The URL can be used to link to this page

2001-11-27PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS oration rovldesaiare on MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2001, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA *Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. In that event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. o o o o OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE MINUTES: NOV 13,2001 REGULAR MEETING *B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.) 2002 BUDGET AND LEVY mo PUBLIC HEARING ACTION FOR APPROVAL CONSIDERATION/ACTION ON SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT WITH METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS A. CASE #01-43: MILTON 3003 BRIGHTON BOULEVARD SETBACK VARIANCE REGARDING COMMISSIONS A. ACTION ON ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 437 OF THE CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO DOCK LICENSES B. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD PAGE 9692-9694 9695-9708 9709-9714 9715-9717 9718-9751 9752-9782 9783-9790 9791-9793 PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS E. F. G. H. I. J. K. LMCD correspondence AMM Fax News Financial Report: Oct 2001 Finance Director achievement award Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative correspondence Police Department Report: Oct 2001 Mound Police Department achievement award Metropolitan Council newsletter Minutes of Park and Open Space Commission: Nov 8, 2001 Minutes of Docks and Commons Commission: Nov 15, 2001 Letter: Tom Casey on council appointment process 10. ADJOURN This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: www. cio~ofmound, com. 9794-9819 9820 9821-9823 9824-9825 9826-9829 9930-9§31 9832-9833 9834-9835 9836-9840 9841-9849 9850-9851 More current meeting COUNCIL BRIEFING November 27, 2001 Upcoming Events Schedule: Don't Forget!! Nov 26 - 7:00 PM: Budget Workshop Nov 27 Nov 27 Dec 3 - Dec 7 - Dec 11 Dec 11 Dec 12 Dec 25 - 6:30 PM: HRA - 7:30 PM: Regular CC 7:00 PM: Special Meeting to interview and appoint a council member 12:00-1:30 PM: Root Beer Float brown bag lunch (optional) - 6:30 PM: HRA - 7:30 PM: Regular CC - 5:00-9:00: Fran Clark retirement party - No meetings! City Hall Closed Dec 24, p.m. Christmas Eve Dec 25 Christmas Day Dec 31, p.m. New Year's Eve Jan 1 New Year's Day //6. MetroPlains' Subdivision Agreement MetroPlains could not be reached for some final comments as this agenda is being printed. In the event that certain points remain outstanding between the parties, this item may have to be pulled from the agenda. We it is not in their interest to do that since lack of approval of the Subdivision Agreement causes them to for building permits for another two weeks. We continue to work diligently on this matter. #8.B. Aooointment to LMCD Board We were unsuccessful in securing candidates for consideration to the LMCD Board. I am asking that Council Members brainstorm some viable candidates for solicitation. If you could bring nominations to the meeting, staff could invite them to submit applications. They could be considered, and even interviewed, at the Dec 11 meeting, allowing for appointment at our Jan 8 Annual Meeting. (PS The one candidate we had determined his conflict of interest in the eleventh hour prior to the interview time. Unfortunately, that was not reported to me, but to LMCD. Numerous of us here are still learning. I am sorry that happened and apologize for your inconvenience that evening.) Human Resources Update No effort has