Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2001-09-25
PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2001, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. In that event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE MINUTES: SEPT 11, 2001 REGULAR MEETING *B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. CASE #01-26 #01-31 BRENSHELL HOMES 1642 GULL LANE MINOR SUBDIVISION VARIANCE - LOT SIZE 2. CASE #01-32 GILBERTSON/MALDONADO 5142 WATERBURY ROAD VARIANCE - FRONT YARD SETBACK 3. CASE #01-33 SMYTH 4846 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LAKESIDE SETBACK 4. CASE #01-34 PETERSON 5993 BARLETT BOULEVARD REAR YARD SETBACK 5. CASE #01-35 SCHULTZ 3022 BLUFFS DRIVE REAR YARD SETBACK 6. CASE #01-36 HUDAK 2928 TUXEDO BOULEVARD FRONT YARD SETBACK PAGE 8926-8929 8930-8947 8948-8949 8950-8962 8963-8975 8976-8987 8988-9004 9005-9020 o o o PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 7. CASE #01-38 GABLES 2548 AVON DRIVE SIDE YARD SETBACK COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.) COUNCIL PUBLIC RELATIONS A. RESOLUTION REQUESTING COUNCIL MEMBER RESIGNATION B. DISCUSSION ON COUNCIL MEMBERS' PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, ESPECIALLY LETTERS TO THE EDITOR PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS A. CASE #01-37 SWENSON 4865 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE FRONT YARD SETBACK/HARDCOVER ACTION ON FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT LANGDON BAY SUBDIVISION 9021-9035 9036 9037-9049 9050-9052 o ACTION AMENDING LANGDON WOODS RESOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ACTION ON PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT ON BALBOA SITE INTERN PRESENTATIONS: KEITH WEATHERBY mo B. C. D. RETAINING WALL RATINGS STREET INVENTORY STORM SEWER OUTLET RATINGS STRUCTURES RATINGS 9053-9080 9081-9085 11. ACTION SETTING CSAH 15 WORKSHOP: 10/15 or 10/22 12. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS mo B. C. D. E. F. LMCD correspondence Financial Reports: August 2001 Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative correspondence Minnesota Chamber of Commerce newsletter Article: Public Employers Must Align Pay with Organizational Goals Mound Westonka school district correspondence 13. ADJOURN This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: www. citvqfmound, com. 9086-9124 9125-9127 9128-9131 9132 9133-9134 9135-9145 More current meeting COUNCIL BRIEFING September 25, 2001 Letters to the Editor, etc Because it was she who inquired about the issue, Council Member Anderson has agreed to lead in the discussion of this item. #10. Intern Presentations Keith Weatherby is the engineering intern hired by the City this summer to do the infrastructure inventory and ratings. I have requested that he report his findings to the Council. The public presentation will add to his learning experience. Challenge him by asking questions. #11. County Road 15 Please bring your calendars to select a date for this workshop. There are few options when trying to assemble all the professionals of the Project Team. Hopefully one of these dates works. Other News The post office plans have been approved at the regional level. Now the project has been moved the consideration at the federal level. Staff was able to effectively persuade the Metro Council to approve an extension of the greenway grant for an additional year. Bidding will take place no later than next summer, with construction in 2003. The grant is for $500,000. ee he Island Park Facilities Task Force has already held two meetings, with more scheduled. They plan to have a commendation within two months. They are also working with the architectural specialists from SEH. Some firefighters from Mound Fire Department requested to go to New York City to help out. Upon inquiring, we were directed that they prefer to utilize Departments from large cities who have specialized skills in disaster situations. They said that as matters progress and their resources are depleted, there might be a place for volunteers such as Mound's. I will be at the International City Manager's Conference at Salt Lake City, Sept 22-30. Gino is acting City Manager, and will act on my behalf at the City Council meeting. Thank you for this opportunity! MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11~ 2001 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, at 7:30 P.m. in the council chambers at 5341 Maywood 'Road in said City. Councilmembers Present: Mayor Pat Meisel, Counciimembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Klm Anderson: and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Attorney, John Dean; City Manager, Kandis Hanson; Acting City Clerk, Bonnie Ritter; Community Development Director, Sarah Smith; City Planner, Loren Gordon; Parks Director, Jim Fackler; Police Sergeant, J:~hn McKinley; Police Chief, Len Harrell; Brad Schoenherr, Jonathan Paul, Jeff P~ti?~rank Weiland, Lorrie Consent Agenda: Ail items listed under the Consen.~::ii~i~;nda ~i:t~nsidered to be routine in nature by the Council and will be enac~i'~y a roll call'~, There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a .................. ~en so requests, in which event the item will' be removed from the and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING AND PLEDGE OF Mayor Meisel opened the followed by a moment .at e of Allegiance was recited, attacks on our Nation today. 2. APPROVE AGENDA Mayor Meisel requested today. City Mana{ Police Officer discussion on a letter that she received the addition ef item 2A, the swearing in of MOTION by in favor. Motion Brown to approve the agenda as amended. All voted 3. CONSENT AGENDA Hanus requested the removal of item G from the consent agenda. MOTION by Brown~ seconded by Hanus to approve the consent agenda, with the exception of item G. All voted in favor. Motion carried. A. Approve minutes of the August 28, 2001 regular meeting and the September 4, 2001 special meeting. B. Approve payment of claims in the amount of ~7,36§,43 C. Set Public Headng for CBD and other year-end assessments against properties for October 9, 2001, at 7:30 p.m. D. Approve Public Gathering permit for the Sportsmen Bassmasters for October 13, 2001, in the Mound Bay Park 1 -8926- Mound City Court=il - September 11. 2001 E. RESOLUTION NO. 01-73: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2002 PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,628.280; SETTING THE PRELIMINARY LEVY AT $2,452,550; AND APPROVING THE PREUMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR 2002. F. Approve Code Amendments 1. ORDINANCE NO. 07-2001: AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 206 TO THE CiTY CODE RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION; OFFICERS; DEPARTMENTS. 2. ORDINANCE NO.08-2001: AN ORDINANCE~ENDING SECTION 350 OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO T~DMINiSTRATION~=' OF THE ZONING CODE . ..==~,~:=iiiiiiiii?~!iiii!ii!iiii:::=~ .... 3. ORDINANCE NO. 09-2001. AN OI [ ~i~NDING THE DEFINITIONS SECTION 350.311 LOT ~:EA, MINIMUM OF THE ZONING CODE. 3G. ORGANIZATIONAL CHART Hanus suggested the addition of the Commissions, and that the HRA should si~ Boards and this chart. MOTION by Brown, amended. All voted in the Organizational Chad as 4. COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS None were SA. PUBLIC HE~R,..NG cOi~i~NUA-"~ ~'~=" TION- KELLS LANE VACATION Mayor Meisel called~; conu~ed hearing to order at 7:43 p.m. City Planner, Loren Gor~::"reviewed the actions and concerns of the Planning Commission at their meeting September 10. The Council indicated that they would like to see the actual minutes of that meeting before making any decisions on this matter. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to continue this hearing until October 9, 2001, at 7:30 p.m. This will allow review of ~he Planning Commission minutes and recommendations. This date is acceptable to the parties involved. All voted in favor of the motion. Motion carried. 2 -8927- Mound City Council Minute~ - September 11,2001 $.B. LETTER pRESENTED BY MAYOR MEISEL Mayor Meisel presented a letter to the Council that she received from the owners of SCOtty B's restaurant, This letter was addressed to the owners of the restaurant, from Councilmember Peter Meyer. The letter was requesting the owners of Scotty B's restraurant to persuade MetroPlains to donate or sell the Haddorff green space to the City of Mound. Meyer wrote "1 will boycott your new restaurant and encourage as may citizens as I can to join me." Mayor Meisel expressed her disgust and disagreement with the threat of a boycott. Hanus and Brown also expressed their strong disagreement with the writing of this letter. Anderson also stated that she feels it's unrealistic to tbi~k that Scotty B's has control over what MetroPlains is doing., and that. the letter..:=~" wriEen in bad judgment. Meyer feels that once the land is developed, the gre.eBi?~a~'::::~i!~i~ gone for all future generations, and it's worth fighting for. The Mayo~ii,,~inded hi~i~t this issue has been before the voters. In addition, Meyer took..::a~i!!~ath .t~e;;~serve a.li~::'~::~'{izens, and if he can't do this without his getting his own emotio~!ii~i~y~, maybe he should resign. Hanus proposed a resolution and City De~ggested it be put on the next meeting'.s agenda. ":~i'~iii~iiii?~ii~:' 6. AGREEMENT WIT ASSESSMENT MOTION by Brown, Phase for the City of All voted in favor. M~ NEEDS FACll 'lES the Fee Estimate for the Predesign with cost not to exceed $29,800. 7, LMCD CITY City Manager wrote a LMCD requesting that the City not be charged for costs processing {he 2000 new multiple dOck license, with minor change six variance applications from LM.CD at street ends within Woodland Point, M~Yor Meisel, along with Hanus, will be in attendance at the September 12th LMCD meeting te reir~force this request. 8. SE'r~,',.'!NG BUDGET WORKSHOPS MOTION bYHanus, se~nded by ~de.rson to set Tuesday, October 30, and Wednesday, November 7, at 7:.00 p,m. as 2002 Budget Workshops. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 9. INFORMATIO.N/MISCELLANEOUS A. MCWD newsletter B. Inwi~atien to tonka Bay Centennial 'C. Weestonka Senior Center newsletter D. Lake Minnetonka Association newsletter E. Hennepin County memo 3 -8928- Mound City ¢our~il - September 11,2001 F. Police Department report: August 2001 G. PD interoffice memo 10. ADJOURN MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adjourn the meeting at 9:20.p.~m. in favor. Motion carried. All voted Attest: Acting City Clerk 4 -8929- PAGE 1 AP-C02-Oi PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND 9/25/0~ 9/25/0~ ~68.00 JRNL-CD ~,,~ ALLEGRA PRINT AND IMAGING VENDOR TOTAL iii.60 ..... APF EMERGENCY REPAIR VENDOR TOTAL 224.00 ~;~ 9/25/01 9/25/01 ~08.60 JRNL-CD ~:[, A0404 22924 21~.54 08-20-01 MOUND BAY PARK 01-4340-3900 27265 96.00 REPLACE LOCK 01-4320-3830 9/25/0i 9/25/01 96.00 JRNL-CD 9/25/01 9/25/0~_ 2,864.95 JRNL-CD iO1 9/25/0~ 9/25/01 429.38 JRNL-CD lOl :::.::: ': ~ : ~: :: ~ ~: ;:~Z ':: :::::: ': ,:~ '; ~::L~'~:[~¥~: ~~. ~ '' :; ~" ~. :;: ' :;~' .:,::~ :~ ~: ~ ' :;" : ~ · BEN,HOOF AND ASSOCIATES, ~ VENDOR TOTAL 626.50 -8930- PAGE 2 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND ii:! BERRY COFFEE COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 34.00 ~,~I 9/25/01 9/Z5/01 94.99 JRNL-CD ~O1 i,~ 10099499 67.01 08-01 GARBAGE PICKUP ~C~RO121 22-4170-3750 ~'~ _ ~ ~0099&~9 ~ ' 17.76 08-01 GARBAGE PICKUP ~CHPO085 ~1-7~00-3750 .... ~ ~.: ~:::. :~, : ~.:::::~:~:: ~ ;~ ::, ~,:::~ :. ~ .:~.:: ,:~::~:~ : ::~;:.:~::. ::.::.~.:::.~:~..~.:: ~:::~:;~ :~ ~ .~:~,~,::::; . ~,~ ~ .:~t t~ BLACKOWIAK AND SON VENDOR TOTAL 775.86 ~,.~F;~ BLUE LAGOON MARINE VENDOR TOTAL 72.85 i¥~ C0859 D104914 10.63 ~ASH SOAP 0~-4340-2200 i~4 D~09~8~ ~.~6 COUPLER ~8-7800-Z3~0 ~:) CHAMPION AUTO VENDOR TOTAL 66.~0 . 010910 18.02 08-0[ 952-472-06a6 0[-4340-3220 F~'r 9/25/0i 9/25/01 18.02 JRNL-CD lO~ ~ .... ~.I.%,I,ZE~.S .C.O.~.UN~ C]~.O.N.~ ........ ~.D-O.R,,...~-O-~-AJ. -8931 - PAGE 3 AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND 0721221 '~ ~ 153.58 ~';~ 60732053 ~00.20 M~X 72-7~00-9540 ,.~ 9/25/01 9/25/0~ 100.20 JRNL-CD 25 470.49 10-01 PRINCIPLE TRUE VALUE 55-5881~6100 m,, 491.35 10-01 INTEREST TRUE VALUE 55-5881-61Z0 r,~i 9/25/01 9/25/01 961.84 JRNL-CD 101 340.80 COPI ENANCE 01-/,320-3800 8125101 8125101 340.80 JRNL-CD 101 CHADWICK AND MERTZ, P.A VENDOR TOTAL CRETE ~ORK5 [NC VENDOR TOTAL D1300 034292 5.81 NAME PLATE 01-4020-2200 ~:~t E1420 137409 104.00 BEER KEGS 71-7100-9530 ~I 9/25/0i 9125/01 104.00 JRNL-CD 10! _ ~ ......................... 1~958,5 ................................ 1~66Z.~0, .~EER .......................... 71_-- 710 0_-_ ~ ,5_._3 0_. -8932- PAGE 4 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND ..... .......... ~ ~5~.8.~ .............. , .... ~?.5S MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-~;~0 142457 2,063.90 BEER 71-7100-9530 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE vENDOR TOTAL ~855.50 I8753-B I50.00 08-01 GRAMERCY DEVELOPMENT 01-2300-I092 8/.25/0i 8/25/0~ L50.00 JRNL-CD LOL 18754-A 2,475.00 08-0I PRO~ECT MANABEMENT 55-58~0-3100 8/25/0I 8/25/01 2,4~5.00 JRNL-CD 18754-C ~8756 112.50 8/25/01 8/25/0i 112.50 150.00 8/25/01 8/25/01 150.00 08-01 POST OFFICE RELOCATION JRNL-CD 08-01 POST OFFICE RELOCATTON JRNL-CD 55-5879-3100 10! 55-5879-3100 101 09-0i INTERNET SERVICES 7.31 09-01 INTERNET SERVICES 73-7300-4130 78-7800-4130 i~ G1750 ?56707 26.18 09-04-01 UNIFORMS 01-4280-2240 l~] . ........... 26.~8 09-04-0~. UNIFORMS - ?3-7300-2240 -8933- PAGE 5 AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND i 771045 40.92 09-18-01 MATS 22-4170- ~" 8/25/0i 8/25/Ol 40.92 JRNL-CD il~l 771046 25.98 09-18-01 MATS 71-7100-4210 ii;~i 8/25/01 8/25/01 25.98 JRNL-CD i01 ~q Z6.27 09-~l-O1 MATS 01-4280-2250 ~' ~ ~ ~ ~6.~7 09-~-0~ %T~ .... 7~-7~00-~50 ~,;; G1761 10918 570.70 07-01 SKATE PARK 01-4340-3100 ,!i,~,: Gl800 52811 1,906.81 REPAIR #i6 73-7300-3810 ,,;~;;~ 8/25/01 8/25/0i 1,906.81 JRNL-CD . , /25/01 8/25/01 280.00 JRNL-CD :~,.~ 8z~zol 8/z5/ol 6Z.5~ JRNL-CD ~?h 27.17 08-01 WATER ~5~58502 73-7300-2200 i~ 27.17 08-01 WATER ~5158502 78-7800-2200 ~..~', GLEN~OOD INGLE~OOD VENDOR TOTAL ~ GR%-N Dz--.DE~ V~-N D OR--.-IO T. A6 -8934- PA6E 6 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-CO2-OJ. CITY OF MOUND 61960 947 777.45 WEED CONTROL 01-4280 8/25/01 8/25/0~ 777.45 JRNL-CD =]r]'i.'~ ] ~'~V:~.~:':( :~ ]:~ ~ ,~].~' ~: ~, q]~ ~ :~ ~: ~ ~ :~: ~,.',f:~ ~,? ~]~>: ~ ~ ~:( ,:.~y~ G1972 428428 .......................................................... 3~4.32 LI ~UOR 9/25/01 9/25/01 3~4.32 JRNL-CD 430855 349.45 WINE 71-7100-9520 9/25/01 9/25/0~ 349.45 JRNL-CD H2040 2654 I48.94 CABLE ASSEMBLLY 78-7800-3810 zz~.'¢' :' '~:::::~ :r~::~:~ ~ r:~ ~.~~:. ~: ~¢~ :~'~F~5~ '.~.~:: ~. ~ :f ~;¢~:.:.~:.:: H206/ 37300Z 1,486.34 CHLORINE ~ HYDROFLUOSILICIC 73-7300-2260 8/25/0i 8/25/0i 1,486.34 JRNL-CD Z8.15 I.D. HEAVY WALL 22-4Z70-3820 8/25/01 8/25/01 ~8.~5 JRNL-CD H224i oiogIi-A ~,i75.66 08-0i PLANNING MISCELLANEOU~ 8/25/01 8/25/01 3,175.66 JRNL-CD ~0~ OZO9Zi-B2 70.00 08-OZ 5Zi6 WILSHIRE VARIANCE 0i-4Z90-3100 8/25/01 8/25/01 70.00 JRNL-CD ozogzz-B4 -8935- PAGE 7 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CiTY OF MOUND 8/25/01 8/25/01 140 .00 JRNL-CD ~.; Oi0911-B5 175 O0 08-01 1642 ~ULL LANE SUBDIVISI ~,~ 8/~5/0~ 8/25/0[ ~75.00 J~NL-C~ ,,, Oi091i-B7 70.00 08-01 PLANNING, SMITH SARAH ,.,~ 8/25/01 8/25/01 2,492.00 JRNL-CD '~'~ OI0911-D 3,~15.01 08-01 HOUNS VISIONS MISCELLAEN 55-5880-3100 I:~,: 8/25/01 8/25/01 4,026.93 JRNL-CD i01 h..4~ Oi09iI-F1 1,189.50 08-01 GRAMERCY DEVELOPMENT 01-2300-1090 O 101 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP,~, VENDOR TOTAL 15586.35 8534 37.86 OIL CHANGE, FLAT TIRE REPAIR 01-4140-3810 8/25/01 8/25/01 37.86 JRNL-CD 101 8562 8/25/01 8125101 289.88 BATTERY'S 289.88 JRNL-CD 01-4140-3810 ~.r:l 8490 67.59 A/C SYSTEM RECHARGE 73-7300-3810 ~-.i I~! 8/25/01 8/25/01 67.59 JRNL-CD 101 Gl 8500 194.66 A/C SYSTEM RECHARGE 01-4280-3810 ~ 8/25/01 8/25/01 194.66 JRNL-CD 10] .... l- .................... 8-5-2-9 ....................................................... 3-2'~ ~-6 5 A,/C SY,S~T.EM R E C- H-ARGE- .......................................... -8936- PAgE 8 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 6ITY OF MOUND 855~ ~ 102.31 ALTERNATOR 01-4280-~oin ~/~/u~ 8/Z~/Oi 924.83 JRNL-CD 8643 131.68 SEAL COAT TOWING 27-5800-2340 ISLAND PARK SKELLY VENDOR TOTAL 2638.44 1300142 i24.25 WINE 71-7100-9520 9/25/0& 9/25/01 124.25 JRNL-CD 101 ~302387 ~,736.35 WINE 72-7100-9520 9/25/0~ 9/25/01 2,736.35 JRNL-CD ~;~, .: .~,,, ........ ,~ ....... i, ,..,, ...... ~ , .~,.;,~,~:' ;~;~.~:*~ ;.~:,',~, .<,~',:,:;~:~;, ~.:?:;: ',:, :~s~,L;,¢~j.,~¢~'3~?,: ;; :~?~I~.~:¢~;:~ ~;::] .~:~;~(~ : .~ ~': :~:~:;,.~, 421.32 lO-Ol INTEREST TRUE VALUE 55-5881-6110 9/25/01 9/25/0~ 669.21 JRNL-CD 101 [%~ ~2 1~8.67 MI~LLA~ S~¢~ ~-~3~0~'2~ 8/25/01 8/25/0~ 188.67 JRNL-ED 101 I 8/25/0Z 5 25 JRNL-CD 101 026782 16.49 BUFFER 01-4280-2310 L2930 5-323808 9~.2Z CLUTCH 02-4280-3820 8125/02 8125/01 95.2i JRNL-CD 10~ i~,;:~'.:;: ,' "~;" :: ~,, ? ( i ~: '~; ¢~ ~'~ '~,:"i:¢h. ~' ,:~ :~.'~ ~. ~:', ~ ~ :'..,).~, ¢;~,~ ,: ' .~ t ~:57:;.::;:',~: :~: d..',,:-;~'~'~"~:¢",;::: ';'r:' ~ ,'! Z',~ .:~',-:,'].::~j 4 '.". :~ !:L :'~ ~0-W~ ~ S- ,. AU-T~..M O.I,~V-~-,CO.~_,~.~ N DO.~ ...IO_T_A ~ llZ..~ ..... -8937- PAGE ' 9 P U R ( H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND OZO 010901 608,20 08-01 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 01-4399- }~ 9/25/01 9/25/0~ ..... .~608.20~ JRNL-CD ~2'.T M3030 324140 2,869.40 BEER 71-710~-9530 ~.~ 9/25/01 9/25/01 2,869.40 JRNL-CD 326712 1,778.86 BEER 71-7100-9530 9/25/01 9/25/01 1,778.86 JRNL-CD 101 9/25/01 9/25/01 355.40 JRNL-CD 101 37455 142.50 08-01 BEACHWOOD POND MISCELLAN 75-7500-3100 9/25/01 1 33.00 JRNL-CD 101 37457 142.50 08-01 ~ESTEDGE BOND WATERMAIN 30-4280-3100 37459 237.50 08-01 P/Z ENGINEERING SERVICES 01-4190-3100 37461 47.50 08-0i PARKS ENGINEERING SERVIC 01-4340-3100 10~ 37463 190.00 08-01 SETON BLUFF PLAT 01-2300-1043 303.47 08-OZ METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT ~0~ -8938- PAGE lO P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND ' o ' 4?.50 08-03. TIF DISTRICT ENGINEERING 55-5580-7~00 9/25/0l 9/25/01. 47.50 JRNL-CD ,7/,69 9'25/0~ 9,25/0, ~.~g ~03.c~ILkESPIE CENTE~ ENGI~EE 9/25/01 9/25/01. 47.50 JRNL-CD lO1 9/25/03.. 9/25/0~ 190.00 JRNL-CD 10]. 9/25/03. 9/25/01 95.00 JRNL-CD 3`0~ i~ , ', ,, ? , ,~!:~',,:~!,~ :~,~i~: ' '~!~'~"~?~'"~:':,J::,~'~i ~', ,~::: !,i ,,'~ :~i ,:i~ :~?~".~ ~i 9/;~/0.t. 9/Z5/0'1 438.10 JRNL-CD 9/Z5/01 9/25/01. 285.00 JRNL-CD 3`01 9/2s/03. 9/zs/03` 9s.oo JRNL-CD 3`0~ M313.3. 08200115956,~ 30.00 08-33.-03. SCHOENHERR, BRAD 01-43.40-3100 M33.65 20070 44.11 FRAMES, HANGING 03.-4320-3830 -8939- PAGE AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF HOUND IETRO SYSTEMS VENDOR TOTAL a4.11 ~ M3245 20233309010 107.56 09-01 PAGERS 22-4170-3200 'iii~~. M3255 010804 240.76 MOTOR KITS 71-7100-3820 i~-"4 9/25/01 9/25/01 240.76 JRNL-CD 101 ~., 9/25/01 9/25/01 77.00 :~:4!~:: ':i ?.: :::' 'ii!~:': ii.~ ::i':~:::i~:~;j:.:: ! :~ :i :::':i::', .' ;~i~! ~:~i:~¢o~-:~'~i~(~ :;:. ::: ::::: .::: i!':.: :ii:. : .ii~;::: : :::~!::::'~ ::: :~::: ~ MN COUNTY ATTORNEY ~SN ~2R TOTAL ~', ~N DEPT OF HEALTH VENDOR TOTAL 4~95.00 ~-~ :.~:: :~ .:: ) ::: ~ ~: : :::: :::~ :~:" ~::; '.~ ~: : :~ .~:: .~:,,~T ::. :~ ~ ~% ' :: ~::;:: ;::: i ,::::::'::~?~; z:. :::::L:': ::~ '?:4 :L.:(:~ i~:~i M3489 010915 26.46 08-03. WATER AND SEWER 71-7100-3740 ~:~ .... 9/25/01 9/25/01 26.46 JRNL-CD 101 -8940- PAGE 12 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND ~-'" ~ ....... "~'~ ...... ~ ~::~,~;~:~;~,~ ~:~ ' '~' ~ ~,'~ ~~ ;~ 9/25/01 9/25/01 [0,755.50 JRNLwCD ~o~ 9 / 25 / 01 9 / 25 / 0 ~ 8,823.33 ................ JR NL-C D '"~ ......................... .................~;~':'~:'~'~'~'~0~ ~;~ MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSN VENDOR TOTAL 8823.33 ~G PROCESSING SOLUTZO,S L VENDO~ TOTAL ~S.O0 ~::~ ONE CALL CONCEPTS, ZNC. VENDOR TOTAL 198.40 ['r~ ~1 P3994 157692 [,198.00 ~INE 71-7100-9520 ?~ P4000 77156111 140.59 MIX 71-7100-9540 i~ 9/25/01 9/25/01 i40.59 JRNL-CD lO~ ;{~ 9/25/01 9/25/01 629.55 JRNL-CD 103 ! 'JC~ :::'~ ;;;~ :'" "~: ~;"'. ~;~: : : : ::~?~'~; :::~r;;;:: ~ :.i"~':~ /~.:r; ;~:~;~;:;~:t~4:~L.:~.::~ ;::::~:~t:~:~; ,~ ;,4 :;;:~: :'; i'~ P4038 47170 763.21 CIGARETTES 71-7100-9550 ~.-~ ;~1 ~7698 965.98 CZGARETTE5 7~-7~00-9550 ~ P~8 777~ 2&O.O0 CALZBRATE RADAR UNITS 0~-~0-3820 -8941 - PA6E 13 AP-¢02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND IUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT CO VENDOR TOTAL 24'0' O0 030279-00 2,881.60 LIQUOR ?1-7100-9510 9/25/01 9/25/01 2,881.60 JRNL-CD 032227-00 2,260.35 WINE 71-7~.00-9520 9/25/01 9/25/01 2,260.35 JRNL-CD 101 032348-00 22.33 MIX 71-7100-9540 9/25/01 9/25/01 22.33 JRNL-CD 101 i i~.i!!! 9/25/01 9'/25/01 22.45 JRNL-CD 101 ~:;~ 39.01 07-~8-01 THRU 08-~7-0~ FIRE ST 22-4170-3720 .'~i 74.~7 07-18-0~ THRU 08-17-0~ MAYWOOD 0~-4320-3720 i--'i ~ ENErgY ~ ~ RELIANT VENDOR TOTAL 255.99 !;~ ....................................................... ~z~'~'-"~7~¥7~ 1' .................................. ~:~'o~ ~"J~'~ ~'~ ~ ELSEV TOTAL 6 .00 E~:? :~:: L :. ::~:~:: ~:: :. :::: ~}': :~'. ::, ~::~: : :::~ .:~ : :. :~:~ T ....S~-H-~-~-~--SQ NS ...............................V-E~R---~Q-~ AE 50 ~ 4-8 ........................................................................... -8942- PAGE 14 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND .~ S4388 39183 11.18 PHOTO-PROCESSING 22-4170 9 9/25/01 9/25/01 11.18 JRNL-CD Jl y~?~ 9/25/01 9/25/01 2,638.49 JRNL-CD 101 {:~ 54~8 010925 325.00 10-01 DOG KENNEL FEE5 01-~160-4~70 l;;il 9/25/01 9/~5/01 ~25.00 JRNL-CD 10~ i~,~' 9/25/01 9/25/01 786.64 JRNL-CD 101 I~I 5,,4A~9 ~010719 75.00 2001 BOOT ALLOWANCE 01-4340-2240 I~;! T4723 010822 350.00 EE PHYSHOLOGICAL SCHOENHERR, B 01-4140-3110 }4~i 9/25/01 9/25/01 350.00 JRNL-CD 101 9/25/01 9/25/01 249.00 JRNL-CD {,~i 9/25/01 9/25/01 25.10 JRNL-CD 10. 9/25/01 9/25/01 5,220.45 JRNL-CD -8943- PAGE 15 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-Oi CITY OF MOUND ORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN VENDOR TOTAL 9~54.201~;.i 9/25/0i 9/25/01 ~21.I1 JRNL-CD iOi TOLL GAS & ~ELDING SUPPLY VENDOR TOTAL 12i.i1 19.98 08-01 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 0~-4340-2200 8.08 08-01 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 01-4190-2200 ~L2.76 08-01 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 01-4340-5110 10.64 08-01 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 01-4280-2240 71.87 08-01 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 01-4340-2310 60.48 08-01 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 78-7800-2300 i:~,~l T495~L 088281 4.24 BULBS 78-7800-2300 ~ ~;~':~ :! i:.: :~ !::: ~,: ,~ .~ :r: ~:?,~;:~:~ :~:; ,::: :~ .~::. ~i. ~.~ ::..(:','!; \~ ;~ ~:':'!:L~;:?'~ ~ ~, ~i~i ~. '~~ ~.,.i~.'::~!.!;,~.:,i~: .'~: ~ ~ ~ T49853~3993-0 34.99 M~CELLANEOU~ OFFICE SUPPLIES 0~-4040-2~00 ~ ~, 34.99 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-~090-2100 ~ ~1.66 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIE~ 71=7100-2100 ~ ~7.49 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 73-7300-2100 9/25/01 9/25/01 92 46 JRNL-CD 101 9/25/01 9125/0~ 6~.8~ JRNL-CD ~0~ ¥ ................................................ 9~/2'5-~t~"!r-"--'~1 ....................... 'T'Y'8';'4 3 ...... ;JR-NE:-CD ........................................................................................... ~.-0']1 -8944- PAGE AP-C02-OZ PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND ~"-i [..fj ]Z5001-0 4.33 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4040 !~, ~ 4.33 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4090- 0 -~: ~' ~ ' ?~: :..'~ ~ :~ ~ :' ]' ~: ]' ~::: ~:'.:.L: .: ~:~ ' :::~: ~ :~: ~:~ ~: ~:~ ::~: '::: ~'~ ::,~' ::~:~ ~: ":("~5'.'4~~' '?~'z ~ '~' ~'~:i/~; '~r~.:':: :~ ,:~ ~,~;.~'r 9.: . .~.:~:/' ~: :' :~ m 1.44 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 7~-7100-2Z00 ~:~ 2.~6 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 73-7300-2100 ,~ :' ::::~'r~ ~ :: ~ ~:: ;,.: ::~ ,::'~,~;.:~.~.':.:4:~'~::'~'~,~,~¢¢ ~.~:~ ~0~ :~: ?::~:':~:~:::~::;~;~ :. :W::.::,: :,::,~'~:~:.~ :,;::~'N~:~:~,~:¢5: ,:: ~::~ ;:~:~ :~::: ,~.: :,~ '; ::~ :::? :~'~ ::,::6::::: :::~:' ':':' ~ TWIN CITY OFFICE SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL 952.~ [f~ 9/25/0& 9/25/0~ ~87.94 JR NL-CD 101 ~;i::.:::: :::::'~:'.~, ~.:.: ~:~(:'~:~'::: :: ::;:~: :~:~/'~:, [~},~. ::::~: :~ ::'~:5~',: ~(~::~: :::::::~ :~ ~:~:~.:: 7::.:): ::~ ~'L~:~:;~; }~':.: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::':: ~:'~ :: 2~ ~ ~::'~ .: ::~ ~:~'~ :~:::.:': .~: :~: :,:::~ ::: :. :.:: .~:~:: I.-~ ~,~jj 3~.95 09-0~ BALBOA PARKING 78-7800-4200 ~ 9/25/0~ 9/25/01 95.85 JRNL-CD 10~ ~j'~J 21.81 OB-O1 612-590-435~ STREETS 01-4280-3220 ~., 21.8~ 08-01 612-590-4351 WATER 73-7300-3220 ~1~i 27.42 08-01 612-581-6444 SQUAD ~844 01-4140-3220 ~ .79 08-01 612-723-7560 MOUND FIRE 22-4170-3220 VERIZON WIRELESS VENDOR TOTAL 130.14 ~]~2~ WACONIA BUILDING CENTER VENDOR TOTAL 21.30 , 9/25/0Z 9/25/0Z 435.00 JRNL-CD ZO; -8945- PAGE 17 AP-C02-OI PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND 787.3.5 08-03. RED ROCK 73-7300-2340 9/25/03. 9/25/01 787.15 JRNL-CD 414.55 '08-06-0L BLACKTOP ....................... ~ ........... ~'~'~ ~ ............... 73-7300-2340~ ..... ~"'~"- 9/25/01 9/25/0~ 4Z4.55 JRNL-CD 407.02 08-03-0$ BLACKTOP 73-7300-23~0 9/25/0Z 9/25/0~ 407.02 JRNL-CD )9-0~ ELACK' tP 27-5800-~340 9/25/01 9/25/01 87.22 JRNL-CD lO] ~ CKTOP 27-5800-2340 9/25/0]. 9/25/01' 35.23 JRNL-CD 10] 9/E5/0~ 9/~5/0~ 5~.00 J~NL-CD 9/25/01 9/25/01 L05.02 JRNL-CD LO' 9/25/01 9/25/01 265.84 ::~:: :;, ~: :!: ~: : 7: ,, .: :] ]i~:'!i ~' :::: :, :i ~; ,i!i:': ::::i :J: -8946- PAGE 18 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 6ITY OF MOUND 4,536.65 08-01 #0217-606-329 73-7300' '0 666.81 08-01 #2184-407-147 22-4170 233.3.3 08-01 #0047-005-229 03.-4340-~.~0 1,458.51 08-01 ~0018-802-634 73-7300-3710 358.97 08-0~ ~0009-604-835 01-4280-3710 9/25/0i 9/25/01 10,039.77 JRNL-CD XCEL ENERGY VENDOR TOTAL 15292.50 TOTAL ALL VENDORS ' 228,579.79 -8947- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1642 GULL LANE, LOTS 9, 10 AND 11, BLOCK 18, SHADYWOOD POINT, P & Z CASE #4)1-26 AND ~01-31 PID # 23-117-24-12-0256 WHEREAS, the applicant, has requested a minor subdivision of property that would require a variance to lot area in order to build a two residences on the proposed new lots. The variances are indicated below: Proposed Required Variance Parcel 2 (east) Lot Area 8125 sq. ft. I0,000 sq. ft. 1875 sq. ; and, 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 creating two new lots. Parcel 1 as proposed would have 10,625 square feet of lot area with 85 feet of frontage on Jennings Road. Parcel 2 as proposed would have 8125 square feet of lot area with 65 square 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 recommended for approval by Staff; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the Minor Subdivision and Variance request with the following conditions: a) b) c) d) The two parcels be identified with "Parcel" and numbered accordingly. Drainage and utility easements be provided along side lot lines 5 feet in width and rear lot lines 10 feet in width. The City Engineer review grading and drainage plans prior to building permit approval. Park fees of $500 be paid prior to release of a building permit. -8948- e) The brick fireplace located in the right-of-way be removed prior to release of a building permit. 2. Thc City does hereby grant a lot area variance of 1875 square feet for parcel 2 supported by the following findings: a) b) c) d) The proposed subdivision represents a reasonable way to redevelop a blighted property. The proposed subdivision creates one conforming and one nonconforming parcel which is the minimum amount of variance needed for development purposes. The lot area of parcel 2 is larger than the lot area of lot 11 which was previously held as a lot of record. The character of the proposed subdivision is consistent with that of the surrounding neighborhood. 3. This minor subdivision and 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 and The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted September 25, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk -8949- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5142 WATERBURY ROAD, LOT 11, 15, 16 AND 17, WHIPPLE, P & z CASE # 01-32 PID # 25-117-24-21-0047 WHEREAS, thc applicant, has requested a variance to build a 14.7 feet by 40 feet addition on the front of the residence located at 5142 Waterbury Road. The requested variance is as follows; and, Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front yard setback 20.Sleet / 15 feet 20 feet 5 feet 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 owner is proposing improvements to make the residence handicapped accessible and provide additional living space. The proposal is to build a first floor addition with a basement on the front of the residence. A reduction of 5 feet is needed to accommodate the improvements; and, WHEREAS, the existing porch would be removed with the project as proposed; 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: 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 11, 15, 16 AND 17, WHIPPLE The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: and -8950- Adopted September 25, 2001, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk -8951 - MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 CASE//01-32 VARIANCE Gilbertson/Maldonado - 5142 Waterbury Road The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow an addition within the front yard setback of the existing residence. Associated variances include the following: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front yard 20.8 ft/15fi. 20 ft. 5 ft. Rear yard 6.8 ft/6.8fi. 15 ft. 8.2 ft. The existing house is a single story house with a basement. The project proposes to remove the existing entryway to accommodate a 14.7 feet by 40 feet two level living space. The addition is designed to be handicapped accessible on the first floor with a ramp on the east side of the house. The owners desire to be able to continue living at home and have designed the addition to accommodate their needs. The building plans show a partially covered basement with daylight windows on the south and west sides. A detached two stall garage is located on the east side of the house which limits expansion opportunities in this yard space. The interior layout of the house and shallow lot depth of 80 feet make it difficult to upgrade the front entry. An expansion on the west side of the house is logical and the only point of access is from the front. The proposal would extend the front of the house 5 feet closer to the roadway. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following condition: The City Engineer review and approve all grading and drainage plans prior to building permit approval. Discussion Weiland felt that, with the elevations and distance of neighboring homes, the impact is minimal. MOTION by Weiland, and seconded by Glister, to recommend approval of the variance in accordance with staff recommendation. MOTION carried unanimously -8952- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. gin TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff' FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: September 5, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Louis and Marian Gilbertson APPLICANT: Elizabeth Maldonado CASE NUMBER: 01-32 RKG FILE NUMBER: 01-05 LOCATION: 5142 Waterbury Road. ZONING: Residential District R- lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow an addition within the front yard setback of the existing residence. Associated variances include the following: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front yard 20.8 Ii/15ft. 20 ti. 5 Ii. Rear yard 6.8 Ii/6.Sfl. 15 Ii. 8.2 ft. The existing house is a single story house with a basement. The project proposes to remove the existing entryway to accommodate a 14.7 feet by 40 feet two level living space. The addition is designed to be handicapped accessible on the first floor with a ramp on the east side of the house. The owners desire to be able to continue living at home and have designed the addition to accommodate their needs. The building plans show a partially covered basement with daylight windows on the south and west sides. A detached two stall garage is located on the east side of the house which limits expansion opportunities in this yard space. DISCUSSION: The interior layout of the house and shallow lOt depth of 80 feet make it difficult to upgrade the front entry. An expansion on the west side of the house is logical and the only 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8953- #01-32 - Maldonado variance September 5, 2001 point of access is fi.om the fi.ont. The proposal would extend the front of the house 5 feet closer to the roadway. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following condition: 1. The City Engineer review and approve all grading and drainage plans prior to building permit approval. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8954- VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952-472-0607, Fax: 952-472-0620 AUG 0 8 CITY OF ~OUND Application Fee:~ (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: Case No. _/~ !- ~'_~_.. City Planner DNR City Engineer PARK Public Works. SUBJECT Address PROPER~ Lot ..... LEGAL Block DESC, Subdivision PID~ ~ 5 - t~ ~ ZONING DISTRICT PROPER~ Name OWNER Address Phone (H) ,q 5 APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (H) ~ 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. ~ 7gq I 198"7 F~,',"~-'~ ~71Z'l / cl~l 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ~,.q x i~.is ==aa~l~ IH.-/ x HO Revised 04/24/01 Vadance Application, P. 2 of 3 Do the existing structures comply With all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in .which it is located? Yes (~, No (i.,..,~"lf no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): Side Yard: ( N S F=)~W ) ~,, ft.3. I, ~l ft. " . Side Yard: ( N S E(~/))~ ft.3(~. 5 ft. ~5. "7 ~ ~,~. Rear Yard: ((~S E W ) ~,5 _~ ft.(¢,~>_.T,.et~"5"'~- ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ' ,~/¢, ft. ~/~ ft. % ft. ·(NSEW) % ft.,-... ~ ft. ~,~ ff. Street Frontage: % ff. (,~t~°,.q~ Li~Ho. ooft. (~1~ ~~ff. Lot Size: .sq ft 1,3.-/-/q sq ff ~a--/'7ct s~ ft Hardcover: sq ff__$~5~ --sq ff _~ (:~¢-¢~{, sETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (v)', 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 (K) existing situation ( ) too shallow ('~,) shape ( ) other: specif7 Rev/sed 04/24/01 - 8956- Vadance Application, P. 3 of 3 Case No. o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the k' 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 (~). If yes, explain: o Am the conditions of hardship for which you request a vadance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes 00, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? i ceruTy [nat a~ of me aoove s~[emenm ano [ne 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 Si . ure Date Date Revised 04/24/01 - 8957- 'CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVE ,P, AGEI ............... .... I OWNER'SNAME: L~~ .