The URL can be used to link to this page

2001-10-23 PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 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: *B. *C. APRIL 19, 1999 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2001 REGULAR MEETING APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. CASE #01-42 ANDERSON 3003 BRIGHTON HARDCOVER/FRONT SETBACK VARIANCES *D. APPROVE RESOLUTION GRANTING PERMISSION TO EXCHANGE GRAVE SITE FOR PLACEMENT OF THIRD BURIAL IN GRAVE 7, LOT 24, DIVISION C *E. APPROVE RESOLUTION APPOINTING DATA PRACTICES COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL *F. APPROVE RESOLUTION TO APPOINT RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINNESOTA DATA PRACTICES ACT COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.) PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CASE #01-39 WILLETTE/WWT PARTNERS 2346 CYPRESS LANE 2361 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD ALLEY VACATION PAGE 9371-9373 9374-9379 9380-9396 9397-9415 9416 9417 9418 9419-9443 PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. B. CASE #01-40 WARNER/MAHOGANY BAY 2642 COMMERCE BOULEVARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT ACTION ON RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBMITTAL OF THE HENNEPIN COUNCY ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE FUND GRANT APPLICATION 9444-9476 9477 ACTION ON REQUEST FROM METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT FOR EARLY START AGREEMENT 9478-9485 KELLS LANE UPDATE ACTION ON COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 9486-9488 9489-9499 10. 11. 13. 14. RELATED TO SPACE NEEDS STUDY ON PUBLIC FACILITIES mo ACTION ON AGREEMENT FOR A SPACE NEEDS STUDY FOR ISLAND PARK FACILITIES AND PUBLIC WORKS FACILTIES ACTION ON AGREEMENT FOR A COMMUNICATIONS PLAN ACTION ON AGREEMENT FOR A PRE-REFERENDUM SURVEY ACTION ON AGREEMENT FOR LIQUOR STORE INTERIOR DESIGN ARCHITECT ACTION ON RECOMMENDATIONS TO FUND PUBLIC WORKS PAY EQUITY ADJUSTMENTS RELATED TO COMMISSIONS A. ACTION ON RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION B. ACTION ON RECOMMENDATION FOR 2002 DOCK/SLIP FEES INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A° B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. LMCD correspondence Mound Westonka school district correspondence LMC Friday Fax AMM Fax News Article: Rail to Trail: Public should own lakeside corridor Financial Reports: Sept 2001 FYI: RGU decision and letter to Hennepin County FYI: Notice of Pay Equity compliance FYI: Jon Sutherland resignation FYI: Langdon Bay development (final) 9500-9513 9514-9516 9517-9518 9519-9523 9524-9527 9528-9549 9550-9561 9562-9563 9564-9565 9566 9567-9570 9571-9576 9577-9583 9584 5. ADJOURN COUNCIL BRIEFING October 23, 2001 HRA meeting begins at 7:00 p.m., due to lack of agenda. Upcoming Events Schedule: Don't Forget!! Oct 22 - 7:00 PM: County Road 15 Oct 22 - follows above: MCWD Cooperative Agreement Oct 23 - 7:00 PM: HRA Oct 23 - 7:30 PM: Regular CC Oct 24 - 6:00 PM: Gillespie Center Dinner Oct 25 - 4:30 PM: MetroPlains Development ground breaking Oct 30 - 7:00 PM: 2002 Budget Nov 7 - 7:00 PM: 2002 Budget Nov 13 - 6:30 PM: HRA Nov 13 - 7:30 PM: Regular CC Nov 19 - 6:30 PM: Tree Lighting Ceremony Nov 27 - 6:30 PM: HRA Nov 27 - 7:30 PM: Regular CC Dec 11 - 6:30 PM: HRA Dec 11 - 7:30 PM: Regular CC Dec 25 - No meetings! Exchange Grave Sites omc time back, a gravesite was created in the walkway to make up for selling an already "occupied" gravesite. Barb Schneider is requesting permission to be buried with her parents, and in return, she will give back the site created in the walkway. Ordinance states that only two burials, either one casket and one urn, or two urns, can be buried in one site. That is why special permission is needed to add and urn to this site. #3.E. & F. Resolutions Re: Data Practices The adoption of these resolutions has been overlooked in recent years. Their adoption is required for the City to be in compliance with the Data Practices Act. #6. Grant Application Hennepin County Environmental Office alerted the City to this grant opportunity. They called because they are aware of the Country Road 15 project and thought it was a good means for both the City and County to offset some of the costs associated with the project. In the case of the Maxwell property, savings could be realized for the road project and a potential development on that site. BruCe Chamberlain will go into more detail regarding the grant. #10. Related to Space Needs Study on Public Utilities In order for the Island Park Facilities Task Force to proceed with costing the potential scenarios for that site, Phase II of the Space Needs Contract needs approval. They wish to proceed quickly so that the project may possibly be tagged onto a May referendum. Preparing for a successful referendum requires care study of the public sentiment, followed by corresponding public communications. JMS has been used in the past for mmunications, including our Q & A's. Decision Resources is noted as the most successful data research firm the region, with a 93% success rate on referendums. They have done all the pre-referendum surveys for the Westonka School district in recent years. Human Resources Update Jon Sutherland's resignation is requiring that we utilize West Metro Inspections until the course of action may be set. (See letter of resignation under "Information/Miscellaneous.") last several months have been devoted to making that case that the Park Director should not be a unionized position. Just recently we have been successful in proving that case. That position is now paid on a salary basis, and is not subject to overtime. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 19, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Monday, April 19, 1999, in the council chambers at 5341 Maywood Road in said City. Councilmembers Present: Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Andrea Ahrens and Leah Weycker Others Present: City Attorney, John Dean; Parks and Docks Supervisor, Jim Fackler; Barb Casey, Pat & Irene Harrington, Bob Schmidt, Mark Smith, Gene Smith, Greg Knutson, Jim Albrecht, Scott Mack, and other citizens. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Meisel followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. RECOGNITION OF LEN HARR_L=[ MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carded. RESOLUTION NO. 99-37: RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING LEN HARRELL, POLICE CHIEF OF THE CITY OF MOUND AS THE 1999 PRESIDENT OF THE MINNESOTA CHIEFS' OF POLICE ASSOCIATION AND COMMENDING LEN FOR THIS HONOR DEVON COMMONS AT ROANOKE ACCESS: DOCK PLACEMENT MOTION by Brown and seconded by Hanus to rescind Brown's motion of February 9, 1999 relating to acceptance of the 1999 Dock Plan. 'The following voted in the affirmative: Brown, Hanus, Meisel, Ahrens. The following voted in the negative: Weycker. Motion carried. Passage of this motion allows for reconsideration of the dock plan, and the motion passed on January 12, 1999 designates how the dock locations now stand. Ahrens stepped down from her position as councilmember for the following discussion. Residents addressed the Council with regard to the dock location survey as it relates to their property. MOTION by Hanus and seconded by Brown to: 1. Locate all abutting property owners' site centers to where they have been placed in recent years and for staff to determine the appropriate numbers to assign. If a change is desired, a request can be submitted for the change. 2. Remove the Stead site with Stead sharing with LaFortune for the 1999 boating season. Mr. Stead may access his site through the LaFortune property. -9371 - Mound City Council Minutes - April 19, 1999 3. Remove the Albrecht site. Mr. Albrecht will be assigned a vacant site on the Pembroke multiple. 4. Remove the Casey site. Ms. Casey will be able to share the Harrington site for the 1999 boating season. If she would like she may share with another dock in the area providing she can work out the details. 5. Mr. Schmidt will remain in his current location centered in the fire lane. This dock location will be designated for straight dock only and the dock/boat complex shall not project beyond the extended boundary lines of the fire lane. 6. The Roanoke Commons Area, both east and west of the fire lane, but not including the fire lane, is to be designated Class C Commons. 7. Ail of the displaced inland site holders will be assigned a permanent location for the 2000 and subsequent boating seasons. Dock sharing, as always, is permitted. The displaced Roanoke dock site holders will not be removed from the dock program involuntarily. Discussion on the motion followed. The vote taken on the above motion resulted in the following voting in the affirmative: Brown and Hanus. The following voted in the negative: Weycker and Meisel. Motion failed. City Attorney, John Dean explained that the council's earlier action re-institutes the dock location that was approved by the City Council on January 12, 1999. Additional comments were heard from residents. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to: 1. Locate all abutting property owners' site centers to where they have been placed in recent years and for staff to determine the appropriate numbers to assign. If a change is desired, a request can be submitted for the change. 2. Remove the Stead site with Stead sharing with LaFortune for the 1999 boating season. Mr. Stead may access his site through the LaFortune property. 3. Remove the Albrecht and Casey sites. Both Albrecht and Casey will be put on the Pembroke multiple by extending the Pembroke multiple by one dock site. 4. Mr. Schmidt will remain in his current location centered in the fire lane. This dock location will be designated for straight dock only and the dock/boat complex shall not project beyond the extended boundary lines of the fire lane 5. The Roanoke Commons Area, both east and west of the fire lane, but not including the fire lane, is to.be designated Class C Commons 6. All of the displaced inland site holders will be assigned a permanent location for the 2000 and subsequent boating seasons. Dock sharing, as always, is permiffed. The displaced Roanoke dock site holders will not be removed from the dock program involuntarily. 2 -9372- Mound City Cour~ll Minutes -April 19, 1999 Discussion followed on availability at the Pembroke multiple site. The following voted in the affirmative on the above motion: Brown and Hanus. The following voted in the negative: Meisel and Weycker. Motion failed. MOTION by Hanus and seconded by Brown that this item be put on the next regular council meeting on April 27, 2001, and all appropriate information be provided to the council with adequate time for review.. Docks are not to be put in until after this meeting. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Attest: City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 3 -9373- MOUND CiTY COUNCIL OCTOBER 9, 2001 The City Council of the City of MOund, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, October 9, 2001, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers at 5341 Maywood Road in said City. Councilmembers Present: Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Klm Anderson, and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Attorney, John Dean; City Manager, Kandis Hanson; Acting City Clerk, Bonnie Rifler; Community Development Director, Sarah Smith; City Planners Loren Gordon and Bruce Chamberlain; City Engineer, John Cameron; Pam Myers, Jim Smith, Kristyn Hewitt, Stephen Hewitt, Veto Hanson, Larry :..Jeff Paul, Pamela Paul, Jonathan Paul, Margo Hopkins, Dennis Hopkins, Bloomquist, Peter Johnson, Ken Custer, Frank Weiland, Consent Agenda: Ail items listed under the routine in nature by the Council and will be enacted separate discussion on these items un/ess which event the item will be normal sequence. Rick and Susan to be There will be no ~ or citizen so requests, in and considered in 1. OPEN MEETING AND PLEI Mayor Meisel called to meeting, s:, recited. and the Pledge of Allegiance was 2. APPROVE AGENDA City Manager Hanson adding item 3G, Sp~!::..Meetin~ to Watershed of item 9A, City Manager's Report, and Id October 22, 7:00 p.m., to discuss the MOTION by Brown, in favor. Motion carried. Hanus to approve the agenda as amended. All voted 3. CONSENT AGENDA Hanus requested that 3B, Approval of Claims, be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. Meyer requested that .item 3A, Approval of the September 25, 2001 minutes be removed from the consent agenda. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. A. (removed) B. (removed) 1 -9374- Mound City Council Minutes - October 9, 2001 C. Approve Plannin.q Commission Recommendations 1. Case #01-26 & #01-31: Brenshell Homes, 1642 Gull Lane, Minor Subdivision and Variance on Lot size. RESOLUTION NO, 01-82: 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 #01-26 AND #01-31; PID #23-117-24-12-0256 2. Case #01-37: Swanson, 4865 Island View D[i~?'~i~nce for front yard setback. RESOLUTION NO. 01-83: A RESOLUTIO~!IiAPPROVi~GA FRONT YARD S ETBAC ~ii~A RIAN C~i?~:~¥O CONSTRU~?~iiA ~O~STA~'[, ATTACHED GARAGE ATi~6~ I~'b VIEW DRIVE, LO¥i::i~i?AND~ie~::~B~CK 14, DEVON, P & Z c sE : iiiiiii 7: i 7-24- -00 9 D. Approval of Award for Snow:~,Rem0y~ii~ii~ontr~ili~i~:~i~idmer, Inc. of St. Bonifacius e. Approval of Proposal frore ~iEiii~.~s~ii~ants, Inc., for Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for Port~ F. RESOLUTION NO. 01-84'!::~!~:~i?~!~RESOE~i~N APPROVING THE FORM OF THE L~SE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH ZlONS .... ~:,:i:~:i:i:i!~i~A§~:i:!:~ATIONAL BANK, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH ::~ "::~::::::::::~::"AND:i:~UTHORIZlNG THE EXECUTION AND ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~iiiiiiiiiiiii~ ..... DEEIVERY TH EREOF '::i:i:~:=i:i:~:i:~ ....... ~;i:::.:=::ib~- G. Special Meeting o~::ii~~ 22, 2001, to discuss the Watershed District Cooperative Agree~:~i 3A. APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25~ 2001~ REGULAR MEETING MOTION by Meyer, seconded by Anderson to add the amendment offered by Meyer to Resolution No. 01-80, in it's entirety, in the minutes of September 25. Meisel disagreed due to the fact that resolutions that are adopted are not entered into the minutes in their entirety, but only by reference. Thus, an amendment that was defeated should not be entered word for word in minutes. The following voted in the affirmative: Anderson and Meyer. The following voted in the negative: Brown, Hanus and Meisel. Motion defeated. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to approve the minutes of September 25, 2001, as presented. The following voted in the affirmative: Hanus, Brown, Meisel and Anderson. The following voted in the negative: Meyer. Motion carried. 2 -9375- Mound City Council Minutes - O~tober g, 2001 3B. APPROVE pAYMENT OF CLAIMS Hanus questioned why a :tree on Basswood would be charged to the Dock Fund. item in the amount of $745.50 will be removed from the claims list for further investigation. This MOTIO.N by Hanus, seconded by Brown to approve payment of claims in the amount of $124,795.95. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA Jim Smith, past Superintendent of Mound Westonka Schools, addressed the Council in support of the Mound Westonka School System, and to introd Dr. Para Myers. Pam Myers, Mound Westonka School Superintendent, stressed of the operating levy before voters in November. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Paul Easement vacation Mayor Meisel opened the reviewed the case and outlined the fo~ considered. Planner, Loren Gordon Commission had Dennis Hopkins of 4608 the neighborhood, vacation of Keils Lane as to the Counoil that he and others in were strongly opposed to the After hearing additional com~ Meisel closed the applicant and others involved, Mayor MOTION by Me negotiate a parcel. The following voted in the negative: Anderson that staff meet with Jeff Paul to parcel, that is adjacent to the Jonathan Paul the affirmative: Anderson and Meyer. The following Hanus and Meisel. Motion defeated. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to request Jonathan Paul and Jeff Paul to meet with staff and a neighborhood representative if desired, to come up with an agreeable proposed new lot line, that would provide acceptable access to Jeff Paul's property, as well as satisfy the request of Jonathan Paul. It was noted that a curb cut onto Wilshire BNd. will also .have te be approved by Hennepin County. The following voted in the affirmative: Brown, Hanus and Meisel. The following voted in the ~negative: Anderson and ~Meyer. Motion c~rried. 3 -9376- Mound City Council Minutes - October 9, 2001 B. Public Hearing on Unpaid Utility Bills - to be Certified to the County Auditor Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 9:40 p.m. She asked for public comment, and when no comments were offered, the public hearing was closed at 9:41 p.m. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. RESOLUTION NO. 01-85: RESOLUTION ADOPTING DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $88,647.61 TO BE CERTIFIE~, TO THE COUNTY AU DITOR AT 8% INTERESt?ENVY #15278 Mayor Meisel stepped down at this point, and Acting i~;ayor H;:'~s,~presided over C. Public Hearin,q on 2001 CBD Parkin,q MaintenanCe ":=~=:ii~iiiiii~iiiiii?~ii~i~i~iiiiiiiiiiii?iiiiii~iiiiiiiiii~? .... Acting Mayor Hanus opened the public b~ring a:t~:~i~2i~iii@:~m, he asked for public comment and when no comments we[S~.0~ediilt~ p~.i~e::~hearing was closed at MOTION by Brown, seconded~==i~y=:~M~?~i::~adoPt'~=:~{~:e'':'~:~:~:~:~ ~:" "~='= ======'~:::~='~' fei.lowing resolution. All voted M~IN~ENANCE ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE ;:,i;i~oU~:OF $3,707.27 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE :':CouNi~ AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST. LEVY #15279 Mayor Meisel returned t~'!~:~,~!:~i?b~er the remainder of the meeting. 6. METRO PLAINS DEV.E~"PMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (MAW) D~ERMINATION OF NEED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT {ELS) Community Development Director, Sarah Smith, reviewed the history of the EAW, stating that it was a discretionary MAW prepared on behalf of the City of Mound by City staff and consultants. The availability notice was published in EQB Monitor and The Laker, with copies forwarded to the list of public agencies pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. The thirty-day comment period ran from September 3, 2001 to October 3, 2001, with comments received from MnDot, Met Council, DNR and MCWD. Bruce Chamberlain reviewed the comments received during the comment period and recommended that the project proceed as proposed. 4 -9377- Mound City Council Minutes - October 9, 2001 Discussion followed regarding the comments received on October 9 from the Minnesota Historical Society and Hennepin County Department of Transportation. City Attorney, John Dean explained that the comments received after the designated comment period need not be considered. The process for review of the EAW is set by rule and law and these rules have been followed. MOTION by BrOwn, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution. The following voted in the affirmative: Brown, Hanus and Meisel. The following voted in the negative: Meyer. Councilmember Anderson abstained from voting. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 01-87: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY MOUND DETERMINING ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC COMMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IM WARRANTED BAY/MOUND ClL OF THE CITY OF D ON THE (EAW) IS NOT 7. METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT- ADDITION FINAl PLAT %: City Planner, Loren Gordon, informed the~ci.I' has reviewed the final plat with regard to consistency with th&ili~!!~:~!iPlat'"'-' ~ and has found it to conform and recommends final approval. MOTION by Hanus and following voted in the negative: Anders( to adopt the following resolution. The tanus and Meisel. The following voted in the RESOLUTION NO. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE MOUND INS 2ND ADDITION FINAL PLAT LOCATED AT 5600 BLVD. CASE #01-41 8. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Case #01-30: MetroPlains Development - 5.600 Lynwood Blvd, Variance for Cell Tower MOTION by Brown and seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution. The following voted in the affirmative: Brown, Hanus and Meisel. The following voted in the negative: Anderson and Meyer. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 01-89: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., P & Z CASE #01-30: PID #14-117-24-41-0011 5 -9378- Mound City Council Minutes - October 9, 2001 9. LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR ACQUISITION OF RAIL CORRIDOR MOTION by Brown and seconded by Hanus to approve writing a letter of support for the Dakota Rail Corridor that runs through Mound to become a public trail. All ayes. Motion carried. 9A. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Hanson informed the Council that the Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony is scheduled for November 19, at 6:30 p.m. Conducting Planning Commission interviews will follow this at 8:00 p.m. Hanson also informed the Council and the public that the City~hes taken measures to increase security in the City. Extra effort is being taken reg~ii~ecurity of the lift stations, wells, and heightened awareness as a whole. ~:i:.? ...... '~::::ii':iiiiii!iiiii??!~i~i!ili!i!i;!:.~,~ The Watershed District Cooperative Agreement wilL:be di:~ussed on O~tober 22"d, following the CSAH 15 discussion. 10. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. LMCD correspondence B. Mound Westonka school district C. Gillespie Gazette D. AMM Fax news E. Report: Mound Police F. Letter from CongressmamRan G. Report: Building permits H. Report: Polston, et al, mber, 2001 September, 2001 · through October 4, 2001 MOTION by Brown and~ii~econded':~'Hanus to adjourn at 10:40 p.m. All voted in favor. Attest: Acting City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 6 -9379- PAGE 1 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND NfiB~ : "DATE AM:O.U~:":DESCRiPTiON ......................... AEcouN~ NuMB 10/23/01 10/23/01 115.80 JRNL-CD lO A0403 O~LO09 L7.55 JACKET ~ :: ::.,: .: , A0480 2000130096 ~12,00 01-01-02 THRU 12-31-02 DUES 73-7300-41~0 ~OZ,23Z. Q!..LOZ~3ZOl ....... 1_1.2..0_Q_. JeNL~.CD_ lO 12~555.g8 FZNAN~AL SOFT~ARE 01-4095-5000 10/23/01 10/23/01 12,555.98 JRNL-CD 10 10/23/01 10/23/01 2,223.60 JRNL-CD BO600 ~0~062~5 31.66 Og-01 GARBAGE PICKUp ~MR0120 .......... ~3.~.7300~275 ( · ~ ~ ~Z20 78-7800-275( 10106236 67.01 09-01 GARBAGE PICKUP ~H40~21 22-~170-375( 10/23/01 10/23/01 67.01 JRNL-CD 1010~166 1~.~6 09-01 GARBAGE PICKUP ~CHPOO85 ~1-7100-375{ -9380- PAGE 2 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR ............ INVOICE ..... DUE H.OLD ~ ............... ......... .ACKOWIAK AND SON VENDOR TOTAL 337.56 "' 028210 237.32 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECKS 01-4095-2200 ~ 10/23/0~ i0/23/01 237.32 JRNL-CD · 777.70 09-22-01 SALT LAKE CITY CONFER 0[-A040-4~10 91.98 10-02-0[ RADIO HOUSING 22-4170-3950 21.95 09--20=~'[ INTERNET, NORLANDER~ 0~-4~90-4130 21.95 09-26'01 INTERNET, SUTHERLAND 01-4190-4130 ...... 4.9,5 .... O~m30.~O!i..~IN~iERN~,],FIRE DEPART , .22-41.70~4i$0 10/23/01 ~0/23/0~ ~,162.97 JRNL-CD CABI..!~L._gNE ....................... VEND,OR._TOIAL .............. 1182..~Z COB59 Dl12609 8.,48 .HEATER HOSE CHAMPION AUTO VENDOR TOTAL 8.48 1012310t 10/'23/'01 1'8~02 C~¥~-~ENS~'~6'MM'ONI'~'~"~TIO'~ ...... VE'~'D6~'"~OTAL ..... ~'8¥~2 10123101 10123101 91.00 JRNL-CD 01'4340-3820 10 01-4340-3220 10 01-3842-0000 10 01-3842-000C lC ..... C L_AS, S.[.~.! E D~ ................ V. EN DO.R ...!O!&L ......... 1AB.,_Q_Q C0940 V387022 77.53 PLASTIC CUPS CLARK PRODUCTS VENDOR TOTAL 77.53 t0123:/01 10:/23/01 181.28 JRNL-CD 67283266 ~18.5~ HIX 10/23/01 10/23/01 118.54 JRNL-CD COCA ~COLA BOTTL.[NG-MIDWEST VENDOR TOTAL 299.82 C1019., 1037:~ ............. : ....... ..,: .................................L ......... 5.~.13'0..00.. L4~71.~ISLAND:VIEW BARG.E..WOR~.. 10/23/0~ 10123101 5,130.00 JRNL-CD 01-4020-412'£ 71-7100-954( 71-7100-954~ 1( 81-4350-3101 -9381 - PAGE 3 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND ...... V E NDD R ................. LN ¥ Oi£E ....... ~LE HOLD ! ~ i~ NO~ ]~NV0iC~ NHBR ]D.A~Z: ~] AMOUNT' ]D~SC,R~]~ION : ACCOUNT NUMB ~. Cll04 OllO02 3~605.00 09-01 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES lOZZ3LO1 ~_0/23Z0.1 .... 3,605_._00_ JRNLtZD 10 D1200 152646 1,684.50 BEER 71'-7100-9530 : 10/23/01 10/23/01 1,6B4.50 JRNL-CD 10 · :::::,.: : ,:ous i i" i : : : : .::: ~ : ~: +~: : :: ::.:. ~T~~:~: ":~ : :'~: %53540 ~,241.i0 BEER 71-7100-953~ 10/23/01 10/23/01 340.00 JRNL-CD lC ~5~2~5 _4,_151.~ ' 1 io/~3/oi io/23/ol i2.~o JRNL-CD : ~,'' :,. : ::: :::{ ~: : :>: :: ~ ~ : t:;: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: ~:: : ': ~,: : , :': ,:, : : :.. . . ~ E~450 ~8826-A ~.50 09-0~ FIRE STATION ISSUES . ~::q?: ~:" ~/ ]:.] ;' ':'] ] i .: -9382- PAGE 4 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND ~-~'INVOICE NMBR DATiE STATUS AMOUNT~ DESCRIPTION 18827-A ...... . .... 15'Q~O0 .... 09 -D i .POST_ OFFICE RELOC,ATION 10/23/01 10/23/01 150.00 JR NL-CD 18827.-~ ................................................ 8B2...50 ...... 0.9.~ Oi_.D.A_~T A _.G A ~" E R IN G REDEVgLOP 18 ~ 2 ? ~C .... L il 2.50 .: 09_-0 i~,PR OJE£T ~ AN AG EM EN T 10/23/01 10/23/01 112.50 JRNL-CD !8.827-D 2 ~13 Z.5.0 ...... 0~.~ Oi_.P, ~OJ.E CT_ BAN AG EMEN T ~.0/23/01 10/23/01 2,l~i~. 50 JRNL-CD 1~_0~5_0.00 .... 09~.0~ _M.,£~RO~._'~LA:IN$ DEVELOPMENT 10/23/01 10/23/01 1,050.00 JRNL-¢D ACcouNT NUMBt ~$-5~79-~100 lo 55-58B0-3100 10 01-2300-1090 10 55-5880-3100 10 01-2300-1096 10 E_BLERS.& ASSOCIATES.I. NC .......... VENDOR_.TO.~AL ........... 47B2.5Q E1490 DD4124 605.45 CA'~H' BASINS AND RINGS 75-7500-5000 ..... 10/23.~0%_i, 0~23/01 ........ 60,5.~5 J~L~CD 10 ESS BROS AND SONS INC VENDOR TOTAL 605.45 ~0/23/0,1 10/23/01 ?,525~'0'0 JRNL-CD E-Z RECYCLING INC VENDOR TOTAL 7525.00 70-4270-4200 10 F16~? 29202 ................................................................ ~67.0.0 lo/zs~oi ...70r4270~4210 10 FIRS_T_ STATE,TIRE.R,ECYCLJ,N* ~ENDOR TOT. AL.. ~6Z_~O0 Gl?50 785398 26.82 10-02-01 UNIFORMS 2~,83 10-O2-01 UNIFORMS 18.62 t0-02-01 MATS 18.62 10-02-0~ MATS 10/23/01 10/23/01 136.33 JRNL-CD 01-4280-2240 73~7.300-22~0 78~78D0-2240 01-42B0-2250 ~3~00~2'250 78-7800-2250 10/2310i i:0/23/01 ~,'~3 'JRNL-CD lC 785401 25.gB 10-02-01 MATS 71-7100-~1{ 10/23/01 10/23/01 25.98 JRNL-CD 26.82" 'I0~'09"01 UNIFORMS _~_6-_8_~3_ _~O~Q~9.~O~ UNIFORMS 29.53 10-09-01 MATS 29.53 10-09-0~ MATS lC 01'428~-'~'2'~ C 73-7300-224C 7'8-7800-224( 01-4280-225( 73-7300-225C ~.8-7800-225( 1( 10/23/01 10/23/01 47.38 JRNL-CD -9383- PAGE 5 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND YENDOR ............................... iN,AQ.I.C.E ........... DUE_ NO. INVOICE NMBR DA~:E .DATE STATUS AMOUNT DEsc:R.i:pTitoN ACCOUNT NUMB 799620 25.98 10-16-01 MATS 10/23/01 10/23/01 25.98 JRNL-CD 6 & K SERVICES VBNDOR TOT~.L 10/23/0~ 10/23/01 420.59 JRNL-CD 10/23~0~1 10t23/01 207.9~ JRNL-CD 10/23/01 10/23/01 $43.19 JRNL-CD .............. ~.A.4~.8.4 .......................... H2~35 2~097029 87.36 09-0~ NETUORK SERVICES HENNEP~:N '~TY. INF'9 TECH VENDOR TOTA~ 10/23/0i 10/23/01 1,365.25 JRNL-CD ~0/23/0I 10/23/01 ~5.00 JRNL-CD ....... 8~.~ ~2.95 TRAN~ FLUID, FLUSH, FILL Z0/23/01 ~0/23/0Z 52.50 JRNL-CD 10/23 t01 1.0/23 701 ~63,30 JRNL-.CD [0/23/0[ [0/23/0i 92.95 JRNL-CD 8802 26.38 JRNL-CD [~¥23)0[' [0'/23)~[ 25.86 JRNL-CD Z0/23/0~ 10/2~/0~ 25.86 JRNL-CD 71-710 10 10 7[-7100-9520 10 71'7100~9510 10 .,71~7100-9520 10 ....... 71,7100.9510 10 01-4095-3800 10 01-4110-4250 10 01-4340,3820 10 01-434r '~10 10 01-4340~3810 lC ..... ~Sr780Q.?3.81C lC 1( 01-4140-381C lC 01-4~40-3~ 1( -9384- PAGE 6 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND 10/23/01 10/23/01 25.86 JRNL-CD . 10 iI .......: ': ~ ............ ~..~ i.~ ........ L,~i., .~ :. ,:L_, ............. ~ ~ ~ .................. :~ ........ " 8898 21.00 INSPECT BRAKES 01'4040-3810 ', 10/23/01 10/23/01 21.00 JRNL-CD 10 _'.~ 10/23/01 10/23/01 1,400.00 JRNL-CD -;~ _J ~ ARP. LIAN~E. DISROS~L !NC ~EN~.OR IOI~L ...... 1~0~00 . ,'~ , JAMES FACKLER VENDOR TOTAL 9S.5~ JESSEN PRESS INCORPORATED VENDOR TOTAL 10/23/01 10/23/01 2,696.55 JRNL-CD 10 10/23/01 10/23/01 280.00 JRNL-CD .71~210.0.95,10 71~7100, :9520 10 ....... Zi.'",Z 1,0 Or ~ 5.2 0 ~', J2582 011023 249.65 11-01 PRINCIPLE TRUE VALUE 55-5881-610C -, J2610 010926 46.93 CLEAN-UP EVENT 70-~270-42Z( ,,, 10/23/01 10/23/01 46.93 JRNL-C~ -9385- PAGE ? P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-¢02-01 CITY OF MOUND 10/23/01 10/23/01 8.55 JRNL-CD JUBILEE FOODS YENDOR TOTAL 10 . 01'~i10.3i00 10 39266-B1 1,292.50 08-10 REDEVELOPMENT AREA #1 01-4110-3100 1_0/_2.3 Z.O1 .10Z23. Z,O1 ..................... 1~2.9,2 ..50 ...... J.R.NL'~C~D. 10 3:9 2 6':6-B 2 $5,00 08.01 PDLS'TON L'AW SUIT 0'1-4110-3100 '/. 10/:23/~.01 10Z23./_.01 .... ........ ;55..O0_.,',.JRNL~CD.,~:_!_-. :. ]. ............ , 10 ' 39266-B3 203.50 08-01 LONGPRE DEMOLITION 01-4110-3100 ~'~ 1~ ~,23 / Ol.,.1O/.23_/O~ .......................... 2'0~...50..._ .J.~.L -.~ D 10 .... 39266,B~ .- ' : '.'. ' '"' 2~.50'' 08~0t APT TOWER LEASE 0~-2300-~123 ..... ~ ........ '.'., .... ...... ~-,..' ,;,,~...:.:2~.,;5~,..;.;;JR~L~:D.~_:_~ .............. ................ 10 ~9266-C 110.00 08-01 POST OFFICE RELOCATION 55-5879-3100 10_/23~01 1Q/23/_01 . . ~ _ 110.00. . J~NL.~D ....... . ...... iO ' ' ~ 39266-:D~ '" ' ~'6'DO 08'0~ METRo'PLAINs DE~EL'OPMENT 01-Z300-lOg6 ' 3~'9z ~5.oo os-ol POLSTON LA~ 5~T Ol-~ilO-ZiO0 ~92 66~E~ 2,2,00' '08~0 l :ME~RO P:L:A. I'NS: D EVE LOPM ENT 01-.2 ~ 0 O- ~ 096 ~9266-E2 1,337.62 08-01 GRAMERCY DEVELOPMENT 01-2300-1090 2~4~1 5'6g;,~0 08~91 A~CT I'I GRANT APPLICATION 58~560_ 394A3-B ~87.00 08-0~ LANGDON BAY DEVELOPMENT ~97~.3.C 156;~,00 ~08~0~ ,BEC~ER .PERMIT REQUEST .01-2300-109~ 39443-D 1,691.89 08-01 POLSTON LAW SUIT 01-4110-310C 3~4A~-F 3,3ZA.~O 08-~0 CTY RD ~ REALIGNMENT 55-5877-3~0C ........................ 10/23/0! ~0/23/01 _ 3z31_~9_._..J~_Nk~ ...... ~ ~22~oo ~0'8~,o.$ BE[G:LER LA~ SUIT 01-2~00-1~2~ -9386- PAGE B P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INV.O_ICE ........ DUE .....HOLD ....................... ~ ..... ~ .... - ............... · NO'. INVOICE NMBR DATE :DATE STATUS AMOUNT D.ESCRIPTI.DN lo/23/01 10/23/01 528.00 JRNL-CD ~0~ 10/23/0~ 10/23/01 1,061.98 JRNL-CD 39~.3.-K~ ................................... 1~..00~ O8=.01.._LONGPRE....DEHOLITI.0N ..... 01~4110~3100 3~43~:K2 ............ ?~.00 ......O~OL~ME~RO. PLAINS, DEVELOPMENT 0.1-2300-1096 10/23/01 10/23/01 ?8.00 JRNL-CD 3944~.~K3 156.~0 08~O~_B.EIGLE~ _LAW_SUIT ...... ..... 10/2~101 ~0/23/~1 i56.00 JRNL'CD ' lO 10/23/01 10/23/01 60.00 JRNL-CD ~0 39443-K5 _ _ . 60.~_~ .....08~I_6?T...TOWE~ LEASE 01-2300-~123 39~45-K6 ' ' 42~Q0. 08=~0 KELL$ LANE VACATION 01-~110-3100 10/23/01 10/23/01 42.00 JRNL-CD lO 39443-K7 ..................... 216,~.0.~ ..... O,~T~L~_~W AND.,E~ANCHISE AGREEM 01-4110-3100 · 36~.~O...~B~,~S~_RA~LROAD.JPRO~E-RTY OI-4110-3100 3~4~3~8 ................... 10/23/01 10/23/01 36.00 JRNL-CD l0 10/23/01 10/23/01 24.00 JRN:L'~CD l0 10/23/01 10/23/01 163.89 JRNL-CD 10/23?01 10/23/01 ?2.00 JR.NL-CD l0 - 10/23/01 10/23/01 724.60 JRNL-CD lO ..... 10123/0i 10/23101 60.00. ~RNL-CD 1C 39443.~L~ 888.0O__.;...08mO~,,30.30.ISLANDVI.E~ DRIVE. 01=4~90-3~0~ 10/23/01 10/23/01 888.00 JRNL-CD ......... 39_~3rL5 ................................................. ~12.QQ _.Q.~,O~._SE.~ON__B. LUEE BLAT ......................... ~0~23/0~ ~0123/01 412.00 JRNL-'CD 10/23/0~ I0/23/0~ 924.00 JRNL-CD -9387- PAGE 9 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND ....... YE.NDOR ........ I_~V~Q! CE ...... D_UE ...... HOLD ' NO.; :IN;VOJ.£E NMBR DATE -D~TE STATUS' AMOgNT DESCRIPTION 39443-M2 552.00 08-01 APT TOWER LEASE 01-2300_~12-~ ' 10/23/0~ 10/23/0~ 552.00 JRNL-CD 39751-B 852.64 09-30 REDEVELOPMENT AREA ~l 01-4~10-3100 ~- t0/23/01 I0/23/01 852.64 JRNL-CD iO lOZ23~O1 10/23/01 66~00 JRNL~CD ' . 39~51-D 775.50 09-30 GRAMERCY DEVELOPMENT 01-2300-1090 ~ox~xo~ ~oxz~xo~ ~.~o JRNL-CD L2823 38448 237.68 SOD 73-7300-4200 LAWN KING, ~NC. VENDOR ~OTAL 2~7.68 L2851 011023 ' ................. ............................... 59.91 02-0~-01 THRU 02-0~-02 4TH INS 0~-4020-3600 48.31 02-Ol-O1 THRU 02-0~-02 4TH ~NS 01-4040-3600 135.28 02-Ol-O1 THRU 02-01-02 4TH INS 01-4340-360~ 3,700.87 02-01-01 THRU 02-01-02 4TH INS J /0 2-;0~t-0 2 $,~36 0.2-o.s.:o2 ~ ~..INS ................... : ....................... 10/23/01 10/23/01 8,963.25 JRNL-CD LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS T* VENDOR TOTAL $963._2..~_ M30~.2 0020306 ............... ~_0,~__~ !.0~ ~OX23FP~ 22-4170-360 Z1-7100-360' 73-7300-360~ 78-7800-3600 8~-4350-360C lC 8,~60.'J00.. AERIAL SURVEy SERVICES ....... ~.~.~:;._J~L~:~ ......i.__.;.,: ...... :_./. ' 71-4350-3i0£ -9388- PAGE 10 PURCHASE JOURNAL AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND ~ENDOR .... IN¥OICE ....... DUE ...... HOLD '" NO. INVOICE NM§R DATE DATE STA'TUS AMOUNT DES'CRIP.TION . ACCOUNT NUMB JRD :i: ...... VENDOR, TOTAL .........8,9.60.00~i 3030 329117 2,630.05 BEER 71-?100-9530 10/23/.01 10/23/01 ......... 2,630...05 .... JRNL~CD ._ lO 331590 2,062.67 BEER 21-2100-'9530 ........... 1.0~2,3~01.10./Z5~01~i ............... 2,.062~:62.:.L.J~NE~CD: 10 334127 1,753.15 BEER ....................... 10/23/0~ 10/2t/01 1~.753.15 JRNL.~CD 336545 2,2~7.85 BEER 10/23/_01.,_10/2~/01 ........... 2~2.~:Z~B5 ..... JRNL.,CD. 336546 184.00 BEER MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR VENDOR TOTAL 8877.72 M3170 010930 2,277.00 09-01 SAC CHARGES 10/23/01 10/23/01 2,277.00 JRNL-CD 000072~453 61,25~.80 1i~.01 WASTEWATER 10;/23/01 10/23/01 61,253.80 JRNL~CD METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVI~ VENDOR TOTAL 63530.80 M3242 2001926 64.00 0~-0~ L~ 71-7100-9530 lo 71-7100-9530 10 71-7100-9530 10 78-2304-0000 10 78-7800-4230 10 01-4140-3140 10 M!NNEAPOLIS,_DE~;~,~ H~T~H _;VENDOR T_OTAL ..... 6!.~00 .... ; ........... M3300 011023 105.00 CONFERENCE, NELSON, SAM CRIME PREVENTION VENDOR TOTAL £:05.00 ...... M'3365 1~6'8 ~0'~'~'0'~ ..... ~6'~'-~z-O~'"'~'~'~I§f~'~f'"~'O'~-'~g'~E,' J ' lO/23/ol lO/23/Ol lOO.OO JRNL-CD .... ................... 10/23/01 10/23/01 01-4140-4110 10 01-4140-4110 10 1~0.00 JRNL-¢D 1C ~.N_.F!_RE_CHIEFS A~SOCIA!!QN._YEND.O,R_.,ZQT~L ......... 160..00 ................... M3~88 3282~ 1,~676.17 CLEAN-UP DAY 70-4270-421~ lQ!23/0:1.1.~3./0~ 1,67.6.17 JRNL.~CD. lC 32892 923.50 CLEAN-UP DAY 70-4270-421( MORRELL & MORRELL, lNG. VENDOR TOTA~ 2599.67 M3489 0110~5 18.96 09-01 WATER AND SE~ER 71-7100-374( -9389- PAGE 11 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR ........................... i.NV_O.I_£E ...... DUE _, HOLD NO. ~NVO~CE NMBR DATE DATE ' STATUS AMOUNT DE~cRI.PTION ..... ~CC'OUNT NUMBI MOUND, CITY OF VENDOR TOTAL 18.96 NAS~ SALES~ IN(. VENDOR TOTAL 100.00 .,NEOP]OS T ................................. VENDOR TOTA'L .... 4~7,00 N3740 TI-0075806 276.91 BLADES, BRACKETS 01-4280-2360 NEWMAN SIGNS VENDOR TOTAL 276.91 N3BiO 3086276 256.12 COUPLINGS 73-7300-2300 10/23101 10/2~/01 256.12 JRNL-CD NORTHERN iWATER WORKS SUPPL:.VENDOR TOTA~ 256,12 N3825',:.~00072~ ............................................................ 2 ~ ~D]Q~2.:,~,BR.:U S .H COHPOST 01-4280-4200 10/23/01 10/23/01 28.00 JRNL-CD 10 NRG. PRQCESSI'~G SOLUTIONS L VEND.O~ TO~AL:. ~,~QQ ........ 03892 ~090522 99.20 09-01 LOCATES 73-7300-3125 P3994 149494 418.50 UINE 71-7100-9520 PAUSTIS g SONS WINE COHPAN '~ENDO~ 'TOTAL 418.50 ~.~ M~x ~-~lO0-~c P4021 763537 ~0/23/0~ 10/23/01 57.00 JR NE-CD 1( -9390- PAGE 12 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND ~mm~F 10/23/01 10/23/01 93.00 JRNL-CD 10 '>' 765812 4§~+. ~+0 WI~ 7~.-7~.00-9520 ~,- 10/23/0]. ).0/23/01 1,061.38 JRNL-CD i ~ /~ 8 550 .$1,3,..0 ~4 ........ CI_GA.RE~-T_ES ,~ .,, , .? 1,_-7100 ,.955 0 10/23/01 10/23/01 899.70 JRNL-CD 10 ;~, 10/23/01 10/23/01 32.00 JRNL-CD ~0 040306'00 3,215.10 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 043:~10-00 23.65 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 043266-00 26.90 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 !0/23/01 10/23/0]. 26.90 JRNL-CD .~: ?:~s,~ ,,v ~N E:~ · ?.l.~.oO- 9S~C QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL 9436.11 38.32 08-~7-0~ THRU 09-~8-0~ FIRE ST 22-4170-372( -9391 - PAGE 13 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND ~(E_ND,_OB INY. Q1.CE _. DUE .... HQLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DAT,E DATE : S:'TAT~S'' D~SCRIP~ION ~ ACCOUNT NUMB ~.,~ 16,3- .08.~:~.~0.1~.i~RU 0~18~0.1. MA~wO0D 01-4320" ~ 720 20.68 08-i7-0i THRU 09-i8-0I STREETS 0[-428 20 [L.75 08-[7-0i THRU 09-18-0[ WATER 73-730b ~ ~.,~--~ 1.4.56 08~iZ=.01_~IHRU 09~18~01..SEW ER 78-7,800,3720 R4300 0[[00[ [74.00 2ND ~TR BILLING 0[-4140-4[~0 . ~ . . ~ ROTA;RY .CLUB 0F MOUND VEND]OR TOTAL : iT~::;O0 : :::: ::" : 70.07 OIL FILTERS, FILTER ELEHENTS 01-4340-3820 10/23/01 10/23/01 70.07 JRNL-CD 10 10/23/0i 10/23/01 2,638.49 JRNL-CD 10 SHOREL 1NE PLAZA ..... VENDOR TOTAL 263~.49 SHORE~O00 TREE SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL 900.00 10/23/01 i0/23/01 319.52 JRNL-CD 10 011015 127.65 RE/HBURSE HILEAGE 01~419P ~210 s s.oo ENNEL 10/23/01 10/23/01 325.00 JRNL-CD 10/~3/01 10/23/01 365.49 JRNL-CD lC S4600 247530,0i : ~ i:05,60 DRUG TEST KiTS 10/23/01 10/23/01 105.60 JRNL-CD 248768.1 ~00.00 LABOR S~UBD ~UIP_ )~T6LL6!IQ~ . 01-4~40-500C . :~ ~... :: 10/23/01 10/23/01 159.64 JRNL-CD lC -9392- PAGE AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND ...... ~O'."i~VoicE"NMB'R' DATE" 'DATE' STATg$ AMOUNT DESCRIPTION · 'ACCOUNT NUHB~ iTREICHER'S VENDOR TOTAL 365.24 S4605 221B~5 ....... 1..~.4.0.O..,..OQ ....LANLD FOR LIEJ S~ATION~._ETC 55.-5883-410.0 · _$TS CONSULTANTS L~D ~ 'VENDOR TOTAL . . 1~00,,~0 ....... .... ' ...... : T4730 778 27.06 09-08-01 POLSTON LAW SUIT 0~-41~0-3100 10/23/0~ 10/23/01 2.7,.QG__~J~NL~CD ~0 807 10~.47 10-~3-0[ VA. CATION #01-39 0[-2300-1129 ,, 103,.~7 J~NL D 809 46.38 ~0-13-0~ CUP LEGAL AD 0~-2300-~Z02 ' ' THE LAKER VENDOR TOTAL ~76.9~ T4770 205412 114.00 BEER 7~-7100-9530 10./23X01 ~0/23/01 32~.:00 JRNL'CD 240993 470.00 BEER 10/23/01 10/23/01 24~62~ ~0~23/01 10/23/01 241624 10/23/01 i0/23/0i 242257 ~0/23/01 i0/23/01 71-7~00-9530 470.00 JRNL-CD 25,10 BEER 71-7~00-9530 25:.'10 JRNL-CD lO 3,645.98 BEER 7i-7100-9530 3,665.98 JRNL-CD 50.hO .:MISCELLANEOUS 71-7~00-9550 50.40 JRNL-CD 242259 3,~93.35 BEER 10/23/01 10/23/01 3,193.35 JR NL-CD THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN VENDOR TOTAL 7B22.83 ~:~780.!535439 ..... 8,~6 ~ALLOWEEN~DECORA~IONS 10/23/0~ i0/23/01 8.46 JRNL-CD 71-7100-953~ lC 01-4320-220C T4801 00032 700.00 FALL 2001 CITY CONTACT oi-4o2o-3ior 10/23~.01._10/23/0.1 700.00 .JR_NL~C.D TIM BUSSE VENDOR TOTAL 700.00 · .' .... ~" 12524 15,939.26 COMPUTER PACKAGE BALANCE 71-7t00-500( 10/23/01 10/23/01 15,939.26 JRN.L-CD TOTAL REGISTER SYSTEMS, IN VENDOR TOTAL 15939.26 -9393- PAGE 15 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND .......... YE. NDOg ....................IN~O, ICE .........D_UE ....MOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE bATE STAT,US · AMOUNT DE$~iPTION ACC'OU~T N,UM~ T4951 090171 191.4~ SPECIAL ORDER LOCKS 78-780 ~00 10/23/01 10/23/01 191.44 JRNL-CD 10 ~0/2,3~01 10/23/0~ 58'~1.6 J.RNL,~'C.D iO ~9.1~ 3ULBS 01-7300-0500 10/23/0~ 10/23/01 ~g.ll JRNL-CD 090167 ................................................................................................................................... TRUE VALUE NAVARRE ........ ...... VENDOR TOTAL 285.20 T4_985. 318018~_0 ...... ............ 5..58 ..... MZ3CELL~NEO.U.5..,.OFF.]_C.E_SU.RPL.IE5 · ~.58: 'Mi's~ELLA':NEOUS OFF~CE sUPPLIES .' 5.5'8 M~s,CELLANEou. S,.o'.FF~CESUPPLiES ....... 5,..5.8.'~:M~;S.C:ELEANEOUS..,~,O~:~.C.E',.,~OP.PLiE.S 5.58 HISCELLANEOUS OFF[CE SUPPLIES 1.86 HISCELLANEOU5 OFFICE SUPPLIES ~..86 ..... N I_S£ EL L.A NE 0 US.. _OEEZ,C E .SU ~PL LES 2~?~9 ~I$C~LLANEOu$ OF. FI~'E sUPPLIES 2',?8 MISCEL'LANEOUS oFFIcE SUPPLIES 12.,.0:1 ...... FOLDERS 10~23/0~ 10/23/0~ ~9.20 JRNL-CD 3l?.~§~..0 27 CE. SUPPLIES 18.05 CE SUPPLIES 6.02 M CE SUPPLIES ~.02 M ANEOU~.t CE SUP,PLIES 6.01 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 10/23/01 10/23/0~ 307.44 JRNL-CD .......... - 10/23/01 10/23/01 32~'91 .JRNC-CD TWIN CITY OFFICE SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL ............. 3~"5~ ................................. ....... U $, F ..i.~L..T~ R. ................................... :' YEND 0.[~.. T.O.!~i~. 01-.4040,_210~ 01'~090-2~00 01~4140-2100 0~-4190~2100 01-4340-2100 01-4280-2100 71~Z100~2100 73-7~00-:2100 78-7'800-210~ 01-4190~2100 lC 01-4190 -210,C OZ- 434O -2100 01-4280-210C 73'~7300- 210 C 78-7800-210[ 1( 01-'40i LOt 1¢ ..... 75-7500-500C lC USOSD 89138 1,785.03 INITIAL ISSUE, SCHOENHERR .... . .... lq/_23(01 ..!0./_2~,(.~1 ................ 1,,,.7_8~.,Q_3_ J_R_._.NL..-._C~. ............ 912 97 20~, 50 JACKET,: SCHOENHERR ...... .. 10./.2~.~:Ol. :.! 0~2 ~:/.0~. ............... 2 O ~ . 