been made to replace the Building Official. I wanted to test the use of contracted services over in- house services. Even in this short time, I am convinced that we need a position representing the City full time in order to provide the best possible service, especially as the demands on the department are growing. Sarah and I will be updating the job description shortly in order to place the public postings for the position. Fran Clark's retirement reception is schedule for Dec 12, as planned, but has been moved to the Mound American Legion. In the event that someone inquires about the Clerk's vacancy, you may report that the position will likely be ~ via pro. motion from within. Bonnie Ritter, Acting City Clerk, has held the position for nearly a year. A ~--'~ce ~~n ~n 'S~ber indicated she "exceeds expectations" in all categories. Bonnie is currently being reviewed for her fitness for the position in other areas normally considered when a placement occurs. Should positive reports be received, she will be placed in the position of City Clerk during the month of December. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 15~ 2OO1 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 7:30 pm, in the council chambers at 5341 Maywood Road in said City. Councilmembers Present: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Klm Anderson and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Attorney, John Dean; City Manager, Kandis Hanson; Acting City Clerk, Bonnie Ritter; Finance Director, Gino Businaro; Community Development Director, Sarah Smith; Parks Director, Jim F Public Works Superintendent, Greg Skinner; Police Chief, Len Harrell: Joel Krumm; David Osmek, Frank Weiland, Lorrie Consent Agenda: Ail items listed under the be routine in nature by the Council and will wi//be no separate discussion on these so requests, in which event the item wi//be and considered in normal sequence Store Manager, considered to vote. There Councilmember or citizen the Consent Agenda 1. OPEN MEETING AND PLEDGE Mayor Meisel called the meetin and the Pledge of Allegiance was rented. MOTION Brown, s~~i?~b~:Handi~i!ii~ approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor.::~!iiM~t~e~: c~Ji~d. - 3, CONSENT:i~ENDA ~ii:~ii?i?:i!~: MOTION by H~::~BS. by Brown to approve the consent agenda as presented. Ali v°~::~jn fa~. Mo~on ~ied. A. Approve M:inute~ October ~, 2~1 special meeting October 23, 2001 r~ular meeting October ~, 2001 spedal meeting November 7, 2001 special meeting B. Approve payment of clai.ms in the amount ef $225,749.62. C. Approve Live Music Permit for Four Band Fiesta, Nov. 4th at Mound Bay P'ark - 4':00 p.m. - 10::00 p.m, 1 -9692- Mound City CeLmcil Minutes - November 13, 2001 D. RESOLUTION NO. 01-97: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MUTUAL AID E. Set public hearing for 2002 Budget for November 27, 2001, at 7:30 p.m. 4.. COM.MENTS.AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None were offered. 5. RESIGNATION OF CITY CLERK, FRAN CLARK LEISINGER MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adopt the foliowing resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried, RESOLUTION NO. 01-98: RESOLUTION ACCEPTII OF CITY CLERK, FRAN 6, RESIGNATION OF COUNCILMEMBER KI MOTIO'N by Hanus, seconded by Meyer to the~feltowing ~°lution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 01-99: THE RESIGNATION OF )N. 7. CONSIDERATIC MOTION by Hanus, voted in favor. Motion COUNCIL VACANCY :~,adopt the following resolution. All RESOLUTION N( City Attorney, occur .when Klm DECLARING VACANCY IN THE OF CITY COUNCILMEMBER AS OF 30, 2001. lined: the process of filling the vacancy that will resignation is effective. A special meeting was set for December 3, 200.1, at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of conducting inte~iews for the position of City Ceuncitmember. 