimates can be made including: · Calculation of the revised net tax capacity with tax jurisdictions and statewide. · Calculation of statewide and local tax rates. · The statewide education property tax rate are to be calculated by the state. (This replaces the local education property tax but not local debt or referendum levies.) · Cities and counties will develop levy 2002 requests factoring loss of LGA and HACA credits, .: · Factoring fiscal disparities calculations into local levies. Once this information is available it will be possible to make some estimates regarding property tax rates and impacts. Q. When will this information be available? The speculation is most information should be available by late July to early August. Local tax levy information will not be ready until late December. Is it safe to assume most property owners will experience a reduction in the taxes they will pay in 2002? No. Several key factors will influence the local impact of the property taxes and may vary among cities. These factors include: · The current mix of owner occupied and rental housing, commercial/industrial/public utility, seasonal recreational commercial, seasonal recreational residential, and agricultural property. · The~eviSed :fiscal disparitiesrate~,~! ~:, ., · The state education tax rate. · Reductions in state LGA and HACA. · The cities/counties levy amount. . · - EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC - 8411 - LEADERS IN PUB LIC F NAN CE 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, R osevitle, MN 55113-1105 651.697.8500 fax 651.697.8555 www.ehlers-inc.corn Offices in Roseville, MN, Brookfield, WI and Napervitte, IL Ao Qe Qe Qe Ao The varying reduction of class rates within municipalities creates significant uncertainty regarding the impact of the shift in tax impact.of property classes. Will tax increment projections be.adjUsted by the exact, amount of reduction in class rates? '~':' :' ~.'~ .... ':i.-. -,, ..... , · ~. ~ : No. It is likely that tax rates will increase in many cities and counties. These new rates applied to the revised class rates. These adjustments will vary depending on the tax capacity values and the effect of LGA and HACA adjustments. Will it be necessary to amend development agreements for developments in progress to reflect these new changes? An assessment of the impact of developments must be made on an individual basis. And again that can only be accomplished once information is available from the State and counties to calculate new TIF projections. Once the increment can be projected a review of the project pro-formas should be undertaken because the new taxes may impact critical aspects of the projects financial projections. Were there any significant changes in TIF laws that would impact our current or future TIF projects? Our initial review indicates that several changes have been made to clarify the existing laws, however the major changes being discussed were not implemented. More information will be made available in a future update. If the tax changes result in shortfalls in increment revenues required to pay city debt costs, will the state make up the difference? The law does provide for some assistance in limited circumstances. However, it will be several months before we know the impact on existing TIF district. Once this information is available you may want to contact Ehters for help on how to apply for state assistance. How can I get a copy of the new class rates? The new class rates (as well as the tax bill) is available on line from the State Legislative web site at http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/legis.htm. You may also contact the Ehlers web site at www. ehlers-inc.com or call us at 561-697-8500. The general expectation is that property tax bills will be reduced. Yet, it is possible that some classes of taxpayers may not see a drop it taxes as projeeted in the media and quite possibly see increases. Is this true and if so what should we be doing to prepare for these impacts? - 8412- Qe Yes, we believe that some taxpayers may not realize reductions and actually see increases in their tax bill as a result of the new law. It is not too early to begin to plan for dealing with this issue. Our suggestions include the following: .