5_0 .JRNL ~ C D~' ..... UNIFORMS UNLIMITED VENDOR TOTAL 1989.53 ..... ...................... T-: ......... =:'-' 01_.4 8o_. 2o : . ' ' ' ~1.~5 10~01 'BALBOA PARKING 73-7300-420 10/23/01 10/23/01 95 85 JRNL-CD 01-4140-224( 01-4t40-224t 1( -9394- PAGE AP-C02-01 VENDOR ........ INYOICE ..... DUE HOLD .......... NO. INVOICE p U R C H A S E J 0 U.R N A L CITY OF HOUND .............. ~'ENDoR TOTAL ..... NITED PROPERTIES ... ~,.~2 ...... ~,01...~i2.,,~9~_~9os~ FINANCE 5~75 01102~ ~2~5B 09-0~ 612-590-435~ STERETS ~2,58 09-0% 612-590~435~ WATER - ' .............. 3.81 09-0~ 612-554-6520 P/W 3.B1 09-01 6%2-554-6520 P/W .B2 09_01 6i2.723-'7560 MOUND FIRE 2.26 g9-0~ ~2-751-3572 ENGINE #t8 5 ............. 8.22 09-01 612-875-4502 RESCUE TRUC ~0/23/0~ ~0/23/0~ 98.09 JRNL-CD W5443 3025.58 ..................... 54.68 FULE AND OIL FILTERS 54.67 FULE AND OIL FILTERS 10/23/01 10/23/01 %6~.03 JRNL-CD WATERTOWN ~ARTS CENTER VENDOR TOTAL ~64~0~ 1,3'?'?".~ 09-~ #2245-301-939 X5~95 011023 21.99 09-01 #0466-607-223 ......................................... 21~.6~ o~Lol #086~-so8-832 227.64 09-02 #o864-5o8-832 2~7.65 09-02 #0864~508-832~ ~3'69.62 09-0i ~0;0~8~8:02-6~4 344.90 09-0~ #0009-8,04'835 XCEL....ENERQY ~E~DOR.!OTAL 3~.&53.?0 ~RD QTR UNEMPLOYMENT Z6517 011020 ................ 1-0~/23/0~0/2~/~& ~,5~9.70 JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMBE 01-~090-3220 01-4280-3220 ?~-?~00-3220 78-7800--3220 73-7300-3220 78-7800-3220 0~4140~3220 22-4170-3220 22-~170-3220 22-4~T0-3220 22-4170-3220 ~02 01-~280-2310 73-7300-2320 78-7800-2310 lo 0i-&320-3710 01-4150-3710 71-7100-3710 73-7300-~5710 22-4170-3720 02-4280-3710 73-7300-371C 78- 780_~.,_-' ~ 71 ( 78-7800'~371( 01-4280-371( 01- ~280-r371[ 01-4190'131 71-7100-131 1 MN DEPT OF ECONOMIC SECURI VENDOR TOTAL i6763 19291 1~0.00 TRANSPORTATION TO AIRPORT 10_/23/0Z t0/23/01 . . _ 130.00 JRNL-CD . , DESIGNER LINOUSINE VENDOR TOTAL 230.00 10/23/0i 10123/01 1~3.~8, jRNL-:CD 01-4040-&1t 1 79-3895-000 1 -9395- PAGE 17 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-Oi CITY OF MOUND V.E ND, O ~ .................. I N.~g_I CE ......... DUE .... HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DA..T~E DATE. '$TAT'Uis ,AMOUNT DE~CR:~PTION Z6996 2010 425.00 REPAIR HAIL DAMAGE 425.00 REPAIR HAIL DAMAGE ~,.0,~23/,j) 1_. 1J),Z2 3.ZO1 ................. 850. MASTERS TOUC:H DENT SERVICE 'VE~NDOR TOTAL ~5:0.:00 10/23/01 10/23/01 2.50 JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMB[ 73-730' 78-780~ 10 01-3250-0000 10] -9396- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND A HARDCOVER VARIANCE TO ALLOW REMODEL AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SECOND STORY AND LAKESIDE PORCH FOR A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 3003 BRIGHTON BOULEVARD P & Z CASE # 01-42 PID # 24-117-24-44-0185 WHEREAS, the applicants, Andrew and Paula Anderson, have requested the following variances to allow a comprehensive remodel of their existing home which includes construction ora second story addition above the existing attached garage and construction of a new 10' x 32' lakeside porch to replace an existing screened in area. The requested variances are as follows: Existinu Proposed Required Variance From yard 7 ft (+/-) 7 ft (+/-) 20 ft 13 f~ (+/-) I-Iardcover 6549 sf 6589 sf 4696 sf 1893 sf WHEREAS, the subject property inclUdes an existing 2-story house which fronts Manchester Lane and attached garage that fronts Brighton Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the existing house and lot are deemed to be non-conforming due to a deficient front setback along Manchester Road and excessive hardcover; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R-2 zoning district which requires a minimum front yard setback of twenty (20) feet and maximum impervious surface coverage of no more than forty (40) percent for existing lots of record; and WHEREAS, the subject property is irregularly shaped and is bordered on two sides by public roads including Manchester Road to the north and Brighton Boulevard to the east; and WHEREAS, due to the lot width of 71.2 feet along Brighton Boulevard, the subject property is subject to double front yard setback requirements of twenty (20) feet along both streets; and -9397- WHEREAS, the existing .house is located approximately seven (7) feet from Manchester Road therefore construction in this area is not possible without a variance due its non-conforming condition; and WHEREAS, any addition on to the south side of the house is probably not possible as the existing structure is located approximately nine (9) feet from the property boundary and the minimum setback for the R-2 regulations in this area is six (6) feet; and WHEREAS, the proposed project will not increase the footprint of the existing house therefore the existing non-conforming setback will not be enlarged; and WHEREAS, as part of the comprehensive remodel project, the applicant plans to remove a substantial mount of hardcover so as to become more "conforming" with the current regulations of the Shoreland Management Ordinance; and WHEREAS, expansion opporttmities to the east are not practical due to the existing configuration and layout of the existing house; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance as recommended by Staff subject to conditions. 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: The applicants shall be responsible for payment of all involved fees associated with the variance request. b) The variance shall be made subject to any and/or all forthcoming comments from City staff. c) Any comments from the Department of Natural Resources regarding the variance request will be included as part of the record. (953) square feet ofhardcover shall be removed as part of the project as proposed by the applicants. e) The addition of the second story and porch replacement shall not exceed the footprint of the existing structure. f) The applicants shall submit an updated certificate of survey to the City within six (6) months which shall include new improvements and revised hardcover calculations. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: Lots 1 and 36, Block 15, Arden, Hennepin County, MN. -9398- The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember The following C0uneilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted October 23, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk and -9399- Excerpts from the, MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY OCTOBER 15, 2001 BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #01-42 Variance for Non-Conforming Front Setback & Hardcover 3001 Brighton Boulevard Andrew & Paula Anderson The applicants have submitted a variance request to allow a corngrehensive remodel of their existing home which includes Construction of a second story aiViSion above the existing aar~eaCash~dollgoarwasge and construction ora new 10"x 32"lakesi~i?:.~rch. The requested variances Front yard 7 ft. (+/-) 7 ft. (+/-) ~.,~ii:~!ii~ii!i!?~'0 ff..:~Siii?~:~:.· 13 ~i?i~/-) Hardcover 6549 sf. 6589 sf. .... ~ii!i!iiii~696iiii~i:::~ 1893 sf. The subject property includes an ex fronts Manchester Lane and attached garage that fronts Brighton Bot time, the existing house and lot are deemed to be setback along Manchester Lane as well as hardcow 40 percent maximum allowance for lots of record. ':~iiiiiiiiiiii~.. The applicants are .~xisting house which would include a new second story over which is located on the east side of the house as well as construction of the west side of the house. It isCity staff's understandin ]ml~'ovements will not increase the existing non-conforming setback. Howe~iiii~e bulk c structure will be expanded. Additionally, the amount of hardcover on the ~j~ct sit~!i!i~' expected to increase by approximately 40 square feet due to the overhang which'~iii~ted with the new lakeside porch. The subject property is irregularly shaped and is bordered on two sides by public roads including Manchester Lane to the north and Brighton Boulevard to the east. Due to the lot width of 71.2 feet along Brighton Boulevard, the property is subject to ""ouble"'front yard setback requirements of 20 feet along both streets. The subject property akeady exceeds the 40 percent maximum for hardcover coverage. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss with the applicant ways to reduce hardcover especially in around the area on the east side of the house. Brighton Commons is located immediately to the west of the existing house and appears to accommodate drainage from in and around the subject site and adjacent areas and also helps to soften the adjacent road areas. -9400- Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2001 Any addition onto the north side of the house is probably not possible as the existing structure is located approximately nine feet from the property boundary and minimum setback in this area is six feet. Any addition on the north side of the house would require a variance due to the existing non- conforming front setback. An addition onto the east side of the house may be possible but may not be practical due to the existing configuration and layout of the house. Staff recommends the Planning commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all iny~l~d fees associated with the variance request. 2. The variance shall be made subject o any and/or alt forthco~ng comments from City staff. 3. The variance shall be made subject to anY~or::~i:~i~orthcoming comments from the Department of Natural Resources.: .... Burma referred to the 7 foot set~i~:~ki ~n nori ?,glae of the existing building, because of the pie shape of the lot, that sethack, a~eari::~i!~b be f~er away than the distance of the north comer of the new porch additiom~i!iii!~!so, i~O~s S~face exists on the south side north side that is Are th~:.::~.}~9[~aCd calculation2 thought they not on the drawing. ' in':~:~ihardcover Smith probably weren't. Ma~!!e~; asi~:i}Smith if typically at the time of a variance it is a good time to try to bring int~: ~h~ce"i~ prope,rt, ies that are not. Smith indicated that she saw it that way. Mue~ felt that i iCo ai didn t think it was that important. Smith said she always hopes thii?:!~plicants ~ willing to work with us to minimize existing nonconforming conditions. Muell~i~ould !i~ some leadership from the City Attorney to see if there is some tool we can use to he:i~'~?~i¢e these issues, other than through the variance process. It was observed that the appliC:~ has submitted a drawing that does not meet the criteria of a survey. Andy Anderson, 3001 Brighton Boulevard. Indicated that they were eliminating most of the overhang on the front of the house. The paved areas are included in the hardcover calculations under landscaping. The culvert on the northeast comer of the house collects water from the driveway and maybe some from the street. There is a little bit of a lip at the street edge. Most of the water heads straight down to the lake. The 11 feet were measured from the fence that we were told was the property line. Mueller really felt that a survey was needed. Smith said the reason staff accepted the drawing as it is was because of the rapidly closing construction season. Weiland confirmed that they weren't changing the footprint of the building. How about the new porch on the lakeside? Anderson said it is an existing porch that would be taken down and replaced. Burma asked what the hardship was. Anderson said he had 3 kids, 3 bedrooms, and no family room. The roof also needs to be replaced as soon as possible. We are increasing space without increasing the footprint. Hasse wanted to know -9401 - Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2001 how the designated front can be the from when there is no door. Smith replied that this is a comer lot. Ordinance says the front is the part of the house facing the street with the least width. Mueller confirmed with the applicant that he bought a non-conforming structure. It would be advantageous to (1) to have a survey and (2) for you to give up some of the hardcover on the property. Anderson: We didn't put in the driveway and wasn't told about the non-conforming aspect of the house. I'd be willing to redo the landscaping on the north and south of the house. But ripping up driveway is another matter. Michael confirmed with the commission that we had a requirement of a survey with zoning applications. The commission agreed. Mueller asked what he thought he was going to accomplish before the snow flies? Anderson said he planned to enclose the garage area, winterize and roof. Burma asked if he intended to remove the landscaping and plastic. Anderson fully intends to remove the Manchester side but if the area in the rear of the house is required it would be no problem. Mueller said he was comfortable with the construction going up, especially since he's willing to remove some hardcover. However, I think we could require a:.~.m-vey before it goes before the Council. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, to allow the ~i~i:~i~f a second story and replacement of a porch not to exceed the footprint of~;~xistin~':':i~j~i!~ing; applicant agrees to e . ' ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::~ ~:: ' r move 953 square feet ofhardcover, apphcant prg~e a survey by a ~eglstered land survey, including a hardcover calculation showing the tt~over.~oved and::~Xisting footprint; applicant be allowed to move forward with cons~~- &ioa!i~d provide a survey within a 6 month period of time. ' MOTION carded. Mueller, Burma, Gli~;::~and, ~e and Anderson voting in favor. Michael voting against. -9402- 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: October 11, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance(s) Request OWNER/APPLICANT: Andrew and Paula Anderson PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 01-42 LOCATION: 3001 Brighton Boulevard ZONING: Residential District R-2 COMPREItENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND The applicant(s) has submitted a variance request to allow a comprehensive remodel of their existing home which includes construction of a second story addition above the existing attached garage and construction of a new 10' x 32' lakeside porch. The requested variance(s) are as follows: Existing Proposed Required Variance Front yard (7) ~. (+/-) (7) ft. (+/-) (20) ft. (13) ft. (+/-) Hardcover (6549) sf. (6589) sf. (4696) sf (1893) sf. The subject property includes an existing 2-story house which fronts Manchester Lane and attached garage that fronts Brighton Boulevard. At the present time, the existing house and lot are deemed to be non-conforming due to a deficient front setback along Manchester Lane as well as hardcover coverage which exceeds the (40) percent maximum allowance for lots of record. The applicant(s) are proposing to remodel their existing house which would include a new second story over the attached garage which is located on the east side of the house as well as construction of a new lakeside porch on the west side of the house. It is City staff's understanding that the proposed improvements will not increase the existing non-conforming setback. However, the bulk of the structure will be expanded. Additionally, the amount of hardcover on the subject site is expected to increase by approximately (40) square feet due to the overhang which is associated with the new lakeside porch. -9403- 60-DAY PROCESS The application was received and deemed to be complete on October 5, 2001. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City of Mound has sixty (60) days to approve or deny a land use request. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION All property owners abutting the subject site were mailed a copy of the Planning Commission agenda on October 12, 2001 to inform them of the variance request. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the variance request and supporting materials were forwarded to all City departments for review on October 8, 2001. As of October 12, 2001, one response was received from the City Engineer who indicated that he had no concerns regarding the request. PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW Copies of the variance request and supporting materials were forwarded to the Department of Natural Resources for review on October 12, 2001. Any comments received from the DNR should be included in the record. GENERAL COMMENTS The subject property is irregularly shaped and is bordered on two sides by public roads including Manchester Lane to the north and Brighton Boulevard to the east. Due to the lot width of 71.2 feet along Brighton Boulevard, the property is subject to "double" front yard setback requirements of (20) feet along both streets. The subject property already exceeds the 40 percent maximum for hardcover coverage. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss with the applicant ways to reduce hardcover especially in around the area on the east side of the house. Brighton Commons is located immediately to the west of the existing house and appears to accommodate drainage from in and around the subject site and adjacent areas(s) and also helps to soften the adjacent road area(s.) Any addition on to the south side of the house is probably not possible as the existing structure is located approximately nine (9) feet from the property boundary and the minimum setback in this area is six (6) feet. -9404- '5. Any addition on the north side of the house would require a variance due to the existing non-conforming front setback. 6. An addition on to the east side of the house may be possible but may not be practical due to the existing configuration and layout of the house. 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 involved fees associated with the variance request. 2. The variance shall be made subject to any and/or all forthcoming comments from City staff. 3. The variance shall be made subject to any and/or all forthcoming comments from the Department of Natural Kesources. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Tentatively, the variance application is scheduled to be forwarded to the City Council for review at its Tuesday, October 23, 2001 meeting in the event a recommendation from the Planning Commission is made at its October 15, 2001 meeting. ATTACHMENTS Variance application dated October 5, 2001 · Plat of survey dated February 11, 1975 (revised by applicant on 10/5/01) · Hardcover calculation sheet · Existing elevation drawing(s) · Proposed elevation drawing(s) / first floor plan / second floor plan from TCO Design · Zoning sheet for subject property -9405- VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952-472-0607, Fax: 952-472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner City Engineer Public Works Application Fee:~ /~/bLe~ ,~7 ~ Case No. DNR PARK Other P.OPE.T¥ / LEGAL Block DESC. Subdivision ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 ~hono APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone ~b OWNER) (H) (W). .(M) Has an application, ev.,~r 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.): R.'v,.ed O.¢/2~/O, V/ - ' -94d~- ' V .... Variance Application, P. 2 of 3 Case No. 0/' LC ~ SETBACKS: 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.): REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: I N~W )'~,)~ ff. ~,~ ft. ~__-- /~_~ ft. Side Yard: ) ft. C) ft. ~.//~ ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W_ ) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E~(~) 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 fl .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 tt~e subjeCt Property prevent its rea's0nal~ie ~se for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (~) ~too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil oo small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please ~describe: "" ~/~~ ~'~.~ /~0,/~P---¢1.?~ ~//~ Revised 04/24/01 - 9407- Variance Application, P. 3 of 3 Case No.. o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having propertyi nterests in the la aft~r~e 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: 8. '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? 9, Comments: I certify that all of the aboVe statements ~nd the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. /,~ ~' _ ....... Applicant's Signature ~ Revised 04/24/01 - 9408- Flat of C;urvey for tlerbert g. Bischke of Lots 1 and 36, Block 15,. Arden ' Hennepin. County, Minnesota 'Certificate of Surve.v: I hereb.7 eertit7 that this is - true and correct representation of a survey o? the boundsries o£ Lots i nnd 36, Block 15, Arden. It does not rmrport bo .,~how ~m.nrow~ments or encroachments. Scale: 1" = ~0' Date : 2-11-75 o : Iron marker ~',i, ''~ ' ' ~or-don R. Coffin Reg. N~. 606& Land Surveyor and Planner Long Lake, Minnesota 10/09/01 13:12 F,~ CIT~ OF MOUND CiTY oF MOUND HARDCOVER ¢.ALCUL~TIONS (IMPERVIOUS ~UI:~J=ACE LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (fOr all lots) ....................................... ' LOT AREA [/,~'~/"/ SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record) ............................. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) ' EximUn, g Lots of Record.may have 40 l:~roent ~3verage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined In Zoning Ordinan,ce ~e~on 350:1226, ,.Rub¢l. 6.B.1 (see back). A plan must be ~lbmltted and approved by the Buiidlng Official. HOUSE 'ro'rAL HOUS,' .................................................... DETACHED BUILDINGS '~,.e~ 7 X / '7 = / /C;~ .... DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, 81DEWALKS, ETC. TOTAL DRIVEWAY b'TO . . , TOTAL 5'/5'7 TOTAL HARDC:OVER I IldPERViOU8 mUleJ'AOE ................................................... I ~~'~" I ~P~UND~R/OV~R(tna~'~-- e¥~sy ~ ~ .................................................................. ~^~/~__.~__~( - oo, oo. . ~ OTl9 L68 ~g6 ~l:/O lOO~,Ol'~DO , - 9412- - 9413- I ' -9414- ', YARD 'IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE TOP OF BLUFF SITED' ..... FRONT FRONT ~'¥O1' OF BLUFF I NO YE8 / NO "I CITY OF MOUND -. 'ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE~WIDTH: · ,~. ': ,~.';:., ~ m ' , Ri "' 'io, ooo/6o ~..Sl, v, S00/0" R3 DIRECTION [ PJ~U]RED N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W DETACHED BUILDINGS N $ E W N S E W N S E W NS E W N S E W N S E W 50' lO'OR 30',, B2 20,000/80 B3 10,000/60 BEE'ORD. " .Il 30.000/100 EXISTING/PROPOSED YES / NO / ? 30% OR 40% BY: I0! OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE: ,. '...iL: LOT WIDTH: VARIANCE j ?~: "' ., ,' This Zoning Info~mntion Sheet pn!y sunmmrizcs a porlton of Ute requirements outlined in rite City of Mound Zoning Ordinance, For filrdler information, contact the City of Mound Planning Dcpartmcnl at 472-0600. c.. '"" ~ -9415- CiTY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 01-__ RESOLUTION GRANTING PERMISSION TO EXCHANGE GRAVE SITE FOR PLACEMENT OF THIRD BURIAL IN GRAVE 7, LOT 24, DIVISION C WHEREAS, on August 23, 1940, Mrs. Edna Schwartz purchased two grave sites in Mound Union Cemetery, located in Division C, Lot 24, Graves 7 & 8; and WHEREAS, Edward Schwartz was buried in Lot 7 in 1940; and WHEREAS, it was later determined that Grave 8 had previously been sold and there was already a budal there; and WHEREAS, on February 10, 1981, the City Council adopted resolution No. 81-54, which authorized the placement of a grave site in Mound Union Cemetery, in the walkway abutting Grave 8 of Lot 24, Division C, in exchange for the previously purchased Grave 8; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Edna Schwartz's ashes were buried with her husband, Edward Schwartz, in Lot 7; and WHEREAS, Ms. Barbara A. Schneider of 5615 Grandview Blvd., Mound, Minnesota, has requested that this walkway grave be exchanged for permission to allow her ash burial with her parents, Edward and Edna Schwartz in Lot 24, Grave 7; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound to exchange the grave site in the walkway adjacent to Grave 8, Lot 24, Division C, for permission that Ms. Barbara Schneider's ash remains be buried with Edward and Edna Schwartz in Division C, Lot 24, Grave 7. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember and seconded by The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this day of ,2001. Attest: Acting City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel - 9416- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 01-__ RESOLUTION APPOINTING DATA PRACTICES COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.05 Subd. 13, requires that the City appoint a City employee to act as its data practices compliance official to receive questions or concerns regarding problems in obtaining access to data or other data practices problems within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council shares the concern expressed by the Legislature about access to City data and wishes to satisfy this concern by immediately appointing a qualified data practices compliance official as required under statute. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the City Council appoints Kandis Hanson, City Manager, as the date practices compliance official to receive questions and concerns regarding problems in obtaining access to data or other data practices problems. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember and seconded by The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this day of ,2001. Mayor Pat Meisel Attest: Acting City Clerk -9417- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 01- RESOLUTION TO APPOINT RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINNESOTA DATA PRACTICES ACT WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.02, Subdivision 16, as amended, requires that the City of Mound appoint one person as the Responsible Authority, to administer the requirements for collection, storage, use and dissemination of data that is collected by the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Mound shares the concem expressed by the Legislature on the responsible collection, storage, use and dissemination of data and wishes to satisfy this concern by immediately appointing an administratively qualified Responsible Authority as required under the statute. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: Hereby appoints the City Clerk as the Responsible Authority, and Designee Leonard Harrell, for the purposes of meeting all requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, as amended, and with rules as lawfully promulgated by the Commissioner of Administration. The Responsible Authority shall require the requesting party to pay the actual cost of making, certifying and compiling copies and of preparing summary data. 3. This resolution implementing the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act shall remain in force and effect until modified by the City Council. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember and seconded by The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this day of ,2001. Attest: Acting City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -9418- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF THE (20) FOOT ALLEY / RIGHT- OF-WAY IN BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F LOCATED BETWEEN THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 10 AND LOT 37 AND THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 17 AND LOT 30 P & Z CASE # 01-39 WHEREAS, the applicants, Dave Willette and WWT Partners have submitted an application to vacate a portion of an alley and/or public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, Dave Willette has purchased the former Lake Lanes building located at 2346 Cypress Lane and has proposed various site and building improvements on the subject site including the incorporation of landscaping and additional parking; and WHEREAS, the applicants would like to use that portion of the (20) foot alley in Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F to provide additional parking for their businesses; and WHEREAS, the alley is unmaintained and unimproved and is not serving as a public access in the subject area; and WHEREAS, there are currently no public utilities located in the alley and/or public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, there are a number of private utilities located in the alley and/or public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, when the City vacates a street and/or right of way, the involved portion of the public fight-of-way is split 50-50 and is attached to the abutting properties; and WHEREAS, the City can specify the extent to which a street and/or right-of-way affects easements including the right to maintain and continue existing utility easements; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 15, 2001 regarding the vacation request and indicated that there was no public benefit of retaining the portion of the alley located in Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F as there are currently no municipal utilities in the alley nor is it being used as a public access. -9419- WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.358, the City Council of Mound held a public hearing on the vacation request on October 23, 2001 and provided proper notice thereof pursuant to state law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: The City does hereby approve the alley vacation request with the following conditions: a. The applicants shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the vacation request. b. The City of Mound shall maintain a (20) foot drainage and utility easement over the vacated portion of the alley. This vacation request is approved for the following described property: See Exhibit A. 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 October 23, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, Acting City Clerk -9420- Excerpts from the MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 1, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING CASE #01-39 Alley Vacation - Portion of Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F Dave Willette and WWT Partners A request has been submitted to vacate a portion of the alley/tight-of-way located in Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F. Presently, the 20 foot alley is an unimproved and unmaintained tight-of- way that serves as a rear access to the subject properties and also includes a number of private utilities. The purpose of the request is to establish and maintain formal shared parking agreement(s) between the American Legion/WWT Partners and Willette and to allow Mr. Willette to make several site and building improvements. The 20 foot alley is presently unimproved and unmaintained. The "north-south" segment of the alley from CSAH 15 to the "east-west" alley located north of Block 3 was supposedly vacated previously, however there is conflicting information in that regard. If the involved portion is vacated each abutting property owner would receive one half of the alley. The City may require that drainage and utility easements be maintained. City staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the vacation request subject to conditions set forth in the Planning Report including maintenance and/or establishment of utility easements as well as the additional condition to resolve the status of the alley portion between the American Legion parking lot and the building. Hasse wanted to know what happens to the power pole? Smith indicated that relocation costs would be the responsibility of property owner. Michael opened the public heating. Mr. Willette introduced plans for the building. The retaining wall on the west side is on city property. The plan is to take the wall down and relocate it if needed. As no public was present Chair Michael closed the public heating. Glister asked if it was necessary to know whether that small portion in question was vacated or not. Smith replied that it would make for a cleaner action. Hasse asked if there would be any more green space than there was presently. Mr. Willette thought the City would tell him how much was required. -9421 - Planning Commission Minutes October 1, 2001 MOTION by Weiland, .seconded by Hasse, to recommend approval of the vacation in accordance with staff recommendation and staff is directed to clarify the vacation of the northerly portion of the alley. MOTION carded unanimously -9422- PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE # 01-39 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN ALLEY / RIGHT- OF-WAY IN BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF SHORELINE BOULEVARD/COUNTY ROAD 15, EAST OF CYPRESS LANE, NORTH OF MAYWOOD ROAD AND WEST OF WILSHIRE BOULEVARD ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2346 CYPRESS LANE AND 2361 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD PID No. 13-117-24-34-0044 PID No. 13-117-24-34-0097 PLANNING AND ZONING CASE NO. 01-39 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 PM on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 to hold a public hearing to consider a request from Dave Willette and WWT Partners for vacation of a portion of the twenty (20) foot alley and/or public right- of-way in Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F located between the north line of Lot 10 and Lot 37 and the south line of Lot 17 and Lot 30 as identified below: Copies of the plans are available to the public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Notice of public hearing to be mailed to all property owners within (350) feet of subject area on October 11, 2001. Published in The Laker on October 6, 2001 and October 13, 2001. -9423- Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that hr is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed Public Hearing.Vacation Of Portion of Alley/Right-Of-Way, Block 3 which is attached was cut from the.columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each weekfor 2 successive weeks. It was first published Saturday the 6th day of October 2001, and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, the 13 day of October 2001; "'-/-Autho~:ized ~ent Suscribed and sworn to me on this 13 By: day of October ,2001. Nota~ P.u.~b]ic ~ KRISTI HOLM Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $15.00 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $15.00. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.73 per inch. Each additional successive week: $5.62. -9424- 534] IV~y~ood Ro.d PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: September 26, 2001 SUBJECT: Partial Alley / Right-of-Way Vacation APPLICANT: Dave and Eleanor Willette, 2452 Lost Lake Road CO-APPLICANT: WWT Partners 0Nilsey) PLANNI2qG CASE NUMBER: 01-39 LOCATION: Portion of 20' foot alley in Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F located between the north line of Lot 10 and Lot 37 and south line of Lot 17 and Lot30 ZONING: Business (B-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLA.N: COmmercial REQUEST Dave and Eleanor Willette and WWT Parmers~ applicants and property owners at 2346 Cypress Lane and 2361 WilShire Boulevard, have submitted a request to vacate a portion of the alley / right-of-way located in Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F. Presently, the 20 ft. alley is an unimproved and unmaintained right-of-way that serves asa rear access to the subject properties and also includes a number of Private utilities. BACKGROUND As the planning Commission may be aware, Dave Willette recently purchased the former Lake Lanes building located at 2346 Cypress Lane and has prepared preliminary draWings to remodel the building for retail and/or service use(s)pursuant to City Code Chapter 350:670. As part of the remodeling project, Mr. Willette and WWT Partners would like the City to consider vaCating the involved portion of the alley to allow for additional parking as well as to allow Mr, Willette the opportunity to undertake various site and landscaping improvements to enhance the appearance of the building exterior as well as to soften the surrounding parking lot area(s.) with regard to the proposed parking issue, it is City staff's understanding that Mr. Willette has been working Cooperatively with the adjacent property owners including the Mound American Legion and WWT Partners to address the existing parking situation and plans to execute formal shared parking agreement(s.) -9425- It is anticipated that the concept plans for the former Lake Lanes building will be presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing. Members of the Planning Commission are also advised that the concept plans were informally reviewed by the Mound Visions Project Team a few weeks ago and received favorable response from the members. PROCEDURE Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.358 states that a statutory city may abandon ovrnership or control over all or any part of the land they have set aside, dedicated or used as streets or alleys and further states that a City Council may initiate the action by reSOlution or by the submission of a petition by a majority of the landowners and the owners of at least 50 percent of the land area Procedurally, state statute requires that the City Council must hold a public hearing on the proposal following two weeks of published and posted notice, The City must also Provide written notice to each affected owner at least (10) days before the public hearing. As the Planning Commission is aware, City policy also requires that .any proposed street vacation request is also reviewed by the Planning Commission at an informal public hearing, Therefore, the Planning Commission is advised that the Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Laker on September 15, 2001 and September 22, 2001 respectively. Additionally~ the Notice of Public Hearing was also mailed to all affected property owners located within (350) feet on September 20, 2001. VACATION ACTION When a city vacates a street, the involved portion of the public right-of-way is split 50,50, (presumably to the eenterline) and is usually, free of easements either in favor of the public or owners of other property abutting, the street. However, the Planning Commission is advised that the City may specify the extent to which a proposed vacation affects existing utility easements, including the right to maintain and continue existing utility easements (LMC Handbook, page 390.) CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all City departments for review and comment. All written comments received, to date have been included as exhibits in the planning Report. The Planning Commission is advised that the Mound Fire Department has indicated verbally that they have no comments regarding the request, UTILITY COMPANY REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting were forwarded to all involved utility companies for review and comment, All written comments received to date have also been included as exhibits in the Planning Report. -9426- GENERAL COMMENTS In the event the proposed vacation request is approved, the west (10) feet of the existing alley would become part of the existing Willette property and the east (10) feet of the existing alley would be added to the WWT Partners property with the exception of that portion abutting the parcel owned by C-reen-T Aeeountirtg/Amefiean Legion Civic Corporation. It appears there is little public benefit to retaining ownership of the proposed alley in this area. Additionally, the oppommity to make site and landscaping improvements is viewed as positive. If the proposed vacation request is approved, any and/or all existing private utility easements should be retained and/or reserved pursuant to the comments received from the various private utility companies As the "northern portion" of the alley fronting CSAH 15 and the "east- west" portion from Cypress Lane and Wilshire Boulevard .were vacated previously, the Planning Commission and/or City Council may wish to discuss the opportunity of vacating the remaining portion of the alley which splits the American Legion parking lot (Lots 8 and 9) and the American Legion building (Lots 38 and 39.) Based on preliminary review of the concept plans for the former Lake Lanes building, it appears that Mr. Willette is attempting to incorporate features and elements of the Mound Visions architectural design(s.) The "southern portion" of the alley located between Lot 45 (Royal Apartments), Lot 50 (Munitech) and Lot 71 (Mediacom) is not included in the vacation request. RECOMMENDATION As there appears to be no public benefit to retaining this portion of the alley in Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F, City staff recommends approval of the proposed vacation request as releasing the property will allow the applicants to undertake several site and landscaping improvements which is viewed as favorable. At a minimum, City staff recommends that the following list of minimum conditions be included in any recommendation for approval: 1. The request shall be made subject to any forthcoming commems from City staff or Private utility companies. 2. The applicants shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the vacation request. 