8. CONSIDERATION/ACTION ON LAND ACQUISITION ALTERNATIVES City MaRager Hanson, explained that five aEematives are proposed for the possible ae.,quisifion of land for water plant expansion purposes. John Dean explained the five alternatives, s{ating that Alternative ~4 (Option to purchase with the option period being as long as several years) is the most favorable to the city. This alternative 'could also inOlude a firs{ right of refusal clause. 2 -9693- Meu~d ¢tty Cou~il Minutes - November 13, 2001 MOTION by Ha.nus, seconded by Brown to direct the City Manager to take the necessary steps to investigate Alternative ~ as presented. Alt voted in favor. Motion carried. 9. JONATHAN PAUL REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT - CHECK VALVF A request was received from Jonathan Paul for reimbursement for a check valve he installed as a result of a sewer backup. He is making this request based on the action, the Council took to reimburse residents on Langdon Lane for the same. The Council expressed that it was their intention to reimburse only residents on Langdon Lane, because this problem was due to the street/drainage configuration. MOTION by Brown and seconded by Meyer to deny this~i~uest for reimbursement. All voted in favor. Motion .carried. Mayor Meisel called a 10 minute recess at 8:20 piCa?nd re~!h~ened the · meeting at 8:30 p.m. .~iiiiiiiii?ii::::~':~ 10. 2002 BUDGET AND LEVY .... :~ii~:::ii:,iiiii?~ii?.ii~,~....:~::::?:i? Beca"~'o~l'~'~'et cuts~Deeded i~iiiii~et the levy and fund balance, there was a special meeting set for N~ber 26,'~:~1, at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of another budget workshop. ~i::iiiiDe~~t H~ds will be present to answer any questions of the Council. :%~:.:~iiiii!i!?''~: "~:~:%?:!i?? B. Mound Westonka ~i?~istrici~i~'~:respondence D. Article: E~i-m~:{¥~ii~..~unity policing initiatives pick up steam... E. Newsier{er: S~heriff':~iiii~epo:~: F. ArtiCle: '::~s TIF h:~ a future as an economic development tool'~ G, Repo~: M~. Fi,[eiiii~:epartment ' H. Westonka H~:~iiii~ommunityii Collaborative correspondence I. Speak up and b~ heard t2. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to adjourn at 8:43 p.m. Ali voted in favor. Motion carried, Attest: Acting City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 3 -9694- PAGE 1 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND ~-.i 11/27/01 11/27/01 97.20 JRNL-CD i;" 55132411 88.20 ICE :~ B0549 34859400 · ~ ~i 22607800 471.19 BAGS 71-7100-2200 11/27/01 11/27/0i 471.I9 JRNL-CD ............ 5,681.20 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 11/27/01 11/27/01 5,681.20 JRNL-CD B0580 204583 262.17 SW-30 01-4280-2250 262.17 SW-30 73-7300-2250 BO600 10107120' 31.66 lO-Oi GARBAGE PICKUP ~CMRO120 01-4280-3750 31.66 lO-O1 GARBAGE PICKUP ~CMRO120 73-7300-3750 67.0~ lO-O1 GARBAGE P~CKUP ~CMRO121 22-4170-3750 10107051 67.07 10-01 6ARBA6E P~CKUP ~CHPO085 BRAND NETWORKING VENDOR TOTAL 90.00 BUDGET LIGHT1NG XNC VENDOR TOTAL 63.97 -9695- PAGE 2 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICF~ DUE HOLD 815 011127 152.50 10-24-01 PARNER MARKETING FLOR 22-4170-4110 · · 2, L,95 Z0-24~g~ ~'NTERNET, FACKLER ~M g~'~4:g-~Z30, ..... 11/27/01 1ll27/01 205 30 JRNL-CD loll ,C085g D$19591 ZZ~.