~.& ~¢,.~ ~,'~.m~o~ .............. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ...... , ' i LOT AR~ / a ~ ~ ~ SQ. ~. X 40% = (for:Lots of Re--rd) ............................. ~ 5 I I ~ LOT AREA SQ. ~. 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 ~.~ . X ~O' = ~O DETACHED BUILDINGS (GARAGE/SHED) TOTAL HOUSE .................................................... 0,-/ x .,or' = .: .57 6, x = DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC, TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ............................... X = X = = DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. Opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover. TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ........................................ X = X = X = TOTAL DECK ....................................................... 'TOTAL OTHER. ............................................... ::.. HARDCOVER I IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ................................................... UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ...................... PREPARED BY T::: -8958- DATE CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFAC~ "CovERAGE) PROPERTY_ ADDESS: i~-I -4~ ~r, __ ~_'~ 3 v,.^ ~.--...--, ' ..... ...................... .... OWNER'S NAME: ~e>.~,.. ,~.~, ..,~ ~,.,~ Y"¢~¢-, ~'~. ~,..~. ~------~ ~' '~ ~r"- '~..5r3~-.,~ I LOT AREA SQ. 'FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ....................................... LOT AREA t .3 "7 ? ct SQ. FT. X 40% = '(for' LotS'Of Record) ............................. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .................. [ * Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percentC0verage provided that techniques are'Utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:12251 Subd. 6.B.1 (see back). A plan must be submitted and apPrOVed by the Building OffiCial. LENGTH WIDTH SQ Fr' HOUSE , DETACHED BUILDINGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY. PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. TOTAL HOUSE ................ .................................... oo'-/ x '-/ ..= _5 TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ............................... · X = X = X = DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. Opening between boafds) with a pervious sat'face under are not counted as hardcover. TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ......................... · ............... X = X = X = TOTAL DECK ....................................................... TOTAL OTHER .................................................... TOTALHARDCOVER/IMPERVIOUSSURFACE ................................................... UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) .................................................................... PREPARED BY ~-,.I,'z:.c,,.,~.~Jr~,-,, ~C'c,,o~ c~,~,,,,,c, ~ _,,.~-., -8959- DATE -Q :6:I I08g/68/80 i -8961 - CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET SURVEY ON ~ OF RECO~RD? ~NO YARD IiOUSE ......... SIDE SIDE C ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: RI 10,000/60 B1 7,500/0 B2 20,000/80 ~2 6,000/40 B3 10,000]&0 EXISTING LOT SIZE:, LOT WIDTIt: tEAR LAKE ~ OF BLUFF R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 DIRECTION I REQUIRED 1 EXISTING/Pi{OPOSED W E W N S E W N S E w N S E W N S Ii W I0 LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BIIII.DINGS ;RONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE N S E W NS E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W 4' OR6' 4' OR 6' '50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' ;II)COVER 30% OR 40% This Zoning hffommlion Sheet only summarizc~ a porlion of die tcquircmcnls oullincd in tl~c City of klound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, coolact the City of Mound Planning l)epamnenl at 472-0600, ' .... CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4846 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOT 3, BLOCK 1, SETON, P & Z CASE # 01-33 PID # 24-117-24 14 0061 WHEREAS, the applicant, John Smyth, has requested a variance to build a second and third story addition to the residence located at 4846 Wilshire Blvd. The requested variance is as follows; Erdsting/Proposed Required Variance Lakeside setback 32 feetY32feet 50 feet 18 feet and, WHEREAS, the subject property is a legal nonconforming twinhome located within the R-2 Zoning District that requires a 7,500 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 twinhome was built prior to currem code provisions for twinhome development, which are currently regulated by conditional use permits; and, WHEREAS, the proposal is to build a second story addition above the current garage and a third story addition to the same dimensions as the current second story. The improvements would remain within the current building footprint, maintaining all existing setbacks; 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 3, BLOCK 1, SETON The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: and -8963- Adopted September 25, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk -8964- MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 CASE//01-33 Variance- Lakeside Setback and Hardcover John Smyth - 4846 Wilshire Boulevard The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow an addition within the lakeside setback of the existing residence. Associated variances include the following: Existin~Proposed Required Variance Lakeside 36.75 fi/36.75fl 50 ft. 13.25 ft. The existing residence is two-story twin home located along Emerald Lake on Seton Channel. It is part of a group oftwinhomes built in the 1980's. The units are generally conforming to setback provisions except on the lakeside where some of the units fall under the minimum 50 feet setback. As twinhomes built before the current provisions requiring a conditional use permit, they are grandfathered as legal nonconforming structures under today's code. The owners desire to add a 10 feet by 24 feet two-story addition with a lakeside deck to the unit. The addition would maintain a 10 feet sideyard setback that is consistent with that of the adjacent twin home. The proposed addition is a logical expansion area for the residence that will maintain 10 feet side yard setbacks and not increase the existing lakeside setback. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variances as requested providing the City Engineer review and approve the grading and drainage plans prior to building permit approval. Discussion Burma inquired about the hardcover. Gordon said that the current hardcover sheet is not correct and the applicant will complete another sheet that shows the lot is in conformance with current standards. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the variance. MOTION carried unanimously -8965- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: September 17, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance Request - updated report OWNER: John Smyth .. APPLICANT: same CASE NUMBER: 01-33 ItKG FILE NUMBER: 01-05 LOCATION: 4846 Wilshire Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-2 COMPRE[IENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential I received a phone call from John Smyth this morning regarding some discrepancies in the Staff Report on his variance case item on tonight's Planning Commission agenda. The report is correct in identifying a third story is proposed for the residence. The first and second levels would be built within 9.89 feet from the side yard setback as indicated on the survey. The third story would have an 18 feet side yard setback, the same setback as the currem garage. The currem lakeside setback is 32 feet as measured at the comer of the second story deck. The proposed lakeside deck will maintain a 32 feet setback. The Hardcover calculations sheet dated August 28, 2001 is incorrect and should indicate the allowable hardcover based on a 40 percent coverage is 2142 square feet. As proposed, hardcover is 1833 square feet and not in need ora variance as previously indicated. For clarification, the requested variance is as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Lakeside setback 36.75 fL/32fl. 50 ft. 18 ft. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8966- Sep 14 O1 OB:4Ba p.~ N 89°48'4] .... ~ 88.16 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY tm, Mr. John Smyth EMER4LD LEGAL flESORIPT]ON: 3, Blook l, SEIDN PLACE 0 Denotes Denotes U~lity Demotes Coa~e~ Denotes Bit~inoua Surface Denotes fleo~duo~ ' 000.0 Deno~ee ezie~n& elev. .... Denotes Out//ne of Proposed Deck ----- Denotee OutJ/ne of Proposed 8rd Floor AdditJon i~,~13.9Q Sq. Xt Total lot 0,089. I Sg. Ft Above 0B9.4' Contour' 5,358.6 Sq. ~. Above 930' Contour BeWeed: 8-£8-0I (twin home) DEMARS-GABRIEL lAND SURVEYORS, INC. 3030H arbor Lane No, Plymouth, IDt 55441 Phoneff?53) 559-0908 Fax: (763) 559-04?9 I hereby certify [bat U~Ja survey plan or report ~eae prepared by me or under my direct supervision and ~at I am a duly Registered ~nd Sure, or under the lawe of the State of ~anesota. As su~eyed by me ~is ~8~h da~ of Au&ust ~OOl. ~-8967--- David E. Crook Minn ~-~ ~,~ ~,, , ~le No. 11438 Boo~-Pa£e 399-35 Scale PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: September 11, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: John Smyth APPLICANT: same CASE NUMBER: 01-33 ltKG FII,E NUMBER: 01-05 LOCATION: 4846 Wilshire Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-2 COMPREItENSIVE PLAN: Medium Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow an addition within the lakeside setback of the existing residence. Associated variances include the following: Existing/Proposed Lakeside 36.75 fld36.75 ft. 50 ft. Hardcover 2295 sq.ft/2445 sq. ft 1575 sq. ft. Required Variance 13.25 i~. 870 sq. ft. The existing residence is two story twin home located along Emerald Lake on Seton Channel. It is part of a group of twinhomes built in the 1980's. The units are generally conforming to setback provisions except on the lakeside where some of the units fall under the minimum 50 feet setback. As twinhomes built before the current provisions requiting a conditional use permit, they are grandfathered as legal nonconforming structures under today's code. The owners desire to add a 10 feet by 24 feet two-story addition with a lakeside deck to the unit. The addition would maintain a 10 feet sideyard setback which is consistent with that of the adjacent twinhome. Hardcover would increase by about 250 square feet for the property which is over the allowable limit by 870 square feet. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -8968- p. 2 #01-33 - Smyth variance September 11, 2001 DISCUSSION: The proposed addition is a logical expansion area for the residence which will maintain 10 feet side yard setbacks and not increase the existing lakeside setback. Although the hardcover is over the allowable limit, Staff can find hardship to warrant a variance in that the lot is small in size, the driveway which adds hardeover serves as a common access for the development, and the hardcover around the MCES lit~ station is necessary for public utility service purposes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variances as requested with the following condition: 1. The City Engineer review and approve the grading and drainage plans prior to building permit approval. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 -8969- VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY oF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952-472.0607, Fax: 952.472.0620 PAiD AUG 0 8 2001 CITY OF ~0t.~ (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Application F e e: _~0_.~Q.0_ Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: ~ Ylt~lol City Planner c~l/~lO! DNR ?~[l~'~O j City Engineer ,,(?7 I / ' PARK ~! ,~!t)! Public Works ~fl~ ~Di Other PROPERTY Lot ._~ LEGAL Block _~. DESC. Subdivision PID# Pla~ R-IA ~ R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 ZONING DISTRICT R-1 OPERW Name WNER Address~2¢~ ~;'/~A/r~ ~ / v~ , Phone APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (H) (W). .(M) 1. Has an application ever been made for zomng, 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, ~pe of use, etc.): "'2' ,,f' o/-I~ o,,-,d Variance Application, P. 2 of 3 Case No. i~["~ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning dis*" ' 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.): Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: REQUIRED ( Ni~E W_~) ~ O ft. ( N S~E~) ~ ft. (N 0 ft. (~s EW) (SEW) · SEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: sq REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) 3-7 r'3 ft. ft. ft. t4C3 ft. sq ft ~: qOo sq ft ff. ff. ff. ff. ff. ff. sq ft _sq ff Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~A. 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: ~'~l~-- _r~t- closer Revised 04/24/01 - 8 9 71 - 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 (X,), No (). If yes, explain: Was th~ 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 aut~norized 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 ~.pPlicant's Signature Date Date ~"~//'~"/~)/ Revised 04/24/01 -8972- CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPER¥1OUS SURFACECOVERAGE) SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots). ..................................... ii.!, F77 LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record) ............................. I SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .................. I * Existing Lots of Recold may have 40 Percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 3'50:1225, Subd, 6.B.1 (see back). A Plan must be submitted and approved bythe Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT DETACHED BUILDINGS (GARAGE/SHED) TOTAL HOUSE .................................................... X = DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. TOTAL DETACHED BUlbDINGS ............................... x . dO x /,~ -- GoO DECKS open decks (1/4" min. Opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover, TOTALOTHER .................................................... pREPARED BY DATE -8@73- CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ~, Mr. John Smyth '88.16 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3, Blook I, SETON PLACE 0 Denotes iron monument 935,05 0 Denotes M. phole ~ Denotes Utility Pole ' ~ Denotes Concrete Sur[aoe ~--~ Denotes Bit--incus S~face ~ Denotes Deciduous T~ee ~ DenoLe~ ~ood Re~g ~al] '0000 Denote~ exl~ elev. .... DenoZes Ou~ne of P~oposed Deck Denotes Ou~e of Proposed 8r4 ~oor AddiSon IZ,213.90 Sq. ~. ~o~ Lot Sq. I~. Above 9~9.4' COntour Sq. ~. Above 930' Con,our ~iostin& use (twin home) Revised: 8-~8-01 DEMARS-.GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 3030 Harbor Lane No. Pl3mouth, MN 65441 Phone:(763) 559-0908 Fax: (763) 559-0479 I flereb.v certify that this survey plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and ~at I am a duly ReEJstered ~d Sure, or under ~e laws of ~e State of ~nneso~. As sure, ed by me ~is 28th day of Auffus~. 2001. David E. Crook Minn. Reg. No. 22414 -8974 ................ , ...... File No. 11438 Book-Page 399-35 Scale I "=30' ADDRESSqs% CITY OF MOUND --ZONING INFORMATION SttEET SURVEY ON FII.E? YES / NO LOTOF RECORD? YES / NO ZONING DISFRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: YARD ltOUSE ......... FRONT :RONT SIDE SIDE Ri 10,000/60 B1 V,500/O 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 ! 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 4,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. DIRECTION ] REQUIRED N S E W NS E W NS E W N S E W N S E W 15' N S E W 50' 10' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTtI: EXISTING/PROPOSED I1 30,000/100 VARIANCE [(EAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF GARAGE, SHED ..... DETACIIED BUll.DINGS N S E W FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF HARDCOVER CONFORMING? YES / NO N S E W N S E W N SEW NS E W N S E W 30% OR 40% 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 50' 10' OR 30' This Zoning Infouoation Shcel o~_)lv sum,narizcs a portion of die requirements outlined in the Cily of Mound Zoniog Ordinance. For ford)er ioformation, contacl the City of Mound LOTS i & 5 Plmmtng Depatunent at 472-O600. 5 5:) '~! vAc VlLL RES 66) rNlS BLO~ IS XLL u,~S~.i~ ,~ 8D':- -8975- .,,... GOVT CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DECK FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5993 BARTLETT BLVD., P & Z CASE # 01-34 PID # 23-117-24-42-0003 WHEREAS, the applicant, Thomas Peterson, has requested a variance to construct an 14' x 13.6' upper level deck along the south side of the existing house and an 8' x 8' ground level hot tub deck that would accessible via a staircase which would be located within the rear yard setback area. The requested variance is as follows: Existing Proposed Required Variance Rear yard 15 ft. 7 ft. 15 ft. 8 ft. WHEREAS, the existing two level "round" house previously included a wrap-around deck which was accessible from the upper floor via sliding glass door(s); and WHEREAS, the applicant removed the former deck in anticipation of a new deck at which time it was learned that the deck was non-conforming due to a deficient setback; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R-1 Zoning District that requires a rear yard setback of(15) feet for lots of record; and WHEREAS, the existing house is located approximately (15) feet from the rear property line which does not allow for any expansion in this area without a variance; and WHEREAS, a deck expansion in the front yard is not possible due to the (30) foot front yard setback requirement of the R-1 Zoning District nor is it practical due to the location of the existing sliding glass windows; and WHEREAS, expansion opportunities are limited on the east side due to topography and the placement of the existing detached garage; and WHEREAS, the placement of a deck on the west side of the house is not practical; and WHEREAS, there are site and building constraints associated with the subject property including topography, the presence of poor soils and wetlands on the south side and the unique layout of the site and house which create hardship conditions and limit expansion possibilities for 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: -8976- I. The City does hereby grant the variance as requested with the following condition: The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the variance application that shall be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: Lot 56, Auditor's Subdivision No. 168, Hennepin County, MN. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Couneilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: and Adopted September 25, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk 8977 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 CASE #01-34 VARIANCE Thomas Peterson - 5993 Bartlett Boulevard The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow construction of a upper level deck and ground level hot tub deck that would be located within the rear yard setback area. Existing Proposed Required Variance Rear yard 15 ft. 7 ft. 15 ft. 8 ft. The subject property includes an existing two-level "round" house and detached garage which front Bartlett Boulevard. Previously, the house included a wrap-around deck which was accessible from the upper floor via sliding glass door(s.) The wrap-around deck was recently removed in anticipation of the proposed improvement project at which time it was learned that the former deck was non-conforming due to a deficient setback. The proposed 14' x 13.6' upper deck would be constructed along the south side of the house and would include a staircase which would provide access to the proposed 8' x 8' ground level hot tub deck area. The subject property is irregularly shaped and slopes downward from Bartlett Boulevard and also includes wetlands vegetation in the southern portion of the property. The existing house is located approximately (15) feet from the rear setback line which does not allow for any expansion in this area without a variance from the City's setback regulations. The detached garage structure is located immediately west of the existing house that limits expansion opportunities in this yard space. The applicant's representative has also commented that there are poor soils in and around the rear property area due to the nearby wetland which limits the ability to install footings to accommodate the proposed structure in other areas. A deck expansion project on the north side is not practical nor could it be accomplished in this area due to the (30) foot front yard setback requirements of the R-1 District. Therefore, a deck expansion project on the south side of the house appears to be the only logical location for the proposed improvements. The irregular shaped (triangle) lot, environmental constraints, unique house design and placement as well as topography all present building and site difficulties for the subject property therefore it is City staff's opinion that hardship exists. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following condition: The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the variance application which shall be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit. ..... -8978- . Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 2001 Discussion Weiland inquired about the lake level of the area south of the house. Smith replied that the area is not a lake but a wetland and we have no buffer zone to a wetland at the present time. Weiland asked what constitutes a hardship? Why not locate on the east or west side? Smith said it was mostly the existing placement of the structure. Enjoyment of the area is directly south where the views are. Brian Stodola, applicants contractor said this arrangement serves their purposes best and also eliminates decking in front of the windows. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Glister, to recommend approval of the variance in accordance with staff recommendation. MOTION carried unanimously 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: September 5, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Tom Peterson APPLICANT: Same PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 01-34 LOCATION: 5993 Bartlett Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow construction of a upper level deck and ground level hot tub deck that would be located within the rear yard setback area. Existing Proposed Required Variance Rear yard 15 ft. 7 R. 15 ft. 8 ft. The subject property includes an existing two-level "round" house and detached garage which front Bartlett Boulevard. Previously, the house included a wrap-around deck which was accessible from the upper floor via sliding glass door(s.) The wrap-around deck was recently removed in anticipation of the proposed improvement project at which time it was learned that the former deck was non-conforming due to a deficient setback. The proposed 14' x 13.6' upper deck would be constructed along the south side of the house and would include a staircase which would provide access to the proposed 8' x 8' ground level hot tub deck area. DISCUSSION: The subject property is irregularly shaped and slopes downward from Bartlett Boulevard and also includes wetlands vegetation in the southern portion of the property. The existing house is located approximately (15) feet from the rear setback line which does not allow for any expansion in this area without a variance from the City's setback regulations. The detached garage structure is located immediately east of the existing house that limits expansion opportunities in this yard space. .............. -8980- The applicant's representative has also commented that there are poor soils in and around the rear property area due to the nearby wetland which limits the ability to install footings to accommodate the proposed structure in other areas. A deck expansion project on the north side is not practical nor could it be accomplished in this area due to the (30) foot front yard setback requirements of the R-1 District. Therefore, a deck expansion project on the south side of the house appears to be the only logical location for the proposed improvements. The irregular shaped (triangle) lot, environmental constraints, unique house design and placement as well as topography all present building and site difficulties for the subject property therefore it is City staff's opinion that hardship exists. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following condition: 1. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the variance application which shall be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit. ......... -8981 - AUG t3 2D~I VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952.472-0607, Fax: 952-472-0620 ~.~0UND PLANI~HNG & IDJSP. '"~ PAIO AUG i 3 Z001 CiTY OF MOUN~ ApPlication Fee~ ~200.y (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: Case No. City Council Date: City Planner DNR City Engineer PARK Public Works Other SUBJECT 'i Address PROPERTY Lot ~' ~ LEGAL Block DESC. Subdivision PID~ ~- i~-- ~ ~ ~ OOO~ Plat~ ~ ~O ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 . B-3 OPER Name '~b~ WNER Address ~ ~' ~VD " Phone (H) q~- ?~ ~ (W) (M). APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (H)_ (W) (U). Has an applicatiork-,e0~r been made for zomng, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for thi property? ( ) yes,,~o. 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/~ - 8982- Variance Application, P. 2 of 3 · Do the existing structures co,.li~p,~'Wi~.ll area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning dist, in which it is located? Yes~, No ~ If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason variance, request, i.e. setbaoR, l~t are~i,"etc.): o ~F=..~: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ~ (~) ft. l) (.3 ft. ff. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) { 0 ft. ! 0 ft. --- ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) I~0_~ ft. ~D 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: 3.'t ;0,~ sq ff ~'1, o OOsq ft '-"- .sq ff Hardcover: 3 ,,t~,o sq ft ;3; ~O sq ft '-'- sq ft Does, th,,e present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning distdct in which it is located? Yes ~' No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ~o narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow Xshape ( ) other: specify describe: Revised 04/24/01 - 8983- Variance Application, P, 3 of 3 "Was the hardship described above created by the action of a~y?~ne having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~. If yes, e. xplain: Was the h~l~d~ip created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? 'Yes (), No~j~ If yes, explain: Are the conditions,of/hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to th~ property described in this petition? Yes~t~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarlY affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as Owner's Signature '~ )plicant's Signature ired by law. Date ~~/l~r/ Date'"(~ ~:~/0 f Revised 04/24/01 - 8984- CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) I P ROPERTY ADDESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA · LOT AREA LOT AREA · SQ,'FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ....................................... [ ~ 1 o0 SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record) ............................. [ IOj ~00 SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .................. [ ~ I ~ ~"0 * Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.1 (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE X = DETACHED BUILDINGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. Opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover, TOTAL HOUSE .................................................... x = ~'~o l lOl'l X ,_ TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ............ i .................. t''t x to = ~o x ,~L = TOTALDECK ....................................................... TOTAL OTHER .................................................... TOTAL HARDCOVER I IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ................................................... UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) .................................................................... PREPARED BY ~)¢'~1~, ~. DATE -8985- ROY J. HANSEN C{vil ~n~ine~r OF pROPERTY OF PLAT OF SURVEY. i;.e ~0 ~-..T& 2. O0 -" % CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION OF BUILDING I hereby certify that on__ .19 I mad'c a survey of thc location of thc building(s) on the abov~ described properly and that thc location of said building(s} corr~tly sho~n on thc above plat. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY hereby certify that on__ ...... ~U ~ 24 ~ 19 7~ aurveycd the property, described above and that thc a~v~ plat correct repr~ntat~on of ~id au~ey. CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ON FILE? YES NO LOT OF RECORD? YES NO ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R~ Lo,ooo/60 ~x 7,500/0 RLA 6,000/40 ~2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40· B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 S~E ORD. I1 30,000/100 YARD [ DIRECTION [ REQUIRED HOUSE ......... PRONT N S E W N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W 15' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LoT DEPTH: VARIANCE GARAGE, SHED ..... DETACItED BUILDINGS N S E w N S E W SIDE N S E w 4'OR6' SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E W N S E W 50' ,TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' ItARDCOVER 30% OR 40% CONFORMING? YES / NO ? lB,': [DATED: · This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined itt lite City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information~ c,0nlact the City of Mound Pla_n~tLDepartm t at .4_.72-0600 ...... .-'--~ .... ; ....... ~--- (62) · 4.67 % (3) 55A37 (./) ' ~ fs'~:~.~;-'. ?': ..,z. ~ (~0~) ' cD' N3 "',.I 0 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A REAR YARD SETBACK REDUCTION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 8' X 20' ADDITION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3022 BLUFFS DRIVE, P & Z CASE # 01-35 PID # 22-117-24-44-0023 WHEREAS, the applicants, Mike and Kim Schulz, originally requested a variance to allow placement of a utility shed within a portion of the side setback area pursuant to City Code Chapter 350:435 Subd. 5 (Accessory Residential Building Setback Requirements.) The requested variance is as.follows: Existing Proposed Required Variance Side (east) 6 ft 1 ft. 6 ft. 5 ft. WHEREAS, the subject property includes a single-family home and attached 2-car garage; and WHEREAS, the applicants originally proposed to place either an 8' x 12' or 8'x10' utility structure in the northeast comer of the subject property to provide for additional storage space; and WHEREAS, the subject property is considered to be a comer lot as it faces both Bluffs Drive on the west side and Bayridge Road on the south side; and WHEREAS, when the original house was constructed it was placed in the far northeast comer of the subject site and is located approximately (59) feet from the Bluffs Drive right-of- way and (35) feet fi.om the Bayridge Road right-of-way; and ~ WHEREAS, due to the existence of a drainage and/or utility easement(s) in the proposed location and because there are presently no utility sheds located in the neighborhood, it was suggested to the applicants to consider an alternate plan such as an addition on to the existing house; and WHEREAS, the applicants submitted an alternate proposal at the Planning Commission meeting and subsequently requested an eight (8) foot rear yard setback variance to allow the construction ofa 8'x 20' addition on to the rear of the existing garage which would be designed to blend in with the architecture of the existing single-family dwelling; and WHEREAS, the original placement of the house in the far northeast comer has limited expansion possibilities on both the north and east sides; and WHEREAS, an addition on to the structure on the south side is not practical as the existing garage is located on the north side of the house; and WHEREAS, a nine (9) foot rear yard setback variance was approved in 1981 which allowed a setback of six (6) feet for the screen porch; and -8988- WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance as recommended by Staff following review of the alternate proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: The City does hereby grant the variance as requested with the following conditions a) The applicants shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the variance application. This variance is approved for the following legally described prOPerty as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: Lot 11, Block 4, The Bluffs, Hennepin County, Minnesota. and Adopted September 25, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk -8989- , MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 CASE #01-35 VARIANCE Mike and Kim Schulz - 3022 Bluffs Drive The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow placement of a temporary utility shed within a portion of the side yard setback area(s) pursuant to City Code Chapter 350:435 Subd. 5 (Accessory Residential Building Setback Requirements.) Existing Proposed Required Variance Side (east) 6* 1 6 5 * NOTE: A variance was previously approved to allow a rear yard setback reduction for the 3-season porch The applicant proposes to place a 10' x 12' utility shed in the northeast comer of the lot which would be located approximately (11) feet from the north boundary line and one (1) foot from the eastern property boundary. The primary purpose for the structure is to allow for additional storage space of common exterior household items (ie. mowers, hoses, etc.) The proposed shed placement would allow for approximately four (4) feet of separation between the existing house and proposed utility shed. As an alternative, the applicant proposes installation of an 8' x 12' utility shed. The subject property includes an existing single-family house and attached 2-car garage which fronts Bluffs Drive on the west side and Bayridge Road on the south side. When the house was originally constructed, it was placed in the far northwest comer of the lot and is located approximately (59) feet from the Bluffs Drive right-of-way and (35) feet from the Bayridge Road right-of-way. The Planning Commission is advised that the City's minimum front setback in the R-1 District is (30) feet. Therefore, had the existing house been placed at the minimum front setback line, an additional (29) feet of"buildable" space would have been available in the backyard area. Due to the existing placement and current setback regulations, it is questionable whether any additional space could be added to the structure without a variance. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that the City Engineer has commented that there is an drainage and utility easement located along the eastern property boundary and has further commented that if the variance request is approved, the proposed shed will be placed almost entirely within the easement area and that the placement of a structure could potentially affect the existing drainage pattern. -8990- Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 2001 The Planning Commission is further advised that the Uniform Building Code requires a minimum of five (5) feet of separation between structures. Alternately, structures must be must be designed for fire resistance. Therefore, placement of any detached structure on the north side may not be possible and/or practical. Additionally, this area also lacks available space as the existing house is located (10.5) feet from the existing north boundary. As there are presently no temporary sheds in the neighborhood, the Planning Commission should discuss with the applicant the possibility of adding a "lean-to" type structure on to the back of the house. However, due to the existing placement of the house it is questionable whether a small storage area and/or addition could be added without a variance. While City staff acknowledges the need for adequate storage space so as to minimize exterior storage problems, we are not offering any recommendation at this time due to the policy- related issues associated with the request, including but not limited to, the placement of structures in drainage and utility easements and the fact that there are currently no utility sheds in the neighborhood. In the event the Planning Commission desires to recommend approval of the request, City staff recommends that the following list of minimum conditions be considered: 1. The City Engineer conduct a field visit to the subject property prior to installation to evaluate the placement of the structure to ensure that drainage flow is not obstructed. 2. The structure shall be no larger than 8' x 12' in order to provide for fn'e separation as well as to minimize any proposed variance. 3. The color and design of any proposed structure shall be compatible with the existing house. 4. Landscaping and/or buffering around the perimeter of the utility shed should be considered. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the variance application. Discussion Weiland had observed that the porch on the back of the residence has railroad ties for footings. He wanted to tie a requirement to remedy this into the approval of this variance. Hasse thought it would be a good idea to extend the garage 4 feet to the rear. Glister wanted to know the definition of temporary. Smith thought the intent is usually somewhat permanent. Mike Schulz, applicant: We were trying to fred the most unobtrusive placement. He brought in letters of support from neighbors. They are open to adding an 8 by 20 foot addition onto the rear of the garage. Smith: It also takes it farther away from the drainage easement area. Burma observed that, if the second option were to be done, it would be completely out of the easement area. Gordon indicated staff generally like this idea. We were looking at how it would be used. The access would be from in the garage. Burma asked if there would be a need for a variance. -8991- Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 2001 Smith said it depends whether it is considered a sideyard or a rear. If a rear it would be an 8 foot variance. Staff recommendation would be Positive for the second option. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Glister, to recommend approving an 8 foot rear yard variance as per Exhibit A (handed out by applicant showing an 8 foot addition to the rear of the garage). MOTION carried unanimously -8992- ~ 00.~ o 3030 Harbor Lane No. Plymouth MN 55441 Phone: (612) 55g-0g08 I hereby c6rtify that thi~ is a the boundaries of the above ; Io~ation of att buildings, if any. thereon, and all visible encroachments, if ~¥, from or on said land, - ....Qm Re~. No. _ ~' .' . DEMARS - GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. ntation of a survey of File No. {C '-/ Book - Pa(. 15 Scale 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55564 (955 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: September 5, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Mike and Kim Schulz APPLICANT: Same PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 01-35 LOCATION: 3022 Bluffs Drive ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREItENSIVE PLAN: Lot Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow placement of a temporary utility shed within a portion of the side yard setback area(s) pursuant to City Code Chapter 350:435 Subd. 5 (Accessory Residential Building Setback Requirements.) Existing Proposed Required Variance Side (east) 6* 1 6 5 * NOTE: A variance was previously approved to allow a rear yard setback reduction for the 3-season porch The applicant proposes to place a 10' x 12' utility shed in the northeast comer of the lot which would be located approximately (11) feet from the north boundary line and one (1) foot from the eastern property boundary. The primary purpose for the structure is to allow for additional storage space of common exterior household items (ie. mowers, hoses, etc.) The proposed shed placement would allow for approximately four (4) feet of separation between the existing house and proposed utility shed. As an alternative, the applicant proposes installation of an 8' x 12' utility shed. DISCUSSION: The subject property includes an existing single-family house and attached 2-car garage which fronts Bluffs Drive on the west side and Bayridge Road on the south side. When the house was originally constructed, it was placed in the far northwest corner of the lot and is located approximately (59) feet from the Bluffs Drive fight-of-way and (35) feet from the Bayridge Road right-of-way. -8994- The Planning Commission is advised that the City's minimum front setback in the R-1 District is (30) feet. Therefore, had the existing house been placed at the minimum front setback line, an additional (29) feet of"buildable" space would have been available in the backyard area. Due to the existing placement and current setback regulations, it is questionable whether any additional space could be added to the structure without a variance. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that the City Engineer has commented that there is an drainage and utility easement located along the eastern property boundary and has further commented that if the variance request is approved, the proposed shed will be placed almost entirely within the easement area and that the placement of a structure could potentially affect the existing drainage pattern. The Planning Commission is further advised that the Uniform Building Code requires a minimum of five (5) feet of separation between structures. Alternately, structures must be must be designed for fire resistance. Therefore, placement of any detached structure on the north side may not be possible and/or practical. Additionally, this area also lacks available space as the existing house is located (10.5) feet from the existing north boundary. As there are presently no temporary sheds in the neighborhood, the Planning Commission should discuss with the applicant the possibility of adding a "lean-to" type structure on to the back of the house. However, due to the existing placement of the house it is questionable whether a small storage area and/or addition could be added without a variance. RECOMMENDATION: While City staff acknowledges the need for adequate storage space so as to minimize exterior storage problems, we are not offering any recommendation at this time due to the policy-related issues associated with the request, including but not limited to, the placement of structures in drainage and utility easements and the fact that there are currently no utility sheds in the neighborhood. In the event the Planning Commission desires to recommend approval of the request, City staff recommends that the following list of minimum conditions be considered: 1. The City Engineer conduct a field visit to the subject property prior to installation to evaluate the placement of the structure to ensure that drainage flow is not obstructed. 2. The structure shall be no larger than 8' x 12' in order to provide for fire separation as well as to minimize any proposed variance. 3. The color and design of any proposed structure shall be compatible with the existing house. 4. Landscaping and/or buffering around the perimeter of the utility shed should be considered. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the variance application. -8995- Engineering · Planning · Surveying ,i FRA MEMORANDUM DATE: September 5, 2001 TO: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Variance - Case #01-35 Schulz Property- 3022 Bluffs Drive MFRA #13459 As requested, I have reviewed the subject request and have the following comments: The lots in this area were platted with drainage and utility easements along some of the lot lines. This particular lot has a six-foot easement along the east property line that could contain small utilities, such as underground electric or telephone. This lot line may also serve as a drainage swale for the rear yards of adjacent properties and if so, should not have any structures built within this easement that will obstruct the drainage. The structure as proposed one foot from the property line will fall almost entirely within the easement. s:kmain:hMou 13459:\Correspondenceksmith9-4 -8996- 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra@mfra,com VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN, 55364 Phone: 952-472-0607, Fax: 952-472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Application Fee:~ Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: City Planner City Engineer Public Works Case No4/j, DNR PARK Other SUBJECT Address PROPERTY Lot !! LEGAL Block DESC. Subdivision 'T"~E ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPERTY Name ,,~/,~'~ OWNER Address Phone APPLICANT Name (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 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.): ~ / IC) Revised 04~4/01 - 8997 - Variance Application, P. 2 of 3 Case No._ 6/ -"~_.~ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ,(~'. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance reqUest, i.e. setback, lot area', etc.): o SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: (NSEW) ~ ft. (NSEW) ~ ft. (NSEW) -I~Z~ 'ft. (NSEW) -~¢~/~ ft. (NSEW) ft. · (NSEW) . _~_._ ft. Street Frontage: ~,J/W/- ft. Lot Size: /O) OoO sq ft Hardcover: __~~sq ft ft. ft. fi:. ff. ft. ff. ft. ff. ft. ff. · ft ff. .sq ft sq ft .sq ft _sq ft Does,~e present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes j~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: t' 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 04/24/0t - 8998- Variance Application, P. 3 of 3 Case NO. o Was the hardship described above created by the action of a yr~pne having property interests in after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), Nogf~ If yes, explain: . the I~ Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in · this petition:? .Yeses.: No:(), If :n_e,:.l,i:~-..same other pr~opedies which are similarly affected'~ 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted, herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date Revised 04/24/01 - 8999- This home presents unusual hardships due to its placement and architecture. Th~/~ home was constructed and placed in the far northeastern comer of the lot with a 15 setback from the rear of the structure, and a 10.05ft setback on the side.' The construction of the home includes two fronts leaving few choices to locate a utility shed. Previously, the Planning Commission and City Council has agreed that an unusual hardship was realized with this property and granted a variance to construct a screened-in porch on the backside of the property. We are requesting this variance for a utility shed so we can locate the shed in the most aesthetically pleasing location on the property. The two froms of the home do face the front yards of neighbors across the street making these locations an eye sore for a shed site. We hope you understand the difficult position we're in due to the location of ottr house on the property and agree with us that the best' location for the' shed would be -9000- CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPE~Vi0uS SURFACE ~OVERAGE) v ,. ~,0/ PROPERTY ADDESS: ~3~-~.._ /~uF~ L~ . NO ......... .................................... ...... OWNER'S NAME: ~//<~ ~ ~/~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ' r LOTAREA ~t~.~,~~ SQ,~.'X'40%=(forL0tSofReCOrd) ............................. LOT AREA SQ. ~. X.lS% ~ (for detached buildings only)...:: ............. * Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techni~'ues are utiliZed, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Se~ion 350:1225, Subd. 63.1 (see back). A plan must be submitted and apprOVed by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ ET DETACHED BUILDINGS (GARAGE/SHED) TOTAL HOUSE .................................................... DRIVEWAY, PARKING ~ ~- 3 ' X AREAS, SIDEWALKS, " ETC. /'3 ,-~ X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. Opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover. X ~ TOTAL DECK ....................................................... TOTAL OTHER. ................................................... TOTAL HARD'COVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ................................................... UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) .................................................................... PREPARED BY -9001 - lu CERTiFiCATE OF SURVEY FOR; LAKF-. jV'j INN F..T'ON K A OIr? Op t¢~C)uAiiD 0 I ./_ o ,,,./&~ P-- w~=/f~, r P.. /e v'-9' ,H-, o,,') Z ~z='~";,A z.... O~.~,~.~-.z, / ~ 7-/0 x,/ ?? DEMARS - GABRIEL ND SURVEYORS, INC· 3030 Harbor Lane No. Plymouth MN 55441 Phone: (612) 559-0908 I hereby c!~rtif¥ that this is a true l~r~t correct representation of a survey of File No. the boundaries of the above describe~l land and of the location of all buildings, if any. tl~ereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land~ fMinn R~ No ~ I''b 30' ............. 9002-' .................................. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF MOUND NAME OF APPLICANT Addre s s Will iam Dunkley 3022 Bluffs Drive Te le phone Numb e r __ INTEREST IN PROPERTY E~ 25.00 A-1 ZONING PROPERTY 3022 'Bluffs Drive ADDRESS 22-117-24~/~ 0~3 LOT 11 B LOCI~ 4 ADDITION B 1 uffs FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Jkddress Te le phone · . Number VARIANCE REQUESTED: FRONT J ACCESSORY[ YARD FT BUILDING YARD F LOT SIZE j YARD ? FT. NOTE: FT.j FTJ 1. Attach a survey AND scale dravf, ing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting streets. Z. Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show approximate locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application LOT SQ. FOOTAGE //- /,/ - . N. C.U.* or O TH~,R (describe) REASON FOR extending survey or drawing. Attach letters from adjoining affec'~d property owners showing attitude toward request. ,." ;xA ~zl~;'n~jlermit must be applied for within one year from the date of the i-~",,TM &oa~ozL~f~,~lution or variance granted becomes null and void. ~0~ Variance~ kS ~A~~j~T (/f~ ~ ~~~/ DATE o L.,., ' Signature ~ ..... '~: ~.4,"~ ~',::.' ' 'I~LAN~NG COM~$~ION RECOMMBNDATION Recommend denyl.ng the 9' rear yard variance to enclose existing patio slab with screen porch. DAT~ 6-2~-81 COUNCIL ACTION: Approved the 9' rear yard variance to allow construction of a screen porch. RESOLUTION NO. 81-227 DATE July 14, 1981 ,non- conforming use - 9003- CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SItEET ADDRESS: SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO RECORD? YES / NO ZONING DISFRICr, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: RI 10,000/60 B1 7,500/0 ~IA ~,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE ItOUSE ......... N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W N S E W REAR N S E W 15' LAKE N S E W 50' )F BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUll.DINGS FRONT N S E W N S E W IDE N S E W 4' OR6' SIDE REAR N S E W N S E W 4' OR 6' LAKE N S E W 50' TOI) OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' 01JILOl A (~7} e ~ONFORMING? YES / This Zoning lnlbtmation P ann tg Departmen! at 472-0600. ,2 30% OR 40% BY: DATED: g(~8) g of die requiremcnm outlined iF) die Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound 14 g (25) 8 R- I10.48 (28) I -9004-~ !. ( t --.I 0" ~ I ~ . CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED 2-CAR GARAGE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2928 TUXEDO BLVD., P & Z CASE # 01-36 PID # 19-117-23-31-0077 WHEREAS, thc applicant, Stephen Hudak has requested a variance to construct a 2-car garage in the northwest comer of the property located at 2928 Tuxedo Blvd., which would be located within the front yard setback area. The requested variance is as follows: Existing Proposed Required Variance Side yard 30 feet 20 feet 30 feet 10 feet WHEREAS, the subject property includes a one-story single-family home; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to construct a new 24' x 24' detached garage in the northwest comer of the subject property to provide for all-weather storage of his personal vehicles and equipment; and WHEREAS, the subject property presently lacks either an attached or detached garage; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R-1 Zoning District which requires a (30) foot front yard setback for principal and detached accessory structures; and WHEREAS, a portion of the property located in the southwest comer was taken by eminent domain for right-of-way purposes a number of years ago; and WHEREAS, due to the existing topography, the placement of any proposed new structure on the south side of the existing house will obstruct natural drainage flow and could create water run-offproblems for both the subject site as well as for neighboring properties; and WHEREAS, the placement of a detached garage in the northwest comer of the subject site will be buffered by an existing hedge and/or natural vegetation; 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) The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the variance application. -9005- This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: Lots 13 and 14, Block 17, Avalon, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted September 25, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk -9006- MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 CASE #01-36 Variance- Front Yard Setback Stephen Hudak - 2928 Tuxedo Boulevard At its September 1 O, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the discussion of the variance request from Steve Hudak for a front yard setback reduction to its September 17, 2001 meeting in order to allow the City Engineer an oppommity to review the subject site to determine if drainage problems are present in and around the subject site. Mr. Hudak and the adjacent property owner have indicated that the placement of a structure on the south side of the site would cause drainage problems for the area. The drainage has been evaluated and staff feels that the alternate location would be detrimental to drainage in the area. MOTION by Burma, seconded by Glister, to recommend approval of the variance for location of the garage at the northerly location. MOTION carded unanimously -9007- 5341 May~ood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT - Supplement 1 TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: September 11, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Stephen Hudak APPLICANT: Same PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 01-36 LOCATION: 2928 Tuxedo Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPRERIe~NSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: At is September 10, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the discussion of the variance request from Steve Hudak for a front yard setback reduction to its September 17, 2001 meeting in order to allow the City Engineer an opportunity to review the subject site to determine if drainage problems in and around the subject site. As the Planning Commission is aware, Mr. Hudak and the adjacent property owner have indicated that the placement of a structure on the south side of the site would.cause drainage problems for the area. City staff, including Building Official Jon Sutherland and City Engineer Cameron and myself conducted a site visit on September 11, 2001 to view the existing drainage pattern. Mr. Cameron has concluded that the placement of a structure on the south side of the existing residence could impact drainage flow on the subject site as well as in adjacent areas. Please refer to Mr. Cameron's memorandum that has been provided under separate cover which contains his specific comments regarding this matter. -9008- Engineering · Planning · Surveying ME M O R ,4 ND UM DATE: September 11, 2001 TO: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Hudak Variance Case #01-36 MFRA #13467 As you are aware, a site visit was made to subject property on September 11, 2001. We reviewed the proposed garage location as well as an alternate site southwest of the house. The alternate site presents a huge problem with drainage as ~tated by the applicant. Most of the run off from this property and some from the neighbors to the east is directed to a swale that drains through this area and then across the adjacent property. To construct a garage southwest of the house would adversely affect the drainage and therefore I cannot support this area as an alternate garage site. The garage location as originally proposed, even with a setback variance, appears to be the best location on this property. cc: Jon Sutherland, Building Official, City of Mound s :h-nain :\mou 13467\correspondencc~smith9-11 -9009- 15050 23rd Avenue lVorth · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com Excerpts from the MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 CASE #01-36 VARIANCE Stephen Hudak - 2928 Tuxedo Boulevard The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow construction of a 2-car garage within the front setback area. Existing Proposed Required Variance Front 30 20 30 10 The applicant prOposes to construct a 24' x 24' foot detached garage in the northwest comer of the subject property which would be located approximately (20) feet from the front property line abutting Tuxedo Boulevard. The subject property includes an existing single- family house but lacks either an attached or detached garage. The applicant is proposing to construct the new garage in order to provide all-weather protection for vehicle and equipment storage. The applicant suggests that hardship exists due to a road easement which was acquired a number of years ago which subsequently left his existing property in an irregular shape as well as the presence of an existing berm which appears to buffer the property from the adjacent road. The Planning Commission is advised that the applicant has indicated that the garage structure can be placed on the south side of the existing house without the approval of any variances. However, based on discussion with the applicant, it is City staff's understanding that the adjacent property owner has raised objections with regard to drainage flow and view obstruction in the event the garage is constructed on the south side of the house. Therefore, the applicant is requesting alleviation from the City Code to allow placement of structure within the front setback area. While City staff recognizes the need for a garage since the property currently lacks either an attached or detached garage, it is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance as hardship has not been adequately established as the applicant has indicated that the new garage can be placed in an alternate location without approval of any variance(s.) Discussion The applicant, Stephen Hudak, indicated the neighbors objection was the potential water runoff problems. The neighbors house to the east is less than 8 feet from the comer of the applicant's house. House is positioned sideways on the lot. Address is offTuxedo (west) but faces south. He considers the south as the front yard. Neighbor objects to positioning the -9010- Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 2001 garage on the south because of blockage of the sun and sight line. Also, positioning of the guardrail in the curve (for slippery road protection) is a problem when considering access. Drainage would be an issue if placed south of the house. Burma confirmed that putting a garage off Manchester would be very dangerous because of sight limitations. Michael asked the applicant if he had talked over the south altemative with contractors. Hudak said two contractors that were contacted wondered about the drainage and potential wet basement problems for the neighbor. Smith indicated that John Cameron had seen this property and had no problem with the proposed location. Gordon thought that placing the garage to the south of the house would work with the present driveway and the elevation would be at or close to the same as the entryway. He felt there was a better house/garage relationship with the southern placement. Michael felt he could support the revised location if it had to do with drainage. If it only appeases the neighbors concerns about blocking the sun he could not support it. Hasse inquired about the distance from road right- of-way to the comer of the garage. Gordon said the 30 foot setback from the road would have to be maintained and it appears possible. Matt Rupert (neighbor), indicated that the area drains through the area between the houses. He sees the drainage as the hardship. Smith said the City Engineer should look specifically at the southern location as to the drainage problem. We can bring back the case to the commission next Monday (9/17/01) with Cameron's comments relative to the drainage issue. Weiland felt whether the garage location is north or south does not impact the flow of water between the houses. Rupert felt the drainage issue was the hardship and applicant has a finished basement which would be impacted by southern placement blocking his walkout. MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Glister, to table the case until September 17, 2001. Anderson felt the commission went to great lengths to hide the shed on the last case. She is very sympathetic to the neighbors feeling about having the garage on the south. MOTION carried unanimously 2 -9011 - 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: September 5, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Stephen Hudak APPLICANT: Same PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 01-36 LOCATION: 2928 Tuxedo Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow construction of a 2- car garage within the front setback area. Existing Proposed Required Variance Front 3 0 20 3 0 10 The applicant proposes to construct a 24' x 24' foot detached garage in the northwest comer of the subject property which would be located approximately (20) feet from the front property line abutting Tuxedo Boulevard. The subject property includes an existing single-family house but lacks either an attached or detached garage. The applicant is proposing to construct the new garage in order to provide all-weather protection for vehicle and equipment storage. The applicant suggests that hardship exists due to a road easement which was acquired a number of years ago which subsequently let~ his existing property in an irregular shape as well as the presence of an existing berm which appears to buffer the property from the adjacent road. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission is advised that the applicant has indicated that the garage structure can be placed on the south side of the existing house without the approval of any variances. However, based on discussion with the applicant, it is City staff's understanding that the adjacent property owner has raised objections with regard to drainage flow and view obstruction in the event the garage is constructed on the south side of the house. Therefore, the applicant is requesting alleviation from the City Code to allow placement of structure within the front setback area. -9012- RECOMMENDATION: While City staff recognizes the need for a garage since the property currently lacks either an attached or detached garage, it is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance as hardship has not been adequately established as the applicant has indicated that the new garage can be placed in an alternate location without approval of any variance(s.) 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 -9013- VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952-472-0607, Fax: 952-472-0620 IR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: ~00~ ~ ~ 9fl¥ Application F e e :__$_20_0~ Case No. O 1"'~6 City Council Date: ~[3'01 City Planner DNR ~'1~,'01 City Engineer PARK ~"l'~'0t Public Works ~'1~-0 / Other ~,~ SUBJECT Address PROPERTY Lot /3 a~.d /'~ LEGAL Block ! 7 · DESC. Subdivision PID~Iqll ZONING DISTRICT ~-1~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 'B-3 ~OWNER Address Phone APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (H)_ ~(W) (M) 1. Has an application ever been made for zomng, vanance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for thi property? ( ) yes, ~jrno. 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.): -9014- A ??L YllJ(~ 5a o"r-tt . Variance 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 ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) Front Yard: (~N S E(~ ~0 ff. ~ [<~ ft. Side Yard: [~ S EV~/) (,, ft. ~ ff. Side Yard: (N S E W ) ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ff. : (NSEW) ft. ft. St¢~:et':~F'~'~'~e~'..''~'' ~eli~ ........ '~ff;~ ~:'":~::'~ ....... ~ :~ .... Lot Size: iltlq7 sq ff sq ff Hardcover: sq ft sq ft VARIAN C E ft. ff. ff. ff. ff. ff. sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations' for;~he zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use!. ' Which unique physical characteristics of the ~Ob~j~ct 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: ,~/~-~" ~"O ,,~ /~O,,'~D ~-"~,a,.cE',4~g~7") 7'/~ /~oP£~'/~' 'Tile ¢fl fPE oF A TdE ToPO¢ P IS Revised 3/16/01 -9015- .was the hardship described above created by the action of a.nyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~,/(. If yes, explain: 7. Was_t~e hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes,~Tq, No (). If yes, explain: tx)To Are the conditions ?~.bardship for which you request a vad~nce pecu Jar on y to the prQpe~ described in tlii~ Peti~ib~~ Y~'~ R~ (). fi'nO, list ~ome other p~ope~ies Which are similarly affected? tiff..,c tdfiupoua q L K# e ou'?- Al&o/ ~cerdfy 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 )licant's Signature Date Date. Revised 3/16101 -9016- CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) I[PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2'~:2,~ 'TuXEDo I~J..V,.~- j~{.OU, k)~ /,~. OWNER'S NAME: ~'"~'EPP/['~ ~/jTl~,~? H~j),/l.~' .: ..... ~ ..... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I ~:~5~,1 I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .. 1 *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. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" mira opening' between boards) with a pervious surface under .are not counted se hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH' SQ FT 3~- x to,~= 27.(0 x Z7 = 7 ~(5', 7- 1¢.7 x g = 13 3,~(, TOTAL HOUSE ......................... · 2~ x 2¥ = TOTAL D~CHED BLDGS ............. ? .... 30 x z'/', ? = ~'¢7 "% x z.q : TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. x '~ = TOTAL. DECK 1.21'4. t5'~7 TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OVER (indicate difference) -9017- t~77,3 -9018- road Fo,go~ e~. -~'"" "c'c' .t '0 · '57 ! hereby certify tlmg thin is "a..true and correct represen.ta~ion survey o£ 'the bo,mdnr~os oC Lots 1q, lA,.1~,-. 16, 17, and 18, ,'".'i ,i Avalon, nnd oe the location oF all buJ3dlnF, s thereon. ..It does n~t'pur-::~ Q~to : /.-12-74 o : Iron marker Land Surveyor and Planner, '. c';'.. ,.. CIFY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET SURVEY ON FILE'! YES / NO DF OFRECORD? YES / NO ZONING DIS I'RICl'. LOT SIZE/WIDTH: EXISTING LOT SIZE: Ri 10,000/60 R1A 6,000/40 R2 R2 14,OOO/80 LOT WIDTIt: Bi '1,500/0 n2 20,000/Bo B3 10,000/60 EXISTING/PROPOSED LOT DEPTH: YARD [ DIIIECTION I REQUIRE,, VARIANCE -house. ......... ~.~ONT N S E W FRONT N S E W 'SiDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W 15' LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N S E W 50' 10' OIt 30' ~ SIIED ..... DL;TACI IF.D BUll.DINGS :RONT 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' RDCOVER }RMING? YES / NO 30% OR 40% ~ [DA'FED: This Zoning htDnmation Slice{ ot_DLy_Lu_nuJrizcs a portion of the tequircmems ou0i.ed it, the City tit Mound 7oning Ordinance. For further inl'ormation, comact Ihe City of Mound RD RD ~ RD ~ · 'o5. -9020- o o t'~ I O['4 I · bo Ln ~-, ~ 1 ~ I CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE ADDITION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2548 AVON DRIVE, P & Z CASE # 01-38 PID # 24-117-24-11-0003 WHEREAS, the applicants, Clint and Gwen Gables have requested a variance to construct an 11 foot x 23.3 foot garage addition on to the south side of the existing house which would be located within the side yard setback area. The requested variance is as follows: Side yard Existing Proposed Required Variance 16.9 ft. 6.2 ft. 8 ft. 1.10 i~. WHEREAS, the subject property includes a single-family home and 1-stall garage; and WHEREAS, the applicants propose to construct an 11' x 23.3' garage addition on to the south side of the existing house to provide for all-weather storage of their vehicles; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R-1 Zoning District that requires side yard setbacks of eight (8) and ten (10) feet respectively for lots of record; and WHEREAS, as the existing house is approximately (16.5) feet away from the northern property line, expansion possibilities are limited in this area; and WHEREAS, a garage expansion in the rear (lakeside) of the property is not possible due to topographical conditions nor is it practical due to the layout of the existing house; and WHEREAS, the placement of a garage addition in the front area presents site difficulties to the existing grade of the driveway; and WHEREAS, the placement of a garage addition located in front of the existing 1-story rambler may have a negative appeal from a neighborhood and architectural standpoint and may also be problematic due to the layout of the existing house/garage; 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 request shall be made subject to any forthcoming comments from City staff or involved public agencies. b) The applicants shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the variance application. -9021 - c) If appropriate, grading and drainage plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the building permit. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: Lot 3, Block 2, Rearrangement Shirley Hills Unit B, Blocks 1 and 2, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember and The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted September 25, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk -9022- MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 200! CASE #01-38 Variance - Sideyard Setback Clint & Gwen Gables - 2548 Avon Drive The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow construction of a garage stall addition that would be located within a portion of the required side yard setback area. Existing Proposed Required Variance Side (south) 16' 9" 6'2" 8' 1' 10" The subject property includes an existing single-family home and 1-stall attached garage. The applicant proposes to construct an 11 foot x 23.3 foot garage addition on to the south side of the existing structure in order to allow for all-weather storage of their current vehicles. Currently, the subject area on the south side of the house is being used for exterior storage of vehicles and other household-related items. Based on discussion with the applicant, it is City staff's understanding that the materials used for the proposed addition will match fagade of the existing structure. The existing single-family house is a one-story rambler and is located approximately 91.5 feet from the front property line that abuts Avon Drive. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that the R-1 regulations require a minimum front setback of (30) feet. Therefore, the existing house has been placed approximately (60) feet further than current standards require. It is possible that construction of a garage on to the front of the existing structure could be accomplished however the layout of the existing house/garage would need to be reconfigured and is therefore problematic. Additionally, the placement of a garage in front of the existing house may have a negative appeal from a neighborhood and architectural standpoint. A garage addition on the north side is not practical or logical as the existing single-car garage is already situated on the south side of the house. Additionally, as the existing house is approximately 16.5 feet away from the northern property line, it appears that an addition could not be placed in this area without a variance. The rear (lakeside) of the property is quite sloped and the placement of a garage structure in this area is also problematic due to the current layout of the existing house as well as existing topographical conditions. City staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request subject to the following minimum conditions: -9023- Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 2001 1. The request shall be made subject to any forthcoming comments from City staff or involved public agencies. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the variance application. 3. If appropriate, grading and drainage plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the building permit. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Glister, to recommend approval of the variance. MOTION carried unanimously -9024- 5341 l~ywood Ro~d Mound, ~'~ 55364 (952) 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT (revised 9/17/01) TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: September 11, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER/APPLICANT: Clint and Gwen Gables PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 01-38 LOCATION: 2548 Avon Drive ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow construction of a garage stall addition that would be located within a portion of the required side yard setback area. Existin~ Proposed Required Variance Side (south) 16' 9" 6' 2" 8' 1' 10" The subject property includes an existing single-family home and 1-stall attached garage. The applicant proposes to construct an 11 foot x 23.3 foot garage addition on to the south side of the existing structure in order to allow for all-weather storage of their current vehicles. Currently, the subject area on the south side of the house is being used for exterior storage of vehicles and other household-related items. Based on discussion with the applicant, it is City staff's understanding that the materials used for the proposed addition will match fagade of the existing structure. DISCUSSION: The existing single-family house is a one-story rambler and is located approximately 91.5 feet from the front property line that abuts Avon Drive. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that the R-1 regulations require a minimum front setback of (30) feet. Therefore, the existing house has been placed approximately (60) feet further than current standards require. It is possible that construction of a garage on to the front of the existing structure could be accomplished however the layout of the existing house/garage would need to be reconfigured and is therefore problematic. Additionally, the placement of a garage in front of the existing house may have a negative appeal from a neighborhood and architectural standpoint. -9025- A garage addition on the north side is not practical or logical as the existing single-car garage is already situated on the south side of the house. Additionally, as the existing house is approximately 16.5 feet away from the northern property line, it appears that an addition could not be placed in this area without a variance. The rear (lakeside) of the property is quite sloped and the placement of a garage structure in this area is also problematic due to the current layout of the existing house as well as existing toPographical conditions. RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request subject to the following minimum conditions: 1. The request shall be made subject to any forthcoming commems from City staff or involved public agencies. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the variance application. 3. If appropriate, grading and drainage plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the building permit. -9026- 5:t41 May-wood Road Mound, MN 553~4 (952) 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT (revisedg/17/O~) TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: September 11, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER/APPLICANT: Clint and Gwen Gables PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 01-38 LOCATION: 2548 Avon Drive ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow construction of a garage stall addition that would be located within a portion of the required side yard setback area. Existin~ Proposed Required Variance Side (south) 16' 9" 6' 2" 8' 1' 10" The subject property includes an existing single-family home and 1-stall attached garage. The applicant proposes to construct an 11 foot x 23.3 foot garage addition on to the south side of the existing structure in order to allow for all-weather storage of their current vehicles. Currently, the subject area on the south side of the house is being used for exterior storage of vehicles and other household-related items. Based on discussion with the applicant, it is City staff's understanding that the materials used for the proposed addition will match fagade of the existing structure. DISCUSSION: The existing single-family house is a one-story rambler and is located approximately 91.5 feet from the front property line that abuts Avon Drive. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that the R-1 regulations requke a minimum front setback of (30) feet. Therefore, the existing house has been placed approximately (60) feet further than current standards require. It is possible that construction of a garage on to the front of the existing structure could be accomplished however the layout of the existing house/garage would need to be reconfigured and is therefore problematic. Additionally, the placement of a garage in front of the existing house may have a negative appeal from a neighborhood and architectural standpoint. -9027- A garage addition on the north side is not practical or logical as the existing single-car garage is already situated on the south side of the house. Additionally, as the existing house is approximately 16.5 feet away from the northern property line, it appears that an addition could not be placed in this area without a variance. The rear (lakeside) of the property is quite sloped and the placement of a garage structure in this area is also problematic due to the current layout of the existing house as well as existing topographical conditions. RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request subject to the following minimum conditions: 1. The request shall be made subject to any forthcoming comments from City staff or involved public agencies. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the variance application. 3. If appropriate, grading and drainage plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the building permit. -9028- 9/11/01 I have reviewed tbe plans for the proposed 11' garage addition at 2548 Avon onve m Mound and am in total agreement that this is the best and only way it could practically be done. I feel this is a necessary addition and if done as proposed will increase the value and look the best for the neighborhood. I am in total support ofthls addition for our neighbors, Owen & Clint Gables, and ask that the Planning Co~,,~-,,i.~ion and Mound City Council approve their request. 2532 Avon Drive Mound, MN Mound, MN 2531 Avon Drive Mound, MN -9029- VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 534'1 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952.472-0607, Fax: 952-472-06Z0 Application F e e: __$_2_Q_0_~_~ (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: Case No. City Planner DNR City Engineer PARK Public Works _~-5 I'~ ! Other SUBJECT Address ~O'"'~'<~ PROPERTY Lot ~.~ LEGAL Block ~ DESC. Subdivision ~~. PID~ ~ ~// ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 · ROPER~ Name ~~ Phone APPLICANT Name ~/~ (IF OTHER Address ~ THAN Phone OWNER) (H) ~ - ~7~- 73 ~Y (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 3/16/01 -9030- Variance Application, P. 2 of 3 Case No._ Oi'~ Do the existing structures comply with all ama, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning distr: in which it is located? Yes ~, No (). 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(~E W ) R~ ft. ift. / ~/O~ 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 SUbjbCt 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: Re vised 3/16/01 -9031 - Variance Application, P, 3 of 3 Case No. ~(~["'~ ~ 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~. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vadance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? !. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ~ ~__~?~~/'~ :~plicant's Signature ~-/~;~,/~ Date ~ -~C~ - ~>/ Date Revised 3/16/01 -9032- CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS' (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: FI LOT AREA LOT AREA _~)/~ O LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% SQ. FT. X 40% SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. J = (for Lots of Record*) ....... J.~ = (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. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT x : /~' x : ~.4"~ X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING . X : / ~43 ~' AREAS, SIDEWALKS, X = 70°' ETC. X = DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under ere not counted ae hardcover OTHER TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTALDECK .......................... x = /7£ x : j-y TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I .... ..... OVER {indicate difference) .. .............................. I._ ~EPARED BY-:.,~'~_~~ ~~----"~'~ DATE 0 -9033- CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO LOT OF RECORD.'? YES / NO YARD I D' REC~FION F REQUIRED N S E W FRONT FRONT N S E W ZONING DISFRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~ ~o,ooo/6o~ B~ '7,soo/o ~~/TF' B2 20,000/60 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 IEXISTING/PROPOSED SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W 15' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACllED BUll.DINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' HARDCOVER EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE qFORMING? YES / NO 30% OR 40% ? lB,.: [ D,XTED: 'l'hi.~ Zoning Infmmation Sheet o_]_nly summarizes, a portion of the requirements outlined iu the Cily of Mouud 7oning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound 0 0 0 0 -9035- RESOLUTION Whereas, Mound Councilmember Peter C. Meyer has openly declared his opposition to a development project within the downtown area of the City of Mound, and Whereas, on September 9th, 2001 Mound City Councilmember Peter C. Meyer wrote a letter to the owners of a current downtown business that is considering leasing space in the above mentioned development, and Whereas, the letter in question threatens this business with political and economic pressure by way of a boycott, led by Peter C. Meyer if this business does not support Mr. Meyers efforts against this development, and Whereas, the Mound City Council has become aware of other threatening letters of similar nature written by Councilmember Peter C. Meyer to at least one other Mound business, and Whereas, during a discussion of this letter on September 11th 2001 in a regular City Council meeting, Councilmember Peter C. Meyer defended his actions as legal and ethical leaving the City Council no choice but to believe that this activity will continue, and Whereas, the Mound City Council has, on several occasions, attempted to inform Mr. Meyer that it is not his ideology but his methods that are creating friction on the council, and Whereas, these and other actions by Mr. Meyer have caused City Council relations to degrade to disrespectful levels, and Whereas, these and other actions by Mr. Meyer have caused degradation of public trust and opinion of the City Council of Mound, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Mound City Council condenms the actions of Councilmember Peter C. Meyer as a breach of trust to the city of Mound, 2. The Mound City Council condemns the actions of Councilmember Peter C. Meyer as a breach of duty to the city of Mound, 3. The Mound City Council hereby declares a lack of confidence in the ethics and interests of Councilmember Peter C. Meyer 4. The Mound City Council hereby requests the immediate resignation of Councilmember Peter C. Meyer from the Mound City Council. -9036- MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. iml k-'4n To: Mound City Council From: Loren Gordon, City Planner Date: September 20, 2001 Subject: Case #01-37 At the September 10, 200l Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended denial of the Swenson request for a front yard variance. The request is needed to construct a new garage on the front of the residence. Staff has not prepared a resolution for the Council's consideration but will take appropriate action as directed by the Council. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 -9037- MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 CASE #01-37 VARIANCE Steve Swenson - 4865 Island View Drive The applicant has submitted a variance request for a garage addition within the from yard setback. The associated variance request is as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance From yard 30.6 ft/5.6fi 20 ft. 14.4 ft. Hardcover 4620 sq. ft./4525 sq. fi 3259 sq. ft. 1266 sq. ft. The project includes a new two stall garage addition, conversion of the existing attached garage to living space and a second story addition over the existing garage space. The proposed garage is a side entry to utilize the current driveway and avoid the steep grades on the north and west sides of the property. As a side entry garage, a detached garage could have an 8 feet setback. Building plans are not complete but the applicant indicates the design will be similar to that of the existing house. Retaining walls will be incorporated in the wall design to work with the grade to prevent any additional water concerns. There are a number of homes along Island View that have difficulty meeting setbacks because of the small lots and relatively narrow right-of-way. Although the proposal would create a nonconforming front yard setback, the grade separation will hide much of the impact. Granting a variance although large, does reduce the over all hardcover for the property by about 100 square feet. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following condition: The City Engineer review and approve all grading and drainage plans prior to building permit approval. MOTION by Burma, seconded by Michael (for purposes of discussion), recommend approval of the variance in accordance with staff recommendation. Burma observed that a few houses from the applicant, the City Council recently approved a garage 15 inches from the street. Gordon reiterated that the grade and aesthetics are the swing factors for us. Applicant Steve Swenson explained that one of the options was to expand to the east, closer to the fire lane. This particular configuration was Jon Sutherland's solution to our problem. It also increases green space. Weiland clarified that it is not a fire lane but a mility easement with Sanitary sewer. -9038- Planning Commission Minutes September 1 O, 2001 Voting in favor: Burma and Anderson; Opposed: Michael, Glister, Weiland, Hasse MOTION by Michael, seconded by Weiland, to deny the request. Weiland felt that Planning Commission needed to tell the City Council that the Planning Commission is here to enforce the roles and regulations in the City of Mound. Voting in favor: Michael, Glister, Weiland, Hasse; Opposed: Burma, Anderson -9039- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. l ln TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: September 5, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Steve and Joann Swenson CASE NUMBER: 01-37 ItKG FILE NUMBER: 01-05 LOCATION: 4865 Island View Drive ZONING: Residential District R- 1A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a variance request for a garage addition within the front yard setback. The associated variance request is as follows: Eyfisting/Proposed Required Front yard 30.6 ft/5.6ft. 20 ft. Hardcover 4620 sq. ft./4525 sq. ft. 3259 sq. fl. Variance 14.4 ft. 1266 sq. ft. The project includes a new two stall garage addition, conversion of the existing attached garage to living space and a second story addition over the existing garage space. The proposed garage is a side entry to utilize the current driveway and avoid the steep grades on the north and west sides of the property. As a side entry garage, a detached garage could have an 8 feet setback. Building plans are not complete but the applicant indicates the design will be similar to that of the existing house. Retaining walls will be incorporated in the wall design to work with the grade to prevent any additional water concerns. DISCUSSION: There are a number of homes along Island View that have difficulty meeting setbacks because of the small lots and relatively narrow fight-of-way. Although the proposal would create a nonconforming front yard setback, the grade separation will hide much of the 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -9040- p. 2 #01-37 - Swenson Variance September 5, 2001 impact. Granting a variance although large, does reduce the over all hardcover for the property by about 100 square feet. RECOMMENDAT/ON: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following condition: 1. The City Engineer review and approve all grading and drainage plans prior to building permit approval. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -9041 - VARIANCE APPLICATION CiTY OF MOUND 5341 Maywoo[t Roa~i, Mouncl, MN 553;54 Phone: 952-472-0607, Fax: 952-472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Application Fee:~ Plannino Commission ,Date: City Council Date: City Engineer :,: PARK public Works ~ Other ~'S/~ mm SUBJECT Address '~&5 -~Sl&^r.~. V(e'~v Oriv'c PROPERTY Lot, 5 ~ ~ ~, LEGAL ,~ Block ~ ~ DESC., Su'bdi~i'Si0n PID~ Pla~ ZONING DISTRICT R-J R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 ~OPER~ ~ame S~ ~'w~ ~ ~an ~t ::~. ~ -. , APPL!¢ANT Name (IF OTHER Address ...... THAN Phone OWNER) (H), (W) (M). P~ property? ( ) yes, ~ no. of resolutions. ~en made for zomng, vanance, 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 - 9042- Vadance Application, P. 2 of 3 'Do the exiSting structures com. ~ly with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning dis' in which it is located? Yes ('/0, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason tot variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (Or ~) /%. Front Yard: (~ ~,~W) 7J~) ft. '-'' 3~' ft.. Side Yard: IN~~ ~ ft. 1~ t ,'"'/ ft. Side Yard: . G, ft. ~'3,6 ft. Rear Yard: ( N:~,E W ) ft. ff. Lakeside: ( N~_~E.W ). ~'~ ft. ~7 ft. · (NSEW) ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft Hardcover: .sq ft sq ft VARIANCE ft. ff. ff. ff. ff. ff. sq ft _sq ft Does,,th,,e present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning distdct in which it is Iocated'~ 'Yes ~){~ No ( )i 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 ( ) too small ( ) too shallow describe: ,~_........~ ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) shape (,JO other: specify Revised 04/24/01 - 9043- Variance Application, P. 3 of 3 Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain: Was the 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 am similar y.affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers 6'r plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. ! 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 Signatu re )licant's Signature Revised 04/24/01 - 9 044- PROPERTY ADDESS: OWNER'S NAME: CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA LOT AREA, ~ I g ~ SQ. FT. X'30% = (for all lots) · LOT AREA <~ ! ~ ~ SQ. FT. X ,4,0% = (for Lots of Record) ........... .................. SQ. FT. X lS% = (for detached buildings only) .................. * Existing Lots of Record may have 40 per.cent 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 ] I 1 HOUSE X = TOTAL HOUSE .................................................... DETACHED BUILDINGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ........................................ DECKS Open decks (1/4" min, Opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover. TOTAL DECK ....................................................... X -9046-i .© II -~04i- L'II'Y ~)!: MOUND ON' FII..E? (.~%// NO SURVEY I.om OF RF. CORI)? YES / NO ZONINU INFORMATION SIIEET YARI) [ I)IRECH()N ZONING DIS YRICF, LOT SIZE/WIDTII: ~..~1 lO.000/60 Bi 7,500/0 (.LE~ 6,ooo_~/.~ B2 2o.ooo/~o ~ ~,~oo/~o ~ xo,ooo/6o I.~ z4,ooo/8o R3 SBg ORD. I1 30,000/100 R F.() I ~IRI{I) EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT wiffrlt: LOT I)EP]'I h VARIANCE IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT 'SiDE SIDE RI.:.^R LAKE TOP OF BI.UFF (_N~S_ E W N ,'; E W N SOW . N $ E(.~ Nfl;, W N F. W 20' 50/0 ! SIDE REAR LAKF. I'OI~ ()F III,UFF I IA RI )C( }V I:.R N S F. W N S F. W 4' OR 6' N S l:. W 5(1' Ill' liP, t :j 30% OR 41)% ]ItY: CONFORMING? YES / NO ? J bATED: This Zoni.g hff. n.nlbl) Sheet o3_flff, s~13_,~2a_ti_z_q a I,mlion ol the icqui~eme.l~ oullim. I i. Iht ('ily of hlou.d 7o.i.g Ordi.ance. For furtl~er informalion, co.~cl Ihe City of Mound I ( I ig) -go4g- DRUIvlUONO RD FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT LANGDON BAY SUBDIVISION THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of the __ day of September, 2001 by and between the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (the"City") and R.H.Development, Inc. a Minnesota corporation, (the "Developer"). WHEREAS, the City and Redeveloper did on or about August ~, 2001 enter into an agreement entitled "Development Agreement Langdon Bay Subdivision (the "Agreement"), and WHEREAS, it has now become necessary to make certain amendments to the Agreement as set forth below. NOW THEREFORE upon the consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings of the parties hereto which each deems to be adequate, the parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows: Paragraph 23 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows: 23.1 Improvements to Westedge Road. The parties did on May 8,2001 enter into that separate agreement (the "Consent and Waiver Agreement") relating to improvements to be constructed on Westedge and the responsibility for payment of the costs of such improvements. The Consent and Waiver Agreement is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "E", and is incorporated at this 'point. In order to permit the Developer to obtain Certificates of Occupancy and to pass title to the lots in Langdon Bay free of the lien of special assessments for the Westedge Road improvements, it is further agreed that the Developer will furnish the City with the security instrument described in Paragraph 23.2 below, and that the City may draw on the deposit to prepay, in full, the special assessments as they are approved by the Mound City Council but prior to certification. In all other respects, the provisions of the Consent and Waiver Agreement will remain in full force and effect. 23.2 Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this paragraph 23.1 above and the Consent and Waiver Agreement, the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit from a bank ("Security") for $217,771 which is 125% of the engineer's cost estimate ($157,425) for the proportionate share (75%) of the Westedge Road improvements assessed against all the lots in Langdon Bay and 125% of the engineers estimate ($20,990) of the proportionate share (10%) of the costs to be assessed against other properties benefited by the Westedge Road improvements. The bank and form of the letter of credit or other security shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager. In the event there is a change of status in the Developer's credit rating, or other event that would subject the letter of credit to cancellation, the bank shall notify the City 30 days prior to cancellation. The developer shall have 10 days to reinstate that letter of credit or it will be drawn down. The City may draw down on the letter of credit to meet any obligation of Developer under JBD-203155v 1 MU200-85 -9050- paragraph 23.1 of this agreement, or the Consent and Waiver Agreemem, but only if the Developer does not otherwise pay such obligations within 10 days following written notice to it that such obligations are due and payable. With City approval the letter of credit may be reduced from time to time as financial obligations under paragraph 23.1 and the Consent and Waiver Agreement are paid No work shall be commenced under this Agreement until the letter of credit has been deposited with City In all other respects the Agreement shall remain valid and enforceable according to its terms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands as of the day and year first above written. THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA By: Its City Manager By: Its Mayor RH DEVELOPMENT, INC By: Its By: Its ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2001, by and ) respectively, the City Manager and Mayor of the City of Mound, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. JBD-203155vl MU200-85 -9051 - Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ) )ss. ) The foregoing corporation. instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2001, by , and ., respectively, the and of RH Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the Notary Public JBD-203155v 1 MU200-85 -9052- From: Steven Behnke To: Sarah Smith Date: 9/20/101 Time: 22:26:44 Page i of 2 RENSHELL DEVELOPMENT, INO. P O Box 125, Mound, Minnesota 55364 September 20, 2001 Mayor Pat Meisel Mound City Council S~rah Smith, Community Development Director City of Mound 5341 Maywood Avenue Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Langdon Woods Dear Sarah, Wc offer thc following information for consideration before thc City Council. Tn proofing the 1-)eveloper's Agreement and Final Plat Resolutions before signatures and recording` we find the following two items to be diffictslt for us to accept.. A. Within the Developer's Agreement: Erosion Control. Developer shall, at its expense, provide grading, drainage and erosion control plans to be reviewed and approved by the City. Such plans must comply with any erosion control method requested by the City for the prevention of dan~age to adjacent property and the control of surface water rua~off Such plans shall also, to the extent deemed necessmy by fl~e City, provide the temporacy dams, ea~¢hwork or such other devices and practices including seeding of graded areas as necessary to prevent the washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands and streets within and outside the plat during all phases of construction. Developer shall keep all streets within and outside the plat flee of all dirt and debris resulting from construction therein by Developer, its agents, employees and assignees. Prior to issuing building permits within the plat, the City shall require escrow deposits"of $500 for each lot to ensure that erosion control barriers and all other steps required to be taken to control erosion have been taken and remain continuously in place. I£Developex lZails to main'Lain such measures, or iL' dirt, sediments, sand, silt or debris is washed onto streets or other proper~y, either within or outside the plat, the Ci_ty shall, without further notice to Developer, have the right to restore the erosion control measures and remove the dirt, sand, silt, sedimentation or debris and to draw on the escrow deposit an amount equal to 125% of the cost of such work. The escrows made under this paragraph on each of the lots will be pooled into a common account and will be available generally for activities contemplated under thc paragraph, t ~nuscd amounts will bc returned to Developer upon completion of development on the last lot. We see the undexlined .paragraph above dealing with the 'building permit' stage of construct.i,,n; yet. we are being asked to contribute the $500 per Lot erosion control escrow at the beginning of development. We feel that there is an assumption in this paragraph that Brenshell Development will be the only party constructing house with-in this development and that the homes will be built and occupied in a very short time frame. We point out that this is not the case and suggest that we may act as homebuilder here or we may sell lots to other builders or hold the lots in a buildable status for some time. Neither of these options are unusual in the construction industry and are the prerogative of the Land Owner. We have a similar paragraph irt the Developer's Agreement for our Seton Bluff project and are now finding that three years after finishing development and revegetation of the Site, our escrow cannot be released until we have finished construction of the last residence. Again holding the last lot for construction in one year or ten years is our option. Nonetheless, the Site has been revegetated and erosion control is no longer necessary. Presumably a new $500 Erosion Control Escrow can be obtained by the City at Building Permit Issuance. We see an inconsistency between how other Mound Landowners with vacant lots are treated and how we as a Developer with a vacant lot is treated. -9053- From: Steven Behnke To: Sarah Smith Date: 9/20/101 Time: 22:28:04 Page 2 of 2 Wc fred this to bca problem and dcsirc thc Mound City Council to address tJa¢ issue. B. Within the ~inal Plat Resolution: Under the Final Development Plan requiremenLs and conditions, Item 5: A setback of 40 feet be required from the garage to the private driveway on lots 1-4 in Block 1. We feel that, while this is what was discussed at Council, it needs to address the balance of the discussion and provide less architectural restriction on pending home designs. For example, to follow the letter of the item, a triple car garage with two or three doors facing the private drive would likely be placed in the same plane, leading to an uninteresting 'front' for the home, and not altering the ability of thc driveway to store thc required number of ears. We suggest tile language in the Final Plat resolution be modified to say: A setback of 40 feet. be required from the garage to the private, driveway or a driveway design that can accommodate at. least. 5 ears on lots 1-4 in Block 1. Sincerely, Thomas A~ Stokes, President -9054- 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 Mound, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that: t. As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached and forgoing extract was transcribed. 2. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record. 3. 