Loading...
2001-08-28PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2001, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA *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. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS *CONSENT AGENDA *A. *B. *D. *E. APPROVE MINUTES: AUGUST 14, 2001 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2001 SPECIAL MEETING APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE o ° APPROVE FINAL PAYMENT TO PEARSON BROTHERS OF LORETTO FOR 2001 SEAL COAT PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $56,790.43 8597-8605 8606-8608 8609-8626 CASE #01-25: GREG GOODFELLOW- 1705 BAYWOOD SHORES DR 8627-8639 VARIANCE: SETBACK REDUCTION FOR DECK CASE #01-28: JAMES MERCHANT- 5116 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 8640-8656 VARIANCE: DECK CONVERSION CASE #01-29: JIM TAYLOR - 4345 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 8657-8675 VARIANCE: HARDCOVER CASE #01-30: METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT - 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD RELOCATION OF CELL TOWER 8676-8715 8716-8718 APPROVE APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.) 8719 5. ACTION ON METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT EAW FOR DISTRIBUTION PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. o PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS A. CASES #01-26 & #031' BRENSHELL HOMES MINOR SUBD & VARIANCE FOR LOT AREA 8720-8746 PRESENTATION BY MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES COMMITTEE ON FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES NEEDS 8747-8751 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. AMM Fax News 8752 B. LMCD correspondence 8753-8786 C. Financial Reports: July 2001 8787-8790 D. Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative correspondence 8791-8794 E. FYI: Internal memo on storm water management plan report to Council 8795 9. ADJOURN This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. More current meeting agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: www. cityofmound, com. COUNCIL BRIEFING August 28, 2001 E. Storm Water Management Plan Sarah is gathering the background she needs to address your questions on the Mound storm water management plan and the cooperative agreement required for the City ~to gain the permitting authority. This item will be before you as soon as she is confident of the local issues and those issues of Minnehaha Watershed District, and as soon as she feels she has sufficient ability to be a resource to you regarding this matter. Human Resources Update This week we acknowledged Shirley Hawks start of 25 years of service. We also said farewell to Tom McCaffrey after almost 11 years as the Dock Inspector. Other News This week representatives from the School District and City met with Mark Saliterman, landlord for Mound Liquor. Two options for an extended stay in our current location were developed. We hope to have written agreements in place in Sept to guard our ability to stay on until the new liquor store opens. That is projected to be Nov 1, 2002. Rail America is no longer willing to work with the three county consortium that has been negotiating the purchase of the rail line from Wayzata to Hutchinson. They, instead, are negotiating with a private developer who is interested in parceling off portions of the corridor to interested parties. The Surface Transportation Board has intervened in an attempt to restrict the sale to other parties, including the developer. The motive of the STB is to buy time to work out a sale between Rail America and the three counties through the placement of a "public use condition" on the corridor. The private firm goes by the name "McKnight." They have placed ads ~re making contacts with potential buyers of the corridor. They have no plans to keep the corridor in tact. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2001 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepi.n County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, August 1'4, 2001, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers at 5341 Maywood Road i.n said City. Councilmembers Present: Mayor Meisel, Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Klm Andersen and Peter Meyer. Others Present: C~ Attorney, J~)hn Dean; City Manager, Kan.dis Hanson; Acting City Clerk, Bonnie Ri{ter; Community Development Director, Sarah Smith; City Planner, Loren Gordon, Lorrie Ham, Bill and Dorothy Netk. a, John Dennis Hopkins, Jim Smith. Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent routine in nature by the Council and will be separate discussion on these items unless a which event the ~item will be removed from the normal sequence. to be There will be no so requests, in and considered in 1. OPEN MEETING AND Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order recited. the Pledge of Allegiance was City Manager, Kandis workshop. setting a special meeting for the budget MOTION by in favor. Metier 3. CO~ Meyer removed i~em un.sen{ agenda for discussion. to approve the agenda as amended. A~It voted of.Minutes, and item G, Public Lands Permit from the MOTION by Hanus, sounded by Meyer to approve the co~sent agenda as amended. Ail: voted i~n, rawer. Met. ion carried. B. Approve Payment ef C'.iaims in the Amount of C. RESOLUTION NO. O~1.64: RESOLUTION NAMING DON SCHERVEN MEMORIAL PARK. D. Approve Tim Be ,~er Request for Extension to "Ne-Net Less" Deter.minafion . and Exemption. 1 -8597- Mound City Council Minutes -August 14, 2001 Upon no, further comments being offered, the public hearing was closed at 7:49 p.m. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to continue the public hearing on September 11, 2001~ at. 7:30 p,m,, as recommended by Staff. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 6. SUBDIVISl0N AGREEMENT FOR LANGDON BAY City Planner, Loren Gordon, reviewed the changes to the Langdon Bay Subdivision Agreement, He informed the council that the revisions were procedural in nature, and clarified ali points involved in the project. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to approve the Lan Agreement as revised. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Bay Development Brown. expressed concern over construction traffic the City, He sited the 'development just outside is bringing dirt and mud onto the city streets. C county and ask them to.remind their develo limits, street clean-up for construction traffic contact the responsibilities. 7, ACTION ON ORDINANCE DUMP,STERS, MOTION by Brown:, seconded bY All voted in favor. Motion carrie( OF "ROLL-OFF" ordinance, as amended. ORDINANCE .NO, 06-200' :EMEN' ADDING SECTION 492 TO THE CITY TO PERMITS FOR TEMPORARY OF CONTAINERS ON PUBLIC RIGHT- After discussion the co~ ;us that a $50 permit fee should apply to the above. 8. ACTION AMENDI ;UIDELINES MOT-IO~I bY Bmwn~ by Hanus to approve the Ethics Guidelines as presented, with the s.tateme.~3t,. "1 hereby acknowledge and will uphold these ethics guidelines as ~o.yJd,ed:ur~der Minnesota Statute", to be signed annually by the Council and ~mis:s. iel3' members, with the financial disclosure' statement being optional. There will also be a. previsi°n added that directs all complaints to the City Manager, who will then e~an~ .themappropriately and follow-up on same. Ayes: Brown, Hanus and Meisel. Nayes; Andersen and. Meyer. Motion carried. 9, EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 0N.~0LST, ON, ET AL, LAWSUIT. CJ~ty Af. tomey,. JOhn Dean, stated the parties have not provided the city with a signed settlement, agreement, so there will be no executive session at this time. 3 -8598- Mound City Council Minutes -August 14, 2001 E. RESOLUTION NO. 01-65: A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A REQUEST TO REMOVE A STREET LIGHT AT THE END OF CANARY LANE - 1700 CANARY LANE. F. RESOLUTION NO. 01-66: RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT 3A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES .... ~iiiii:=~: MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Meyer to approve the Ci~;yiii~i~:Uncil Minutes of the July 10th regular meeting., the July 17th special~ meeting, and ~ii~i~y 24th regular meeting, as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried ~i?~ ....... ~!lliiiiti?¢i% 3G, APPROVE PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT: BOB:+~i~LSON_ 4~i~I!ii!BRiGHTON BLVD Meyer asked for clarification on how much the impact {he commons area. Jim Smith of Concept Landscaping explained stating that the retaining wall would extend 15`° toward the lake, leavin 5' or pedestrian traffic and maintenance. MOTION by Meyer, seconded favor. Motion carried. 'ng resolution. All voted in RESOLUTION NO. 01-6 )VE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT ARLSON AT 4991 BRIGHTON BLVD., & PT OF 8, WYCHWOOD, BLOCK 38, DOCK 4. COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ,5. ]PUBLIC HEARING- VACATION OF PORTIONS OF KELLS LANF Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m, for the vacation of a portion of Kells Lane, Case No, 01,21. Dennis Hopkins, 4609 Wilshire Blvd,, addressed the council with concerns about the subject vacation. He is concerned over access to the lake in that area, which is now used for riEhl:rig by the neighborhood. He feels that if that area were cleaned up to the c.ondifion ,i! was a few years ago, that it would provide for more fishing area. There are nc) trees that have to be removed, just brush and weeds removed. He has a petition from the=.neighborhood that opposes the vacation because of the desire to keep the area accessible for fishing. Mayor Meisel informed him that his concerns will be ¢~3ns:i.deredl '2 -8599- Mound City Council Minutes - August 14, 2001 1'0. ACTION ON RESOLUTION ORDERING AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) City Attorney, John Dean, stated that because there was no need for executive session as stated in item @, there is no action, or discussion on this item. 10A. SET SPECIAL MEETING FOR BUDGET WORKSHOP A-special,.,meeting is set for ·September 4, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of conducting a workshop for the 2002 budget. 11. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A, AMM Fax News B..~ LMCD correspondence C. Mound Police Department Report: July, 200, D, Westonka Senior Center news E. Ad, cie: Urban police Jobs are Losing F. Minnesota Chamber Legislative U G. Letter:' Free Bee's H, Hennepin County Planning Office appo 1. Zoning Activity Report: J: Letter: Hennepin Cot cautioning that this wetlands a of 'one's property ex-pressed strong K, Sheriff's Re L. Report on Dock h M. Memo on 15 & 10 Project ,al creation of ~nds project. commented on this letter, first step that will restrict use wetlands buffers. Meyer 1.2, MOTION by in:favor. Moti:en iy Hanus to adjourn the meeting at 8:43 p.m. All voted Mayor Pat Meisel 4 -8600- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 01-64 A RESOLUTION NAMING DON SCHERVEN MEMORIAL PARK WHEREAS, the City Council has received a request from some of the citizens of Mound to rename Pembroke Park; and WHEREAS, Donald A. "Don" Scherven Sr. was a lifelong Mound resident for all of his 71+ years, living directly across from Pembroke Park where his family operated the Island Park grocery and where his descendents still reside; and WHEREAS, Don Scherven was a Mound High School Graduate and served our Country in the Navy during the Korean War; and WHEREAS, Don Scherven was involved in this community for many years as a charter member of the Northwest Tonka Lions Club, a vital supporter of the Upper Tonka Little League and a member of the American Legion and VFVV; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council to express their pride in Don Sherven's accomplishments and dedication to the community; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the park known as Pembroke Park shall hereafter be known as Don Scherven Memorial Park. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and seconded by Counciimember Meyer. The following voted in the affirmative: Brown, Hanus, Meisel, Anderson and Meyer. The following voted in the negative: None. Adopted by the City Council this 14th day of August, 2001. Attest: Acting City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -8601 - CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 01-65 A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A REQUEST TO REMOVE A STREET LIGHT AT THE END OF CANARY LANE - 1700 BLOCK OF CANARY LANE WHEREAS, a petition was received on October 18, 2000, to install a street light at me end of Canary Lane to provide safe access to the commons during evening hours; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 00-108 was adopted on October 24, 2000, to install said street light; and WHEREAS, the City has now received a request from six of the original nine residents who requested the ins{al.lation, to have said street light removed; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED to authorize removal the street light located at the end of Canary Lane (in the 1700 block) and direct the Public Works Department to remove same. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and seconded by Councitmember Meyer. The following voted in the affirmative: Brown, Hanus, Meisel, Anderson and Meyer. The following voted in the negative: none. Adopted by the C~.ty Council this 14th day of August, 2001. Attest: Ac.,t~ng: C~[ty Cle:~k Mayor Pat Mai,sol -8602- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 01-66 RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 2002 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statutes Section 473.25 to 473.254) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropofitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 473.121; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account., the Livable Communities Demonst~'ation Account, the local Housing Incentive Account and the inclusionary Housing Account is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan ama municipalities; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible te receive certain, polluted si. tes cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department ef Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is pa~ti~pating in the Local 'Housing Ince~ives Account program under the Minnesota Statutes section 473.254; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan .Livable Communi~ties Act reqai~es the Metropolitan c~uncil to'negotiate width ea~ municipality te establish affordable arid life. cycle h~sing goals for t. ha~ mu,ni~pali~/ that- are consisten~ wi~h: and promote the pol~ieJes of the Met, repo~tan council as prowided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHE.REAS, each.-m~i¢i.p:ali{y must iden~i~y to the Metropolitan C~neU the actions the municipali~ pla~s te take te me~ {he establiShed housing goals through 13.reparation ef the H,ousi~g. A~tier~. ~P:l.an; a~ WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council adopted, by resel,ufion afl-er a public hearing, negotiated affordable and life-cycle ho.using goals for each parfi,¢i¢at~ng municipali.ty; and WHEREAS, a metrepol~itan area muni¢ipali~t~y which elected to pa~.icipate i,n the Local Housing .l~¢ent~i~es Account PrOgram must de se-by November 15 of each year; and WHEREAS, for calendar year 2.002, a metropolitan area muni:~paii~y that participated in the Local~ Housing I~e.e~,,tive A~eunt Program during the calendar year 2001, continue te pa~i¢ipate under Minnesota Statutes Sect. ion 473.254 if: (a) the municipality elects te pa~ti~pa,t,e in ~he Local Housing I~tives program by NeYember 15, 2001; and (b) the Metrepefitan Count! and the municipality ha~e succes~ully negotiated affordable a~, life.cycle housing goa~s for the mu~idpali{y: -8603- R. eselutlen Yo. 0'1-~6 NOW, THEREFORE, B.E IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Mound hereby elects to participate in the Local~ Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communi,ties Act during the oalendar year 2002. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and seconded by Counciimember Meyer. The following voted in the affirmative: Brown, Hanus, Meisel, Anderson and Meyer. The following voted ir~: the negative: none, Adopted by the City Council this 14~h day ef August, 200'1. Attest: Acting City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -8604- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. O1-67' RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR MR. BOB CARLSON AT 4991 BRIGHTON BLVD. LOT 7 & PT OF 8, WYCHWOOD, BLOCK 38 DOCK SITE #$1850 WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking a Public Lands Permi,.t to install a retaining wal;l on the commons; and, WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a majority vote for construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park or commons; and WHEREAS, the subject retaining wall as modified by the applicant, resolves the steep. slope/grading issues for the applicant and also reduces the erosion potential; and, WHEREAS, the Docks and Commons Commission reviewed this request and recommend approval by a unanimous vote; and, NOW, THEREFOR:E, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as fellows: To approve a Constru~ien on Public Lands Permit, to construct the subject upon the following conditions: Approve the issuance of a Public Lands Permit subject to an agreement to be prepared by the City Attorney regarding maintenance and that includes a held harmless agreement. The feregei.ng resolutior~ was moved by Counciimem.ber Meyer and seconded by Councilmember Brown. The fetlewi,~g voted-in: the affirmative: Brown, Hanus, Meisel, Anderson and Meyer. 'Fhe following voted .in the negative: None. Adopted by the City Geun¢it this 14th day of August, 2001. Attest: Aofing City Cle~ Mayer Pat Meisel -8605- MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2001 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Wednesday, August 22, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in the council 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 Attorney, John Dean; City Manager, Kandis Hanson; Acting City Clerk, Bonnie Ritter; George Heft The meeting was called to order at 5:34 p.m. by Mayor Meisel. 1. CONSIDERs. IN CLOSED SESSION, A PROPOSED POLSTON, ET AL, LAWSUIT Mayor Meisel announced that the Council would go proposed seffiement offer in the Polston, et al, :. OFFER IN THE ~ion to consider a 2. ACT UPON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT City Att.omey, John Dean, explained that League of Minnesota Cities' Legal settlement agreement that has been signed~ the only party left to sign this OPEN SESSION executive session with the reviewed a proposed by MetroPlains. The City is MOTION by Brown, Hanus, Meisel and follOWing resolution. Ayes: Brown, carried. RESOLUTION NO. 0 AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF PENDING (ROBERT POLSON ET AL, VS. CITY OF MOUND 3. APPROVE qRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MOTION by Hanus, Motion .carried.. Brown te adopt the following resolution. Alt voted in favor. RESOLUTION NO. 01-69: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF EAW FOR METROPLAINS PROJECT 4. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown te adjourn the meeting at 6:24 p.m. Ali voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: Acting City Clerk Mayer Pat. Meisel -8606- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 01-68 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF PENDING LITIGATION (ROBERT POLSTON ET AL, VS. CiTY OF MOUND) WHEREAS, the City Council, meeting in dosed session, has reviewed a proposed settlement agreement involving a full and complete seffiement of any and ali of the claims made by the plaintiffs concerning actions and approvals by the City in connection with the MetroPlains project; and has received the report and recommendation of its legal counsel regarding the proposed agreement, and has been informed that the proposed agreement has been executed by all of the plainfiffs~i!end by MetroPlains; and WHEREAS, the City Council has fully reviewed such m~iii~nd is fully informed as to the circumstances; :,~iiiiiiiii? ...... ~iiiiiiiiii!iiiiii~i~::,~ .... NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the of ti~;i!~ii~.y of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The proposed settlement is The Mayor and City Manager settlement agreement City's obligations directed to execute the to fully perform alt of the The foregoing resolution Councilmember Hanus. Brown and seconded by The following Andersen. the affirmative: Brown, Hanus, Meisel and The following in the negative: Meyer. Adopted by the City Ceun~l this 22"~ day of August, 2001. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, A~ing City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -8607- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 01-69 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF EAW FOR METROPLAINS PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 01-68 approving the settlement of certain pending litigation (the "Settlement"); and, WHEREAS, the Settlement calls for MetroPlains to "submit the Project of Mound for a voluntary EAW; and, WHEREAS, the Settlement further provides that Mound "prep~ and review the EAW for the Project and decide ex_p~,,di{iously on the need for an~"i.ronmental i~mpact statement (ELS) for the Project .... ::~iiiiiiiiiii~ii~.~ NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the ~:~';;ncil of~(~iii~ity"== ~'~==' of Mound, Minnesota, that the City, working through it's consultant~?/~.~hereby directed to take the steps necessary and do all things the above referenced provisions of the Settlement. The foregoing resolution was moved Councilmember Brown. lanus and seconded by The following voted in the Meisel, Anderson and Meyer. The following voted in the Adopted by the ty of Mound this 22~ day of August, 2001. Mayor Pat Meisel Attest: Bonnie Ritter, Acting City Clerk -8608- PAGE 1 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND  8128101 8/2B/01 ~70,84 JRNL-CD 1010 ~57.80 ICE 7~-~00-9550 B/28/0~ 8/28/01 157.80 JRNL-CD 93.~0 ICE 7~-7100-9550 8/28/0~ 8/28/0~ 93.60 JRNL-CD ~010 22168 51.78 08-0~ HIGHLAND PARK ~ 0I-b340-3900 l~t 22173 ~ 51.78 08-01 THREE POINTS PARK 01-4340-3900 221 5 ~'~J ~~ ~~'~ 51.78~ .. 08-01_ WYEHWOOD~ BEACH 01-4340-3900 ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL VENDOR TOTAL 695.96 ASSURED SECURITY VENDOR TOTAL 691.18 R ~F~:: .~ ::::~s ~,~:~.,~:~'.~:~:,~.~:~,~i ?;:~: ~:?: .:,:':.h ~: ~,~+~; ;::': -8609- PAGE 2 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND [,793.03 REPLACEMENT PAGERS 22-4170-' 8/28/01 8/28/01 1,793.03 JRNL-CD 8/28/01 8/28/01 ~,~39.25 JRNL-CD ................ ~0~' 34365200 140.60 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 )ELLBOY CORPORATION 8/28/01 173.47 JRNL-CD VENDOR TOTAL 1753.32 1010 ~,8ETTENDORFi~i ROHRER KNOCHE VENDOR TOTAL 5000.00~ ~~ 8/28/01 94.99 JRNL-CD lOlO ~! ~0098580 ' ~67.0~ 07-01 GAR*AGE ~CKUP C~.~O~21 2~.:J~70-3750 1~ ~84 .~ JRNL-CD ....... '~i 100985Z0 17.76 07-01 GARBAge[ PIC~ CHPO085~ ~-7100-37~0 ~BO?lO 010817 1,i17.45 THRU 08-15-01 PLMB INSPECTIONS 01-325~-0000 ~j 8/28/01 8/28/01 1,117.45 JRNL-CD~ 1010 ~~ ?~~M~A~H ~ 01-~190-3100 ~ 8/28/01 8/28/01 4,000,00 JRNL-CD 1010 '~BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS VENDOR TOTAL 88.76 8/28/0[ 8/28/01 [[9.55 JRNL-CD -8610- PACE 3 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND iINARO, 6INO VENDOR TOTAL 119.55 ';;jC0887 OlOBlO 18.02 08-01 952-472-0646 h~ : : '' , ,': ·. · L~'~iCITIZENS COMMUNICIATIONS VENDOR TOTAL 196 ~,~ 67245Z41 i84.74 MIX '- 71-7100-9540 ~,~ 8/2B/01 8/28/01 184.74 JRNL-CD ........... 1010 ~{ 494.86 09-01 INTEREST TRUE VALUE 55-5881-6110 ~[~;;J 8/28/01 8/28/01 961.84 JRNL-CD lOlO 1010 ~i 17.71 TRUCK BRUSH 73-7300-2250 i.~. 17.72 TRUCK BRUSH 78-7800-2250 !~,~ 8/28/01 8/28/01 53.14 JRNL-CD ,',,,, 8/28/018/28/02 95 JRNL-CD - 22-4,70-2200 ~OlO ~¢ 8/28/01 8/28/01 432.29 JRNL-CD 3~;~ 101 C ~/~B/Ol 8/28/01 1,557.80 JRNL-CD ..... ......... iOlC -8611- PAGE 4 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND 146898 2,~06.55 BEER 71-7100-r 8/28/01 8/28/01 1,406.55 JRNL-CD 10 iDIXCO ENGRAVING 8! 18/01 8/28/01 VENDOR TOTAL 5.81 JRNL-CD 5.81 1010 125945 8/28/01 8/28/01 253.00 BEER KEGS 253.00 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9530 1010 128984 36.00 BEER 71-7100-9530 ~j 8/28/01 8/28101 36.00 JRNL-CD ....... 1010 ,[~ 130610 4~.20 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 ~ 8/28/0~ 8/28/01 44.20 JRNL-CD ~ 10~0 ~~~- 2,625.00 07-01 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 55-5880-3~00 .~t 8/28/0~ 8/28/0~ 2,625.00 JRNL-CD ]0~0 F2560 010724 3~.00 2002 ANNUAL SERVICE 72-7100-4200 50.34 08-07-01 UNIFORMS 50.34 08-07-01 UNIFORMS 01-4280-2240 73-7300-2240 8/28/01 8/28/01 205.14 JRNL-CD 78-7800-2250 1010 8/28/01 8/28/01 47.79 JRNL-CD 01-4340-2330 1010 -8612- PA6E 5 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-¢02-01 CITY OF MOUND j 661876 109.51 06-05-01 MATS 01-4320-4210 ~ 8/28/ol 8/28/o~. lO9.5~. JR NL-¢D iOlO IL~f ~;:.~,. %':,:!':!~. !:~ :~;~'~T,?., ~ ~,~..:,...~:..~, ~-:~ ~,, ~,. :?~,~.~; ~:i'.,~:~, ~4!=,:;~:.~ . ~ ' :~ :.C.. :::::: ': :::~::<:~7 ::: ~::' ~:~>: ~ ~2:~./:::~" ~:~¢~'E. :::: ~'~'~; ~:~:~: < ;~::: ~ ~:~: ~:~::~ ~'::,'~ ~:~ ~,~:~ ~':;!::~.:~: ~:~F ,~': ~ 742252 48 I , .65 08-2~-01 MATS ~] .... 8/28/01 8/28/0~ 48.65 JRNL-CD Z~] 720528 3~.04 07-3~-01 UNIFORMS 01-4280-2240 ~ ~ 3~.04 07-3~-0~ UNIFORMS 73-7 0 - I~ 8/28/01 8/28/01 i23.60 JRNL-CD :- 1010 :~ ~ ~ 8/2~ 8/28/0~ 226.75 JRNL-CD ~010 ;;~GALL5 INC VENDOR TOTAL 408.72 ~ 52421 59.95 REPAIR AIR RIDE CONTROL VALVE 73-7300-3810 ~ ~ 59.94 REPAIR AIR RIDE CONTROL VALVE 78 7800 ~ -~ - -38 0 :]:.:  G1937~ 256.4~ LINEAR ACTUATOR 01-4280-2310 495-73653-4 8/28/01 8/28/01 256.41 JRNL-CD 1010 GRAINGERS INC VENDOR TOTAL 266.74 -8613- PAGE 6 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND ~972 4~5537 424.85 WINE lira/ RI~ ~s cooP~ ~ COM~AN~ VENDO~ TOTAC ~.0~ !'mi ~] 12.00 REIMBURSE CITY HANA~ER'S LUNCH 0i-4040-41~0 ~ ~/~ZOi ~Z~aZO1 6Z.~ 4rNL-CD ..... lOlO :':~:;; t: , ,~i 8/28/0i 812a101 25.00 JRNL-CD lOiO 'D 1010 HECKSEL MACHINE SHOP VENDOR TOTAL 35.00 ;.. ~,HENNEPTN (STY. INFO TECH VENDOR TOTAL ~7.66 I~t q2290 03.0814 25,000.00 iST HALF PROPERTY TAX/HACA 96-9600-4100 2~09 239?5944 89.22 8/28/01 8F28/01 89.22 8/28/01 8/28/01 52.50 07-01-0i THRU 10-09-01 MAINTEN 22-4170-3820 JRNL-CD 1010 R & R STARTER 01-4190-3810 JRNL-CD 101~ -8614- PAGE 7 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND AND PARK SKELLY VENDOR TOTAL 52.50 i~1J2582 010828 245.95 09-0~ PRINCIPLE TRUE VAL'UE ..... ~ .... 55- 588.1- 6100 ~l~l~;'~"P ~L ~'~ VENDOR TOTAL 669,3.1 ~~~.~ ........... -- .... --~ ..... 5~7~- ~4 Co, u~I C ~K~ES .... 0~-4020-4120 ~ ~: ~'"~ ......................... 8/~/n~: .....: ~': :::'~/~/n~ ~~.~ ::~:' ':,-~i;~'~'~ ~ ..... "~i"~!: ~ ': ! '~'? E%~T~- ..-,-,: ~ .~::~.~ !:..:i ,~:: - ................................. ~;:":; :: ~J :'~ ;"::;: ::: i~,~= 0~...0~ .... 45,67 EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION DINNER 01-4020-4 20 ~'~ !~]~I,! ~.' ~:?:i! '; '~' :i:!:?i: ::, :: ::::~¥.~ !,.i:~'~C'~!~: : ! ! ]'~: ' :,:~ :;i::' i': ~ :::: · ' 0Z-43.10-3100 ....... 8/28/03. ~.~/;) 8 / 01 308.00 JRNL-CD 103.0 389ZO-B2 44.00 07-0]. TOWER LEASE 01-2300-1123 ~:~.,,.. .... 8/28/01. 8/28/01 44.00 JRNL-CD ].OlO :: 38910-B4 ~8 50 07-03. COUNTY ROAD 3.5 REAL][GNME 55 5877 ~3.00 ~ 8/~8/03. 8/28/0'1 38:50 JRNL-CD ' - 103. 93.o-c 8.so o?-o3. POST O ICE RELOCATION 8/28/01.8/28/01 38.50 JRNL-CD 1010 3893.1.-A ]0.00 07-0~ BA~LEY ET AL V5 CITY ....... 8/~8/0~ 8/28/01 SO.O0 JRNL-CD 3.010 '; ........ =:? ! ?: ;::;':;.:.! ~ ;:.: ~ .'. m. : ~ ;; .i;~' :, 38911.-C 536,50 07-01 LANGDON BAY DEVELOPMENT 01-2300-1095 -8615- PAGE 8 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-0.1. CITY OF MOUND j~?~ 8/28/0,1 8/28/0~ 536.50 JRNL-CD ' ~ ~ ~ ~ 60.00 07-01 BECK PERMIT REQUEST 01-2300-1098 ~89~-D .... 8/28/0~ 8/28/0~ ...... 42.00 ~ J~NL-C'6~ ..................................................................... 3891~-F 2,270.50 07-0~ POLSTON LAW SUIT O1-4110-3100 23~.00 JRNL-CD 1010 38911-I 1,218.00 07-01 EXECUTIVE 01-4110-3100 8/2~/0~ 8/28/0~ 1,872.22 JRNL-CD lOlO 3891~-J2 ~80.00 07-0~ LIQUOR STORE CONTRACT 71-?100-3100 38911-J4 30.00 07-01 LONGPRE DEHOLI'TION JNNL-LD lOlO ~8911-L1 579.?3 07-01 STREET MISC SERVICES 01-4280-' 38911-L3 579.74 07-01 SEVER HZSC SERVICES ~8911-L5 48.00 07-01 APT TOWER LEASE 01-2300-1~23 38911-M1 102.00 07-01 LANGDON WOODS 01-2300-1113 -8616- PAGE AP'C02'OI 8/28/01 8/28/0I PURCHASE CITY OF MOUND 336.00 JRNL-CD JOURNAL 01-4340-3100 1010 1010 LAKE MINNETONKA AREA CHAMB VENDOR TOTAL 100.00 8/28/01 B/28/01 31Y.O1 JRNL-CD 1010 ~LEAGUE OF MN CITIES VENDOR TOTAL 7.00 ~5i:~;:; ..= ..:.:~:.~ :. ~ :?~ 'L::~ ~ ~ : ~ ,~ ~-'~ ;; · ~ . ,:.=~ - :. ~LONG LAKE POWER EeUIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL 46.20 ~010 010801 362.50 07-0i PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 01-4399-3100 ]M3016 9665 i06.40 08-02-01 DELIVERY CHARGE 7i-7i00-9600 j~ 8/28/01 8/28/01 106.40 JRNL-CD 1010 I~ 9696 111.20 08-09-01 DELIVERY CHARGE 71-7100-9600 ;.~ 8/28/01 8/28/01 111.20 JRNL-CD ~: :~:::::: :~' Z:~ ~ ~::~.': ::: '~D  MARLIN'S TRUCKING VENDOR TOTAL 260.00 -- ~.~u m~ 71-7100-9530 ~ 8/28/01 8/28/01 2.10 JRNL-CD .101~ -8617- PAGE AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND 313476 3,502.25 BEER ....... 8/28/01 8/28 ~0.1 ~, ..~ 3~,. 502.25 JRNL-CD ~ 95.00 O?-Oi 200L SEAL COAT PROJECT 01-4280-3100 8/28~0~ 8/28/0L 95.00 JRNL-CD 8/28/01 8/28/01 95.00 JRNL'-CD 1010 ~ 47~ ~'~l"~I ENGINEERING SERVICES 01-4190-3100 8/28/0~ 8/28/01 47.50 JRNL-CD 8/28/01 8/28/01 254.40 JRNL-CD 01-4280-3100 1010 :lNG SERVl 78-7800-3100 8/28/01 8/28/01 23.75 JRNL-CD 1010 8/28/01 8/28/0~ 4~.50 JRNL-CD 1010 ~%~~1 COUNTY ~OX~ lS REALIGNME 55-5877-3100 8/28/01 8/28/01 16,359.30 JRNL-CD 1010 8/28/0[ 8/28/0[ 95.00 JRNL-CD lOlO 8/28/01 8/28/01 2,286.00 JRNL-CD 1010 -8618- 11 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND 37189 237.50 07-01 RETI. ANING WALL BOND 01-4280-3100 8/28/Ol 8/28/01 237.50 JRNL-CD 10~.0 · ~:;~e.?~, .: ': .... ~T~!~'~fu'': 37Z9$ 95.00 07-0$ STREET INVENTORY 01-4280-3~00 8/28/01 8/28/01 95.00 JRNL-CD 1010 37593 1,679.90 07-0~ LANGDON SEWER BACKUP ~8-~800-3100 8/28/01 8/28/0i Z,6~9.90 JRNL-CD 237.50 O~-OZ 4732 RICHMOND ROAD OZ-2300-Z125 8/28/0Z B/28/Oi 237.50 JRNL-CD ~ ~ ~ ....... 1010 37197 261.80 O?-Ot 1642 GULL LANE ~01-26 01-2300-i128 ~ ~ 8/28/0Z 8/28/01 261.80 JRNL-CD ~HCCOHBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCI* VENDOR TOTAL :..'~- ~ ?~.;: ;'¥: ~?~ ?:~:~: ~: ~']~ENA~DS - ~ObDEN VALLEY VEN~O~ TOTAL ~0.~ ~J~jMETROPOLITAN AREA MANAGEME VENDOR TOTAL 16.00 -8619- PAGE 12 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND MN VALLEY TESTING LABORATO VENDOR TOTAL 72.50 h,IMOUND, CI Y OF VENDOR TOTAL 48.96 h~[M3490 ~08~8 .......... ~8~9.00 07-0[ SALARIES~ 22-4170-[390 HOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT VENDOR TOTAL 9789.00 ~I03892 1070518 8~..60 07-01 LOCATES 73-7300-3125 ~iP~O ~ ..... ~,7~0.40 ELECTIC RUNS FINANCIAL SYSTEM I~%~= '~'~'~6 ~i~ '~" .................~'~~'~C'~'~"O~'~""~ ~ 2:~%:¥~y o%~' ~¢1 8/28/0& 8/28/02 7~.50 JRNL-CD 746~21 120.75 WINE ~ 71-7100-9520 -8620- PAGE 13 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-OI CITY OF MOUND ~ 8 28/01 8/28/01 721.02 JRNL-CD 1010 ~*i 9].00 MIX 71-?~00-9540 ;;] 8/28/02 8/28/02 93.00 JRNL-CD  PINN~ DISTRIBUTING VENDOR TOTAL 1236.76 PL~NKETT~S, [NC VENDOR TOTAL 8128/01 8/28/01 4,126.59 JRNL-CD 1010 :,~~~7-~~ ~~.3~ ..................................................... LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 .~ 8/28/01 8/28/01 1,374.37 JRNL-CD - 1010 ]-. 25,Z4 O~-ZS-O~ THRU O~-Z~-OZ BARTLET 0 - ~z ~ : '~' :::~:' [ ~:T:.~''.~:~;: ; ~ ~'~:~:~'~[~'~': :~:4~ ~h' ~'~ ~: ,': ..:',~ ~: ~ ~ · ~,~:,~ ': ~': ~b "',' ,'~' ~',~ ': :~::':~ : :.~ ~,, ~' :~ : '~; 21.79 06-16-01 THRU 0~-19-01 STREETS 01-4280-3720 ~ 12.38 06-16-01 THRU 07-19-01 WATER 73-7300-3720 S~90 0Z0828 2~6~8,49 09-OZ LIQUOR RENTAL SPACE ~ 5439~ 3527 798.75 REMOVE TREES ON SHORELINE 81-4350-5~0 -8621 - PACE &4 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND ~SHOREWOOD TRE~[RVICE VENDOR TOTAL ?98.75 ~505 PRINTING VENDOR TOTAL 169.02 . ~" ~;:~,'h:?~. ~;.t~t~ ~,, :17:~ ,:.~~, ~~[~~~.~ ~~ ' . . ~ *~' ~1T4702 010806 ..... 83LS~,~EPAIR ~IR COMPRESSOR 2Z-4170-3820 ~T4730 78] 50.58 08-04-01 KELL5 LANE VACATION 01-4~90-3510 8/28/0~ 8/28/0~ 50.58 JRNL-CD ~0~0 752 34,78 08-Z2-0~ ZONING CODE AMENDMENT OZ-4290-3510 8/28/0& 8/28/01 34. ~ JRNL-CD ......... ~0~ THE LAKER VENDOR TOTAL 239.64 8/28/02 8/28/02 ~6.00 JRNL-CD T4770 0&0820 292.00 BEER KECS 8/28B~/0~ /28/02 231.00 JRNL-CD 200943 104.00 BEER ?&-~&O0-9530 -8622- PAGE 15 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND I 8/28/01 8/28/0Z 5,076.'05 JRNL-CD 1010 :~oc~ 88.20 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-955 O- - ~ 8/28/01 8/28/01 88.20 JRNL-CD ~010 ":J'~:~SO 565422 ~ ~ 26.,~ 07-0~-01 ~OTO PROCESSING 22-4Z70-2280 [~; ....... .'