~5 ~LANPS, CHARGER~ ETC~ [HAMPION AUTO VENDOR TOTAL 113.55 CHESLEY TRUCK SALES VENDOR TOTAL 56.87 ..t"-._C__0_8.8_7.__0_1_!!~.~ ........ 177.68 i2-Oi ¢952) z,?2-ssss 2~-4i?0-s220 CITIZ~E-N5 COMMUNIC,IATIONS VENDOR T"DTAL ~,,~ C0970 0Z256097 221.92 MIX 71-7100-95~0 .................................................. ! ~ ~..~.7 ! 01. 11127101 221.92 JRNL-CD 101 :~',. COCA ~OL,A BOTT'L, IN'G-M I DWEST VENDOR: 'TOTAL 221.92 ,~. 11127/0~ ~1/27/0~ ~,970.00 JRNL-CD )5 EAR I NG, 'I N C'¥ ~:~ ~ENbAA:-'-~'~t:ATE 484.27 12-01 INTEREST TRUE VALUE 55-5881-6110 11/27/01 11/27/01 961.84 JRNL-CD 101 '- ..... : ............. :'~V ~i~'6~-~-~OY~E .................. :~i'~T~~:' 7 ............. 11/27/01 11127101 5,023.00 JRNL-CD lO1 CHADWICK AND MERTZ, P.A VENDOR TOTAL 01200 156675 156680 502~.00 1,'520.'8.5 BEER 7l~7100-9530' 48.20 MIX 71-7100-9540 ~ 11/27/01 11/27101 48.20 JRNL-CD 101 55 157 6:35 1,537.50 BEER ~1-7100-9530 :;': 11/27t01 il/27/01 t,537.50 JR NL~CD ............ lOt -9696- PA6E 3 AP-C02-01 P U R { H A S E J OU R N A L CITY OF MOUND DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 4317 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD VENDOR TOTAL 3&23.45 575.00 55075508 BREEZY ROAD 73-7300-2350 ,g ~ g C O RPO RA TJ ON ~ E~ DO R ~ TOT A:L 6695 · ~ ~ E1420 16¢i09 94.00 BEER 71-7100-9530 ll/27/01 ll/27/01 94.00 JRNL-CD Z~2~,/05 Zi/27/OZ 5,9~5,35 JRNL:~CD ~'~94 Z'~ 25.20 BEER 71-7100-9530 11/27/01 1~/27/0[ 25.20 JRNL-CD lO1 5258/i190~ 114.~4 MAINTENANCE kT CITY HALL 01-4320-3830 11/27/01 $1/27/0[ ~i4.44 JRNL-CD ~82328 475.87 POST OFFICE REPAIR 30-6000-4~00 ~1/27/0~ ~1/27/01 475.87 JRNL-CD iO~ E~Ui~PM~:NT :'Sg~:P, LV tN~ VE~D:OR' TOTAL ~817.~:58 11/27/01 11/27/01 516.53 JRNL-CD ;:~f~:, · :: : · ., . . . , .. ~ ,'' : ~.. : :- . : . ~.~.:.: :.: .,: :.:. 26.82 1~-06-0Z UNIFORMS 73-7~00-22fi0 -9697- PAGE 4 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD 27.87 11-06-01 MATS 01-a280-2250 27.87 11-06-01 MATS 73-7300-2250 828100 46.82 11-13-01 MATS :: 11/27/01 11/27/01 25.98 JRNL-CD 101 GENERAL SPRINKLER CORPORA~ VENDOR TOTAL 175.35 ~,~ G1890 011031 49.74 10-01 WATER #32345800 461010 461921 11/27/01 11/27/01 11/27/01 11/27/01 11/27/01 11/27/01 296.85 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 296.85 JRNL-CD ~ :- ,..: 311.89 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 311.89 JRNL-CD 101 ~07 306.80 WINE 306.80 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9520 101 :;;:)i GRIGGS COOPER & COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 3182.84 HAWKINS, INCORPORATED VENDOR TOTAL 15.00 -9698- PAGE 5 AP-C02-01 P U R C H A S E J O.U R N A L CITY OF MOUND VENDOR ......... I N V 0~~ .C_]~ ._~.U E.. __H. O._l~ ...................... : ......................... [~ :~:.~.:.:< :: '.'C :. J:::: :. :.~ : : :. ~': C '<."~ : ::~ <::]: : ~080 32022 33.44 ROD, NUTS, WASHERS FOR WING PL i~/27/01 ~1/27/01 33.~4 JRNL-CD 32164 158.25 PIPE, COUPLERS, ETC 01-4280 2310 11/27/01 11/27/01 158.25 JRNL-CD 101, :~ 11/27/01 11/27/01 158.95 JRNL-CD 101 ~>~ HECKSEL MACHINE SHOP VENDOR TOTAL 423.05 *,:~' HENNEPIN CTY. INFO TECH VENDOR TOTAL 109.48 ?I HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WOR VENDOR TOTAL 50.00 ~m H2230 Oil03i 8~68 SOFTWARE 01-4095-3800 ~, I2309 23045699 33.i0 lO-Z2-Oi THRU 0i-i2-02 COPIER 0Z-4280-2140 ~ 33.10 lO-12-Oi THRU 01-12-02 COPIER 73-7300-2140 ~.?~ 23059844 578.2i ~02~092~ Z2-O1 THRU ~2-02 01-4320-3800 ]~ Zi/27/01 ~Z/2710~ 578.2I JRNL-CD ~.~ I2333 011684 146.iZ JACKET Z3-7300-2240 -9699- PAGE 6 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD ~/27/0~ ~/27/0~ 7~.00 JRNL-CD ~0~( ONAL ASSOCIATION VENDOR TOTAL 28.00 I2370 2~92~50 632.t6 '2001 DUES 01-4040-4130 INTERNATL CITY/CNTY MGMT ~ VENDO~ TOTAL 6~2.