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: CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01-44 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR, A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, FOR LANGDON WOODS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED AT 5989 AND 5984 CHESTNUT ROAD, PID #14-117-24-43.0006, #14-117-24-43-0005 AND #14-117-24-43-0046 CASE #01-12 Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on May 8, 2001. WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the seal of said City, this 10th day of May, 2001. Acting City Clerk -9055- RESOLUTION #01-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, FOR LANGDON WOODS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 5989 AND 5984 CHESTNUT ROAD, PID's # 14-117-24-43-0006, 14-117-24-43-0005 AND 14-117-24-43-0046 CASE #01-13 WHEREAS, the applicant, Brenshell Development, has submitted a Final Plat application for a single family Planned Development Area development called Langdon Woods in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330:00 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statue and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and, WHEREAS, the site contains approximately 3.27 acres of land. The development plan proposes 5 new single family lots in addition to the home on existing lots 25 and 26 of Koehler's 2"d Addition. The proposed lots range in size from a ¼ to ~ acre, resulting in an overall density of 1.5 units per acre; and, WHEREAS, the Mound City Code allows the establishment of Planned Development Areas "to provide a method by which parcels of land in the Residential Use Districts having unusual building characteristics due to subsoil conditions, topographic conditions, elevation of water table, unique environmental considerations, or because of the parcel's unusual shape or location in relationship to lakes, trees or other natural resources requires a more unique and controlled platting technique to protect and promote the quality of life in the City"; and, WHEREAS, a number of natural and physical conditions on the property including wetlands, topographical elevation changes, woodland features, existing road right-of-way, and available roadway access; and, WHEREAS, the development is currently located in. the R-lA Zoning District Which a minimum of 6,000 sq. ft. lot area, a minimum lot width of 60 feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, 15 feet rear yard setback, and a minimum building floor area requirement of 840 square feet, and WHEREAS, as proposed the property would be rezoned to R-1 PDA Zoning District with standards as proposed in the development plan; and, WHEREAS, an extension of Chestnut Road to a cul-de-sac is proposed with a 70 feet right-of-way diameter. A 30 feet right-of-way width is proposed at the west property line; and, -9056- Resolution No. 01-44 WHEREAS, a private drive, identified as Outlot A, is proposed to provide access to homes located on lots 1-4 in Block 1. Private drives are regulated by conditional use p~rmit called for by Mound City Code section 330:00. The Planned Development Area approach is regulated by approval of a conditional use permit. The private drive is steep, almost 19 percent grade, before it flattens out on the "hammerhead" at the top. City Code does not establish a maximum grade for private streets as it does with public streets. Generally, a 10 percent grade maximum is desirable, however, given the topography in Mound, this is not always feasible to maintain. The driveway is 22 feet in width and no sidewalks are proposed. The private driveway will reduce the overall hardcover for the project which will improve the quality of water runoff; and, WHEREAS, Outlot B would be used for storm water ponding and dedicated to the City upon final plat approval; 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, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed project as it might affect public health, safety or welfare and imposed conditions upon the approval addressing those considerations; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has studied the practicability of the final plat and planned development area, taking into consideration the requirements of the City, giving particular attention to the arrangement and location of the street,, their relation to topography, floodplain, wetlands, water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, lot size and arrangement, the present and future development of adjoining lands and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other official controls. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: Final Plat issuance subject to compliance with the following requirements and conditions: The Final Plat drawing labeled as Exhibit A is hereby incorporated into this Resolution and all improvements shall be as shown on the plans or as modified under the approval of the City Engineer. 2 -9057- Resolution No. 01-44 B0 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. 3. The City Attorney review the title work for the development. Park dedication fees be paid to the City upon final plat approval at a 10 percent contribution of land value determined by the Hennepin County Assessor's market value of the property minus the land value of Lot 1 Block 2. Final Development Plan approval subject to comPliance with the following requirements and conditions: The location of all dwellings and accessory buildings shall meet the City's Zoning regulations or as specifically approved in the development plan. Lot area, width, and street frontage standards shall be as specified by final plat and development plan. Compliance with the Construction Documents as approved by the City Engineer. Compliance with the conditions and recommendations as contained in the Engineer's Memo dated May 3, 2001. A setback of 40 feet be required from the garage to the private driveway on lots 1-4 in Block 1. o Homes on lots 2 and 3 in Block 1 maintain a 15 feet setback from the edge of the private driveway. The private driveway be designated as a fire lane on the plans and identified with "No parking" signs. Other recommendations per the City Engineer, Public Works Dept. and Fire Chief. 3 -9058- 11. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Hardcover for each lot be no! more than 30%. The stormwater drainage plan be reViewed and approved by the IMinnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The Developer shall secure and provide the City with a copy of a stormwater permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to the City releasing the final plat. Provide homeowner's association documentation and access easements for the private driveway. The developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities. The utilities shall not be installed until the boulevard or utility easements have been graded and the grade elevations are approved by the City Engineer. Ail utilities shall be located underground. No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for utility and street construction and the MPCA permit is issued and the Final Plat has been filed and recorded at Hennepin County. 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. The City Attorney review the homeowner's association documents. 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. The M-PCA's Best Management Practices shall be applied to the development and subsequent management of the property. Developer will reimburse the City for legal, engineering and planning costs incurred for review and approval of this Plat. 4 -9059- Resolution No. 01-44 C. Approves the following variances subject to approval of the Final Plat: 1. Recognize the setbacks of the existing buildings on lots 25 and 26 as follows: Existing Required Variance Shed sideyard 1 feet 4 feet 3 feet Shed frontyard - allow location within Shed sid.eyard 3 feet 4 feet I feet Shed frontyard - allow location within Garage sideyard 3 feet 4 feet 1 feet Do Approves a Conditional Use Permit conditioned meeting the conditions of Final Plat approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 and the City of Mound Code of Ordinances. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Brown and seconded by Council:member Hanus. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Brown, Hanus, Meisel, Anderson and Meyer. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None. SS/Pat Meisel Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk 5 -9060- CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA. ENGINEER'S MEMO TO THE MOUND CIgT COUNCIL DATE: CASE NO: PETITIONEK: FINAL PLAT: LOCATION: May 3, 2001 01-13 BrensheH Development Corporation Langdon Woods End of Chestnut Road ASSESSMENT RECORDS: N/A Ye, No [2 [2 x 2. [2 [2 x 3. [2 x '[2 4. [2 x [2 Watermaln area assessments have been levied based on proposed USe. Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed use. SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are issued. Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at the time of final plat approval. Area assessments. Sanitary sewer area assessment based on 3 unpaid units ~ $1,000 per unit = $5,000. Watermain area assessment based on 4 unpaid units ~ $1,500 per unit = $6,000. Total due $9,000. X Other additional assessments estimated: LEGAL / EASEMENTS / PERMITS: 6. 5'-I x I-I Complies with standard utility/drainage easements - The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10.') in width adjoining all streets and five feet (5') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines. All standard utility easements required for construction are provided - The City will require twenty feet (20') utility and drainage easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines were these -9061 - N/A Y~s s. [2 x utilities'are proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed with the final eor~truetion plans and the following changes are necessary: Complles with ponding requirements - The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for ponding purposes on all property below the established lO0- year high water elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive stormwater drainage plan. 9. [-] X [~] [-'] All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of=way have been vacated - X X It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of_ way to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic process in conjunction with the platting process. It is the Owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated. The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the City with this application - If it is subsequently determined that the subject property. ~s abstract property_, then this requirement does not apply. It will be necessary for the property Owner to provide the City Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order that he may file the required easements referred to above. All necessary permits for this project have been obtained - The following permits must be obtained by the Developer: [-] DNR [--] Hennepin County N/A x MPCA [--] State Health Department Received x lVfinne~a Creek Watershed District ['-] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [] Other The Developer must comply with all conditions contained within any permit. TRANSPORTATION: -9062- 12. ,N,/A Yes No [2 x Conforms with the City's grid System for street nan'xes - The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the City grid system for street names. The following changes will be necessary: 13. X 14, X 15. X Conforms with the City's Thoroughfare Guide Plan - The following revisions must be made to conform with the · City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan. Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided - Acceleration/deceleration and turn lanes are required at the intersection of and All existing street rights-of-way are required width - Additional right-of-way will be required on UTILITIES: 16. ~-] x [2 [2 x Conforms with City standards requiring the Developer to construct utilities necessary to serve this plat - In accordance with City standards, the Developer shall be responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer, watenuain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the development: Final utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements - See Special Condition #24. The Developer has submitted the required construction plans for the proposed sanitary sewer, watemain and storm sewer facilities; and has also furnished profiles of these utilities as well as the proposed street system (public and private). -9063- Yes N0 Per the Developer's request, final plans will be prepared by the City. If it is their desire to .have the City construct these facilities as part of its Capital Improvement Program, a petition must be submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1st of the year preceding construction, if the Developer is paying 100% of the cost, The'\ construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan - The following revisions will be required: E] x E] The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan - The following revisions will be required: It will be necessary to contact Greg Skinner, the City's Public Works Superintendent, 24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The Developer shall also be responsible for contacting the Public Works Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the City right-of-way. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL: Have minimum basement elevations has been established. Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following lots: Lot 2, Block 2 - minimum basement elevation is 942.00. 23. [~] X [~] Complies with Storm Drainage Plan - The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted to the City's Consulting Engineer for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall also indicate proposed, methods of erosion control, including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations. Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary: Any conditions imposed by MCWD permit. _A _ -9064- N/A Yes No SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED: Catch basin and manhole castings must meet City standards. a. Change catch basin casting to Neenah #R-3067. b. Change manhole casting to Neenah #R-1753. 25. Revise crown on public street section to 3%. 26. Owner's Engineer shall provide construction observation sufficient to certify compliance with plans and specifications. 27. No construction work shall be done 'between 7:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. nor on Sundays or legal holidays, without the approval of the City of Mound. 28. The Developer shah be responsible for the installation of private utilities, such as telephone, electric and natural gas services. The required utilities shall not be installed until the boulevard or utility easements have been graded. All such utilities shall be installed underground. 29. No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for utility and street construction and the MPCA permit is issued and the Final Plat has been fded and recorded at Hennepin County. 30. l~rior to acceptance of the completed subdivision by the City Council, it will be necessary to furnish an Engineer's Certification of Completion. Upon receipt of said certification and recommendation by the City Engineer that the completed work will be accepted, the City Council will be requested to accept the completed public improvements. Acceptance will be by formal Resolution of the City Council. 31. The Developer shall provide an escrow guarantee (surety bond, cash, certificate of deposit, or irrevocable letter of credi0 in the amount of 125% of the estimated cost of street and utility improvements. -9065- .N/A YeS No 32. The Developer shah enter into a development contract with the City of Mound. Submitted by: John Cameron, City Engineer s:~ain:~Iou 1291 l:\Correstxmdence~ogineergaemoS-3 -6- -9066- DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT dated June 26, 2001, between the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("the City") and B.renshell Development Corporation ("the Developer"). ~AS, the Developer has asked the City to approve a plat of land owned by it to be known as Laagdon Woods (also referred to in this Agreement as the "plat"). The land is legally described as follows: See a ~tached Exhibit "A". ~ WHEREAS, the City has approved the plat on condition that the Developer enter into this Development Contract and comply with its terms. Representation by Developer. The Developer represents to the City that the proposed plat complies with all City, Metropolitan, State and Federal .laws and regulations, as amended by variance, including but not limited to: SUbdivisions, Ordinances, Zoning Ordinances and Environmental Regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow any construction or development work in the plat until there is compliance. The Developer fu~her represents to the City that the plat is not of "metropolitan si~cance" am/ that an environmental assessment worksheet, environmental impact statement or the Uke is not required, If the City or another governmental entity or agency determines, however, that such a review is needed, the Developer shall prepare .it ami reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorney's fees, that the City incurs in assisting in the preparation of the review. 2. phased Development. The plat shall be developed in one phase. ~om.ple,tion o.f Work. The Developer shall complete the work required by ~ara~aph 4 of this Agreement ia accordance with City specifications within 280 days .from ..the date of this Agreement. All work shall be subject ~o ap. pr, oval of the City Eagiaeer and, when and if necessary, the ~nnesota Pollution Control ~ency, the Mi'nnesota Department of Health, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and other governmental agency having jufis&ction. Puh[i~: Improvements. The required improvements and estimated costs are set out ia the City Engineer's memo dated May 3rd, 2001, and revised ]~une 20, 2001 a..Rac~hed hereto ,as Exhibit "B". Within ninety (90) days aRer completion of the improperness, the Developer shall supply the City with a complete set of 1 -9067- "Record Plans". The Developer shall retain a competent professional engineer to prepare the appropriate plans, specifications, and other instructions to accomplish these activities. The Developer shall specifically instruct his engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the Developer's engineer will be able to certify that the construction wor~c meets the approved (~ty standards as a pre-eonstructlon rneetln~ at a mutually agreeable time and place with all parties concerned including the City Staff to review the program for the construction work. Bond Requirements. The Developer shall deposit with the City a performance, materials and labor a Letter of Credit satisfactory to the City to guarantee completion of the work required by the Developer pursuant to Paragraph four (4) of this A~reement and also guaranteeing the payment for all materials and labor costs incurred in conjunction with the work. The amount of the bond shall be for 125% of the estimated cost of the work as set forth in Exhibit "B". If Developer completes the work in accordance with this agreement and the work is accepted by the City, the L~ter of Credit shall be reduced accordingly as each phase of the work performed in accordance with this agreement is satisfactorily completed based upon the recommendations of the City Engineer and the City Engineer's estimate of the cost of completion, as so long as the amount of the Letter of Credit equals at least 125% of the cost of all amounts to be paid by Developer pursuant to this agreement to complete the remainder of the work ® Other Costs and Contributions. Before the City signs the final plat the Developer ah. all pay or make arrangements satisfactory to the City for payment of the costs and comfibutions covering attorneys' fees, engineering fees, planner fees, .and maintain an escrow account with a minimum balance of $2,000. Ownership of Improvements. Upon the completion of the work and construction required to be done by this Agreement, the improvements lying within public ~ments shall become City property without further notice or action. Faithful Performance of Construction Contracts and Warranty Letter of Credit. The Developer will fully and faithfully comply with all terms of any and all comracts entered into by the Developer for the installation and construction of all the work to be performed under this agreement and hereby guarantees the workmanship atad mat~s for a period of one year following the City's final acceptance of the work m be performed under this agreement, public or private, and agrees to repair or replace, as directed by the City, and at Developer's sole cost and expense, any workmanship or materials that become defective, in the sole opinion of the city, within said one-year period, even though notice thereof be given by the City after ~ one year period. Notice of warranty performance requirements for work to be p~om~d under this agreement must be received by the Developer within 14 moml~ ager acceptance of the work by the City. 2 -9068- Concurrently, with the execution of this agreement by the Developer, the Developer has :fumished to, and at all times thereafter shall maintain with the City a satisf-~ory ~an~d sufficiem bond in at least 10% of the total estimated cost of the work as determined in paragraph 4, above, satisfactory to the City. Included among the ol~Iigations of the bond shall be that the Developer's shall fully and fait~lly dirge Developer's obligations with respect to the work to be completed under this agreement during the installation and construction period and that may arise as a result of Developer's one-year ~aranty. Eros, ion Control, Developer shali, at its expense, provide grading, drainage and erosmon control plans to be reviewed and approved by the City. Such plans must comply with any erosion control met:hod requested by the City for the prevention of damage to adjacent property and the control of surface water runoff. Such planz shall also, to the extent deemed necessary by the City, provide the temporary dams, earthwork or such other devices and practices including seeding of graded areas as necessary to prevent the' washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands and streets within and outside the plat during all phases of constmca.'.;.on. Developer shall keep all streets within and outside the plat free of all dirt and debris resulting from construction therein by Developer, its agents, employees and assignees, Prior to issuing buildin8 permits within .the plat, the City shall require escrow deposits of $.$00 for each .lot to ensure that erosion control barriers and all other steps req~ed to 'be taken'to control erosion have been taken and remain ~nuousl~y io place. If Developer falls .to maintain such measures, or if dirt, sediments, sand, silt or debris is washed onto streets or other property, either w~ or outside the plat, the Cit~y shal.:l, willmut ~..m~tice ~o Developer, have 11~ fight to ~esmre tbe erosion control measures and remove the dirt, .sand, .silt, se~~t~ ~r debris and to ~aw on the escrow deposit an amount equal to 1~:~ of the e~st of such work. The escrows made under this para~.aph on each of the to~t ~ .be pooled ~'.mto a .common account ~ wi]~t 'be s,vaihlate generally for aotSvi$ies e,~antem~-ated under the para~a, ph. Unused amounts will be returned to D~v~oper upon .e~mp[~tion .of construction on the 'last .lot. 10. Easement. The Developer hereby grams the City, its agents, ~p..~yees, officers ami.' ~mi~%tors aa easement and ~e.nse to enter the plat to peffonu. ~ ail work ~or ,~etions deemed appropriate by ~he City during the development of the 3 -9069- 11. Res.onsibility for Costs. mo The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the'City in conjunction with the development of the plat.. The City shall have no obligation to'pay such costs whether or not the City has approved the work. Bo The Developer holds the City harmless from claims by third parties, including but not limited to other property owners, contractors, subcontractors and material men, for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer indemnifies the City for all costs, damages or expenses, including engineering and attorney's fees, which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims by third parties. C° The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this contract, including engineering and attorney's fees. Do The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City within (30) days. If the bills are not paid in time the City may halt all plat development work until the bills arepaid in full. go The Developer agrees that the City, at its option only, can .install and construct any work on improvements required herein to be made by the Developer. If the City makes any such improvements under its power to make local improvements, or if the City makes improvements due to the Developer's default as outlined in Section 13 the City may in addition to its other remedies assess its cost in whole or in part. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the Developer shall pay the entire assessment in a single installment in the year after adop4ion of the assessment. 13. Developer's ,Default. If the Developer does not satisfactorily complete the wo~k this Development Contract requires of it, the City may at its option perform the w~k and the Developer or the bonding company shall reimburse the Ci[y for all expemes iacu~ed by the City. The City shall give the Developer and the bonding company.at least 10 days notice of the City's intention m perform any such ,,vo~. H,w~e.ver, in the :event of an emergency as .determined b~ the City, 48 hours notice h .not .requir. ed and the Developer or the bonding Company shall reimburse the City for any expenses incurred by the City in the same manner as if notice.had been ~ven. -9070- 14. Miscellaneous. A. This .Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors and assigns, as the case may be. B. Breach of any term of this Agreement by the Developer shall be ground for denial of building pernu'ts.. C. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Development Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement except that the City may elect to rescind its approval of the plat. D; No one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on either a permanent or temporary basis until: 1. sa~tary sewer and water lines have been instaUed, hooked up, · tested and approved by the City, and '2. the streets needed for access to the residence have been paved with a bituminous 'surface and concrete curb and gutter have been installed. The v~tion or inaction of the-City shall not constitute a wm"ver or amendmem to the provision of this Development Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolmion of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly ,take log~fl .a~ion to eafor, ce this devetopmenI contract shall not ,be. a wai~ or r. olease. The, security in the form of a performance bond or an .a~pprov.e.~i letter of credit slmli not expire or be released until ell work ~ ~mpmvements :have been satisfactorily completed and accepted by the Cky. This Agreement shall run with the land and shall be recorded by Developer again~ the,property on the plat. A~er a lot ~has b~n platted and the Developer proposes to sell the lot, the D~eloper may pro~ide the City with an instmmeat in recordable form that r~ases the lot fi~om this Agreement. The Cky agrees to execute the i, nztm, meat upon receipt of: (1) a written agreemertt by which the proposed buyer acknowledges the City's rights under paragraph '9 of this 5 -9071 - Agreement; and (ii) the escrow required by paragraph 9 of this Agreement; provided, however, that the City may .refuse to execute the instrument if the Developer is then in default of any of its obligations under this Agreement. All costs of recording the partial releases Shall be the responsibility of the Developer or its successors in interests or assigns. 15. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing and shall be either had delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following address: Brenshell Development Corporation, pO Box 125, Mound, MN 55364, with a copy to Stephen A. Can', Can' & Mankey, P,A., 5100 Eden Avenue Suite 306, Edina, MN $5436-2337. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either had delivered to the City Manager or mai]ed to the City by certified or re~i~ered m~fil in care of the City Manager at the following address: City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364. Attention City Manager. IN WITNESS WI-IEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seal: CITY OF MOUND (Mayor) (City Manager) Brenshell Development Corporation Its: President 6 -9072- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ~g~ day of ~ ,2001, before me a notary public within and for said County, personally appeared and ~St~ ~o~o,J to me personally known,"who being each by me duly sworn, each did say to me that they are respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Mound, the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of aid corporation by authority of its City Council and and acknowledged instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. STA~ OF ~SOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) )ss ) Notary Public ~ X%~R~.I~..~ NOTARY PIJBUC-.MINNESOTA ~ On ~hi'$ __ day of 2001, 'before me a notary public within.and for ~d County, personalty appeared to me personally known, who b~ing by me duly sworn, did say to me that he is the Presidem of the corporation named in the f~egoi, ng :i~atmmont, and that ~d .instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by ~thodty of its Board of Directors, and said President acknowledged said M~mment ~..b¢ the free a~t and deed of said corporation. Notary .Public 7 -9073- EXHIBIT A [Legal description] Lots 23, 24, 25, 26 and that part of Lots 27 and 28, lying Somherly of the Northerly 30 Feet thereof, Koe~er's Second Addition to Mound, according to the recorded Plat thereof, and situate in Heanepin County, Minnesota $ -9074- 'E'X'HIB IT 'B ....... CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA ENGINEER'S MEMO TO THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL DATE: CASE NO: PETITIONER: FINAL PLAT: LOCATION: May 3, 2001.- REVISED JUNE 20, 2001 01-13 Brenshell Development Corporation Langdon Woods End of Chestnut Road AS SESSMENT RECORDS: N/A Yes No 1. [~] ~-] X 2. [3 [2 x 3. [2 x El 4. [2] x I-I Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use. Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed use. SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are issued. Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be - that in effect at the time of final plat approval. Area assessments. Sanitary sewer area assessment based on 3 unpaid units ~ $1,000 per unit = $3,000. Watermain area assessment based on 4 unpaid units ~ $1,500 per unit = $6,000. Total due $9,000. X Other additional assessments estimated: LEGAL / EASEMENTS / PERMITS: 6. [2 X [--1 7. ~3 x [2] Complies with standard utility/drainage easements - The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and five feet (5') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines. All standard utility easements required for construction are provided - The City will require twenty feet (20') utility and drainage easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines were these -9075- N/A Yes No x utilities arc proposed to bc installed. This itcrn has been reviewed with the final construction plans and the following changes are necessary: Complies with ponding requirements - Thc City will rcquirc the dcdication of drainage easements for ponding purposes on all property below the established 100- year high water elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive stormwater drainage plan. 10. 11. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have been vacated - X It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of- way to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic process in conjunction with the platting process. It is the Owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated. The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the City with this application - If it is subsequently determined that the subject property is abstract property, then this requirement does not apply. It will be necessary for the property Owner to provide the City Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order that he may file the required easements referred to above. X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained - The following permits must be obtained by the Developer: [-'] Hennepin County N/A x MPCA [-"] State Health Department Received x Minnehaha Creek Watershed District [-'] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [--] Other The Developer must comply with all conditions contained within any permit. -9076- N/._._~A Yes TRANSPORTATION: No Conforms with the City's grid system for street names - The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the City grid system for street names. The following changes will be necessary: x D Conforms with the City's Thoroughfare Guide Plan - The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan. Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided - Acceleration/deceleration and mm lanes are required at the intersection of and All existing street rights-of-way are required width - Additional right-of-way will be required on 16. [-] X ['"'] 17. X Conforms with City standards requiring the Developer to construct utilities necessary to serve this plat - In accordance with City standards, the Developer shall be responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary 'sewer, water, storm sewer, and streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the development. Final utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements - See Special Condition #24. The Developer has submitted the required construction plans for the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities; and has also furnished profiles of these utilities as well as the proposed street system (public and private). -9077- N/A Yes No 18. X [] [] Per the Developer's request, final plans will be prepared by the City. If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as part of its Capital Improvement Program, a petition must be submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1st of the year preceding construction, if the Developer is paying 100% of the cost. The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan - The following revisions will be required: 20. [-] x E3 The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan - The following revisions will be required: 21.' [-] X ["-[ It will be necessary to contact Greg Skinner, the City's Public Works Superintendent, 24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The Developer shall also be responsible for contacting the Public Works Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the City right-of-way. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROl,: 22. [-'] [-] X Have minimum basement elevations has been established. Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following lots: Lot 2, Block 2 - minimum basement elevation is 942.00. 23. [-] X ['-1 Complies with Storm Drainage Plan - The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted to the City's Consulting Engineer for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations shall be incorporated in 'a revised plan. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control, including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations. Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary: Any conditions imposed by MCWD permit. -9078- N/A Yes No SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUII~D: 24. Catch basin and manhole castings must meet City standards. a. Change catch basin casting to Neenah #R-3067. b. Change manhole casting to Neenah #R-1733. 25. Revise crown on public street section to 3%. 26. Owner's Engineer shall provide construction observation sufficient to certify compliance with plans and specifications. 27. No construction work shall be done between 7:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. nor on Sundays or legal holidays, without the approval of the City of Mound. 28. The DeveloPer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities, such as telephone, electric and natural gas services. The required utilities shall not be installed until the boulevard or utility easements have been graded. All such utilities shah be installed underground. 29. No building permits shah be issued until a contract has been awarded for utility and street construction and the MPCA permit is issued and the Final Plat has been fried and recorded at Hennepin County. 30. Prior to acceptance of the completed subdivision by the City Council, it will be necessary to furnish an Engineer's Certification of Completion. Upon receipt of said certification and recommendation by the City Engineer that the completed work will be accepted, the City Council will be requested to accept the completed public improvements. Acceptance will be by formal Resolution of the City Council. -9079- N/A Yes No 31. The Developer shall provide an escrow guarantee (surety bond, cash, certificate of deposit, or irrevocable letter of credit) in the amount of 125% of the estimated cost of street and utility improvements. 