~~t::. ~t~T,~ ~-~O~-~'~¢~, xft~=~7~S~?~-=~'-~'~077~,~ 7~ ~77:7~?~:~ :~' ?' ~ ~':? 7:='== ~?':~?'~"~ ~t ~/~/g~ 8/28/01 20.03 JRNL-CD ¥~'~0 THRIFTY ~HITE DRUG STORES VENDOR TOTAL 46.63 ~j 086968 22.30 FENCE POST 01-4340-2300 i~'~T4985 3~Z306-0 5.96 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 0~-i040-2100 ~ ~ 5,96 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4090-2100 ,J4~ ~.99 HISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES l;l ~ ~ 2.98 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 73-7300-2100 I~ 310383-0 44.95 ~NK CARTRIDGES 01-4140-2100 ~ ~ 8/28/0~ 8/28/0~ 44.95 JRNL-CD lO1C ~ 306413-0 36.37 DESK NAME PLATE 01-4~90-2100 -8623- PAGE 16 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 ' CITY OF MOUND 8/28/01 8/28/01 36.37 JRNL-C'D ~ 311732~,,~0 ....... 24.04 ~,,,~INDER ~ 01-4040-2100 ~2.37 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4090-2100 ~2.3~ MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-2100 ~ 12.37 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 -4 90- O0 6.19 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 73-7300-2100 6.19 MISCELLANEOUS OFF~CE SUPPLIES 78-7800-2~00 9.83 2-HOLE PUNCH ~~~.~~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 01~4190-2100 25.47 BINDER 01-4040-2100 8/28/01 8/28/0~ 25.47 JRNL-CO 1010 15.~1 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 0~-4Z90-~100 ~5.~1 'MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4~40-2100 5,10 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 0~-4~80-~00 B/28/01 8/28101 102.04 JRNL-CD TWIN CITY OFFICE SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL 722.~9 =:~ r:,~ ~ ~: ,' ~]/~.:i :~.~:~ ~ hf~.~:~L~:~y::i' 9:., :'.'>-.'~'~'d~ ;~ '~ :::~ ~ ::~: :'"?~: .::: ':', "=:::.~':~ ~ ~US FILTER VENDOR TOTAL 146.78 ~:,': ~:~.:~',;: ": ~,~]~):, ~..:' ::~:~ ~'.%::.:~ ~:~:,~ f~L:~'%~: :, f~',::: 8/28/0X 8/28/0~ ~76.79 JRNL-CD ~0~0 8/28/0~ 8/28/01 50.59 JRNL-CD 1010 8/28/0& 8/28/0~ 50.~9 JRNL-CD ZOiO -8624- PAGE 17 AP'C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND ~ 8~570 50.59 BADGE SHIELD Z2-~70-2200 ;UNIFORMS UNLIMITED VENDOR TOTAL 1638.38 ;~UNITED PROPERTIES VE~OR TOTAL ~95.85 ~'i~ ~ ~516 725.00 D~S~ONNE~T L~N'E/DRZLL TEST 7B-7800-~800 ~ 8/28/0~ ~/~8/0i 725.00 JR NL:C~ ..... lOlO ~-~,~:~ ~:'-~' :~.: ~'~:,;~,:~.~ ~:~ ......................~ ,i;.;'.;..: :g ~;~..:~L ~.~;:.~_:~ ~ ~ ~ ~.= ~ .~,~ ~'g~ ;;L~G~L~,~ ~ ~ ~ :~;. ~,,;;~.~ ;~. ;~ 07'--~--~ 0 BLACKTOP =~:~"'~ 27-5800-2340 8/28/0~ 8/28/01 2,522.83 JRNL-CD lOgO ~¥~7-'~: 0 ~ ~1' AC KT-OP 27-5800- 2340 8/28/01 8/28/03. 137.50 JRNL-CD 1010 -8625- PAGE AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND 4,860.66 07-01 ~02~7-606-329 73-7300-; 564.93 ..... ~ ....... ~ 249.58 07-01 ~0047-005-229 ~ 0~'4340-3710 u 1,687.58 07-0~ ~00~8-802-634 78-7800-37~0 [~ 3Zl.84 07-01 ~0009-604-835 01-4280-3Z10 ~5985.23 ~1Z6987 01071~ ~ 75.00 MuLE CONFERENCE 10-05-01 0~-4~40-~110 ,~ TOTAL ALL VENDORS ~2~879.20 <. -8626- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DECK FOR THE RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1705 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE, LOT 1, BLOCK 7, HARRISON SHORES, P & Z CASE/t01-25 PID# 13-117-24 21 0066 WHEREAS, the applicant, has requested a front yard setback variance to construct a deck. The associated variance is as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Lake Side 30 ft/24 feet 30 ff 6 ft WHEREAS, the property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 feet from yard setback and a 6 feet side yard setbacks for lots of record; and, WHEREAS, the deck is proposed on the Three Points Blvd. side of the home in the same location an illegal deck had previously existed. The previous deck was constructed without a permit and has been removed because of its poor condition. A sliding door remains that previously provided access to the deck; and, WHEREAS, the proposed deck measures 7 feet by 26 feet and would fill in the notch in the northwest comer of the house; and, WHEREAS, the proposed deck would not have a detrimental impact on the street corridor due to the vegetation buffer along Three Points Blvd.; 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 as requested. 2. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 1, BLOCK 7, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember -8627- The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted August 28, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk -8628- Excerpts from the MINUTES MOUND PLANNING ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 2001 CASE #01-25 VARIANCE - 1705 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE The applicant has submitted a variance application to build a deck within a from yard setback. The variance requested is as follows: Existing./Proposed Required Variance Frontyard setback 30 feet/24 feet 30 feet 6 feet The applicant proposes to build a 7 feet by 26 feet deck on the Three Points side of the house at a height of about 6 feet. As shown on the survey, the nearest comer of the house is setback 30 feet. A deck did exist here previously, but the owner removed it because of its poor condition. It appears that a permit was never obtained to allow construction. Staff estimates the size was about half of the proposed deck. Stairs have been built to provide access from the sliding door and are an allowed yard space encroachment. Although Staff cannot determine if a deck was originally contemplated, a sliding door does exist which indicates the intent to build a deck. There may have been plans to connect the proposed deck and a deck on the rear of the home. The house is fairly well screened from Three Points Blvd by dense vegetation and it does not appear that the addition of a deck would cause the house to be more visible from the street corridor. Staffrecommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the variance as requested. Discussion Weiland added that the back has extensive vegetation also. If a deck is constructed on the west side I would like to see a restriction that it would need to be in conformance. Burma observed that that could still be accomplished if the connecting comer were at a 45 angle. If everything worked perfectly and these notes were pulled, then someone sitting on the Planning Commission would have those notes. Hasse felt the City needed to take a look at the ordinances. We are requiring a variance for a 24 foot setback for a deck and yet we allow garages with 20 foot setbacks. -8629- Mueller observed that, if we allow a variance for up to 24 feet they could build the deck for as big as they wanted. As long as they don't increase the bulk or the length they can do whatever they want. Michael wanted to know what hardship exists for a variance on the north if the deck on the west is possible? Gordon felt that, because the applicant was replacing what was there and taking a logical extension of the house and filling it in. It is not a two- story addition to the house. If we were considering a two-story addition we would be increasing the bulk. Weiland asked if it is a fireplace chimney that sticks out? Goodfellow said that it was. The reason I took the old deck offwas because it was a hazard and never constructed correctly. The deck to the west had a tree fall on it. Mrs. Goodfellow said that all they are trying to do is basic maintenance. Mueller said he was going to vote for this one. It is a minor impact, not because it's a replacement. The original deck was illegal. The hardship is because of the location of the patio door. MOTION by Commissioner Burma, seconded by Commissioner Mueller, to accept staff recommendation. MOTION carded. Opposed: Weiland, Michael, Glister This case goes to City Council on August 28, 2001. Weiland's reason for a no vote was that there is no hardship. -8630- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 6, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Greg Goodfellow CASE NUMBER: 01-25 HKG FILE NUMBER: 01-05 LOCATION: 1705 Baywood Shores Drive ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a variance application to build a deck within a front yard setback. The variance requested is as follows: Existing/Pro_t~oscd Required Variance Frontyard setback 30 feet/24feet 30 feet 6 feet The applicant proposes to build a 7 feet by 26 feet deck on the Three Points side of the house at a height of about 6 feet. As shown on the survey, the nearest comer of the house is setback 30 feet. A deck did exist here previously, but the owner removed it because of its poor condition. It appears that a permit was never obtained to allow construction. Staff estimates the size was about half of the proposed deck. Stairs have been built to provide access from the sliding door and are an allowed yard space encroachment. DISCUSSION: Although Staff cannot determine if a deck was originally contemplated, a sliding door does exist which indicates the intent to build a deck. There may have been plans to connect the proposed deck and a deck on the rear of the home. The house is fairly well screened from Three Points Blvd by dense vegetation and it does not appear that the addition of a deck would cause the house to be more visible from the street corridor. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8631- p. 2 #01-25 Variance Request - 1705 Baywood Shores August 6, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the variance as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8632- VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: g$2-472-0lI07, Fax: 952-472-0620 PAID JUL 0 6 2001 CiTY OF (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Application Fee:~. 0 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: No. "~'~"~ / City Planner DNR City Engineer PARK ~- .~-/~/' Public Works Other JUL 6 200!~'(~' SUBJECT Address / 7. ~)~,_~ PROPERTY Lot DESC. Subdivision . . v PID~ . Pla~ ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 OPER Name ~~ WNER Address ]~ ~hone APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (H) (W) (M). pr property? ( ) yes, of resolutions. made for zomng, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for thi If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copie Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): / Revised 04/24/01 - 8633- Vadance Application, P. 2 of 3 Case No. O/"~ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning dist, (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason in which it is located? Yes variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): ~T_J~: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ~sEW) ~O ff. 2. q ff. ~ ff. Side Yard: E W ) ' ft. ff. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ff. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ff. Lot Size: .sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: 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 i~e.'O too small ~()drainage ~ ~.~, () existing situation too shallow O shape ( ) other: specify Revised 04/24/01 - 8634- Variance Application, P. 3 of 3 Case No. Of"~'3~ Was the hardship described above created by the action of a.ny~ne having property interests in the land after the zoning ordnance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~:~lf yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road'~ Yes (), No'f~ If yes, explain: ' Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes'~,, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I- i). Comments: ~ ~ ~~~~ ~_,~/~,'~/ ~ I certify that all of the above statements &nd 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 Date Date and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ~/----~ ~~~ . :~iicant,s Signature l; /_~/~~~' /~'.~ Revised 04/24/01 - 8635- CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X30% = (fOrall Iots)--....~:~,'"~.X../,,~.~.. ..... .'~..~.7_,.~. ,'3 I- SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Retard) .............:/. ............. SQ. FT. X 15'/o = (for detached buildings only) .................. * Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage proVided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.1 (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT DETACHED BUILDINGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ............................... IF' x TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ........................................ DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. Opening between boards) with a pervious surface under am not counted as hardcover, TOTAL DECK ....................................................... 7 CITY OF MOUND -- ZONING INFORMATION SttEET SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R2 R2 R3 EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: B1 7,500/0 B2 20,000/80 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 14,000/80 SEE OPE). Il 30,000/100 IEXISTING/PROPOSED LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO YARD ' ] DIRECTION [ REQUIRED VARIANCE ltOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF bS E W N S W N~) E W N S E W N S Et2 N S E W /0' 15' 50' 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SliED ..... DETACtlED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT 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? 'lES / NO / ? lB,': [DATED: This Zoning lnfo:nmtion Sheet m_31y summarizes a portion of Planning Department at 472-0600. x, ~'& "" ~ ~ '-' '" "':': ..... o..~ ~' g~ g~,~.~.~--z' ei~ .......... . '~.... ,,' --. ..... ~-.-~-a ~ o~ ' d~e requirements outlined in fire City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For furfl:er information, conlact the City of Mound 75 , /. ( THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -8638- LUTTEREAN HOMES LOT SURVE LAND SURVEYORS SCALE I" 20' 0- DENOTES IRON REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 - 73rd Avenue North 560-3093 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 urve§ors · 17~or"oe Denotes Wood Hub Set For Excavation Only Denotes Proposed Elevation Denotes Surface Drainage Lot 1, Block 7' REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and the location of all build- ings and visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land, Surveyed by us this,,lfth day of May 19 ..... 83 Top of Block Garage Floor Elevation ¢"D, (,, Lo.est Nost Floor glevat:l, on Ra(~mond A. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 6743 /)~ ~:-/t CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SCREEN PORCH FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5116 TUXEDO BLVD., LOT 13, WHIPPLE SHORES, P & Z CASE # 01-28 PID # 24-117-24-43-0061 WHEREAS, the applicant, Mary and James Merchant, have requested a variance to build a 16 feet by 16.6 feet screen porch to an existing deck located at 5116 Tuxedo Blvd. The requested variance is as follows; Existing/Proposed Required Variance Lakeside setback 38 feet 50 feet 12 feet WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Zoning District that requires a 6,000 square feet lot area, 20 feet from yard setbacks, and 6 feet side yard setbacks and 40 percent hardcover for lots of record; and, WHEREAS, an existing deck is located on the roof of a first floor living space. The proposal is to build an enclosed porch on the existing porch and maintain all existing setbacks. This would prevent an impact to the adjacent properties view of the lake; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance as recommended by Staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant the variance as requested. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 13, WHIPPLE SHORES The foregoing resolution was moved by Couneilmember seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: and -8640- Adopted August 28, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk -8641 - Excerpts from the MINUTE ES MOUND PLANNING ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY~ AUGUST 6~ 2001 CASE #01-28 VARIANCE - 5116 TUXEDO BOULEVARD The applicant has submitted a request to add lakeside screen porch to an existing deck. The associated variance request is listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Lakeside setback 38 feet 50 feet 12 feet The proposed screen porch is a second story addition located on an existing deck. It would maintain the same footprint as the first floor living area as well as the lakeside setback. Roof design mimics the gable of the house. Although the porch does add bulk to the home it does not compromise the lake views of adjacent homes which have similar setbacks. Hardcover is unaffected with the addition of the porch. Part of the reason the applicant would like to add the porch is the water problems the deck has created. He believes that with a pitched roof the problem will be solved. Staff.recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. Discussion Mueller inquired that, if Council approved a variance of 3 8 feet from the shoreline to allow reconstruction and remodeling of the existing house, why is it back here? Gordon said that this is what we do for each new project. We establish the variance based on the improvement that needs the variance at that time. We don't establish a line by which other things can occur within in it without a review process. Mueller observed that the upward bulk is changed so it creates a need for a variance. Weiland asked if the addition would be finished off.like the rest of the house. Nothing will be exceeded outside the footprint. Burma indicated that stairs are not an encroachment. However, visually, these stairs towards the neighbors are about 5 feet from the lot line. Gordon agreed. They aren't on the survey but the s~airs are there today. There isn't a better location. The east side could be considered. MOTION by Commissioner Clapsaddle, seconded by Commissioner Weiland, to approve staff recommendation. -8642- Mueller gave a finding of fact that no change in setbacks only airspace. Glister was. concerned that future property owners would want an open-air deck. The Merchants indicated that was not a desire ~h-ar there wa~fi't room. MOTION carded. Glister opposed. -8643- PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 6, 1999 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Mary and James Merchant CASE NUMBER: 01-28 HKG FILE NUMBER: 01-05 LOCATION: 5116 Tuxedo Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted a request to add lakeside screen porch to an existing deck. The associated variance request is listed below. Existing/Proposed Lakeside setback 38 feet Required Variance 50 feet 12 feet The proposed screen porch is a second story addition located on an existing deck. It would maintain the same footprint as the first floor living area as well as the lakeside setback. Roof design mimics the gable of the house. Although the porch does add bulk to the home it does not compromise the lake views of adjacent homes which have similar setbacks. Hardcover is unaffected with the addition of the porch. Part of the reason the applicant would like to add the porch is the water problems the deck has created. He believes that with a pitched roof the problem will be solved. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 .Fax (612) 338-6838 -8644- PAID JUL i 0 Z001 CiTY O~; VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952-472-0607, Fax: 952-472-0620 Application Fee:~ (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Case No. Distribution: ~/'1 "0t City Planner ']"11'~1 DNR '/'i I"~ I city Engineer q-'Il "~ 'J PARK '7"/I"DI Public Works Other SUBJECT Address ,,_4""~ PROPERTY Lot /--~ LEGAL Block DESC. Subdivision PID~ Pla~ ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPER~ Name ~~ OWNER Address ~//~ Phone (H) ?~g-F7g-~7 (W) ~/~-~37-~9~ (U)~ APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (H) ~(W) (U) 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. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Revised 04/24/01 - 8645 - Variance Application, P. 2 of 3 Case NO. O1°~-~ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district i n~. hiCpit-i,~l~ate¢? Yes-O,-No;~)~-If-no,-specify-eaeh-nen-eenfermi ng-use~(~eec~ be-reas-on-for-- vanance request, i.e. setback, 10t area, etc.): S ETBAC KS: REQ U IRE D RE Q U E ST E D VAR lAN C E ~ (or existing__) ~. Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft .sq ft Hardcover: 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: 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 Please describe: Revised 04/24/01 - 8646- o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the la' after the zoninq ordinance was adopted (_1982)? Yes_(), No_(). If_yes, e_xplain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affeCted? 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. Revised 04/24/01 - 8647- -8648- i m M,e rc h'a n"f ~ I.~'5.,116 T..u~eNdo5 ,BIvclo M.o'u nd, 5'3'6 -8650- -8651 - July 25, 1995 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING LAKE SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 5116 TUXEDO BLVD., LOT 13, WHIPPLE SHORES, PID 24-117-24 43 0061, P&Z CASE #95-29 WHEREAS, the owner, James E. Merchant, has applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming lake side setback of 38 feet to allow reconstruction and remodeling of the existing house and construction of a conforming 25' x 50' detached garage, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requi.res a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, the proposed work involves reconstruction of the masonry foundation and exterior walls on the portion of the home that does not meet the required setback to the lake, and; WHEREAS, impervious surface coverage and all other setbacks are conforming, and; WHEREAS, this proposal is a substantial improvement and enhances the use and function of the property without further encroachment, and; WHEREAS, adjoining properties on both sides are located closer to the lake than the subject dwelling which reduces the negative impact of the nonconforming setback, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize the nonconforming lake side setback of 38 feet to allow reconstruction and remodeling of the existing dwelling and construction of a conforming detached, garage, subject to the condition that a hard surface driveway must be installed prior to October 15, 1995 and subject to approval of a drainage plan by the City Engineer. 162 -8652- Resolution 95-72 July 25, 1995 ............. ; ..... 2: ..... TheCity-Council-aut hot izesthe-'alte-rations-s-et~)rttT belovvTp u-uts-ua nt- 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Phase I (Summer of 1995): Second story addition 26.5' x 53.5' Gut and remodel existing dwelling Phase II (Summer of 1996): Detached garage 24' x 50' 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 13, Whipple Shores This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and seconded by Councilmember Hanus. excused. The following Councilmembers voted Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen and Polston. in the affirmative: Jessen was absent and The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None Mayor 163 -8653- 563571 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JIM ,.MERCHANT OF LOT 13, WHIPPLE SHORES HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ¢0U$6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED' Lot 13, WHIPPLE SHORES o: denotes iron marker set e: denotes iron marker found : denotes existing contour tine, mean sea level datum ~e.O: denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an :'assumed datum. (q3O.3 (?5 2. / ,,e.-- .q This survey intends to show the bound- aries of the above described property, the location of an existing house thereon, and the location of two adj- oining houses. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. · ro ~o Tuxedo I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super- vision, and that I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755 ~o~ NO. 95-12~' August 1, 2001 To: Mound City Council Fr: Robert Huffman Les Hanson Cc; Re: Jim & Mary Merchant 5116 Tuxedo Blvd - Screen Pomh We are adjoining neighbors to 5116 Tuxedo Blvd, The Merchant's discussed with us their plans to put a screen porch on thetr deck to stop the water problem. The screen porch will not obstruct our view We support their request to screen In the deck. Sincerely, 5124 Tuxedo Bird. Mound, MN 55364 952-472-219g J Les H,~sen 5108 Tuxedo Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 952-472-4215 -8655- CITY OF MOUND --ZONING INFORMATION StlEET LOT OF RECORD~ I NO YARD ' IIOUSE ......... ZONING DISFRICF, LOT SIZE/WIDTN: RZ~A~0,000/60 BI 7,500/0 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 LOT ~('~O'm: ! / DIRECTION J REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED Lo'r ,D E P'I'H: VARIANCE [,RONT N S E W i:RON~ N ~) E W 20 / SIDE N S~_~ SIDE N S E REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N S E W S E W /r2/ 50' I0' OR 30' GARAGE, SIlED ..... DETACIIED BUII.DINGS FRONT N s E w FRONT 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' 'FOP OF BLUFF I0' OR 30' 30% OR 40% ? J BY: I HARDCOVER CONFORMING? YES / NO ID''TED: 'Fhls Zoning Inlbxmalion Shcel only summarizes a portion of die requirements outlined in the Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For fixrther information, comact the City of Mound Plannil~g Department at 472-0600. ~- "--8656- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A HARDCOVER VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SCREEN PORCH FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4345 WILSHIRE BLVD., p & 7, CASE # 01-29 PID # 19-117-23-13-0007 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jan and Jim Taylor, have requested a variance to build a 15 feet by 18 feet screen porch to an existing deck located at 4345 Wilshire Blvd. The requested variance is as follows; Existing/Proposed Required Variance Hardcover 4600 sq. ft/4870 sq. ft. 3315 sq. ft. 1557 sq. ft. and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Zoning District that requires a 6,000 square feet lot area, 20 feet front yard setbacks, and 6 feet side yard setbacks and 40 percent hardcover for lots of record; and, WHEREAS, the proposed 15 feet by 18 feet screen porch would utilize the existing deck area. Although there are no design plans with the application, the owners will extend the roofline over the porch to create a consistent lakeside wall and mol line. The lakeside setback would be approximately 54 feet and a west sideyard setback of 17 feet; and, WHEREAS, an existing deck is located on the roof of a first floor living space. As proposed the porch would occupy the existing deck area with a roof line similar to the house; and, WHEREAS, the property is burdened with a large amount of hardcover due in part to the driveway which is over 100 feet in length and it is difficult to make a substantial reduction in hardcover on the property; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance as recommended by Staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant the variance as requested with the following condition: a) b) New gutters drain to the green area south of the house. A lakeside green area for filtration be created for filtration for the portion of the lot draining to the lake as approved by the City Engineer. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: -8657- The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember and The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Couneilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted August 28, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk -8658- flhoreland Management Ordinance Plan The Plan for handling the runoffover the additional impervious surface is to install a gutter on the new structure and to direct the downspout to a green area on the Spring Park Bay side of the home. This proposed downspout will be approximately 15 feet further into the yard than the gutter/downspout which currently carries all of the water offthe westside of the home and deposits it on greenspace. If the City Engineer would prefer that we bury the down spout coming from the additional' surface, we could' do that. -8659- THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -8660- Excerpts from the MINUTES MOUND PLANNING ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY~ AUGUST 6~ 2001 CASE//01-29 VARIANCE - 4345 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD The applicant has submitted a request to add lakeside screen porch to an existing deck. The associated variance request is listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance ltardcover 4600 sq. fff4870s~fa 3315 sq. ~. 1557 sq. ~. The house is located at 4345 Wilshire Blvd. in the R-lA district. The house is tucked back off.the roadway and shares a driveway with its neighbor at 4347 Wilshire. The property is burdened with a large amount ofhardcover due in part to the driveway that is over 100 feet in length. The proposed 15 feet by 18 feet screen porch would utilize the existing deck area. Although there are no design plans with the application, the owners will extend the roofline over the porch to create a consistent lakeside wall and roofline. The lakeside setback would be approximately 54 feet and a west sideyard setback of 17 feet. It is difficult to make a substantial reduction in hardcover on the property. The south half of the property drains to the lake so the proposed addition of 270 SF of hardcover will not add to the driveway surface water runoff. Staff'recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. Gordon indicated the length of driveway and flag shaped lot could be considered hardship. Mueller felt we were justifying too much hardcover. How did you determine where the water would drain? It appeared that the deck area was level and drainage was not obviously to the lake. In other cases we have asked the applicant to remove some hardcover. Michael wanted to know how to credit the neighbor's share of the hardcover. Gordon indicated that we haven't really dealt with that. The parcels are long and deep and it takes a long driveway to access. Mr. Taylor said that the Planning Commission approved a variance for his neighbor to the west two years ago for basically the same thing. He has the same amount of hardcover. Gordon said the neighbor to the west applied for a variance and was denied. He later rrp-rapped his shoreline, got it resurveyed and had increased his setback. The variance was reconsidered for hardcover only. Gordon didn't think that percentage was as large as this one. Sutherland felt this property was burdened with the neighbor's driveway. Maybe the commission could require gutters to reroute the water appropriately. -8662- Weiland wanted to know if we are addressing the DNR's comments? Sutherland explained that the DNR responded by phone and wanted the stormwater addressed. Detouring rainwater by way of gutters into greenspace would be one solution. Clapsaddle wanted to know if there was a possibility of getting any detention by way of ponding. Landscaping could be used. Sutherland thought the suggestion is practical. It would be a plan to be developed by the applicant and could be reviewed by the Building Official. MOTION by Commissioner Clapsaddle, seconded by Commissioner Burma, to approve staff recommendation including 1. A gutter on the east and west sides be set up to ensure that drainage of the roof area does go to lakeside greenspace; and 2. Lakeside greenspace be augmented to enhance and facilitate the runoff according to the shoreline management ordinance and reviewed by the City Engineer. Mr. Taylor indicated that the current gutters all go to greenspace. Michael wanted to know what the hardcover would be with a standard driveway. Gordon indicated it would be at about 40%. It wouldn't work very well. MOTION carded. Glister opposed. Glister was concerned that the deck becomes a porch, becomes a house, need a deck. There is excessive hardcover already. -8663- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. mill] TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 6, 1999 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Jan and Jim Taylor CASE NUMBER: 01-29 HKG FILE NUMBER: 01-05 LOCATION: 4345 Wilshire Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-IA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted a request to add lakeside screen porch to an existing deck. The associated variance request is listed below. Hardcover Existin~Proposed 4600 sq. ft/4870 sq. fi. Required Variance 3315 sq. ff. 1557 sq. ft. The house is located at 4345 Wilshire Blvd. in the R-IA district. The house is tucked back off the roadway and shares a driveway with its neighbor at 4347 Wilshire. The property is burdened with a large amount ofhardcover due in part to the driveway which is over 100 feet in length. The proposed 15 feet by 18 feet screen porch would utilize the existing deck area. Although there are no design plans with the application, the owners will extend the roofline over the porch to create a consistent lakeside wall and roof line. The lakeside setback would be approximately 54 feet and a west sideyard setback of 17 feet. It is difficult to make a substantial reduction in hardcover on the property. The south half of the property drains to the lake so the proposed addition of 270 square feet of hardcover will not add to the driveway surface water runoff. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8664- ' CIty of Mound Conversation Record conversation phone #: subject: III I -8665- PAID JUL i I 2001 CITY OF MOUND VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952-472-0607, Fax: 952-472.0620 Application Fee: 2~ (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: Ci~ Planner Ci~ Engineer Public Works DNR PARK Other SUBJECT Address PROPERTY Lot I19/ "~::~, LEGAL Block DESC. Subdivision PID~ Pla~ ZON,NGD STR CT R- A Phone APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (H) ~Y~~/~ _(w) ~/~-~7~ (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. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Revised 04/24/01 - 8 6 6 6 - Vadance Application, P. 2 of 3 Case No._ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning distr' in which it is located? Yes (), No (-X). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason, variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): · SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft.. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ff sq ft Hardcover: 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: 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 Please describe: Revised 04/24/01 - 8667- Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (y). If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (x). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. )licant's Signature(./.~~ ~ Date Re vised 04124/01 -8668- THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -8669- 2: ITl Z Z rn ~ 0 m z z ~ z < 6'5 -N 8'8 joist hangers 514" x 6" cedar decking 16" o.c. treatedjoist old floor 4x4 cedar posts attach ~ screca to New floor DN / outside decking w floor / x 2'-8" screen LIVING AREA 263 sq i~ Iff -8671 - - .. lx8 RSC 2x8 h~"mfir ra/te~ ~ 16" l/2" house window 6 & 12 slope~ - 2xl 0 cedar head, rs 2xl 0 cedar header 2x10 42" foolings Handrail=34 to 38" Oua~&ai136" min. Balusters max 4" b~rwe~a 10" tread max? 1/2" rise~ 3- 2xl 2 Trea~¢d strin house window -8672- CiTY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS sURFACE COVERAGE) ROPERTYADDESS: /,~,,~' , '~ ~ ! · ~/R ' ' WNER S NAME. ,.J'~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ....................................... [ LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record) ............................. SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .................. [ * Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage proVided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.1 (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE f'/'/7/ X /,,Z/ = ,/~ 5¢~ 15' x /-~ = DETACHED BUILDINGS (GARAGE/SHED) TOTAL HOUSE .................................................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ............................... DRIVEWAY, PARKING I~'?~ AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. ,~',¢,~z,~/~ x = DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. Opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover, TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ........................................ = = tOTALDECK ....................................................... UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) .................................................................... PREPARED BY -8673- DATE CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET L(YF OF RECORD? YES / NO YARD '' I DIRECTION I ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~.lL0.9~.~0.~ Bi ~,soo/o RiA 6,000/40J82 20 000/80 R2 6,000/40 83 i0,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD, I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED IIOUSE ......... FRONT N $ E W FRONT EXISTING LOT SIZE: ' LOT WID'IH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE N N&E W S E W N S E W N S E W~ 15' 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SliED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E W 4' 35-90) LAKE 1'01' OF BLUFF ltARDCOVER CONFORMING? YES / NO N S E W 30% OR 40% 50' 10' OR 30' ? IBy: IDATED: Tiffs Zoning Infnrmalion Shee! Duly summarizes a portion of the requiremenls oUtlined in fl~e Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For forther information, cootact the City of Mound '1 Planniog Department at 472-0600. ../ Oi3/Z CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., P & Z CASE # 01-30 PID # 14-117-24-41-0011 WHEREAS, the applicant, The Village by Cook's Bay LLC, have requested a setback variance for a telecommunications tower currently located on the parcel. The property on which the tower is located has pending development plans that will not accommodate its current location; and, WHEREAS, the developer of the property as the owner of the tower is seeking a variance to the relocate the tower to a location that provides open space around it in the event it does fall; and, WHEREAS, the tower was granted variance in 1999 to locate on parcel 11 at 5600 Lynwood Blvd. Since the approval of this variance the ownership of this property is no longer public and current code regulations would not allow approval of an application for a new tower to be constructed. Because the tower is now considered a legal nonconforming use the tower can remain with a variance to address to relocation along the boundary line of parcel 11; and, WHEREAS, Resolution #01-13 contains conditions that address the tower citing its consistency with previous variance approvals. The applicant is seeking to vary the current 120 feet tower setback requirement that was established to protect adjacent property interests in the event the tower were to collapse; and, WHEREAS, the developer has submitted a letter from the tower manufacturer, Valmont Industries, stating that the tower is designed in accordance with A.N.S.I. standard E.I.A./T.I.A. 222 Revision F, "Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures." In addition, Valmont indicates that in the evem the tower failed, it would buckle on itself rather than fall over. The letter also indicates there have not been any pole failures to date; and, WHEREAS, in addition to City Code Section 350:530, the City Council may also grant a variance by considering the requirements imposed by the Telecommunications Act of 1997 and showing by the applicant with written or other satisfactory evidence that: The location,"shape, appearance or nature of use of the proposed tower will not substantially detract from the aesthetics of the area nor change the character of the neighborhood in which the tower is proposed to be located; 2. The variance will not create a threat to the public health, safety or welfare; -8676- In the ease of a requested modification to the setback requirement, the size of plat upon which the tower is proposed to be located makes compliance impossible, and the only alternative for the applicant is to locate the tower at another site that poses a greater threat to the public health, safety or welfare or is closer in proximity to a residentially zoned land; o In the case of a request for modification of separation requirements, if the person provides written technical evidence from an engineer that the proposed tower and telecommunications facilities must be located at the proposed site in order to meet the coverage needs of the applicant's wireless communications system and if the person agrees to create approved landscaping and other buffers to screen the tower from being visible to the residential area; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance as recommended by Staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant the variance as requested with the following conditions: (a) The Building Official and City Engineer review and approve the construction plans. (b) A landscaping plan be prepared to address screening of tower equipment and submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director. (c) If a new tower is used to replace the existing tower because of the need to continue to provide uninterrupted service, the new tower shall be the same design and height as the existing. (d) All conditions of the previous variance approval shall remain in force. 2. The variance is approved based on the following findings: (a) The proposed tower location provides better site integration with the pending development plans than the existing location as it greatly reduces the threat to public health, safety and welfare by moving it away from residential dwellings. (b) The development plans do not allow the current tower to integrate in the development pattern. (c) The design of the tower will cause it to fall on itself thereby eliminating the need for a fall zone equal to its height. (d) The proposed location will not detract from the existing neighborhood character. (e) The proposed location is the most feasible alternative for relocation on parcel 11. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: -8677- The foregoing resolution was moved by Couneilmember seconded by Councilmcmber The following Couneilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Coun¢ilmembers voted in the negative: and Adopted August 28, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk -8678- Excerpts from the MINUTES MOUND PLANNING ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY~ AUGUST 6~ 2001 CASE #01-30 VARIANCE - 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD The Village by Cook's Bay has submitted an application to relocate the cell tower in order to accommodate the pending residential development plans. The variance request to remove the 1:1 tower fall zone distance. As you may remember, the tower was originally installed by US West Cellular as a part of the Haddorff football field project about two years ago. The project required approval of a variance for the tower to be sited. The variance tied the tower to one of the 5 parcels, parcel 11, that comprised the Westonka School District land. The resolution approving of the Village by Cook's Bay development plans contains a condition that the tower be removed or relocated in a manner consistent with the variance approval. In anticipation of this application, staff has worked with US West and the property owner to find a location that satisfies this requirement. The Telecommunications Ordinance, Section 350:1300, contains provisions specifically to address situations like this where there is the need to grant variances to the 1:1 tower fall zone. In the case of a request for modification of the maximum height limit, that the modification is necessary to: (1) facilitate collocation of telecommunications facilities in order to avoid construction of a new tower; or (2) to meet the coverage requirements of the applicant's wireless communications system, which requirements must be documented with written, technical evidence from an engineer. Staff'believes that all the criteria have been satisfied and are reasons to justify the granting of a variance. Staff'recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following conditions: 1. The Building Official and City Engineer review and approve the construction plans. 2. A landscaping plan be prepared to address screening of tower equipment and submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director. -8679- 3. If a new tower is used to replace the existing tower because of the need to continue to provide uninterrupted service, the new tower shall be the same design and height as the existing. 4. All conditions of the previous variance approval shall remain in force. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the staff recommendation with the four conditions outlined in the staff report. Mueller thought we might need to change our ordinance with respect to fall zones and height. Gordon said there were very few areas in the city where a tower could be put. There are public properties that could meet a fall zone. We have to allow them somewhere and we want some flexibility to control that. MOTION carried. Anderson opposed. Anderson indicated that the hardship was created by the developer. I have to be consistent with my previous stance on this subject. -8680- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 6, 1999 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: The Village by Cook's Bay LLC CASE NUMBER: 01-30 HKG FILE NUMBER: 01-05 LOCATION: 5600 Lynwood Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Downtown Residential BACKGROUND: The Village by Cook's Bay has submitted an application to relocate the cell tower in order to accommodate the pending residential development plans. The variance request to remove the 1:1 tower fall zone distance. As you may remember, the tower was originally installed by US West Cellular as a pan of the Haddorff football field project about two years ago. The project required approval of a variance for the tower to be sited. The variance tied the tower to one of the 5 parcels, parcel 11, that comprised the Westonka School District land. The resolution approving of the Village by Cook's Bay development plans contains a condition that the tower be removed or relocated in a manner consistent with the variance approval. In anticipation of this application, staff has worked with US West and the property owner to find a location that satisfies this requirement. The Telecommunications Ordinance, Section 350:1300, contains provisions specifically to address situations like this where there is the need to grant variances to the 1:1 tower fall zone. Section 350:1390 Variances. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338~6838 -8681 - p. 2 #01-30 - Cook's Bay cell tower variance August 6, 2001 Subd. 1. Initial Criteria. The city council may grant a variance to the setback, separation or buffer requirements, and maximum height provision of this subdivision based on the criteria set forth in Section 350:530 of this Code. Subd. 2. Additional Criteria. In addition to consideration of a variance based on the criteria set forth in Section 350:530 of this Code into consideration, the city council may also grant a variance by considering the requirements imposed by the Act and showing by the applicant with written or other satisfactory evidence that: The location, shape, appearance or nature of use of the proposed tower will not substantially detract from the aesthetics of the area nor change the character of the neighborhood in which the tower is proposed to be located; 2. The variance will not create a threat to the public health, safety or welfare; o In the case of a requested modification to the setback requirement, the size of plat upon which the tower is proposed to be located makes compliance impossible, and the only alternative for the applicant is to locate the tower at another site that poses a greater threat to the public health, safety or welfare or is closer in proximity to a residentially zoned land; In the case of a request for modification of separation requirements, if the person provides written technical evidence from an engineer that the proposed tower and telecommunications facilities must be located at the proposed site in order to meet the coverage needs of the applicant's wireless communications system and if the person agrees to create approved landscaping and other buffers to screen the tower fi'om being visible to the residential area; In the case of a request for modification of the maximum height limit, that the modification is necessary to (1) facilitate collocation of telecommunications facilities in order to avoid construction of a new tower; or (2) to meet the coverage requirements of the applicant's wireless communications system, which requirements must be documented with written, technical evidence from an engineer. DISCUSSION: Staff believes that all four criteria above have been satisfied and are reasons to justify the granting of a variance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following conditions: 1. The Building Official and City Engineer review and approve the construction plans. 2. A landscaping plan be prepared to address screening of tower equipment and submitted 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8682- p. 3 #01-30 - Cook's Bay cell tower variance August 6, 2001 for review and approval by the Community Development Director. 3. If the a new tower is used to replace the existing tower because of the need to continue to provide uninterrupted service, the new tower shall be the same design and height as the existing. 4. All conditions of the previous variance approval shall remain in force. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8683- July 10, 2001 " h o u s i t/~ ETROPLAINS ~ ME'rRoPt.~,~NS PROPER'r~ES ~NC METROPLAIN$ DEVELOPMENT LLC g t h e h e a r t 1 a n d Jill Norlander City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: The Village by Cook's Bay LLC, Variance Application Dear Ms. Norlander: Enclosed is the Variance Application for the cell tower fall zone relocation. Included in the application is the site plan with the proposed new cell tower location. Also, we have enclosed a preliminary plat for your use. Two full size sets and one reduced size have been sent for your convenience. The $200.00 application fee is also enclosed. We are submitting this application for review by the Planning Commission on Monday, August 6, 2001, and for the City Council on Tuesday, August 28, 2001. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact our office. Sincerely, Marcia Westover enclosures -8684- SPRUCE TREE CENTRE · 1600 UNIVERSITY AVE. · SUITE 212 ST PAUL MINNESOTA 55104-3825 651 646 7848 · FAX $51 646 8947 · www, metroplains.com Table of Contents Variation Application For Cell Tower Fall Zone Village By Cook's Bay City of Mound w Variance Application Exhibit A 3. Exhibit B 4. Exhibit C 5. Exhibit D -8685- Variance Application For Cell Tower Fall Zone Village By Cook's Bay -8686- 05/3t/0-1 t2: t4- F,~( ........... Ct-~1'¥ O.Y-~.UUNI) ........ ,, PAID VARIANCE APPLICATION "' CITY OF MOUND JUL i I Z001 534'1 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: !~52.472-0607, Fex: 952-472-0620 CiTY OF MOUND Application Fee: $200.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: City Planner City Engineer Public Works Case No. DNR PARK SUBJECT Address. 5600 Lynwood Blvd. PROPERTY Lot Please see attached - Exhibit A ..... LEGAL Block DESC. Subdivision PID# Pla~ ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPERTY Name The Village by Cook, s Bay LLC - OWNER Address 1600 University Ave. Suite 212 .qt. pR.1. M~ ~_0A .. Phone (H) (W) 651-646-7848 .... (M) APPLICANT Name same as above (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (H) ..... (W) ,(M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, vanance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for ti' property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copi( of resolutions. please see attached - Exhibit 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, ~pe of use, etc.): Variance request for relocation of cell tower to another location on the same propert%, with a modified fall zone from that as desCribed in ordinance. See attached letter from 0we~ Revised 04/2410'/ Wireless, LLC dated May 21, 2001, describing structural integrity of tower and the no fall zone requirement. Exhibit C -8687- 05;/31701' I2iI5 FAZT[ CITY OF IIIOUND i~l. 0U~ Variance AppJlcation, P. 2 0f 3 Case No. ¢/" ~) Do the existing structures comply with alt area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes :(D), No (X). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): Tower fall zon~ - eXisting cell tower is 120 feet. REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) I f. ft.. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ff. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ff. ft. fi:, Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.,, : (NSEW) ft. fl. fi. Street Frontage: ff. ff. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ff Hardcover: ,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: o 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 The PUD of housing and c~mmercial require the relocation of the tower as it describe: would be located in the new road/drive area of the residential portion. It is being relocate on the same site in a green open space area of the residential site, adjacent to the commercial area. The triangular area provides for good reception for the cell toWer, behind the commercial and away from both the existing neighborhood and the new residential housing and street configurations. This area ~rovides for a fall zone, but overlaos onto the commercial building site. The structural report indicates a fall zone is not needed for the monopole design utilized. We therefore request a variance for its new location and structural soundness. Revised 04/24/01 ,-8688- 0573i/0i i2'~i5 FA~ ......... . CITY 0F'l~0tn~ ......... . ~-0~6 Variance Application, P. 3 of 3 Case No. ~/' ~) Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the' after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes ~ No (). If yes, explain: Development of a vacant parcel into housing and enmmmrr~=l Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ~, No (). If yes, explain: same as #6 o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vadance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes :~f,~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments; - Exhibit D *see attached site ~lan for pzopm~ed rn~mv r~l~c~t!om ~ 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 MEII~0~ Applicant's Signatu~~N1 O,,te Date '1-Io'ol Revised 04/24/01 -8689- Exhibit A -8690- LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, "MOUND", according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Those parts of Lots 102 and 103 "MOUND", according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, lVfinnesota, which lie easterly of the east line of the west 200.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian. That part of Meadow Lane, as delineated and dedicated on the plat of ''MOUND", according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and now vacated, which lies easterly of the west 200.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, and westerly of the southerly extension of the west line of Dewey Avenue, now known as Bellaire Lane, as delineated and dedicated in said plat of"MOUND". That part of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, except the west 200.00 feet thereof, also except that part within the plat of ''MOUND", according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota and except that part described as follows: Commencing at the northeast comer of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence southerly, along the east line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 225.00 feet; thence westerly, parallel with the north line of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, to the intersection with the southerly -extension of the west line of Dewey Avenue, now know as Bellaire Lane, as delineated and dedicated in the plat of "MOUND"; thence northerly along said southerly extension to the north line of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence easterly, along said north line to the point of beginning. Which lies westerly and northerly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of Lot 20 in "Lynwold Park", Lake Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof, thence on an assumed bearing of North 2 degrees 59 minutes 17 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 20 and its northerly extension, a distance or 250.42 feet, to the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the -8691 - Southeast Quarter and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 2 degrees 59 minutes 17 seconds East, along said northerly extended line, a distance of 282.43 feet; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 06 seconds East a distance of 100.13 feet, to the southerly extension of the west line of Dewey Avenue, now know as Bellaire Lane, as delineated and dedicated in the record plat of "MOUND"; thence North 2 degrees 56 minutes 50 seconds East, along said southerly extended llne, a distance of 72.90 feet; thence northwesterly, a distance of 59.86 feet, along a curve concave to the east having a radius of 225.00 feet and a central angle of 15 degrees 14 minutes 38 seconds, the chord of said curve has a length of 59.69 feet which bears North 7 degrees 39 minutes 03 seconds West, to the intersection with a line bearing South 89 degrees 58 minutes 16 Seconds West from a point on the east line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distant 225.00 feet southerly from the Northeast comer of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 500.00 feet and said line there terminating. G:Lmound~mdl~legal residential -8692- LEGAL DESCRIPTION SPECIFIC TO CELL TOWER LOCATION COM 225 FT. S oFNE COR OF S ½ OF NE ¼ OF SE ¼ TH WLY PAR WITH N LINE OF SAID S ½ DIST 398.63 FT. TO ACT PT OF BEG TH DEFLECT LEFT 90 DEG. -8693- Exhibit B -8694- CERTIFICATE City of Mound STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) I, the Undersigned, being the duly qualified and the Clerk of the City of M°und, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that: As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached and forgoing .extract was transcribed. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record. I find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held of the date indicted in said extract, including any resolution adopted at such meeting, insofar as they relate to: RESOLUTION #01-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL OF "THE VILLAGE BY COOK'S BAY" AND "MOUND MARKETPLACE" BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE APPROVAL P&Z CASE #00-65 Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on January 23, 2001. WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the seal of said City, this 25th day of January, 2001. CITY CEERK Resolution #01-13 Page 8 of 8 -8695- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION #01-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL OF "THE VILLAGE BY COOK'S BAY" AND "MOUND MARKETPLACE" BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE APPROVAL P&Z CASE #0.0-65. WHEREAS, the applicant, MetroPlains Development, rezoning applications to allow residential and commercial development of property on the "Old School" site for development projects called "The Village by Cook's Bay" and ,Mound Marketplace"; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development includes 18.97 acres of land that was previously the Westonka Community Center and ballfields and Westonka High School previously; and, WHEREAS, the development plan for the site calls for its development as multiple family residential and a commercial area along with land dedicated for park land dedication requirements; and, WHEREAS, The concept plan indicates 59 townhome units and 40 'fiats.' The townhomes will provide a total of 4 parking spaces per unit including 2 indoor and 2 outdoor parking spaces. Underground parking will be provided for the flats at a ratio of 1 ½ spaces per unit. An additional 40 spaces will be scattered in bays along the private streets for visitor and guest parking. All streets within the residential area of the development will be private with a 24 feet width with no on-street parking because of the need to allow emergency access on this narrowed design; and, WHEREAS, as a planned development area, dimensional items such as building setbacks, lot area and width are approved and regulated under a conditional use permit. A Common Interest Community (CIC) will be established to govern the further replatting and use Of the land as individual units; and, WHEREAS, four 'big house' fiats are shown on the eastern side of the development along Bellaire Road. The narrative talks about these units as single level with 4 units per level in these 2 - 3 story buildings. The developer indicates that the market for the flats would appeal to seniors which is a good 'fit' with the needs in Mound; and~ WHEREAS, the following standards apply under the conditional use permit for the "The Village by Cook's Bay," Ii' PARCEL SIZE PROPOSED UNIT # 12.27 ac I 99 Resolution #01-13 Page 1 of 8 -8696- DENSITY 8 units/acre Minimum Lot Width Not applicable Front Yard Setback Elm Road 60 feet Bellaire 100 feet Side Yard Setbacks As indicated on plans between buildings Rear Yard Setbacks As indicated on plans from property lines. LAND USE PLAN Downtown Residential (Medium to High Density Residential ~ 7 + units/acre) SUBDIVISION STREET DESIGN Right-of-way width NA - private streets Pavement width 24 feet Park Site Dedication 1.89 acres or 10% of total development : land area- 18.97 acres GREENSPACE 57.4 percent HARDCOVER 36.2 percent , and WHEREAS, building elevations for the townhomes are provided with the development which also detail material standards to be followed on building exteriors; and, WHEREAS, the landscape plan for the residential portion of the development provides a total of 145 planting units which exceeds the 99 unit minimum. Plantings consist of shade, ornamental, and coniferous varieties. The park will be planted with 24 shade trees in addition to the 9 conifers that will be preserved; and, WHEREAS, a total of 1.89 acres, 10 percent of the total site area, will be dedicated to the City as parkland. Outlots 'B' and 'C' note these lands. Tot lot play equipment will also be provided by the developer and located in Outlot 'C'; and, WHEREAS, the development proposes 67,000 square feet of commercial space called 'Mound Marketplace.' Anticipated tenants include a grocer, city liquor store, restaurants, and smaller retail shops. The buildings would be designed to consider the urban context of the downtown and the Mound Visions plan. Detailed exterior treatments, space relationships, and other design elements are provided in the development submittal which will encourage high quality building and site Resolution #01-13 Page 2 of 8 -8697- treatment; and, WHEREAS, the following standards apply through the conditional use permit for Mound Marketplace PARCEL SIZE 6.7 ac PROPOSED SQ. FT. OF 67,000 COMMERCIAL Minimum Lot Size NA Minimum Lot Width NA Front Yard Setbacks- Building fronting on Lynwood Per development plan Building fronting on Commerce Side Yard Setbacks- Building fronting on Lynwood Per development plan West building Rear Yard Setbacks Per development plan LAND USE PLAN Destination District SUBDIVISION STREET DESIGN Streets/Drives All private access PARKING 337 spaces provided Code requires 446 spaces 9 ½ feet by 18 feet stall Code requires 10 feet dimension by 20 feet HARE)COVER 92 percent ; and, WHEREAS, the landscape plan for the commercial portion of the development provides a total of 95 planting units which exceeds the 67 planting unit minimum. Plantings consist of shade, ornamental, and coniferous varieties. Screening and buffering of the parking and dock areas are provided to minimize impacts on the adjacent single family neighborhood; and, WHEREAS, a total of 313 parking spaces are shown plus 24 spaces adjacent to the Pond Arena which is a ratio of 1 space for every 197 square feet of commercial floor area. City Code requires 1 space for every 150 square feet of commercial floor area or 446 spaces requiring a variance of 109 spaces; and, WHEREAS, the City and County are currently reviewing plans for the relocation and upgrade of County Road 15 and the intersection of County Road 110. The results of the study are not Yet complete, but will take into consideration the access locations proposed by the development plan. In reviewing the development, the City has considered traffic, circulation and other aspects of the proposed project as it might affect public health, safety or welfare and imposed conditions upon the approval addressing those considerations; and, Resolution #01-13 Page 3 of 8 -8698- WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability of the residential and commercial planned developments, variances, taking into consideration the requirements of the City, giving particular attention to the arrangement and location of the street, their relation to topography, water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, building arrangements, the present and future development of adjoining lands and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and other official controls; and, WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and density of development contemplated subject to the conditions imposed herein, and the proposed subdivision as conditioned is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use in the area; and, WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of Ordinances of the City of Mound. WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission has recommended City Council approval of the conditional use permit for the information as contained in the dev.elopment plans; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: mo Approves a Conditional Use Permit for the "The Village by Cook's Bay" and "Mound Marketplace" with the following conditions: Relocate parking spaces along the rear of the grocery store to areas close to the clubhouse. o A pedestrian easement between building facades along Lynwood and Commerce right-Of-ways be provided. 