~Prepare a communications plan' for6casting the:potential impact of the:tax :'bill'on~your residents and businesses. Public discussion of these issues will lay the groUnd :work for future actions. State mandated "Truth In Taxation" public hearings will not be required and parcel specific tax impact estimates will not be available .this Year. Side by side comparisons of sample tax bills with and without the legislative changes may by a useful. Develop a long term financial plan. In addition to providing a wide variety of services cities must constantly reinvest in their infrastructure including roads, public facilities, parks, utility systems and economic base. A plan which forecasts and schedules these expenditures is a critical element to assuring that resources are available to meet future needs. Develop options to current level of services. Knowing the trade-offs between taxes and services improves the quality of the decision making. Communicate with your legislators. Make sure you provide an opportunity for your legislator to describe the intent of the new tax bill. In turn, once the tax impact is known, discuss their ramifications for your community. When will We know what our projected 2002 state aids will be? The Commissioner of Revenue is required to certify state aid payable amounts by September 1 ~. In the meantime, the League of Minnesota Cities has provided an estimate of next year's state aids as calculated by Legislative staff. It can be found at www. lmc.org. Are levy limits back in place? Yes. The Commissioner of Revenue is required to make all the levy limit calculations and notify the local government by September 1 ~t. Local governments will be required to report certain levy information to the Commissioner of Revenue by July 20th. Some special levies that have been added include levies for increases in employer contributions to PERA that are effective after June 30, 2001. Some special levies that have been eliminated include levies for unreimbursed costs due to the 1997 floods and abatements due to the 1997 floods and the 1998 tornadoes. *Please visit.our website at www.ehlers-inc.com for further uPd ites 'S they b'ec6me,availablei · , ' ~ , ~ . ' ~i':' .. '" "~'!':'~Y':! ~ - 8413- Mediaco 2381 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 Phone: (952) 472-6764 Fax: (952) 472-7153 biensen~mediacomcc.com June 28, 2001 Mayor Pat Meisel City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road MOund, MN 55364-1627 Dear Mayor Meisel: I am writing to provide notification of Mediacom's plan to migrate our premium and pay-per-view channel offerings to the Digital Platform effective July 26th, 2001. Only customers with a digital converter box will be able to view and/or purchase premium offerings such as HBO, Cinemax, The Movie Channel, etc. The same migration will occur for our Pay Per View offerings as well. ~. This migration will enable Mediacom to achieve the following results: 1. Place premium and pay per view channels onto the digital platform, improving both picture and sound quality. 2. Prevent unauthorized reception of premium and pay per view services (this costs our industry over $6 billion annually in lost revenues!). 3. Increase franchise fee and PEG Access revenues to cities due to tighter security "encryption" of premium and pay per view services. 4. Enables Mediacom to remove thousands of line filters/traps which are either ineffective or causing picture/audio distortion for our customers on adjacent cable television channels. 5. Provide more channels, more choices as well as interactive, on-screen navigation of our TV Guide listings. Hence, a better ~d mor~ competitively pri~ed product forour customers. 