32. Site Improvements $ 28,609 Utilities $ 51,635 Streets $ 49,932 ESTIMATED COSTS $ 130,176 FINANCIAL GUARANTEE = $130,176 x 125% = $162,720 The Developer shall enter into a development contract with the City of Mound. Submitted by: s:\main:hMou 12911 :\Correspondence\engineersmemo5 -3 -@080- 89/28/2881 14:29 763-315-183G STS CONSULTANTS PAGE 02/05 STS Consultants, Ltd, Solutions through Science & Engineering September 1 $, 2001 Ms.K~disHansen City ofMound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment - Lots 23 through 28, Koehler's Addition to Mound in Hennepin County, Minnesota; STS Proposal 11191PP Dear Ms. Hansen: . STS"~onsultants, Ltd, (STS) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (STS Project 98390-XA dated August 29, 2001) for Lots 23 through 28, Kochlcr's Addition to Mound, a one acre paved parking lot located on Lynwood Boulevard in the City of Mound. The Phase I ESA identified a recognized environmental condition CREC) in connection with the subject property. Thc REC was presented as follows in the Phase I ESA: Surface evidence of uncontrolled filling activity on tl~e project site, such as broken concrete and bituminous asphalt, indicates the possibility that unknown materials with potential for environmental concern could have been deposited. A Phase II ESA with soil and groundwater sampling would be needed to evaluate potential environmental impacts. The site, formerly owned by Tonka Toys and now owned by Balboa Minnesota Co., was filled sometime in the past. Tonka Toys allegedly dumped solvents, paint and other wastes at the Lost Lake Dump, located 400 feet south of the project site. Uncontrolled filling activities alone do not dictate the need for a Phase II ESA. However, industrial activities adjacent to the subject property and assumed prior land ownership in conjunction with filling activities create a greater potential for environmental concern. The Phase II ESA is recommended to ascertain whether environmental impacts have occurred from the uncontrolled filling activities. The following sections below describe the proposed scope of work, provide an estimate of costs and describe a schedule for Phase II ESA activities. Scope of Work We propose to perform four soil borings on the subject property. Soil samples will be obtained at 2.5 foot depth increments to the groundwater which is anticipated to be encountered at a depth of approximately 20 feet. The soil borings will be drilled no greater than 30 feet in depth. The soil samples will be screened with a photoionization detector (PID) for the presence of 'volatile organic compounds. 10900 73rd Avenue North, Suite 150 · Maple Grov_~9~J1~;369-5547 · (763) 315-6300. (763) 315-1836 Fax 09/20/2001 14:2S 763-315-1836 STS CONSULTANTS PAGE 83/05 City of Mound ~ STS Proposal 11191PP September 18, 2001 Page 2 One soll sample from below the fill section from each of the borings will be obtained for laboratory analysis either at the depth of the highest PID reading or from the unsaturated zone within 5 feet of the groundwater level. The soil sample will be analyzed for gasoline range organic (GRO) compounds, diesel range organic (DRO) compounds, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and RCRA metals. Two soil samples of fill materials from selected borings w/il be analyzed for RCRA metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides/herbicides, VOCs, GRO, DP.O, and polychlorinated biphenyls. These analyses, used for evaluation of dumps, were performed on samples for the Lost Lake Dump Phase II Investigation. The fill needs to be characterized because it could be transported off-site as part of proposed construction activities. A temporary PVC monitoring well will be installed in each of the soil borings 'to collect groundwater samples. The groundwater samples will be analyzed for GKO, DRO and VOCs. A report v-ill be prepared summarizing the results of the Phase II ESA. Recommendations regarding further actions, if necessary, will be made. The recommendations will be made in light of our understanding that the subject property will be used for a storm water retention pond and sewage lift station. Excavation of existing materials will be necessary to create the pond and install the lift station. Cost Estimate STS has prepared an estimate of costs associated with the above outlined scope of work. STS will not exceed the cost estimate by more than 10% unless prior authorization is received from the City of Mound. The cost estimate is as follows: Four soil borings/temporary monitoring wells Soil screening/sampling/groundwater sampling Laboratory analyses Report $2,200 $ 800 $4,600 $1,200 Total $8,800 Schedule STS is prepared to respond immediately to your request for environmental services. Underground utility clearance, scheduling for drilling activities and project coordination typically requires 5 to 7 working days. Normal laboratory turnaround is 10 to 12 working days. Expedited turnaround (3 to 5 days) may be obtained for an approximately 50% premium on cost. -9082- ~/2~/2~i i4:2~ ?~-3i5-iS36 STS CONSULTANTS PAGE 04/05 City of Mound ~---~ STS Proposal 11191PP September 18, 200I Page 3 The report can be completed within approximately 5 working days of receipt of laboratory analysis results. Terms and Conditions The proposed Phase II ESA will be conducted under the same terms and conditions between STS and the City of Mound in force during performance of the Phase I ESA for the subject property. It is a pleasure providing environmental services to the City of Mound. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please feel flee to contact us. Sincerely, STS CONSULTANTS, LTD. Senior Soil Scientist Robert L. DcCrroot, PG PE Principal Engineer OJPddn cc: Mr. John Cameron - McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. P6191001.doc ACCEPTED: Date Firm Authorized Signature Title © 11191PP, STS Consultants, Ltd., September 2001 -9083- ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Charges for technical personnel will be made for time spent in the field, in consultation, in preparation of reports and invofces, in administrating contracts and project coordination, and in traveling. *Overtime will be charged after g hours per day; before 7:00 am and after 6:00 pm Monday through Friday; or all day Saturday-- technical rate x 1.25. Doubletime will be charged on Sundays or Holidays--technical rate x 2, Four hour minimum per day. Expert Wimess Testimony will be billed at the rates shown here x 1.5. Laboratory test programs will be identified in our proposal and billed out on a lump sum basis. Additional laboratory work will be billed on the following hourly basis plus expenses, expendables and equipment. The cost of equipment to complete the project will be identified in our proposal. Drill rig rates include two (2) persons. Additional persons will be charged according to the technical classifications. Technical Classifications Principal Per Hour $ 1 I6.00 Associate Per Hour $ 106.00 Senior Consultant Per Hour $ 98.00 Consultant Per Hour $ 90.00 Technical Project Staff Per Hour $ 78.00 Technical Support Staff Per Hour $ 45.00 CADD Drafter Per Hour $ 55.00 Senior Environmental Technician* Per Hour $ 60.00 Environmental Technician* Per Hour $ 56.00 'Technical Support Services Subsurface Exploration Drill Rig Mobilization (Local within 30 miles) Per Trip $ 425.00 (Out-of-Town) Per Mile One Way $ 10.00 All-Terrain Vehicle Additional Per Day $ 175.00 Drill Rig - Class I Per Hour $ 180.00 Drill Rig - Class II Per Hour $ 170.00 Drilling Coordinator Per Hour $ 84.00 Site Safety PID Meter Per Day $ 120.00 Personnel Protection: L~vel D Per Person Per Day $ 50.00 Personnel Protection: Level C Per Person Per Day $ 165.00 Personnel Protection: Level B Quote Upon Request Expenses and Expendables All Expenses to Complete the Project MiIeage All Expendables to Complete the Project Cost + 15% Per Mile $ 0,60 Cost + 15% Minnesota 2001 STS Consultants, Ltd. Consul~ing Engineers Q10 -9084- 06! 0~.~. 06~ g6 ~, ~ V-I SSEIklcl.kO ~ ? 5}iOJ l (//'IV k LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, September 12, 2001 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster READING OF MINUTES- 8/22/01 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) PUBLIC HEARING · Gregory Fall, variance application from LMCD Code for side setback requirements, dock length requirem, ents, plus an adjusted dock use area. 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration WATER STRUCTURES A) 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 (previously discUssed at 8/22/01. Regular Meeting); B) Additional Business; 2.~ LAKE USE & RECREATION A) Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance prohibiting the use of motorized watercraft on certain parts of Lake Minnetonka; adding new Section 1.02, Subd. 28 and new Section 3.021; B) Additional Business; 3. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers (9/1/01-9/15/01); B) Staff update on LMCD Investments; C) Additional Business; 4. ADMINISTRATION ~ A) Staff update on vacant Administrative Secretary position; B) Additional Business; -9086- 5. SAVE THE LAKE 6. EWMIEXOTICS TAsK FORCE 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10.ADJOURNMENT -9087- BOARD MEMBERS Bert Foster Chair, Deephaven Craig Nelson Vice Chair, Spring Park Lili McMillan Secretary, Orono Tom Skramstad Treasurer, Shorewood Andrea Ahrens Mound Bob Ambrose Wayzata Douglas E, Babcock Tonka Bay Craig Eggers Victoria Tom Gilman Excelsior Paul Knudsen Minnetrista Tom Seuntjens Minnetonka Beach Herb J. Suerth Woodland Katy Van Hercke Minnetonka Sheldon Wart Greenwood LAKE MINNETONKA COIq,.qlZl::::lVATIOIq DI,-qTFIICT 18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. · DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 952/745-0789 · FAX 952/745-9085 Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR August 31, 2001 Ms. Kandis Hanson City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Kandis: At its 8/22/01 Regular Meeting, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board of Directors discussed fees incurred by the LMCD in the administration and processing of the 2000 City of Mound new multiple dock license, with minor change application, and six variance applications from LMCD Code at six street ends within the Woodland Point Development. At the request of Mound LMCD Board member Andrea Ahrens, formal action on this issue was tabled to the 9/12/01 Regular Meeting to allow a representative from the City of Mound to participate in the discussion. In the attached staff memo, dated 8/15/01, staff informed the Board that the LMCD incurred $10,899.67 of legal expenses in the administration and processing of these applications. A number of potential alternatives to charge back these expenses to the City of Mound are highlighted in the this staff memo; however, the LMCD Board members present at the 8/22/01 Regular Meeting came uP with another altemative that will be discussed at the 9/12/01 Regular Meeting. As outlined in the 8/15/01 staff memo, the LMCD received $8,506.25 of fees from the City of Mound for these seven applications. This breaks down to $5,506.25 for the new multiple dock license, with minor change application, and $500 for each variance application. Each variance application has a $250 non-refundable base fee,' plus a $250 deposit fee. The consensus of the LMCD Board at the 8/22/01 Regular Meeting was that the vast majodty of the legal expenses incurred were associated with the six variance applications, not the new multiple dock license, with minor change application. The Board believed that the $10,899.67 of legal expenses should be charged back to the City of Mound, deducting the $1,500 of deposits received for the six variance applications. This altemative, if approved, would result in $9,399.67 of legal expenses being billed back to the City of Mound. 50% Recycled Content 20% Post Consumer Waste Web Page Address: http://www.lmcd.org E-mail Address: Imcd@lmcd.org -9088- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT To ensure that the position of the City of Mound is heard on this issue, we encourage that a representative(s) attend the 9/12J01 Regular LMCD Board Meeting. Feel free to call me if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance! Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Gregory'S. N'ybeck t . Executive Director CC: Andrea Ahrens- LMCD Board- Mound -9089- CITY OF MOUND FAX:: (952) 472:062.0 WEB; www.¢ilyOfrnound.com September 7, 2001 Oreg Nybeck, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391.3232 Oo~t, ~ ~. ~ _ ~e ~ ~one ~ -- Fax ~ F~ ~ ~ Dear Oreg, At its August 24, 2001 regular meeting, Mound CiD' Council Members reviewed the LMCD staff memo dated August 15,200]. The memo described five options being considered by the LMCD Board that involved possibly charging back to the City of Mouafl certain LMCD costs in connection to processing the 2000 new multiple dock license, with minor change application, and six variance applications from the LMCD Code at six street ends within the Woodland Point Development. Mound City Council respectfully wishes to make it known that it prefers Option #$ - Not to bill the City of Mound for additional expenses incurred by the LMCD. It Js the opinion of Mound Council Members that the unique relationship Mound has with thc LMCD negates the reason for ~uy reimbursement. That unique relationskip is the fact that the City of Mound dock program is self-administered. With little in the line of demands being placed on the LMCD, it is the Council's.opinion that those costs should most appropriately be absorbed by the LMCD by annual dues paid by the City of Mound. It is also their opinion that the conflict of interest matter that occurred was unfortunate, but the City of Mound should not bear the bnmt, and correspondingly, pay the total cost, of that unfortunate occurrence. Again, the City of Mound is requesting that you see the reasoning here and not charge the City for costs in connection to these applications. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kandis Hanson City Manager -9090- 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 vadance 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 8t9100 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 in the administration and processing of these applications, staff is looking for direction fromthe 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 - 6/15/00), $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 · (2/22/01 - 3/19/01) $ 472.84 · (3/26101-4/16/01) $ 420.00 · (4/26/01-4/27/01) $ 70.00 · (5/29/01 - 6/07/01) $ 35.00 SUB-TOTAL (LEGAL) $10,899.67 -9091 - CITY OF MOUND STAFF MEMO, 8/15/01, PAGE 2 OTHER EXPENSES ~, Staff Time (20 Executive Director Hours @ $30.60 per hour) $612.00 o Staff Time (8 Administrative Asst. Hours @ 15.09 per hour) $120.72 · Postage (225 Public Hearing Notices @ $.33 per mailing) $ 74.25 · Legal Notice-4/27/00 Edition of the Lakeshore Weekly News $ 30.00 SUB-TOTAL (OTHER EXPENSES) TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED: $836.97 $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 Distdct in the review of these applioations 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 back to the City of Mound. Staff is looking for direction from the Board on this issue because we believe these applications were unique and we question whether general practices on billing expenses to the applicant should apply to them. FiVe Possible options for the Board to consider include: Bill all $3,230.39 to the City of Mound. · Deduct the other expenses incurred by the District, $836.97, and bill the : remaining expenses to the City of Mound ($2,393.42) · Deduct Other expenseS, $836.97, and legal expenses incurred by the Distdct for the attorney to attend Board meetings,S2,135.00, and bill the remaining expens'es to the City of Mound ($258.42) o Bill a percentage of the $3,230.39 to the City of Mound. · Not to bill the City of Mound for additional expenses incurred by the District. -9092- HOFF, BARRy & KUDERER, P.A. 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE SUITE 260 EDE]~ PRAIRIE, ~ 55344-5382 May 23, 2000 Billed through 05/23/00 Bill number 3903-00001-002 GCH Lake Ninnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, ~N 55391 City of Mound Dock Application FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDER]ED 94/27/00 GCH 34/30/00 GCI~ 05/01/00 GCH o5/o3/oo Gc~ 95/03/00 GCH 0510410° o51o5/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., Me~orandu~ to: file re: issues 1.00 hfs 140 /hr Review material from LMCD attorney re: · application .50 hfs 140 /hr 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, Memoranduum to: file re: reg. issues and necessary follow up 1.50 hfs 140 /hr Travel to and conf. with 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 Review documents re: ownership, lot extension issues, notes to file .50 hrs 140 /hr 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 hrs 140 /hr 'Phone conference with Greg N. re: staff report .25 hrs 140 /hr 140.00 70.'00 210.00 350.00 70.00 70.00 35.00 .-9093- Lake K, innetonka Conservation Distr~ct' Sill number 3903-00001-002 GCH 17/0o GCH 08/00 ~5/08/00 CCH 35/08/00 GCH )5/~0/0o CCH )5/10/00 CCH ]5/il/00 GCH ]s/~2/0o )5/z5/oo GCH )5/16/0o /00 GCH )5/18/00 GCH ~5/18/00 GCH :.5/~8t00 w~zP ~5/19/00 GC~ ~S/Zg/00 WZP :~5/22/00 GCH Review staff memo, fax to Greg H. re: same .50 hfs 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 .50 hrs 1~0 /hr Review voice mail from Greg N., return message (n/c) .00 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg ~. 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 ~40 /hr Phone conference wit~ Greg ~., voice mail to. Charlie-~. re:. general issue, Voice. m~il to.Doug B., notes to file .50 h rs 140 /hr Phone conference with C. Lefevre re: past' practice of LMCD and general code interp. .25 hrs i40 /hr Phone conference wi~h atty. for Mound re: authority for position .25 hrs 140 /b_r 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_rs 140 /hr Initial Draft of opinion letter for LMCD 2.00 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg N., notes to file .25 hrs 140 /hr Review Judge Lange opinion, letter from atty., Review cases on std., Review file, Review and Revise op. letter to Bdi 3.75 hrs 140 /hr Review and make revisions to letter to LMCD Board. .50 hrs 70 /hr Final revisions to letter to LMCD .25 hrs 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 fro~ atty. for city, Review agenda packet, message to Greg ~. .50 hrs 140 /hr PAGE 70.00 70.00 .00 35.06~ 35.00 490.00 70.00 35.0O 35.00 i05.o0 28O.O0 35.00 525.00 35.00 35.00 52.50 70.00 Total fees for this matter .~ ILLING SUMMARY George C. Hoff Wendy M. Price TOTAL FEES $ 2,922.50 20.25 hfs 140 /hr 2,835.00 1.25 hfs 70 /hr 87.50 21.50 hrs $ 2,922.5~ -9094- Lake Minnetonka ConserYation District B~ll number 3903-00001-002 GCH PAGE 3. TOTAL CHARGES FOR THIS BILL $ 2,922.50 CODE AMOUNT -9095- 7901 FLYII~G CLOUD DRIVE suITE 260 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 553~.~.-5382 June .20,, 2000 Billed through 06/20/00 Bill number 3903-00001-004 GCH Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, ~IN 55391 City of Mound Dock Application FOR PROFESSION~L SERVICES RENDERED. 75/23/00 GCH Phone conference with Greg N., notes to file, voice mail to Mound Atty. .25 b_rs 140 /hr DP '4/00 GCH Phon~ conference with Greg N., Review file in prep. for meeting with tAMCD .50 b_rs 140 /hr 44/00 GCH Travel to and attend meeting of LMCD re: Dock applications, notes to file 2.50 hrs 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 Review material from Greg N. Phone conference with Greg N. ' · 25 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference With Jim G. re: real estate interest issues, reversion of 30 foot easement areas .25 hfs 140 /hr Brief Phone conference with A. Swanson (n/c) .00 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg N., Memorandum. to: file, Phone conference with A. Swanson, Letter to Greg N. .50 hfs 140 /hr Review letter from Swanson, voice mail to Swanson, Memorandum to: file, follow up phone conf. with Swanson .50 hrs 140 /hr Conference with opposing atty. re: transferissue and need for added language, Memorandum to: file .50 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with J. Golemback re: meeting and issue on transl. .25 hfs 140 /hr )5/30/0o )6/02/00 GC~ ~6/05/00 GCH ~6/07/00 GC~ 6/07/00 Gca ;6/08/00 GCH '6/12/00 GC~ 35.00 70.00 350.90 35.00 35.00 35.00 .00. 70.00 70.00 70.00 35.00 -9096- ~ake Minnetonka Conservation District ~ill number 3903-00001-004 GCH ;r '12/00 '6/14/00 GCH '6/14./00 GCH 6114./00 GCH 6/14/00 GCH 6/15/00 GCH Review material .from L~CD on meeting .25 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg N. re: meeting' and info. provided to council .25 hfs 14.0 /hr Phone conference with A. Swanson re: transl. issues .2D hfs ]40 /hr Review letter from atty. re: amended app., Review letter from atty. re: assignment issue, fax to Gte9' N. .50 b_rs 140 /hr Travel to and attend meeting of LMCD Board, notes to file 3.25 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg Nybeck re: resot., contingencies .25 hrs 140 /hr PAGE. 2 35.00 35.00 3~ u. O0 70.00 455.00 35.00 Total fees for tkis matter ILL!NG SI!MMiA/RY $ 1,470.00 George C. Hoff TOTAL FEES 10.50 hrs i0.50 hfs 140 /hr 1,470.00 $ 1,470.00 TOTAL C~I~_RGES FOR THIS BILL NET BALA~{CE FORW~_RD TOTAL BALANCE NOI,~ DUE OOD~ AMOUNT $ 1,470.00 $ 2,922.50 $ 4,392.50 -9097- HOFF, BARRY & KUDERER, p.A. 7901 FLYI]~G CLOUD DRIVE SUITE 260 EDEN'PRAIRIE, ~ 55344-5382 July 20, 2000 Billed through 07/20/00 Bill number 3903-00001-006 GCH La}Ce Minnetonka Conservation District t83 38 Minnetonka Boulevard De~Dhaven, M/~ 55391 :ity of ~ound DoCk Application pROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED /20/oo GcH [.~ ~/O0 GCH 5/oo [7/03/00 GCt~ D7/05/OO GCH o7/o6/OO 97/07/00 BLJ o7/07/00 cca 07/07/00 PAC 07/~0/00 GC~ 0~ ~10/00 GCH Phone conference with Doug B., notes to file .25 hfs 140 /hr 35.00 Phone conferenc~~ with Greg N. re: meeting and. issues .25 b_rs 140 /hr 35.00 Review document from opposing atty. re: dock reconfig. .25 hrs 140 /hr 35.00 Brief Phone conference with Greg N. (n/c) . O0 hfs 140 /hr .'~00 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 hfs ~40 /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 hrs 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 ~aterial fro~ A. Swanson, Phone conference With Greg N. re: same, Phone conference with A. ...' Swanson, notes to file, Memoranduam to: fi~e ..',../'~ - 9098- "" .... ~ake Minnetonka Conservation District ~i'll number 3903-00001-006 GCH )~ '11/00 GCH )7111100 GCH 17/12/00 ,7/12/00 GCH 7)12/00 7/1410o GC~ 7120/00 Phone conference with Jim G. re: hearing and record, meeting with Mound and assignment issue .25 hrs 140 /hr Review la%est material from atty. for City of Mound, notes to file .25 hrs ld0 /hr Phone conference with Gre'g :N., ~e%~Jew voice from atty re: change in resolution, voice mail to atty., fo3.1ow up Phone conference with atty re: meeting of Bd. .50 hfs 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. !or ~eeting 1.50 hfs 140 /hr Travel to and attend meeting of LMCD, notes to file, brief conf. with A. Swanson 2.75 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg 1~., voice mail to atty., Review ~oice mail from atty. .25 hrs 140 /hr Phone conferences with Greg N; Review file and notes; Review and revise findings; E-mail to Greg. t.25 hrs 140 /hr PAGE 35.00 35:00 70.00 210.00 385.00 35.00 175.00 Total fees for this matter ILL~NG SI31~,LAi~Y Paula A Callies George C. Hoff Brian L. Jarrells TOTAL ~EES $ 2,496.25 .25 hrs 130 /hr 32.50 17.25 t~rs 140 /hr 2,415.00 .75 hfs 65 /b_r 48.75 18.25 hrs $ 2,496.25 TOTAL CHARGES FOR THIS BILL $ 2,496.25 CODE AMOUNT L9099- HOFF, BARRY & EUDERER, D.A. 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE SUITE 260 EDEN PRAIRIE, ~N 55344-5382 August ~1, 2000 Billed through 08/22/00 Bill number 3903-00001-008 GCH Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18.338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, 3IN 55391 City of Mound Dock Application FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 07/20/00 GCH OO GCH 26/00 GCH 07/27/00 GCH 07/27/00 GCH 07/27/00 GCH os/cz/co 08/03/00 GCH 08/07/0o GC~ 08/09/00 gCa D8/09/00 GOB Review file and notes, Phone conferences with Greg N. re: same, Revise agreement, e-mail note to Greg 1.25 b_rs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg N. re: status of application and staff reports .25 hfs 140 /hr Travel to and Attend meeting of LMCD, notes to file 1.50 hrs 140 /hr Phone conference with A. Swanson re: follow up in,cz-marion, Review voice ~ai1 from Greg N., volce mail to Greg N., notes to file re: follow up .50 hfs 140 /hr Brief Phone conference with Charlie L. (n/c) .00 hfs 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 b_rs 140 /hr Review material and letter from opposing atty., Phone conference with Greg N., notes to file .50 hrs 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 140 /hr Travel to and Attend LMCD board meeting, notes' 1.75 hfs 140 /h~ 175.00 35.00 210..00 70.00 .00 210.00 35.00 70.OO 70.00 70.00 245:00 -9100- Lake ~innetonka Conservation District Bill number 3903-00001-008 GCH 6 ,10/00 GCH Letter to Mound'city atty., Letter to client .25 hfs DISBURSEMENTS o~/21/oo Total fees for this matter Postage Total disbursements for this matter BILLING S~Y George C. ~off TOTAL FEES Postage TOTAL DISBITRSEF~NTS TOTAL CHARGES FOR Tt~IS BILL 8.75 hfs 8.75 hfs PAGE 2 i40 /h.r 35.00 $ 1,225.00 3.08 $ 3.08 140 /hr 1,225.00 $ 1,225.00 3.08 $ 3.08 $ 1,228.08 CODE AMOUNT -9101- MOFF, B;~RRY & EUDERER, P.A. 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE SUITE 260 EDEN PRAIRIE, ~ 55344-5382 October,24, 2000 Billed through 10/24/00 Bill number 3903-00001-012 GCH Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, ~N 55391 City of Mound Dock Application FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 08/24/oo 18/00 GCH D9/26/00 GCt~ 39/27/00 GCH 9/30/oo [0/09/0o GCH 0/z0/oo GCH 0/10/00 GCH o/11/oo .o/2l/oo GCH Phone conference with opposing atty. re: status of deed restrictions .25 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with arty for city of mound re: LMCD action, Review Draft of order re: same, voice mail to Greg N. .50 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg Nybeck, notes to file, ~oice 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, Memoranduau 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 hfs 140 /hr Review docs. and notes, Draft Letter to Karen Cole 1.75 h rs 140 /hr Follow up Phone conference with K. Cole re: docunnent, Phone conference with Greg N. .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 ...PO 35.00 35.00 280.00 245.00 70.00 35.00 35.00 Total fees for this.matter SUMMARY 875.00 -9102- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Bill number 3903-00001-012 GCH. George C. Hoff TOTAL FEES 6.25 hrs 6.25 hfs PAGE. 2 140 /hr $ 875.00 875.00 TOTAL CH3LRGES FOR THIS BILL $ 875 oo ,~O0~.DE AMOUNT -9103- 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, PIN 55391 City of Mound Dock Application FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 11/01/00 cch 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 GCH 02/08/01 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 hfs 140 /hr Brief Review of doc., voice mail to atty., Phone conference with Greg, fax to client .50 hrs 140 /hr Review material from K. Cole, notes to file .50 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg N. re: submission by Mtka., Letter to Karen C., Draft audit letter for LMCD .75 hrs 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 hfs 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 35.00 70.00 70.00 105.00 35.00 140. oo 140.00 35.00 70.00 105.00 -9104- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Bill number 3903-00001-020 GCH ¢-'19/01 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 SUMEARY George C. Hoff TOTAL FEES 6.50 hrs 6.50 hrs 140 /hr 910.00 910.00 910.00 TOTAL CHARGES FOR THIS BILL 910.00 CODE AMOUNT -9105- FEB ~ ~ ~00I 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 /01 WMP 03/13/01 GCH 03/13/01 GCH 03/19/01 GCH Review latest from K. Cole, file, Letter to Cole and client .25 hrs 140 /hr Brief Review of material from Cole, Phone conference with Greg, fax to Greg .75 hrs 140 /hr Brief office conference with GCH; fax documents received from Kennedy & Grave to Greg Nybeck. .25 hrs 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 BILLING SUMYaARY .34 -9106- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Bill number 3903-00001-022 GCH George C. ~off Wendy M. Price TOTAL FEES Postage TOTAL DISBI/RSEMENTS TOTAL CHARGES FOR THIS BILL 3.25 hrs .25 hfs 3.50 hrs 140 /hr 70 /hr PAGE. 2 455.00 17.50 $ 472.50 .34 $ .34 $ 472.84 ! de~l~ under the pena!li~ o{ taw'that this a~cou,.nt, c~im or ~,~~~/~no.pad oi ii ~.~s bern paid. -9107- HOFF, BARRY & KUDERER, P.A. 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE SUITE 260 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344-5382 By~ April 24, 2001 Billed through 04/24/01 Bill number 3903-00001-024 GCH Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 City of Mound Dock Application FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 03/26/01 GCH 03/27/01 GCH /27/01 GCH 03/27/O1 GCH 03/28/01 GCH 03/29/01 GCH 03/30/01 GCH 03/31/01 GCH 04/16/01 GCH Review voicemail 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 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with K. Cole, Review agreement, notes to file .50 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg N., Phone conference with Eaten Cole .50 hfs 140 /hr Review latest Draft of doc. by K. Cole, voice mail to Cole, notes to file .50 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg and Charlie re: variance limitations .25 hfs 140 /hr Voice mail to atty. for neighbors,~Memorandum to: file .25 P~s 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. Hoff TOTAL FEES 3.00 hfs 140 /hr 3.00 hfs $ 420.00 420.00 420.00 -9108- HOFF, BARRY & KUDERER, P.A. 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE SUITE 260 EDEN PRAIRIE, ~N 55344-5382 May 22, 2001 Billed through 05/22/01 Bill number 3903-00001-026 ~D5 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, M/~ 55391 AMOUNT City of Mound Dock Application FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 04/26/01 GCH ~/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 $ 70.00 BILLING S~Y George C. Hoff .50 hfs 140 /hr 70.00 TOTAL FEES .50 hrs $ 70.00 TOTAL C~LARGES FOR THIS BILL $ 70.00 -9109- HOF¥, 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 City of Mound Dock Application FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 05/29/01 GCH q6/07/01 GCH Phone conference with Greg N., Phone conference with~ K. Cole, Memorandum to: file .25 hfs 140 /hr Phone conference with Greg, Letter to atty. (n/c) .00 hfs 140 /hr 35.00 .00 Total fees for this matter BILLING S~Y George C. Hoff TOTAL FEES .25 hrs .25 hrs $ 35.00 140 /hr 35.00 $ 35.00 TOTAL CHARGES FOR THIS BILL $ 35.00 CODE AMOUNT I.decl~ u~e p~naltie~ ~ law ~at Ibis ~ou,~, claim or ~n paid. -9110- DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday; August 22, 2001 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chair Foster called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Lili McMillan, Orono; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Paul Knudsen, Minnetdstal Tom Seuntjens, Minnetonka Beach; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck,. Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Katy Van Hemke, Minnetonka; Sheldon Wed, Greenwood. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster There were no Chair announcements. READING OF MINUTES- 7125/01 LMCD Regular Board Meeting 8/8/01 LMCD Planning/Workshop Meeting MOTION: Gilman moved, Babcock seconded to approve the minutes from the 7/25/01 Regular Board Meeting and 8/8/01 Planning/Workshop Meeting as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Seuntjens requested staff to forward him a copy of corrected minutes from the 5/9/0i Regular Board Meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda. There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. Gilman moved, Skramstad seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Items so approved include: 2B, Hennepin County Shedffs Office Water Patrol Significant Activity Report, and 3B, July financial summary and balance sheet. 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. -9111- Lal~e !Minnetonka'Conservation District Regula~r'Board Meeting August 22, 2001 Page 2 Babcock stated that he believed three changes should be made to the draft Findings. They include: 1) language that requires signage indicating that"the observation deck is open to the public, 2) language that requires signage for public restrooms inside and outside, and 3) indicating that there shall be no charge to allow residents from Excelsior and Greenwood use of ramp to launch and pull o:ut boats. MOTION: Babcock moved, Gilman seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock license and special density license applications for Excel Marina (Site 1), subject to adding the language recommended by Babcock. . VOTE: Motion carried unanimously Excel Marina (Site 2), consideration of draft Findings of Fact for approval of new multiple dock licenseand special density license applications for 12 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 129' of continuous shoreline. MOTION: Gilman moved, Ambrose seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock license and special density license applications for Excel Madna (Site 2) as submitted. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. 