3. Easements for recreation and maintenance-of the multi-use trail system. 4. Indicate how private streets will be lighted. o Developer work with the City in developing a streetscape along Commerce and Lynwood to address landscaping, facade, and other improvements complementary to the development of the Mound Visions Plan. All streets within the proposed development shall be private streets serving the residential area shall be 24 feet wide, measured from back of curb to back of curb. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed on all streets, drives and parking areas in both the commercial and residential areas. 7. Applicant provide fireflow analysis prior to the completion of the final utility plans. Resolution #01-13 Page 4 of 8 -8699- o The final plat shall include utility easements for the new sanitary sewer and watermains which will be public utilities. The final plat must also include utility easements for the existing public utilities which will remain in place. Approval of right-of-way and access drives by I-Iennepin County and consistent with final plat approval. 10. Approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 11. The existing tower be removed or relocated to a location on the site consistent with previous variance approvals and current zoning code provisions prior to granting of final plat. 12. Prior to the City releasing the final plat, the Developer shall sign a development contract with the City. The development contract shall stipulate that construction of all public improvements covered by said contract shall be completed within 280 days of the City releasing the final plat. As part of the development contract, the Developer shall furnish the City with a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security approved by the City Attorney in the amount of 125% of estimated construction costs as per plans approved by the City Engineer. 13. The Developer shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building Official of all reviews and required permits from the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, or any other applicable permits, prior to beginning construction: The Building Official will not authorize construction until permits are secured. 14. The City Attorney shall examine title to the property and shall render a title opinion to the city showing the ownership status of the property prior to filing. The applicant shall provide the City Attorney a current abstract or register of property abstract for Langdon Bay. 15. Prior to any occupancy the applicant shall secure Certificates of Occupancy from the Building Official. Certificates will not be issued for homes in the subdivision until utilities and access servicing the homes are approved by the City Engineer, Public Works Superintendent, and Building Official. 16. Developer will reimburse the City for legal, engineering and planning costs incurred for review and approval of these plans. B. Approves variances as follows: A variance is approved to allow the commercial parking spaces to meet 1 space per 200 square feet ratio plus a reduction of 23 spaces. Resolution #01-13 Page 5 of 8 -8700- 2. A variance is approved to allow the commercial parking spaces to be designed at 9 ½ feet width and a 60 feet 6 inch isle separation. 3. A hardcover variance of 62% is approved for "Mound Marketplace." The City Council adopts the following findings in support of the approved variances: 1. The property has long served the parking needs of surrounding uses and will likely continue to do so. The parking space ratio and size are consistent with current retail industry design and other metropolitan community code requirements. o The smaller parking space size reduces the amount of hardcover that would be incurred by the typical zoning requirements. The residential and commercial, portions of the project will utilize a central pond for stormwater management. The total hardcover for the project is 64%, which is below typical hardcover thresholds of 75% in the downtown. C. The resolution is adopted for the property legally described as: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, t4, 15, 16 and 17, Lynwold Park, Lake Minnetonka, together with vacated Ridgewood Avenue and vacated alley originally delineated and dedicated in said plat of Lynwold Park, Lake Minnetonka. Lot 18, Lynwold Park, Lake Minnetonka, except the North 30 feet thereof. Lots 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101,104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114 and 115, Mound. Those parts of Lots 102 and 103, "Mound", which lie Easterly of the East line of the West 200.00 feet of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast.¼ of Section 14, TOwnship 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. That part of Meadow Lane, as delineated and dedicated on the plat of"Mound", and now vacated, which lies Easterly of the West 200.00 feet of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 15, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and Westerly of the Southerly extension of the West line of Dewey Avenue, now known as Bellaire Lane, as delineated and dedicated in said plat of"Mound". The South ½ of the northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 14, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5t Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the West 200.00 feet thereof, also except that part within the plat of"Mound", and except that part described as follows: Resolution #01-13 Page 6 of 8 -8701 - Commencing at the Northeast comer of said South ½ of the Northeast 'A of the Southeast 'A; thence Southerly along the East llne of said Southeast lA, a distance of 225.130 feet; Westerly parallel with the North line of said South ~ of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast 'A, to the intersection with the southerly extension of the West line of Dewey Avenue, now known as Bellaire Lane, as delineated and dedicated in the plat of "Mound"; thence Northerly along said Southerly extension to the North line of said South ½ of the Northeast ¼ of'the Southeast ¼, thence Easterly along said North line to the point of beginning. And except that part of said South ½ of the Northeast sA of the Southeast ¼, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East line of said Northeast ~A of the Southeast ¼, distant 225.00 feet Southerly from the Northeast comer of said South ½ of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼; thence Westerly, parallel with the North line of said South ½ of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼, a distance of 398.63 feet; thence Southerly, deflecting to the left 90 de~ees 00 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 158.39 feet; thence Easterly, deflecting to the left 89 degrees 57 minutes 22 seconds, to said East line of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼; thence Northerly along said East line to the point of beginning. Legal Description: Lots 19 and 20 Lynwold Park Lake Minnetonka The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and seconded by Councilmember Brown. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Hanus, Brown, Meisel The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Anderson, Meyer Adopted January 23, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor ty Clerk Resolution #01-13 Page 7 of 8 -8702- CERTIFICATE City of Mound STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) · I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and the Clerk of the City ofM0und, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that: As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached and forgoing extract was transcribed. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record. I find said extract to be a tree, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City heid of the date indicted in said extract, including any resolution adopted at such meeting, insofar as they relate to: RESOLUTION #00-124 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING APPROVAL FOR REZONING OF A GROUPING OF PROPERTIES CONSISTING OF ROUGHLY NINETEEN ACRES INCLUDING THE "OLD SCHOOL SITE" AT 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD AND THE ASSOCIATED ATHLETIC FIELDS P&Z CASE #00-66 Said meeting'was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on December 27, 2000. WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the seal of said City, this 25th day of January, 2001. Resolution #00-124 Page 3 of 3 -8703- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION #00-124 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING APPROVAL FOR REZONING OF A GROUPING OF PROPERTIES CONSISTING OF ROUGHLY NINETEEN ACRES INCLUDII~G THE "OLD SCHOOL SITE" AT 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD AND THE ASSOCIATED ATHLETIC FIELDS P&Z CASE//00-66 WHEREAS, MetroPlains Development has made development applications for the. subject property for projects called "The Villages by Cooks Bay" and "Mound Marketplace"; and WHEREAS, the development proposal suggests developing the site as multiple family residential and commercial as well as land dedicated for open space; and WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site and its surroundings are suitable for the type and density of development suggested by the proposed zoning modifications; and WHEREAS, on April 11, 2000 the City Council approved a comprehensive plan for the community and sent it to the Metropolitan Council for review pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 473.175; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2000 the Metropolitan Council approved a minor amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the subject property and authorized the City to put the minor Comprehensive Plan amendment in place immediately and without further review or comment by the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the proposed zoning modifications and recommended City Council approval; and official official WHEREAS, Minnesota .Statutes, sections 473.864 and 473.865 require that the City's controls, including zoning, be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan and that controls be amended so as to avoid any conflict with an. adopted Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the Mound Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendments are compatible with land uses surrounding the subject property; and WHEREAS, said zoning amendments are in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of Ordinances of the City of Mound. Resolution #00-124 Page 1 of 3 -8704- NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound that: 1. Zoning amendments for the subject property are hereby approved as: Destination District PUD for Lot 1 (except that area of Lot 1 currently known as Lots 18, 19, & 20, Lynwold Park, Lake Minnetonka) and Outlot A, Block 1 as described in the Preliminary Plat, Mound Visions First Addition dated November 2, 2000. bo K-3 Residential PDA for Lot 2 and Outlots B & C, Block 1 as described in the Preliminary Plat, Mound Visions First Addition dated November 2, 2000. o approval. The City Planner is directed to update the zoning map in accordance with this The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Brown and seconded by Councilmember Hanus. The following Councilmembers voted in the affm'native: Brown, Weycker, Meisel, Hanus, Ahrens The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none Adopted December 27, 2000. Attar: City Clerk Pat Meisel, Mayor .Resolution #00-124 Page 2 of 3 ' -8705- Exhibit C -8706- QWEST WIRELESS, L.L.C. 426 North Fairview Avenue, Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 May 21, 2001 Mr. Loren Gordon, AICP Zoning Administrator, City of Mound, Minnesota Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Re: Qwest PCS Site MIN,203 located on property at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Gordon, Qwest Wireless is proposing to relocate the PCS site on the above property. The existing monopole at the site will be reused. Valmont Industries, Inc: of Valley, Nebraska manufactured this monopole in the last quarter of 1998. I am enclosing a copy of a letter from Valmont to US West dated August 25, 1998 concerning failure modes for monopoles. Your attention is called to the first two paragraphs on the second page of the letter. Mr. Krohn, the author of the letter, provides a very clear and concise explanation of the failure modes of monopoles. Valmont in it's fifteen years of manufacturing has never had an in service failure of a monopole. Qwest, nor its' predecessor company, has ever had a failure of a monopole. If you have any questions I can be contacted on my direct wireless line, 612-272-0089. Sincerely, Dale R. Thorne, P.E. Structural Engineer MN license no. 17205 Encl. VMI letter Xc.; file D. Johnston, Qwest P. Conlin, Qwest ~LaV. Hanson, Metroplains Properties -8707- 6 U~.~5.1998~ ~:~PM-- COMM TWR ~ 359 585~ COMM TWR M0.7~0 P.l~3 AU~ ~5 ~98 OI:i~PM Valmo~t Inrushes, Inc. · Was! HIcjl~way 275 · P.O. Box ~B. Valley, Nebraska 68064-0358 U.S.A. · (402) 359-~..201 August 25, 1998 US West Wireless, LI~ 426 North Fa'n~riew Avenue Suite 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 Attentiom Mr. Adrian Schottroff Subject: Failure Modes for Poles and a Description of the Design Criteria US West Wireless Sit~: SCLO05 Valmont Order No. 17453,98 Dear Mr. Schottroff: I have been asked to write to you about the mode of failure for pole type structares used to support wireless phone antennas and equipment, and give some information to allow you to judge how remote the chances of failure occurring would be. I think it would be appropriate to start off by a brief description of the design criteria'that is typically used. The pol..~s Valmont supplies are designed in accordance with EI.AJT.LA. 222 Kevision F entitled "Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures." This is an approved A2,I.S.L standard that has dealt with the' design of lattice type structures for a number'of years. Revision E is the first version that goes into extensive detail about the design of pole ~jpe structures. The provisions of the standard have, as their foundation, provisions of other mitionally known specifications and standards that have a long history of reliability, This history should be of interest to you considering the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of sites throughout the United States which have structures designed with concepts sp~lled Out in publications like '~l'he Design of Stol Transmission Pole Structures" (published by A.S.C.E.), and "Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway signs, Luminaries and Traffic Signals" (published by A.A.S.H.T.O.). Many of the concepts used to design poles in these two publications are included in the E.LAJT.I.A. 222 ltevision 1~ Standard. The E.I.AfF.I.A. 222 Revision 1~ requirements dictat~ a basic design wind speed. The wind speed :o be used depends onthe location of the site within thc state. Vaknont's policy is. to use the w[ud loading in E.I.AJT.I.A. 222 as a minimum loading. Statistically, the wind speed listed in E.I.,k2T.I.A. 222 has been determined to be that wind which has an average reoccurrence of 50 years. This wind is also a "fastest mile" wind which means that' it is the averag~ velocity of a mile wind passing a point. For example, a 70 mph average fastest mile wind would take 51 seconds to pass a point. This standard "fastest mile" wind is customized with factors that apply to the particular installation, There is a 1.69 gust response factor imposed to account for sudden -8708- AUG ~S 'gB 01:16PM Valmont Industries, Inc. · West Highway 275 · P.O. Box 358. Valley. Nebraska 68064-0358 U.S.A. · (402) 359-2201 changes in wind speed, a h~ight coefficient to account for increasing wind speed with height, and an exposure coefficient to account (to some de~ree) the terrain effects. The loads generated by this wind and'the weight of the members (along with any ice considered) are then used to size members of the pole. There is at least a 25% factor of safety required under these conditiOns. This assumes that the wind blowing from the worst possible direction. Some directio~ts are worse than others, depending on the equipment.a~hed to the pole, the arrangement, and the orientation. The wind must exceed all our estimates for magnitude, duration, be at the worst orientation and overcome the factor of safety. Let us assume that a pole becomes overloaded. The typical consequence of this overloading is "local buckling" where a relatively small portion of the shaft disto~ and"kinks" the steel. This does not cause a free falling pole. After the buckle, the cross section of the pole is capable of carrying the entire vertical (weight) Icad and a substantial portion of the Icad that caused the buckling. The pole is likely, however, to be Out of plumb. TMs may be somewhat dramatic and the buckled section should be replaced. Them ar~ 3 mechanisms which prevent the pole from a free fall type failure.. Fir~ as the pole distorts this distortion may relieve the load from the pole either by.orienting the pole more favorably in the wind or, if buckling has occurred, by reducing the moment arm of the wind force. The second mechanism involves a redistribution of the stress in the pole after buckling toward the remaining portion or the cross section that has unused capacity. The third phenomenon and more important, is the nature of the force being applied. We expect the wind to produce this force. A wind that would cause a buckle would be larger than the basic wind speed, the gust fair, and the f~ctor of safety combined. A gust would soon dissipate and, after this peak wi~d is gone, the stress in the pole WOuld be reduced. Poles are flem~ble, forgiving structures which are not generally susceptible to damage by impact loads such as a wind gust or earthquake shocks. It takes some time for the entire structure to "see" the impact loading. Even after a local buckle, the pole has significant capacity. It is this capacity along with the transitory nature of the loading that prevents a pole from '~falling over". Pole design and testing have provided the public with a very reliable product. Poles have gone through extensive full scale testing, r~sulting in a history of being exffemely reliable. The public ! think, has been served well. Valmont has provided structures that have performed well · durinl$ the earthquakes in Calfforni~ the hurricanes in the South, aud a number of tornadoes. To my knowledge, V~lmont has never experienced an in service failure of a communication p°le due to weather induced overloadin~, even though, as in the csses of Hurricane Hugo and Hurricane Andrew, the wind speeds may have exceeded the design wind speed. -8709- Vaimont Industries, lnG. · West Highway 275 · P.O. Box 358. Valley, Nebraska 68084-0358 U.S,A. · (402) 359-2201 Vatraont Industries lms been designing various types of pole strUctures (i.e., high mast light~.~g poles, communication poles, electrical (utility) tran _smission poles, street and parkin$ lot poles, and traffic signal poles) for many years. As in the case of dommunications monopoles, Valmont has been actively engaged in the designing and manufacturing of these poles for fifteen years. The structural integrity of the monopoles is occasionally questioned by zoning and planning board commissions when this concern is not justified by engineering or experience. If a bu/lding of the same height as a monopole were tn be constructed on the same plot of land, no one would question what it would hit if it were to fall down tn the ground, even though the building and the monopole would be designed in accordance with the same building code requirements to safely withstand the same wind loadings. I hope this has helped. Please feel free tn call with any comments you may have. I can be reached at 1.800-345-6825 extension 3727 and w~ll be glad to discuss any concerns you may have. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or rep. on was prepa,-ed by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the Signatare: Steven M. Date: ~,~2/~ Reg. No.: Sincerely,. Manger of Engineering Communication Structures Industrial Products Division V_~!mont Industries, Inc. -8710- Exhibit D -8711- -8712- THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -8713- aO, OMNoL.LO0.. 1~. 0 ~ 33~ 0 > " gji' I1 II o J !I The Village at Cook's Bay Mound, Minnesota D~valopers: Metroplains I~velopment Inc. PBK Investments 'N 'l 0 Il ~ IOIlN ."~NV The Village at Cook's Bay Mound, Minnesota Developers: Metroplains Development Inc. PBK Investments Engineering · Planning · Surveying e FRA August 21, 2001 Ms. Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound 2001 Seal Coat Program Final Payment Request MFRA #6173 Dear Kandis: Enclosed is Pearson Brothers' Final Payment Request in the amount of $56,790.43 for the 2001 Seal Coat Program. The contract price for the project was $62,121.80. Because this work is fully completed, we do not recommend that any amount be retained. We have reviewed this project with Greg Skinner, your Street Superintendent, and find that the work was completed in general accordance with the plans and specifications. It is our recommendation that the Contractor be paid in full for this project. Very truly yours, MFRA John Cameron, City Engineer JC:rth Enclosure cc: Greg Skinner, Street Superintendent, City of Mound s:kmain:kMou06173khansonS-21 -8716- 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 o fax 763/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com 99 -8717- I~ICL,.~I4Bu FR,ANK ROOS -8718- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN. 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com August 22, 2001 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BONNIE RITTER SUBJECT: PERMIT APPROVALS Incredible Festival (Our Lady of the Lake) Public Dance Permit- September 15, 2001, from 7:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (Requesting that $100/day fee be waived) Temporary On-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor Permit- September 15 & 16, 2001. $50 fee ($25/day) has been received and insurance is in order. Northwest Tonka Lions Temporary On-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor Permit - September 6, 2001. $25 fee has been received and insurance is in order. Event is to be held at the Gillespie Center with the Historical Society. CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- A RESOLUTION DENYING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1642 GULL LANE, LOTS 9~ 10 AND 11~ BLOCK 18~ SHADYWOOD POINT~ P ~$~ Z~ CASE #01-26 AND #4)1-31 PID # 23-117-24-12-0256 WHEREAS, the applicant, has requested a minor subdivision of property that would require a variances to lot area and front yard setbacks in order to build a two residences on the proposed new lots. The variances are indicated below: Proposed Required Variance West Parcel Lot Area 9375 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 625 sq. ft. Front yard (Gull Lane) 20 feet 30 feet 10 feet East Parcel Lot Area 9375 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 625 sq. ft. an& WHEREAS, the property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, 60 feet of frontage on an improved street, a 30 feet front yard setback, and 10 feet side yards setbacks for non-lots of record; and, WHEREAS, currently, a single-family residence is located on lot 9 and has a nonconforming front yard setback of 9 feet to Jennings Road. A one car detached garage is located north of the residence in addition to three sheds located on the property. A brick fireplace is within the right-of-way in front of lot 10. As proposed, the existing residence would be removed to allow two new homes to be built; and, WHEREAS, as proposed, property would be split equally with the dividing line being in the center of lot 10 creating two new lots with lot areas as stated above and 75 feet of frontage on Jennings Road; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended that the Council deny the minor subdivision and variances as requested by the applicant; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby deny the Minor Subdivision and Variance request based on the following findings: The proposed Minor Subdivision does not meet the R-1 District minimum for lot area. -8720- bo The applicant did not demonstrate a house could not be buik to conform to district front yard setbacks This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOTS 9, 10 AND 11, BLOCK 18, SHADYWOOD POINT The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Couneilmembers voted in the negative: and Adopted August 28, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk -8721 - Excerpts from the MINUTES MOUND PLANNING ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY~ AUGUST 6~ 2001 CASE #01-26 MINOR SUBDIVISION - 1642 GULL LANE CASE #01-31 VARIANCE The applicant has submitted an application for a minor subdivision and variances in order to redevelop the site by creating two buildable lots. The property is located at the northeast comer of Gull Lane and Jennings Road and includes lots 9, 10, and 11 of Block 18, Shadywood Point. Total area is 18, 717 sq. lt. or 0.43 acre. The zoning sheet included in your packets indicates two lots of record, one parcel containing lots 9 and 10 and one containing lot 11. Hennepin County records show the two were combined earlier this year. A single story house is located on lot 9, located about 9 feet from the Jennings Road right-of-way. A single car garage serves the house along with three sheds. Within the right-of-way in front of lot 10 is a brick fireplace. The applicant proposes the following standards: West Parcel Lot Area Lot Width Sideyard 10 feet Frontyard (Gull Lane) Frontyard (Jennings Road) Rearyard Proposed Required Variance 9375 sq. lt. 10,000 sq. ft. 75 feet 60 feet 10 feet - 20 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 15 feet 15 feet 625 sq. lt. 10 feet East Parcel Lot Area 9375 sq. ir. 10,000 sq. lt. Lot Width 75 feet 60 feet Sideyard 10 feet 10 feet Frontyard 30 feet 30 feet Rearyard 15 feet 15 feet 625 sq. ft. On the block the property is located, the lots were originally platted at 50 feet by 125 feet. As held today, the majority of the parcels are 100 feet by 125 feet. Gull Lane is a dividing line of historical platting. In a couple block area surrounding the site, lots west of Gull Lane are platted at 40 feet by 80 feet, much smaller than those to the east which are 50 feet by 125 feet. This is a difficult case on a couple fronts because the Planning Commission and -8722- Council will need to decide if housing redevelopment goals are more important than a variance to City Code. Previous to the combination of the three lots, the property contained two lots of record consisting of lots 9 and 10 and lot 11. As lots of record, two homes could have been constructed according to zoning regulations by simply obtaining a building permit. Nonetheless, the lots are now combined and the applicant may have lost the influence two lots of record could have had if the application was to adjust boundary lines. This is not to suggest that that proposal is not a good alternative to redevelop the property. An advantage this proposal has over building on the lots of record is it provides the opportunity to build two homes that may be more characteristics of those on the block, which tend to be wider range style homes. From a zoning standpoint, a variance to lot area could be supported because the lot width will provide the ability to design homes that are consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The variance to lot area is about 6 percent of the required - that is minimal. Granting a variance to the Gull Lane front yard is difficult to support given the fact that the existing house is setback 30 feet and the site will be cleared for redevelopment. An alternative to provide additional building area is providing more lot area on the western parcel. Typically comer lots are platted 10 feet wider to compensate for the loss ofbuildable area to a front yard setback. Smith indicated that HC Conservation District personnel met with staffon the site and there is evidence of wetland soils and vegetation. Might be able to fill 400 SF without a replacement. It should be nothing to hold you decision this evening. Sutherland - Spoke with applicant on 2 occasions and he has contacted a wetland delineator and will consult with them. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the minor subdivision and variance requests with the following conditions: Minor Subdivision 1. The dividing line between the east and west parcels be adjusted 5 feet to the east creating west parcel with 80 feet of frontage on Jennings Road and an east parcel with 70 feet of frontage on Jennings Road. 2. A formal plat be prepared for the minor subdivision and labeled accordingly. 3. The two parcels be identified with "Tract" or "Parcel" and numbered or lettered accordingly. 4. Drainage and utility easements be provided along side lot lines 5 feet in width and rear lot lines 10 feet in width. 5. The City Engineer review grading and drainage plans prior to building permit approval. -8723- 6. Park fees of $500 be paid prior to rdease of a building permit. 7. The brick fireplace located in the right-of-way be removed prior to release of a building permit. 8. Comply with the WCA regulations regarding fill. Variance The front yard setback of the western parcel along Gull Lane conforms to the R-1 standard of 30 feet. Staff does not recommend approval of the Gull Lane variance. Discussion Burma confirmed that the SF calculations are based on the schematic in the packet. Changing the lot line by 5 feet would make the west lot conforming but increase the variance to 1250 feet on the east lot. Mueller was concerned about dealing with the wetland mitigation issue at staff' level. Sutherland indicated it wouldn't be a problem. The wetlands could cross 2 parcels. Mueller questioned the mitigation ratio. It was agreed that it is two to one. By saying we can deal with it at a staff.level, if we go ahead with the subdivision we have dealt with a scenario that may impact how we would feel about a 75 foot lot with a 1,000 SF of wetlands that had to be mitigated because that's where the building's going to go. Mueller didn't think we should make a decision until that is determined. Sutherland added that, if it was only 500 SF there, with a 400 SF diminimus the numbers really aren't that high. Gordon said that, if lots 9 and 10 hadn't been combined with 11, it wouldn't go through a special review process under 400 SF. If it was over 400 SF it would go through the WCA provisions. Mueller felt that anyone that builds on this lot will have a wet basement. Drainage issue is a concern because the house next door is only 948. If you are going to have the water flow around this house are you going to dig ditches? This is a catch pond for the surrounding neighbors. This backyard was filled in over the years in order to get to the 949. We also need to consider that most of the lots in the neighborhood are 12000+. That used to be one of our considerations. Tom Stokes, Brenshell Homes - I was approached by the Weitnaurs. This is a blighted area. The economics will not work for us. As a community member I feel that we need to help with areas such as this. The hardship is on the rest of the neighbors who are trying to clean up the area. Sometimes it takes just one property in a neighborhood to encourage the rest of the neighborhood to clean up. It is our intent to build the houses. The wetland, it is my understanding, can be filled. A lot of that wetland is manmade. Construction of the neighboring homes created the wetland by stopping up the outlet that the water had. This is an opportunity for the city to help an area that could use some cleanup. Jennings is considerably wider than some of the other surrounding streets. This adds the feeling of a much larger lot because of that extra width. -8724- MOTION by Commissioner Clapsaddle, seconded by Commissioner Michael, to accept the staff recommendation. Comments - Michael indicated the only reason he seconded the motion was for the sake of discussion. Burma said he was voting against because we are seeing a shift of policy from previous years making things bigger and more spacious. This is making 2 lots undersized. Mueller said that, from a redevelopment standpoint, it would make so much sense. It has become economically feasible to look at doing this now. MOTION fails. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, to deny the request. Comments - Anderson said that we are in an awkward position because we have wanted bigger lots. Now smart building is going smaller again. We need to decide where we want to go instead of being wishy-washy. Michael felt that the problem is that this commission has never voted to subdivide and create a variance right away. Clapsaddle thought that it was a good thought but policy is something we don't really establish. MOTION carries unanimously. -8725- From: Steven Behnke To: Sarah Smith Date: 8/24/101 Time: 12:48:09 Paoei of I RENSllELL DEVELOPMENT, INO. P O Box 125, Mound, Minnesota 55364 Mayor Pat Meisel Mound City Council Sarah Smith, Community Development Director City of Mound 5341 Maywood Avenue Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: 1642 Gull Lane, Mtmnd Dear Sarah, We offer the following information for consideration for the variance request at the above address. We note that the existing conditions are as follows: · The site is currently one parcel of 18,717.4 square feet area or 0.43 acres · The ROW width of Gull Lane is 40' · The ROW width of Jennings Road is 60' · The lot area standard for R-1 zoning is 10,000 square feet The current Residence meets the 30' Setback from Gull Lane · The current Residence violates the 30' setback from Jermings Road (9' actual, a 21' variance) We note that. the Jerming~s Re,ad ROW is signifit:anfly wider (60' vs. 40' - 150%) than standard fc~r this area of Mc~tmd. If Jennings Road had the same ROW width as other roads in this vicinity, we would enjoy an additional 10' of lot depth, which would give each of the lots in our proposed subdivision 10,125 sft, 125 sft over the minimum allowed in this zoning district. That the land exists as part of the right of way does not diminish the effect of the area, the lot benefits from the feeling of additional lot depth. Actually since we are not asking for any Front Yard Setback variance, the homes proposed will be an additional IO' from the curb es compared to other homes in thc neighborhood, and will blend nicely with thc existing residences to thc cast. We wish to have fl~e project approved as originally presented, however should the City Council find direction in file Planning Commissions stronger resistance to granting the Streel Side Yard variance, we find that. Planner Oordc~n's comments and recommendation present a reasonable compromise. We observe that moving the lot line 5' to the east creates one conforming lot, with a 40' buildable width due to the double from yard setback and a second lot with a non-conforming area (8,750 sft) and a 50' buildable width. We wish to continue to note the extra 10' of public ROW that exists at this location as compared to most other streets in this vicinity. We have had our wetland consultant, Kjelhaug Enviro~maental, visit the property. They have detemfined that flae area in question is not a wetland. We received notice fi'om the Cities Community Development Director fl~at a representative fi'om the County has also visited the site and appears to concur with the determination of no wetland. Kjelhaug Environmental is proceeding with the process to report that fact and have the determination confirmed by the Cities wetland expert. We wish to point out to the City, Brenshell Development and Fine Line Design group's history of providing reasonable priced, neighborhood sensitive home products evailablc to residents of thc City of Mound. We hope to make these two residence thc next benefit ti'om us to the City and people of Mound. Sincerely, Thomas A. Stokes, President -8726- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 6, 2001 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision and Variance APPLICANT: Brenshell Development CASE NUMBERS: 01-26 and 01-31 HKG FILE NUMBER: 01-05 LOCATION: 1642 Gull Lane ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted an application for a minor subdivision and variances in order to redevelop the site by creating two buildable lots. The property is located at the northeast comer of Gull Lane and Jennings Road and includes lots 9, 10, and 11 of Block 18, Shadywood Point. Total area is 18, 717 sq. f. or 0.43 acre. The zoning sheet included in your packets indicates two lots of record, one parcel containing lots 9 and 10 and one containing lot 11. Hennepin County records show the two were combined earlier this year. A single story house is located on lot 9, located about 9 feet from the Jennings Road right-of- way. A single car garage serves the house along with three sheds. Within the right-of-way in front of lot 10 is a brick fireplace. The applicant proposes the following standards: Proposed Required Variance West Parcel Lot Area 9375 sq. it. 10,000 sq. ft. 625 sq. it. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8727- p. 2 g01-26 and 01-31 Brenshell Minor Subdivision and Variance August 6, 2001 Lot Width 75 feet 60 feet Sideyard 10 feet 10 feet Frontyard (Gull Lane) 20 feet 30 feet Frontyard (Jennings Road) 30 feet 30 feet Rearyard 15 feet 15 feet 10 feet East Parcel Lot Area 9375 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Lot Width 75 feet 60 feet Sideyard 10 feet 10 feet Frontyard 30 feet 30 feet Rearyard 15 feet 15 feet 625 sq. ft. On the block the property is located, the lots were originally platted at 50 feet by 125 feet. As held today, the majority of the parcels are 100 feet by 125 feet. Gull Lane is a dividing line of historical platting. In a couple block area surrounding the site, lots west of Gull Lane are platted at 40 feet by 80 feet, much smaller than those to the east which are 50 feet by 125 feet. DISCUSSION: This is a difficult case on a couple fronts because the Planning Commission and Council will need to decide if housing redevelopment goals are more important than a variance to City Code. Previous to the combination of the three lots, the property contained two lots of record consisting of lots 9 and 10 and lot 11. As lots of record, two homes could have been constructed according to zoning regulations by simply obtaining a building permit. Nonetheless, the lots are now combined and the applicant may have lost the influence two lots of record could have had if the application was to adjust boundary lines. This is not to suggest that that proposal is not a good alternative to redevelop the property. An advantage this proposal has over building on the lots of record is it provides the opportunity to build two homes that may be more characteristic of those on the block which tend to be wider range style homes. From a zoning standpoint, a variance to lot area could be supported because the lot width will provide the ability to design homes that are consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The variance to lot area is about 6 percent of the required which is minimal. Granting a variance to the Gull Lane front yard is difficult to support given the fact that the existing house is setback 30 feet and the site will be cleared for redevelopment. An alternative to provide additional building area is providing more lot area on the western parcel. Typically comer lots are platted 10 feet wider to compensate for the loss ofbuildable area to a front yard setback. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the minor subdivision and variance requests with the following conditions: Minor Subdivision 1. The dividing line between the east and west parcels be adjusted 5 feet to the east creating 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8728- p. 3 #01-26 and 01-31 Brenshell Minor Subdivision and Variance August 6, 2001 a west parcel with 80 feet of frontage on Jennings Road and an east parcel with 70 feet of frontage on Jennings Road. 2. A formal plat be prepared for the minor subdivision and labeled accordingly. 3. The two parcels be identified with "Tract" or "Parcel" and numbered or lettered accordingly. 4. Drainage and utility easements be provided along side lot lines 5 feet in width and rear lot lines 10 feet in width. 5. The City Engineer review grading and drainage plans prior to building permit approval. 6. Park fees of $500 be paid prior to release of a building permit. 7. The brick fireplace located in the right-of-way be removed prior to release of a building permit. Variance 1. The front yard setback of the western parcel along Gull Lane conform to the R-1 standard of 30 feet. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8729- Engineering · Planning · Surveying ME M 0 R A ND UM DATE: July 25,2001 TO: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Minor Subdivision - Weitnaur/Brenshell Property Case #01-26 and #01-31 MFRA #13412 Comments The survey submitted with the application shows only tentative house locations and elevations; therefore a final grading and drainage plan will be required when application is made for building permits. 2. This is one of older plats in the City, which typically did not provide drainage easements along the lot lines. Drainage easements should be required as part of the minor subdivision. It appears from City utility records that a sanitary sewer service is in-place for both parcels, and water service for the westerly parcel with the existing home; however there is not existing water service for the easterly parcel. A new water service will need to be installed from the watermain in Jennings Road. 4. The property should be field checked to make sure that the low area on Lot 11 is not a wetland. 5. City records need to be checked to make sure there are no deficient utility or street charges. -8730- 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-maiL' mfra@mfra, corn 'Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning July 25, 2001 Page 2 Reconttnendations We recommend the following conditions be a part of the subdivision approval: 1. Final grading and drainage plan to be approved by the City Engineer at time of building permit application. 2. Provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines, five feet wide on side lot lines and ten feet in width along the rear lot lines, ten feet in width along Gull Lane and five feet in width along Jennings Road. 3. The water services for the easterly parcel either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. 4. Verify that no wetland exists on easterly parcel. 5. Any deficient street or utility charges shall be collected. cc: Loren Gordon, HKGI s:\main :hMou 13412:\Correspondenceksutherland7-24 -8731- PAID JUL 1 0 200~ Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City Planner Public Works City Engineer CITY OF MOUND Commission Date: ~.~ ;~:Z~[ City Council Date: ~ ~-~1 c,~(~;I/ Distribution: '~'ll'O l DNR .~../'/i"~ ! Parks / -O / Other City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 Case No. Application Fee:. ~)~ Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges? $1.000 Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please type or print the following Information: INFORMATION ~ISTING Lot ~, '~:'; '~1 ..... ' ..~ ~ Plat~ LEGAL I ZONIN~ DISTRICT CirCe: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 OW~E'~' Name %~~~[ ~~ ~~ (if other than P.o.o(.) qSz- qs t m GIz- t.-It l (M). ) Has an appli~tion evor boon mado ~ ~oning, variant, ~nditional u~ pe~it, or o~er zoning pm~dure ~r ~i~ propo~? ( ) yes, ( no. If y~, list date(s) of appli~on, a~on ~kon, m~lution numbor{~) and provido mpios of m~olu~on~. rNs ~pplication must ~o si~no~ ~y ~ o~nom ot t~o su~joct propose, or an oxplanation ~von ~y ~is is not t~e cose. (wner's '-'--"" Signature Owner,s Signature Rovisod 07-13-00 Re vised 07-13-00 Date Date -8732- (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952-472-0607, Fax: 952-472-0620 ............................ .,, Application Fee:~ Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: ~--~"'0 1 Case No. City Planner DNR C~ Engineer · PARK Public Wo~s Other JUL 2 0 ZOO1 CITY OF MOUND SUBJECT Address PROPERTY Lot ql (OI II .., LEGAL Block. ..... t.~ ' ZONING DIS~ICT ~R-1) R-lA R-2 R~ B-1 B-2 B-3 P~ne (IF OTHER Address ~. ~AN Pho~ ~ ~ ~ I 1. Has an ap 31ication 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. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): FiECEIVED -8733- Jul-17-01 09:28 Brenshell vatlarlc8 Application, P, 2 of ;3 9524958121 CITY OF I[OL~ND P.03 004 variance request, I,e. setback, lot area, etc.): Do the existing structures co~nply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If ne, specify each non-conforming use (clescri0e reason for REQU iRED REQUESTED VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N S E W ) fi. ft,. ft. Side Yarcl: ~ .... ~%© ff. -- ~ ff. lO ff. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. - - ft. -fi. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. __ ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ff. - ff. fl. · (NSEW) ff. ft. ff. Street Frontage: fl. ff. ft. Hardcover: _sq ft ~ ff .sq fl Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the Zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( }, No (). If no, speci~ each non-conforming use: ~;esse 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 -8734- Jul-17-01 -09:28 Brenshell Homes 9524958121 P.04 vf~x~/vz ow:az FAX CIT~' OF MOLL~D ~005 Vadamce Al~fion, P. 3 of 3 Case No.~ Was the hardshil3 described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the lancl after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such es the relocation of · road'~ Yes (), No (). if yes, explain: ' o Are the condlUons of hardship [or which you request a vartance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? g. Comments: I certify that all of the above statement~ and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true anti accurate. ! consent to the entry in or upon the premises describe0 in this application by any authorized official of the Ci~ of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing SuCh noti_~__~ as may be required by taw. Owner's Signature ~~/~ ~ Applicant's Signatu~ Date -8735- Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page 1 of 2 Search By: HOUSE or BUILDING #: STP,EET NAME: (at least first 3 characters) U N IT # (If applicable) records per page Property Information Search Result (The property information database is updated at the beginning of each month.) Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 2001 Click Here for State Copy of Payable 2001 Tax Statement Property ID: 13-117-24 12 0256 Property Address: 1642 GULL LA Municipality Name: MOUND Construction Year: 1937 Owner Name: School Dist: 277 Watershed: 3 Sewer Dist: Parcel Size: SW 150 X 125 AP. LIE R WEITNAUER Taxpayer Name & Address: AP,LIE ROGER WEITNAUER 1642 GULL LA MOUND MN 55364 Most Current Sales Information Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estate Value and are not warranted to represent arms-length transactions. Sale Date: February, 2001 Sale Price: $1,200 Transaction Type: Vacant Land Lot: Block: 018 Metes & Bounds: LOTS 9 TO 11 INCL Tax Parcel Description Addition Name: SHADYWOOD POINT Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 2001 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 2000 Estimated Market Value: Limited Market Value: Taxable Market Value: Total Improvement Amount: Total Net Tax: Total Special Assessments: Solid Waste Fee: Total Tax: 94,000 88,800 88,800 991.77 16.48 1,008.25 http://204.73.55.30/pins/AddrSrchRes.stm - 8736- 8/1/2001 Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page 2 of 2 Property Information Detail for Taxes Payable 2001 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 2000 Values: I 2 Land Market 32,000 15,000 Building Market 47,000 Machinery Market Total Market: 79,000 15,000 Land Limited 29,900 15,000 Building Limited 43,900 Total Limited: 73,800 15,000 Qualifying Improvements Classifications: 1 2 Property Type RESIDENTIAL VACANT LAND- RESIDENTIAL Homestead Status HOMESTEAD NON-HOMESTEAD Relative Homestead Agricultural Exempt Status Records 1 - 1 of total 1 2153 Questions or problems with this database search should be directed to Don. Ko p_.eJ..~..o_~ e n_n__.e. Pi_0...~_n_._u.s_ Hennepin County is providing this information as a public service. Please send comments on our Web Site to Henn. Net~co.hennepin.mn.us or use our Feedback Form Main ~: Copyright © 1998 Hennepin County 8/1/2001 http ://204.73.55.30/pins/AddrSrchRes. stm -8737- Hennepin County Map Server Page 1 of 1 Hennepin County, Minnesota This information is to be used for reference purposes only. Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of the material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or its derivatives. If map discrepancies are found, please contact the Hennepin County Surveyors Office at (612) 348-3131. The quality of the display may be influenced by your screen size and resolution setting, and is best viewed at 800x600 screen resolution. This application requires Intemet Explorer 3.02 or Netscape 2.01 or later version for proper operation Copyright © 2000 Hennepin County http://www 19.co.henne.../esrimap.dll?name=Hennerfin&cmd=Find&VALUE=l 31172412025 8/1/2001 -8738- ADDRESS: SURVEY ON FILE? YES(,,/'NO REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: EXISTING LOT WIDTH: ZONE: J -REQ. LOt AREA: LOT OF RECORD?{ YEs,~.O,? IEXIST. LOT AREA: REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL J~.I,IILDING/HOUSE FRONT: Nj'~'~E .W, ~.~n~n~ ,'~(') ' FRONT: U~ ~1 SIDE: N S('E~ '' SIDE: ~ S~ W LAKESH~E: ~.(measured lmm O.I.I.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: J0 ' ACCESSOR¥-~BUILDING/GARAG E/SHED FRONT: N[S~E W ~'~O '. FRONT: Nk'~'"'E(~ ,~"~, ' SIDE: N S~W 4' or 6, SIDE: ,J;~S(,..~W ~,or 6 REAR: (N..)S E W ~_'.., 50' (measured fronl O,H.W.) I_AK ESI-lORE: TOP OF BLUFF: EXISI'ING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: /(~) / ,s THIS P"OPERTY CONFORM'NG? YES / NO By~ e~ J DATE: 'IS '~ Fhis n I Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zo~ Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. PAID JUL 1 0 2001 CITY OF ~OU~,,,B Commission Date: Council Date: ~ City Distribution: Application for I F City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 Case No. ¢/"'~O~_f2 Application Fee:_ Escrow Deposit:_ $1.ooo '7'//"D ] City Planner DNR Deficient Unit Charges? /1~1/"~ / Public Works Parks /,42. ~.'Jj-O / . C~ity Engineer Other - Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED?.. V,/.f~aase type or print the following Information: ......................................................... PROPER S.bje Add INFORMATION EXISTING Lot q )' '10:~ 'il ..... ' --~ ~g · Plat. LEGAL ZONiN~ - DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT The appli~nt is: ~.,,,~ ~e~ ~ ~ ~- ~,~:. OWhER Name ~~~O [ (if other than ENGINEER Addm~ Phone(H) "' (M) ' Has an nnnlicntinn ~vnr h~n m~M~ ~n..~.i.. ,~.~ ~.~+;~.~, ....... ,, -_ _., ... g, vanance, use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, re~olution number(s) and provide ~opies of resolutions. wner's Signature Owner's Signature Revised 07-13-00 Revised 07-13-00 This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Date Date -8740- 01-26/31 Property ID: 13-117-24 12 0256 Property Address: 1642 GULL LA Municipality Name: MOUND School Dist: 277 Watershed: 3 Sewer Dist: Construction Year: 1937 Parcel Size: SW 150 X 125 Owner Name: ARLIE R WEITNAUER Taxpayer Name & Address: ARLIE ROGER WEITNAUER 1642 GULL LA MOUND MN 55364 Property ID: 13-117-24 12 0086 Property Address: 1622 GULL LA Municipality Name: MOUND School Dist: 277 Watershed: 3 Sewer Dist: Construction Year: 1975 Parcel Size: 100 X 125 Owner Name: B & C BADTKE Taxpayer Name & Address: BERNARD D BADTKE 1622 GULL LANE MOUND MN 55364 Property ID: 13-117-24 12 0085 Property Address: 5041 CRESTVlEW RD Municipality Name: MOUND School Dist: 277 Watershed: 3 Sewer Dist: Construction Year: 1936 Parcel Size: 100 X 125 Owner Name: CRAIG H HIETANEN Taxpayer Name & Address: CRAIG H HIETANEN 5041 CRESTVIEW RD MOUND MN 55364 -8741 - VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: ~S2472-050T, Fax: 952-472.0520 (FOR OFFICE uSE ONLY) Application Fee:~ No. D!- ! Planning Commissio. Date: __ ~'-G--DI city Council Date: oCz-~ 0°'- KD I /. .-~,r,.5.~;~ -'~-~ I City Planner y.,~.~_~j~.~ ~-~_.~/,~,~// ~ City Engineer PARK ~ .... _ x,/,, .. ~ Public Works Other ~//,~;/7~- CITY OF MOUND PAID JUL £ 0 2001 PROPERTY Lot C~j (0I Il -- LEGAL Block.. , ZONING DIS~ICT ~ R-lA R-2 R~ B-1 ~2 B-3 O~E~ Address, ~11 P~ne APPLICA~ Na~ ~~S~t ~~.~~ -- (IF OTHER Add~s ~. ~. ~ 1 ~ ' ~b~ . ~AN Pho~ ~5~I ~5~-~ -~/ff ( _(M).. OWNE~) ~) q 5~- ~), property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. of resolutions. zoning, vanance, condi[ional use permit, or other zoning procedure for thi If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copie Detailed description of pmposecl construction or alteration (size, number of stodes, type of use, etc.): Re~4sed 04/24/01 -8742- MOUND PLANNING & INSP. jul-17-01 09:28 Brenshell Homes 9524958121 P.03 ~.~u~ u~:uz ~'AI CITY OF MOUND v~nce ,eq:~lk:~lon, p. 2 of 3 3. Do the existing structures comply with all ama, height, buik, and setback regulations for the zoning dlsa'ict in which it is located? 'Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conf~rming use (descri0e reason for variance request, I.e. setback, lot area, etc.): REQUIF~D REQUESTED VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ~ Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( Id S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover. ft, fL ft. fL ft. ft. ft, ~_ff. 'lt. ft. ft. ff. ft, .sqR sqff sqft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the Zoning district in whicfl it is located? Yes (), No (.). If no, spedfy each non-conforming use: = Which unique physical characteristics of tho subject property prevent Its reasonable u~ ~ any of the uses permitted in that zoning distri~? Ptoese ( ) too narrow ( ) too smaU ( ) too shallow describe: ~---~l~v~,.~.,,~ topography ( ) soil drainage ~( ) existing situation shape ~other'. specify -8743- Jul-17-01 09:28 Brenshell Homes 9524958! 21 ¢[~ OF MOUND P . 04 Was l~e hardshiD des¢ibed above created by the action of anyone having properly interests in the tancI after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes { ), No (). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such ss the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (). If yes, exptain: Are the condit~ons of hardship [or which you request a variance peculiar only to 1he property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarty affected? Comments: i certify that all of the above statemenLs and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. ! consent to the entry in or upon the premises ~escfibe0 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 taw. Owner's Signature, ~ ~ . Applicant'. Signatu~~ _.._.____- Date_ o.,.... 7/, -8744- ADDRESS: REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: EXISTING LOT WIDTH: REQUIRED SETBACKS I REQ. LOT AREA: LOT OF RECORD?(YEs~NO/? EXISTING LOT DEPTH: JEXIST. LOT AREA: PRINCIPAL I~ILDING/HOUSE FRONT: N FRONT: N ~W) SIDE: N S~ SIDE: N S~ W LAKESHO~E: ~']measumd from TOP OF BLUFF: J0 ' ACCESSORy-#.BUILDING/GARAG EJSHED FRONT: N[S~E W FRONT: Nk'5~E~ 'SIDE: N S/F..~,W 4' or 6', SIDE: .i~ S(,~W z~or 6 REAR: [N)S E W ~_~) LAKESI~rRE: §0' (measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: HA~]3C~ERCONFORMING? YES/NO/(? ~) IS TI-IIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YES/ BY~ e~ DATE: ~,~ .,-,~ ~,~ 'his n I Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of tl~e requirements o~Uined in the City Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Departmen[ at 472-0600. .- 8745- r"~ml L'r:i ,f, F"?,:, I '~:~ of Mound Zo[ O' I I I I I I I I -d~- - O0'ow l - _ _ -oo ,ooo~ N ~13 ICj I, ~ ~s I I I O'gL ' ./, , I ~3$nOH / I I I I I I I I I I I / I I I / ,I I / / / I I I I I I I I I I I I I MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE FACILITY COMMITTEE Facility Options To Be Considered A. Expand and remodel existing fire station facility for Fire Department use only. B. Expand and remodel existing fire station facility for Fire Department and Police use, crating a joint public safety facility. Remodel or adapt vacated police area for City Office use. C. Construction of New Fire Station facility for Fire Department use only. D. Construction of New Public Service facility for Fire Department, Police Department, and Emergency Operations. Remodel or adapt vacated Police area for City Office use E. Construction (or plans for) of New City Complex / Facility for City Offices, Fire Department, Emergency Operations, and Police Department. Considerations · Location of fire station (or stations) · Available land or property space · Needs assessment for departments - Police, Fire, City · Economic considerations- use of existing facility, new, etc. · Future needs -8747- MOUND FIRE DEPARMENT FIRE STATION FACILITY ISSUES · Originally constructed in the 1950's · Additional Bay for Trucks added in 1980 · Structure Is In Need Of Much Work Or Repairs (windows, doors, walls, floor covering, etc.) · Building Does Not Meet Codes for safety and handicap accessibility · Old And Inefficient (Windows, HVAC, Electricity, Lighting) causing high utility costs · Structural Integrity Is Poor (cracks in block walls) · Apparatus Floor Space Is Too Small - Crowded (11 vehicles and 2 boats won't fit) · Training Room area is not large enough for 37 members. Also not set up well for training activities · Apparatus Placement Inappropriate - size and length will not allow proper placement for sequential response thus effecting response times. · Lack Of Storage Space for hose and supplies · Minimal Attractive Amenities necessary to retain firefighters · Inefficient In Terms Of Access, Clean Up, Etc. (after a fire cleanup and preparation) · Location Seems To Be Good · Fire and Rescue apparatus are crowded into same bay - side by side creating access and safety concerns. 5,000 square feet of apparatus floor is not at all sufficient Existing Structure Size · Small Training Room / TV Lounge Upstairs 390 · Small Office Upstairs- Chiefs 100 · Small Storage Office Upstairs- Training/Bathroom 104 · Large Meeting /Training Room - Upstairs 750 Total Upstairs 1,344 Square Feet · Apparatus Bay- New (South Bay) 2,040 · Apparatus Bay- Old 3,430 · Office Space, Radio Room, TV Lounge 520 · Hose Tower, Mechanics Room, Storage 210 · Restrooms, Furnace Room, Storage, Air Room401 · Kitchen And Storage 484 · Work Out Room 374 Total Downstairs 7,459 Total Of All Space 8,803 -8748- MFD FACILITY COMMI EE EXISTING EQUIPMENT # 19 Rescue w/Boat, Boats # 25 Tanker # 17 Aerial # 22 Utility # 18 2"d Pumper # 24 1~t Pumper # 11 3~a Pumper # 26 Pickup # 27 Gamma Goat # 16 F-Troop Generator on Trailer CONSIDERATIONS - ISSUES Outdoor Space (Fish Fry) New Electrical Service Mechanics Bay Kitchen (Fish Fry) Office Space Radio Room Meeting Room ; ., AV Facilities Workout Room Storage Handicap Accessibilky (Bathrooms, etc.) Training Facilities Future Space Outside Generator (Backup) Personnel Lockers Hose Storage Washing Area - equipment, mm out gear SCBA Room Medical Supplies Storage (Near Rescue Vehicles) Parking Outdoor Lighted Sign Water Ball Traffic Accessibility -8749- ._ ~... . . . . . ..... -8750- -8751 - -> AMM FAX August 13- 17, 2001 J I I · Association of f'le£ropolitan f'iunicipalities AMM Policy Committees to Meet With Legislators AMM and LMC to Sponsor Press Briefing p%Aepresentative Dan McE]roy and Senator Larry Pogemiller will meet with MM policy committees next week. Rep. McEIrory is scheduled to meet with the Metropolitan Agencies Committee on Tuesday, August 21 at 11:30 a.m. to discuss the Metropolitan Council. Senator Pogemiller will meet with the Housing and Economic Development Committee on Thurs- day, August 23 to discuss the future of redevelopment. The Housing and Economic Development Committee meeting begins at 11:30 a.m. Senator Pogemiller is scheduled to speak at 12:15 p.m. The AMM and the LMC are sponsoring a press briefing regarding the 2001 property tax reform for city haft report- ers. The briefing is scheduled for Wednesday, August 22, 2001 from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m, in the St. Croix Room of the LMC Building. The purpose of the meeting is to provide re- porters with information that can be used as they cover the 2002 municipal budget pro- cess. Please encourage your city hall reporter to attend. Non-committee members who are interested in attending either of these meetings are asked to contact Laude Jennings at (651) 215-4000. Sensible Land Use Coalition Meeting to Focus on Redevelopment and TIF On Wednesday, August 29, the Sensible Land Coalition will present a program entitled "Try New TIF Lite," featuring Rep. Ron Abrams, chair of the House Tax Committee, and Sid Inman of Ehlers and Associates. Abrams and lnman will discuss the effects of the new tax structure on TIF and redevelopment. The lunch meeting will be held at the Doubletree Park Place in St. Louis Park, begining at 11:30 a,m. To register or for additional information please contact SLUC at (952) 474-3302 or visit their website at www. sensibleland.org. The deadline to register is noon on August 24. AMM Fax New. s is faxed to alI AMM city managers and administrators, leg- islative contacts and Board members, Please share thts fax wlth your mayors, councllmembers and staff to I~eep them abrea,~t of Important metro city issues. 145 University Avenue West ~ Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281.1299 E. mail: a~mml 4 $.org Dept. of Administration Seeks Members for Fees Workgroup The building fees bill (Laws 2001 Chapter 207) requires cities to annually submit a report regarding building fees and permits to the Department of Administration. To assist in developing the report, the department w~' form a work group with membership from cities, builders and developer~. AMM representatives have been asked to serve on the group. At this time the meeting schedule has no'I been set. If you are interested in serving please contact Gene Ranieri at (651)215-4001 or gene~amm 145. orq. -8752- MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, August 22, 2001 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, C'hair Foster READING OF MINUTES- 7/25/01 LMCD Regular Board Meeting 8/8/01 LMCD Planning/Workshop Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in..one motion unless a Board member request discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. WATER STRUCTURES A) Excel Marina (Site 1), consideration of draft Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock license and special density license applications for 78 Boat Storage UnitS (BSU's) on 784' of continuous shoreline; B) Excel'Marina (Site~2), consideration of draft Findings of'Fact and Order for approval of new ,.multiple dock license and special density license applications for 12 Boat Storage Units .................................. (BSU'§)' '~:h' ~'~29'r"Of'65'hti ~'b'b~i~'FiSmii'~ ............................................................................................................. C) City of Mound, discussion of fees incurred by the District in the administration and processing of six variance applications and a new multiple dock license application; D) Additional Business; = LAKE USE & RECREATION A) LMCD Code Section 3.10, discussion of ordinance that requires an observer when towing a person on Lake Minnetonka; B) (*) Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Water Patrol Significant Activity Report; C) Additional Business; 3. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers (8/1/01-8/15/01 & 8/16/01-8/30/01); B) (*) July financial summary and balance sheet; C) Additional Business; -8753- 4. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A) (*) Minutes from the 7/13/01 EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting (handout); B) Staff update on "Lets Keep Zebra Mussels Out of Lake Minnetonka" Proposal; C) Additional Business; 5. SAVE THE LAKE A) Review of draft Fall "Save the Lake" solicitation letter (handout); B) Additional Business; 6. ADMINISTRATION 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS · UPdate of 8/8/01 LMCD Planning/Workshop Meeting 9. NEW BUSINESS 10.ADJOURNMENT -8754- DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, July 25, 2001 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chair Foster called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Lili McMillan, Orono; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Katy Van Hercke, Minnetonka; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. Aisc present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Doug Babcock., Tonka Bay; Paul Knudsen, Minnetdsta; Tom Seuntjens, Minnetonka Beach. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster Foster stated thatstaff has informed him that the agenda for the nextRegular Board Meeting scheduled for 8/8/01 appears'to.be light. He proposed the Board cancel thismeeting and hold a Workshop/Planning Session in'the District;.office on'that date to discuss action items froma special Board meeting in May and to discuss goals and. priorities for the-upcoming ye-ar: : MOTION: Skramstad moved, Nelson seconded to cancel the 818101 Regular Board Meeting and to direct staff to VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. READING OF MINUTES- 6/27/01 LMCD Regular Board Meeting MOTION: Wert moved, Skramstad seconded to approve the minutes from the 6/27/01 Regular Board Meeting as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS- PerSons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda. Ms. Victoria Morris, 18405 Minnetonka Blvd., stated that she is an avid water-skier on Lake Minnetonka early in the moming at approximately 7 to 8 a.m. when the water is calm. At this time of the day, there are generally few boats on the lake and she encouraged the Board to consider amending the Code to not require an observer eady in the days on weekdays because of this. Foster provided the Board background on State of Minnesota and LMCD regulations pertaining to water-skiing requirements, noting LMCD Code is more restrictive because it requires a ~second individual in the watemraft to observe. Amending this has been considered by past Boards and he questioned whether the current Board wants to -8755- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 25, 2001 Page2 revisit this issue at an upcoming meeting. The consensus was to direct staff to place this issue on the agenda for the 8/22/01 Regular Board Meeting. Ambrose ardved at 7:11 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. Nelson moved, McMillan seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Skramstad requested that agenda item 3B be removed from the consent agenda, Nelson and McMillan agreed to this. Motion carded unanimously. Item so approved is: lA, Minutes from the 6/8/01 EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting. ~. PUBLIC HEARING · Bayview Charter Cruises, new on-sale intoxicating Liquor License application for the charter boat, Escalade. Foster opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. He asked for background on the proposed application from staff. Harper stated that the applicant has submitted a new intoxicating Liquor License application for the charter boat Escalade, which currently has approved non-intoxicating malt liquor and wine'licenses for the. 2001 season. The applicant has purchased alt:assets of Wayzata Bay Charters, which currently has,an intoxicating'-Liquor License for the charter boat No Regrets: 'Consistent with the District policy on priorities for'the issuance .of on,sale intoxicating.Liquor Licenses, second .priority for. licenses shall be issuance to an applicant who is purchasing a licensee's boat and business;, prOvided that'iicense is being relinquished bY theseller. Wayzata Bay Oharters ha~ iddid~itbd th~itqi~t~i~'[ [6i'elitiqLiish the ihtbx[cating Liqu0r'License to the apPliCafit. ..................... Ny_beck stated that. i.t_~ppears_tl~t, the .tm~a~t!o~_~mplJ~th the polic~ndedappm_va! of the intoxicating Liquor License application for the 2001 season, plus a full refund of the $3,000 preliminary investigation deposit. Foster asked if the applicant or public had any additional comments on the proposed application. There being no further comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. MOTION: Skramstad moved, Suerth seconded to approve: 1) the new on-sale, intoxicating Liquor License application for the 2001 season, for the charter boat Escalade, and 2) a' full refund of $3,000 deposit for the preliminary investigation. ',.. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. 1. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE B. Staff update on 2001 EWM Harvesting Season. Foster asked staff for an update on the 2001 EWM Harvesting Season. Nybeck stated that a mid,season summary report had been prepared by staff, with the follOwing highlights: · Five harvesters were launched in Spdng Park Bayon 6/14/01, with minimal training required ~cause six of the seven full-time employees retumed from the 2000 season. Through 7/20/01, there were 17 -8756- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 25, 2001 P ge 3 working days for the crew, with eight days cancelled due to inclement weather, lack of vegetation, and the 4th of July holiday. High lake levels at the beginning of the season was a key contributing factor to cancelled work days, mainly due to above average rainfalls dudng May and June. The workdays consist of eight hours with a. crew to support four of the five harvesters. · Key statistical data for the first 17 working days was compared to the first 17 days in 2000. Acreage harvested to date was 322. Harvester loads was 121 compared to 86 in 2000. Truck loads was 69.75 compared to 50.5 in 2000. Both harvester and truck loads have increased approximately 40% for the first 17 working days in 2001 compared to 2000, mainly due to less downtime of the equipment because of the new fleet mechanic. · Two changes implemented have improved the efficiency and productivity of the program to date. These changes included the new daily fleet mechanic, and the pumhase of the new pickup and enclosed trailer. · Estimated costs to date for the program are approximately $60,000, compared to a $112,000 budget. He reminded the Board of budget overruns in 2000 that were mainly attributed to salaries, maintenance, and trucking costs. The Board,discussed the harvesting rotation schedule and fragmented milfoil on Lake Minnetonka, The Board complimented staff and the harvesting program for their oversight of the program this year. Mr. Peter Watson, representing the Minnetonka Yacht Club (MYC), stated that they would like to schedule a coordinated effort with the harvesting program on some areas,of the main Lower Lake in the second week of .. August. The Inland Lakes Yachting Association Championship Regatta will be hosted by the MYC from August 10th through August 18th and will attract Upwards of 200 boats. Three areas have been problematic 'f0i~th~§e types of regaff~S in the pasL TheY are Dia'ri-i~nd Reef; spiri~[':lsland', and[he area near Bracketts Poiot, ~he Di.stric[ has wo.~ked with the local yacht, clUb in:the, past to coordinate_harvesting effods of.these aceas,_~iog,_the ~C w_ouldbe_wJlli~gj~_d..~ ~ejl:~e~.a[~s~t ~.e~este_d~with:the~se~.f_ QistdcLmilfoiL .......... buoys. The consensus of the Board was to cooperate with the request made by MYC, provided it does not impact the efficiency and production of the program, with emphasis on the budget. Gilman arrived at 7:29 p.m. C. Discussion of "Let's Keep Zebra Mussels Out of Lake Minnetonka" Proposal, Foster asked Suerth to provide background on this agenda item, Suerth stated that Dick Osg0od, Executive Director for the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA), was in attendance to discuss the draft proposal. He asked for an overview of the proposal from Osgood. Osgood made the following comments: · The :LMA Board of Directors fully supports and endorses the draft proposal to prevent the introduction of zebra mussels into Lake Uinnetonka. Scientific studies show that educational efforts, such as those of the District and the MN DNR, increase awareness but they have tittle impact on the change of behavior, · The LMA believes a schematic, comprehensive, credible, and aggressive effort is appropriate to decrease the likelihood of introducing zebra mussels into Lake Minnetonka. -8757- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 25, 2001 Page4 · He introdUced Mr. Mitch Olson, an LMA Board Member, who was also in attendance. He stated that he would answer any questions the Board had on the draft proposal. Foster stated that there is a need to keep zebra mussels out of Lake Minnetonka and that joining forces with the LMA makes a lot of sense. He questioned whether EWM/Exotics Task Fome and the Save the Lake Advisory Committee had reviewed the draft proposal and what .comments they had on it. Suerth stated that the EWM/Exotics Task Force reviewed it at the July meeting and that some members are concerned about the proposed budget figures when compared to the possible results of the money invested. He understood the professional approach proposed by the LMA; however, he was concemed with the proposed budget and the concept that only recommendations would result from a large investment in funds. He concurred with Foster that he believed that the two organizations should work together; however, the EWM/Exotics Task Force has probably alreadydiscussed the ideas that could come out of the proposed project, McMillan stated that she generally liked the framework of the proposal; however, she was not convinced that the recommendations that would result from the process WOuld be implemented. She suggested that a facilitated meeting process would be a good place to start. The Board discussed a vadety of aspects of the proposed project, including the following: · The proposed budget for Plan Development and Implementation for the proposed project,' including the costs for a professional facilitator: · Them._w..~.s...d:is~us~!~.._o..r~. _w__.h.ether so_meg~.e ._e.!s._e.~!~. profe~8.i, on.a!!.y fac!!!tate the me~ti_ngs at a. redUced cost to the Distdct and the LMA, ...... . Thepmposed-faCilitated:meetings had.some-similarities to the car/trailerparking .meetings so .m..e · There was a question whether the proposed budget for implementation would be sufficient because the proposed plan to keep them out is an unknown. · There was discussion about whether it would be best to limit the stakeholders who participate in the facilitated meetings to professionals and limit the input from the general public. Foster asked Osgood what he was asking for from the District. Osgood stated the LMA is looking for'support from the District on the goal of keeping zebra mussels' out of Lake Minnetonka and the proposal as presented. The consensus of the Board was to support the goal of keeping zebra mussels out of Lake Minnetonka. The Board' believed that further wOrk needed to be dOne on refining the proPosal, specifically the coSt sharing between the District and the LMA. Foster stated that he would like a couple of Board members to commit to working with Osgood and staff to further refine the proposal and rePort back to the Board in the near future, some BOard members discussed the idea df fundirig' the first step of Phase I rather than the full Pro~sal. Suerth and McMiilan volunteered to work with Osgood and District Staff. The consi~,nsus of the Board was for suerth and McMillan to work with Osgood and staff on further refining the proposal and to report back to the Board at the 8/22/01 meeting. Osgood stated that h~ would not be opposed to'this; hoWeVer, there are time constraints if the Board would -8758- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 25, 2001 Page 5 like to implement an action plan for 2002. D. Additional Business. There was no additional business. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Water Patrol, update on 2001 boating and recreational activities on Lake Uinnetonka, Foster stated that Sgt, Brad Erickson from the Hennepin County Shedffs Office Water Patrol was in attendance to update the District on 2001 boating and recreational activities. He welcomed Sgt. Edckson on behalf of the Board. Erickson made the following comments on 2001 Lake Minnetonka boating and recreational activities: He thanked the District for providing leadership and funding for'the two additional Lake Minnetonka Deputies. These two additional positions have greatly assisted the Water Patrol in scheduling full- time Deputies for Lake Minnetonka. Thetwo additional Deputies began around the last week in,May and are scheduled for the nextfive months. There was a limited amount of training for these two positions because both employees came from the Hennepin County Court Security Division, adding that neither candidate had previous Hennepin County Sheriffs Office Water Patrol experience. P~t.r~!.!i.ng_b~g~.n..iD ~ady ~J_u.n~,.with_~_e tw_o_additiona! Deputies:teamed up.w.ith himself,another full, time Deputy, or an experienced Special Deputy. Statistics have been accumulated only for the month of June so it is difficult to draw comparisons to -J~une~f-2~-Th~e~add~ti~n~es~tr~~:rs=~n~`akeff~1~et~nka:~i~fi~i~`the month of June, noting this does not include getting the boats ready at the beginning and end of the shift, and it does not include time for reports and court time. In June, 83% of the patrol time by the Water Patrol was spent on Lake Minnetonka. This statistic addresses a concem that some cities and Board members had that normal activity of the remaining full-time Deputies on Lake MinnetOnka should not be reduced from previous years. The two additional Deputies allows the Water Patrol to schedule 10 additional shifts per week, Which results in greater presence on Lake Minnetonka. This does not; however, provide a full-time Deputy on Lake Minnetonka for all 24 hours, seven days a week. Through June, the two additional Deputies dedicated for Lake Minnetonka have not been pulled off the lake because of an emergency on another body of water in Hennepin County. The majority of the hours scheduled for these two Deputies isfrom 6 .p,m. to 2 a.m. Their activities have included dealing with BWI's, assisting the rescue of a boating accident in Cooks Bay, and the arrest and recovery of a stolen ski boat. Statistics from June might be skewed because the weather was poor, especially on weekends. Gilman asked Erickson if the Water Patrol had record of Deputy hours on Lake Minnetonka during the month of June 2001 compared to June 2000. Erickson stated that Deputy hours on Lake Minnetonka dudng the month of June increased from 613 in 2000 to 661.5 in 2001. These statistics include hours for both full-time Deputies and Special Deputies. -8759- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 25, 2001 Page 6 Gilman stated that he would to have these figures for June of 2000 and 2001 specifically for full-time Deputies on Lake Minnetonka. Erickson updated the Board on the Save the Lake funding request approved at a recent meeting for automatically inflatable PFD's for Water Patrol Deputies. He thanked the Board on behalf of the Water Patrol and communicated that Lt. Brian Johnson will allow these type of PFD's to be used both during the day and evening hours. Skramstad asked Erickson how the Water Patrol deals with noisy boats on Lake Minnetonka. Eirckson stated that the District has decibel restrictions in the Code that are more restrictive than State law. When a DePuty Observes a noisy boat, they are given a waming notice that requires them to come over to the Water Patrol office for a decibel test within seven days. If the boat is determined to be toO loud by a decibel meter, they are given a chance to correct the problem and come into compliance with the District rules. FOster thanked Edckson on behalf of the Board of Directors for attending the meeting. 'B. 'Escape Charters~ consideration of reequest.,formfund of $150 application fee for the charter boat, Escape. Foster stated staff has recommended approval of the request of Escape Charters. ............ MOT-ION:-Gilman-moved,~Skramstadseconded-to_mfund_the$150 char:ter-boat-application._fee~for,submitted by Escape Charters for the 2001 season. -~ ¥~~~canied~~-~ ~.--~.~:~ ........... __: :=..._.~_=~ .......... ~_. .: ,~ .......................... C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 3. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers (7/1/01,7/15/01) & 7/16/01 - 7/31/01). Skramstad reviewed the audit, of vouchers as submitte& MOTION: Gilman moved, McMillan seconded to approve the audit of vouchers as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. June financial summary and balance sheet. Skramstad explained he requested this agenda item to be removed from the consent agenda because he would like to allocate revenue items when they are expected to be received and expense items when they are expected to be incurred. MOTION: Gilman moved, Wert seconded to accept the June financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. -8760- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 25, 2001 Page 7 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. WATER STRUCTURES A. Excel Marina (Site 1), consideration of new multiple dock license and special density license applications for 78 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 784' of continuous shoreline (previously tabled at the 2/28/01 Regular Board Meeting). Foster asked staff to provide background on this agenda item. Nybeck stated that the only public amenity that the Board might want to discuss is the proposed fishing pier, focussing on the length of the pier, whether the water is suitable for fiShing, and how the public will be informed that it is open to the public. Mr. Vern Larsen, representing the applicant~~ stated that the water is suitable and that they would be willing to place a sign stating that the pier is open to the public for fishing. MOTION: Nelson moved, Gilman seconded to direct the attomey to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approvaLOf_t~e neW_.m.._u!tip!ed_o~_kl I!ce~S~...an.d sp~cia!.denS~!ty_lice_n_se appljc~tio~.s, for EXc_el Marina, site 1, subjeCt to requiring signage that stateS the fishing pier is open to the public. ...... VOTE: Motion 6arr-iedunanimously .................. .,~ .~:~=.....:~-~:~.~..... Excel Marina (Site 2), consideration of new multiple dock license and special density license applications for 12 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 129' of continuous shoreline (previously tabled at the 2/28/01 Regular Board Meeting). MOTION: Gilman moved, Nelson seconded to direct the attomey't0 prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the new multiPle 'dock license and sPecial density license applications for Excel Uadna, Site 2. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. C. Walden Tract X, staff recommends that the Board deny the pending new multiple dock license application to re-configure the non-conforming facility (previouSly discussed at the 5/9/01 RegUlar Board Meeting). Walden Tract Y, sta'ff recommends that the Board' deny the =pending nOn,co~forming, non,multiple doCk licensb apPliCation to'fe-bonfigure the n0n-cohforming facilitY (PreviOUry diSCUSSed at the 5/9/01 Regular Board Meeting). FoSter' recommended combining these two agenda items for diScussion purposeS. LeFevere recommended that any motion by the Board to deny the two applications should include language indicating that the denial was for the reasons set forth in the staff memo. · -8761 - Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 25, 2001 Page8 MOTION: Wert moved, Nelson seconded to deny the Walden Tract X new multiple dock license application and the Walden Tract Y non-conforming, non-multiple dock license application for the reasons set forth in the staff memo. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. E. Additional Business. There was no additional business, 5. ADMINISTRATION A. Staff update on vacant Administrative Secretary position. Nybeck stated that he would like to have this position filled by sometime in October. It has been vacant since 5/1/01 and Jan Briner has been filling the position admirably in the meantime. He stated that this agenda item was for informational purposes for the Board. B. Staff update on status of improvements to LMCD computer operations. Skramstad stated that the Board authorized the upgrading of the District' website and computer operations in the first quarter of 2001. All the goals set out for the improved computer operations project have been accomplished, With minimal overspending. For the upgrades to the Distdct website, most of the goals have · seen- ac~mpli§l~ ~[tt-i' ~'lii~i~ed"a'm'0u'h't of Wor~i.ffi~t 'st-ill' heeds t~'~ comple[ed. ....... There was no additional business. 6. SAVE THE LAKE McMillan stated that a representative of Lord Fletchers of the Lake had contacted her regarding a special event with .various activities in the middle of September,' with proceeds to be given to charity including Save the Lake. They plan to send out a flyer promoting the Special event and she suggested the DistdCt might want to promote the event in the next solicitation letter that should be sent out in !ate August or early September. Foster asked if Save the Lake was the only charity designated for proceeds from the special event. McMillan stated that she would need to further check into this. The consensus of the.Board was for McMillan to: further check into whether Save the Lakeis the 0nly charity designated for proceeds.from the special even!l, If Save the Lake is the only charity, a draft solicitation letter was to be reviewed by the Board at the 8/22/01 Regular Meeting. McMillan stated that an additional $400 of Save the Lake funds is needed for the Shoreline Buffer presentation being prepared by Forting Consulting because of additional work. MOTION: Suerth moved, Nelson seconded to authorize an additional $400 of Save the Lake funds for the -8762- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 25, 200~ Shoreline Buffer presentation. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Nybeck made the following comments: · A monthly Executive Director Repod of staff activities was included in the handout folder for informational purposes. · The lake level as of 7/23/01 was 929.35' NGVD, with a discharge of 100 C.F.S. 8. OLD BUSINESS Wed updated the Board on the progress of the Lake Minnetonka Wetlands Task Force. The fieldwork by staff and John Baden has generally been completed, which includes identifying the pdmary tributaries, secondary tributaries, pdmary abutting wetlands, and secondary abutting wetlands. A draft definition of contiguous and adjacent wetlands has been prepared by Baden that needs fudher refinement. He believed a Repod would be prepared for review by the Board in September after reassembling the Task Fome for another meeting. Foster stated that it appears that there are three defined primary tributaries that might medt non-motorized designation from the District. He questioned whether the Board would be willing to treat this as a separate item, Phase 1, and then treat the remaining categories together at a future date. The ConsenSus or,he Board Was for LeFevere io prepare a i~ocie amendmen[ for review bY the 'Board in September prohibiting motorized traffic in the three defined pdmary tributary areas. 9. NEW BUSINESS Skramstad stated that the Lake Minnetonka Neighbors Guide, prepared by local realtors, summarized Lake Minnetonka rules in its most recent publication. He questioned the accuracy of the rules that are summarized and believed a contact should be made with them. The consensus of the Board was for staff to forward the editor a copy of the District Summer and Winter rules to update the accuracy of this page for the next publication. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no fudher business, the meeting was adjoumed at 9:36 p.m. Albert Foster, Chairman Lili McMillan, Secretary -8763- DRAFT' LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD PLANNING/WORKSHOP SESSION 6:00 PM, Wednesday, August 8, 2001 LMCD Office CALL TO ORDER Foster called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Paul Knudsen, Minnetdsta; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. Also present: Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Lili McMillan,. Orono; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Tom Seuntjens, Minnetonka Beach; Katy Van Hercke, Minnetonka. DISCUSSION OF ACTION ITEMS, FROM THE 5/30/01 BOARD MEMBER ORIENTATION A) Clarification of the various govemmental agencies in theLake Minnetonka area, with emphasis on the jurisdiction of each of the agencies. The Board discussed the concept of improving the understanding of the various govemmental agencies in the. Lake Minnetonka area. There was discussion onthe need to establish a list of agencies with essential information.. Some this information could include mission statements, a brief overview of the jurisdiction, key staff members, and telephone nTJmbers': The 'Board 'cond[rded-thatthis-informatio~shouldbedrrcladed 'on-theDiStrictwebsit .e7- B} ..Multipl:e:Docka!~.dN~:!~:~H!t!p!~ ~.~!.~en~:.!ighting..concem_s.on Lake~,Minn_e.~_to_O'~ka~.:::::.:. ........................... .~:.. :__-iii ............... : ....... The Board discussed lighting at multiple dock and non. multiple dock facilities on Lake Minnetonka. Concern was expressed of how light pollution impacts night vision. There was discussion on multiple dock facilities that pose light pollution because the source of the light is from land rathe~ than on.the dock. There was discussion that there is a need to address these facilities in the future through a Code amendment, encouraging interested member cities to require indirect installation of lighting. A grace period was discussed to bring these facilities in compliance with the spidt and' intent of the Code through voluntary compliance and possible financial assistance, possibly LCMR funding. The consensus of the Board was to consider an ordinance amendment that would address lighting concerns at'multiPle dock facilities on Lake Minnetonka with two point of emphasis. They include: 1) the lighting to be dealt with is fmm the site rather than the dock, and 2) the lighting source cannot be visible from a set distance outside the lake side of the authorized dock use area, such as 200'. Because the changing of lighting is an expensive project, the Board stated that a grace pedod possibly up to five years might be appropriate, provided a lighting plan is prepared by affeCted multiple dock facilities at an eadier date and it is tied to renewal of their annual licenses. The Board suggested that staff investigate previous work conducted on this issue in around 1993 or 1994. C) Enforcement of LMCD Code relating to dock length and the storage of restricted watercraft at residences on Lake Uinnetonka. The Board discussed Code relating to dock length and the storage of restricted watercraft at residences on Lake Uinnetonka. There was discussion on whether it is fair application of the rules when potential violations aregenerally followed up mainly through complaint or inquiry by the public. Staffing was discussed and whether it is sufficient to -8764- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board Planning/Workshop SeSsion August 8, 2001 proactively look for violations at residences on Lake Minnetonka. The Board discussed the higher incidence in recent years of Code violations on Lake Minnetonka, with a number of them taking Place at sites with narrower lots. To address rental boatS, a possible solution discussed by the Board was that all watemraft should be owned and registered to residents of the site for lots with less than 40' of lakeshore frontage, Another solution discussed by the Board was that all watercraft needed to be owned and registered to the residents of the sites when authorized dock use areas are combined. Grace periods and enforcement was discussed by the Board for these two possible Code amendments. Historical watercraft storage at narrow lots was discussed and the possible need for grandfathering at a specific date, with a possible permit required for rental boats that would be automatically renewed annually or would need to be renewed if the property changes hands. DISCUSSION OF THE CONCEPT OFA LAKE MINNETONKA BOAT OPERATORS LICENSE & WORKING WITH THF MINNETONKA POWER SQUADRON Foster reported that he had recently met with officials from the Minnetonka Power Squadron regarding this agenda item. The U.S. Power Squadron is developing an intemet boating safety course for boaters to become certified, with the idea of transferring this to the local Power Squadron to forward local and state boating regulations. He stated that he would like the Minnetonka Power Squadron to send the unique Lake Minnetonka rules to be included on the test. Those that take this test voluntarily and pass it would received a certificate from.the Minnetonka Power Squadron and possibly a "Safe BOat Operators" certificate from the LMCD, with the ultimate goal-of a state mandated boat operators license. The Board discussed how certification programs through the U.S. and local Power Squadrons could be pushed down in lieu f-the Coast. Guard Auxilliary for voluntary boat and safety inspection, with a sticker that the Coast Guard had agreed to not ull watercraft over for inspection purposes. There was discussion on whether this type of a sticker would besatisfaCtory with the local law en'forc-~r~e~'t7 rn'c'lu-dih g-the-Water Pat¢017 ~i~d' thb-hbed'to'g~[ theii--'ihpbtl- There was no discussion of this agenda item, DISCUSSION OF OPTIONAL PROJECTS FOR LMCD STAFF The Board discussed a variety of optional projects for LMCD staff. The consensus of the Board was for Fosterto list the projects with completion dates. This list is to be reviewed at a future Board meeting. OTHER DISCUSSION There was no other discussion. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Foster adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Foster, Chairman Lili McMillan, Secretary -8765- August 15, 2001 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO: Board of Directors FROM: Greg Nybeck, Executive Director SUBJECT: Mound Variance and New Multiple Dock License Applications BACKGROUND In April 2000, the District received and processed a New Multiple Dock License, with minor change application, and six variance applications from the City of Mound for the storage of watercraft at six street ends within the Woodland Point Development. The fee received for the 2000 new Multiple Dock License, with minor change application was $5,506.25. Each variance application submitted requires a $250 non-refundable base application fee, plus a $250 deposit fee. Total fees collected from the City of Mound for these applications was $8,506.25. The District approved these applications at its 8/9/00 and 8/23/00 Regular Board Meetings. Generally, expenses included in the $250 non-refundable base application fee for variances from Code include review and processing by District staff, review and participation by District attorney at the Board meetings, legal notice requirement, and postage expenses for residences within a 350' radius of the site. The additional $250 deposit fee can be refunded depending upon full compliance with Code and the extent of administrative, inspection, and legal services required. Because significant expenses were incurred by the 'District i'n the administration and processing of these applications, staff is looking for direction from the Board on whether some of these expenses should be charged back to the City of Mound. DISCUSSION Detailed below is an overview of expenses incurred by the District in the administration and processing of these applications: LEGAL (See attached invoices for further details) · (4/27/00 - 5/22/00) $2,922.50 · (5/23/00- 6115100). $1,470.00 · (6/20~00 ~ 7~20~00) $2,496.25 · (7/20~00 - 8/10/00) $1,228.08 · (8/24/00- 10/21/00) $ 875.00 · (11/01/00 -2/19/01) $ 910.00 · (2/22/0t - 3/19/01) $ 472.84 · (3/26/01 -4/16/01) $ 420.00 · (4/26/01 - 4/27/01) $ 70.00 · (5/29/01 - 6/07/01) $ 35.00 SUB-TOTAL (LEGAL) $10,899.67 -8766- CITY OF MOUND STAFF MEMO, 81'15/01, PAGE 2 OTHER EXPENSES · Staff Time (20 Executive Director Hours @ $30,60 per hour) Staff Time (8 Administrative Asst. Hours @ 15,09 per hour) · PoStage (225 Public Hearing Notices @ $.33 per mailing) o Legal Notice- 4/27/00 EditiOn of the Lakeshore Weekly News SUB-TOTAL (OTHER EXPENSES) $612.00 $120.72 $ 74.25 .