6. Utilize our newly constructed HFC broadband network to deliver additional services to our customers, a key goal of Mediacom's business plan. The real winners are our customers! Our customers will be notified of this change via newspaper notices, telemarketing, as well as a direct mailing to their address of record. Additionally, "subscribing" premium households will be visited by a Mediacom Digital Sales Representative advising of this change. This change has proven to be very popular with our customers in other areas and is becoming the standard practice of other providers as well. General Manager - 8414- MANKATO IVIANTORVILLE MAPLE GROVE MAPLE LAKE MAPLE PLAIN MAPLETON MAPLEVlEW MAPLEWOOD MARBLE MARIETTA MARINE ON SAINT CROIX MARSHALL MAYER MAYNARD MAZEPPA MCGRATH MCGREGOR MCINTOSH MCKINLEY MEADOWLANDS MEDFORD MEDICINE LAKE MEDINA MEIRE GROVE MELROSE MENAHGA MENDOTA MENDOTA HEIGHTS MENTOR MIDDLE RIVER MIESVILLE ' MILACA MILAN MILLERVILLE MILLVILLE MILROY MILTONA MINN CITY MINN LAKE MINNEAPOLIS MINNEISKA MINNEOTA MINNETONKA MINNETONKA BEACH MINNETPJSTA MIZPAH MONTEVIDEO MONTGOMERY MON'RCELLO MONTROSE MOORHEAD MOOSE LAKE MORGAN MORRIS MORRISTOWN MORTON MOTLEY MOUNDS VIEW MT IRON MT LAKE MURDOCK NASHUA NASHWAUK NASSAU NELSON NERSTRAND 2001 LGA 2001 2002 LGA HACA before reductJon~ for state costs) 5,804,186 1,852,852 9,313,176 149,547 69,149 199,114 179,873 2,149,318 179,873 190,131 78,289 292,093 117,649 151,400 206,628 246.573 108.950 378.973 62.608 9.537 70.785 753.593 1.599.169 717.737 265.004 62.599 315.328 63.860 12.071 72.288 805 47.338 805 1.661.638 533.578 2.545.065 31.222 17.361 28.453 114.212 18.708 146.895 94,189 57,112 138,803 2,123 1,127 2,515 73,556 20,838 92,862 132,814 34,288 172,351 71,415 17,243 76,417 16,063 6,526 16,236 108,443 55,569 136,836 0 15,842 0 4,601 221,925 4,601 7,577 7,074 8,377 581,541 109,428 785,851 206,030 58,397 297.806 6,832 24,612 5,555 13,309 464,720 13,309 10,548 3,820 17,003 35,588 2,037 51,813 165 1,913 165 460,359 91,014 588,912 87,023 30,871 115~087 876 119 1,176 9,758 1,907 16,120 41,028 30,270 58,458 13,106 16,074 14,305 18,330 13,967 26,006 164,327 77,247 197,756 78,378,883 30,527,612 111,629,157 7,430 3,860 8,409 282,487 82,722 411,234 63,180 2,100,830 63,180 695 69,471 695 4.844 280.109 4,844 3.273 1.107 4.235 1.259.040 319.226 1.678.388 475.264 214.746 666.044 8.172 308.047 8.172 103.998 55.645 179.277 5.093.627 897.214 8.255.519 264.413 67.260 371.317 496.282 70.631 666.299 263.402 109.307 353.092 1.217.262 285.859 1.719.021 120.848 44.384 168.642 99.833 31.200 133.890 72.521 17.963 99.343 34.~.484 .50~6 29~6 761.467 389.235 77'3.405 324,475 184,625 511,521 507,085 149,274 719,319 59,077 14,543 79,389 6,656 1,571 9,499 401 1,888 401 488,197 129,049 577,554 8,505 1,988 9,877 10,040 2,531 15,542 26,721 12,750 27,062 -8415- Minnesota Lawful Qambling Government Ac, knowled lment Form - LGS03 Use of This Form 1. If an organization wishes to contribute gambling funds to a unit of government, the organization and unit of government must complete this form. 2. Approval of the Gambling Control Board is not required. 3. The form must be kept on file by the licensed organi- zation. 4. Attach a copy of this form to your Schedule C report for the month in which the funds are spent. Organization Information Organization CHAMBERLAIN-GOUDY VFW POST 5113 Certain Contributions Prohibited Minnesota Statutes, section 349.12, subdivision 25(b)(6), prohibits 'a contribution to a statutory or home rule or charter city, county, or town by a licensed organization with the knowledge that the governmental unit intends to use the contribution for a pension or retirement fund." Minnesota Rules, part 7881.0120, subpart 5D(10), prohibits "any c, ontdbution or expenditure to the extent that it results in any net monetary gain or other pecuniary benefit to the organization making the contribution or expenditure." Phone Number License Number (952) 472-1621 MN A-OO469 Address City State Zip 2544 COMMERCE BLVD MOUND MN 55364 We are aware of the restric;tions contained in Minnesota Statutes, section 349.12, subdivision 25(b)(6)i and Minnesota R~861.0120,~part 5..D.f~0). Signature