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. Foster stated that staff had informed him that Board member Ahrens was unable to attend the meeting and she requested that this agenda item be tabled'to a future meeting when either she or a representative of Mound could be present. He asked what was the pleasure of the Board on this agenda item. Babcock stated that he believed the Board could enter into discussion on this agenda item and defer Board action to the next meeting. One of the recommendations he would make was not included in the staff memo and he stated that he would like the Board to discusS this, with notes and minutes to be forwarded to the City of Mound. Foster stated that he concurred with the recommendation of Babcock. He added that staff could prepare the details of a plan to the City of Mound if the Board reached consensus on this issue, with possible action to be taken at the next meeting. Babcock stated that he believed the analysis of the fees incurred should focus mainly on the vadance applications because identifiable Distdct expenses already establish the fees for the multiple dock license application. He expressed concern with deducting the base fee for the new multiple dock license application from the excessive legal expenses incurred in reviewing the six variance applications because it would leave part of the normal operating budget unfunded by a determined amount. He recommended to take the legal fees incurred by the District, in there entirety, and to apply them to the six vadance applications because they generally were incurred with these applications, and to deduct the six $250 deposits, and to bill the remaining expenses to the City of Mound. He believed the remaining expenses, including staff time, could 'be included in the base fees, The consensus of the Board was that they agreed with the recommendation of Babcock. Staff was directed to prepare a wdtten proposal consistent with the discussion, to include this in the minutes, and to advise -9112- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting AugUst 22, 2001 Page 3 Board member Ahrens and the City of Mound that formal action will be taken, at the 9/12J01 Regular Board meeting. Babcock stated that he believed the expenses incurred bY the District would have been higher if the City of Mound, its staff, and its legal representation had not been as cooperative. He added that he would be flexible on othernon-legal eXPenses incurred by the District becaUse of the complexity and scope of the residential situation that resulted in these applications. MOTION: Ambrose moved, Babcock seconded to table further discussion and action on this agenda item to the 9/12/01 Regular LMCD Board Meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Additional Business. There was no 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. Foster stated that staff has included-previous BOard discussion of this agenda item in.the Past, noting that he would support eliminating the observer requirement for at least weekday morningS. A letter WaS included in the handout folders from Lt. Bdan Johnson from the Hennepin County Sheriffs Office Water Patrol commenting on this ordinan~:e, "He stated that the Water Patrol SUpports maintaining the current ordinance; hoWeVer, he strongly suggested that the DiStdCt maintain the obserVer requirement on weekends and holidays if the Board decides to make changes. He entertained discussion and comments from 'the Board on this agenda item. Babcock recalled that he was opposed to making changes the last time this issue was discussed in the winter of 1994 and 1995. He stated that he believed the Current ordinance is a gOod law that makes the lake safer. He thought [fiat'certain areas ofthe lake might be more:appropriate for eady morning skiing;' however, this would COncentrate water-skiing in certain areas of the lake and wOUld justify the need to maintain the observer requirement. He concluded that he would not sUppo.rt changing the ordinance at this point: McMillan questioned that if the ordinance would change, would there be a distinction for only water-skiing or to include Other towihgactivities. ' Fostei',stated that he believed there are distinctions between water'skiing and Other towing activities, and that he WeUld support COde changes only for water, skiers. Suerth stated that he believed not requiring an observer for water-skiing and requiring an observer for other towing activities would result in confusion of the public. He supported a uniform ordinance regarding the observerrequirement, noting:that hi~ woUld no-t suPpOrt changeS. Seuntjens stated that he has been around the lake for around 30 years and he believed the observer requirement is a good law. He believed it has worked well over the years and he stated that he would not support changing it. -9113- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regula'r Board Meeting August 22, 2001 /:'age 4 Suerth stated that that he believed the observer requirement reduces the statistical possibility of a problem on the lake, even it is just one boat that had dropped a water-skier. He cited a personal experience when a water-skier was run over by the operator of a boat without an observer. Knudsen stated that he is an avid water-skier on Halsteds Bay and that he might be in favor of changing the ordinance to 12 NOON on weekdays. Currently, his boat can get a third individual to observe when he water-skis and he believed that does not create an undue hardship. He concurred with the Suerth that the statistics bear out the need for an observer. McMillan stated that she had talked to water-skiers regarding changing the observer requirement to after 9 a.m. on weekday mornings. She talked to other individuals using the lake before 9 a.m. on weekdays mornings, including fishermen and kayakers, and found out that they use similar areas of the lake and they are moving very slow. She expressed concern with this and believed the ordinance should remain the same. Skramstad stated that he is an avid waier-skier; however, he does not support changing the ordinance. Gilman concurred with Suerth that consistency of the law makes it much simpler for the public to understand it. Another point to keep in mind is that the observer requirement makes it safer for the remainder of the public that 'iS Using the.lake at the same time as water, skiers and otherusing towing devices. Nelson stated that he would support changing the ordinance because he believed it could be done just as safe, without an observer, during non-peak periods. ~, Knudsen stated that most water-skiers typically use-water along the shore because that is where the water'is still. In addition to fishermen and kayakers, other concerns around the shore include docks, swimming platfOrms, and water trampolines. Foster asked for comments from the public on this agenda item. Ms. Victoda MOrds, 18405 Minnetonka Blvd., stated that she understood the comments from the Board on public safety. She water-skis generally every moming quite early and the observer requirement cause her a hardship. She stated that water-skiing is a sport to her rather than an activity and. it is rare this summer that she has seen a boat while skiing, including fishermen and kayakers. She believed the Board could make a special rUling to allow advanced water-skiers a time period when an observer would not be required. Babcock stated that the rules in the State of Adzona are more restrictive than Minnesota by requiring an observer to wave a red flag when a person falls in the water. The intention of the AriZona law is to signal to other boats in the area to not come close because there is a skier in the water. He restated that. he believed the observer requirement on Lake Minnetonka makes the.lake safer, although it might make it less convenient for the dght reasons. One other aspect of towing that benefits from the third individual on the boat is .injury recovery. Morris Stated` that an experienced ddver towing an individua without an observer would know when a skier goes in the water based on feel caused by the force on the boat. -9114- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 22, 2001 Page.5 Knudsen stated that for selfish reasons, he would like to support changes to the ordinance. HoWever, when changes are made to an ordinance, they are made across the board, not for the more experienced water- skiers. Foster asked if the Board would be interested to allow experienced or semi-professional water-skiers to be certified for morning skiing without an observer. This might be excessive; however, itmight meet the needs of these individuals. The consensus of the Board was that they were not interested in this concept. Foster stated based on the discUSsion of the Board, he believed the consensus of the Board was to not make changes to the OrdinanCe that reqaires n observer when towing on Lake Minnetonka, although he Would support some kind of changes. He thanked Ms Morris for her comments on this issue and drew this agenda item to a close.' C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. FINANCIAL A. Audit Of vOuchers (811101-8115101 & 8116101-8131101). Skramstad reviewed the audit of vouchers as submitted. Nybeck stated that 'two checks should be added to the 8/16/01 - 8/31/01 voucher list; They included: 1) check 13766 to Curfman Repair and Trucking for the amount of $2,500, and 2) Check 13776 to R & S Collision for the amount of $339.16. MOTION: Gilman moved, Suerth seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for 8/1/01-8/15/01 and 8/16/01- 8/31/01', adding checks 13766 and 13776 to the 8/16/01-8/31/01 voucher list. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE B. Staff update on "Lets Keep Zebra Mussels Out of Lake Minnetonka". Suerth asked Osgood to provide an update for the Board. Osgood stated that the proposal has remained relatiVely ~the same since the,last time.the Board has reviewed this document. Some changes made include making the work plan and schedule three phases rather than two, and leaving out the proposed budget for. implementation of the action plan because of uncertainties. The EWM/Exotics Task Force has recommended thatsteps 1-3,begin .in the.near future under Phase 1 outlined in the document. He asked for comments or questions from the Board. -9115- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 22, 2001 page 6 Foster stated that he had a recent conversation with Tom Maple, a past Board member of the D!stdct and the Uinnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). He reported that Maple had ideas of getting funding for the implementation of an action plan in a fairly significant way, possibly through the MCWD thrOugh a petition. He believed there is a full consensus on the Distdct Board to prevent the introduction of zebra mussels into Lake Minnetonka; however, there is a question of how to fund such.an endeavor. Osgood stated that he had recently met with Maple, Suerth and Nybeck to discuss the proposed plan. The interesting aspect of this meeting is that whatever needs to be done through an action plan at the end of the process, there probably will be substantial costs associated with it. He advocated starting exploring the funding aspect of the proposed project while the situation analysis and plan development Phases take place. He stated that he was somewhat familiar with the MCWD statutes~ and he had not made a connection between the proposed plan and possible funding of it with the MCWD through a petition. Babcock stated that he believed the main authority of the MCWD is to deal with water quality issue within the watershed district. Osgood stated the interpretation of water quality issues varies amongst watershed district. Some have broader interpretations in their view and he believed it would not be. stretch to interpret introduction of zebra mussels as a water quality issue. The Board discussed a variety of issues related to the proposed plan, Some of them include: · · Zebra mussel.s would destroy the recreational boating and beaches of Lake Minnetonka. Zebra mussels would add related costs for property owners withdparian rights, including motors, docks, and marina owners. The potential impact zebra mussels would have on other waterways within the watershed .district, mainly through the Minnehaha Creek. The taxing authority the MCWD has that could allow for the, implementation of a plan to prevent the introduction of zebra mussels within the watershed district, including Lake Minnetonka. Foster LMCD · . discussed the three aspects to seek approval from the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) and Boards outlined in the document on page 6. They included: Adopt the project goal of keeping zebra mussels out of Lake'Minnetonka. He believed this was unanimous on the LMCD Board. Adopt the work plan and budget. He believed the words "and budget" should be deleted. Commit to allocating or raising funds. He believed that should include the words "without guarantees". Osgood stated that he would like approval by the Board of the first three steps of the propOSal and to direct staff to petition the MCWD for possible funding of the action Plan. Babcock stated that he has had some frustrations of the MN DNR on this topic since approximately 1992 and that he would like to involve them in the process up front because it is politically correct and there might be so~'e possible statewide funding available.' ~ Osgood stated the concurred the MN DNR should be involved in the process; however, he had mixed feelings on whether theY ShOUld'be a partner or a stakeholder. -9116- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District "" Regul~'~' Board Meeting '" August 22, 2001 Page 7 Nelson stated that the District and the LMA has a focused view of zebra mussels and Lake Minnetonka. The MN DNR has a more parochial view of zebra mussels within the State of'Minnesota. He encouraged getting the MN DNR involved in this project so there is more going on rather than just Lake Minnetonka. Skramstad asked for clarification on the amount of Board and staff time involved the first three steps of the proposal. Osgood stated that the majority of time invested in the first three steps would be mainly staff time, with review of the progress through the EWM/Exotics Task Force. This could change at Phase 2 when a plan is developed. LeFevere stated that using the terms "project" and "petition" may create unnecessary legal questions under laws governing funding of watershed distdct activities. He suggested that the Board eliminate the terms "petition" and "project" from any motion and include the language that the District supports the request for. participation fromthe MCWD, both economically and staff support, and to direct staff to request from the MCWD legal counsel what funding alternatives might be available for this program. Babcock stated that he would like to seek approval from the MCWD Board and the MN DNRin addition to the District and LMA Boards. LeFevere stated that the motion might want to seek approval of the Hennepin Conservation District (HCD). 'Nelson stated that he believed the proposed plan is great; however, there is a need to continue the educational component. MOTION: Gilman moved, Nelson seconded to: 1) adopt the project goal of keeping zebra mussels obt of Lake Minnetonka, 2) to adopt support of the work plan, 3) to commit Distriot staff to assist in Phase 1, and 4) to commit District staff time to work with the MCWD, the MN DNR and the HCD to partner and help fund the program. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 5. SAVE THE LAKE A. Review of draft Fall "Save the Lake" solicitation letter. McMillan updated the Board on the 1st Annual "Save the Lake" Tent Events planned at Lord Fletchers of the Lake on the week of September 16 through September 22. She reviewed the draft flyer and noted that a vadety of events are planned. This includes an lce Cream Social, Meetthe Chef and Wine Tasting, Fletcher's Outdoor BBQ, and a Pig Roast. The Art and Photography Showing event planned for September 22 will· not take place and this will be reflected in the amended flyer. The Board asked how much of the proceeds will be donated to the "SaVe the Lake" fund. -9117- Lake Uinnetonka Conservation District Regular BOard Meeting AUgust 22, 200'1 Page 8 McMillan stated that 75% of the proceeds will be donated to "Save the Lake" and a copy of the flyer will be included in the fall solicitation letter that will be sent out in the near future. The Board complimented the efforts of McMillan on this project. B. Additional Business. McMitlan discussed the availability of Hennepin Conservation District matching grant funds for shoreline restoration projects. 6. ADMINISTRATION There was no discussion 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Nybeck reported on the following: · The lake level as of 8/21/01 was 928.81' NGVD, with a discharge of 10 C.F.S. · Four informational items were included in the handout folders. This included a monthly newsletter summarizing the activities of the Distdct office, a copy of a recent article in the Lakeshore Weekly News on ti~'~ Grays Bay public access project, .a copy of fax cover sheets to member cities that had not made payment on the 2001 Water Patrol project, and an update on current Distdct staff and the vacant Administrative Secretary position. · A schedule of event for the upcoming City of Tonka Bay Centennial Celebration planned for Saturday, 9/15/01, was circulated. 8. OLD BUSINESS. · Foster stated that he had some follow-up work to prepare for a future Board meeting regarding a pdodty list of Goals and Priorities discussed at the 8/8101 Board Workshop/Planning Session. · Skramstad asked for an update on the proposed Upland Farms project. Nybeck stated that the voluntary EAW to prepared by the developer is still pending. An ordinance amendment is currently being prepared for a future meeting regarding the possibility of prohibited non- motorized watercraft in identified tributaries leading into Lake Uinnetonka. 9. NEW BUSINESS. Suerth stated that he wOuld like the Board to consider looking for additional destination points on the lake for the 2002 boating season, A couple of candidates for these destination points include areas around Boy Scout Island and VeteranS Bay, The consensus of the Board was that there was general support and that it might medt further diSCussion in the EWM/Exotics Task Force because it could involve chemical treatments. -9118- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District "" ~ Regular Board Meeting August 22, 2001 Page 9 'Gilman stated that he has had an inquiry from a member of the City of Excelsior regarding a 400' long dock that would be used mainly for transient purposes. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Albert Foster, Chairman Lili McMillan, Secretary -9119- BOARD MEMBERS Bert FOster Chair, Deephaven Cra!g Nelson Vice Chair, Spring Park Lili MCMilian Secretary, Orono Tom Skramstad Treasurer, Shorewood Andrea Ahrens Mound Bob Ambrose Wayz,~ta Douglas E. Babcock Tonka Bay Craig Eggers Victoria Tom Gilman Excelsior Paul Knudsen Minnetrista Tom Seuntjens Minnetonka Beach Herb J. Suerth WC)0dland Katy,,Van Hercke Minnetonka Sheldon Wert Greenwood LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. · DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 952/745-0789 · FAX 952/745-9085 Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR September 17, 2001 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LMCD Board of Directors LMCD Member Cities Interested Parties Greg Nybeck, Executive Director ._.. -// Notice of Cancellation At its September 12, 2001 Regular Meeting, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board of Directors cancelled the LMCD Regular BOard Meeting scheduled for September 26, 2001. The next LMCD Regular Board Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2001. Feel free to contact the. LMCD office if you have questions or concerns relating to this matter. 50~,, Re~ded Content 20% Post ~0nsuma~ waste Web Page Address: http~//www.lmcd.org E"m~i Address: lmcd @lmcd.O~g -9120- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE AGENDA 8:30 A.M., Friday, September 14, 2001 LMCD Office 18338 Uinnetonka Blvd., Deephaven 1. Introductions and Welcome; 2. Review of Minutes from the 7/13/01 meeting; 3. Staff update of 2001 LMCD Eurasian Watermilfoil (EWM) Harvesting Program; 4. Discussion of "Let's Keep Zebra Mussel Out of Lake Minnetonka" Proposal; 5, Agency Repo~s: 6. Area wide lake association reports; 7. Old business; 8, New business; 9. Adjoumment; -9121 - LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE MINUTES 8:30 a.m., Friday, July 13, 2001 LMCD Office, 18338 Mtka Blvd., Deephaven, MN Present: Herb Suerth, LMCD Board; John Baden, Hennepin Parks; Chip Welling, MN DNR; Ray Newman, U of U Fisheries; Tony Brough, Hennepin County Environmental Services; Dick Osgood, EcosYstem Strategies representing the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA); Judd Harper, LMCD Administrative Technician, Minutes. The Task Force reviewed and accepted the minutes from the 6/8/01 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting as submitted. Discussion of 2001 LMCDEurasian Watermilfoil (EWM) Harvesting Program. Harper provided an overview of the 2001 EWM Harvesting Program: · The harvesting crew:had to dived from the rotating harvesting schedule established in 2000. The 2001 schedule was the South Upper Lake option. Some bays were bypassed due to Iow EWM growth and this was contributed by a lack of sunny-days, cool temperatures, late ice-out and high lake levels. · A summary of the 2001 season was provided, noting that there was a late start tothe harvesting season and.some days were cancelled due to inclement weather, lack of vegetation and the 4th of July holiday: · There was 'a total~of eight days that were cancelled and would contribute to maintaining the program under budget for the 2001 season. · The change of the daily fleet mechanic and the pumhase of an enclosed maintenance trailer had contributed to the increased efficiency and productivity of the program. The task force discussed the effect of the high lake levels had on shoreline erosion and how changes to the LMCD code could possibly minimize it. There was discussion regarding the availability of staffing the Hennepin County Public access in Spdng Park with an LMCD EWM harvesting employee on Sundays to keep the boat' launch free of fragmented milfoil. Brough stated that there had been assistance from the LMCD in the past and was wondering if it was feasible for the remainder of the 2001 season. Harper stated that there was a reduction of the number of full-time EWM harvesting positions in 2001 from 11 to seven and it could be difficult finding employees needing hours to make up a 40 hour work week. In the past, EWM harvesting employees used the time cleaning up the Spring Park access to supplement the number of hours on the EWM Harvesting crew. He stated that the crew would be notified for the availability of the extra hours and would be figured in to the staffing and budget for the 2002 season. -9122- EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE, 711311)1, PAGE 2 Discussion of "Let's Keep zebra Mussels Out of Lake Minnetonka" Proposal. Osgood stated· that the Lake Minnet0nka Association (LMA).and the LMCD Would work jointly onthe proposed project. He updated thb task force that the LMA Board had given the pm, j~t their approval and the LMCD Board would review, the proposa! at their 7/25/01 Meeting. He' had'met with EXotics Task Force Chair Herb Suerth and LMCD ExeCutive DireCtor Grog Nybeck to discuss and modify the proposal, possibly for 2002, regarding zebra mussel prevention for Lake Minnetonka. Osgood stated that the proposal would identify the affected parties and bdng them· together to discuss the situation and how to prevent the introduction of zebra mussels in Lake Minnetonka. The proposal would be a comprehensive and systematic approach to keep zebra mussels out of the Lake. The proposal would include probably a "Lake Management Type Forum" with the need to clarify further details. These details include: 1) establishment ,of goal(s), 2) estab, lishm.e, nt of a time schedule, 3.) establishment of a work plan, and 4) establishment of a tentative budget, He entertained comments or feedback from the Task Force. Comments were received from the Task Force on the LMA proposal. They include: · The LMCD had already SPent a groat deal of money with Zebra.MusSel public education. Educational efforts are worthy; however, they have limited effectiveness in reducing the introduction of zebra .mussels into Lake Uinnetonka. The efforts that coUld come out of the pmP0.Sa! could redUce the likelihood of introducing zebra mussels into Lake Minnetonka. · The Minnesota DNR has had ongoing Zebra Mussel public education and boat insp.?ctio.n programs and' the LMCD shOuld used the DNR's effort and tailor-it to Lake Uinnet°nka specifi~ll'~;and capitalize on the programs that aro already in existence. The Lake Minnetonk.a, .effort should~ be a moro intense and detailed program since it is for a comparatively .smaller'~ar~'! · The outcome of the first phase of the proposal may be that a plan implementation.may?lot be attainable Or worth the effort. It could potentially be a large waste of time and money. · There were concerns expressed, with the estimated costs of the' proposal and the fact that the costs did not include the implementation of the action plan. · The proposal should focus on the main objective to prevent boats from zebra mussel infested waters from entedng the lake and introducing zebra mussels into Lake Minnetonka. There was a consensus that this objective should be included into the proposal and into the stakeholder meetings. The process should be narrowed down to addressthis problem and start from there rather,than entering the planning process with a wide-open.approach, which.would.save time ~and,' money. The project would start from a moro defined premise~ · The a~lditional wording in the proposal shoUld be to identify boats from infested waters, intercept them and assure they are clean of Zebra' Mussels before entedng Lake Minnetonka. · Thero was discussion of possibly obtaining additional funds from stakeholders. · The goal is to put together a zebra mussel prevention program that could be aCCepted by the public and agencies and When it is implemented, it be effective. The consensus of the Task Force was to have Dick Osgood and a some available LMA Board Members to the July 25th LMCD Regular Board Meeting to discUsS the "Let's Keep Zebra MusselS oUt of Lake Minnet0nka" proposal. -9123- EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE, 7113101, PAGE 3 A.qencv Reports. Welling reported on the following: · No new bodies of water have been identified as infested with Eurasian Watermilfoil in the State of Minnesota, with the total of 126, · The Aquatic Plant Society Conference is scheduled in Minneapolis from 7/15 through 7/181 Newman reported on the following: · The 2001 weevil project has been delayed because of the lack of Eurasian Watermilfoil but looks encouraging from the limited data obtained. · A report from the data obtained from the weevil project will be presented to the LMCD. Brough reported the following: · There are two channel dredging projects occurring at the Noerenberg Channel and the Seton Channel, Old business. The task force discussed the importance of wetland preservation for water quality and the progress of the LMCD Wetlands Task Force. New business. " There was no new businesS.: Adjournment. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, Judd J. HaCer Administrative Technician -9124- CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT August 2001 66.67% 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 August 2001 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,429,370 0 732,752 (696,618) 51.26% 4,340 225 7,295 2,955 168.09% 160,920 43,198 141,235 (19,685) 87.77% 970,380 3,277 490,943 (479,437) 50.59% 132~750 24~953 103,111 (29~639) 77.67% 100,000 7,544 55,655 (44,345) 55.66% 142,400 5,338 76,364 (66,036) 53.63% 153,000 0 0 (153,000) 0.00% 12,500 1,278 9.600 (2.900) 76.80% TOTAL REVENUE 3.105.660 85,813 1.616.955 (1.488.705) 52.06% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND STORM WATER UTILITY SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCK FUND 403,270 18,612 326,839 (76,431) 81.05% 121,880 7,370 94,867 (27,013) 77.84% 1,900,000 184,638 1,257,889 (642,111) 66.20% 510,000 45,127 295,514 (214,486) 57.94% 101,000 9,232 61,849 (39,151) 61.24% 990,000 109,369 667,963 (322,037) 67.47% 6,250 300 3,380 (2,870) 54.08% 81,350 (67) 69,658 (11,692) 85.63% 0911712001 rev01 Gino -9125- CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT August 2001 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 August 2001 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED 81.320 4.000 48.000 229.430 2.300 73 450 196 830 18 950 118 980 1,125 850 6 950 261 980 496 120 80 440 247 740 42 260 25 000 20E 740 13,336 60,108 21,212 73.92% 0 4,000 0 100.00% 12,077 36,396 11,604 75.83% 17,152 121,366 108,064 52.90% 1 179 2,121 7.78% 6 77,392 (3,942) 105.37% 14,429 121,077 75,753 61.51% 3,508 38,919 (19,969) 205.38% 22,563 88,554 30,426 74.43% 38,105 676,076 449,774 60.05% 459 3,694 3,256 53.15% 27,018 163,433 98,547 62.38% 50,963 367,522 128,598 74.08% 11,864 93,753 (13,313) 116.55% 27,768 173,356 74,384 69.97% 0 0 42,260 0.00% 582 64,806 (39,806) 259.22% 15.847 126,775 79.965 61.32% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 3.266,340 255.678 2.217.406 1.048,934 67.89% 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 40,446 244,056 171,794 58.69% 79,352 467,179 (467,179) 16,031 93,739 41,741 69.19% 31,727 222,976 109,474 67.07% 59,847 345,874 132,746 72.26% 2,282 21,473 690,527 3.02% 120,758 637,889 310,321 67~27% 306 1,806 5,694 24.08% 7,008 135,675 8,945 93.81% Exp-00 09/1712001 Gino -9126- General Fund $1,680,350 CDBG 1,347 Area Fire Protection Services 322,411 MSA 21,338 Sealcoat (58,469) PW Facility 94,999 Capital Improvement 926,928 CDB 1,160 Commerce Place TIF 81,195 Downtown TIF 1-2 (1,410,133) Grant Revolving 7,139 Recycling 88,151 Liquor Store 1,607,773 Water 1,361,618 Storm Water 785,768 Sewer 945,087 _Cemetery ................................................... _3,0__8_4_. Dock 190,073 Fire Relief (46,129) HRA 2,458 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 ~ear and is not included. A long and complete process is followed to record all transactions, before we close the books, at the end of the ~ear. In addition, the audit frem 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. 09/17/2001 CashReportCouncil Gino -9127- Westonh Hca/thy Commun/ty Colhborat/ve Agenda -September 21, 2001, 7:15 - 9:00 a.m. Mound City Hali 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. Juvenile Justice Video (20 min) The Alliance for Families and Children in Hennepin County has a task force that Works on juvenile jus-' tice issues. This task force arranged for a group of children to produce and be featured in this video. 6. Family Support Program (15 min.) Sandy Olstad, St. John's Parish Nurse, and a representative from Sojourner Project will present a new program for women and children affected by domestic abuse. This program was supported in par/ by our funding. "I've learned that if I don't celebrate the exquisiteness of each day, I've l°st something I'II never get back, and I need to separate between a minor event and a major episode!" Sally P. Karioth, Ph.D., R.N. Any comments or questions, call Leah Weycker, Collaborative Coordinator, at 952-491-8058 or WeyckerL~we stOnka, k 12. mn. us -9128- 'Target Group Updates Health Patricia Anderson, Sandy Olstad, Laurie Fitz, Mary Goode, Seanette Metz, Mark Brekke The Health Group ordered a community information packet to address suicide. They also ordered cards identifying teen and adult symptoms of depression. Youth Activities Sandy Rauschendoffer-temp chair, Jean Ann Thayer, Patsy Kiesow In light of getting the "go ahead" from the city of Mound on the location for the skate park, we are looking for MONEY, MONEY and SUPPLIES. Soon we will have a detailed list of the supplies that we need to build the park. National Program Using Mini-bikes (NYPUM) participants are looking forward to their awards banquette. We are. setting up the After School Activity Bus and looking at options for the Youth Center. Parenting Sandy Wing, Sandy Olstad, Bill Erickson We are planning to meet with two consultants from General Mills that had been arranged by MAP (Management Assistance Program for Non profits). The high school's shared decisions team is looking at ways to involve more parents. We will be attending their meeting in October to get more ideas for the Allies for Change grant involving Parent Mobilization. Community Margaret Holste, Cathy Bailey, Cheryl Fischer This group has not met. Communications Anne Wilbur, Carol Olson This small group is working on a donor packet of information for the skate park. The editing for the annual report in almost done. We are waiting for the final budget numbers. 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 Raushendorfer The Executive Group met to discuss the Youth Center and the Local Collaborative Time Study (LCTS) financing frame work. Their recommendations for the changes will be forwarded on.to the County and the Alliance office. · Alliance for Families and Children in Hennepin County Leah will be attending an Alliance retreat with all the collaborative coordinators and the new director, Jim Boyle. The County is planning to have a meeting of the LCTS policy committee. We will be forwarding our recommendations for changes. -9129- Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative Minutes · August 17, 2001 Present: Craig Anderson, Patricia Anderson, Cathy Bailey, John Braland, Bill Erickson, Mary Goode, Len Harrell, Patsy Kiesow, Carol Olson, Sandy Olstad, Leah Weycker Additions or Changes to the Agenda or Minutes: There were no changes to the minutes Carol Olson made a motion to approve the minutes, Sandy Olstad seconded the motion. The motion passed. Announcements: craig Anderson covered the construction on 110, It is a mess and should not be traveled. (they will ticket you) By Sept. 15 there should be a bitumus surface for the buses and emergency vehicles to travel to Game Farm }Load, getting to Hilltop and the High School. Terri Harris from YMCA Camp ]hduhapi was going to talk to us again today but was in a very bad car accident. She will be okay but will have a lot of recovery time. 