3. Any and/or all drainage and/or utility easements should be retained and/or reserved. -9427- EXRIBITS Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Extn'bit K Exhibit L Application for street/easement vacation dated August 27, 2001 Affidavit ct'Posting and Notice of Public Hearing City Planner memorandum dated September 26, 2001 City Engineer memorandum dated September 24,2001 Letter from Citizens Communications dated September 7, 2001 Letter from Excel Energy dated September 25, 2001 Comment letter from Reliant Energy / ~egasgo Site map - Hennepin County % section map Survey for Lots 10-17, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F Shared- parking plan (draft) - willette / WWT Partners / American Le~ion Zoning sheet - 2346 Cypress Lane (Willette) Zoning sheet - 2361 Wilshire Blvd. C~rWT Partners) -9428- '' ~"~' ~ &TREET,I ~SEMENT VACATION ~~,.,..~ -~ ' ' SEP '0 ~ ~OOl _ Ci~ of M0und , / n~tVE~ ~ ~ 5341 Ma~ood Road, MOund, MN 553~ ~ -- ~ Application Fee:~~ ,:. Minnegasco Police Dspt, ?ira Dept. NSP _Parks Please,type or print the following Information: APPLICANT ADJACENT PROPERTY [APPLICANT'S PROPER'PC) ZONING DISTRICT DESCRIPTION OF STREET VACATED REASON FOR REQUEST I$ THERE A PUBLIC NEED .FOR THIS LAND? Name Addr~s' Name of Business Lot SubdlvL~ion Cim. Ja: R-I P-IA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PID~ Plat ~E print Applicant's Name Applicant's Applicant's Name 04/24101 :'s SLanature .. Appli r~' ~' ~/ EXHIBIT A -9429- AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING HEARING NOTICE Case No. · STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ':::~'!~ '%~ii :' ',,.,..)ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ':'_. _ , being duly swom, on oath says that on the: "day of' 20z~_., he/she personally'posted , ! - the attached notice in three public places in the County of Hennepin, State of : to :: Minnesma, wit: 1 ) One. tBe copy thereof on the bulletin board at Ci~ Hall, 5341 Ma~ood Mound, Minnesota. 2) One t~e copy thereof on the front door of the Public Works Facili~ at ~68 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. 3) One true copy thereof on the bulletin board at the Westonka Community. Library at 2079 Commerce Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. Subscribed and swom to before me, this ~O4~ day of 200~ Notary PUblic, Hennepin County, MInnesota;,.¢!!': My Commission expires O) -,~/-¢_.)&-- '~ :?'"' -9430- EXHIBIT B PUBLIC HErO NOTICE CITY OF MOUND · MOUND, 'MINNF..gOT A CASE # 01-39 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC I:~.ARI~G TO CONSI])ER ~ VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN ALLEY / RIG1TT-OF- WAY IN BLOCK :3, SHIRLEY ITrI',LS UNIT F LOCATED II~VIEDIATI~LY SOUTH OF SHORELINE BOULEVARD/COUNTY ROAD 15, EAST OF CYPRESS LANE, NORTH OF MAYWOOD ROAD AND WEST OF WILS~IIRE BOULEVARD ADSACENT TO TH~ PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2346 CYPI~SS LANE PLANNING AND zONING CASE NO. 01-39 NOTICE IS R-~REBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the. City ofi~lound, Minnesota will meet in the Council Chambers, 5431 M_aywood Road, at 7:30 PM on Monday, October 1, 2001 to consider an application from Dave Willette for vacation ofa ' portion of the twenty (20) foot alley and/or public right-of-way from the north line of Lot 10 to the south line of Lot 17 in Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F as identified below: (74) ?25 ... Inspections Secretary. Copies of the plans are available to the public upon request at City Hall. Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Notice'to be mailed to property owners within (350) feet to affected property on September 20, 2001. Published in The Laker on September 15, 2001 and September 22, 2001. -9431 - MEMORANDUM HOisington Koegler Group Inc. To: From: Date: Subject: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director Loren Gordon, AICP .. September 26, 2001 PC Case #01-39 - Proposed Willette / Wilsey Alley Vacation - Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F I have reviewed a number of items with the proposed vacation of the alley east of the old Lake Lanes building and have the following comments and recommendations: Comments: · The requested vacation area has no improvements that facilitate public access. The current parking area in front of the Lake Lanes building and behind the American Legion appears to extend onto the alley. The American Legion building located on lots 38 and 39. · Typically in vacation requests where public right-of-way is being released, the area to be vacated is split equally between the adjacent land owners. It would appear this is the case with Block 3 of the Shirley Hills Unit F plat where the entire block was platted at the same time. · If the vacation is approved, it would appear that the west ½ would go to Mr. Willette and east ~A would go to those adjacent property owners, currently Green-T Accounting and WWT Partners. · I have not seen a current version of the development plan for the old Lake Lanes, but my recollection from past disCUssions with Dave Willette is that he probably wants the entire vacated area. If this is the case, Dave will need to make arrangements with the other adjacent owners aider the vacation proceedings are completed. At that time, Dave could secure the east ~ of the alley, if those owners are agreeable. · The alley south of the requested vacation is encumbered with private driveway and parking improvements for the Royal Apartments, Staff is not aware of any plans to make changes to that property at this time. EXHIBIT C 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -9432- Sm'ab Smith Case #01-$9 September 26, 2001 Recommendations: · It does not appear that there is a reason at this time to leave the alley in public ownership. The vacation request appears to be reasonable because there is not a current use.of the alley by the public. Additionally, the City has no planned improvements scheduled for the alley that would influence vacation proceedings. · If the City Council chooses to vacate the alley, drainage and utility easements should remain in place. This would allow a larger area on the Willette property to be utilized for building or other site improvemems. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minaesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 -9433- Engineedng Planning Surveying MEMORANDUM DATE: September 24, 2001 TO: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound SWeet Vacation Request- Alley, Block 3 ShirleyHills Unit7 Case #01-39 MFRA#13461 As requested, we have reviewed the subject street vacation request and have the following comments: Public works and myself have verified that no City utilities fall within the alley proposed for vacation; however, we would suggest that if the vacation is approved, the City retain the utility and drainage easement over the full twenty (20 foot) width of the alley. All small utility companies need to determine if they have any underground lines located in this alley. It appears that all parcels adjacent to that portion of the alley under request.for vacation have access to an improved City street; however, it appears that at least one business and possibly two use this alley to access the rear of their building. They are Lot 37, (Parcel 59) and Lots 29-36 (Parcel 97) located on the west side of Wilshire Boulevard. Attached.is acolored aerial photo with the lots and parcels identified. The photo also shows those portions of the alley within this block where previously vacated. I would question whether this proposed street vacation "appears to be in the interest of the public to do so." Enclosure s:Xrnain:~Vlou 13461 :\Corrcspondence~smith9-19 -9434- ~XHIBIU' D MFRA~ 13461 Proposed Street Vacation Alley-Block $ Shirley Hills Unit F N Case #01-89 w..3~ E City of Mound 50 0 50 100 Feet , I -9435- communications September '7, 2001 Jill Norlander Mound Planning and Inspections 5341 MayWood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 TO: Jill Norlander, Secretary Mound Planning and Inspections FROM: Mike Konop Engineer Alley Vacation Between Cypress LN and Wilshire Bivd behind 2361 Wilshire We presently have telephone cables attached to the power poles that are located in this proposed vacation notice. A utility easement will need to be maintained, as this is the route on telephone, power and CATV services. If you have any further questions, feel free to call me at 952-491-5565. Sincerely, Michael Konop Engineer MK/em EXHIBIT E -9436- XcelEner )/' September 25, 20.01 Sarah Smith City of Mound Planning and Inspections 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1687 Re: Vacation File No. 01-39 (Lots 10 throuqh 17, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit) Dear Ms. Smith: This is written in response to your letter of August 31,2001, relative to the application of David And Eleanor Willette for vacation of the alley depicted on the attached and described as follows: That part of the 20 foot wide alley, located in Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying south of the easterly extension of the north line of Lot 10, said Block 3 and north of the easterly extension of the south line of Lot 17, said Block 3. A field representative of Xcel has inspected the above described alley and has reported' that power poles and overhead distribution lines located within the alley currently serve several property owners. Therefore, please be informed that Ecel has determined that it is necessary to reserve easement rights over and within the alley. Very truly yours, Kathy Blomquist - 7th Floor Sr Real Estate Representative 612.330.5604 Enclosure RECEIVED SEP.2 7 2001 ,.MOUND PLANNING & INSP EXHIBIT F -9437- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUNE::), MN 55364-1687 PH: (952.) 472-0600 FAX: (9~2) 472-0620 WEB: www, cityofmound.com TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Reliant ~ Excel Energy Citizen's Jill Norlander, secretary Mound Planning and Inspections August 31,2001 Plan Review - Alley Vacation Between Cypress Ln and Wilshire Blvd behind 2361 Wilshire Blvd Please review the enclosed easement vacation application and submit your comments by September 21,2001 for consideration by Planning Commission or City Council. If you require additional information please call me at 952-472-0607. Thank you, Reliant Energy Minnegasco has no facilities within the above-described area and has no objection to its vacation. Thank you for the advance notice. Steven Yon Bargen ( Right-of-Way Administrator Reliant Energy Minnegasco EXHIBIT G Sita Area Map 4 UNIT E~HIBIT R -9439- Ld Z o (93~ (939 P-K' CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR WILLETTE BUILDING CO. F LOTS 10-17~ BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 9 N 89'56' 30" E 120.00 NAIL 10 20 (943 CONCRETE SIDEWALK 'I 'I , THRESHOLD ELEV ,= 94.3.71 (944.2) 'l 2 EXISTING · -~ BUILDING 5) BLACKTOP 'I 4 (94.3.8) 16 FLOOR ELEV 943.77 47.4(942,~) 52.1 (943.5) 20.2 (944.2) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF OPr~AIqFC. Lots 10 to 17, Block 3-9440--iiiis Unit F EXHIBIT · CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR ._ WlLLETTE BUILDING CO,.. O[F' LOTS 10-17, BLOCK ,3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT ELEVI ,,, 943.7 ExISTiNG .' BUILDING FLOOR ELEV g4~.77 EGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: _OAA1 _ r~ts 10 to 17,'Block 3, Shirley Hilis'Un,,'~,.TM CITY O1: MOUND - ZONING II'~FOI[MATION SURVEY ON FIL .. LO' "RECORD7 YgS / NO ZONING I)ISI'RICF, LOT SlZE/WIDTII: Ri 10,000/60 ~ 6,0OO/40 E2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,DOD/BO R3 SeE ORD. Il 30,000/100 EXISTINO LOT SIZE: LOT WID' I'H: - LOT D~P'I'H: VARIANCE IH)USE ......... FRONT N S R W FRONT N ~ E W SIDE N S E w SIDE N S 1I. W REAR N S E w 15' LAKE N S E W 50' .. TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR .30' '.. GAI~i;IZ, SIIEI) ..... OR OTIIER I)ETACIIED BUILDINOS FRONT N s E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4'OR REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' 'FOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' /~' '"'}VER 30% OR 40% This Ztming lnfurmatinn Sheet only summarizes a porHm, of th~ requireme.ts oullin.d in the City .f Mo. nd ZmHng Ordinance. For further information, con~=l Ihe City of Mound Planning Dep~tment al 472-06~. ~XVl~l~l = ~ X~ U ~ 1' ~.~.w.I ......{ .... ,~ ~l'~:':.l,;'l";;/l'~": ~ ~-~ ................. , ,. . ,..~ .... ~ P ==~ ,,1 ~ ;.:: ~{ ~1' ):";'1 ;"~ I.? {,q=,l' I t ~(. _.~ u, ~= g ~ ' ~: ....... , .... ~ ~.,.-~ .... ~ .....~. ~ ~ ~ -.~............ ~ SURVEY ON FILE7 YES I NO LOT OFRECORD? YES / NO ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 10,000/60 B1 7,S00/0 RiA 6,000/40 ~2 20,000/00 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 'I I YAI~..D DIRECTION REQUIRED F--XI STIN C~ I PRO POS F_,D FRONT N S E W EXI.T['ING LOT SIZE: LO'I~ WIDTH: LO'[' DEl'TH: YARIANCE FRONT N S E W 51DE N ~ E W SIDE N S. E W R~AR N $ E W 15' LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SHED ..... FRONT DETACIIED BUILDINGS N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' SIDE REAR LAKE 'FOP OF BLUFF ItARDCOVER YES I NO EXRIBIT L Informaiion Shctl only summarizes a portion of the requirements oullim.~l in die Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For [urger info--lion, contact ~e Ciiy of Moun. Pla~i.g ~par~ent at 472-0~. ~ ~ .~ , ...... ~,.~.-,,, ~ ~ [ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ '= ..... : ~,--':: ..... "~ ~St~'~-.~ -..~..~.~.L~L L' ~. .- - . : N S E W NS E W N $ E w 30% OR 40% lB",': 4' OR6' 50' 10' OR 30' IDATED: CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT WHICH ALLOWS OPERATION OF MAHOGANY BAY AT 2642 COMMERCE BOULEVARD P & Z CASE # 01-40 PID # 22-112-21-14-0008 WHEREAS, the applicant, F. Todd Warner, has submitted a request to amend the conditional use permit which was approved on August 8, 2000 to allow operation of Mahogany Bay, a boat and marine sales and merchandise business located at 2642 Commerce Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the conditional use permit which was previously approved was made subject to the following conditions: 1. Require all sales or storage of any merchandise to be located within the building and outside display or storage of any boats to be limited to 72 hours. 2. The parking lot be paved to city standards within 18 months of the approval of the resolution. 3. Recognize a hardcover variance of 60% is granted. 4. Recognize a building setback variance of 45 feet from the residential district. WHEREAS, the property is zoned B-1 Central Business District and allows boat sales as a conditional use; and WHEREAS, the current business operations at Mahogany Bay includes sales and display of classic wooden boats and accessories; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that Condition # 2 which requires paving of the parking lot to city standards within 18 months be removed due to an existing multi- party drainage problem in and around the subject property; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has verified that there existing site drainage problems associated with the subject site and adjacent areas; and -9444- WHEREAS, applicant has indicated that he intends to pave the parking lot following resolution of the surface drainage problem; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 15, 2001 regarding the request and recommended approval of the conditional use permit amendment 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 conditional use permit with the following conditions: The request shall be made subject to any forthcoming comments from City staff or Hennepin County. b) The condition which requires paving within 18 months following approval of Resolution 00-74 be extended until October 1,2001. c) A meeting with all involved parties including, but not limited to, the applicant, the adjacent property owner(s), Hennepin County and the City of Mound be set up to discuss resolution of the drainage problem including payment thereof. This conditional use permit is approved for the following legally described property: See Exhibit A 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 October 23, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, Acting City Clerk -9445- Excerpts from the MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY OCTOBER 15, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING CASE #01-40 Mahogany Bay Conditional Use Permit 2642 Commerce Boulevard F. Todd Warner The applicant, Todd Warner, has submitted an application for ~::i::amendment to the conditional use permit which was issued on August 8, 2000 f~ Mahogany Bay project to request that the condition which required that the parking .[~::.paved within (18) months upon adoption of Resolution #00-74 be removed due to:,~ii~~ drainage probleml Members of the Planning Commission are advised t~ii~i~ecific ~i~$ regarding the existing site conditions and drainage problems in and aroun~ii!~e subject ar~iiii~: specifically addressed in the memorandum that has been pr~d b~:~ City En~eer and included as Based upon a site visit conducted by Works Director and myself on or around September 1, 2001, it appears ::~: at Mahogany Bay cannot be paved prior to the resolution of the The applicant has indk do so until the drainage As an alternative to that an extension issues to be e the parking area however he is reluctant to )eratively by all involved parties. the CUP, City staff would suggest adequate time for the drainage and/or infrastructure Staffrecomme~?,i~at the Pl~ng Commission recommend Council approval of the amendment to the:'~gditiog~?~se permit for Mahogany Bay subj eot to the following conditions: 1. The request shall be made subject to any forthcoming comments from City staff or Hermepin County. 2. The condition which requires paving with (18) months from the approval ofResolution 00-74 be extended an additional (18) months. 3. A meeting with all involved parties including, but not limited to, the applicant, the adjacent property owner(s), Hennepin County and the City of Mound be set up to discuss resolution of the drainage problem, including payment thereof. -9446- Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2001 Discussion Burma asked if Smith had any inkling from the Engineer about a solution at this time. Smith indicated that engineering data needs to be presented by applicant and adjacent property owner so an evaluation can be made. Development in the area needs to be considered. Burma asked if the solution should be available within 6 months. Smith said it should be. Mueller wanted to know why we should think that anything will be done in the next 12 months when nothing was accomplished in the previous 12 months. The applicant, Todd Warner, said that having been in the building and dealing with the issues first hand has clarified many of the issues. He has a hard time paving his property while his neighbor isn't required to pave his. People use the driveway area as a cut through from Bartlett to the parking lot. He is willing to pay his share and be involved in the process but not bear the whole brunt of the expense. Mueller inquired whether the pond was low enough to accept water from the property without being run through the culvert. Warner thought it was not. Other issues such as safety need to be considered Weiland dO'~'t think Warner shoul · .,i~.....;:i~ d be responsible for dealing with all the water because water fr~iii~rb 's, Bartlett Boulevard Commerce Boulevard drains through Warner's prope~i?~ii?~i~u~li~,:queried where the City's responsibility lies for the analysis of the water run o~m a co~::road. Smith indicated that we need to go through the city channels so gr~work is laid"~?ig0 to the county. City Engineer Cameron, in a previous conversation, S~iii~ that::~ county lo~s for preliminary engineering data from the applicant. She furthe~:~!~fi~:~:'that, usually, once data is in, (in this case, spot elevations and elevations 0.f the buil~ comers) we sit down with the property owners and assign a percentag~ili~:~!~e:.:respo~i~ility to each. After a discussion about the mee~g whe~ii~i~¢~ii~~: originally granted, Michael wanted to know why the drainage issg~:~:i~i~eing ~ght up now if it was such a big issue back then. Warner replied that h~!i~dn t~me a~ from that meeting with the realization of how Chair Michael opem:ii~iligub'ili~iiii~earing. Tom Reese, 56~! Bartlett B~levar~::-....., Mr. Reese said he was here 13 months ago and brought up the"~gage issu~ii?i~t that time· He requested that the time limit not be removed totally. This is the":~g~anc~;:~:::~ur city. It's an eyesore and a danger. We need to make it safe· That property ~i'~i~d~':a drainage issue for yearS. He feels that the problem was probably factor into the':~uilding price. Don't let this fester another 18 months. Solve it. Chair Michael closed the public hearing. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma, to recommend allowing an extension to the Conditional Use Permit for completion of the paving issue to October 1, 2002. Weiland wanted to know if the city accomplish their portion of the work within that time frame. Smith thought so. Burma offered, as an explanation for his second, indicated that because we are in the 15th month of the time limit, there would not be enough for it to be resolved if the extension wasn't granted. MOTION carried unanimously -9447- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www, cityofrnound.com PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE # 01-40 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MAHOGANY BAY (P&Z CASE NO. 00-38) TO REMOVE A CONDITION WHICH REQUIRES PAVING OF THE PARKING LOT AT 2642 COMMERCE BLVD. WITHIN (18) MONTHS PID # 23-117-24-14-0008 PLANNING AND ZONING CASE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota will meet in the Council Chambers, 5431 Maywood Road, at 7:30 PM on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 to hold a public hearing to consider an application from Todd Warner of Mahogany Bay, 2642 Commerce Boulevard, for an amendment to his conditional use permit (P&Z Case 00-38) which was issued in August 2000 to remove a condition which requires paving of the parking lot within (18~ months as identified below: Ji(il/Norlander, Planning and Inspections Secretary Copies of the plans are available to the public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Notice to be mailed to property owners within (350) feet to affected property on October 11, 2001. Published in The Laker on October 13, 2001 printt=d an mc.v~:l~cl paper -9448- -9449- Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed 2ubl'ic Hear±ng' Conditional Use Permit which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each weekfor ]- successive weeks. It was first published Saturday the 13 day of October 2001, and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, the __ day of 2001; Suscribed and sworn to me on this ].3 day of/ October ,2001. By: _ Notary Public i~ ~ KRISTI HOLM ~ ;~' ~ My Commission Expires J~. 31, ;; ,"; ,.~ Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $15.00 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $15.00. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.73 per inch. Each additional successive week: $5.62. Mou.d, lVlN PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: October 11, 2001 SUBJECT: CUP Amendment APPLICANT: Todd Warner / Mahogany Bay PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 01-40 LOCATION: 2642 Commerce BlVd. ZONING: Central Business District (B-1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Linear District REQUEST The applicant, Todd Warner, has submitted an application for an amendment to the conditional use permit which was issued on August 8, 2000 for the Mahogony Bay project to request that the condition which required that the parking lot be paved within (18) months upon adoption of Resolution # 00-74 be removed due to a multi-party drainage problem. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that specific details regarding the existing site conditions and drainage problems in and around the subject area are specifically addressed in the memorandum that has been prepared by the City Engineer and included as an attachment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW CRITERIA In granting a conditional use permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed land use upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of occupants of Surrounding lands. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that the conditional use permit review criteria are contained in City Code Chapter 350:525 Subd. 1. REVIEW PROCEDURE City Code Chapter 350:525 Subd. 3 (B) requires that all requests for conditional use permit requests (and amendments) are reviewed by the Planning Commission. Additionally, City Code Chapter 350:535 8ubd. 3 (C) requires that a public hearing is held by the City Council. Procedurally, state statute requires that the Planning Commission must hold a public hearing on all requests for conditional use. permits and further requires that a Notice of Public Hearing is published at least (10) days in advance of the public heating and is also mailed to all property owners within (350) feet. -9450- Memberg of the Planning Commiggion are adviged that the Notice of Public Heating was published in the Laker on October 6, 2001. Additionally, the Notice of Public Hearing was also mailed to all affected property owners located within (350) feet on October 4, 2001. As of October 11,2001, no comments regarding the request have been received. 60~DAY PROCESS The request from Todd Warner was received and deemed to be complete on September 4, 2001. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City of Mound has sixty (60) days to approve or deny a land use request. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all City departments for review and comment. All written comments received to date have been included in the have been included in the Planning Report as attachment(sO The Planning Commission is advised that the Police Department and Parks Department have indicated that they have no comments regarding the request. Public Works Superintendent Greg Skinner has indicated that the applicant will need to provide a two-week notice to the City prior to the commencement of paving activities so that the storm drain located in the southern driveway can be repaired. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENT Copies of the request and all supporting materials were also forwarded to Hennepin County for review and comment. GENERAL CO1V[MENTS Based upon a site visit conducted by the City Engineer, Public Works Director and myself on or around September 1, 2001, it appears that the parking lot at Mahogany Bay cannot be paved prior to the resolution of the existing drainage problem. The applicant has indicated that he wants to pave the parking area however he is reluctant to do so until the drainage problem can be resolved cooperatively by all involved parties. As an alternative to removal of the paving condition from the CLIP, City staff would suggest that an extension be considered to allow adequate time for the drainage and/or infrastructure issues to be satisfactorily resolved. -9451 - Staff recommends that' the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit for Mahogany Bay subject to the following conditions: 1. The request shall be made subject to any forthcoming comments from City staff or Hennepin County. 2. The condition which requires paving within (18) months from the approval of' Resolution 00-74be extended an additional (18) months. A meeting with all involved parties including, but not limited to, the applicant, the adjacent property owner(s), Hennepin County and the City of Mound be set up to discuss resolution of the drainage problem including payment thereof. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Tentatively, the Public hearing for review of the CUP amendment request from Todd Warner is scheduled to be held by the City Council at its Tuesday, October 23, 2001 meeting in the event a recommendation from the Planning Commission is made at its October 15, 2001 meeting. ATTAC'H1VIENTS Conditional use permit application dated September 4, 2001 Certificate of survey, dated June 28, 2000 · Memorandum from City Engineer dated October 4, 2001 · Notice of public hearing · Letter to Todd Warner dated September 27, 2001 regarding determination of "completeness" · Resolution # 00-74 dated August 8, 2000 · Planning Report 00-38 dated July 10, 2000 · Planning Commission meeting minutes dated July 10, 2000 · Site map (Hennepin County ~A Section map) · City Code' Chapter 350:525 · Zoning sheet - 2642 Commerce Boulevard -9452- ~IZAI~U~A UA:~ ~'A.L ~002 ¢IT3' OF CONDITIONAL U~E PERM~ C~ ~ ~ound ~one= ~5~72~, F~ Cond~tip~a~ U~e Pe~it Fee: ~50:0~,., J~004 Please t ~rint the fb[lowlng irfformatlon: ~/~ 1L~" C ' INFORMATION Acldres$ · ' ' ,, ,, _~sscmp_~oN ............... . . (H) .: . ~ . , .... Name OWN~ _ (If ~ SURV~O~ OR Phon~ ~} ~-- ~) - ,_ ZONING ~r~e: A-I R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 ~3 DISTRICT ~NGE OF F~OM: ...... ~ ..... TQ:~ - . .................................... -9453 ..................................................................................................... _ 06/24/2014 04:19 F.~ 10:44 T~AX Das~Of Proposed Use: .... C I'1'~' OF t/il 003 EFFECTS Of THE PROPOSED 'USE: List impacts the proposed use will' have on property in f. he vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, nol~e, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the step~ taker~ t~ mitigate or eliminate the impacts. If applicable, a devaIDpm~nt schedute shat[ be et/ached to bis appll~ation providing reasonable guarantees. for l~e oompletk)n of the proposed developmerxt. Estimated DeYe~opmer'~t Co~ of the Project:' $. Has ~.n application ever been made for zoning, variance, condi~nal usa perrnft, or other zoning procedure for this Property'? ~/~ yes~ ( ) no, If yes,.llst date(s) of appDcation, action tal~_~, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolu/i~ns. 7'11]S appEcefJon must be signed by ~ owner~ of.f~r~u~.~J.~rope~. , or an expl~n~ion given Why thi~ is n~ Print Own~ffs Name Print Owner's Name Owner's Signature Date -9454- Otto Associates, Inc. ~'004 -9455- MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: sUBJECT: October 4, 2001 Sarah Smith, Community Development Director John Cameron, City Engineer Mahogany Bay CUP 2642 Commerce Boulevard MFRA #13495 our site visit to subject property reconfn'med my opinion regarding the requirement that this parking lotbe paved within 18 months of the approval of the CUP. The first problem is that the deadline date of February 8, 2002 is impossible to meet unless the lot is paved immediately. As I mentioned before, I thought this condition was agreed to by Mr. Warner without any plan or much thought about solving the drainage issues in this area, The entire area of the business to the north (R & R Bait Shop) which is gravel surface, drains across Mr. Wamer's property. The problem is complicated by additional runoff coming from the COunty and City right-of-ways. The water is intended to drain under the Mahogany Bay driveway by what appears to be an undersized culvert and then in a ditch to the City' s storm sewer system which rum along the Commerce Place complex and discharges into the lake. The Mahogany Bay building and parking lot are below street level and present a very difficult drainage situation to try and resolve, i'm no~ suggesting that the condition requiring the parking lot to be paved should.be eliminated; howeVer, possibly a 6 month or even another 18 month extension is in order to provide sufficient time for the applicant, with help from the City and the County, to resolve the m.atter. s:~:knou13495~correspondence~snfithg.26 -9456- CITY OF MOUND 53,41 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 F&X: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE # 01-40 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC tIEARING 'TO CONSIDERAN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ' FOR MAHOGANY BAY (P&Z CASE NO. 00-38) TO REMOVE A CONDITION WwI'CH REQUIllES PAVING OF THE PARKING LOT AT 2642 COMMEI:~CE BLVD. PI]) # 23-117-24-14-0008 PLANNING AND ZONING CASE NO. 01-40 NOTICE IS ItEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City °fMound, Minnesota will meet in the Council Chambers, 5431 Maywood.Road, at 7:30 PM on Monday, October 15, 2001 to hold a public hearing to consider an application from Todd Warner of Mahogany Bay, 2642 Commerce Boulevard, for an amendment to his conditional use permit (P&Z Case 00-38) which was issued in August 2000 to remove a condition which requires paving of the parking !ct within (18) months as identified below:' JilC-/Norl~nder, Planning arid InspeCtions Secretary Copies of the plans are available to the public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Notice to be mailed to Property owners Within (350) feet to affected property on October 4, 2001. Published in The Laker on September 29, 2001 9457' CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 'FAX: (952) 472-0620 WI:B: www. cityofmound.com September 26, 2001 Todd Warner Mahogany Bay 2642 Commerce Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 RE: AppliCation - Conditional Use Permit Amendment Dear Mr. Warner: This letter is in regard to the development application you submitted on September 4, 2001 for a proposed amendment to your conditional use permit which was originally approved on August 8, 2000 to remove one of the conditions which requires you to pave the parking lot within (18) months upon issuance of the permit due to a multi-party drainage problem. Based upon your review by City staff, the application has been deemed to be complete and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for public hearing on October 15, 2001. If you have any questions regarding any of this information, please contact me at 952- 472-3190. I look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Community Development Director SJS ~OLUTION # 00-74 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~ VAR.L&NCgg FOR 2642 COMMERCE BLVD. FOR THE PURPOSES OF A BOAT AND MARINE SALES AND MERCHANDISE BUSINESS UPPLOTTED LAND PID #-23-112-21 14 0008 P & Z CASE # 00-38 WHEREAS, F. Todd Warner, applicant, has submitted, a request for a conditional use permit to operate boat and marine sales and merchandise bt~siness in the property located at 2642 Commerce Blvd., and; WHEREAS, the property is zoned B-1 Central Business District and allows boat sales as a conditional use, and; : WHEREAS, the property encompasses approximately 10,000 square feet and has about 90 percent existing hardcover, and; WHEREAS, the applicant intends to use the property as it is with no building or site modifications, and; WltEREAS, the business would .operate as a display and sales of classic wooden boats and accesories, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the conditional use permit as. recommended by staff; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: The City does hereby grant a conditional use permit and associated variances with the following conditions: a. Require all sales or storage of any merchandise be located within the building and outside display or storage of any boats to be limited to 72 hours. b. The parking lot be paved to city standards within 18 months of the approval of this resolution. c. Recognize a hardcqver variance of 60% is granted. d. Recognize a building setback variance of 45 feet from the residential district. This Conditional use permit iS granted for the following new legally described property: The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The foregoing resolution was mo.V. ed by Councilmember Brown and seconded by Councilmember Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Brown Hanus and Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Meisel were absent and excused. SS/MARK.HANU$ Acting Mayor Attest: City Clerk -9460- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Coufidfl~ Plannii~g Commission and Stiff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: July 10, 2000 SUBJECT: COnditional Use Permit APPLICANT: F. Todd Warner CASE NUMBER: 00-38 FIKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 2642 Commerce Blvd. ZONING: Central Business District B-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Linear District BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request for a boat and marine sales operation'in the building previously used by National Power Chair. The business is called Bristol Classics, Ltd., owned by the applicant Todd Warner. Business operations at this site would include sales and .display of wooden power boats and accessories. The company has other facilities in the area that are involved in restoration and storage of classic boats. This location would serve as the primary point of contact for customers. Initial plans are to use the existing building as is while the business gets started. The applicant has indicated to staff that future plans include a new building with a "Lake Mirmetonka" flair consistent with the Downtown Visions Plan. The Zoning Code prescribes a number of review criteria for conditional uses. Boat and marine sales are considered an acceptable use in the B-1 District with approval of a conditional use permit by City .Council. The lot conforms to district minimum requirements for lot area as does the building for bulk requirements. As a retail use parking requirements are 1 space for every 150 sq. ft. of floor area. Based on 3600 sq. ft. of building floor area, the code requires a minimum of 8 parking spaces. The current parking area is gravel and although is not stripped, has enough area to accommodate parking. Staff would recommend the gravel parking area be improved to hardsurfacing at some point in time. There are a number of ways this could occur. Staff would like to see hardsurface up front to upgrade the existing gravel area. A second approach would be to require it as part of the conditions for approval to be addressed at a later time. A third approach would be to postpone 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Mimaesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -9461 - p. 2 #00-$8 - 2642 Commerce Blvd, CUP .~uly ]o, 2ooo improvements until the future plans are certain. Staff would recommend all boat and accessory displays be located within the building. This is a high visibility, high traffic.area that should reflect a higher standard of development. Outdoor boat displays will not lend any help with this image. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. Provide hardsurface paving of the parking area and strip parking spaces. 2. Require all merchandise be located within the building. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, lvlinneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -9462- MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JULY 10, 2000 Those present: Acting Chair Michael Mueller; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry C lapsaddl¢, Becky Glister, Cldair Hasse, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Commissioners Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, GeoffMichael';. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Recording Secretary Diaua.Mestad. The following public were present: Tom Reese, 5641 Bartlett Blvd.; Tim Hufnagle, 4707 Manchester; Todd Warner, 3056 Highland; Gary l-little, Box 51.3, Waconia. Chak Michael welcomed,the public and called the meeting to Order at 7:30 p.m. MINUTEs - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 26,.2000. MINUTES OF TI::I'E PLAN'NINIF COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Burma, seconded by Glister, to accept the June 26, 2000, Planning Commission meeting minutes. MOTION CARRIED. 6-0 BOARD OF APPEALS: 1.0 ~: CONDITIONAL USE, PUBLIC FrEARIN.G, TODD WAlliN-ER, BRISTOL CLASSICS, 2642 COMMERCE BLVD, UNPLATTED 2 117 24, PID #23-117-24 14 0008. The City Planuer stated that this case involves changing the use of the property ~r~m industrial to more of a sales and display of powerboats and accessory items, The applicant wants this facility to serve as the retail side of his business. The applicant's company is involved in the restoration ofw°oden boats. The proposed site would be the point of contact for people wanting to buy a boat or get information about the boats, etc. In the furore, the aPplicant would like to do more with the building but for now would like to use the site as is. No building plans or site improvements are being presented at this time. The City Planner stated that there is an issue with parking at this site. The question is whether to improve the right of way including' drainage improvements or whether to handle this issue later on when the site is improved. The City Planner stated that Staff is recommending that any boats for sale stay within the building. -9463- Mound Plsunlng Commlssion'Mirmtes~/Iuly 10. 200Q Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. Provide hard surface paving of the parking ama and stripe parking spaces. 