of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) WILLIAM ANDERSON Print Name Government Information ......... I Name ~f ~ov~mr~ent ...................... Phone Humber iCITY OF MOUND (952) 472-6000 Address ...... C~ ..... State Zip 5341 MAYWOOD RD MOUND MN 55364 Check type of government: [] State of Minnesota, Department of ~ United Stmes. Department of. F'-] Other Government Entity - specify: Amount of lawful purpose contn~3ution m~eiYed: --]School Diltrict No. of , Division of Division of 200.00 We are aware of the restrk~tions ~ontained i~ Minnesota Statutes, section 349.12, subdivision 25(b)(6); and M~nnesota Rules, part 7861.0120, subpart 5D(10). $igrmtum of Government Agent Print Name This fon~ will be made available in alternative format (La. large p~int, B~llle) upon requent. If)mu u~e n TTY, you ~an call us by using the Minnesota Relay Service at 1-800-627-3529 and ask to place a call to 651-639-4000. Title../ ' Date The information requested on thb form will become public infom~- lion when received by the Board, and will be um~cl to determine your compliance with Minnesota statute- ~nd rules governing law- ful g-tabling activities. (9/97) -8416- LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 4071 SUNSET DRIVE · RO. BOX 385 · SPRING PARK, MN 55384-0385 · 952.471-7125 · FAX 952.471-9151 July 16, 2001 DEEPHAVEN EXCELSIOR GREENWOOD INDEPENDENCE Gino Businaro City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 LONG LAKE LORETrO MEDINA MINNETONKA BEACH MINNETRISTA Dear Mr. Businaro and the City of Mound: Thank you for the most recent payment of the studio usage fee. Enclosed is the studio usage report prepared by Jim Lundberg. If you have any questions please phone Jim or me and we will be happy to clarify any of the information. The Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission appreciates the opportunity to work with Mound residents and the City of Mound in the production of local programming. ORONO ST. BONIFACIUS SHOREWOOD SPRING PARK Sincerely, Sally Koenecke Administrator TONKA BAY VICTORIA WOODLAND -841 7- Mound Usage Report 6/30/01 Prepared by Jim Lundberg Pro&rams Produced by Mound Producers Mound Westonka Mound Westonka Mound Westonka Mound Westonka Mound Westonka Mound Westonka Mound Westonka School Board Meeting-2:00-Jacob Gardner-11/00 School Board Meeting-2:00-Jacob Gardner-12/00 School Board Meeting-2:00-Jacob Gardner-01/01 School Board Meeting-2:00-Jacob Gardner-02/01 School Board Meeting-2:00-Jacob Gardner-03/01 School Board Meeting-2:00-Jacob Gardner-04/01 School Board Meeting-2:00-Jacob Gardner-05/01 Mound Westonka School Board Meeting-2:00-Jacob Gardner-06/01 Lake Minnetonka Association An Interview With Dick Osgood The Right Price':30-Val Hessburg & Westonka Schools-3/01 The Right Price-:40-Val Hessburg & Westonka Schools-6/01 Westonka Historical Society: Mysteries & Legends Of Lake Minnetonka- Lavonne Adams6 / 01 Neal Perbix: Video Slide Show: 16:00- 2/01 Neal Perbix: Video Slide Show: 7:00- 3/01 Neal Perbix: Video Slide Show: 3:00- 6/01 Mound Westonka Video Yearbook- Jan-4:00 Mound Westonka Mound Westonka Mound Westonka Mound Westonka Mound Westonka Video Yearbook-Feb-8:00 Video Yearbook-March-9:00 Video Yearbook-April- 19:00 Video Yearbook-June-24:00 Video Yearbook-July- 18:00 Programs Produced for Mound Organizations Mount Olive Lutheran Hour-l:00-11/00-4 total programs fm Hovember Mount Olive Lutheran Hour-1:00-12/00-4 total programs in December Mount Olive Lutheran Hour-l:00-1/01-4 total programs in January Mount'Olive Lutheran H6~ir:-I:00~2/0I-4 total pro~a~iis in Feb~ Mount Olive Lutheran Hour-l:00-3/01-4 total programs in March Mount Olive Lutheran Hour-l:00-4/01-4 total programs in April Mount Olive Lutheran Hour-l:00-5/01-4 total programs in May Mount Olive Lutheran Hour-l:00-6/01-4 total programs in June Mound City Council- 1:00-11/00-2 total Mound City Mound City Mound City Mound City Mound City Mound City Mound City Mound City Mound City Mound City Council- 1:00-12/00-2 total Council- 1:00-1/01-2 total Council-l:O0-2/O1-2 total Council- 1:00-3/01-2 