~ 30.00 $836.97 TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED: $11,736.64 Expenses incurred by the District in the administration and processing of the applications exceeded revenues received from the City of Mound bY $3,230.39. The majority of the expenses incurred by the District were legal expenses with Hoff, BarrY,. Kuderer. Kennedy & Graven coUld not legally repreSent'the District in the revieW of these applications because there was a conflict of interest. RECOMMENDATION AlthoUgh staff is not prepared to make a recommendation at this time, we believe all or some of the expenses should be billed b~Ck to the City of Mound. staff is 15bEing' for direction from the Board on .this issue because we believe these applications were unique and wequestion Whether general practices on billing expenSes to-the applicant should "aPi~iy to l~h.em, Five p0sSibie bPtions fb~ the .Board' t~ consider include: · Bill all $3,230.39 to the City Of MoUhd. o DeduCt the other expenses incUrred by the District, $836.97, and bill the DeduCt other exPenSeS i' $836:97;: 'and I'eg~i~ eXpenSes .incurred .by the. DiStri~i f°[ to the City of Mound ($25'8.42) · Bill a per&enrage oft~e:'.$3,230.39 t° the City of Mound, · Not to bill the City of Mound for additional expenses incurred by the District. -8767- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2000 ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD PER HOUR 2000 Administrative Expenses Less 2000 Salaries (excluding Admin. Clerk) Net Overhead without Salaries Net Overhead Hourly Rate (2,080 Hours) $122,466 ~101,000 (*) $ 21,466 $10.32 per Hour 2000 Salaries Executive Director Administrative Technician Administrative Assistant TOTAL SALARIES $ 48,000 $ 29,000 .$ 24,000 $101,000 pOSITION Executive Director Administrative Technician Administrative Assistant % OF OVERHEAD 47% 29% ~% OVERHEAD PER HOUR $4.85 $2.99 $2.48 .2000 HOURLY RATES Yearly Work Hours Less Vacation Hours Less Sick Leave EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 2,080 120 9--6 1,864 ADMIN. TECH 2,080 80 96 1,904 ADMIN ASST. 2,080 8O 96 t,904 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE TECHINClAN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT $30.60 $18.22 $15.09 -8768- HOFF BARRY & EUDERER p.A. 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE SUITE 260 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 5534.4-5382 May 23, 2000 Billed through 05/23/00 Bill n~mber 3903-00001-002 GCH Lake Ninnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, M~ 55391 City of Mound Dock ApPlication FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 94/27/00 GCH 34/30/00 05/01/0o o5/o3/oo 05/03/00 05/04/00 GCH o5;o5/oo Phone conference with C. Lefevre re: assignment, Review settlement agreement that leads to application to LMCD, message to Greg N., Letter to Greg N. re: rep., follow up Phone conference with Greg N., Memorandum to: file re: issues 1,00'~S .... I~'0 /hr .... 140'.00 Review material from LMCD attorney re: · application .50 hrs 140 /hr 70.00 Phone conference with Greg N. re: status of apps., Phone conference with C. Leferve re: general issues in regs., locate and review regs. from LMCD, Review same, Memorandum to: file re: reg. issues and necessary follow up 1.50 hfs 140 /hr 210.00 Travel to and conf. '~ wl~.~ Greg N. at LMCD re: ords. and application, prior variances given, follow up Memorandum to: file, voice mail to Charlie L. re: general practice 2.50 hfs 140 /hr 350.00 Review documents re: ownership, lot extension issues, notes to file .50 hfs 140 /hr 70.00 Review material from Greg N. re: dock areas, Phone conference with Greg N., Memorandum to: file, Brief Review material from Charlie - samples of Orders, voice mail to Doug B. .50 hfs 140 /hr 70.00 'phone conference with Greg N. re: staff report .-25 hfs 140 /hr 35.00 -8769- Lake ~innetonka Conservation District' Bill number 3903-00001-002 GCH 97 '7/00 GCH ~5/o8/oo Gc~ 35/08100 CCH ]5/08/00 ¢C~ ]5/10/00 GCH )5/10/00 GCH 35/11/00 GCH )5/12/00 GCH )5/15100 GCH )5/16/00 GCH )5/17/00 GCa ~5/18/00 GCa ~5/~S/00 ~ ~5/18/oo ~ ~5/191oo 'sca ~5/~.9/oo )5/22/00 GCH Review staff me~o, fax to Greg N. re: same' .50 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg N. re: staff memo, questions re: adjustment of boundaries, Phone conference with C. Lefevre re: same and issue of ~andatory variances~ ~em~randum to: f~e .50 hrs 140 /hr Review voice mail from Greg N., return message (n/c) .00 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg N. re: meeting with attorneys, notes to file .25 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Doug Babcock, notes to file .25 hfs 140 /hr Travel to and Attend LMCD meeting re: Mound App. 3.50 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg ~., voice mail to. Charlie '~. re:. general issue, Voice. mail to.Doug B., notes to file .50 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with C. Lefevre re: past practice of LMCD and general code interp. .25 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference wi~h atty. for Mound re: authority for position .25 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with atty. fcr city re: position asserted at hearing, cases cited therein, notes to file, Phone conference with Greg ~., e-mail to Chair Babcock .75 b~s 140 /hr · niti~'l D~ft of 6pinion ie~er ~or 2.00 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg N., notes to file .25 hfs 140 /hr Review Judge Lange opinion, letter from atty., Review cases on std., Review file, Review and Revise op. letter to Bd. 3.75 hfs 140 /hr Review and make revisions to letter to LMCD Board. .50 hrs 70 /hr Final revisions to letter to LMCD .25 hfs 140 /hr Review and make final revisions to Board letter; find cites; office conference with GCH; fax letter to Board. .75 hrs 70 /hr Review letter from atty. for city, Review agenda packet, message to Greg N. .50 hrs 140 /hr PAGE 70.00 70.O0 .00 35.oo: 35.00 490.00 70.00 35.00 35.00 105.00 280.00 35.00 525.00 35.00 35.00 52.50~ 70.00 Total fees for this matter ~ILT.ING SUMMARY George C. ~off Wendy ~. Price TOTAL FEES $ 2 , 922.50 20.25 hfs 140 /hr 2,835.00 1.25 hfs 70 /hr 87.50 21.50 hfs $ 2,922.5D -8770- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District D~11 number 3903-00001-002 GCH PAGE 3 TOTAL CHARGES FOR THIS BILL $ 2,922.50 CODE ~ AMOUNT -8771- HOFF, BARRY & KUDERER, P.A. 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE SUITE 260 EDEN PRAIRIE, ~ 55344-5382 June .20,, 2000 Billed through 06/20/00 Bill number 3903-00001-004 GCH Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Boulevard DeephaYen, MN 55391 City of Mound Dock Application FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED. 75/23/00 GCH Phone conference with Greg N., notes to file, voice mail to Mound Atty. .25 hrs 140 /hr D~ '4/00 GCH Phone conference with Greg N., Review file in prep. for ~eeting with LMCD .50 hrs 140 /hr 3/00 GCH Travel to and attend meeting of LMCD re: Mound Dock applications, nOtes to file 2.50 hfs 140 /hr )5/25/00 GCH 'Review e,mail from Doug B., reply to Doug and Greg N., Phone conference with Greg .25 hrs 140 /hr )5/30/00 GCH Review material from Greg N., Phone conference with Greg N. .25 b_rs 140 /hr )6/02/00 GCH Phone conference With Jim G. re: real estate interest issues, reversion of 30 foot easement areas .25 hrs 140 /hr ~6/05/00 GCH Brief Phone conference with A. Swanson (n/c) .00 hrs 140 /hr )6/07/00 GCH Phone conference with Greg N., Memorandum' to: file, Phone conference with A. Swanson, Letter to Greg N. .50 hrs 140 /hr )6/07/00 GCH Review letter from Swanson, voice mail to Swanson, Memorandum to: file, follow up phone conf. with Swanson .50 hrs 140 /hr ~6/08/00 GCH Conference with opposing atty. re: transfer issue and need for added language, Memorandum to: file .5o hrs 140 /hr ~6/12/00 GCH Phone conference with J. Golemback re: meeting and issue on transl. .25 h rs 140 /hr 35.00 70.00 350.Q0 35.00 35.00 35.00 .00. 70.00 70.00 70.00 35.00 -8772- ~ake Minnetonka Conservation District ~ill number 3903-00001-004 CCH PAGE 2 :/oo ,6/14,/00 GC~ ,6/14/0o GC~ 6114100 GCH 6/14/0o GC~ 6/15/0o cch Review material.from LMCD on meeting .25 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg ]g. re: meeting and info. provided to council .25 hfs 14.0 /hr Phone conference with A. Swanson re: transl. issues .25 hfs ].40 /hr Review letter from atty. re: amended app., Review letter from atty. re: assignment issue, fax to Greg N. .50 hfs 140 /hr Travel to and attend meeting of LMCD Board, notes to file 3.25 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg Nybeck re: resol., contingencies .25 hrs 140 /hr 35.0O 35.00 5.00 70.00 455.00 35..00 Total fees for this ILL!NG SLEMMA_~Y $ 1,470.00 George C. Hoff TOTAL FEES 10.50 hrs 10.50 b_rs 140 /hr 1,470.00 $ !,470.00 TOTAL C~mGES FOR THZS mm~.L NET BALA/gCE FORWARD TOTAL BALANCE NOW DLTE CODE AMOUNT $ 1,470.00 $ 2,922.50 $ 4,392.50 -8773- HOFF, BARRY & KUDERER, P.A. 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE SUITE 260 EDEN'PRAIRIE, ~ 55344.-5382 July 20, 2000 Billed through 07/20/00 Bill number 3903-00001-006 GCH La~ ~innetonka Conservation District 18~ ~8 Minnetonka Boulevard De~phaven, MI~ 55391 ;ity of Mound Dock Application "3R pi~OFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED ~6/20/OO GCH ~.,, 3_/00' GCH ~t 3/00 GCH :.7/o /OO 37/05/00 GCH 07/06/00 GCH · 37/07/00 BLJ o7/07/0o cch 07/07/00 PAC 07/ 0/00 0~ ~10/00 GCH Phone conference with Doug B., notes to file .25 hfs 140 /hr 35.00 Phone conference with Greg N. re: meeting and. issues .25 hfs 140 /hr 35.00 Review doCument from opposing atty. re: dock ~e~o~fig. ' .25 hrD 140~/hr 35.00 Brief Phone conference with Greg N. (n/c) .00 hrs 140 /hr .O0 Phone conference with Greg N., Review file, prior decisions, Review piror ct. orders, applications, nOtes to file, Initial Draft of Findings and Order, fax Memorandum to: Greg N. 5.75 hrs 140 /hr 805.00 Phone conference with Greg N., fax to A. Swanson .25 hrs 140 /hr 35.00 Travel to LMCD to drop off package for Greg Nybeck .75 hrs 65 /hr 48.75 Phone conference with A. Swanson, voice mail to K. Cole, Phone conference with Greg N., Phone conference with J. Flacker, notes to file, Review and Revise Findings, Letter to Greg N., follow up Phone conference with Greg N. 3.00 hfs 140 /hr 420.00 Office conference with GCH regarding stipulation. .25 hrs 130 /hr 32.50 Phone conference with A. Swanson re: additional information, change in dock config., notes to file .25 hfs 140 /hr 35.,0,0"~ Review material from A Swanson, Phone conference _ ,~\¥.~.'., with Greg N. re: same, Phone conference with A ..... .. ~ ~) "~'iQ, i{~,, Swanson, notes to file, Memorandum to: file ~,.'~'~-f': ~% ~'~ .5o hrs 14o £" 3ake Minnetonka Conservation-District ~ill number 3903-00001-006 GCH )' /00 GC~ ~7/ZZ/00 GC~ 17/12/00 GCH ,7/12/00 GCH 7712/00 GcH 7/14/00 GCH 7/20/00 GCH Phone conference with Jim G. 're: hearing and record, meeting with Mound and assignment issue .25 hrs 14.0 /hr Review latest material from atty. for City of Mound, notes to file .25 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference w~th Gre'g ~.~., Re%r~ew ¥oice E~i! from atty re: change in resolution, voice mail to atty., roi. low up Phone conference with atty re: meeting oI Bd. .50 b_rs 140 /hr Review file, findings, submission by A. Swanson, Phone Conference with Greg N., Phone conference with A. Swanson re: language issues, meeting, time for compliance, Review settlement agreement, discuss same with Swanson, notes to file in prep. ior meeting 1.50 hfs 140 /hr Travel to and attend meeting of LMCD, notes to file, brief conf. with A. Swanson 2.75 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg N., voice mail to atty., Review voice mail fro~ atty. .25 hfs 140 /hr Phone conferences with Greg N; Review file and notes; Review and revise findings; E-mai! to Greg. 1.25 hfs 140 /hr PAGE 2 35.00 35;00 70.00 210.00 385.00 35.00 !75.00 Total fees for this matter ILLING S~Y Paula A Callies George C. ~off Brian L. Jarrells TOTAL FEES $.2.,496,25 .25 hfs 130 /hr 32.50 17.25 hfs 140 /hr 2,415.00 .75 hrs 65 /hr 48.75 18.25 hfs $ 2,496.25 TOTAL CH3LRGES FOR THIS BILL $ 2,496.25 CODE AMOUNT ii u.) ' , -8775- HOFF, BARRY & A~JDERER, P.A. 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE SUITE 260 EDEN PRAIRIE, M~ 55344-5382 August 21, 2000 Billed through 08/22/00 Bill number 3903-00001-008 GCH Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18.338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, ~IN 55391 City of Mound Dock Application FOR PROFESSIONAL SERUICES RENDERED 97/20/00 GCH o. ~1/0o GCH 37/26/00 GCH 07/27/00 GCH 07/27/00 GCH 07/27/00 GCH 08/01/0o GCH 08/03/0o cch 08/07/00 s/09/00 cch D8/09/00 GCH Review file and notes, Phone conferences with Greg N. re: same, Revise agreement, e-mail note to Greg 1.25 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg N. re: status of application and staff reports .25 hfs 140 /hr T~avet %0 and Attend meeting Of LMCD, notes to file 1.50 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with A. Swanson re: follow up information, Review voice mail from Greg N., voice mail to Greg N., notes to file re: follow up .50 b_rs 140 /hr Brief Phone conference with Charlie L. (n/c) .00 hrs 140 /hr Review notes, Revise prior Findings, Draft new findings for Dove and Woodland, Letter to Greg N., Letter to opposing atty. 1.50 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with C. Dawson re: changes to agreement, Greenwood position .25 hfs 140 /hr Review material and letter from opposing atty., Phone conference with Greg N., notes to file .50 hfs 140 /hr Review material from LMCD, voice mail to A. Swanson, Phone conference with A. Swanson re: remaining items for meeting .50 hrs 140 /hr Review file, agenda in prep. for meeting .50 hfs i~o /hr Travel to and Attend LMCD board meeting, notes' i.75 hrs i40 /hr 175.00 35.00 210.00 70.00 .00 210.00 35.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 245:00 -8776- Lake ~innetonka Conservation District Bill number 3903-00001-008 GCH 00 GCH Letter to Mound.city atty., Lefifier to cllenfi .25 hfs 14.0 /hr PAGE 2 35.00 DISBURSEMENTS 08/21/00 Total fees for this matter Postage $ 1,225.00 3.08 Total disbursements for this matter BILLING SUMMARY George C. TOTAL FEES Postage TOTAL DISBURSEF~NTS 8.75 b_rs 8.75 hrs TOTAL CHARGES FOR TtIIS BILL $ 3.08 140 /hr 1,225.00 $ 1,225.00 3.08 $ 3.08 $ 1,228.08 CODE AMOUNT -8777- HOFF, BARRY & KUDERER, P.A. 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE SUITE 260 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344-5382 October,24, 2000 Billed through 10/24/00 Bill number 3903-00001-012 GCH Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, M/~ 55391 City of Hound Dock Application FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 08/24/00 GCH [ 18/00 CCH 39/26/00 GCH D9/27/00 GCH 39/30/00 CCH ~0/09/00 CCH lo/lo/co CCH [o/zo/oo GCH L0/~Z/0° CCH [0/21/00 CCH Phone conference with opposing atty. re: status of deed restrictions .25 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with atty for city of mound re: LMCD action, Review Draft of order re: same, voice mail to Greg N. .50 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg Nybeck, notes to file, voice mail_to Doug B. .25 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Doug B., Memorandum to: file .25 hfs 140 /hr Review voice mail from Greg N., voice mail to Swanson, Memorandu~ to: file .25 hrs 140 /hr Review voice mail from Karen Cole, Phone conference with Karen Cole, Review document from Karen Cole, fax to Doug and Greg, initial modifications to documents 2.00 hrs 140 /hr Review docs. and notes, Draft Letter to Karen Cole 1.75 hrs 140 /hr Follow up Phone conference with K. Cole re: docLlment, Phone conference with Greg ~. .50 hfs 140 /hr Brief Phone conference with Doug B., Memorandum to: file, open file re: docs. .25 hrs 140 /hr Review memo from K. Cole, voice mail to Cole, notes to file .25 hfs 140 /hr 35.00 70.00 35..00 35.00 35.00 280.00 245.00 70.00 35.00 35.00 Total fees for this.matter ~. ~.ING SUMMARY 875.00 -8778- Lake Minnetonk~ Conservation District Bill number 3903-00001-012 GCH George C. Hoff TOTAL FEES 6.25 hrs 6.25 hfs 1~0 $ PAGE 2 875.00 875.00 TOTAL CHARGES FOR THIS BILL $ 875.00 , CODE AMOUNT~ -8779- HOFF, BARRy & KUDERER, P.A. 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE SUITE 260 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344-5382 February 21, 2001 Billed through 02/21/01 Bill number 3903-00001-020 GCH Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 City of Mound Dock Application FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 11/01/00 GCH 11/20/00 GCH 11/22/00 GCH 01/17/01 GCH 01/23/01 GCH 01/24/01 GCH 01/26/01 GCH 02/01/01 GCH 02/05/01 GCH 02/05/01 cch 02/08101 GCH 02/12/01 GCH Memorandum to: file re: Phone conference with~ Greg (n/c) .00 hrs 140 /hr Review file re: status, voice mail to Karen C., Letter to Greg N., Memorandum to: file .25 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg N. re: status of matter and Mound actions .25 hrs 140 /hr Brief Review of doc., voice mail to atty., Phone conference with Greg, fax to client .50 hfs 140 /hr Review material from K. Cole, notes to file .50 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg N. re: submission by Mtka., Letter to Karen C., Draft audit letter for LMCD .75 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Karen Cole, fax to Greg N. .25 hrs 140 /hr Review file, prior letter and docs. from atty., Phone conference with Greg N., Letter'to opposing atty. re: changes to docs.; voice mail to atty. re: proced, pref. 1.00 hrs 140 /hr Review changes to agreement by K. Cole, Review prior letter, voice mail to Cole, notes to file 1.00 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Karen Cole re: her revision to agreement, follow up .25 hrs 140 /hr Review and Revise audit letter .50 hrs 140 /hr Review latest Draft of proposed order changes, Review file and prior notes, Revise agreement, Draft fax to.Cole and client .75 hrs 140 /hr .00 35.00 35.o0 70.00 70.00 105.00 35.00 140.00 140.00 35.00 70.00 105.00 -8780- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Bil~i'~ '~u~ber .... 3903-00001-020 GCH 9/01 GCH Review changes made by Cole, Review file, Letter to Cole with revisions, Letter to Greg N. .50 hfs 140 /hr PAGE 2 70.00 Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY George C. Hoff TOTAL FEES 6.50.hfs 6.50 hrs 910.00 140 /hr 910.00 $ 9z0.0b TOTAL CHARGES FOR THIS BILL $ 910.00 CODE AMOUNT -8781- FEB ~ ~ 200I HOFF, BARRY & KUDERER, P.A. 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE SUITE 260 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344-5382 March 22, 2001 Billed through 03/22/01 Bill number 3903-00001-022 GCH Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, ~N 55391 City of Mound Dock Application FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 02/22/01 GCH 03/07/01 GCH 03/07/01 WMP 03/13/01 GCH 03/13/01 GCH 03/19/01 GCH Review latest from K. C°le, file, Letter to Cole and client .25 hrs 140 /hr Brief Review of material from Cole, Phone conference with Greg, fax to Greg .75 hfs 140 /hr Brief office conference with-GOH; fax documents received from Kennedy & Grave to Greg Nybeck. .25 b_rs 70 /hr Review voice mail from Cole, Review latest Draft of agreement, notes to file, message to Greg, follow up Phone conference with Greg and Burt, fax to Greg .75 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with Karen Cole, Letter to client re: dates .50 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg N., initial Review of docs. from Cole, fax to Greg N. 1.00 hrs 140 /hr 35.00 105.00 17 ..50 105.00 70.00 140.00 DISBURSEMENTS 03/21/01 Total fees for this matter Postage 472.50 .34 Total disbursements for this matter B1LLING SUMMARY .34 -8782- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Bill number 3903-00001-022 GCH George C. Hoff Wendy M. Price TOTAL FEES Postage TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS TOTAL CHARGES FOR THIS BILL PAGE 2 3.25 hfs 140 /hr 455.00 .25 hfs 70 /hr 17.50 3.50 hrs $ 472.50 .34 $ .34 $ 472.84 ? I de~l~'ce under the penalties o{ law'that this ~count, c~m ~ it Nas Imm paiO. . ~.~O~DE. 'AMOUNT -8783- 2 ~ 200I L~ By HOFF, BARRY & KUDERER, P.A. 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE SUITE 260 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344-5382 April 24, 2001 Billed through 04/24/01 Bill number 3903-00001-024 GCH Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 200I City of Mound Dock Application FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 03/26/01 GCH 03/27/01 GCH 03/27/01 GCH 03/27/01 GCH 03/28/01 GCH 03/29/01 GCH 03/30/01 GCH 03/31/01 GCH 04/16/01 GCH Review voice mail from Cole, Phone conference with Greg N., voice mail to Cole .25 hrs 140 /hr Review lengthy voice mail from K. Cole, voice mail to Cole .25 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg N., notes to file .25 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with K. Cole, Review agreement, notes to file .50 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg N., Phone conference with Karen Cole .50 hrs 140 /hr Review latest Draft of doc. by K. Cole, voice mail to Cole, notes to file .50 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg and Charlie re: variance limitations .25 hrs 140 /hr Voice mail to atty. for neighbors,.Memorandum to: file .25 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg N., voice mail to Karen C. .25 hrs 140 /hr 35.00 35.00 35.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY George C. ~off TOTAL FEES 3.00 hrs 3.00 hrs 140 /hr 420.00 420.00 420.00 -8784- HOFF, BARRY & KUDERER, P.A. 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE SUITE 260 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344-5382 Y ~ ~ ZOO1 ~ May 22, 2001 Billed through 05/22/01 Bill number Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 3903-00001-026 ~DE AMOUNT App ro~e'd By'.' City of Mound Dock Application FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 04/26/01 GCH 1/27/01 GCH Phone conference with Greg N., voice mail to Cole .25 hrs 140 /hr Review voice mail from Cole, voice mail to Cole, Phone conference with Greg N., notes to file .25 hrs 140 /hr 35.00 35.00 Total fees for this matter BILLING SI/MMARY George C. Hoff TOTAL FEES .50 hrs .50 hfs 140 /hr 70.00 70.00 70.00 TOTAL CHARGES FOR THIS BILL 70.00 -8785- HOFF, BARRY & KUDERER, P.A. 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE SUITE 260 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344-5382 June 20, 2001 Billed through 06/20/01 Bill number 3903-00001-028 GCH Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 By _./ City of Mound Dock Application FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 05/29/01 GCH 06/07/01 GCH Phone conference with Greg N., Phone conference with K. Cole, Memorandum to: file .25 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg, Letter to atty. (n/c) .00 hfs 140 /hr 35.00 .00 Total fees for this matter BILLING SUMMARY George C. Hoff TOTAL FEES .25 hrs .25 hrs $ 3.5.00 140 /hr 35.00 $ 35.00 TOTAL CHARGES FOR THIS BILL $ 35.00 CODE AMOUNT I decla'e31de~ p~nalties o~ law that this ~count, claim or ~ pa~d -8786- CIT OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT July 200'1 66.67% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers July 2001 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE ~ VARIANCE E~ 81,320 4,765 46,772 34,548 57.52% 4,000 0 4,000 0 100.00% 48,000 20 24,319 23,681 50.66% 229,430 16,630 104,214 125,216 45.42% 2,300 0 178 2,122 7.74% 73,450 0 77,386 (3,936) 105.36% 196,830 14,675 106,648 90,182 54.18% 18,950 20,348 35,411 (16,461) 186.87% 118,980 11,339 65,991 52,989 55.46% 1,125,850 74,936 637,971 487,879 56.67% 6,950 399 3,235 3,715 46.55% 261,980 18,195 136,415 125,565 52.07% 496,120 39,600 316,559 179,561 63.81% 80,440 9,952 81,889 (1,449) 101.80% 247,740 29,022 145,588 102,152 58.77% 42,260 0 0 42,260 0.00% 25,000 275 64,224 (39,224) 256.90% 206,740 15.846 110,928 95,812 ~ GENERAL FUND TOTAL 3.266.340 256.002 1.961.728 1.304.612 ~ 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 33,818 203,610 212,240 48.96% 21,424 387,827 (387,827) 9,120 77,708 57,772 57.36% 27,072 191,249 141,201 57.53% 35,132 286,027 192,593 59.76% 15,537 19,191 692,809 2.70% 80,297 517,131 431,079 54.54% 69 1,500 6,000 20.00% 29,267 128,667 15,953 88.97% Exp-00 08/14/2001 Gino -8787- CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT July 2001 58.33% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments July 2001 YTD PERCENT 1,429,370 240,421 732~752 (696,618) 51.26% 4,340 450 7,070 2,730 162.90% 160,920 28,618 98,037 (62,883) 60.92% 970,380 449,137 487,666 (482,714) 50.26% t 32,750 16,678 78,158 (54,592) 58.88% 100,000 6,473 48,111 (51,889) 48.11 142,400 2,927 71,026 (71,374) 49.88% 153,000 0 0 (153,000) 0.00% 12.500 1.309 8.322 (4.178) TOTAL REVENUE 3.105.660 746.013 ~ .531.142 (1.574.518) 49.30% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND STORM WATER UTILITY SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCK FUND 403,270 20,633 308,227 (95,043) 76.43% 12t ,880 6,951 87,497 (34,383) 71.79% 1,900,000 189,155 1,073,251 (826,749) 56.49% 510,000 37,690 250,387 (259,613) 49.10% 101,000 9,567 52,617 (48,383) 52.10% 990,000 85,206 558,594 (431,406) 56.42% 6,250 1,700 3,080 (3,170) 49.28% 81,350 1,047 69,725 (11,625) 85.71% 0811412001 rev01 Gino -8788- z z z z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -8789- General Fund $1,823,414 CDBG 1,347 Area Fire Protection Services 334,245 MSA 21,338 Sealcoat 14,480 PW Facility 98,644 Capital Improvement 933,836 CDB 1,160 Commerce Place TIF 81,195 DoWntown TIF 1-2 (1,330,781) Grant Revolving 8,160 Recycling 96,662 Liquor Store 1,689,431 Water 1,380,964 Storm Water 779,829 Sewer 967,024 Cemetery 3,090 Dock 197,148 Fire Relief (37,305) HRA 27,458 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 3ear 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 3ear. 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 represent balances of funds available for spending. 08/14/2001 CashReportCouncil Gin(. -8790- WestOnka Healthy Community Collaborative Agenda - August 17, 2001, 7:15 - 9:00 a.m. Mound City Hall 1. Social Coffee, tea, rolls, fruit and juice start at 7:15 2. Introductions 7:30 3. Additions or Changes to the Agenda / Minutes 4. Announcements (15 min.) 5. Student Welcome (15 min.) We will pass around a sign up sheet for volunteers to hand out magnetic frames to all of the students in our community. 6. Review the structure for us and The Alliance for Families and Children in Hennepin County (20 min.) This presentation should help us get a better idea of how we are associated with the Collaborative's County wide members. 7. Annual RePort Review (20 min.) "It is better to be a lion for a day than a sheep all your life." Sister Elizabeth Kenny Any comments or questions, call Leah Weycker, Collaborative Coordinator, at 952-491-8058 or WeyckerL@westonka.k 12. mn.us -8791 - Target Group Updates Health' Carol Olson, Patricia Anderson, Sandy Olstad, Laurie Fitz Carolyn Schmidt, Mary Goode, Jeanette Metz, Mark Brekke The Health Group is looking'at ways to address suicide education and support in our community. They are planning on a visit to Elk River and have researched web sites related to suicide. Youth Activities 'Sandy Rausehendorfer-temp chair, Jean Ann Thayer, Patsy Kiesow The City of Mound has given the "go ahead" on the location for the skate park near the Mound Police Department. The skate park task force is now working on the big task of fund raising and looking for in-kind denotations of cement; lumber, rebar, excavation, benches, and cash. We sent eight kids to the National Program Using Mini-bikes (NY'PUM). Four of the kids are' new to the program this year and all four from last years program were anxious for the chance to repeat the program. NYPUM continues to be a fun, behavior modification program. We are setting up the After School Activity Bus and. looking at options for the Youth Center. Parenting . Sandy Wing, Sandy Olstad, Bill Erickson MAP, Management Assistance Program for Non profits, has found two consultants to help us get our information out to more parents and community members. Community Margaret Holste, Cathy Bailey, Cheryl Fischer Leah will be participating in WeCAN's strategic planning. This fits with our Pilot Project for Human Services Planning and will give direction to the community. Target Group~ Communications Anne Wilbur, Carol Olson This small group is working on a donor packet of information for the skate park. They are also doing the Annual Report that will .be Presented at the August Collaborative meeting Finance and Operations Mary Hughes, Len Harrell,.Margaret Holste,' Craig Anderson ' There has been a suggestion to combine the Finance and Operations and the Executive Target Group Most of the members of these two groups Overlap. Executive Craig Anderson, Carol Olson, Margaret Holste, Sandy Wing, Sandy Kaushendoffer The Executive Group hasn't needed to meet. -8792- Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative Minutes · June 15, 2001 Present: Craig Anderson, Patricia Anderson, John Braland, Bill Erickson, Beth Fagin, Mary Goode, Len Harrell, Margaret Holste, Mary Hughes, Carol Olson, Sandy Olstad, Leah Weycker, Sandy Wing, Rich Zierdt Ouests: Bill Anderson; Mound VFW and Laurie Fitz; Executive Director of WeCAN motion. Additions or Changes to the Agenda or Minutes: Mary Hughes was accidentaly omitted from the attendance list from the last meeting. Carol Olson added discussion on Leah's job review. Craig placed that at #7 on the agenda. Margaret Holste made a motion to approve the minutes as amended, Carol Olson seconded the The motion passed. Announcements: We passed around exchange student profiles that could use homes in our school district area. Joan Lundeen is the person that coordinates the exchange families in our 'area. Jeanne Stortz invited all of us to a Farewell to Enchanted Island party. We discussed the City Days events that will take place this weekend. We were responsible for the parade coordination this year. Annual Report We went over the projects that we accomplished in the fiscal year of July 1, 2000 to 'June 30, 2001. (our fiscal agent, the School District's, year) It was decided that we should reorganize the list under the goal areas instead of dates. This would be a more valuable tool for seeking funding and giving an overall view of what we are about. Rich Zierdt has an employee that can help with that layout. There were a few of our big projects that we agreed needed more of an explanation. We will fmc rune the list in the month of July and present the new, improved version at the August meeting. Beth Fagin, from The Storefront Group, remarked at how much we had done. She sits on other Collaborative's in Hennepin County and pointed out that we receive the least amount of LCTS funds and have done much more than other Collaboratives. Sandy Wing asked that we have measurable outcomes for our new projects. Each work group could develop measurable outcomes for their own projects. An example would be the Parent Education group had 15 people attend an event and their goal is to increase parent participation, so a measurable outcome would be increase attendance at an event to 30 participants. We could use the work plan that we recently developed. Job Review Margaret Holste, Mary Hughes and Carol Olson talked about the review process. They are all part of the Executive work group that was in charge of the job review. Ail the comments that were received by the executive group members, will be compiled and typed onto one document. Leah hadn't seen the comments yet. Margaret asked that all our members pitch in more to spread the Work load. Leah needs to keep up on'the Alliance and other meetings besides all of our meetings and work groups. Craig suggested that the work group chairs take on more of the responsibilities. This will make us stronger as a group and will make the work groups stronger too.' Margaret would like us have others, not Leah, do the minutes of meetings. Craig suggested that it could be -8793- one person so that the minutes are consistent. YMCA Camp Ihduhapi, Terri Harris Terri hadn't shown up for the meeting. Margaret Holste relayed some of a conversation she had with Terri Harris and the YMCA. Camp Ihduhapi is the YMCA that should serve us as opposed to Ridgedale YMCA that we thought was in our district. Leah talked about taking some of the youth center kids to the YMCA for programsl We. can get $500 from Lutheran Brotherhood. That will cover the admission for this group. Sue Cathers was willing to go with the 'students and the WHCC may need to supply the transportation. Leah was told that we could join the PAC 5 group for $6000 for the entire year ofprograming. The PAC 5 is five communities that have gotten together to do programs for high risk kids at the Y. We had understood that this may be a free service through YMCA funding or other funding. Leah will talk to Terri Harris about wha~ other funding sources are out there and what funds have akeady been paid for supporting the kids in our community. ~'im Brand, Mound Crime fund, may be a source of funds for youth at risk tO do summer programs. Misc. We talked about the Alliance allocating $20,000 for each school district in Hennepin County to/mplement the Primary Project. This is an existing program geared to preschool to third grade children that need help adjusting to the school climate. Paraprofessionals deliver the services to the children with mental health professionals, school counselors and social workers supervising the program. There were questions about who would be doing this project and who the funds Would come through. Margaret talked about being ara meeting where this was discussed. The Westonka school district is also working on a program for middle school students that will take place in addition to the Primary Project. Rich Zierdt wanted to be sure that we, as the collaborative, be involved even if the funding doesn't come directly through us. Leah said there has been confusion about this project but she will talk to Dr. Para to see who the school would like us to go through. A training session is coming up in October. Next meeting we will review a draft of the Alliance structure and our structure. This relationship has been confusing in the past and is in the process of changing again. Once we have an easy Way to describe these structures, we should be doing public relations visits to stake holders. We can use the new annual report that we are working on. We need volunteers to meet and plan an event for the student welcome. Carol, Patricia, Mary Goode and Laurie Fitz were some of the people who volunteered. Our hats offto You! was mentioned as a possible theme. Sandy Olstad made a motion to adjourn, Patrieia Anderson seconded the motion, motion passed. -8794- Page 1 of 1 kandishanson To: "kandishanson" <KandisHanson@msn.com> Cc: "Loren" <lgordon@HKGI.com> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 3:41 PM Subject: Re: CC meeting Thanks for the update Kandis. As You may be aware, I attended a meeting at the MCWD this morning for a presentation regarding BMP's for small sites. I've invited Terry Schwalbe, Project Coordinator for the City of VVayzata to meet with Loren Gordon and myself to review and discuss BMPs for inclusion on Mound's SWMP as well as review and discuss how the plan was incorporated into the City's codes and regulations. It is our intention to meet immediately thereafter with Dan Parks to discuss how to advance our project and proceed with formal approval and/or execution of the Agreement. You are most welcome to sit in on the meeting. _m_ Original Message .... From: kandishanson To: Dan Parks Cc: Loren Gordon; Sarah Smith Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 1:02 PM Subject: CC meeting Talked to Sarah. She indicates staff is not ready to take this to CC yet. Won't need you for the Aug 28 Thx, Kandis - 8795- 08/24/200] THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -8796- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHF ET The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is intended as a "brief document" designed to provide the basic facts about a project that may indicate the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW is prepared by the Responsible Governmental Unit, in this case the City of Mound. The project proposer has supplied data for-- but has not completed-- the final worksheet. The RGU has solicited its agents including professional engineers, licensed landscape architects and certified land use planners to prepare this document. The RGU has reviewed professional studies related to the project in preparing this document. Responses given in this EAW represent an expression of the facts of the project, not the will of the RGU or its agents. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation. If an EAW indicates significant environmental effects, it may warrant the preparation of the more extensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 1. Project title: The Village by Cook's Bay/Mound Market Place 2. Proposer 3. Contact person: Larry Olson Title: VP, MetroPlains Development LLC Address: City, state, ZIP: Phone: Fax: E-mail: 1600 University Ave, #212 St Paul, MN 55104 651.523.1246 651.646.8947 lolson~metroplains.com RGU Contact person: Sarah Smith Title: Community Development Dir., City of Mound Address: 5341 Maywood Road City, state, ZIP: Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952.472.3160 Fax: 952.472.0620 E-mail: sarahjsmith~worldnet.att.net Reason for EAW preparation (check one) EIS scoping Mandatory EAW Proposer volunteered Citizen petition ,/RGU discretion IfEAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number (N/A) and subpart name (N/A) This EAW is prepared as part of a lawsuit settlement agreement. Since settlement of the lawsuit establishes, as fact, that the project site underwent comprehensive plan and zoning amendments in a legal manner; and that preliminary approvals for the project were appropriately granted under approved comprehensive plan and zoning regulations, the project does not meet any mandatory EAW thresholds as identified in Minnesota Statute. Project location County: Hennepin City/Township: Mound Section: SE¼ Township: 14 Range: 24W The following items are enclosed as exhibits: General project location map - Exhibit 1 · U.S. Geological Survey indicating project boundaries - Exhibit 2 · Project site plan - Exhibit 3 Village by Cook's Bay/Mound Marketplace EAW, Mound, MN page 1 Description a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. The project involves the development of a vacant, 19-acre former school site in downtown Mound, Minnesota. The proposed development includes 99 townhome and condominium residential units and 67,000 square feet of retail-commercial space. The project also proposes a public park and trails. b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. The Village by Cook's Bay The development proposes a total of 99 residential units that are arranged in attached townhomes and condominium fiats. A total of 59 townhomes in 3 - 7 unit buildings are intended to appeal to empty nester and young families. 40 Condominiums with underground parking are designed to appeal to seniors. All streets within the residential area of the development will be private with a 24-foot width and parking bays scattered throughout the site. Mound Marketplace The developer proposes 67,000 sq. ft. of retail commercial space arranged in three buildings. A central parking area with 337 common off-street spaces is programmed. Landscaping and streetscape enhancements are proposed along the edges of the site and within the parking area. Amenities An on-site stormwater pond is proposed to treat all site runoff and runoff entering the site from adjacent lands. A public park and trail system are also proposed on the site. Access Improvements Certain access improvements from CSAH 15 and 110 are needed to support the project. Two existing curb cuts on CSAH 110 and one on CSAH 15 will be shifted. A west-bound turning lane adjacent to the project on CSAH 15 is also proposed in order to accommodate the project. Schedule Site and Utility work: Construction of 4-unit townhome model: Construction of commercial project: Construction of residential project: fall/winter 2001 fall/winter 2001 spring - fall 2002 winter 2002 - spring 2003 c. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. The project is a private, for-profit development venture. It caters to the residential and commercial market demands in the Mound area. The Developer and City are involved in discussions about a "turn-key" City acquisition of a 6,000 SF retail space in the project for use as a municipal liquor store. The store would allow for an expanded and upgraded retail store that is currently housed elsewhere in the city. Village by Cook's Bay/Mound Marketplace EAW, Mound, MN page 2 d. Are future stages of this development including development on any outlots planned or likely to happen? __Yes v/ No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. (N/A) e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? _~Yes ~ No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review. (N/A) Project magnitude data Total project acreage: 19 Number of residential units: unattached - 0 attached - 99 maximum units per building - 20 Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): total square feet - 67,000 Indicate areas of specific uses (in square feet): Office 0 Retail 67,000 Warehouse 0 Light industrial 0 Other commercial (specify) 0 Building height: Commercial - 28-36 feet (one story) Manufacturing Other industrial Institutional Agricultural Residential - approx. 35 ft (three stories) If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings. The project is adjacent to single and multi-family residential uses ranging in height from 1 to 3 stories (16-28 feet) and commercial uses ranging in height from 1 to 2 stories (12-35 feet) It is worth noting that the proposed residential portion of the project is roughly 8 to 16 feet lower in elevation than the immediately adjacent residential homes (the abrupt change in grade occurs roughly at the property line of the project). Building heights of buildings with pitched roofs (residential buildings) are determined by measuring the distance from the average ground elevation to the mean elevation of the roof. o Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and f'mancial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. Unit of government City of Mound City of Mound Metropolitan Council City of Mound City of Mound City of Mound City of Mound City of Mound Hennepin County Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Type of application Rezoning Comprehensive Plan Amendment Preliminary Plat Variance Preliminary Development Plan Final Plan Tax Increment Financing Plan Roadway access permit Stormwater and Grading Status Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not Submitted Not submitted Pending Approved. See Exhibits 5-9 Village by Cook's Bay/Mound Marketplace EAW, Mound, MN page 3 Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. The site is currently vacant with exception to remnants of abandoned athletic fields (cinder track, ballfieid infields). For most of the developed history of Mound, the site housed a high school and associated athletic fields. The school closed in the 1980's and the building was converted to school district offices and community functions. The athletic fields remained active until 2000. In 2000, the school building was demolished and athletic facilities abandoned. The site is within the traditional downtown area of Mound. Approximately 1/3 of the site is surrounded by fully-developed, commercial uses. The balance of the site is surrounded fully-developed, single and multi-family residential uses. The project proposes commercial uses adjacent to existing commercial uses and residential uses adjacent to existing residential uses. The architectural and development character of the project is arguably of a higher quality than most adjacent development. The residential density of the proposed project is higher than the immediately adjacent single-family neighborhood, less than some residential pockets in the community (including one adjacent to the project) and generally similar to the community as a whole. Foreseen conflicts between new and existing development include potential light and noise pollution typical of an average-sized, retail mall. Traffic conflicts are anticipated to be minimal due to project design and planned improvements to adjacent Heunepin County Roads 15 and 110. Retail vehicular entries and building orientations are directed toward the county roads and existing commercial areas. One commercial entry is directed at a home across the street - the project has received homeowner approval to conduct screening to minimize the impact of headlights. One residential entry is made directly from an adjacent county road. The second residential entry is one block from a county road. Adjacent to the project is an ice arena. Parking for peak arena use has been an issue in the past. Since the project will displace some parking capacity for the arena, the developer is equally expanding arena parking elsewhere. A Phase I environmental assessment conducted for the site in 2000 (Exhibit 13) showed evidence of recognized environmental conditions as follows: · A former fuel oil underground storage tank removed in 1989 leaked petroleum. Investigation and cleanup of the leak was performed to MPCA standards and the MPCA closed the UST leak site in 1989. · A second underground fuel oil tank was installed in the same location as above in the early 1990s. The tank was recently removed (as indicated in Exhibit 14) with no sign of contamination. As a precautionary measure, the developer intends to excavate soils around the former tank during construction using MPCA guidelines. · A leaking transformer was also detected on the former building. The leak was cleaned up according to MPCA guidelines at the time of building demolition in 2000. Based on a utilities review, information in the Phase I environmental assessment and subsequent clean-up activities, there are no known environmental hazards existing on the site today. Village by Cook's Bay/Mound Marketplace EAW, Mound, MN page 4 10. Cover types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: Before After Before After Types 1-8 wetlands Lawn/landscaping 0 0 18.5 7.6 Wooded/forest Impervious surfaces 0 0 0.5 10.6 Brush/Grassland Other: stormwater pond 0 0 0 0.8 Cropland 0 TOTAL 19 19 If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why: I1. 12. 13. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. A reputable ecology professional performed a biological survey of the site (Exhibit 12). The site currently consists of lawn and a handful of trees with lawn under-story. Wildlife resources and habitat on the site are negligible. No fish habitat exists. There are wildlife habitats of varying quality near the site but not adjacent. The proposed project is expected to have negligible positive and negative impacts on surrounding habitats. In the negative, the project will add some level of wildlife annoyances caused by typical urban development. In the positive, the project will provide stormwater treatment where no treatment exists today. The proposed stormwater pond will provide some wildlife and fish habitat where none exists today. Added landscaping will somewhat enhance the habitat value over what exists today. b. Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near the site? __Yes v~ No If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate ifa site survey of the resources has been conducted and describe the results. If the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research program has been contacted give the correspondence reference number: ERDB 20020098. Describe measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. N/A Physical impacts on water resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration -- dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment- of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? __Yes '/ No If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if the water resources affected are on the PWI:. Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. N/A Water use. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? ~ Yes __No Village by Cook's Bay/Mound Marketplace EAW, Mound, MN page 5 If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations; and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if known. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on site, explain methodology used to determine. A phase I, environmental assessment (Exhibit 13) identified that there are no known wells on the site. The project will be connected to the public water supply. Anticipated water usage, roughly 50,000 GPD, will not tax the public water supply. 14. Water-related land use management district. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? ~ Yes No If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions. Somewhat less than half of the site area is within a Shoreland Management Overlay zone. Approximately 25% of the residential portion of the project is within the shoreland zone and is largely proposed as open space. Approximately 30% of the commercial portion of the project is within the shoreland zone and is proposed for urban development. This scenario is typical to the rest of downtown and the community as a whole where 90 percent of the land area is within the Shoreland Management Overlay zone. The closest the project gets to a shoreline is about 1/3ra of a mile. As a result of being in the shoreland zone, special restrictions on density, hardcover, and building heights apply to the project and are reflected in the proposal. 15. Water surface use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? Yes v~ No If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other uses. N/A 16. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: 19 acres; 55,000 cubic yards. Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction. Soils found on the site are not highly erodible. There is a steep slope on the western edge of the property. The slope drains into the site. Temporary erosion control measures as required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be implemented to minimize slope erosion. The project proposes to vegetate the hillside with trees and permanent ground cover to eliminate long-term erosion potential. 17. Water quality: surface water runoff a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans. Runoff from the site currently flows to the public storm sewer system and flows, untreated, to adjacent natural waters. Runoff from an adjacent neighborhood currently enters the site causing temporary ponding on the site in some areas. Runoff quantities of the project will be limited by Watershed District permit to pre-development rates. A stormwater pond, constructed to NURP standards, will be constructed as part of the project to treat ali stormwater generated on and entering the site prior to release into the stormwater system. Village by Cook's Bay/Mound Marketplace EAW, Mound, MN page 6 b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoffon the quality of receiving waters. Most or all of the runoff generated by the site is directed to Lake Langdon, which is hydrologically connected to Lake Minnetonka. The site is generally lower in elevation than adjacent residential areas and is a travel route for runoff from those areas. As a result of proposed NURP ponding, the project will significantly enhance the quality of area-wide runoff as well as have a positive impact on the water quality of receiving waters. 18. Water quality: wastewaters a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. The proposed project is anticipated to produce 37,000 GPD of typical residential and retail/commercial sanitary wastewater. No wastewater treatment will occur on-site. b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems. N/A c. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe any pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes, identifying any improvements necessary. Wastewater will be treated by the Blue Lake metropolitan wastewater treatment facility. The existing treatment facility and municipal stormwater conveyance systems are sized to accommodate the proposed project. d. If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal technique and location and discuss capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. Describe any required setbacks for land disposal systems. N/A 19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: 12 minimum; 23 average to bedrock: 300 - minimum; 350 - average. Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. No geologic hazards are known to exist. b. Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination. The soil type across the site is Cu (cut and fill land). The soil has generally low permeability and low potential for groundwater contamination. Village by Cook's Bay/Mound Marketplace EAW, Mound, MN page 7 20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks a. Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan; describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments. N/A b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission. None 21. c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans. N/A Traffie~ Parking spaces added - 355. Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) - 0 Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated: 651 and time of occurrence: weekday P.M. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system. Area roadways including CSAH 15 and CSAH 110 are being improved to accommodate general development occurring in Mound and surrounding communities. The focus of a significant roadway improvement project is CSAH 15 realignment in downtown Mound. A traffic study (Exhibit 15) has been conducted for the downtown area of Mound to determine roadway and intersection design of anticipated CSAH 15 reconstruction. The proposed development project was one of the subjects of that study. Although adjacent roadway improvements (with exception to direct turn lanes and curb-cuts) are not being conducted as a result of the proposed project or vice-versa, the project is factored into the roadway and intersection design conducted by Hennepin County. As mentioned, turning lane and curb-cut improvements on CSAH 15 and 110 are proposed directly adjacent to the site to accommodate the project. The proposed project will add to traffic congestion in the downtown area although the traffic study generally suggests that high levels of service will be the norm. The traffic study identified Iow levels of service for turning into the project at the Church Road/CSAH 110 intersection during peak hours. The study suggests that this turning difficulty may prompt some motorists to choose access to the site at a different location. 22. Vehicle-related air emissions. Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult E~4 W Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed. The project will impact traffic-related, air quality. Since the primary traffic generator of the project is a proposed grocery store that will be relocated from another location in the community, the project will essentially relocate some vehicle-related air emissions as well. Due to the pedestrian nature of the proposed project and others in the downtown Mound area, non- vehicular trips will become practical where that is not a viable option today. Due to a generally high level of service anticipated for reconstructed CSAH 15 and 110, vehicle-related air emissions resulting from idling vehicles will be minimized. Village by Cook's Bay/Mound Marketplace EAW, Mound, MN page 8 23. Stationary source air emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EA W Guidelines for a listing) and any greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone-depleting chemicals (chloro-fluoroearbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality. The project proposes to utilize high-efficiency, natural gas heat throughout the development. There are no exhaust stacks or incinerators proposed. Special venting for some uses such as restaurants and salons in the commercial district is anticipated and regulated under State of MN Building and Health Codes. 24. Odors, noise and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during operation? v/ Yes __No If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.) Dust, odors, and noise common to site and building construction will occur during construction. Construction activities and, therefore, dust, odors and noise generation will be limited to daytime hours. Dust, odors and noise common to typical residential and retail uses will occur after construction. 25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site? Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? __Yes v~ No Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? __Yes '/ No Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? __Yes ~ No Scenic views and vistas? Yes '/ No Other unique resources? __Yes v/ No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. 26. Visual impacts. Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks? Yes '/ No If yes, explain. 27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? · / Yes__No. If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts will be resolved. If no, explain. The project is subject to local Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations. The project has received land use and environmental approvals from local agencies identified in #8 above. The project conforms to the City's current Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations (see Exhibits 4 & 5). No conflicts with local plans are perceived. Village by Cook's Bay/Mound Marketplace EAW, Mound, MN page 9 28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? ~ Yes No. If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastmcture~at is a connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW; see E/I W Guidelines for details.) The project will require the extension of public utilities including sewer, water, stormsewer, electric, gas and telecommunications. The project will also require the construction of a turning lane and curb cut on CSAH 15 and curb cuts on CSAH 110 - both directly adjacent to the project site. All streets constructed within the site to accommodate internal circulation will be private. 29. Cumulative impacts. Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B requires that the RGU consider the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects" when determining the need for an environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts (or discuss each cumulative impact under appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form). The project subject to this EAW is an independent project and is not phased or connected to any other activities underway or contemplated. This EAW identifies certain CSAH 15 & 110 turn lane and curb-cut improvements needed to accommodate the project. Those improvements have been described in this EAW and considered as connected actions. Even though other, more extensive, roadway improvements are anticipated to be completed concurrently with the project- connected roadway improvements, they are not, by statute "phased or connected actions". In other words, the project and connected roadway activities do not induce and are not a prerequisite for other related roadway activities; and each project is justified by itself. The proposed project is one of several anticipated in the downtown area of Mound over the next few years as follows (see Exhibit 16): Post Office relocation, 2002 Existing · 1.2-acre site, currently vacant · no stormwater treatment · Phase I environmental indicates no known contamination Proposed · 6,000 SF retail/office building · 40 surface parking stalls · direct access to future CSAH 15 stormwater treatment by regional NURP pond · roughly 80% hardcover Auditors Road District redevelopment, 2002/2003 Existing · 5-acre site, 95%+ hardcover · fully developed retail/office/parking · no stormwater treatment · Phase I indicates possible soil contamination Proposed · full demolition Village by Cook's Bay/Mound Marketplace EAW, Mound, MN page 10 20,000 SF one-story retail 60 DU four-story condominium w/underground parking 40 surface parking stalls access onto CSAH 110 and Auditors Road contamination clean-up as needed on-site NURP stormwater treatment rouffhly 60% hardeover Langdon District redevelopment, 2002/2003 Existing 5-acre site, 75% hardcover · 25,000 SF retail/office w/parking · no stormwater treatment · Phase I indicates possible soil contamination Proposed · full demolition · 16,000 SF one-story retail · 30 DU four-story condominium w/underground parking · 65 parking stalls · direct access onto CSAH 110 · contamination clean-up as needed · on-site NURP stormwater treatment · roughly 75% hardcover True Value District redevelopment, 2002/2003 Existing · 2.5-acre site, 90% hardcover · 30,000 SF retail/industry w/parking · no stormwater treatment · Phase I indicates probable soil contamination Proposed · 16,000 SF retail to remain, 16,000 SF retail proposed · 100 parking stalls · direct access onto CSAH 15 · contamination clean-up as needed · on-site NURP stormwater treatment · roughly 75% hardcover Lost Lake Canal/Greenway, 1999, 2002/2003 · Creation of a boat canal from Lake Minnetonka (complete) and vegetative buffer along with trail and boat docks around the north perimeter of Lost Lake along with 50-car transit park & ride and NURP stormwater treatment · EAW and Federal EA was prepared and approved for the project Relocation of CSAH 15, 2002 · Realignment of 1A-mile stretch of roadway plus curb-cuts, turn lanes and intersection signalization as needed to accommodate existing and anticipated development. Includes construction of NURP stormwater treatment and clean-up of site contamination as needed. Village by Cook's Bay/Mound Marketplace EAW, Mound, MN page 11 31. Summary of issues. Do not complete this section if the EA W is being done for EIS scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the draft $coping Decision document, which must accompany the E,,I I~. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. No significant adverse impacts or issues have become apparent as a result of preparing this EAW. The proposed project is of a typical residential and retail nature on a site relatively void of environmental or ecological note. Traffic generation, especially brought on by the retail project, is noteworthy. However, the design of roadway projects either underway or proposed by Hennepin County take into account numerous proposed development projects in the area including the subject of this EAW. RGU CERTIFICATION. The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor. I hereby certify that: The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. · The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9b and 60, respectively. · Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature Date Title BSER VER~IcttvelMOUND~O I-O I IEA W worksheet- Metroplains. doc Village by Cook's Bay/Mound Marketplace EAW, Mound, MN page 13 The above mentioned projects represent the near full redevelopment of the downtown area of Mound. The cumulative environmental effects are significant and primarily positive in the following ways: a. The redevelopment of an existing urban area recycles land, uses existing urban infrastructure and lessens the consumption of currently rural lands. b. The redevelopment concepts suggest creating compact development, a pedestrian/bike oriented atmosphere and a strong emphasis on public transit. Taken together, this pattern will help reduce auto trips and promote non-motorized transportation. c. Redevelopment provides the opportunity to implement environmental enhancements such as vegetative shoreland buffers, protection of steep slopes and stormwater treatment. d. Environmental testing conducted to date indicates soil contamination throughout many of the project areas. The identified projects offer opportunities to remove contamination problems. e. The existing condition contains a very high percentage of impervious surface with very little tree canopy. The proposed condition intersperses vegetative cover and infiltration areas with the impervious surfaces common to urban development. The net effect is lower heat gain, higher air quality and lower peak stormwater flows. f. Currently, all stormwater runoff from downtown Mound drains untreated and undetained into surrounding natural waters. The cumulative effect of the projects discussed above will treat, to NURP standards, and perform rate control for the entire downtown area having a substantial positive effect on the water quality of receiving waters. g. Proposed traffic enhancements will improve the level of service seen in downtown Mound and resolve currently troubled safety spots. The improved level of service at intersections will also serve to minimize vehicle air emissions from idling vehicles. h. Replacement of antiquated HVAC, air filtering, insulation and other building systems with new, efficient systems will diminish energy consumption and noise, odor, and dust pollution. Potential negative cumulative environmental effects include: i. A greater density of people within the compact downtown zone, near natural waters, will increase the potential for shoreline degradation by pedestrians and the need for proper management of shoreline vegetation. j. A greater amount of outdoor lighting within the area will contribute to urban light pollution. k. A greater density of activity in the area will contribute to a greater level of urban noise pollution. No significant adverse cumulative environmental effects are apparent. 30. Other potential environmental impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. ALL ANTICIPATED ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED Village by Cook's Bay/Mound Marketplace EAW, Mound, MN page 12