2, Require all merchandise be located within the bUilding, Glister asked what the speculation was regarding the amount of traffic. The City Plaraner stated that this had been discussed briefly and it was felt this would be much less traffic thari a gas station type Of store would generate. Staff felt the amount of traffic would be'similar to au office The City Planner stated that there would be some walk in traffic and that this was the type of business that is more destination oriented. OUster asked if the hours of operation were daytime' only. The City Planner stated that he thought that was the case, but n° speci~c hours were provided. Mueller asked what the hardcover requirement was. The City Planner stated that it was currently 30 percent, but with the surface water management plan it could go up to 75 percent. Brown' stated that at the last Council meeting, it looked like the surface water management plau would · be coming through shortly. The City Plauner stated that it was about 2,700 feet ofhardcover and that would be a close number, but' no de~nite survey was available. With the ~ravel driveway the number would be closer to 50 percent. ' Burma asked what the impact of requiring a'hard surface Parking tot would be.. The City Planner stated there really isnot an increased.. The City Planner restated that currently there were no changes being made to the site.. The City Building Official handed out the new survey and the Commission took some time to review this. Burma con.6rmed that the City Planner's recommendation was that there not be any boats outside including the back of the building. The City Planner stated yes that was the reCommendation and that it 'is consistent with other districts of this type. Mueller asked about setbacks abutting a residential area and whether there wa~ a V~ance being given. The City Plauner stated that this is au existing condition.and Staffis looking to reco~r~ize what is on the property as the buiIding sits today. He fimher stated that approval.could reflect a variance or ceuld draw on the previous conditions. -9464- Mound Planning.C°mmission Minutes. July I O. 2000 Muelbr asked whether there would be a future concern when the building is changed in that by establishing today what the setbacks arc, is the Commission implying what the new building setbacks would be. The City Planner stated no, it has been indicated to the applicant 'that when a new building was considered, the zoning standards would be revisited based on the development plan. Brown inquired about the gravel lot and the requirement that it be paved. He stated that. the bait store is also located at this site with people using the other driveway 'and he felt it Would be better to blacktop the whole area for appearance. The City Planner said the owner of the bait shop could be consulted. Staff feels this is desirable, but there is a question as to whether ['t should be done now or when expansion is done. If the hard surface is done now and has to be ripped up when the site is improved, it may not make sense. Brown stated 'that it was cheaper tc) do the work when the equipment was there; but that it was the owner's decision. Mueller asked if Staff was requiring the lot to be paved, what was the plan for the bait store. Brown stated that the Commission could not require the bait store to pave the lot, but he hoped things would be upgraded' later. Acting Chair Mueller Opened the Public Hearing at 7:46 p.m. ChUck Lubig, 2670 Commerce Place, expressed his concern about boat repair work being done at this site. Tom Reese, 5641 Bartlett Blvd., stated that he has waited 32 years to clean up this corner. He feels the parking lot is an eyesore and a safety issue and wants the parking lot required to be completed now and would also ilke the bait store to participate if possible. He is in favor oft. he project. Mr. Reese reaffirmed his understanding that there would be no outside storage of boats or late night lighting of the parking lot, Acting Chair Mueller closed the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. The applicant, Todd Wamer, addressed the Commission: He stated that he is akeady in the building, lie has been a Mound resident for 25'years and is interested in the development of the City. Mr. Warner stated that he is not sure what easements are currently in place that give fights for people to drive through between the properties. He stated that he has simple plans and drawings for the future building and that he is looking to do a face-lift that is in line with the Mound Visions Project. The proposed building would have a nautical look and include a door in front that boats can'go in and out. Mr. Warner wished to make it clear that he did not want people to think there will never be a boat outside. He stated that because he has clients from a wide area, it is 1/kely to occur. He stated that there is no repair shop at this site and this is the corporate office. The buikling will · have a showroom and feature boats. There will be some additional lifestyle items. TLere will be lights on the boats at night from inside the building. One of the design plans is to put an awning -9465- 'M°tmd Planning Commission Minn~. July I0. 2000 on the front of the building and pull a boat outside during the dsy to display. Mr. Wa.a'ner is' asking for flexibility to display these antique boats. In reference to the parking issue, Mr. Warner restated that he has not found an easement that allows the. bait shop to exit across the property. He is looking at further development of the site and feels it is a prime site and has great potential. Mr. Warner is considering the issue of whether to end the bait shop traffic across his property. Mr. Warner stated that he is in the process of a name change to Mahogany Bay, He is currently developing a television show about the restoration of boats and is looking for this to be the identity of his business. Brown asked about plans to blacktop the fi.ont. He also stated that regarding the flexJ, bility of leaving boats outside, the problem was that it would stretch into longer periods of time and could develop into an all the '.time situation. Mr. Warner stated he just wanted to have an uraderstanding about this so that there would be no misunderstanding and he wondered what the law said in regard to this. Mr. Warner stated this site had been an eyesore in the past and he felt the antique boats would be a draw to people. He stated that at times boats would be outside overnight as a client would be coming to pick it up in the morning. Repaired boats would be picked'up and dropped, offat this site, but would not he repaired there. Mr. Warner wanted the Commission to be clear about what their expectations were. He further stated that this site was not intended to be a storage yard. Brown stated that the neighbors would not want to see four or five boats on the street all the time with for sale signs. Mr. Warner stated that his boats were wood and could not sit outside. Brown asked about Whether the iniended lighting was back lighting on the boats rather than reflecting out of the building. Mr. Warner stated the light would reflect On to the boats in the interior so that people driving by could see the boats. He is also looking to highlight the building. A potential plan for the north side is to do a mural 'of a classic boat and this would be lighted. Mr. Warner stated that behind the building is a buffer zone of approximately 200 feet, which should shield the lighting fi.om any neighbors. Mr. Warner stated that he has fewer employees in this building then past owners. The City Building Official stated that'he wanted to show the floor plan and discuss the use of thinners, etc. Mr. Warner stated that he wanted to assure everyone th~ this Would not be in any way a repair facility. ' Mueller stated that the fighting has to meet the requirements and be pas~ed by the City Building Official. lie asked what specific thoughts Mr. Warner had On the parkihg lot paving issue. -9466- Mound Planning Commission Minutes. July 10. ~000 Mr. Warner stated he did not have the cost~ involved in the paving and did not know 'what the impact of the bat store would be. He further stated.that did not want to do the improwernent ~thout shutting offthe bait store traffic, He is ~11 pricing this and exploring his development budset, Mueller stated that the gra~'el area in the bait store area is on public property'and that the difficulty of paving someone else's property is a question for the bait store. The Planming Commission would most likely recommend the property be paved, but there would b~ a fairly long time frame in which to accomplish this. MUellcr further stated that the bait stor~ business needs to be viable. Brown asked if there was any thought about, expanding in that way. Mr. Wamer stated there could be conversations in that direction. He is studying the Mound Visions information now and waiting for reports. Mr. Warner stated that he wants to be part of the new Mound direction. Clspsaddle commented that it was his opinion that it is not reasonable to expect the boats would all be inside. He stated that he had no problem with a boat under a canopy outside, but feels that a restriction limiting the number of boats outside at any one time would be more reasonable. Clapsaddle reaffimaed that this is a B 1 zone and that businesses need lighting, exposure, and traffic. Brown stated that this would be a big improvement to the site. Mueller asked how large the vehicle that hauls the boats would be. Mr. Warner stated that they had four different trucks the largesf of which is an F350. He does not have any semis, but does have a hydraulic trailer. In most cases, they wOUld not bring the boats to the office, but would pick up boats in other locations. Mueller inquired about the length of time for outside display for a single boat. Mr. Warner stated that the canopy would be used for a showroom boat and then would be brought in at the end of ~ the~y. The City Planner stated that Staff would look at the idea cfa boat being pulled out as there. would be a need to provide space for parking the one boat outside. He further stated that the issue of trailing boats from the landing UPto the site for aperiod ofan hour or so is not considered storage but should be addressed in some terms in the use pc4umit. Mr. Warner stated the length of time boats would be at this site was a rdatter of. coordinating schedules. He felt this might be a daylong type of thing. Mueller confirmed the time frame maximum was two days. Mr. Warner stated 72 hours would be more accurate and that this could be three different boats, during that time. He further stated that spring and fall would be the increased time. -9467- Mound Planning Comrui~Sion M~nutes. Suly 10. 2000 Glister asked whether the towing vehicles would be located at this site. Mr. Warner stated those vehicles would be at the repair facilities, vehicles located at this site would.be for th~ four employees working at the site. Brown stated that 72 hoUrs was a long time, but he could live with 24 hours, Mr. Warner stated that there would be things to coordinate and he felt 24 hours might be too little time. Mr. Warner wants people to know that he wants this site to look very business like and proper. Brown stated that for discussion he wanted to change item 2 of the Staffrecomr~enda.tions to require all sale merchandise to be located inside the building and that outside boats are to be kept to a maximum of 12 .or 24 hoUrs. Burma stated that 72 hours was a rare exception, and that 48 hours was more realistic. MOTION, by Clapsaddle, seconded by Glister, to approve Staff recommendation revising item two to read "Require all sale merchandise be located within the building and outside display boats to be limited to 72 hours."' ' Mueller questioned the time frame of paving the parMng lot and suggested one year or 18 months, Clapsaddle and Glister agreed with this. Mr. Warner st~,ted that would put the time frame into January. Mueller stated that this was a necessary improvement because of the soft spots in the parldug area. Mr. Warner stated that he did not know what the issues would be regarding the County prope~y: Clapsaddle stated that if the lot was not paved, the current limits of the parking lot would not allow the tracks with a boat to get through. Mueller offered an amendment to the Motion to add the time frame of 18 months to item 1 of Staff redOmmendations. Clapsaddle and Glister accepted this amendm6nt. Brown stated that he brought up the changes to item 2 of the Staff recommendation because he did not want to see sale type stuff on the road. Mueller stated that outdoor sales are allowed in the business district. - Clapsaddle con.firmed the Code would take care of the parking ratios. Mr. Keese asl4ed how many pieces of merchandise could be outside at one time. Mueller stated the area was limited for space and not much Would fit outside. Acting Chair Mueller called the question. AYES: 6 Motion carried. 6-0. -9468- ....... B-~SH--RD ............. BARTLETT BL VD (CO RD NC)1,25) (~) 52 9469 Mound City Code 350.525 350.5Z5 Conditional Use Permits. Sub& 1. Crlte~ for Granting Conditional Use Permits. In granting a oo~itional USe pe~it,', the'Mound City Council shall consider the advice and ~O~end~ons of'the.piing Commission and the effect of the propos~l use upon the he~th, safe~, ~rals ~d ge~ei~al welfare of °ceUpants of surrounding l~x~ds. Among.other 'thlngs, the Ci~ ~uncil may make the following findings where applicable. That the cOnditiOnal use will not be injUrious't° the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the Purpo~s already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate' x~iCinity. · That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and Orderly· development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. That adequate util.ifies~ access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.have been or are being provided, That ade~ate .me~res have been or will be. taken to p~,Ovide sufficient off~street paring ~d loading space tO serve the proposed, use. That adequate me~res have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odori ~'~rnes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in suCh a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties, will result. ~he use, in the opinion of the City Council, is re~nab!y related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing l~d use. ~he use is consistept,with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the · The use is not in conflict with the policy plan of,the City. - 9470- 215100 Mound City C_z~de 350.525, Subd. I, I. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Existing adjacent uses will not be adverselY affected because of curtailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer. That all property taxes, special assessments, municipal utility fees, including but not limited to water and sewer bills, and penalties and interest thereon have been paid for.the property for which the permit has been submitted. (ORD. 105-2000, 2/5/00) Subd. 2. Additional Conditions - Conditional Use Permits. In permitting a new conditional use or the alteration of an existing conditional use, the City Council may impose, in addition to those standards and requirements expressly specified by this Ordinance, additional conditions which the City Council considers necessary to protect the best interest of the surrounding area or the community as a whole. The conditions may include, but are not limited to the following: A. Increasing the required lot size or yard dimension. B, Limiting the height, size or location of buildings. C. Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points. D.. Increasing the street width. E. Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces. F. Limiting the number, size, location.or lighting of signs. Requiring diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjaoent or nearby property. 215:100 -9471 - Mound City Code 350.525, guM. 2, H. Subd. 3. A. Designating sites for open space. Any change involving structUral alterations, enlargement, intensification of use, or similar change not specifically permitted by the conditional use permit issued shall require an amended conditional use permit and all procedures'shall apply as if a new permit were being issued. The Zoning Administrator shall maintain a reCord of all conditional use permits issued including information on the use, location, and conditions imposed by the CiF Council; time limits, review dates, and such other information as"may be appropriate. Procedure - Conditional Use Permits. The person applying for a conditional use permit shall fill out and submit to the Zoning Administrator a conditional use application form. A site plan must be attached at a scale large enough for clarity showing the following information: Location and dimensions of: lot, building, driveways, and off- street parking spaces. Distance between: building and front, side, and rear lot lines; principal building and accessory buildings; principal building and principal buildings on adjacent lots. 3. Location of: signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. Any ~ditional information as may reasonably be required by the Administrator and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance, including but not limited to the following: a. site plan drawn .at scale dimensions with setbacks noted. b. location of all buildings, heights, and square footage. c. curb cuts, driveways, parking spaces. d. off-street loading areas. -9472- 2/5/00 Mound City Code 350.525, Subci. 2, A. 4.e. drainage plan. type of business, proposed number of employees by shift. proposed floor plan with use indicated and building elevations. Co h. sani'tary sewer and water plan with estimated use per day.. a lighting plan showing the lighting of/)arking area, walks, security lighting and driveway entrance lights. j. a landscape plan with a schedule of the plantings. The Zoning Administrator shall refer the application to the Planning Commission for review. The City Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposal. Notice of the public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper designated by the City at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Notice of the hearing shall also be mailed to owners of property located within three hundred and fifty (350) feet of the outer boundaries of the land to which the conditional use will, be applicable. The notice shall include a description of the land and the proposed conditional use. The report of the planning Commission shall be placed o.n the agenda of the Mound City Council at a regular meeting following referral from the Planning Commission. The City Council must take action on the application after receiving.the report of the Planning Commission. If it grants the conditional use .permit, the City Council may impose conditions (including time limits) it considers necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and such conditions may include a time limit for the use to exist or operate. 215100 -9473- Mound City Code, ~50.525, Subd. 3, F. An amended 'conditional use permit application shall be admir~istered in a manner similar to that required for a new conditional use permit. Amended conditional use permits shall include requests for changes in conditions, and as otherwise described in this Ordinance. No application for a conditional use permit shall be resubmitted for a period of one year from the date of said order of denial. If a time limit or periodic review is included as a condition by which a conditional use permit is granted, the conditional use permit may be reviewed at a public hearing with notice of said hearing published at least ten (10) days prior to the review; it shall be the responsibility of the Zoning Administrator to scbedule such public hearings and the owner of land having a conditional use permit shall not be required to pay a fee for said review. A public hearing for annual review of a conditional use permit may be granted at the diSCreiion of the City Council. In the event that the applicant violates any.of the conditions set forth in this permit, the City Council shall have the authority to revoke the conditional use permit. Bond. For any reqUired screening, landscaping or other improvements, the City Council may request that any apPlicant file with the Clerk a bond or other financial guarantee in the amount of one and one,quarter times the Engineer's estimate of the cost of the required improvement. 2/5t00 -9474- Mound City Code 350.525, $gubd, 3, K. After the approval of the Conditional Use Permit, the apPlicarxt, owner or developer, before commencing any work or obtaining any building permits, may be required to make a minimum cash deposit of $250.00. The Council may establish an amount above the minimum deposit at the time the permit is approved and this deposit shall be held in a .special Developer's Escrow Account and shall be credited to the said applicant, owner, or developer. .. Engineering and legal expenses incurred by the City of Mound in plan approval, office and field checking, checking and setting grade and drainage requirements, general supervisions, staking, inspection, drafting ~-built drawings and ail other engineering services performed in the processing of said development, and all administrative and legal expenses in examining title to the property and in reviewing or preparing all documents for the land being developed shall be charged to the aforementioned account and shall be credited to the City of Mound for the payment of these expenses. If at any time it appears that a deficit will occur in any Developer's Escrow Account as determined by the City Manager, said officials shall recommend to the Council that an additional deposit is, required and the Council may require that the applicant, owner or developer shall dePosit additional funds in the Developer's Escrow Account. The, City Engineer and City Attomey shall itemize all services and materials billed to any Developer's Escrow Account. The applicant, owner or developer making the depOsit(s) in the Developer's Escrow Account shall, upon .request, be furnished a copy of said itemized charges and any balance remaining in the account upon completing the proje¢t shall be returned to the depositor by the Clei:k after all claims and charges thereto have been paid. 215100 -9475- CITY OF MOUND - ZONIN( .... SURVEY ON FILL~ YES LOT OP RECORD? yE$ i NO YARD [ DIRECTION R2 RF.,QUIREO INFORMATION SttEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZEPA'IDTlt: R1 ZO,O00/6~ RiA 6,000/40 B2 20,000/BO 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 14,000/80 6~ ORD. ~1 30,000/100 . F-,XISTINO/PROPOSED IIOUSE ......... FRONT FROI, rr SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE N S E W NSEW N' $ E W N S E W N S E W N S E W TOP OF BLUFF (';,ARAGE, SHED--.'../~ DETACNED B'-~ILDINO~"-S -- 10' OR 30' , .. ~, EXISTING LOT SIZE: · LOT Wi O'i'lt: LOT D{~PTH: VARIANCE FRONT N S. E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4'OR§' SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E ' W 4' LAKE N S E W $0' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' HARDCOVER 3o~ oR 4o~ Zoning Information Sheet only munun{fj~:e{ a portion of the rcquircmenlm outlined in Ihe CIly of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further htformation, contact the City or Mound Plalming Lkpartmcnt el 472-0600. * 47 40 ';.-..-.:...- ....... (49) N~4*~0'E , -9476- RESOLUTION #01- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND APPROVING SUBMITTAL OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE FUND GRANT APPLICATION and WHEREAS, the City of Mound is undertaking redevelopment efforts in its downtown area; WHEREAS, the Maxwell property is a high priority redevelopment site with known contamination issues and no apparent source of testing, clean-up or acquisition funding; and WHEREAS, goals of Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant appear to mesh with the need and desire to acquire and conduct environmental testing of the Maxwell site. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota to approve the environmental financial grant application for acquisition and environmental testing of the Maxwell site submitted to the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services on October 24, 2001. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: and seconded by Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk M: lMOUND~O1-241docs~naxwell_henn_grant_res, doc -9477- " h o u s i o~ ETROPLAINS ~ METROPLAINS PROPER'TIES INC METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT LLC g t h e h e a r t I a n d October 15, 2001 Sarah Smith City of Mound 5341 Maywood Avenue Mound, Minnesota 55364 Ref: Village by Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace Dear Ms. Smith, In preparation for the construction start on the above project, discussions with John Cameron defined that a request be made, similar to the one that Rottlund made and was approved, to get a building permit for the model unit building prior to the full execution of contracts for utilities and street construction for the entire project. In the City of Mound Engineer's Memo to the Mound City Council, October 4, 2001, item 31 of the Special Conditions indicate "no building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for utility and street construction". We plan to execute utility and street construction contracts over the next several months for the entire project. We are requesting an exception for the model unit building so as to have a home sales center throughout the winter and spring. The model unit building utilities will be brought in to service just this building and a temporary road, in the location of the final road, to also service this model unit building until the final utilities and streetscape have been contracted for the entire project. The utility locations for the services are illustrated on the information provided as part of' the grading and utility plan that was part of the final plat. We ask this consideration be made and granted so that a building permit for the model unit building can be issued. Sincerely, -9478- SPRUCE TREE CENTRE 651 646 7848 · · 1600 UNIVERSITY AVE. · SUITE 212 ST PAUL MINNESOTA 55f04-3825 FAX 651 646 8947 · www. rnetroplains.com EARLY START AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 2001 by and between MINNESOTA MARKETPLACE, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (hereinafter "Developer"), and THE CITY OF MOUND, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of the lands lying within the boundaries of land within the City of Mound legally described in the attached Exhibit A (the "Property") and WHEREAS, the City has granted final approval to the replat of the Property as "Mound Visions 2nd Addition"; and WHEREAS, because of certain conditions imposed on final approval of the plat, it is not likely that the plat will be available for recording for up to 60 days; and WHEREAS, Developer has asked the City for permission to allow it to begin construction on a four unit residential building prior to the filing of the plat in order that the building may be available for showing as a model(s); and WHEREAS, Mound is willing to grant Developer the right to do so upon receiving certain assurances and undertaking from Developer; and WHEREAS, Developer is willing to make certain assurances and undertakings as consideration for the City's consent to commence construction. NOW, THEREFORE, on the basis of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter provided, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Early Start. Subject to the conditions imposed in this agreement, the City hereby grants to Developer the permission to Commence construction of the four unit residential building located in the northeast corner of the Property. 2. Conditions. The permission granted in paragraph 1 is subject to the following: a. Developer will locate the dimensions of the lots on which the building will be constructed so as to reasonably assure the Building Official that the structures are placed on the lots as approved by the City. b. Developer shall apply for and obtain the necessary building permits and other governmental approvals. JBD-204523vl MU220-5 -9479- of the plat. The City will not grant any Certificate of Occupancy prior to the recording 3. Developer Acknowledgments. Developer acknowledges that it is proceeding at its own risk in starting construction of the building in advance of recording of the plat, and understands that this agreement imposes no obligation on the City to take any action or do any thing that would compromise the City's ability to exercise its legislative discretion. Developer further acknowledges that the units may not be occupied prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; and further acknowledges that the City has the authority to take all actions as it determines necessary and appropriate in enforcing the provisions of its ordinances, including zoning regulations. 4. Indemnity. As further consideration for the permission granted the City hereunder, Developer indemnifies and holds harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claim or cause of action occasioned by or arising out of such early start permission, including, but not limited to any claim arising out of inability to gain prompt access to the homesites during construction. 5. Successors and Assigns. The provisions in this Agreement are binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and to their respective successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands the day and year first above written. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA By: Its City Manager By: Its Mayor MINNESOTA MARKETPLACE, LLC. By: Its By: Its JBD-198755vl MU200-g5 -9480- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this , 2001, by and respectively, the City Manager and Mayor of the City of Mound, Minnesota, municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. day of a Minnesota Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me , 2001, by , respectively, the of Minnesota Marketplace LLC., a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. this day of , and and Notary Public Its This Instrument Was Drafted By: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED (JBD) 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612-337-9300 JBD-198755vl MU200-85 -9481 - EXHIBIT A Description of Property J-BD-198755vl MU200-85 -9482- EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, "Lynwold Park" Lake Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; vacated Ridgewood Avenue and vacated alley originally delineated and dedicated in said plat of"Lynwold Park" Lake Minnetonka. That part of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, except that part of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter described as follows: Beginning at a point on the east line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, distant 225.00 feet southerly from the northeast corner of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence westerly, parallel with the north line of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 398.63 feet; thence southerly, deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 158.39 feet; thence easterly, deflecting to the left 89 degrees 57 minutes 22 seconds, to said east line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence northerly along said east line to the point of beginning. Which lies easterly and southerly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 20 in said "Lynwold Park"; thence on an assumed bearing of North 2 degrees 59 minutes 17 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 20 and its northerly extension, a distance of 250.42 feet, to the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 2 degrees 59 minutes 17 seconds East, along said northerly extended line, a distance of 282.43 feet; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 06 seconds East a distance or 100,13 feet, to the southerly extension of the west line of Dewey Avenue now known as Bellaire Lane, as delineated and dedicated in the record plat of "MOUND"; thence North 2 degrees 56 minutes 50 seconds East, along said southerly extended line, a distance of 72.90 feet; thence northwesterly, a distance of 59.86 feet, along a curve concave to the east having a radius of 225.00 feet and a central angle of 15 degrees 14 minutes 38 seconds, the chord of said curve has a length of 59.69 feet which bears North 7 degrees 39 minutes 03 seconds West, to the intersection with a line bearing South 89 degrees 58 minutes 16 seconds West from a point on the east line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distant 225.00 feet southerly from the Northeast comer of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 500.00 feet and said line there terminating. Lots 18, 19, & 20 Lynwold Park, Lake Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. -9483- EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101,104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, "MOUND", according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 'Those parts of Lots 102 and 103 "MOUND", according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lie easterly of the east line of the west 200.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian. That part of Meadow Lane, as delineated and dedicated on the plat of ''MOUND", according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and now vacated, which lies easterly of the west 200.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5t~ Principal Meridian, and westerly of the southerly extension of the west line of Dewey Avenue, now known as Bellaire Lane, as delineated and dedicated in said plat of''MOUND". That part of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, except the west 200.00 feet thereof, also except that part within the plat of ''MOUND", accOrding to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota and except that part described as follows: Commencing at the northeast comer of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence southerly, along the east line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 225.00 feet; thence westerly, parallel with the north line of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, to the intersection with the southerly extension of the west line of Dewey Avenue, now know as Bellaire Lane, as delineated and dedicated in the plat of ''MOUND"; thence northerly along said southerly extension to the north line of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence easterly, along said north line to the point of beginning. Which lies westerly and northerly ora line described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of Lot 20 in "Lynwold Park", Lake Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof, thence on an assumed bearing of North 2 degrees 59 minutes 17 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 20 and its northerly extension, a distance or 250.42 feet, to the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the -9484- Southeast Quarter and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 2 degrees 59 minutes 17 seconds East, along said northerly extended line, a distance of 282.43 feet; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 06 seconds East a distance of 100.13 feet, to the southerly extension of the west line of Dewey Avenue, now know as Bellaire Lane, as delineated and dedicated in the record plat of 'WiOUND"; thence North 2 degrees 56 minutes 50 seconds East, along said southerly extended line, a distance of 72.90 feet; thence northwesterly, a distance of 59.86 feet, along a curve concave to the east having a radius of 225.00 feet and a central angle of 15 degrees 14 minutes 38 seconds, the chord of said curve has a length of 59.69 feet which bears North 7 degrees 39 minutes 03 seconds West, to the intersection with a line beating South 89 degrees 58 minutes 16 seconds West from a point on the east line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distant 225.00 feet southerly from the Northeast comer of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 500.00 feet and said line there terminating. G:hnoundkmdlklegal residential -9485- 5341 I~mTwood Mound, MN 55364 CSZ) 472.3190 Memorandum To~ Date.' Re: Kells Lane Residents and Interested Parties Sarah Smith, Community Development Director 10/19/01 Review of Request from Jonathan paul for Vacation of a portion of Kells Lane On behalf of the City of Mound, I wish to offer a friendly reminder that the City Council will continue discussion regarding the request from Jonathan Paul to vacate a portion of Kells Lane at its meeting to be held on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 at 7:30 PM. In the event you have any comments or questions or regarding this matter, you are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Additionally, please feel free to contact me at your convenience at (952) 472-3190 and I will be happy to address any concerns you may have. Best regards. -9486- MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Mound City Council and Staff Loren Gordon, City Planner October 18, 2001 Kells Lane Vacation update Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. This is a brief update regarding the status of the Kells Lane vacation request which was tabled at the October 9~ City Council meeting. As request by the City Council, Staff had a meeting at the site with John Paul, Jeff' paul, and Dennis Hopkins on Monday, October 15th. The following is a summary of that meeting: John Paul and Jeff Paul have agreed on a dividing line at the eastern edge of the gravel parking area located on City Lot 6. John Paul would receive the land on Lot 6 west of that line. Jeff. Paul would receive some amount of land east of that line extending to and/or through a vacated/unvacated Kells Lane. The width of what Jeff' Paul would receive might be 20 feet as suggested. Dennis Hopkins' concerns regarding public lake access appear to be a separate issue fi.om the Kells Lane request. Staff indicated that Mr. Hopkins approach the City Council, Park and/or Docks and Commons Commissions to hear the details regarding his issues as they are somewhat unrelated to the request of John Paul. · Jeff' Paul may choose to discuss what he believes is the value of his property with the City Council during the meeting on the 23fa. He has not shared any numbers with Staff.to date. The City Attorney has verified that the City has fee title to the City property located immediately south of Kells Lane (Lots 1-6.) Therefore, there are no restrictions in the event the City wants to release and/or sell portions of this property to private parties. Based on the City Engineer's conversation with Hennepin County, it does appear however that the County will require additional right-of-way to cover the roadway encroachment on the property. 123 North Third SWeet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 -9487- p. 2 Kells Lane update October 18, 2001 To move this item forward, the City Council shoUld consider this new information and determine how to address the request. The options at this time are: 1. Accept the John/Jeff Paul agreement and move the request forward. If Council chooses this option there are a number of items Staffwill need to review including: · Confirmation of the title review work by the City Attorney. · If additional Kells Lane land should be included in the vacation adjacent to Jeff.Paul's property and possibly land west of John Paul. · Details on a land transfer/sale of Lot 6. · Hennepin County right-of-way issues. · Driveway cut(s) to Wilshire Blvd. request both 2. Accept John Paul's request and work with Jeff.Paul on the purchase of his property. 3. Evaluate other alternatives as presented by Staff. 4. Deny the vacation request. The Parks Commission recommended designating this area as a Nature Conservation Area (NCA). Under any scenario, an NCA is an option, although it would not need to be put in place concurrently with action on the vacation request. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338~6838 -9488- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com October 16, 2001 Ms. Glenda Spiotta Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 2500 Shadywood Road Navarre, MN 55331 RE: Cooperative Agreement - City of Mound Surface Water Management Plan Dear Ms. Spiotta: The City is in receipt of a letter from Ms. Lisa Tillman dated October 9, 2001 requesting an update regarding the status of the cooperative agreement between the City of Mound and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for the Mound Surface Water Management Plan. Please be advised that the draft agreement is being forwarded to the City Council for action at its October 23, 2001 meeting. Additionally, it is also being reviewed as a discussion item at the City Council workshop scheduled for October 22, 2001. As you are aware, the cooperative agreemem was reviewed by the City Council at its June 26, 2001 meeting and was subsequently tabled pending additional review and discussion by City staff. On behalf of the City of Mound, I would ask that you share this information with the MCWD Board of Managers. If you have any questions regarding this letter or would like any additional information, please feel free to contact me at 952-472-3190. Again, I appreciate the assistance we have received from the MCWD regarding this project. Community Development Director Gray Freshwater Center Hwys, 15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (952) 471-0590 Fax: (952) 471-0682 Email: admin @ minnehahacreek.org Web Site: www. minnehahacreek.org Board of Managers Pamela G. Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Mortice Gross Scott Thomas Malcolm Reid Robert Schroeder Minnehaha Creek Watershed Improving Quality o/Water, Quality o/Life October 9, 2001 District Kandis Hanson City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms. Hanson: We are completing final assessment of your City's local water management plan. According to out' records, the City of Mound Plan was conditionally approved at the May 10, 2001 meeting of the MCWD Board of Managers. .The City was requesting authority over District Rules B - Erosion Control, C - Floodplain Management, D - Wetland Protection, and N - Stormwater Management. Until the conditions of approval are met, the Plan is not formally approved and transfer of authority cannot occur. The conditions for approval were as listed in the attached resolution. If you could provide us with a written statement on City progress toward meeting these conditions by October 16, 2001, we would appreciate it. We plan on discussing the status of conditionally approved local water management plans at the October 25, 2001 meeting of the Board of Managers. If you have any questions please contact Glenda Spiotta at (952) 471-0590. Sincerely, Lisa Tilman Cc: Sarah Smith, City of Mound RECEIVEP OCT 1 2 2001 MOUND I LANr II 6 &. T:\0185\045267\WMP Status letter Mound.doc Pflnted on recycled paper containing at least 30% post consumer waste. -9490- COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City of Mound for Local Water Planning and Regulation This Cooperative Agreement is made this day of ,200 l'by and between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, a watershed district with purposes and powers as set forth at Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D ("MCWD"), and the City of Mound, a body corporate and politic and a [home rule charter/statutory] city in the State of Minnesota ("City"). Recitals and Statement of Purpose WHEREAS in 1997, the MCWD revised its comprehensive watershed manag&ment plan under Minnesota Statues § 103B.231, which details the existing physical environment, land use and development in the watershed and establishes a plan to regulate water resource use and management to protect water resources, improve water quality, prevent flooding and otherwise achieve the goals of Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D; WHEREAS the MCWD's comprehensive watershed management plan incorporates the Rules adopted by the MCWD to protect water resources, improve water quality, prevent flooding and otherwise achieve the goals of Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D; WHEREAS the City has developed a local water management plan under Minnesota Statutes § 103B.235 that describes the existing and proposed physical environment and land use within the City and sets forth an implementation plan for bringing local water management into cofformance with the MCWD's comprehensive watershed management plan; WHEREAS on May 1, 2001, the MCWD Board of Managers conditionally aPProved the City's local water management plan by adoption of Resolution 06-2001, which resolution is attached and incorporated herein; WHEREAS the May 1, 2001 local plan approval was condition on fulfillment of the terms set forth in Resolution 06-2001; ~REAS the City within 120 days of execution of this Cooperative Agreement will adopt and implement its local water management plan and within 180 days will adopt all ordinances identified in. Resolution 06-2001 as necessary for the Board of Managers' finding that the City's official coata, ols ar~ as protective of the water resource as the MCWD's; ~REAS, the MCWD and City desire to memorialize their respective roles in implementing water resource protection and management within the City; NOW THEREFORE it is mutually agreed by and between the parties that they enter into this Coo~rafive Agreement in order to document the understanding of the parties as to the roles and responsibilities of each party. CLL-199ao60v2 MU2204 ·-9491 - 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.0 2.1 2.2. 2.3 2.4 Res_oonsibilities of the City_ The City may exercise all present and future authority it otherwise may possess to issue permits for and regulate activities affecting water resources within the City. The City is solely responsible for erosion control, flood plain alteration, wetland protection and stormwater management for land development within the City. The City will regulate these activities in accordance with the City's approved local water management plan and the terms of this Agreement. The MCWD will continue to exercise its regulatory authority with respect to all other subjects of regulation under its Rules. On written confirmation to the MCWD that the City has adopted erosion con~'ol, flood plain alteration, wetland protection and stormwater management for land development ordinances as required by Resolution 06.2001 and said ordinances are in force, the City shall become solely responsible for erosion control, flood plain alteration, wetland protection and stormwater management for land development within the City. The City will implement the ordinances in accordance with the City's approved local water management plan and the temm of this Agreement. Within 120 days of its receipt of the MCWD's wetland inventory and function & value assessment for the City, the City shall review its local water management plan, submit to the MCWD such revisions as the City believes warranted by the new information. The City will not issue a variance for an activity that does not comply with an above- referenced ordinance until the MCWD has approved the variance and proposed conditions. On receipt of a request for a variance, the City promptly will transmit a copy of the variance request~ and supporting documentation to the MCWD for review. · ~ The City will maintain a log of permits it grants pursuant to this Agreement, will provide the log to the MCWD annually and will meet at least annually with the MCWD to review the implementation of the City's local water management plan. Responsibilities of the MCWD The MCWD will continue to apply and enforce MCWD Rules E, F, and G "dredging, shomland and streambank improvements, and stream and lake crossings," within the City, as applioable. The MCWD will continue to apply and enforce MCWD Rules B, C, D and N, "erosion coatrol, flood plain alteration, wetland protection and stormwater management for land development," within the City until the conditions in Paragraph 1.3 have been met. Ilae MCWD will e0ntinue to apply and enforce Rule I, "Variances," when considering a vafian..~, from an above-referenced City ordinance. The MCWD will act on a variance request pursuant to Paragraph 1.5 within 30 days of its receipt of the request. ~ MCWD will perform a wetland inventory and a function & value assessment for the City and .will provide the results to the City. CLL. 199360v2 MU220-4 -9492- :2.5 2.6 2.7 The MCWD will exercise good faith in its review and approval of any revision submitted by the City in accordance with paragraph 1.4, above. The MCWD will meet with the City at least annually to review the implementation of the City's local water management plan. . , The MCWD retains the right to enforce any and all of its rules in the event that the City is unable or unwilling to eany out its obligations listed in Section 1.0 of this Agreement. 2.8 The MCWD retains all authority that it may possess under Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D or any other provision of law, except as explicitly reposed in the City under this Agreement, including but not limited to authority set forth in .MinnesOta Statutes §§ 103B.211, subd. l(a); 103D.335 and 103D.341. 3.0 Conditions The City's local water management plan shall be deemed finally approved by the MCWD on the City's fulfillment of paragraph 1.3 above. 4.0 Amendment This Agreement may be amended only by a writing signed by both of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Cooperative Agreement. CITY OF MINNEHAHA CREEK' WATERSHED DISTRICT By: By: Mayor By: City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION By: Its Attorney President, Board of Managers APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION By: Its Attorney CLL-199360v2 MU2204 -9493- RESOLUTION NO. 06-2001 APPROVING THE CITY OF MOUND'S LOCAL WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS on June 12, 1997, the MCWD adopted amendments to its comprehensive watershed management plan under Minnesota Statutes § 103B.231, which, as amended, details the existing physical environment, land use and development in the watershed and established a plan to manage water resources and regulate water resource use to improve water quality, prevent flooding and otherwise achieve the goals of Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D; and WHEREAS the MCWD's comprehensive watershed management plan, as amended incorporates the Rules adopted by the MCWD to protect water resources, improve water quality, prevent flooding and otherwise achieve the goals of Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D; and WHEREAS the City of Mound submitted a local Water Resources Management Plan to the MCWD for review and comment on May 2, 2000 that continued under an extended time frame by agreement of the City and the MCWD; and WHEREAS the MCWD reviewed the Plan in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 103B.235, subd.3, prepared comments and met with City representatives; and WHEREAS the Metropolitan Council received the local Water Resources Management Plan and provided its comments to the MCWD on September 1,2000; and WHEREAS the City of Mound subsequently prepared revisions and submitted final revisions to MCWD which incorporated MCWD review comments; and WHEREAS the MCWD determined that the revised Plan is consistent with the MCWD Water Resource Management Plan; and WHEREAS the MCWD determined that the Plan meets the requirements for local plan approval set forth in the MCWD's Water Resource Management Plan, including that the City has demonstrated that draft official controls described in the Plan will protect the MCWD's water resources at least as well as the MCWD's rules; and WHEREAS the City does intend to assume regulatory authority for erosion control, floodplain, preservation, wetland protection and stormwater management. -9494- Resoluti°n No. 06-2001 Approving City of Mound's Water Resources Mana~jement Plan THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the MCWD Board of Managers hereby approves the Plan on the occurrence of the following conditions: 1. Both local governments shall execute a cooperative agreement establishing implementation responsibilities between the City and MCWD. The City shall revise the Wetland Management Plan to state that the City will amend the Plan and submit it to the MCWD for approval within four months or 120 days after the MCWD provides the Wetlands Functions and Values Inventory and Assessment results for wetlands within the City of Richfield. 3. City Ordinances: City ordinances shall be adopted addressing the use of phosphorus fertilizer, erosion control, parking lot/street sweeping, pet waste disposal, floodplain alteration, wetland protection and stormwater management within 180 days of plan approval. Adopted city ordinances shall be in the final substantive form as submitted to MCWD as included in the Mound Water Resource Management Plan with the following provisions: 1. Activities will result in no net decrease in the 100 year flood storage capacity. 2. BMPs will be consistent with Rule N, specifications of the MPCA Manual (Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas) and its future revisions. 3. Water quantity control requirements will be consistent with Rule N, #4 (rate control) 4. Water quality requirements will be consistent with Rule N. #5. Wetland buffers will be required for all wetlands impacted by filling or excavation and for wetlands on sites with new development or changes in development and floodplain alteration sites. 6. Activities including but not limited to mowing, yard waste, disposal, and fertilizer application shall not occur within the wetland buffer zone. 7. Wetland replacement where permitted shall occur within the same subwatershed as the associated wetland impact. 8. Written notification will be' in accordance with Rule A, #5. The City shall not otherwise amend the Plan before adoption. -9495- FINALLY BE IT RESOLVED that MCWD staff and consultants are directed to develop a cooperative agreement with the City of Mound to be executed upon mutual agreement and MCWD Board approval within six months of this date. offered the following resolution and moved its adoption, seconded by The motion to adopt Resolution No. 6 -2001 received yeas and~ Yea Nay Abstain Absent ..Yea Nay BLIXT SCHROEDER CALKINS REID FISHER THOMAS GROSS nays as follows: Abstain Absent Upon vote, the President of the Board of Managers declared the Resolution No. 6-2001 adopted on this 10~ day of May, 2001. I, Lance Fisher, Secretary of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers hereby certify that this is a true and accurate copy of the original Resolution No. 6-2001approved on the 10~ day of May, 2001, by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers during an official Board of Managers meeting on that date. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand of said Watershed District this the 10th day of May, 2001. . Lance Fisher, Secretary -9496- MINUTES OF TI-IE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS May 10, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers was called to order by President Pamela Blixt at 6:50 p.m., Thursday, May 10, 2001, in the Council Chambers, Minnetonka Community Center, Minnetonka, Minnesota. MANAGERS PRESENT Pamela Blixt, Malcolm Reid, MOnica Gross, Lance Fisher, James Calkins, Scott Thomas. MANAGERS ABSENT Robert Schroeder. ALSO PRESENT Eric Evenson, District Administrator; Glenda Spiotta, District Planner; Joan Ellis, District Communications/Education Manager; Jim Hafner, Senior District Technician; Michael Panzer, District Consulting Engineer; Chuck Holtman, Assistant District Counsel. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Manager Thomas, seconded by Manager Calkins, to approve the agenda with the following additions: · Add 12.6, discussion of Minnehaha Creek stabilization project Upon vote, the motion carried 5 - O. CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT None. Manager Reid arrived at this time. -9497- Minutes May 10, 2001 Sue Yorzak, Minnetonka, offered her observation that cities and developers are being quite cavalier about water resource protection and that a great deal of high-rise development along the Creek demonstrates the need for strong protections. Carol Hines, Hopkins, concurred that large condominium developments on the north side of the creek were a substantial intrusion on the resource and that the proposed buffers would help to limit the impacts of such developments. Manager Blixt determined that no further members of the public wished to speak to the rules and the public hearing was closed. The Board turned to discussion of the proposed rules. Mr. Evenson advised that written comments on the rules packages had been received from Minnetonka, Minnetrista, Mound, R/chfield and St. Louis Park. Mr. Holtman, with reference to a May 8, 2001 memorandum to the Board, went through 14 staff recommendations for revision of the proposed rules prompted by public comments as well as staff/consultant discussion. Mr. Holtman first presented Recommendation 4 to delete buffer provisions from Rule D and create a stand-alone Rule M buffer rule applicable to lakes, streams and wetlands. Mr. Holtman advised Managers Fisher and Calkins that moving the wetland buffer provisions from Rule D to Rule M would not create any loopholes. The Board concurred in the, staff recommendation. Recommendation 1 was to provide qualitative definitions of the terms "impervious" and "pervious." According to Mr. Holtman, Mr. Panzer.had advised that a quantitative "bright line" definition would have an element of arbitrariness and that those in the field would agree on what type of surface is "pervious" and what is "impervious." The primary focus of the defirdtions is to clarify that a surface need not be 100 percent impervious in order for it to be defined as impervious for the purposes of the rules. In response to a question from Managers Fisher and Gross,.Mr. Panzer advised that a quantitative definition could be used, but would have the aforementioned limitations. In response to a question fi-om Manager Reid, Mr. Holtman advised that some research had been done as to definitions used by other Watershed districts, but that a more comprehensive study had not been done. In further response to a question about a quantitative standard, Mr. Panzer noted that nmoff coefficients also will vary depending on soil type and on the phase of a given storm. Manager Thomas felt that with so m~y variables, a qualitative definition might be preferable. The Board directed staffto further research the matter and to again present a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Holtman described Recommendation 2. This recommendation would provide for a limited exception from a temporary buffer requirement for small sites and for sites with other features for which the buffer requirement would make construction infeasible. Manager Gross opposed this recommendation. Mangers Fisher and Calkins stated that it 5 -9498- Minutes May 10, 2001 had relocated one of those chambers for improved performance, lie also noted that throughout construction it was discovered that the location of subsurface infrastructure often was not where indicated on the City's as-built plans, I-Ie noted the late discowry of a large Minnegasco gas main that needed to be crossed three times. The pipe necessitated revising the Amelia Pond design. The contractor also encountered more soft soils than anticipated, necessitating materials adjustments. Mr. Hettiarachchi described the pond and wetland functions and presented photographs of the created facilities. Mr. Bedulm reviewed the project budget and expenditures to date. The project budget, including landscaping, was $2.7 million; $2.28 million has been expended to this point. He informed the Board that landscaping would commence tomorrow with a controlled cattail bum, tree replacement and final grading and seeding would begin next week, and the weir is scheduled to be installed by the end of May. Final site restoration Would occur in June. Responding to a question from Manager Thomas, Mr. Bedutm noted that the rough fish removal had produced fewer pounds of fish than expected. He believed that the contractor's initially favorable scanning of the lake probably was showing large schools of smaller crappies and also believe that because of the artificial dredged bottom of Lake Nokomis, the carp may have been able to escape the nets in the channels beneath the nets. He observed that, nevertheless, the operation, at $3,800, was a very cost-effective means to reduce internal biomass loadings. Ms. Ellis advised the Board that HDR had done a very good job in addressing the public outcry over the temporary trail closure. 2002 BUDGET PROCESS Mr. Evenson directed the Board's attention to the budget schedule in the packet and advised that a special budget workshop was scheduled for May 31, 2001. MINNEHAItA CREEK STABILIZATION PROJECT Mr. Evenson informed the Board that Managers Blixt and Gross and he met with Hermepin County Commissioners Opat, McLaughlin, and Dorfman and MPRB representatives to discuss remaining differences as to trail widths. As a result of the discussion, the MPRB has agreed to reduce all pedestrian trails from eight feet to six feet. Bicycle and combined paths will remain at their proposed widths due to ISTEA requirements. Manager Blixt noted that the Board will hear public comment on the project on May 14, 2001, and will take that input into account in acting on the MPRB's permit renewal request as well as the outstanding cooperative agreement. Mr. Evenson also noted that the MPRB had agreed, to move the trail away from the creek in certain specified areas. Mr. Panzer observed that installation of grade control would be 9 -9499- 10/lB/2001 THU 14:,31 F.a_I 612 920 1069 DECISION RESOURCES ~001/004 Decision Resources, Ltd. F A C S I. M I L E Company: Fax Number: Phone Number: From' Subject and CommenB: Total Pages: q (including coyer page) Decision Resource. s, Ltd. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 Phone: (612) 920-0337 Fax: (612) 920-1069 -9500: 10/18/2001 TRI~ 14:31 FAX 612 920 1069 DECISION RES0[~CES ~002/004 AGREEMENT I. PREAMBLE Whereas, Decision Resources, Limited, (hereinafter referred '~o as DRL) offers its services to organizations in thc public and private sectors for thc purpose of conducting market research by telephone survey to ascertain such information as may be requested by its clients, and Wahberea% City of Mound (hereinafter referred to as CLIENT) wishes to employ DRL for the ove 'stated purpose, DRL and CLIENT agree to the following terms, conditions, and fees governing such employment. II. SERVICES DRL shall conduct a telephone sui~ey the sample size of which shall be 400. The number of questions shall be determined at a later point. The survey shall be contained within the City of Mound. DRL will submit the questionnaire for the survey to CLIENT for its approval prior to the commencement ofimerviews. The specific details of the survey as to timing, questionnaire content, and population sample to be surveyed (except as otherwise specified in paragraph A) shall be mutually agreed upon by the parties as circumstances may require. In the event the parties fail to agree, CLIENT shall have the final authority to determine the subject matter content of the survey, while DRL shall have final authority to determine the specific wording of questions on the questionnaire and the specific individuals within the given population to be sampled. DRL shall not be obligated to ask questions of persons interviewed in addition to those questions included on the approved questionnaire or to provide data or interpretations with respect to topics or issues not covered by the questionnaire. DRL ~ proceed with a survey only after it receives notice of CLIENT's approval of the questionnaire. (C.) The survey shall be commenced as soon as is practicable following: (l) Approval of the questionnaire by CLIENT, and (2) Payment of all fees due to date as required. (D.) Upon payment of all fees due to date, DRL shall furnish to CLIENT a written report of the survey results including interpretations which may be reasonably drawn therefrom. At that time, CLIENT, in consultation with DP, L, will schedule meetings for the presentation and discussion of these results, Both the President of DRL and the Project Director of this study shall be available for meetings and supplementary analysis not to exceed twenty additional hours of time, Further time commitments of DRL personnel deemed needed by CLiENT shall be billed upon a mutually agreed-to hourly basis prior to their execution. Paae 1 of 3 -9501 - 10/18/2001 THU 14:32 ¥.~.X 612 920 1069 DECISION RESOURCES ~003/004 II!. FEES CLIENT shall remit to DRL fees in the arnoums, at the times, and in the manner specified hereunder: The TOTAL AMOUNT of all fees due under this agreement shall be $8,800.00 FOR A 60 QUESTION SURVEY. EACH ADDITIONAL QUESTION ~rlLL BE $135.00 EACIq_ FEES DUE One half of the total fhe under ~ agreement shall be due at the time CLIENT executes this agreement. DKL shall not be obligated to commence interviews for the survey until the fee called for in this paragraph (A.) has been paid in full. The balance of the TOTAL AMOUNT remaining unpaid shall be due prior to delivery by DRL to CLIENT of the written report required under Section II (D.). (C.) All ibes due under this agreement shall be payable by ordinary check~ except that DRL reserves the right to require payment by certified check, a~er having given CLIENT three days notice of such requirement. IV. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS AND DISCLOSURE The written report required under Section H (D.) shall become the sole property of CLIENT after payment to DRL of the TOTAL AMOUNT required in Section III, Except as otherwise provided by law, the survey questionnaires and replies and all related da~ materials, and information shall remain the property o£DKL. DKL agrees not to divulge or use for any purpose, including but not limited to advertising and public relations, the information obtained in the survey without the written consent of CLIEI~]T; provided, however, if the data or results of the survey are directly or indirectly made public by CLIENT or anyone else, DKL may m~ke public the following information: the population from which the sample was taken, the method of obtaining the interviews, including the size and design of the sample, and the basis of the data ~the sample is less than the total sample, the dates and times when the interviews were conducted, the exact wording of' questions asked and the client's name. CLI]~NT agrees that if it or anyone else acting on ks behalCw~shes to release in whole or in part to the public by press release, speech, or otherwise, the data or results of the survey or contents o£the written report, that CLIENT or such other person will first notify DRL in writing, and that there w~ll be also stated in the release, speech, or otherwise, that thc survey was done by DECISION KESOUKCES, LIMITED, OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA. CLIENT agrees, at all times both during the tcrrn of this Agreement and thereafter, to keep in confidence all knowledge or information as to the processes, methods and techniques o£DRL and not to disclose or make known such knowledge or int~orrnafion to any other person, firm, corporation or organization, including but not limited to competitors of DKL, except when specifically authorized to do so in writing by DKL, CLIENT further understands and agrees that the names and addresses of'interviewers used by DRL and the names and/or addresses of persons sampled are confidential and will not be made available to 10/18/2001 THU 14:32 F.~ 612 920 1069 DECISION RESOURCES ~004/004 V. EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES DRL agrees to utilize its bea efforts to insure the accuracy of any survey by it pursuant to this Agreement. However, it is specifically understood and agreed that nothing in this Agreement, or any survey or written report furnished under Section II (D.), shall be considered as either a prediction or guarantee o£the results of any election or the outcome of any event, and any representations or warranties, express or implied, to that effect are hereby excluded. In addition, DRL shall not be responsible or liable for any failure by it to conduct any survey or render any written report if such failure results from labor disturbances, fires, floods, wars, riots, cMI disturbances, and other events beyond the control of DKL. VI. MODIFICATIONS Modifications of this Agreement shall not be enforceable unIess in writing and sig~ed by the party to be charged. Neither parties' waiver of any rights due him/her under this A~eement shall have the effect ofwaivhag other or subsequent rights due hereunder. VII. MISCELLANEOUS (A.) Tl~s Agreement merges and supersedes all other agreements, verbaI and written, between the parties and represents all agreements between them and binds thek administrators, heirs, successors, and assignees. (B.) Any provision of this Agreement which may be held unenforceable shall be severable and the balance of the Agreement enforced. (C.) CLIENT agrees that it shall comply with all laws respec~g disclosure of this Agreement, (D.) DRL reserves ~he ~gh~ to use the findings from this survey in anonymous form as to the specific population and client for purposes of aggregate and comparative analyses to be made available to other clients of DRL or publications. 200/_.. DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. CLIENT PRESIDENT (Position) .Paoe '~ oF3 -9503-' 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-5196 Architecture * engineering · 651.490.2000 651.490.2150 FAX environmental · transportation October 2, 2001 Mr. Jim Fackler Parks Director City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 City of Mound Public Works & Recreation Facilities Study SEH No. P-MONCI0201.01 Dear Jim Fackler: Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) respectfully presents this Fee Estimate for professional services for the Predesign Phase for the City of Mound Public Works & Recreation Facilities Study. This proposal presents our understanding of the "Scope of Work" for your project. We have summarized the tasks included in the "Scope of Work" with the respective schedule on the attached Work Plan Exhibit A The cost for conducting this work will be/t~7,800. Compensation shall be on an hourly basis to the established maximum fee, not including ordinary reimbursable expenses. Reimbursable expenses for this phase of the project will include travel, reproduction, and a second opinion construction cost estimate2 '~o ~ 4-0 -~e~,_~ . · If you approve of the "Scope of Work" described in this letter proposal along with respective fees, please sign below and remm one (1) copy of this letter for our records. We look forward to working with you on this project and should you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 612.758.6787, 651.402.3507 or nschultz~sehinc.com. Sincerely, ~ ~ ~ ~[ ~ ~~, Received & Approved SHORT ELLIOTT HEND~CKSON ~C. By: Nancy Schultz, AIA Project Manager Title: Date: c: Mike Forestch r:~arch\proj ects\ho pki\ I -genl\ 14-corral 4-1 -own\l-creO01 .doc. dot Approved Amount: Short Elliott Henddckson Inc. · Offices located throughout the Upper Midwest · We help you plan, design, and achieve -9504- Equal Opportunity Employer PREDESIGN PHASE Work Plan CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC WORKS/RECREATION FACILITIES STUDY PROJECT TASKS - EXHIBIT A P-MONCl0201.01 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION: Project Description: Project Funding: Type of Amhitectural Agreement: Method of Construction Contract: Bidding Schedule: Total Project Budget: Project Construction Budget: Required Wage Rates: Permitting Requirements: Responsible Individual for Owner: Special Consultants: Special Concerns: Drawings: Facilities Study as Described in Work Plan on following pages To be determined Letter agreement (Final Construction Contract arrangement to be decided: Single Prime, Multiple Prime, Multiple Bid Packages, Single Bid Package) To be determined dudng Pre Design Phase To be determined To be determined To be determined To be determined City of Mound Jim Fackler To be determined after Pre Design Phase __Civil, ._Amhitectural, _Structural, _Mechanical, _Electrical (To be determined after Pre Design Phase of the project) PROJECT STARTUP · Prepare Project Professional Fee Estimating - Scope of Work/Work Plan · Schedule Project and Team PRE-DESIGN: Gather Background Information Current information on needs Public Works and Recreation Department Current information on site conditions All potentially effected stakeholders All existing plans or specifications on Public Works/Recreation Department Current communication events related to this project. City Design Guidelines & Standards (already on file with Fire/Police Project) Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc, Offices located throughout the Upper Midwest We help you plan, design, and achieve -9505- Equal Opportunity Employer Regulatory Reviews ~ Determine all regulatory agencies (zoning, watershed, utilities, building, environmental, City standards). ~ Regulatory Memo of understanding including regulatory planning review process requirements. Kickoff Meeting with Lead Owner Representative (meeting #1) Establish expectations/roles and responsibilities (Review client engagement planner). , Identify all stakeholders. , Establish communications methods & coordination with other city communication processes , Confirm schedules and critical path milestones , Review total project budgets and need phases , Identify all subcommittees with stakeholders Site Assessments , Gather required background information on proposed site , Complete general site assessment matrix Space and Physical Needs Assessments , Space Needs Assessments meeting with Public Works/Recreation Department Stakeholders (meeting #2). , Conduct General Building Conditions Survey for existing Facilities (meeting #2). , Coordination of required public communication events (by Owner). , Develop Space & Physical Needs Assessment Report - Contents of Report to include the following: , Public Works/Recreation Department Space Needs Summary , Existing Buildings Conditions Summary , Recommendations/Options for improvements , Probable Cost of Construction & Total Project Budgets Estimates , Meeting with Lead Owner Representatives to review Space & Physical Needs Assessment Report (meeting #3). ~ Revise Space & Physical Needs Assessment Report as per Owner review. , Deliver final Space & Physical Needs Assessment Report Schematic Design phase Notice to Proceed to develop a Scope of Work for the schematic design of Public Works/Recreation Facility, including Floor Plans, Site Plan and Building Elevations based on approval of preferred options described in the Space & Physical Needs Assessment Report. FINAL DESIGN PHASE: Design Development Phase · Notice to Proceed to develop a Scope of Work for the Design Development phase of the Public Works/Recreation Facility. Construction Document Phase · Notice to Proceed to develop a Scope of Work for the Design Development phase of the Public Works/Recreation Facility. Short Eiliott Hendrickson Inc. · Offices located throughout the Upper Midwest· We help you plan, design, and achieve -9506- Equal Opportunity Employer Mound Fire Station and Public Safety Facility Project/Referendum Communications and Outreach Plan Proposal JMS Communications & Research October 15, 2001 1. The Need The Mound fire station is more than 50 years old and can no longer accommodate the needs of the Mound Fire Department - a busy metro area fire unit that serves seven communities and responds to 750 calls per year. There is a lack of space to park vehicles, code and safety deficiencies, structural repair issues, lack of equipment space and crowded staffing areas. The City of Mound is pursuing a needs assessment to look at the best way to meet the needs of Fire Department, in addition to Police Department and any other public safety needs. The outcome of that process will be a plan for a facility that will require voter approved bonding to be constructed. The tentative project schedule is as follows: September - Engineering firm selected, needs assessment begins. Late 2001 - Magnitude of facility, site location and facility recommendation. Early 2002 - Facility design and engineering. Spring - Final recommendation. May - Referendum to bond for facility. 2. Referendum Outreach and Communications Cities considering a referendum face a wide range of challenges. It is a critical that the City's outreach and communications plan and resulting communications tools and activities are designed to meet these challenges. Those challenges include: · Strategically addressing the external and community issues that can impact the referendum. · Identifying the key messages, critical target audiences, identifying the appropriate tools and strategies to deliver those messages. · Effectively answering the "four critical referendum questions". · Determining the most effective means and format with which to inform and forecast. · Identifying how best to establish a dialogue through content, structure and process. · Structuring a public feedback mechanism within the referendum committee and process to incorporate and address feedback. -9507- · Understanding the appropriate role for the City and the role for project boosters. · Knowing how to impartially and effectively inform and involve the community. · Ensuring consistency throughout. · Layering communications. · Implementing outreach and communications efforts early, effectively and on time. 3. Communications & Outreach Plan Description This plan is the blueprint for the entire public outreach and communications effort for fire station/public safety facility planning and subsequent referendum efforts. It identifies the issues, key messages, audiences and communications goals for those audiences, then shapes a public information campaign with tools and strategies to ensure the public has been properly informed throughout the process. It ensures that City communications efforts are neutral and unbiased and identifies the appropriate role for project boosters. 4. Examples of Other Referendum Communications & Outreach Tools Mounds Communications & Outreach plan will specifically identify the type, timing and schedule of strategic tools, tactics and strategies. The items listed below are examples of some of the types of tools and strategies utilized for referendum efforts. City Tools & Activities Project Newsletter A newsletter is a necessary tool to forecast key messages (both substantive and process), provide updates at key points in the process, inform the public of how they can be involved and enable them to make an informed vote. Frequency and timing to be determined in the outreach plan. Updates and Articles for City Newsletter, Staff Newsletter, Web Page, Cable TV Ongoing updates provided in all of the City's current communications tools. Timing and specific needs to be determined in outreach plan. News Releases News releases should be issued at key points. Timing and specific needs to be determined in the outreach plan. Power Point Presentation Power point presentation for community groups to inform and educate about the project. Timing and specific needs to be determined in the outreach plan. -9508- Boards/Display Boards/Display to present the project information in light of the four critical questions involved in a referendum. Timing and specific needs to be determined in the outreach plan. Open Houses Open houses during the planning process are important in involving the public in the development of the project, answer questions, and obtaining feedback important as the planning process moves forwards. Potential points in the process for open houses include during review of project alternatives, facility design input, final project proposal. Timing and specific needs to be determined in the outreach plan. Neighborhood Coffees Local neighborhood coffees to inform and provide information on the project. Timing and specific needs to be determined in the outreach plan. Community Leader Briefing A briefing with refreshments to inform a large number of community leaders about the project and answer their questions. Timing and specific needs to be determined in the outreach plan. Tools and Activities sponsored by Project Boosters Posters & Lawn Signs Boosters can sponsor lawn signs and posters in support of a referendum. Timing and specific needs to be determined in the outreach plan. Drop Piece A brief piece to be used in door knocking efforts to get out the vote. Timing and specific needs to be determined in the outreach plan. Doorknoeking & Door-to-Door Literature Drop This is a booster effort to help inform and get out the vote. Timing and specific needs to be determined in the outreach plan. Phone Bank Phoning occurs just prior to the election to help inform and get out the vote. Specifics provided in the outreach plan. -9509- 5. Sample-- JMS Communications &Research Cost Proposal City Tools & Activities Project Newsletter Two-page double-sided, writing, editing, revisions, coordination...$450 to $660 PBS Graphics Art & Design: Graphics, layout, revisions .............. $350 to $500 Articles for City Newsletter Writing article and revisions based on reviews; from 300 words to full-page article .......................................................................... $ 50 to $400 · Articles for Staff Newsletter, Web Page, Cable TV Re-use of City newsletter article. · News Releases Writing, reviews, revisions .................................................. $ 350 to $550 Power Point Presentation Presentation text development, reviews and revisions. (SEH adds visuals/graphics of buildings, etc.) ............................................................. $ 450 to $990 Fact Sheet Text, concept, revisions, coordination ..................................... $350 to $450 PBS Graphics Art & Design ................................................ $250 to $400 · Boards/Display Provided by engineering/architect firm. · Open Houses Assistance with open house planning and materials on as-needed basis. · Neighborhood Coffees Assistance with planning on an as-needed basis. · Community Leader Briefing Assistance with planning on an as-needed basis. · Ongoing Communications Advice, Coordination & Assistance On an as-needed basis. JMS bills an hourly rate orS110. The cost estimates are based on similar projects. Where savings are realized during the course of a project, those savings will be passed on to the client. If the client's specifications change and additional costs are incurred, those costs will likewise be passed onto the client. -9510- 6. JMS Communications & Research Cost Proposal Communications & Outreach Plan Tasks Phase 1 · Meeting with Facilities Committee to gather baseline information. · Additional data gathering through telephone conversations with Fire and Public Safety officials and project consultants. · Identification of key issues. · Strategic development of key messages to establish need, respond to key issues, forecast the process. · Identify key audience groups and communications goals. · Develop set of draft tools, tactics and strategies to address communications goals and audience needs. · Draft plan provided in early-to-mid November to immediately being communications/outreach in the facilities planning process and forecast future process and issues. Phase 2 - · Strategic refinement of issues, messages, tools and strategies as needed based on survey findings. · Refined plan coordinated with engineering firm, financial consultant, survey firm, facilities committee co-chairs, City staff and City officials as identified. · Final draft plan provided in December/January to follow completion of survey. Total Cost .............................................................................. $ 3300 -9511 - JMS Communications & Research 108 47th St. CT. NW, Bradenton, FL 34209 Toll Free-(866) 747-5100; Phone--(941) 749-9930; Fax--(941)747-993i; jmscomres~aol, corn JMS Communications & Research is a strategic communications and outreach firm that specializes in working with the public sector - especially with cities and on Department of Transportation projects. JMS was formed in 1993 by President Jill Schultz. JMS works with clients to identify and strategically address their communications needs through a variety of messages, tools, tactics, and strategies. Communications plans and products are uniquely designed to fit each community's and project's needs. Prior to forming her company, Ms. Schultz served as a legislative analyst for the Minnesota Senate on local and metropolitan government issues and transportation issues for five years. Ms. Schultz also has six years experience as an editor and reporter for United Press International and graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison with a degree in journalism. Examples of Project Experience City o. fMound - Strategic communications planning efforts include communications plans for Mound Redevelopment and Mound Fire Station Project, and communications products including newsletters, Q&As, news releases, newsletter articles, open house design, and display boards for these and other Mound projects. City pfSt. Anthony -JMS developed a strategic communications plan and products including Q&As, newsletters, news releases, newsletter articles and letter to the editor, for the Northwest Quadrant Redevelopment Study and continuing redevelopment process proceeds. Garrison Kathio West Mille Lacs Lake Sanitary-Strategic communications plan and products including newsletters, fact sheet, legislative presentation design with speaking points, news releases and editorials for the district which is in the process of a joint effort to develop a regional sewage treatment system with the Mille Lacs Ojibwe Band. City o£Rich, fieM- Strategic communications efforts in a wide range of capacities including crisis communications, communications plans, referendum communications, communications inventory activities, surveys, redevelopment communications, small group moderating, training sessions, legislative materials, overhead presentations, briefing book, brochure development, newsletter design, display development, news conference planning and news media packets and newsletter editing. Departments included City Administration, Public Works, Community Development, Parks & Recreation. City o. fEagan -Strategic communications plan and products including Q&A newsletters, fact sheet and news releases for Cedar Grove Redevelopment project. Ci~. of Blaine - Strategic communications plan and products for Community Center Referendum outreach, including newsletters, mailers, board design, news releases. City of St. Michael - Strategic communications plan, open house design and board design and Q&A newsletter for redevelopment. City q£Oak Grove - Strategic communications planning and development of a mailer to address redevelopment issues and concerns. 1-494 Corridor Commission Communications Cities - Strategic communications planning and products for this seven-city commission included development of communications plan, newsletter, local official bus tour planning and product development and legislative materials. -9512- Twin Cities High Speed Bus Project -- Strategic communications and marketing for this coalition of lO southern metro cities and Dakota County included a wide range of activities. The Coalition was marketed to the local governments which each paid $7,500 to participate to promote transit alternatives to LRT on 1-35W. In addition to a strategic communications plan, JMS coordinated monthly meetings, and performed intergovernmental and legislative communications and media relations for the project. MnDOT, Mayo Clinic, State Patrol, Calspan SRL --Strategic communications efforts led by JMS for this public-private partnership to develop a Mayday public safety infrastructure and conduct an operational test within a 60-mile radius of Rochester, Minnesota. Activities included development of a strategic communications plan and marketing materials plus ongoing assistance with coordination of all Mayday outreach activities. Minnesota Department o. fTransportation -- JMS assisted in design, development, and facilitator training for two-day NOVA outreach workshop for stakeholder groups statewide to help develop goals, mission and projects for a new statewide ITS strategic plan for the Minnesota Guidestar Project. Universit~ o. f Minnesota, Center.for Transportation Studies & ITS Institute -- JMS has done marketing, special event planning and strategic communications for CTS. These activities have included assistance with planning CTS Open Houses and Legislative Policymakers events, survey, activities for the Advisory Board and current work on a communications plan. Minnesota Transportation Alliance -- Communications strategy, planning and implementation for the Alliance. Assistance has included shaping communications strategies for target audiences and writing and producing materials, including a newsletter. Transportation Funding Coalition News Conference -- JMS organized and implemented the Transportation Funding Coalition news conference to announce the Coalition's funding package. The news conference received coverage in the metro daily news papers and broadcast coverage. Other Wisconsin & Midwest Experience WisDOT Beltline Ramp Meter Pilot Project - JMS designed and is implementing the outreach program for a project to bring the first five ramp meters online in Madison. Strategic communications efforts include communications plan and development of video, brochure, fact sheet, news conference, power point presentation, media materials, GarF-Chicago-Milwaukee Corridor Project -- Strategic communications plan development, facilitating workshop and small groups, newsletter and brochure development. WisDOT TIME (Traffic Incident Management Enhancement) Project- JMS worked with TIME partners to develop a strategic communications plan and video script planning. Wisconsin 1-90-94 Intercity Corridor Project (1996) -- JMS assisted with the writing, editing and layout of this project's quarterly publication "The Intelligent Interstate Update." -9513- EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC To: From: Subject: Date: Kandis Hanson, City Manager Jim Prosser, Financial Advisor Liquor Store Interior Design Architect- Proposal Analysis October 16, 2001 Ehlers & Associates has completed a review of the proposals received for the interior design of the Mound Liquor Store. The City had requested proposals from eight firms with backgrounds in municipal building design. Two firms submitted proposals. Those firms included Ringdahl Architects/Infinity Development and Tushie Montgomery Architects. An analysis of the proposals is provided below. In addition to reviewing the submitted proposals Ehlers visited four of the listed reference stores and conducted telephone interviews with references. Criteria General experience Ringdahl/Infinity Reasonable variety. Good experience with moderate size retail. Moderate experience with public and institutional design. Tushie Montgomery Reasonable variety. Good experience with full range of retail. Moderate to extensive experience with wide variety of municipal and institutional design. Municipal Liquor experience Store References indicate experience with five stores in recent past ranging from 4,500-6,300 square feet. Includes Nisswa, St. Francis, North Branch, Brooklyn C enter and Morris. Proj eot values range from $131,000 to $500,000. References indicate experience with 11 stores in recent past ranging from 3,300- 15,000 square feet. Includes Richfield, Elk River, Lakeville (2), Edina, Savage (2). Project values range from $200,000 to $1.5 million. Assigned staff experience Assigned staff participated in all Assigned staff participated in all of projects listed, of projects liste& LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, MN 55113-1105 -9514- 651.697.8534 fax 651.697.8555 diana@ehlers-inc.com Page 2 October 16, 2001 Criteria Ringdahl/Infinity Tushie Montgomery Scope ofwork 1. Project review, analysis of options, budgeting and negotiations for final design. 2. Interior design. 3. Construction bid documents for interior. 4. Receipt and review of bids. 5. Construction observation. 6. Final punch list inspection. 7. One year followup inspection. 8. Engineering not included. 9. Meeting time in addition to proposal billed extra. 1. Full programming including review of existing operations. 2. Schematic design including all required systems. 3. Required building permit approvals. 4. Exterior design coordination/negotiation. 5. Interior design. 6. Specification and bidding. 7. Final construction observation. 8. Full construction documents. 9. Engineering not included. Ability to integrate staff ideas Good to excellent. Incorporated Good to excellent. Incorporated into design* suggestions as appropriate, suggestions as appropriate. Responsiveness to client* Timely responses. Good to Timely responses. Good to excellent comments, excellent comments. Construction cost estimate Generally on target. One On target. accuracy* problem noted may have been due to unique out-state labor market. No exceptions noted. Post construction satisfaction* Some minor problems noted on No problems noted. Some one project. May not be comments regarding store architects fault. Overall good to function better than designs by excellent, other architects. "Value added" assistance* Average to excellent comments. Most stated that Ringdahl/Infinity had good understanding of retail liquor operations. Average to excellent comments. Most stated that Tushie Montgomery had good understanding of retail liquor operations. Estimated cost for services* $45,000 lump sum $50,400 (estimate based on 12% x $420,000 interior construction estimate) * Based on reference comments/responses -9515- Page 3 October 16, 2001 Summary · Both firms are capable of providing the appropriate design services required for this assignment. · The reference interviews were quite similar in overall satisfaction for services provided. · The cost estimate for services is also essentially the same. Ringdahl/Infinity proposes a flat fee of $45,000. Some additional cost may be incurred for additional meetings. Tushie Montgomery proposes 12% of final construction cost for the interior work. Ehlers has estimated an overall building cost of $120/sf., exterior cost of $50/sf. and interior at $70/sf. to include furniture, fixtures, point of sale, etc. A conservative (high) estimate of the interior cost would be $70/sf. x 6,000 square feet for a total of $420,000. The fee based on this estimate would be $50,400. · The scope of work specified are both adaqute, Tushie Montgomery provided greater detail within their proposal. It is somewhat likely that the number of meetings estimated by Ringdahl/Infinity are Iow and some additional cost may be incurred. For a project like this the difference between the two cost estimates should not be considered a factor. · There is a noteable difference in the size and value of relevant projects referenced within proposals. Tushie Montgomery generally referenced larger and higher value stores than Ringdahl/Infinity suggesting more experience with stores similar to the proposed Mound project. Recommendation Both firms are capable of providing satisfactory services to the City. TM does have more specific experience relevant to the Mound Liquor Store and would be recommended on that basis. Additionally, TM provided direct services for the my former employer, the City of Richfield and was architect for several development projects within the City. The City was pleased with the work performed by TM. C:\WINDOWS\Tcmporary Internet Files\Content,lE5\8JW9YHK7~roposal analysis 10.16.01 .wpd -9516- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com October 17, 2001 To: From: Re: Mayor and City Council Kandis Hanson, City Manager Public Works Pay Equity Adjustment The Public Work Maintenance Employees have asked me to reevaluate their points under the Minnesota Pay Equity, currently at 57. For this purpose we have worked with the professional consulting firm of Reily, Dettmann and Kelsey, the city employees affected, and representatives of their bargaining unit to arrive at a common understanding of what classification is appropriate, given the responsibilities and requirements of their jobs. We are now presenting to you for your approval the recommendation, which was accepted by all interested parties, as follows: 1) The Mound Public Works Employees will be reclassified to 62 points. 2) Their pay will be adjusted to reflect this change, and therefore an increase of forty cents per hour will be added to each employee's pay. 3) The effective date of the above changes will be October 14, 2001. I want to thank Mayor Pat Meiself for her assistance and participation, our consultant Rod Kelsey of Riley, Dettmann & Kelsey for his recommendation, and our Public Works Employees for their participation, cooperation and understanding. Cc: P.W. Employees Gino Businaro, Finance Director Brian Aides, Local No. 320 Business Agent City of Mound Public Works Pay Equity Adjustment Projected additional cost for the ~ear 2001 Fund Amount Street General Fund: $1,530 Parks General Fund: 225 Water Fund: 700 Sewer Fund: 1,020 Total $3,475 The above estimated costs will be charged to the appropriate budgets and funded from the respective fund balances. Gino 10/17/2001 -9518- 05341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 Memorandum To: From: Date: Re: Honorable Mayor and City Council Sarah Smith, Community Development Director 10/17/2001 Planning Commission Recommendation - Appointment of Jori Ayaz Summary As the City Council may be aware, there is currently a vacancy on the Planning Commission. Following publication in the Laker on August 18, 2001 and August 25, 2001 respectively, the City received one application for the Planning Commission from Jori Ayaz. At its October 1, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission interviewed Mr. Ayaz and voted 5 to 1 to recommend his appointment to the Board. It is antidpated that Mr. Ayaz will be present at the City Council in the event that members have any questions or comments regarding his application. Attachments · October 1, 2001 Planning Commission meeting excerpts · Notice of Planning Commission vacancy · Planning Commission application -Jori Ayaz -9519- Excerpts from the MINUTES MOI YND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 1, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION CANDIDATE INTERVIEW Mr. Jorj Ayaz thought the position of Planning Commissioner was an interesting one. He felt that Mound needs help in many ways and was willing to help. Glister began the questioning by asking his impression of the concept of"affordable housing". Ayaz related his background as a landlord in Minneapolis. It was very tiring. The most ideal location for tenants in need of affordable housing is closer to the center of the city. Without pride of ownership, affordable housing does not work well. Mound could provide some. Burma asked about his knowledge and feelings about the Mound Vision program. Ayaz was not familiar with the details but said it's been taking a long time. Once an idea is in place it shouldn't take more than three years to begin. He felt action needed to take place to maintain momentum. Weiland asked about any conflicts of interest he might have. Ayaz said there may be some future neighborhood issues that would necessitate his stepping down. Michael questioned his feelings on the development at the northwest comer of Commerce and Lynwood Boulevards. Ayaz was not familiar with that area. Hasse asked for further explanation about his comments on the application regarding the roads that have been overgrown with trees blocking vision of drivers. Ayaz was referring to the safety issue as well as the unkept appearance. Debris should be gotten rid of. Vehicles parked on non-paved areas, on the grass, are unsightly. Anderson wanted to know how the city should look? Ayaz thought it should look clean with curb appeal. We should have a vision, a goal. Everyone should be improving their properties. He thought it was good that the retaining walls are being cared for. Vote was taken. Five members voted to recommend Jorj Ayaz. One opposed. -9520- -- News Release -- M°Und seekS members for PlaIming CommiSsion The City of Mound announces a vacancy on the Planning Commission and invites citizens to apply. The term of this position will expire December 2002. Applications close at 4:30 p.m., September 24, 2001. The Mayor and City Council, following a recommendation from the Planning Commission will make the appointment. Planning Commission is a three-year term and meets the first and third Monday of each month at 7:30 p.m. To be considered, candidates must reside in the City of Mound. This advisory commission considers all matters pertaining to planning and zoning and acts as a recommending body to the City Council. Please call Sarah at City Hall (952-472-3190) for more information or Jodi (952-472-0601) for an application. Interviews will be held on October 1, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. (Published in the Laker August 18 and 25, '2001) -9521 - APPLICANT INFORMATION . ............................................................. ¥-OLUNTEERBOARD S/C OMMIT~ES/_CO~SSIONS ............ /d/&p ............ (Please use black ink or type.) Personal Information: " Name: TelephOne: Home: ~.~g-~.q/-Z~'z~' Work: Place of Employment: Please describe work, volunteer, or life experience that you have had that would prepare you for being a member of this board/committee/commission. . ~,_.._~ ...... ~_.,~,_.....~ .... .J.~,~....... ~~ ...... ~-....~...-.d...-,,~,t~-'..r'.... What skills and abilities do you have that would be helpful in doing the work of this board/committee/commission? -9522- 3. With what you know about this area, what do you see as the three most significant issues this board/committee/commission will need to address in the next 2 years? 3. c~'" ~"' v~ 3~ ~ What one or two contributions do you think you would make, in the short term (fn:st few months) and in the long term (after a year)? o Please. ful. ty d/sctose any potential comfiicts of interest you may have serving on this board? AU6 I:1 tt Please remm by 4:30 p.m.,. to: City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 -9523- hl"P%l hi= iiAI llll~, 5341MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA55364 1687 FAX (612) 472-0620 September 24, 2001 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM-. REF: Mayor/City Council Dock & Commons Advisory Commiss_~on Jim Fackler, Parks Director DCAC Recommended 2002 Dock/Slipt~ees. At the September 20, 2001 DCAC meeting the commission passed a recommended Dock and Slip fee increase for only the 2002 budget. Please find attached the spread sheets that relate the fee changes and projected revenues and expenditures. Cc: Kandis Hanson, City Manager Gino Businaro, Finance Director DCAC -9525- -9526- m~ I -9527- "Let's Keep Zebra Mussel OUt of Lake Minnetonka"' :: MEETING NOTICE Date: October 10, 2001 From: The Lake Mirmetonka Association InVitatiOn to the Initial Stakeholders Meeting to Develop an Action Plan to Keep Zebra MUSsel Out of Lake Minnetonka Time: LocatiOn: October 30, 7 to 9 p.m. Gray Freshwater Center 2500 ShadyW0od ROad, Navarre The Lake Minnetonka ASsoCiation and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District invite you to attend a stakeholder meeting, that initiates our joint effort to develop an action plan aimed at keeping zebra mussels out of Lake Minnetonka. you have been invited because of your association..With a group or organization that has an interest in keeping Zebra mUSsel om of Lake' Minnetonka~ We are seeking broad involvement and participation in this project. We :lin' ow ithat~ developing and implementing a meaningful action plan to keep zebra musgel out o£~;Lake~nneto~ is a substantial unde~g~ It is for that reason your involvement is crific~, Please review the' enclosed materials. If yoU know of other individuals or interest groups that should be invited, please bring this to our attentiOn. Also, if you have any questions, require clarifications or need additional information, feel free to contact.either of us. Thank you in advance for your interest and Participation. Sincerely, Dick. Osgood Exec~/ti;ve Director L~. M~.ETo~ AsSoc~^r~o~ (952) 4~0~49 Greg Nybeck Exeeutiye Director LA~ ~E?0~ CONSERV^TION DISTR~CT (952) 745~0789 LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION -9528- LAKE MiNNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT "Let's Keep Zebra Mussel Out of Lake Minnetonka" AGENDA Initiai Stakeholders Meeting Tuesday, October 30;2001 £r6~' 7:00 i6 9:00 p~m, Gray Freshwater Center 2500 Shadywood Road, Navarre 7:00 p.m. Welcome and Introductions Herb Seurth, Chair, LMCD Exotic Species Task Force 7:15 Review Agenda and Work Scope Dick Osgood, LMA Executive Director & Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director 7:30 Situation Analysis Wayne Nelson, Project Facilitator Review Situation Analysis (enclosed). Agree to any changes or modifications. Are we on the right track? 7:50 Stakeholder Identification Wayne Nelson, Project Facilitator Review stakeholder groups, make additions and modifications and come to consensus on final list. Preliminary list is enclosed. 8:15 Group Discussion Wayne Nelson, Project Facilitator 8:45 What Next ? Wayne Nelson, Project Facilitator Review meeting schedule, procedures, ground roles, etc. for phase two. 9:0O Adjourn LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT -9529- SITUATION ANALYSIS Let's Keep Zebra Mussel Out of Lake Minnetonka Date: Prepared By: Project: October 4, 2001 The Lake Minnetonka Association The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District An Action Plan to Keep Zebra Mussel Out. of Lake Minnetonka The Lake Minnetonka Association and the Lake Mirmetonka Conservation District have adopted a goal to keep Zebra mussel out of Lake Minnetonka. We realize accomplishing this goal will be challenging, but we are committed to making a credible effort to protect Lake Minnetonka from being infested with zebra mussel. This document - a situation 'analysis - is designed to set the stage for a more'formal deliberative process to develop an action plan: The situation analysis is designed to provide a sta~ng point f.or the next phase. So while this document is not intended to be the 'last word' on the'issue of preventing zebra mussel, it will serve as a point of departure for the dialog that will be necessary in develoPing an aggressive and meaningful action plan, THE PROBLEM Zebra mussels infest lakes'and waterways and cause great damage. Once in a lake, there are no known ways to control or eradicate zebra mussel. Therefore, the only way to avoid the zebra mussel damage is to prevent their introduction. In infested lakes and rivers, zebra mussels can attach to boat hulls and get into engines and other equipment. As these boats are transported to other waters, viable zebra mussels can reproduce. Zebra. mussels - both adults and larvae - also can be moved on trailers, fishing tackle, live wells or attached to aquatic plants as boaters and anglers travel from an infested water body. They can survive for days as they are moved in these ways. The larval form, called a veliger, is microscopic, so it is practically impossible to detect. Zebra mussels reproduce at incredibly fast rates -- they can produce up to one million eggs per year. Concentrations of 30,000 veligers '(Zebra mussel larvae)per gallon of water have b~en found (not in Lake Minnetonka). The veligers live in the open water and disperse rapidly, until they settle on hard surfaces under the water:. 'Once established, the adults will attach themselves to hard surfaces and may reach densities of seven million per square foot! Zebra mussels attach to hard surfaces, including boat hulls, docks and piers, rocks, and even other native clams and mussels. They also get into the cooling systems of boats and water intake structures, such as municipal and industrial water sources. Because zebra mussels attach so strongly to these surfaces, removing or cleaning them is difficult and Costly. -9530- Accumulating mussel shells also cause a hazard to swimmers and pets using the lake shore. The mussels' razor-sharp shells are known to accumulate on lake shores and can cause serious lacerations. In the extreme, this could result in injury and beach closings. One seeming positive impact of zebra mussel infestations is their ability to clear algae from the water. Because zebra mussels are filter feeders, they remove algae and other particles from the water. However, when this happens, the food chain is disrupted, and other plants and animals are affected - usually in unexpected or undesirable ways. For example, the filtering mussels can accumulate metals, PCBs and other toxic chemicals and pass them along the food chain to game fish and other species. In addition, clearer water will result in an expansion of rooted aquatic plant growth, especially Eurasian watermilfoil! Given a choice, no one would want zebra mussels. WHAT IS BEING DONE ? Various state and local agencies have developed and distributed educational materials and messages aimed at increasing public awareness and encouraging behavior 'to reduce the likelihood of transporting zebra mussel and other exotic species. To some extent, this campaign is working. The spread of zebra mussel in Minnesota has been limited to the Duluth-Superior Harbor and the Mississippi and St, Croix Rivers. The spread of zebra mussels is not yet out of hand. But it is only a matter of time before zebra mussels, if left unchecked, will infest Lake Minnetonka. It- is common; for example, for larger pleasure boats to spend time on both the Rivers and Lake Minnetonka, moving between the waters. Larger watercraft from the Great Lakes, which are also infested, with zebra mussel, are also transported to Lake Minnetonka. As well, thousands of watercraft are launched onto Lake Minnetonka each year. There is evidence that zebra mussel is contained for the time being, however, there is no specific program aimed at keeping zebra mussel out of Lake Mirmetonka. Much more effort and attention will be required to succeed at keeping zebra mussel out of Lake Minnetonka. Realistically, this means developing a more aggressive, focused campaign and action plan. Complacency is our biggest enemy. THERE.IS A SIGNIFICANT RISK Zebra mussel is most likely carded on, in or around watercraft, therefore, assessing the risk of a zebra mussel infestation necessarily focuses on the numbers and sources of watercraft that come to Lake~ :" Minnetonka. Based on the most recent lake use assessment, we estimate there a third of a million watercraft launched to Lake Minnetonka each year (see Appendix A). If only 1% of these come from infested with zebra mussels and 1% of those 1% carry zebra mussels that could infect Lake Minnetonka, this translates to a possible 37 infestations per year. Lake Minnetonka is a large, popular destination for a wide variety of watercraft and recreational uses. For this reason, Lake Minnetonka is a high profile compared to most other lakes in Minnesota. For the same reasons Lake Minnetonka was the fa'st lake in Minnesota to have Eurasian watermilfoil, it is also likely to be among the first to have zebra mussel. 2 -9531- Ignoring this risk is tempting fate. THE SOLUTION Due to the size and complexity of Lake Minnetonka, a comprehensive, systematic approach to preventing zebra mussel from invading our lake is needed. This will require at least the following elements - involving a broad constituency, getting good scientific and technical guidance and developing a realistic, workable action plan. At a minimum, we know a comprehensive effort will involve 1) identifying boats and other vectors from waters known (or likely) to be infested with zebra mussel, 2) intercepting them and 3) assuring they are clean. Because Lake Minnetonka has numerous public and private access points and commercial marine activities, a meaningful and effective campaign will be a large undertaking. Such an undertaking, because it will be disruptive, may also be controversial. However, we believe that by involving all interested and affected parties in a positive, worthwhile effort, we can work together to keep zebra mussel out of our lake. CONCLUSIONS · Zebra mussel is nearby · Zebra mussel, once in a lake, is there to stay · The negative impacts of a zebra mussel infestation are significant · The risk of a zebra mussel infestation in Lake Minnetonka is significant · There is no plan specifically designed to keep zebra mussels out of Lake Minnetonka Being proactive is more effective than being reactive WORK PLAN & SCHEDULE A three-phase work plan to develop and implement an action plan to keep zebra mussels out of Lake Minnetonka has been proposed: phase one, a preliminary assessment of the situation; phase two, to develop an action plan; and phase three, to implement the action plan. This document, the situation analysis, initiates phase one. The situation analysis will be used as a point of departure for assembled stakeholders to come to consensus on a game plan for developing an action plan (phase two). We intend the action plan can be implemented (phase three) at the beginning of the 2002 season. 3 -9532- Appendix A Worksheet with Observations and Assumptions Used to Estimate Annual Watercraft Influx to Lake Minnctonka AccOrding to the most recent Lake Minnetonka Boat Use Studyl, there are 430 watercraft on Lake Minnetonka during weekdayS (on average) and 1,223 watercraft on Lake Minnetonka on weekend and holidays (on average). The summer spas frOm April throUgh October. During that period, there are 147 weekdays and 67 weekend and holidays. Because the boat use study measured a 'snap shot' of boat use during afternoons, it represents ~e minimum possible number of boats coming onto Lake Minnetonka each day. Since there are no objective data available, it is assumed that the turnover is two times the average snapshot on weekdays and three times the average snapshot on weekends and holidays. Using the information above, this is the number of watercraft entering Lake Mirmetonka: Weekdays: Weekends and holidays: 430 watercraft/day x 2 x 147 days 1,223 watercraft/day x 3 x 67 days: 126,420 watercraft 245,823 watercraft In addition, there are numerous licensed events, like fishing tournaments' and sailing races, that occur on Lake Minnetonka. The licensed events in 20012 involVed approximately 2;000 watercraft during the summer. When this number is added to the number of watercraft estimated above, the result equals: 374,243 watercraft per scion entering Lake Mirmetonka. ~ 2000 Lake Minnetonka Boat Use Study. Schoell & Madson, Inc. for the Lake Mirmetonka Conservation District. January 2001. 2 Information provided by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. 4 -9533- Date: From: "Let's Keep Zebra Mussel Out of Lake Minnetonka" STAKEHOLDER ROSTER (PRELIMINARY) October 10, :2001 The Lake Minnetonka Association The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Preliminary stakeholder roster for discussion at the October 30, 2001 meeting The following stakeholder categories have been identified to participate in the Zebra Mussel action plan development. Representative of these interest groups, user groups, agencies and organizations will be invited to participate in the development and implementation of an action plan to keep zebra mussels out of Lake Mirmetonka. Private accesses & marinas: Public accesses: Special events sponsors: Transporters: Lakeshore owners: User groups: Conservation groups: Lake-related businesses: Lakeshore municipalities: Agencies: Tributary lakes: Educators: All Lake Minnetonka facilities MN DNR, Hennepin and Carver County, Hermepin Parks From list of LMCD permitees Lake Minnetonka Association MN Sports Fishing Congress Lake Minnetonka Association, Freshwater Society Chambers of Commerce 14 Cities, 2 Counties LMCD, Mirmehaha Creek Watershed District, MN DNR Christmas, Galpin, Virginia, Schutz, Parley, Langdon, Dutch, Classen, Long, Gleason MN Sea Grant, University of MN LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT -9534- LAKE MiNNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 Minnetonka Blvd. Deeph,~en ~N: 5539'1 (952) 745,0789 EXEcuTIVE DIRECTOR NEWSLETTER October 10, 2001 ',Let's Keep Zebra Mussels Out of Lake Minnetonka, proieCt: At the 8/22/01 Regular Meeting, the LMCD reViewed and agreed to sUpPort a joint prOposal With the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) to keep zebra mussels out of Lake M nnetOnka, TO address this goali both the LMCD and the LMA have agreed that there is a need to develop and implement an Action Plan, pOSsib y as earlY as the 2002 boating season, The work plan and schedule, which consists of three phases, inclUdes: 1) a Situation AnalySis, 2) a Plan Development, and 3) a Plan Implementation. Significant progress has been made on Phase 1. The LMCD and the LMA have identified a preliminary stakeholders list and have created a situation analysis document. An initial stakeholders meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, 10/30/01, to develop an Action Plan 'to keep zebra mussels out of Lake Minnetonka. This meeting will be held at 7 p.m. at the Gray Freshwater Center in Navarre. Your attendance is encouraged. PrO.posed or. dinance amendment prohibiting theuse of certain watercraft on certain parts of Lake Mihnetonka: :At the:9Lt 2/01,. Regular.'. Meeting, the !LMCD Boa~:d .Considered firSt reading of a propOsed ordinance amendment t~at would Prohib tithe use'bi ~otoriZed Watercraft'0n'certain' parts of Lake Minnetonka, Three areas of Lake Minnetonka have ~een prOPoSed W~i~ USe '0fm0torsWoUld be Prohib ted. They include:-1) Six :Mile Creek from.the mouth of the creek upstream to the c0ntour-line at elevation 929.4'NGVD, 2), Painter's Creek west of CoUnty ROad 110 upstream to the contour line at elevation 929.4 NGVD, and 3) Long Lake Creek from the mouth of the creek, located at the railroad trestle, upstream to the contour line at elevation 929.4 NGVD. No action was taken bythe Board at this meeting, with first reading scheduled for the 10/10/01 Regular Meeting. We will keep you informed on the status of it. 2001 EWM Harvesting Program: The 2001 EWM harvesting season commenced on 6/14101 and continued through 819101. Consistent with past years, harvesting priorities were based upon impediment to public boat navigation on the open water. Staff is cUrrent!ypreparing a 2001 EWM Final Harvesting Report, which will be reviewed at an Upcoming RegUlar Board Meeting. Similar tO 1999 and 2000, the EWM Harvesting Program Working GrOup will meet yet this year to evaluate the 2001 season and discuss possible improvements for 2002. Feel free to contact the LMCD office if you woUld like a copy of the 2001 EWM Final Harvesting RepOrt after it has been reviewed by the LMCD Board. 2002 Board Officers & Board Appointments: Board Officers and other appointments for 2002 are planned in the near future, At the 10110/01 Regu'lar Meet ng. the Board is scheduled to appoint a nominating committee for 2002 BOard.' O~cers. iAdditi°nally, 'LM~D staff will' ~::f~rdi'r~g reminder notices; in the near future to thOse.~.e~ber ~.C...i~'i, Wh,0~,~qar~ memb~rlterm, expires ~t the ~0nd Regulai~-Meeting in January 200~...Board-member t~rms, as :._.:~iiii~'e~i~ir~'ii~e iEM~i~;S state' ~nabl!rlg legis!~t~On~,i~,te'/!6i'i:{~'~e?~ai*s~:: A~)pointmentS for ;2,002 B°ar~ ;other~: Beard;,'memi~ets,w. iJ'"takeaffect'-at the 2/i ,3,10ii?~il'~¢'M~6tihg. :Feel free to contactthe LMCD :Office if:ygu On.going LiCenses/Permits: In late August, staff sent oUt renewal deicing installation apPlications for the 2001- 2002 season on Lake Minnetonka. They are currently being processed and a copy of the approved licenses wil be -9535- EXEcuTIVE DIRECTOR NEWSLETTER, 1011010% PAGE 2 forwarded to the appropriate member c ty. Siaff is currently working on sending oUt renewal w thout change applicati'°ns, for the 2002 season, for' licensbd':.~'¢ti~ e dOCk'~d DMA facilitieS. Staff will be working in'the near futUre on the preparation of renewal applisati~s"{'6r.Ch.A~,r boats and related liquor licenses for the 2002 boating season. Further details of these on,gOing 1%nses/~e~it§ are available at the LMCD office. Web'Pa,e: The LMCD's Webpag'~ addi~i~:~"i~i ~P.!//~,imCd.org. -9536- CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, October 10, 2001 Tonka Bay City Hall CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster · Schedule date for Annual Meeting with the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Water Patrol READING OF MINUTES- 9/12/01 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items identified with ,,a' (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests discussion of any item;,~in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. WATER STRUCTURES .... A) Grego~ Fall; consideration of draft Findingsof:Fact,and Order for approval of a vadance .?.~ ~. application~from LMCD Code for dock length requirements; B) Additional Business; 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 (tabled at 9/12/01 Regular Board Meeting); B) (*) Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Water Patrol Significant Activity Report; C) Additional Business; FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers (9/16/01 - 9/30/01) & (10/1/01 - 10/15/01 ); B) (*) August financial summary and balance sheet; C) Staff update on LMCD Investments; D) Additional Business; EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A) (*) Minutes from the 9/14/01 EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting (handout); -9537- 9114101 EWM/Exotics Task Force'Meeting Report; C) Staff update on "Lets Keep Zebra MuSsels Out of Lake Minnetonka" project; D) Additional Business; ADMINISTRATION A) Staff update on vacant Administrative Secretary position; B) Appointment of nominating committee for 2002 Board Officers; C) Review of draft letter to be forwarded to LMCD Member Cities regarding Board appOintments for 2002; D) Additional Business; SAVE THE LAKE 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS · .,~ Update of 8/8/01 LMCD Planning/Workshop Meeting 9. NEW BUSINESS 10..EXECUTIVE SESSION- Performance Evaluation of Executive Director(Note: Board may' vote to conduct evaluation in closed session) 11. ADJOURNMENT -9538- DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday,. September '12, 200'1 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Foster called the meting to order at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Lili McMillan, Orono; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Paul Knudsen, Uinnetrista; Tom Seuntjens, Minnetonka Beach; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Katy Van Hercke, Minnetonka. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director. Members absent: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster There were no Chair announcements. READING OF MINUTES. 8/22/01 LMCD Regular BOard Meeting MOTION: Babcock moved, Knudsen seconded to approve the minutes from the 8/22J01 Regular Board Meeting as submitted. Babcock recommended a friendly amendment in the third paragraph on page 6 to delete the words "the main" and' to insert the words "a major". Knudsen agreed to this friendly amendment. VOTE: Ayes (7), Abstained (2, Ahrens and Van Hercke); motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda. There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda. · Gregory Fall, variance application from LMCD Code for side setback requirements, dock length requirements, plus an adjusted dock use area. Foster opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. and asked for comments on the proposed application from staff. Nybeck made the following comments on the proposed variance application: The applicant resides.at 3036 Island View Ddve on Spdng Park Bay in the City of Mound. He has approximately 44' of continuous shoreline and has issues with shallow water and converging lot lines. Because the application of LMCD Code causes him a hardship, he has made application for variance from Code for dock length, side setbacks, and an adjusted dock use area. -9539- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting September 12, 2001 Page 2 · Three boats are proposed to be stored at the dock. This would include a 12' non-motorized fishing boat that is an unrestricted watercraft, a 17' runabout, and a 10' x 30' boat area. · Both the City of Mound and the MN DNR were provided a copy of the application for comments. Mound stated that it had no objections to the proposed application and the District is still awaiting feedback from the MN DNR. · Three Sections of the Code apply to the proposed application. First, docking and storage of watercraft must be contained within an authorized dock use area in compliance with Section 2.01, subd. 1. The proposed site plan does not meet Code for dock length, side setback, and dock use area requirements, thus there is a need for variance from Code. Second, Section 1.07 allows the Board to grant variances from Code provided the application of it causes practical difficulties or physical hardships. One typical hardship considered by the Board in the past for side setback and adjusted dock use area variances is converging lot lines. Staff questions whether an adjusted dock use area vadance needs to be considered by the Board because the proposed dock could be adjusted to the north to avoid the need for a variance. He stated that the Board might want to consider limiting the number and size of the watercraft to be stored at this site. Third, Section 1.07, subd. 3 provides for the construction and maintenance of a dock in to a water depth of 4' measured from the 929.4' NGVD. The water depth submitted by the applicant at the outer end of the proposed dock is 3.7'. · Staff believes that the application of Code causes the applicant a physical hardship' due to converging lot lines and shallow water depth. The Board needs to consider whether the proposed dock, with storage of three watercraft, is reasonable and whether the adjusted dock use area is necessary. The Board might also want to consider restricting the size and number of watercraft at the proposed dock. Foster stated that if a 30' long boat is stored on the north side of the proposed dock, it could cause substantial maneuvering problems for the abutting property owner to the north. Nybeck stated that originally the applicant proposed to only store the 12' fishing boat and 17' runabout at the proposed dock because that is what they currently store at the dock. The applicant amended the proposed, site plan to include the 10' x 30' boat area after discussing the idea of adding a boat at a later date. Staff has informed the applicant that the Board might restrict the number and size of watercraft to be stored at this site. Babcock asked for clarification on the minimum side setback requirements for the proposed dock because it exceeds 60' in length. LeFevere stated that the proposed dock can legally.extend 60' from the 929.4' NGVD shoreline because the 44' of shoreline is grandfathered. Nybeck stated that the Code also has a provision that reduces the side setback requirements to five feet because of the 44' wide site. Van Hercke asked how many boats this site is allowed by the Code. Foster stated that the Code allows for up to four restricted watercraft at this site, provided they are stored within the authorized dock use area and they are all owned and registered to owners of the site. This becomes more problematic because it is a narrow site with converging lot lines. He stated that he was sympathetic about the problem caused by converging lot lines; however, he had some concerns about the proposed 10' x 30' boat area. -9540- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regutar l~oard N~eefing ~eptember `12, 200'1 Page 3 Seuntjens stated that it appears that the "L" section at the end of the dock on the north side cou Id cause navigating problems for boats using the 10' x 30' boat area. Nybeck stated that one aspect that the Board should keep in mind when considering the proposed variance applications is that a number of properties to the north of this site, including the abutting property, are in non- compliance with Code length requirements because of Similar water depth problems. LeFevere stated that if the Board is comfortable with the 10' x 30' wide area but is concerned about boat maneuvering, it could require the applicant to remove the "L" section at the end of the dock. Mr. Gregory Fall, 3036 Island View Ddve, stated that he recently sold a 28' long pontoon that was being stored in the i0' x 30' boat area. If the Board believes the "L" section should be deleted from the proposed site plan, he stated that he would agree to that. when the pontoon was being stored at the dock at his residence before, the "L" section was located at another part of the dock. Foster stated that he was concerned that the 17' runabout is not contained within the southern extended side site line, which would require approving an adjusted dock use area variance. Babcock stated that one aspect for the Board to consider when reviewing variance applications is whether a dock configuration could work at a site without the need for a variance. He questioned if the applicant would agreeto a dock length variance of 96' and avoid the need for the additional requested variances by moving the dock to the south along the 5' side setback area and stodng all three watercraft on the north side of the dock. Fall stated that was a possibility; however, he would like to address where to relocate the "L" section and how it would affect maneuvering space around it. Babcock stated that he would prefer the Board to consider the proposed application for variance from Code for only dock length and not grant either a side setback variance or an adjusted dock use area. Fall stated that he would need the additional dock length in that configuration because of water depth. Foster stated in low-water years when the Board declares a "Low-Water Emergency", the Executive Director is delegated the authority to consider granting additional dock length on a case by case basis. Mr. Tom Roden, 3006 Island View Drive, stated that he lived about four houses to the north. He concurred that there are Iow water issues in the area and that his dock is approximately 104' long. If the Board grants a variance for the applicant, there probably is a need to grant additional variances for the houses between his property and the applicants property because the lots in the area are narrow and dock lengths probably exceed Code allowances because of shallow water in the area. Gilman ardved at 7:36 p.m. Babcock stated that he believed one of the main differences between the proposed variance application and the sites to the north is that there are converging lot lines at the Fall site. Mr. John Aquilina, 3030 Island View Ddve, stated that he is the abutting property owner to the north and that he empathized with the docking situation of the applicant. Provided the docking and storage does not encroach -9541 - Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting September 12, 2001 Page 4 over a side site line extension, he recommended the Board approve a variance because he has a similar situation and he believed the request is reasonable. Mr. Doug Easthouse, 3042 Island View Drive, stated that he is the abutting property owner to the south and that he was not opposed to the proposed variance application because his dock complies with the 20' side setback requirement and the public is entitled to use the water. He has lived at his residence for approximately 40 years and that lake levels are generally sufficient in the spdng and problematic in the fall. There being no further comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Babcock questioned whether the applicant would be willing to adjust the placement of the dock towards the south common side site line, provided the Board grants a vadance for a longer dock that meets five foot setbacks from the south side site line extension, with all three boats stored on the north side, and the "L" section removed at the end of the dock. Fall stated that he and his wife would be agreeable to this provided they could relocate the "L" section to another area of the dock in the future. MOTION: Babcock moved, McMillan seconded to direct attomey to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of a dock length vadance subject to: 1) removing the "L" section at the end of the dock, 2) allowing up to a 96' long dock that complies with the five foot minimum side setback requirement, 3) allowing for the storage of the three proposed watercraft on the north side of the dock, 4) and moving the beginning section of the dock to the south so that it is contained within the authorized dock use area. Fall stated that the proposed site plan was forwarded because that is how it has been historically installed. He questioned whether the motion would allow for some flexibility for installation of the dock with his abutting property owners. He stated that he believed slight modifications to the approved plan can be agreed to with the affected abutting property owners. If the abutting property owners communicate concerns to the District, then dock installation and boat storage should comply with the approved site plan. LeFevere asked Babcock to clarify whether he wanted the "L" section removed as part of the motion. Babcock stated that he wanted the "L" section removed at the end of the dock because he did not want a side opening situation for maneuvering purposes. One alternative might be to move the "L" section in closer to shore. He questioned whether the proposed site supports both. the storage of three watercraft and the installation of a "L" section. LeFevere stated that Findings of Fact and Order for approved variance from Code have generally included reference to a specific site plan. Based on the comments from the Board this evening, the applicant might want to amend the proposed site plan to include this feedback and to possibly relocate the "L" section to another area of the proposed dock. Babcock recommended a friendly amendment to the motion to include language subject to receipt of a new site plan. UcMiltan agreed to this fdendly amendment. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. -9542- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular l~oard Meeting September 12, 200t Page 5 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). Foster stated that this agenda item was originally scheduled for the 8/22/01 Regular Meeting but was tabled at the request of Board member Ahrens to allow for a representative from the City of Mound to be present. Although action on this item was tabled at the 8/22/01 meeting, there was substantial discussion by the Board and there was a general consensus. He asked for comments or discussion from the Board on this agenda item. Babcock complimented the letter prepared by staff, dated 8/31/01 that summarized the Board discussions at the 8/22/01 meeting. He believed the figure of $9,399.67 of legal expenses to be billed back to the City of Mound in the processing and administration of the six variance applications was accurate. Foster asked if there was representation on behalf of the City of Mound who would like to speak on this agenda item. Mound Mayor Pat Meisel stated that she and Mound council member Mark Hanus were in attendance to address this agenda item. She stated that their primary focus of attending this meeting was to address the charging of legal expenses back to the City of Mound in the administration and processing of these applications. A conflict of interest existed at one time for both organizations because the same law firm, Kennedy and Graven represented both parties. She recognized that the District contracted with another law firm for representation on the City of Mound applications; however, she questioned whether the District would still be paying the legal costs in the administration and processing of them. Babcock stated that if the current legal staff incurred the same amount of legal expenses in the administration and processing of these applications, he believed the District would still be considering billing the back to the City of Mound. Hanus stated that the City of Mound contracted with another law firm to represent the city on these applications. He did not recall the source; however, he remembered a recommendation that both parties should dismiss their regular attorney for these applications and hire a special attorney. Babcock stated that he believed this was the recommendation of Kennedy and Graven. Hanus stated that both parties agreed to this. If the City of Mound understood it was the intention of the Distdct to bill back the legal costs incurred back to the City of Mound, they might not have agreed to this. Babcock asked for clarification on whether both parties needed to contract for legal services outside of Kennedy and Graven. Hanus stated that he believed only one party had to contract for other legal service to remove the conflict of interest. LeFevere stated that he believed both parties needed to contract for legal services outside of Kennedy and Graven to remove the conflict of interest. -9543- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting September 12, 2001 Page 6 Hanus asked if the District has a written policy on charging back excessive expenses incurred by the District in the processing of applications submitted. Babcock stated that the applications submitted by the City of Mound states that the applicant agrees to reimburse the Distdct for any legal, surveying, engineering, inspection, maintenance or other expenses incurred by the District in excess of the amount of the application fee. Foster stated variance applications include a $250 non-refundable application fee plus a $250 deposit fee, which is refundable based upon full compliance with the Code and extent of administrative, inspection, and legal services required. Babcock stated that the base fees for new multiple dock license and variance applications are based, on recurring expenses to the District, The deposit recognizes that there always going to be some legal fees involved in the preparation of Findings of Fact and Order, The Mound applications are unique because both parties contracted for special legal counsel and the process took an extended period of time. Meisel stated that she concurred that both parties incurred a significant amount of legal expenses and she encouraged the District to pick up its legal costs. Hanus stated that the City of Mound originally was opposed to making six vadance applications because they believed one vadance application should suffice. They finally agreed to submit six variance applications and now the Distdct is considering billing back to the City of Mound excess legal expenses. Meisel stated that she would like the Distdct to consider paying for its own legal expenses incurred in these applications. Babcock stated the question for the Board is who should be responsible for excessive legal expenses in the administration and processing of these applications. He believed it is more appropriate to bill these excessive legal expenses back to the applicant rather than the rest of the lake because they are the party benefiting from the action of the Board. He suggested that the same principle probably exists when the City of Mound reviews applications submitted by its residents. Meisel stated that City of Mound already pays annual dues to the District, with a dock program, in place that has staff overlooking the program. She believed this unique for the lake and takes some burden off the District staff. Foster stated that the City of Deephaven also has a dock program in place that has staff overlooking the program. He complimented the cooperation of Mound staff dudng the review process, of these applications. He believed the Distdct would have problems with other member cities if the excessive legal expenses were partially billed back to the other member cities. Hanus stated that he generally would agree with that; however, the City of Mound operates a little differently. For most applications reviewed by the City of Mound, including variances, excess fees are generally not billed back to the applicant. One problem with District policy is that it discourages parties from making applications to solve their problems. McMillan stated that she believed one difference between the policies of the Distdct and the City of Mound is that there are assurances that the applicants of the City of Mound are residents and commercial businesses -9544- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board I~eeting September 12, 200t Page 7 within the city. The District on the other hand receives applications from residents and commercial businesses around the lake from all 14 member cities. Hanus stated that similar circumstances on Mound docking issues could arise in the future and he questioned whether the City of Mound would step forward as a party to help resolve the situations. This could end up as an issue for the District in the future. Babcock stated that if private residents approach the Distdct because of the abandonment of Mound Commons docking, they will be capable of submitting the proper applications and will be responsible for excessive fees incurred by the District, including legal. Hanus stated that the City of Mound requests that the District not bill back the excessive leg al expenses incurred. MOTION: Babcock moved, Suerth seconded to bill $9,399.67 of legal expenses back to the City of Mound in the administration and processing of the new multiple dock license, with minor change, and six variance applications from LMCD Code at six street ends within the Woodland Point Development. Ahrens thanked the Board for tabling action on this agenda item to this meeting. She stated that she was happy to see that the Board is not billing back Distdct staff time expenses to the City of Mound. She questioned whether the City of Mound is getting as good a deal compared to the commercial facilities around the lake because Mound staff does inspections of the Mound Commons docking program. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance prohibiting the use of motorized watercraft on certain pads of Lake Minnetonka; adding new Section 1.02, Subd. 28 and new Section 3.021., Foster stated that he received a telephone call from Mr. Steubner, the developer for Upland Farms. Steubner indicated that he received late notice of this meeting and that he was unable to attend this meeting. Steubner requested that action on this agenda item be tabled to a future meeting to allow him to make a presentation. Foster stated that he recommended that Steubner send a representative to this meeting in his absence to make this request, Mr. Dan Kelly, an attorney for Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon, and Vogt, spoke on behalf of Mr. Steubner. He stated that he believed that succinctly made the request of his client and he was in attendance to make that request in person. Foster stated that he believed the Board had three options for consideration of this request. They included: 1) table the agenda item to next Regular meeting, 2) consider and possibly approve the first reading of the ordinance amendment, keeping in mind there could be second and third readings of it, and 3) approve the ordinance amendment and waive second and third reading. He stated that he was uncomfortable with the last option because members of the public have expressed concems about the draft ordinance amendment -9545- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting September 12, 2001 Page 8 and they should given an opportunity to address it. He asked for comments or questions fror~ the Board on the request made by Kelly. Kelly commented that he concurred with Foster that enough time should be given by the Board for review purposes of a proposed ordinance amendment. He believed that is one reason why the Distdct allows for first, second, and third readings when considering an ordinance amendment. He believed due process for his client might be slightly affected if the Board approved first reading at this meeting and considered second and third readings at a future meeting. Nelson stated that he believed the process allows additional readings so that anyone affected by the ordinance can come before the Board and make comments. He believed this ordinance amendment has not come before the Board any faster than previous ordinance amendments and he would favor considering first reading at this meeting, with possible second and third readings at future meetings. Seuntjens stated that he did not fully understand the purpose for first, second, and third readings for ordinance amendments. LeFevere stated that first, second, and a third reading of proposed ordinance amendments is only a convention of the District. The terminology of "readings" is a carryover from the city procedures that require a reading at a Board meeting. One'of the main purposes is to slow the process down and allow proper deliberation by the Board. Foster stated in non-controversial ordinance amendments, first reading in most instances is sufficient. In controversial ordinance amendments, second and third readings allow for additional input from the public and allow the Board to makes changes to the ordinance amendment if needed. Babcock stated that he believed the request from Mr. Kelly is to wait and not take final action at this meeting. He believed the Board has honored these requests in the past and will honor this request. From a due process standpoint, having a public meeting that has a published agenda item regarding consideration of a proposed ordinance amendment should satisfy due process requirements under the District enabling legislation. LeFevere stated that the phrase "due process" can be used loosely and interpreted a number of ways. What the District is doing currently is a legislative act. The adoption of certain ordinances requires a public headng; however, this does not fall in that category and any public input received by the District on this agenda item is at the discretion of the Board. Suerth stated that he would recommend the Board table action on this agenda to the next appropriate meeting. Babcock stated that he would prefer the Board enter into limited discussion prior to tabling this agenda item. The consensus of the Board was to enter into limited discussion on the proposed ordinance amendment at this time, The following aspects relating to it were discussed: · Section 3,021 should be changed from "Watercraft Using Motorboats Prohibited" to 'Use of Motorboats Prohibited". -9546- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting September '12, 200'1 Page 9 · Section 3.021, subd. 1 should be changed from "shall operate a motorboat using motorized propulsion" to "shall oPerate a motorboat". · The proposed ordinance amendment, if adopted, would prohibit the operation of motorboats in the three identified areas. · The language and definitions detailed in the proposed ordinance amendment are consistent with the MN DNR. · Whether the intent of the ordinance amendment is to Prohibit motorized traffic in these three areas and whether there is a need to be more restrictive or less restrictive. · What is the location of the 929.4' NGVD contour line at these three locations and the number of existing docks in these areas that would be impacted by the proposed ordinance amendment. · The intent of the of the ordinance amendment is to either prevent motorized watercraft from leaving Lake Minnetonka and proceeding upstream or to prevent motorized watercraft from upstream from entering Lake Uinnetonka. · Delineation of the 929.4' NGVD contour line will be identified either through signage or buoys. Foster stated that Board member Weft was unable to attend this meeting and that he has chaired this Task Force. Other information to be prepared for the next meeting includes: 1) a Iocator map identifying the three areas of the lake referenced in the proposed ordinance amendment, 2) an idea of where the 929.4' contour line is at these three areas and the location of buoys and/or signage, and 3) a better idea of properties that would be affected by the proposed ordinance amendment. Babcock stated that he believed the intent of the proposed ordinance amendment is to protect these areas of the lake by prohibiting motorized watercraft because they have a detrimental environmental impact. Maybe the best way to delineate these areas is to do a Board outing in these areas on the lake during the winter. He would be happy to finalize the proposed ordinance amendment after this winter outing, provided something is addressed yet this fall because he believed this is the intent of the Board at this time. Seuntjens stated that he supports the intent of the ordinance to protect the environment; however, he has concerns about possibly taking rights away from residents that they currently enjoy. Mr. Dick Osgood, Executive Director for the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA), stated that Lake Minnetonka is the most heavily used lake in Minnesota. The primary concern that he gets from LMA members is lake use issues, including congestion and size of boats. The LMA Board has taken the position that they oppose any new development that would add boat access to the lake from areas that are not currently accessible. He believed the proposed ordinance amendment generally addresses this. Foster stated that first reading of the proposed ordinance amendment would be scheduled for the next Regular Board meeting. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 2. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers (9/1/01 - 9/15/01). Nybeck reviewed the audit of vouchers as submitted. -9547- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting September 12, 2001 Page10 MOTION: Gilman moved, Knudsen seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for 9/1/01 -9/15/01 as submitted.~ VOTE: Motion carried unanimously, B. Staff update on LMCD Investments. Foster stated that staff has included a memo that summarizes District investments in the Board packet for informational purposes. C, Additional Business. There was no additional business. 3. ADMINISTRATION A. Staff update on vacant Administrative Secretary position. Nybeck stated that staff has recently interviewed three candidates for the vacant position with Board member Nelson. A few other candidates should be interviewed in the near future and staff will keep the Board informed. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 4. SAVE THE LAKE UcMillan stated that the Fall solicitation letter was recently sent out, including the flyer that promoted the. "Save the Lake" fundraising promotion being coordinated by Lord Fletchers of the Lake. She noted that 75% of the proceeds are designated for "Save the Lake" fund and that she would keep the Board informed on this promotion. 5. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE There was no discussion. 6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck reported on the following: · The lake level as of 9/7/01 was 928.70' NGVD, with a discharge of 10 C.F.S. · The agenda for the 9/26/01 Regular Board Meeting appears to be light and the Board might want to consider canceling it. MOTION: Gilman moved, Nelson seconded to cancel the next Regular LMCD Board of Directors Meeting scheduled for 9/26/01. -9548- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting September '12, 200'1 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously, 7. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 8. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m, Page 11 Albert Foster, Chairman Lili McMillan, Secretary -9549- Page 1 of 4 KandisHanson From: Sent: Subject: "Barbara Olson" <olsonb@westonka.k12.mn.us> Friday, October 05, 2001 3:53 PM westonka.news westonka.news Vol. 2, No. 5 October 5, 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://www.westonka.k12.mn.us; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043; e-mail: welisten@westonka.k12, mn. us. Contents 1. News Briefs --Bridge to Enchanted Island Now Open; School Bus Service Resumes --Yes Westonka Committee Seeks Volunteers --How to Get Your Questions About the Referendum Answered 2. Focus Topic: Ed's TV 3. Upcoming Events 4. We Want to Hear from You NEWS BRIEFS **Bridge to Enchanted Island Now Open; School Bus Service Resumes** The bridge to Enchanted Island has been repaired so that it can carry school buses again. Regular school bus service to Enchanted and Shady Islands will resume Monday morning, October 8. For the past few weeks, school buses have been prohibited from the bridge because it had weakened and was unsafe. Douglas Beach Park had served as a temporary drop-off and pick- up spot. - 9550- 10/06/2001 Page 2 of 4 The repairs remain a short-term solution, providing access for most vehicles until the City of Minnetrista determines how to replace it. **Yes Westonka Committee Seeks Volunteers** The Yes Westonka citizens committee needs volunteers in two areas: 1) to staff levy information tables during parent/teacher/student conferences October 11, 15, 16, and 17. You don't need to be an expert on all the issues-there will be flyers that direct people to where they can get answers to their questions. Shifts can be as short as one hour. Please call Ann Bremer, 952-472-9062 (e-mail: asbremer@prodigy.net), and she'll work with you to find a time slot that fits your schedule. 2) to hand out leaflets as people arrive for certain school events.. Call Deb Bailey, 472-4654, to find out which events are available. Even one hour of your time will help! **How to Get Your Questions About the Levy Referendum Answered** All community members with questions about the upcoming operating levy referendum are invited to call the Levy Hotline (952.491.8443) or send an e-mail message to welisten@weston ka. k 12.mn. us. Answers to questions will also be submitted to the Laker newspaper. The operating levy referendum is slated for November 6. Additional operating funds are being requested to maintain educational programs at current levels. State funding increases for Westonka of less than 1% for 2001-2002, and less than 2% for 2002-2003, are not enough to cover the cost of operating current programs. The district made $300,000 in budget cuts for 2001-2002, and will need to cut an additional $500,000 for 2002-2003 if the referendum is unsuccessful. FOCUS TOPIC **Ed's TV** "Ed's TV," formerly known as the Wayzata Channel, provides programming created by and for the education community, but you don't need to be in school to enjoy all the interesting programs aired. The programming is varied, and has something for just about everyone, ranging from news to sports to coverage of school events. For the past two years, Westonka School District events have been posted on Ed's TV bulletin board / calendar of events, giving viewers a preview of what's coming up in the district. Sometimes events are covered, as well. This weekend, for example, the girls' soccer match between Mound Westonka and Fridley will be broadcast on Saturday, October 6, at 7:30 p.m.; and on Sunday, the 7th, at 4:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. - 9551 - 10/06/2001 Page 3 of 4 Check it out! You'll find everything from Deutsche Welle TV (brush up your German) to "Parenting with Vision," with metro-area physician and writer Dr. Mark dePaolis. Ed's TV is shown locally on Mediacom Channel 19 (Lake Minnetonka area-24 hours per day, seven days per week) in Chanhassen, Mound, Wayzata, Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Waconia, Independence, Long Lake, Medina, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Orono, St. Bonifacius, Shorewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Victoria, Woodland, and Maple Plain. UPCOMING EVENTS --October 6, Octoberfest Fall Carnival, 11 a.m., Hilltop Primary School. Questions? Call 952.491.8500. --October 8, Homecoming Coronation, 1:40 p.m., Mound Westonka High School --October 8, Parent Advisory, 7 p.m., Mound Westonka High School --October 8, Share the Success (before regular school board meeting), 7 p.m., Shirley Hills Primary School --October 8, School Board Meeting, 7:30 p.m., Shirley Hills Primary School --October 9, Shirley Hills Title I Advisory Council, 7:30 a.m., Shirley Hills Primary --October 9, Hilltop Gr. I Vision and Hearing Screening --October 11, Gr. 1-4 Parent/TeachedStudent conferences, 4-8 p.m., Hilltop and Shirley Hills Primary Schools --October 12, Mound Westonka Homecoming Parade, 3:50 p.m. --October 12, Homecoming Football Game vs. St. Anthony, 7 p.m. WE 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 Wilshire 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 - 95 52- 10~06/2001 Page 4 of 4 tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043 welisten @weston ka. k 12. mn. us http://www.weston ka. k 12.mn.us westonka.news is published by the Community Relations Department, Barbara Olson, editor. The information contained in this broadcast is given in good faith based on available information. The Westonka School District accepts no legal responsibility for its accuracy. - 9553- 10/06/2001 Page 1 of 4 KandisHanson From: Sent: Subject: "Barbara Olson" <olsonb@westonka. k12.mn.us> Friday, October 12, 2001 3:15 PM westonka.news westonka.news Vol. 2, No. 6 October 12, 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://www.westonka.k12.mn.us; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043; e-maih welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us. Contents 1. News Briefs --Teachers/School Board Arrive at Tentative Contract Agreement --School Board Candidates, Operating Levy Referendum on DemocracyNet Web Site --Information about Operating Levy is Online and in the Mail 2. Focus Topic: Meet the School Board Candidates 3. Upcoming Events 4. We Want to Hear from You NEWS BRIEFS **Teachers/School Board Arrive at Tentative Contract Agreement** The bargaining teams representing the school district and the teachers union arrived at a tentative settlement on Monday, October 8. Union members are reviewing the proposed settlement this week. A vote by the membership is scheduled for October 22, after the school day. Pending approval by the teachers union, the school board will vote on the contract at a special study session later that same evening. **School Board Candidates, Operating Levy Referendum on DemocracyNet Web Site** - 9554- 10/15/2001 Page 2 of 4 Westonka School Board candidates, along with information about the operating levy referendum, can be found on the League of Women Voters' DemocracyNet Web site at http://www.dnet.org. Click on Minnesota, then choose either the "ballot measures" or "candidates" tab, then choose "school districtwide", then "Westonka", and follow the links to see the referendum question and the list of school board candidates. **Information about Operating Levy is Online and in the Mail** Information about the November 6 operating levy can be found online on the Westonka Public Schools Web site, http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us/levy. Property owners in the Westonka School District will receive formal notice of the election in the mail next week. State law requires that the legal notice be mailed first-class to all property owners in the school district. An informational brochure will be mailed to all households in the district on Monday, October 22. This brochure will provide a plain English translation of the ballot request, outline the need for the referendum, provide estimated tax impact information, and answer basic questions about the November 6 election. As always, citizens with questions about the referendum are urged to either call the referendum hotline at 952.491.8443, or e-mail welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us. FOCUS TOPIC **Meet the School Board Candidates** Randy Bebeau Randy Bebeau lives in Minnetrista with his wife, son, and two daughters. Bebeau is an account representative with Weekes Forest Products in St. Paul. He attended high school in Elk River, holds a B.S. in social science/secondary education from St. Cloud State University, and has done post-graduate work in finance and marketing at the University of Georgia. Bebeau is an active member of Our Lady of the Lake Church, and is a coach for Upper Tonka Little League baseball. He believes that his training as an educator, along with his experience in finance, make him a good fit for the school board. He believes fiscal responsibility and financial restraint are vital to ensure the taxpayer is getting his or her money's worth, and he pledges to be the voice of financial reason if elected. Bob Bittle Mound resident Bob Bittle and his wife have five grown children. He received a B.A. from Iowa Wesleyan College and is self-employed at R.J. Bittle Associates. He is a current member of the Westonka Board of Education. Bittle outlines eight goals he would like to see the school district accomplish, including increasing coursework about government and citizenship, gaining more support at the state -9555- 10/15/2001 Page 3 of 4 legislature, enhancing video capabilities, refining employee growth and the performance review process, meeting the need for more Advanced Placement coursework and more mainstreaming of students who need special services, advocating for a community gymnasium, following through with current programs, and garnering support for school district financial needs. J. Ned Dow Ned Dow and his wife have lived in the school district since 1979, and he is a current member of the Westonka Board of Education. The Dows' daughter was educated in the Westonka Schools, and they believe she was well served by both the teaching and coaching staffs. Dow is a small business owner and a recent retiree from the US Army Reserve. He now serves as a member of the Minnetrista Police Reserve. He believes the school board has developed a strategic plan that allows each small decision to contribute to the district's long-term goals. He feels the board has been financially responsible, and he considers himself frugal with taxpayer money. He believes a major strength of the school board is the variety of experiences and perspectives of its members. Chuck Walerius Chuck Walerius is a 14-year resident of Mound. He and his wife have two children, both of whom attend the Westonka Public Schools. Walerius is a member of the Minnesota State Patrol and is actively involved as a volunteer in the school district. He is a member of the Community Education and Services Advisory Council, Shirley Hills PTO, and he volunteers in the classroom and as a coach.. Walerius has experience serving on a finance committee for his church, and he believes it is important to make good, quality decisions based on sound information. He sees financial challenges ahead, and feels it is the duty of the board to constantly review budget procedures and policies. He asserts that all school board decisions should be made with the quality of the education of children in mind. The above school board candidates are on the ballot for the November 6 election. Mount Olive Lutheran Church will be the polling place for all district voters except for voters in the city of Independence, who will vote in their city election at their regular polling places. UPCOMING EVENTS --October 15-19, No school for grades K-12. (Please note: Westonka Community Preschool classes will be held as usual October 15-16). --October 15-17, Parent/TeachedStudent conferences, various grades, various times (check with your child's school if you have questions) --October 18-19, State Teacher Convention WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU! -9556- 