total Council- 1:00-4/01-2 total Council- 1:00-5/01-2 total Council~ 1:00-6/01-2 total Council-3:00-11/00-2 total Council-3:00-12/00-2 total Council-3:00-1 / 01-2 total - 8418- Mound City Council-3:00 -2 / 01-2 total Mound City Council- 1: 30-3 / 01-2 total Mound City Council-l:30-4/Ol-~. total Mound City Council- 1:30-5 / 01-2 total Mound City Council- 1:30-6 / 01-2 total Other Programs of Direct Interest to Mound Residents LMCC Executive Committee Meeting- 1:30-12 / 00 LMCC Executive Committee Meeting-1:30-1/01 LMCC Executive Committee Meeting- 1:30-3 / 01 LMCC Executive Commlttee Meeting- 1:30-4 / 01 LMCC Executive Committee Meeting- 1:30-6 / 01 LMCC Meeting-2:00-11/00 LMCC Meeting-2:00-2/01 LMCC Meeting-2:00-5/01 Starburst Dance Academy--2001 -2:00-6/01 Wes~onka !-Iistorical Society: 2:00-Mysteries & Legends of Lake Mirmetonka M0u~d Residents Signed up for or Completed LMCC Classes Ben Hunt Kevin Allinger -8419- CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT June 2001 50.00% 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 June 2001 YTD BUDGET ~ EXPENSE 81,320 4,000 48,000 229,430 2 300 73 450 196 830 18 950 t18 980 1,125 850 6 950 261 980 496,120 80,440 247,740 42,260 25,000 206.740 3,709 4,000 0 15,255 0 77,198 16,185 110 5,511 66,902 514 15,935 24,495 2,634 15,103 0 2,877 15.846 42,007 4,000 24,299 87,584 178 77 386 91 973 15 063 54 652 563 035 2 836 118 220 276,959 71,937 116,566 0 63,949 PERCENT 39,313 51.66% 0 100.00% 23,701 50.62% 141,846 38.17% 2,122 7'.74% (3,936) 105.36% 104,857 46.73% 3,887 79.49% 64,328 45.93% 562,815 50.01% 4,114 40.81% 143,760 45.13% 219,161 55.83% 8,503 89.43% 131,174 47'.05% 42,260 0.00% (38,949) 255.80% 111.658 4_5_.9_9~ GENERAL FUND TOTAL 3.266.340 266.274 1.705.726 1.560.614 Area Fire Service Fund 415,850 TIF 1-2 0 Recycling Fund 135,480 Liquor Fund 332,450 Water Fund 478,620 Storm Water 712,000 Sewer Fund 948,210 Cemetery Fund 7,500 Dock Fund 144,620 8,298 169,792 246,058 40.83% 13,282 366,403 (366,403) 2,044 68,588 66,892 50.63% 24,220 164,177 168,273 49.38% 42,699 250,895 227,725 52.42% 0 3,654 708,346 0.51% 78,843 436,834 511,376 46.07% 0 1,431 6,069 19.08% 34,130 99,400 45,220 68.73% Exp-00 07/1912001 Gino -8420- CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT June2Ool 50.00% 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 June 2001 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REV_~EY_EH_U~ EVER_E¥_~_[~ ~ ~VED t,429,370 492,331 492,331 (937,039) 34.44% 4,340 230 6,620 2,280 152.53% 160,920 16,212 69,419 (91,501) 43.14% 970,380 63 38,529 (931,851) 3.97% 132,750 1,239 61,480 (71,270) 46.31% 100,000 9,828 41,638 (58,362) 41.64% 142,400 4,703 68,099 (74,301) 47.82% 153,000 0 0 (153,000) 0.00% 12.500 1,326 7,013 (5.487) 56.10% TOTAL REVENUE 3.105.660 525.932 785.129 (2.320.531) 25.28% FIRE FUND 403,270 112,427 287,594 (115,676) 71.32% RECYCLING FUND 121,880 36,885 80,546 (41,334) 66.09% LIQUOR FUND 1,900,000 204,784 884,096 (1,015,904) 46.53% WATER FUND 510,000 36,515 212,697 (297,303) 41.71% STORM WATER UTILITY 101,000 8,795 43,050 (57,950) 42.62% SEWER FUND 990,000 77,983 473,388 (516,612) 47.82% CEMETERY FUND 6,250 195 1,380 (4,870) 22.08% DOCK FUND 81,350 1,713 68,678 (12,672) 84.42% 07/1912001 rev01 Gino -8421- General Fund $322,324 CDBG 1,347 Area Fire Protection Services 347,430 MSA 21,338 Sealcoat 17,829 PW Facility 92,669 Capital Improvement 932,646 CDB 663 Commerce Place TIF 8,772 Downtown TIF 1-2 (1,330,441) Grant Revolving 7,725 Recycling 98,726 Liquor Store 539,723 Water 791,648 Storm Water 30,074 Sewer 944,948 Cemetery 1,459 Dock 225,368 Fire Relief (40,325) HRA 21,954 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 ~ear 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 ~ear. In addition, the audit fn3m 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 ~epresent balances of funds available for spending. 07/19/2001 CashReportCouncil Gino -8422- 0 0 0 0 0 rn m m m m m m m m N rn rn m rn m 0 0 0 0 0 0 :~ ~ z Z z ~ ~ m rn m m rn m ..c .< -< -< _..Q _.Q > > > "o 'o rn m rn m ITl ITl 0 -8423-