'Student Welcome Carol Olson covered the student welcome back to school. We need volunteers to hand out magnetic picture fi:ames to all the students in our community. A list of times and locations were handed out. On the morning of the 30th we will hand out welcome back signs to area business. To go along with the welcome, we are doing a large ad in The Laker that will thank the Westonka parents and community for raising children who are loved, appreciated, respected, accepted, encouraged and masted. Craig thought it was a good idea to have a sandwich board type sign at each of the schools. If we have time we should make them. Leah will contact the police departments and the cities to let them know about the Welcome Back event. We should also check into banners for the entrances. We will hand out t-shirts to the public school staff at the Chamber of Commerce's Teacher Welcome that will be held at the new senior center. If anyone wants to help, show up at 7:00 am. It was suggested that we invite Penny Steele to the staffwelcome and the student welcome. Structure of WHCC and the Alliance for Families and Children in Hennepin County Leah used a draft of the annual report to explain our history and components of todays collaborative. There are several parts to our group, each with goals and obligations of that particular funding source. The Collaborative started out with a small group of some of our current members that was called WHY, Westonka Helping Youth. The focus of the WHY group was to build assets in the youth of the Westonka area using Search Institutes Asset Building Plan. The WHY group was asked to participate in a grant that would develop Family Service Collaboratives in west suburban Hennepin County. When the State approved the application, the collaborative was bom. Building assets in children is still a priority of the Collaborative. The State offered a 5 year decreasing grant that would assist in development and coordination of a new method of working together called "collaboration". This is our last year to receive those funds, called FSC or Family Service Collaborative funds. By being a State recognized Family Service Collaborative, our public school district was able to participate in a random moment time study that generates-Federal dollars from Medicaid and Foster CTM funding streams. Those dollars are called LCTS or Local Collaboratvie Time Study funds. This is the largest part of our budget and -9130- must be spent on early intervention, and prevention services for families and children who are: at risk of failing in school, at risk of poor physical or mental health, at risk of participating in illegal activities, or at risk of, or experiencing abuse or neglect. All of these are potential indicators of those children being at risk of out of home placement. An additional part of the collaborative is a human service planning project that the County had asked us to participate in, two years ago. They want our diverse group to have a conversation about services that are missing or duplicated in our community. They are paying us $12,000 to preform these duties,. Beside the above mentioned funding sources, we receive grants and contributions that are usually project specific. The Health Advocate outreach worker was an example of that, Kidgeview Foundation and HealthSystem Foundation both contributed to that project. The WHCC is a member of the county wide group of Collaboratives called the Alliance for Families and Children in Hennepin County. The.Alliance receives 5% Of our LCTS funds and uses it for county wide initiatives. They have also returned some of the LCTS money in the form of Allies for Change Grants that targeted specific goals that were identified by the Alliance members and resource parmers. Two of the projects we are working on are Parent Mobilization and Kids Stability, which we used for au attendance projectat the two elementary schools. Annual Report draft We discussed a draft of the annual report. Everyone liked the format better arranged in goal areas. We talked about who should receive the report when it is complete. All elected .officials: local, state, county and federal, City staff, Chamber board, School staff and boards, Kotary, Kex and jamie from the county, and an open invitation to the public and press. Craig thought it would be good to have a rooming social to present the information. It could take place at 9:'15 '- social time and 9:30 - annual report presentation. We should ask Lenny about using Power Point. Lenny Harrel! made a motion to adjourn, John Braland seconded the motion, motion passed. -9131 - MINNESOTA CHAMBER THE VOICE OF BUSINE$$.~, Newsletter article for the month of September, 2001 Protect your property tax relief By David Olson, president, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce The property tax reform legislation passed by the Legislature in the 2001 session is not just a "big win" for business, as it has been characterized in many reports. It is a big win for all Minnesota taxpayers. Every taxpayer in Minnesota was provided significant, immediate relief which will show up in your tax bills next May. Property tax reductions in 2002 for homeowners range from 18 to 27%, for apartments the reduction ranges from 21 to 32% and for businesses, property taxes will be 6 to 20% less than they otherwise would have been under current law. Under this new legislation, property taxes will go up only if local governments, school districts and the Legislature spend more and ask property taxpayers to pay the tab. This immediate relief can be eroded in three ways: School districts may seek tax increases by putting referenda on their local ballots in November. Local governments may increase spending and pass on the expense to property taxpayers. While levy limits are in place for two years, there are many exceptions. The Legislature may increase the statewide property tax or make other tax and spending changes that will affect the new legislation. The business community is united behind preventing any increase in the statewide property tax. More than ever before, your property tax is now a local property tax. The state mandated education portion of your tax bill has been assumed by the state. What you pay reflects the local services you receive. Any increase, or decrease in that amount is directly attributable to spending levels by local governments and you have a voice in that debate. Finally, this bill does not benefit business at the expense of homeowners or education. Minnesota businesses still pay nearly 25% of all property taxes collected in Minnesota even though business only has 15% of all the value. This legislation is reform because it builds a greater connection between tax collection and tax spending, and in the end, will benefit every property taxpayer through greater accountability and slower property tax growth. (800) 821-2230 · (651) 292-4650 · Fax (651) 292-4656 · 30 E. 729~132- Suite 1700 · St. Paul, MN 55101-4901 · www.mnchamber.com ~ 50~ Total Recover~u r~, ~u'~ rust-Consumer Waste Compensation Public Employers Must Align Pay Plans With Organizational Goals State and local employers that do not engage in strategic planning to ensure that their compensation systems help accomplish their organizational goals "are going to pay for it in the years to come," compensation expert Bruce G. Lawson said Maroh 27 at the National Public Employer Labor Relations Association's annual training conference. Strategic compensation planning is no longer just desirable, but essential for public sector employers, because of pressure from private companies competing to provide government services, saidLawson, president of Fox Lawson and Associates in PhoeniX. "If you stop and think about, the- services that your agency provides, you will realize that everything that is done can be' contracted out," he said. "I'm not here:as an advocate of that, but it's a reality. One of our clients happens to be the Dallas- Fort Worth airport. They have had to refocus their entire way of thinking because they're now getting pressure from British Airways to take over the operation of the airport." that uses broadbanding might be four to six pay bands, Lawson said. These pay bands replace the numerous job and length-of- service categories that currently exist in many organizations, he said. In some pay banding systems, zones within the bands control individual positions, he added. Broadbanding offers the following advantages,.Lawson said: · allows greater flexibility in moving employees to meet organization needs. (i.e., lateral moves); · leads to less of a focus on job rifles and pay grades; · encourages employees to broaden their skills; · permits the organization to offer varying levels of pay to recognize and reward different levels .of individual employee contribution; and · creates an orientation toward managing 'comPensation, or seeing pay as a tool for encouraging high performance. British .Airways already runs Heathrow AirlSort in London, Lawson said. "That' s how competitive the world is becoming. ... There are major international Corporations that can do what you do," he said. In Wa,?hington, D.C., he added, the city government is trying to. fend off a challenge from a large French consortium that wants to take over the operation of the city's sanitary authority. Productivity, Quality 'Paramount' To meet these challenges; "productivity and quality are paramount" for public sector employers, Lawson said. This is where strategic compensation comes in, he said. Traditionally, public sector compensation has fOCused on retention over motivation, with length of service being a key determinant of pay. Public sector employers today have an increased in~erest in developing incentive-based pay that will encourage employees to think more likeentrepreneurs, he said. The new pay models feature greater internal flexibility for determining pay rates, higher pay levels for skilled employees, a direct link between pay and productivity, a decreased emphasis on internal equity, and increased differentiation of pay practices by organizational unit, Lawson said. Among the alternative reward approaches being considered by some state and local employers (Lawson said, are broadbanding, skill-based pay, individual incentives and group incentives. Broadbanding Pay Systems Broadbanding, he said, is the collapsing of a number of traditional salary ranges'within a traditional salary structure into a few broad bands. A common model for an organization But broadbanding may not work in every organization, Lawson said. Broadbanding works best when: · the organization .wants a pay structure that supports a flatter organizational structure; · the organization strongly supports career development, cross- training, and inter-OCcupational mobility; · pay-for-skills is encouraged; and · the change has top management support and effective communication channels exist within the organization. It is important to build a broadbanding system slowly, Lawson said. It takes time to build trust among employees, he said, "but if you've got that relationship, you have a chance to make it work." Skill-Based .Pay Skill-based pay systems work well in organizations that already use broadbanding, Lawson said. Under skill-basedpay, he said, organizations reward employees for the skills they "possess and use in the work setting." The word "use" is crucial here, he said, because some organizations lose sight of this and pay employees for skills they have but do not use in their jobs. Under the skill- based system, he continued, pay is "directly related to the number of definable and measurable skills acquired and applied." Some characteristics of the system, Lawson said, are that pay is based on an individual's skills rather than job title, the focus is on skill development, cross-training is encouraged, and the Continued On Page 15 Annual Training Conference 2000 ".9 -9133- Gontinuod From ?~ g Public Employers Must Pay Plans With Organizational system permits flexibility in staffing (i.e., multi-skilled individuals can assume numerous roles). The advantages of the system, he said, are that it encourages skill and career development, staffing flexibility, employee satisfaction, teamwork, and higher output and quality over the long term. · an emphasis on teamwork; · a system where teams are rewbxded for improvement; · a reward system where the dollar rewards are usually considered "found" money based on performance improvements; and · a formula-based (non-subjective) bonus system. According to Lawson, skill-based pay systems tend to work when: · the organization is seeking to change its work culture; · the organization strongly supports career development and cross-training; · the change is. supported by top officials, supervisors, and managers; and · money and time are available for training. Individual-Based Incentives The third type of strategic compensation system, individual- based incentives, includes any compensation plan that rewards individual employees based strictly on their own performance or contribution, Lawson said. Individual-based incentive programs include pay-for-performance systems, suggestion programs, and recognition programs. The advantages of such systems, he said, are that they focus on individual performanee,i give supervisors incentives to address performance issues, and are relatively easy to install. But individual-based compensation plans can'lose potency after one or two years, Lawson said. In addition, they may encourage individual performance at the expense of the group or create feelings of superiority or inferiority among employees. Finally, the systems may be perceived as unfairbecause of the subjective · nature of evaluations, he said. The measures of improvement in such systems can be financial, operational, or a combination of both, Lawson said. The advantages of group-based incentives are that they encourage teamwork and employee involvement, generate their own reward money, support new work cultures, and encourage higher productivity and quality, leading to lower staffing levels, he said. The disadvantages of such systems, he said, are that they may need readjustment every few years, it can be difficult to set measurable objectives, the public may distrust what it sees as a profit-sharing system, the rewards generated may not be large enough to motivate behavior Changes, and significant amounts of money and time may be necessary to set up the system. According to Lawson, group-based incenti'¢es are most likely to succeed when the culture supports teamwork, good base-line performance measures are available, management and employees enjoy a level of mutual trust, all levels of employees are included, and rewards are separate from regular pay. They are likely to fail when there is a lack of top-level, management, or supervisor support; they are based on overly complex bonus formulas; employees and management do not trust each other; there is "legislative meddling" in the program; the program lacks goOd 'baseline measures; and where there is poor communication within the organization. No matter what type of strategic compeusation system is considered, employers must put all aspects of compensation into play, including ' base pay, benefits, and variable pay, Lawson concluded. According to Lawson, individual-based incentives work best when there are clear measures for success; evaluators receive good and frequent training; rewards are worthwhile and meaningful; communication is excellent; top performance'can be distinguished from regular duties; and the organization supports individual effort over group performance. "Even in the year 2000, the majority of organizations cannot tell us what their total benefit package is worth," he said. '~ey do not share' that information with their employees, they get no value from that expenditure. They are not thinking strategically." Source: BNA ' s GER Repon, 4/11/00. Group-Based Incentives Group-based pay incentive pxograms represent "the future of where performance-based systems are going," Lawson said. These types of programs may include small group incentive programs and gaiusharing/goalsharing systems, he said. Group-based systems have some or all of the following characteristics, Lawson said: -9134- Directory Assistance Please!!! The 2000-2001 NPELRA Membership Directory is currently in production. If you have any changes in NAME, TITLE, ADDRESS, ZIP CODE, AREA. CODE, PHONE, FAX, or EMAIL please fax or e~mail the changes to the Washington office, Attn: Laurie Dahl by June 9, 2000. You should also fax or send a copy of the changes to your state PELRA seCretariat. NPELRA' s FAX & EMAIL: 202/293-2352 & info @ npe!ra.org. Annual Training Conference 2000 t5 Page 1 of 5 KandisHanson From: "Barbara Olson" Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 2:50 PM Subject: westonka.news Vol. 2, No. 1 westonka.news Vol. 2, No. 1 September 7, 2001 The Westonka Public Schools' channel for direct electronic communication to interested parents, staff, and community members, providing up-to-date information about education in District 277. westonka.news publishes weekly. Look for it in your mailbox on Fridays. Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A, Mound MN 55364; http://wvvw.westonka.k12.mn.us; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043; e-mail: welisten@weston ka. k 12. mn. us. Contents 1. News Briefs --New School Year off to a Great Start --Road Construction Blues --New Teaching Staff, New Administrators --Great Test Scores --Athletic Fields Update 2. Focus Topic: School District Finances: 3. Upcoming Events 4. We Want to Hear from You What Does the Future Hold for Westonka? NEWS BRIEFS **New School Year off to a Great Start** Lots of smiles were on the faces of students streaming into buildings on the first day of school earlier this week. The new start times seem to be working well, and while road construction is still a major headache, it doesn't seem to be interfering with school operations as severely as some may have feared. The Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative repeated its successful "First Day" activities, welcoming students at every school in the district, including Our Lady of the Lake and Calvary Memorial Christian, by posting volunteer greeters (handshakers and huggers, too) who - 9135- 09/07/2001 Page 2 of 5 distributed photo frame magnets with the message "1 am loved, respected, accepted, encouraged, appreciated, and trusted", and "Your community cares about you." Volunteers who serve as greeters rave about the opportunity to share a personal welcome'with so many students, and to support our community's children in such an easy, yet visible, way. You can volunteer for the next event by calling Collaborative director, Leah Weycker, at 952.491.8058. **Road Construction Blues** Hennepin County road crews continue their work on County Road 110, which is undergoing major construction and will continue to be closed until the end of November. The closure of 110 has had significant impact on drivers attempting to reach Hilltop Primary School and Mound Westonka High School. The school district is in frequent contact with County officials, and will share information as we learn it. As of this writing, we know the following: --All drivers are urged to take alternate routes to these buildings. --A portion of Cty Road 110 has been graded and graveled, and school buses *only* are being permitted to travel on that portion, running roughly from the Mound-Minnetrista line to Game Farm Road. --Law enforcement officials may ticket drivers who continue past the "road closed" signs. As the situation progresses, updates will be posted in the Laker newspaper, on the school district Web site, http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us, and in this electronic newsletter. **New Teaching Staff, New Administrators** In addition to the many new support staff members who joined the district since June, we're proud to count the following teachers among our talented staff: New teachers at Mound Westonka High School: Amanda Dell, science; Cheryl Dore, family and consumer science; Dorrie Eichman, science; Scott Eidsness, social studies; Jeffrey Halverson, business education and work experience; Kyle Price, math; Molly Ryks, world languages. New teachers at Grandview Middle School: Pam Berent, 5th grade; Debra Castner, special education; Tyler Finkelson, 6th grade; Kimberly Galloway, special education; Jean Gevik, special education; Lisa Hudson, special education; and Katie Seehusen, 6th grade. New teacher at Shirley Hills Primary School: Lynda Polingo, special education. New administrators: Joe Wacker has been named interim principal of Hilltop Primary School. Wacker comes to Hilltop from Grandview Middle School, where he served as administrative intern during 2000- 2001. Gwenn Spence is Westonka's new special education director. Spence comes to Westonka from the Meeker and Wright Special Education Cooperative, and holds licenses as a director of special education, early childhood/special education teacher, and parent educator. - 9136- 09/07/2001 Page 3 of 5 **Great Test Scores** Great test scores were reported in recent months for third-, fifth-, and tenth-graders on state tests. Westonka students have scored higher than state averages on the MCAs (third and fifth grade tests) every year since the tests' inception. Reading scores for both third- and fifth- graders were up over last year, and fifth-graders showed improvement in 3 out of 4 areas on the writing assessment. And 94% of Westonka 10th-graders passed the state writing test, higher than the state average of 92%. **Athletic Fields Update** Staff, parent volunteers, and friends in the business community have worked all summer to ensure that student athletes can compete on a home field this fall. Their hard work has paid off, and soccer and football games are being played on a former practice field east of the high school. The field has relatively few amenities: lighting, a score board, and a sound system. Spectators are urged to purchase cushions from the Football Boosters, or to bring chairs and blankets, since no bleacher seating is available. The athletic facilities will look considerably different in the future, as building plans are put into place for a relocated Haddorff Field. Parent boosters are exploring the financial feasibility of artificial turf, and the district's Building Committee, with staff and community members, is overseeing plans for the overall project. Take advantage of this opportunity to show your support for the Whitehawks: come on down and get a cushion, buy your family some hot dogs and other eats from the temporary concession stand sponsored by the Westonka Activities Association, and join your neighbors to cheer on the Whitehawks! FOCUS TOPIC **School District Finances: What Does the Future Hold for Westonka?** The fallout from last spring's legislative session is becoming clear, and it doesn't look good for Minnesota public schools. The Alliance for Student Achievement, a consortium of ten education organizations, has digested the changes in education funding and reports the following: --Property taxes have been eliminated as a source of basic education funding. This change will reduce property taxes, but won't mean a single dollar of extra funding for schools. The state will replace the lost property tax revenue with money from sales and income taxes. --The real increase in education funding is a 2.6% hike in the per pupil formula. This amounts to an additional $104 per pupil over 2000-2001. For 2002-2003, the statewide average - 9137- 09/07/2001 Page 4 of 5 increase is 4% per student. VVhy isn't 2.6% enough? School districts across Minnesota, especially Westonka, have been struggling for years to maintain programs and meet rising expectations with dwindling resources. VVestonka has been in statutory operating debt for several years, and made $300,000 in budget cuts for the current school year. Even with projected formula increases, the district will have to make another $300,000 in cuts for 2002-2003 in order to stay within available funding. Current tight finances are tied to funding over the past decade, when K-12 education was chronically underfunded. From 1991-1997, the basic formula allowance was virtually frozen. Simply put, it will take more than a 2.6% bump to remedy many years of inadequate funding. What's the district's plan? Along with taking basic education funding off local property taxes, the state has given a clear message to school districts: The state will provide a certain amount, and local taxpayers must provide the balance of what it costs to educate their community's children. What that means is that school districts across the state, especially in the metro area, will be going to taxpayers to seek approval of operating levies this fall. The law that set these referenda in motion is complicated, but essentially it says that if school districts need money over and above what the state provides, they can ask their taxpayers for those funds, up to a certain "capped" amount. As this issue goes to press, the Westonka School Board, at its September 10 regular meeting, is planning to discuss a possible referendum for November. Board members don't take such action lightly. While the Westonka community has been extremely supportive of its public schools in recent years, it's not easy to go to taxpayers, especially in light of the successful bond referendum, passed just last spring. Board members are looking at the possibility of planning operating levies and bond referenda so that they occur every five years, making it easier for both the school district and local taxpayers to plan a little further out than the two-year window offered by the Legislature. If board members vote to hold a referendum, volunteers will be needed to lead local advocacy efforts. Future issues of westonka.news will keep you updated on this story. In the meantime, if you have any questions about finances or budget planning, or opinions on the topic of a possible referendum, please send an e-mail message to welisten@weston ka. kl 2. mn. us UPCOMING EVENTS - 9138- 09/07/2001 Page 5 of 5 --September 10, Westonka Community Preschool classes begin --September 10, School Board meeting, 7:30 p.m., Shirley Hills Primary School --September 11, GMS and MW Student Photo Days --September 11, Hilltop PTA meeting, 7 p.m. --September 13-14, Gr. 8 Respect Retreat WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU! We would like to hear your feedback on any of the topics above, or any other school-related issue. Use whichever way works best for you: send an e-mail message to <welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us>; call the District Feedback Line at 952.491.8260; or mail your comments to Barbara Olson, Community Relations Coordinator, Westonka Public Schools, 2450 VVilshire Blvd., Suite A, Mound MN 55364 To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to Barbara Olson at <olsonb(~westonka.k12.mn.us> It is the mission of the Westonka Public School District, in partnership with students, parents, and the community, to create the environment necessary to achieve quality education for lifelong learning. Westonka Public Schools 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A Mound MN 55364 tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043 welisten@westonka.kl 2.mn.us http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us westonka.news is published by the Community Relations Department, Barbara Olson, editor. - 9139- 09/07/2001 Page 1 of 3 KandisHanson From: "Barbara Olson" Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 2:01 PM Subject: How to talk to children about disasters In light of the tragic events of the day, you might find the following information to be helpful as you talk with the children in your life. The following a fact sheet (text format below) was produced at Purdue University on how to talk to children about disasters. For a formatted version of this information, you can go to the national Extension CYFERnet site at: http:llwww.cyfernet.orgltalkchild.html. The U of MN Extension Web page will also have a link to additional information shortly. *Talking with Children When the Talking Gets Tough* Wars, shootings in schools, natural disasters, deaths at sporting events- -as adults we hope that these and other tragic outcomes will never happen anywhere and definitely will not impact the children and youth we care about. We would like to protect those young minds from the pain and horror of difficult situations. We would like to ensure that they have happy, innocent, and carefree lives. So what is a parent, teacher, or other caring adult to do when disasters fill the airwaves and the consciousness of society? *Don't assume that the kids don't know about it.* They probably know more than you think. The reality of today's world is that news travels far and wide. Adults and children learn about disasters and tragedies shortly after they occur, and live video footage with close- ups and interviews are part of the report. Children and youth are exposed to the events as soon as they can watch TV or interact with others who are consumers of the news. Not talking about it does not protect children. In fact, you may communicate that the subject is taboo and that you are unavailable if you remain silent. *Be available and "askable.* "Let kids know that it is okay to talk about the unpleasant events. Listen to what they think and feel. By listening, you can find out if they have misunderstandings, and you can learn more about the support that they need. You do not need to explain more than they are ready to hear, but be willing to answer their questions. *Share your feelings.* Tell young people if you feel afraid, angry, or frustrated. It can help them to know that others also are upset by the events. They might feel that only children are struggling. If you tell them about your feelings, you also can tell them about how you deal with the feelings. Be careful not -9140- 09/11/2001 Page 2 of 3 to overwhelm them or expect them to find answers for you. *Help children use creative outlets like art and music to express their feelings.* Children may not be comfortable or skilled with words, especially in relation to difficult situations. Using art, puppets, music, or books might help children open up about their reactions. They may want to draw pictures and then destroy them, or they could want to display them or send them to someone else. Be flexible and listen. *Reassure young people and help them feel safe.* When tragic events occur, children may be afraid that the same will happen to them. Some young children may even think that it already did happen to them. It is important to let them know that they are not at risk- -if they are not. Try to be realistic as you reassure them, however. You can try to support them and protect them, but you can not keep all bad things from happening to children. You can always tell them that you love them, though. You can say that, no matter what happens, your love will be with them. That is realistic, and often that is all the children need to feel better. *Support children's concern for people they do not know.* Children often are afraid not only for themselves, but also for people they do not even know. They learn that many people are getting hurt or are experiencing pain in some way. They worry about those people and their well being. In some cases they might feel less secure or cared for themselves if they see that others are hurting. It is heartwarming and satisfying to observe this level of caring in children. Explore ways to help others and ease the pain. *Look for feelings beyond fear.* After reassuring kids, don't stop there. Studies have shown that children also may feel sad or angry. Let them express that full range of emotions. Support the development of caring and empathy. Be careful not to encourage the kind of response given by one child: "1 don't care if there's a war, as long as it doesn't affect me and my family." *Help children and youth find a course of action.* One important way to reduce stress is to take action. This is true for both adults and children. The action may be very simple or more complex. Children may want to write a letter to someone about their feelings, get involved in an organization committed to preventing events like the one they are dealing with, or send money to help victims or interventionists. Let the young people help to identify the action choices. They may have wonderful ideas. *Take action and get involved in something.* -9141 - 09/11/2001 Page 3 of 3 It is not enough to let children take action by themselves. Children who know that their parents, teachers, or other significant caregivers are working to make a difference feel hope. They feel safer and more positive about the future. So do something. It will make you feel more hopeful, tOO. And hope is one of the most valuable gifts we can give children and ourselves. Distributed by: Judith A. Myers-Walls, Extension Specialist, Purdue University. Barbara Olson Community Relations Coordinator Westonka Public Schools 2450 Wilshire Blvd, Suite A Mound MN 55364 p: 952.491.8006 f: 952.491.8043 e-mail: olsonb@westonka.kl2.mn.us We know your child by name... We help your child achieve. -9142- 09/11/2001 Page 1 of 1 KandisHanson From: "Barbara Olson" Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 11:03 AM Subject: The events of today: school impact On this solemn day, the Westonka Public Schools are focusing on "business as usual"-- educating our community's children. Our hearts are with those affected by the tragic terrorist attacks of this morning, but our minds are focusing on the children in our classrooms today. Westonka Public Schools operations have not been affected. All school buildings are open as usual, and the school day will continue as planned. Parents: Please talk with your children tonight. Use your own family communication style to comfort your children while helping them understand what happened. While older students at Mound Westonka High School have been informed of today's attacks in New York and elsewhere, no announcements have been made to middle and primary school students. Your children may or may not know of the events by the time they arrive home from school. Here's what the school district is doing today: --continuing school as usual --focusing on the students in our classrooms --keeping staff members informed throughout the day. --keeping school board members informed throughout the day --posting this announcement on the Web site (www.westonka.k12.mn.us) Further updates will be sent as the situation changes. Barbara Olson Community Relations Coordinator VVestonka Public Schools 2450 Wilshire Blvd, Suite A Mound MN 55364 p: 952.491.8006 f: 952.491.8043 e-mail: olsonb@westonka.kl2.mn.us We know your child by name... We help your child achieve. - 9143- 09/11/2001 Page 1 of 1 KandisHanson From: "Barbara Olson" <olsonb(~westonka. k12.mn.us> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 12:38 PM Subject: National tragedy update: community response, FYI, the local ministerial association is heading up a community response to the tragic events of today. This event is not organized by the Westonka Public Schools, so please direct any questions to the staff at St. John's Lutheran Church (952/472-1416). The entire community is invited to an Interdenominational Prayer Service on Tuesday evening, September 11, at 7:00 PM. The service will be held at St. John's Lutheran Church, 2451 Fairview Lane, Mound. Clergy from all Westonka churches will be participating. Everyone is invited to attend. Please call 952/472-1416 with further questions. Barbara Olson Community Relations Coordinator Westonka Public Schools 2450 Wilshire Blvd, Suite A Mound MN 55364 p: 952.491.8006 f: 952.491.8043 e-mail: olsonb@westonka.kl2.mn.us We know your child by name... We help your child achieve. - 9144- 09/12/2001 Page 1 of 1 KandisHanson From: "Barbara Olson" <olsonb@westonka. k12.mn.us> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 3:26 PM Subject: VVestonka Schools response to National Day of Prayer President Bush has proclaimed tomorrow, September 14, as a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance. FYI, here's what we're asking schools to do: --minute of silence at 12 noon (if you'd like to receive the text of the announcements that will be used, please send an e-mail request to otsonb@westonka.kl2.mn.us) --ringing of bells, (in music rooms, perhaps) if possible (per suggestion in Pres. Bush's proclamation--full text available at http://www.whitehouse.go_v, if you're interested). --flags continue to be flown at half-mast --continued tolerance and respect shown for all people, adhering to the highest values of the Westonka Public Schools and our nation. As always, if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to let us know (welisten@westonka.k12. mn. us) Barbara Olson Community Relations Coordinator Westonka Public Schools 2450 Wilshire Blvd, Suite ^ Mound MN 55364 p: 952.491.8006 f: 952.491.8043 e-mail: olsonb@westonka.kl2.mn.us We know your child by name... We help your child achieve. - 9145- 09/14/2001