10/15/2001 Page 4 of 4 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 Wilshire 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.k12.mn.us http://www.westonka, k12.mn.us westonka.news is published by the Community Relations Department, Barbara Olson, editor. The information contained in this broadcast is given in good faith based on available information. The Westonka School District accepts no legal responsibility for its accuracy. - 9557- 10/15/2001 Page 1 of 4 KandisHanson From: Sent: Subject: "Barbara Olson" <olsonb@westonka.k12.mn.us> Wednesday, October 17, 2001 3:15 PM westonka.news early edition westonka.news Vol. 2, No. 7 October 17, 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://www.westonka.k12.mn.us; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952,491.8043; e-mail: welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us. Contents 1. News Briefs --It's a Quiet Week in Westonka --Operating Levy Q&A 2. Focus Topic: Computer Lab Open House at Hilltop and Shirley Hills 3. Upcoming Events 4. We Want to Hear from You NEWS BRIEFS **It's a Quiet Week in Westonka** This week has been filled with parent/teachedstudent conferences and staff development days, so the hallways have seemed quiet. School resumes its regular schedule on Monday, October 22. **Operating Levy Q&A** The following questions were called in to the Levy Hotline last week: -9558- 10/17/200 Page 2 of 4 Q. Is Westonka the only school district asking for more money? Why does it always seem to be us? A. No, we're not alone. Nearly every metro school district, and more than half of all school districts statewide, will seek additional support from their communities this fall. A look at our closest metro neighbors shows that Minnetonka, which is twice Westonka's size, is asking its citizens for $6 million in additional funds per year; Wayzata is requesting an additional $4 million per year; and Hopkins is seeking an additional $4+ million per year, not including a $60 million bond referendum scheduled for December. Orono, comparable in size to Westonka, is seeking an addtional $3+ million per year, while Westonka is asking voters for an additional $800,000. It's not coincidence that so many school districts are running elections this November. Two main factors are driving elections: 1) the only "new" funding for education (less than 1% in new funding for 2001-2002 for Westonka) doesn't cover basic cost-of-living increases, creating severe budget deficits; and 2) property tax reform, which shifted certain education costs from property taxes to the state, is closely tied to the issue of local control. In essence, the Legislature and Governor Ventura said that taxpayers should have the authority to either pass a referendum that makes up the school district budget shortfall or force their schools to make cuts. Q: Why do school district costs increase every year by 4.5%? That seems really high. A: A 4.5% annual increase in school district costs is completely in line with cost increases in K-12 education across the state. Many steps already have been taken to keep costs down. For example, the school district is on an energy usage plan that saves 20-30% on heating and cooling bills. In addition, while market estimates show overall health insurance cost increases of 20%, school district employees have chosen to pay higher copays on office visits and prescriptions in order to bring the cost increase down to approximately 15%. Here's what goes into district cost figures: Based on current year expenses, we estimate utilities, supplies, repairs, etc. to increase by 2.5% each year. School district personnel costs include salary, social security (FICA), mandatory public employee retirement contributions, and several types of insurance (health, life, disability, dental). Based on negotiated contracts, our estimate of the increase for total personnel costs is about 4% annually. Tuition payments for special education services have been increasing by about 9% each year. Sometimes, children with special needs require services that are beyond the scope of programs offered in the local district. In those cases, tuition must be paid (usually to Intermediate School District 287) so that students with special needs can receive the services they need. -9559- 10/17'/2001 Page 3 of 4 When all these costs are compiled, the result is an estimated 4.5% annual increase in the cost of providing the current education program for our community's children. FOCUS TOPIC **Computer Labs Open House** To celebrate National Computer Learning Month, both primary schools will host an open house in the computer labs on Wednesday, October 24, from 3-6 p.m. Parents and interested community members are warmly invited to come take a closer look at the work students are doing with the new technology, most of which was purchased with funds provided by the 2001 Maintenance and Technology Bond Referendum. There will be balloons, cookies, coffee, and juice, and a great time learning how students are using these tools in their studies. Feel free to ask questions and try some new things, yourself! For more information, call Kristi Henkels at Shirley Hills (952.491.8410) or Karen Olaussen at Hilltop (952.419.8510). UPCOMING EVENTS --October 22, School Board Study Session, 7:30 p.m., Shirley Hills Primary --October 23, Community Education and Services Advisory Council, 7 p.m., Shirley Hills Primary --October 23, Shirley Hills PTA, 7 p.m. --October 23-25, Shirley Hills Vision and Hearing Screening --October 24, Computer Lab Open House, 3-6 p.m., Shirley Hills Primary and Hilltop Primary --October 25, Shirley Hills Title I Family Night, 6 p.m. VVE 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 Wilshire 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, -9560- 10/17/2001 Page 4 of 4 and the community, to create the environment necessary to achieve quality education ]:or lifelong learning. Westonka Public Schools 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A Mound MN 55364 tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043 welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us http://www.westonka, k 12.mn. us westonka.news is published by the Community Relations Department, Barbara Olson, editor. The information contained in this broadcast is given in good faith based on available information. The Westonka School District accepts no legal responsibility for its accuracy. -9561 - 10/17/2001 Oct 85 2081 16:04:14 ~ia Fax -> fi&ninistra~or Page 881 0£ 081 FridayFax October 5, 2001 Annexation Hearings in Greater Minnesota The House Local Government Committee is holding a series of interim hearings to gather public testimony regarding annexation and municipal boundary adjustment issues. The next hearing is: Thursday October 11, 2001 6-8 p.m. Walker-Hackensack-Akeley High School Cafeteria 301-4th St. Walker, Minn. Chair Rep. Jerry Dempsey Anyone interested in testifying should contact the committee administrator at 651.296.5376 by 4 p.m. October 9. Remi Stone, IGR staff, will be attending the meetings as well and would appreciate hearing from you if you will be attending. Stay tuned for additional annexation hearings yet to be scheduled. We will continue to announce these hearings upcoming League publications, and listservs. MN Congressional Delegation to Assess Economic Impact of September 11 Terrorism Senator Paul Wellstone, Chair of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Safety & Training has invited city officials to attend a field hearing to examine the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes on the state's economy on Monday, October 8. Members of the Minnesota Congressional Delegation will join city officials and Senator Wellstone to examine the impact on the labor force, business and rural communities. The hearing will be held beginning at 10 a.m. and continue until 1 p.m., in the Chippewa Room of the Thunderbird Hotel, in Bloomington (2100 East 78th Street at 1-494 & 24th Avenue South). Speakers at the hearing will include three panels comprised spokespersons representing laid-off airline employees; airport contract employees whose construction projects have been delayed; and the travel industry; the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota AFL-CIO; and Tom Stinson, the state economist; Sun Won Song, economist for Wells Fargo; and Brad Anderson, the CEO of Best Buy, a big employer and one of the state's largest retailers. City officials are encouraged to attend. Although there will not be time available for additional testimony at the hearing, Senator Wellstone's staff has indicated that there may be limited opportunity for additional participation by way of questions or comments from those in attendance. This will also be an opportunity for city officials to speak about local economic dislocations, unemployment and related matters stemming from the September 11 events directly with members of the state's congressional delegation. Register at www.lmnc.or~forms/listserv.cfm for the new Annexation Listserv Members of the League of Minnesota Cities IGR listservs will receive the latest information on a variety of legislative issues, and can respond with their city's experiences. IGR staff has listservs currently up and running, and will be building more before the end of the year based on member interest. Your participation on a iistserv is just one more way for the IGR department to gather city stories and take them to the Capitol. Legislators frequently ask the IGR team members questions on the experiences of cities, and we see iistservs as another tool to gather that information. Visit the website for other listserv options. For more information on city legislative issue,:, contact any member of Ibc League of Minnesota Cities Inlergovemmenlal Relations team. 651.281.1256 or 800.925.1122 -9562- Association of MeYopolitan Municipalities News F~x October 1 - 5, 2001, page 2 of 2 Legislative Commission on the Metropolitan Council Appointed All legislative caucuses have now appoir~ted members to the Legisla- tive Commission on the Metropolitan Count:il, they include: Sen_at_ors:, Don Betzold--(DFL-Fridley), Myron Orfield--(DFL-Minneapolis), Len Price--(DF.L-Woodbury), Ann P,est (DFL-New Hope), Warren Limmer (R-Maple Grove), Mady Reiter (R-Shoreview), Ctaire P, obling (R-Prior Lake), Representatives: Mark Buesgens---(R-Jordan), Jerry Dempsey--(R-Hastings), Mary Liz Holberg--(R-Lakeviile), Ray Vandeveer--(R-Forest Lake), Alice Housman--(DFL-St. Paul), Luanne Koskinen--- (DFL-Coon Rapids), Sharon Marko--(DFL- Cottage Grove). AMM Board Approves 201:)2 Draft Policies At its October 4 meeting, the AMM E, oard of Directors reviewed and ap- proved AMM's 2002 draft, policies, as recommended by AMM's four policy committees. Copies of those poli- cies have been mailed to all city managers/administrators and elected officials, along with an invi- tation to AMM's annual Policy Adop- tion Meeting which will be held Thurs- day, November 1, beginning at 5:00 p.m at the League of Minnesota Cit- ies building. Legislators Speak to Annual Meeting of Transportation Alliance The Minnesota Transportation Alli- ance held their annual meeting in Rochester on October 3 and 4. The theme was "Advocacy Education for Transportation Needs in the State of Minnesota." Speakers included Rep- resentatives Steve Sviggum (R- Kenyon), Carol Molnau (R-Chaska), Ron Abrams (R-Minnetonka), and A1 Juhnke (D-Willmer), and Senators John Hot'ringer (D-Mankato) and Dick Day (R-Owatonna). All were very supportive of transportation funding, although in context with other issues, All seemed to favor a constitutional amendment dedicating part of the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) to transportation, although only Sen. Day and Rep. Juhnke indicated sup- port for a 100 percent transfer. All suggested it was necessary for in- dividuals to contact their legislators regarding the issue. Rep. Sviggum and Rep. Abrams did refer to the state's lagging economy and inferred that the budget will be tight in 2002. All indicated that due to Iow interest rates bonding for highway projects might be a very smart idea. Rep. Juhnke supported the idea of local referenda to use sales tax for regional transportation. Rep. Abrams, chair of the House Tax Committee, said he would support local referenda if it were possible through an all encompassing initia- tive and referendum provision. Over- all, the legislators were interesting, supportive, and informed, but made no promises. £flO .t0 £Ofl as~I uos,,~H s!pu~l -9563- Oct 12 2081 15:27:54 Via Fax AMM FAX -> Eandis Hanson Page 88Z 0£ 883 PartnershiPS in providing ervices and solutions October 8-12, 2001 I Have you received a copy of the first Regional Blueprint Discussion Paper? If not, contact the Met Council at (651) 602-1 ~40 and ask for a copy of publication #78-Of-O4f. Association'of Hctropolitafl Hunicipalitics 145 Unlvtr$1~y Avenue Wezt St. Paul, MN $5103.2044 Phone: (651) 215.4000 Fax: (65l) 281-1299 E. maiL' amm~amrn145, org AMM Fax News is fa. red w all AMM city manager~ and administrators, legislative con- facts and Board members. Please ~hare this fax with your mayor~, councilmembers and staff to keep them abreast of important metro dty ia'ues. Met Council Approves Recommendations on Aggregate Resources Management At its October 10 meeting, the Met- ropolitan Council reviewed the report of the Rural Issues Work Group re- garding aggregate resource man- agement. Councilmember Marc Huginin chaired the work group, which held numerous meetings and heard testimony from state agencies, the aggregate industry, local officials and environmental groups. The work group concluded that the Metropoli- tan Council needs to intervene in or- der to ensure that the metropolitan region has an adequate supply of aggregate at a reasonable cost and that the environment is adequately protected from possible negative im- pacts. The work group's recommendations include changes to the Council's planning policies, such as a revision of the Metropolitan Significance Rules to allow for the protection of significant aggregate sites, and the development of a policy that links ag- gregate resource protection to the metropolitan aviation and highway systems. The Council will also be encourag- ing the state to protect the use of all modes of bulk transportation for ag- gregates, working to ensure that its own policies allow for the mainte- nance of all transportation modes, and providing technical assistance to local governments who have aggre- gate resources. As part of their legislative initiatives, the Council will seek a legislative ap- propriation to assist those local gov- ernments that are required to amend their comprehensive plans to ad- dress aggregate issues and authori- zation for local governments hosting a mining or quarrying activity to im- pose a host community fee. Finally, the work group recom- mended that the Council support several state initiatives, including: · Required mining and reclamatior, plans for all aggregate mining operations. · Revisions to the mining permit procedure based on the size and duration of the operation, · Measures to encourage conser- vation of natural resources and incentives for recycling demoli- tion waste for aggregate. · The development of best man- agement practices and mini- mum reclamation practices for aggregate mining, · Completion of the mapping of statewide aggregate resources. · Statutory amendments to require comprehensive plans to address aggregate issues. The Metropolitan Council staff w~ directed to develop a strategy t(, implement the recommendations. -9564- Oct lZ 2081 15:28:48 ~ia Fax -> Handi~ Hanson P~§e 883 0£ 883 Association Of Metropolitan Municipalities News/=ax October 8-12, 2001, page 2 of 2 Met Council's Legislative Program Approved, Sent to Governor At its Oct. 10 meeting, the Council also approved a list of 2002 legislative proposals for submission to the Governor's Office. The Council will be seek- ing "housekeeping" legislation in the areas of Livable Communities and Environmental Services, as well as ongoing bonding authority. In the area of Livable Communities, the Council would like to allow commu- nities to automatically continue their participation in the program, without annual re-enrollment, and would like to make changes to the ALHOA for- mula based on the property tax reforms passed during the 2001 session. The Council anticipates having additional recommendations for legislative action following the cornpletion of a study on regional reinvestment strate- gies, which is being funded by a grant from the Minneapolis Foundation. They will also be advancing legislative initiatives related to the protection of aggregate resources (see article above), retirement coverage and investi- gative authority for metro transit police, reconveyance of stormwater pipes, and setting SAC fees based upon the cost of growth. Met Councils Appoints TAB Members; Wiski to Continue as Chair The Metropolitan Council has made its appointments to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). Legislation enacted during the 2001 session autho- rizes the Council to appoint twelve members to the 33-member TAB. The new members represent Metropolitan Council districts and various trans- portation modes. In addition, a Metropolitan Council member now serves on the TAB and the Metropolitan Council appoints the TAB chair from among the TAB membership. Current TAB chair Don Wiski of Vadnais Heights has been reappointed. The newly appointed members and their city of resi- dence follows: District Appointees John Johnson - Brooklyn Pah~ Don Wiski - Vadanais Heights Jack Provo - Eden Prairie Susan Groninger- St. Paul William Casey - Minneapolis Jill Smith - Mendota Heights Michael Krause- Minneapolis Elliott Perovich - Anoka Mode Appointees Public Transit: Lisa McDonald - Minneapolis, Barb Thoman - St. Paul Non-Motorized Transportation: John Herman- Minneapolis Met Council Representative: Carolyn Rodriquez - Apple Valley -9565- ~O'd 0~90~&P Public should own. lakeside corridor Ask a newcomer abou~ life in ~:~e ~ Cities, and you'~e likely to about ~e sunrise of big-city c.~- t~e, s~rts and shopp~g so cie;se m ~e wonders of nature. More an~ing, it is ~e miles of lake- ~ore, b~e trMis and p~ ~at ~ls place apart. Metro resider, ts ~ve come to e~ect public access to ~e. For ~at ~ey c~ ~ ~sion~- les like George A. Pillsbury Chiles Loring. who, ~th othezs, led ~e ~t in ~882 to ensue ff~ar M~neapolis' lakes would be sr r- rounded by parks and parkways open to ~e public. ~e foresight · e~ men made Mi~eapo~ a bet- ter ~ ~d set a rune for ~e But &ok fig~r ~n't over~ sce~qc ~-~e frei~t r~oad ~a~r~ Wa~ta, wind.~ past ~e upscale no~h shore of Lake Minn~onka and continues westw~d thromlh some of the s~are's most pict~?- ~que ~un~de to Hutc~son ~ for ~ab~ For more ~ a -e~ep~ coun~ ~d o~er local govermenrs believed they cou~ p~ ~e Dakota R~ ~ne ~m o~er, Florida.bmod ica, ~c., for perhaps $2.2 ~e ~tenr was io sec~e ~e corri- dor for ~e public, ~st as a b~e eeVenru~y ~ a rran,4t apo~s. ~en R~efica abruptly up ~ a new sukor ~at h~ deeper pockets. An Illinois investment} ~, ~kering ime~ as Mc~ght R~oad, si~ed a p~chase a~. rne:':~ fo: $7 :ri.iii/on, intending to sell ma t!ne ia pieces to private ~test~r,z. "Tiii~ is '.a linear Hump t.ou:i~y [~.issioner pt~r~r MC- ~~%)i~Ce it r, reaks ~ci2 neve~e ~u' ~ack tone.er ' '~'~-~ , ~: Ow ~ne ot~V recoume Is to pose REk~mefi~a's petition for ~ exempti.:n to the cumbersome process ;ruder w~ich i~ codd ab~- don the ilne. A decision by Ee U.K S~flhce ':'ra~}~ponadon Bo~d is ex- pectea~ens. Pa~ We~- stone ~~on, Eong ~ Reps. Mxrk Kennedy. Jim Rmstad and Martin Sabo should do what they c~ to protect ~e public's ~- retest, i'mlaepin, C~er ~d, Mc- Leoo counties favor public o~er- s~p, as Ooe~ avery city ~ong ~e ~qc exce¢t M'im:eto~a Beach. ~t's h~rd 'to blame Rail.~eriea for seeing a ni~er price. But ~ public agencies need mom t~e m ~sem~le a compefi~ve offer. Hen- ~epin Comity h right when it te~ me transportation bo~d: s~gment.t~on ~nd c~b~fion ar me ccmaor as propos~ by ~ ~,~a,= c, evemper is ana~ema me ocs: '.nteres~ and n~ of ~e ?ab[ir." MB~ae apuiis h still reap~g benw fi~ froai '.:lC who choice it m~e 119 years aec; to ~rese~~ i}~e public. L~ewSseDesiden~ of ,ha~ ¢2s ~common~y sce~c :~;qraiis corridor :s prese~ed for public en~oyme~,: General Fund $1,549,839 CDBG ~,63§ Area Fire Protection Services 336,475 MSA 21,338 Sealcoat (59,535) PW Facility 94,999 C__api_ta_!)_.m__Rro_~e...m_e~n_t_ .................................... __9_~;_8_.6.._7_. CDB 1,160 Commerce Place TIF 81,195 Downtown TIF 1-2 (1,428,687) Grant Revolving 7,139 Recycling 93,771 Liquor Store 1,624,452 Water 1,362,552 Storm Water 793,938 Sewer 955,965 Cemetery 2,916 Dock 175,739 Fire Relief (63,775) 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 from the independent auditor is performed and an official Comprehensive Report will be presented to the City Council and made available to interested parties. In no way this schedule is intended to ~present balances of funds available for spending. 10/16/2001 CashReportCouncil Gino -9567- CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT Sept. 2001 75.00% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers Sept. 2001 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPEI~DED 81,320 4,690 64,798 16,522 79.68% 4,000 0 4,000 0 100.00% 48,000 0 36,396 11,604 75.83% 229,430 15,218 136,584 92,846 59.53% 2,300 0 179 2,121 7.78% 73,450 0 77,392 (3,942) 105.37% 196,830 14,207 135,284 61,546 68.73% 18,950 1,470 40,389 (21,439) 213.13% 118,980 5,133 93,687 25,293 78.74% 1,125,850 77,455 753,531 372,319 66.93% 6,950 41 3,735 3,215 53.74% 261,980 23,590 187,023 74,957 71.39% 496,120 33,753 401,275 94,845 80.88% 80,440 4,636 98,389 (17,949) 122.31% 247,740 17,698 191,054 56,686 77.12% 42,260 0 0 42,260 0.00% 25,000 608 65,414 (40,414) 261.66% 206,740 15.847 142,622 64,118 68.990~ GENERAL FUND TOTAL 3.266.340 214,346 2.431.752 834,588 . 74.45% 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 31,767 275,823 140,027 66.33% 18,554 485,733 (485,733) 920 94,659 40,821 69.87% 26,437 249,413 83,037 75.02% 55,573 401,447 77,173 83.88% 143 21,616 690,384 3.04% 108,742 746,631 201,579 78.74% 168 1,974 5,526 26.32% 14,596 150,271 (5,651) 103.91% Exp-00 10/16/2001 Gino -9568- CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT September 75.00% GENERALFUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Perm its Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments September YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE _RECEIVED 1,429,370 0 732,752 (696,618) 51.26% 4,340 0 7,295 2,955 168.09% 160,920 42,705 183,940 23,020 114.31% 970,380 0 490,943 (479,437) 50.59% 132,750 972 104,083 (28,667) 78.41% 100,000 9,816 65,471 (34,529) 65.47% 142,400 36,341 112,705 (29,695) 79.15% 153,000 0 0 (153,000) 0.00% 12,500 1,141 10,741 (1,759) 85.93% TOTAL REVENUE 3,105,660 90,975 1,707,930 (1,397,730) 54.99% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND STORM WATER UTILITY SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCK FUND 403,270 45,830 372,669 (30,601) 92.41% 121,880 6,799 101,666 (20,214) 83.41% 1,900,000 149,943 1,407,832 (492,168) 74.10% 510,000 40,940 336,454 (173,546) 65.97% 101,000 8,698 70,547 (30,453) 69.85% 990,000 98,304 766,267 (223,733) 77.40% 6,250 0 3,380 (2,870) 54.08% 81,350 261 69,919 (11,431) 85.95% 10/16/2001 rev01 Gino -9569- .~ --J 0 '- :5 = .= -- CL C :~ 0 0 ,-, o = ~ = ,, ~ 0 1~ ._~ 0 ,, ~ 0- E = .- o '= '.- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 o o 0 o 0 9570 5341 May~-ood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 4z2-3 ~90 MEMORANDUM TO: All Interested Public Agencies and Individuals FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: October 12, 2001 SUBJECT: RGU Decision on Need for EIS regarding the EAW for Village by Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace As set forth in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.1700, subpart 1, the Mound City Council, which serves as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the Village BY Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace EAW, must determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental impacts and make either a positive or a negative declaration regarding the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). On October 9, 2001, the Mound City Council, made a determination that the proposed project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and made a negative declaration regarding the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. A Resolution of the Mound City Council affirming the RGU's decision is attached. Ail persons and parties who are on the required distribution list and/or who submitted comments on the EAW are being sent a copy of the RGU's decision. -9571 - CiTY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 01-87 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND DETERMINING THAT, BASED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) AND PUBUC COMMENTTO THE F. AW, AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (ELS) IS NOT WARRANTED FOR THE VILLAGE BY COOKS BAY/MOUND MARKET PLACE PROJECT WHEREAS,-.Metro Plains Development, LLC (the 'Developer') has proposed a mixed use development consisting generally of 99 townhouSe and condominium residential units and 67,000 sq. ft. of retail and commercial space (the 'Project'); and WHEREAS, ia settlement of litigation commenced by neighboring property owners against the Developer and the City of Mound (the 'City') concerning the Project, the City agreed to :prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (,'F_AW'); arid WHEREAS, the City was designated as the responsible governmental unit ("RGU') by the Minnesota Environmental Quality board ('EQB'); and WHEREAS, the City approved the EAW for distribution *on August 28, 2001 and solicited public comment on the content and completeness of the EAW;. and WHEREAS, the public comment period on the EAW extended.-from September 3, 2001 through October 3, 2001; and WHEREAS, four written comments were received during the comment period. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: Based on the EAW and the public comments to the EAW, all of which have been reviewed and evaluated by the City, the City hereby determines that an Environmental Impact Statement ('ELS')' is not warranted for the Project. In reaching its determination that no ElS was warranted for the Project, the City eValuated the F. AW and public comments with regard of the following criteria: a) the type, extent and reversibility of environmental effectS; b) the cumulative potential effects of related or antiCipated future projects; c) the extend to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by on-going public regulatory authority;, and d) the extent to which environmental effects can beanticipated-and controlled as a result of public agencies or the De~)eloper. -9572- 2. It is the determination of the City based on the F_AW and comments thereto, that nO further study is required to make a determinatiOn on. the kW; The · City's record, including its specific findings, of:faCt aed-respenses to.the comments to the EAW, are included in the F_AW and. ~ ~,epe~t. ef. Hoisington · Koeg!er GroUp Inc. to the City dated Octobe~ ~, 200t, ce'pits :~f which are affached hereto and incorporated herein by,r~femnce. 3. ln.,reachir~g its derision* that an ElS is n~t~arranted, the,City .~r~sidered certain CSAH 15 :'~nd CSAH 110 turn lane and* ¢u~b-cut improvements to be connected actions and evalUated -the envirormiental impacts ef suCh improvements ~on[~ with th.ose off{he Project. There were no other projects or,improvemen~W~!ch were considered connected ow-phaSed actions. 4. City staff:is here. ~.Y authorized and directed to comply with all, reqdiFements regarding notifi~tioni of affected parties of the City's decision, inoludir~g providing noti~t~).~ persons on :the EAW'distdbt~on~.iist, all pe~,senS who commented in ~ting during the comment pe~i3cl, ail: ether persons upon written request a'r~l~0 the-£QB. City staff is authorized and directed t~ take any and all.oth~'-=a:~ions r~ecessary or-convenient:to cam/out the city s intent in this matter. -;~;!i .? ' The foregoing resolution was moved by~Councilmember Brown and seconded by Counciimember Hanus. :?~ The following voted in'th~ affirmative: Brown, Hanus and MeiSei. The following voted in th~ hegative:-Meyer. Councilmember Ar~derson ~stained from voting. Adopted bythe CitY CounCil this. 9a day,of October, 2001. Attest: Bonnie Ritteib, A~!ng:City Clerk Mayor:Pat Meisel- k.. 2 -9573- EII¥110 NM ENTAL QUALITT contact the EQB at 651-296-8253 (metropolitan area) or 1-800-657-3794 Environmental Review Program EAW Distribution List Updated September 2000 Approximately 25 copies are needed for distribution. For further information about this list, (outside metropolitan area). STATE AGENCIES "Environmental Quality Board (1 copy) Environmental Review Program 300 Centennial Office Building 658 Cedar St. St. Paul, MN 55155 Board of Water and Soil Resources (1 copy) Jim Haertel One W. Water St. Suite 200 St. paul, MN 55107 Department of Agriculture (1 copy) Becky Balk 90 W. Plato Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55107 Department of Health (I copy) Environmental Health Division Policy, Planning and Analysis Unit 121 E. Seventh Place, Suite 230 St. Paul, MN 55101 Department of Commerce (1 copy) Marya White 200 Metro Square Building 121 E. Seventh Place St. Paul, MN 55101 Department of Natural Resources (3 copies) Thomas W. Balcom Environmental Review Unit 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155-4010 Department of Transportation (3 copies) Gerald Larson 395 John Ireland Blvd., MS 620 St. Paul, MN 55155 Minnesota Historical Society (1 copy) State Historical Preservation Office 345 Kellogg Blvd. W. St. Paul, MN 55102 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (3 copies) Beth Lockwood;Supervisor Operations and Planning Unit Metro District/MPCA 520 Lafayette Rd. St. Paul, MN 55155 LIBRARIES 'Environmental Conservation Library (2 copies) Minneapolis Public Library 300 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Legislative Reference Library (2 copies) Carol Blackburn 645 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 FEDERAL U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (1 copy) Char HaUger Regulatory Functions Branch Army Corps of Engineers Center 190 Fifth St. E. St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1 copy) William D. Franz Chief of Environmental Review 77 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604-3590 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1 copy) Twin Cities Field Office E.S. 4101 E. 80th St. Bloomington, MN 55425-1665 REGIONAL Metropolitan Council (1 copy if the project i.s in the seven-county metropolitan area) Linda Milashius, Referrals Meats Park ~entre 230 E. Fifth St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Also distribute copies to: · Local,~t ofgove~ent . ~ co~espond~g to project j~sdicfion, such as ~c°~t~m~ plying ~d zomg office, tomship,~e~h~ ~~ ~d water ~nse~au~ ~ mer m~agement org~zatiOns Re~onal Development ission, where applicable (see a~ched lisB ~d map) I Regional Developmem Libr~ for the region in which ~e project ~__ site falls (see a~ched lists ~d map) ? · Representatives of petitioners if~" · the review was initiated by a citizens petition ld~ · Any other person who has y¢4- submitted a written request for notification PRESS RELEASE ~A press release must be provided to at least one newspaper of general circulation in the project area within five working days of EAW distribution. The release must include the r,~a~, l~n~on and a .tttr4~q~4t~o~f the project; location(s) where the EAW can be reviewed; the comment period deadline (call the EQB if unknown); and to whom comments should be submitted. -9575- October 15, 2001 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com Bruce Polaczyk, P.E. Design Engineer Hennepin County Transportation Department 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340-5421 Re: EAW response - Village by Cooks Bay/Mound Market Place project. Dear Mr. Polaczak: The City of Mound received your comment letter regarding the Village by Cooks Bay/Mound Market Place EAW on October 9, 2001. Since the official comment period for the EAW ended October 3, the City did not respond to your comments as part of the EAW process. Despite the EAW timing issue, the City believes it is important to address your comments regarding the project. You commented that the site plan in the EAW needs to indicate the currently proposed CSAH 15/110 intersection improvements. Exhibit 3 of the EAW shows a project site plan submitted to the City in 2000 for preliminary plat approval (prior to the design of County channelizatiOn plans). Even though CSAH 15/110 roadway plans were not indicated on the site plan, the appropriate number and general location of curb cuts accessing the project site were shown. Since turn lanes and curb cuts into the site were the only roadway actions connected with the project, we believe adequate information was provided for the public to accurately comment on fhe environmental impacts of the project. It is also important to note that any lingering conflicts between proposed CSAH 15/110 improvements and the Village/Market Place project were resolved by Friday October 5 when the developer submitted a final plat to the City - a final plat that, as you know, was the result of intense negotiations between the County, City and developer. I hope this addresses your comments. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, Kandis Hanson City Manager _printed on recycled paper 9576- Department of Employee Relations Employee Insurance Division Workers' Compensation P.O. Box 64081 St. Paul, MN 55164-0081 651-296-6521 TTY 651-297-7959 www. doer. state.mn.us October 3,2001 Gino Businaro Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Businaro: Congratulations ! I am very pleased to send you the enclosed notification of compliance with the Local Government Pay Equity Act. Since the law was passed in 1984, jurisdictions have worked diligently to meet compliance requirements and your work is to be commended. As you know, Minnesota Rules Chapter 3920 specifies the procedure and criteria for measuring compliance and information about your situation is enclosed. In an effort to conserve resources, we are no longer enclosing the "Guide to Understanding Pay Equity Compliance and Computer Reports." Instead, we are directing you to our web site www.doer.state.mn, us/ir-peqt¥/resource.htm for this publication or we will send you a copy in the mail upon request. If you have any questions about the materials or about pay equity in general, please contact me at (651) 296-2653. One of the things the rule requires is that we notify each jurisdiction when the next pay equity report is due. In your case, this date is January 31, 2004, and we will be sending you forms and instructions at a later time. Also, this notice and results of the compliance review are public information and must be supplied upon request to any interested party. Again, congratulations on your achievement! Sincerely, Faith Zwernke Pay Equity Coordinator Attachments An equal opportunity emp- 9 5 7 7 - supports workforce diversity > © 0 ~ 0 u >- -9578- Results.of Tests for Pay Equity Compliance Date: Jurisdiction: 1. Completeness and Accuracy Test t/"' Passed. Required information was submitted accurately and on time.. 2. Statistical Analysis Test /,//Passed. Jurisdiction had more than three male classes and an underpayment ratio of 80% or more. Passed. Jurisdiction had at least six male classes, at least one class with a salary range, an underpayment ratio below 80% but a t-test that was not statistically significant. 3. Salary Range Test Passed. Too few classes had an established number of years to move through a salary range. w'"" Passed. Salary range test showed a score of 80% or more. 4. Exceptional Service Pay Test Passed. Too few classes received exceptional service pa3'. Passed. Exceptional service pay test showed a score of 80% or more. The 'enclosed material describes compliance requirements in more detail. you have questions, contact Pay Equity Coordinator, Faith Zwemke, at (651) 296-2653. If -9579- Compliance Report Jurisdiction: City of Mound Date: 9/26/01 Contact: Gino Businaro Phone: (952) 472-0608 Insurance Added? N Job Evaluation System Used: Folas-Control DateJPDI The statistical analysis, salary range and exceptional service pay test results are shown below. Part I is general information from your Pay Equity Report data. Parts II, III, and IV give you the test results. For more detail on each test, refer to the guidebook. I. GENERAL JOB CLASS INFORMATION Male Female Balanced All Job Classes Classes Classes Classes # Job Classes 9 13 1 23 # EmPloyees 17 13 10 40 Avg. Max Monthly Pay per Employee 4,019.71 3,300.38 3,748.25 I1. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TEST A. UNDERPAYMENT RATIO = 82.5 a. # at or above Predicted Pay b. # Below Predicted Pay c. TOTAL Male Female Classes Classes 5 6 4 7 9 13 d. % Below Predicted Pay 44.44 53.85 (b divided by c = d) * (Result is % of male classes below predicted pay divided by % of female classes below predicted pay) Bo T-TEST RESULTS Degrees of Freedom (DF) = 28 Value of T = 0.065 a. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for male jobs = -$6 b. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for female jobs = -$10 II1. SALARY RANGE TEST = 88.89 % (Result is A divided by B) A. Avg. # of years to max salary for male jobs = 5.33 B. Avg. # of years to max salary for female jobs = 6.00 IV. EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE PAY TEST .00 % A. % of male classes receiving ESP .00 * B. % of female classes receiving ESP .00 * (if 20% or less, test result will be 0.00) -9580- Predicted Pay Report- Case: 2001 DATA Job Nbr Job Title 1 Comm Svcs Officer 2 Fire Dept Secretary 3 Recept/Secretary 4 Liquor Store Night Clerk 5 Police Recept/Secretary 6 Utility Billing Clerk 7 BIdg Secretary 8 Acct$ Payable Clerk 9 Acctg Clerk/Payroll 10 Police Secretary 11 Maint Worker 12 Asst Liquor Store Mgr 13 Patrol Officer 14 Police Sergeant-Patrol 15 Liquor Store Mgr 16 Police Sergeant-Investigation 17 City Clerk 18 BIdg Official 19' Park Director 20 Public Works Supt 21 Police Chief 22 Finance Dir/Treas 23 City Manager City of Mound Male Female Total Empl Empl Empl 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 I 1 9 0 9 0 1 1 7 3 10 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 I 1 1 0 1 I 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sex F F F F F F F F M F B M M M M M Work Points 40 40 49 52 52 56 56 56 56 57 57 62 68 77 79 80 82 88 90 92 107 109 126 Max Mo. Salary $2,252.00 $2,252.00 $2,684.00 $2,844.00 $2,844.00 $3,013.00 $3,013.00 $3,013.00 $3,013.00 $3,013.00 $3,143.00 $3,195.00 $3,869.00 $4,402.00 $4,436.00 $4,577.00 $4,700.00 $4,983.00 $4,084.00 $5,282.00 $6,142.00 $6,142.00 $7,069.00 9/26/01 11:28:17.AM Page: 1 Predicted Pay $2,101.50 $2,101.50 $2,653.05 $2,836.73 $2,836.73 $3,081.81 $3,081.81 $3,081.81 $3,081.81 $3,143.21 $3,143.21 $3,446.73 $3,817.31 $4,384.27 $4,489.10 $4,544.94 $4,495.73 $4,744.39 $4,782.89 $4,932.93 $6,078.12 $6,191.80 $7,095.19 Pay Difference $150.50 $150,50 $30.95 $7,27 $7.27 -$68.81 -$68.81 -$68.81 -$68.81 -$130.21 -$,21 -$251.73 $51.69 $17.73 -$53.10 $32.06 $204.27 $238.61 -$698.89 $349.07 $63.88 -$49.80 -$26,19 -9581 - -9582- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 · r- ,r- ~ ,r- ,r- ,r- ~- 'r- ,r- ,r,- 0 ~-- C~ 0 0 0 ,r- 0 0 0 0 0 ,r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ 0 I~ ,r- ,r- ,r- 0 ,r- ,r- 'r- ~-' ,r- 0 -9583- October 18, 2001 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound,com Ms. Kandis Hanson City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: BUILDING OFFICIAL RESIGNATION Dear Kandis: I have been offered and as of today I have accepted the position as Building Official for the City of Albertville. I hereby submit my resignation to you and the City of Mound. I will work with Sarah regarding establishment of my final day of employment in order to provide a smooth transition. The variety of experience I have gained serving Mound over the last 11 years is invaluable to me and is very unique to a Building Official. I recognize this allows me to have this additional opportunity and I am very appreciative to you the staff and to the City of Mound. I consider my self lucky to have had the chance to attend 11 years of Planning Commission and Council night meetings working with through innumerable development, zoning, ordinance and other issues. The time spent working directly with the likes of Mark Koegler, Bruce Chamberlain, Loren Gordon, John Cameron, John Dean, the various Commission members and Councils will be treasured and give me advantage in my career. Your management has put the Planning and Inspections Department in capable hands, I sincerely hope that my input has been helpful, and that my service has been satisfactory. Building Official C: Sarah Smith CDD and Gino Businaro Finance Director