~6 9140 ~30.94 REPAIR BRAKES 11/27/0~ %1/27/0i 130.94 JRNL-CD ~,~t27/0~ 1~/27/01 25,86 JRNL-CD ~0~ ISLAND PARK SKELLY VENDOR TOTAL 182.66 ~' _...~_24~0__~_~.443 44.9~ REAR VALVE CDVERS 0Z-4280-23!0 J2579 ~325233 2,221.92 LI ~UOR 71-7~00-9510 ~32'5214 t,6~,5 .,?-4 ]W~ N-E 7t'7~00-9520 z~2~s ~,z~.s~ L~UOR 7~-7ZO0-9~O 1325:4?~ 2~7~90 WINE 7i- 7100-952.0 ~328282 1,961.60 WINE 7Z-7~00-9520 1328283 32~.65 Li ~UOR ' . ': 1~28284 !73.70 WINE 71-7100-9520 11/27/01 ill27101 173.70 JRNL-CD tOl ~32 9546 62~40 WINE 71-7100-9520 ~1/27/01 1~/27~01 62.&0 JRNL-CD ' 101 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR VENDOR TOTAL 8722.76 :. : : ' : 4i7.59:1,~'~01 ']N~EREsT'TR,UE"VA~UE -9700- PAGE 7 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR · INVOICE DUE HOLD .............................................. 52822 8659011 175.68 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 01-4280. O L~850 11019873 689.00 10-10 PROFESS[O~AL SERVICES 01-¢399-3100 1172770i 11727701 689.00 JRNL-CD 101 F~[ :: :.: :; : : : ::~:; ~:: : .: : ':.:r · ' ......... '. :~' :.:. 11/27/01 11/27/01 176.80 JRNL-CD 101 10078 16.80 11-05-01 DELIV~Y CHARGE 71-7100-9600 10113 4~.40 11-1~-01 DELIVERY CHARGE 71-7100-9600 11/t7/01 11/t7/01 Z~9.60 JRNL-CD 101 MARLIN'S TRUCKING VENDOR TOTAL 527.20 MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR VENDOR TOTAL 3104.65 11/27/01 11/27/01 65.00 JRNL-CD 101 MAYER DISTRIBUTING VENDOR TOTAL 65,00 -9701 - PAGE 8 AP-¢02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD 11/27/01 11/27/01 9.00 JR NL-C ~) 101( M3150 8671 160~12 OIL INSPECTION TUBE C:0'¥5R 2'2-4170-352~9 8705 219.44 SUCTION S~AL, HOSE, ETC. 22-4170-3820 .... 11/27/01 11/27/01 219.44 JR NL-CD ..... __1.0~ ( ~ METRO FIRE VE~NDOR TOTAL 3?9.56 ' 11/27/01 11/27/01 61,253.80 JRNL-CD 101~ MN DEPT OF HEALTH VENDOR TOTAL 4195.00 ~3.28 ~8 ,~'90.~'0 C:ONFERENCE REGISTR~T'ION ~, MN FIRE SERV CERTIFICATN ~ VENDOR TOTAL 190.00 MOUND, CITY OF VENDOR TOTAL 26.46 .~. 03892 1100522 ................................. 97.65 lO-lO LOCATES 73-7300-3i25 · ~-~ ~399~ ~62034 22~.00 WINE 7~-7100-9520 .:;.. P4000 77730733 i08.87 MIX 7~-7~00-9540 11/27/01 11/27/01 108.87 JRNL-CD 101 ~. PEPS I-~OL, A COMPANY ~E~NDO.R %OTAL ~08. B7 ~ 11/27/01 11/27/01 87.38 JRNL-CD 101 ~,T-~'~"?'~ S--'T'~:O=C-~ - ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ................ v E:~ D-ON"-"'TO T ~L ................ ~7~-~- '~, P40.21 77:49. B2 618~90 WINE ' 71':7100-9520 -- - Si'i-2~'/6~"i~/~/~ -&i%-,~O-- 3~-C':C5 ................................................. ~'i -9702- PAGE 9 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD 777331 809.47 LIQUOR 71-7100- 0 11/27/01 11/27/01 809.47 JRNL-CD 777333 98.00 MIX 71-7100-9540 11/27/01 11/27/01 98.00 JRNL-CD i01( 11/27/01 11/27/01 921.21 JRNL-CD 101( PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING VENDOR TOTAL 921.2i :~ !: :. ;: ~:: ::: ~ t:~!~!~'~ ~:~i /~ 7/01 :: !i: ~5.3!:~: :~ :J~!N.~;~,~.:b: : i i : i::: i: ~:i ,' i::::i:i:i, i; i.i :i 054254-00 3,281.35 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 11/27/01 11/27/01 3,281.35 JRNL-CD 101 057 047- O0 92.15 MIX 71-7100-9540 11/27/01 11/27/01 92.15 JRNL-CD ~:~,~: 057612-00 710.45 ~INE 71-7100-9520 ,, 11/27/01 11/27/01 710.45 JRNL-CD 101 ;~o R4238 011127 38.45 09-18-01 THRU 10-17-01 5801 BA 0t-43~0-3720 ~ 76.74 09-18-01 THRU 10-17-01 4812 CU 01-4340-3720 ,~.m 5.06 09-1B-O1 THRU 10-17-01 FIRE ST 22-~170-3720 ,::::::. = T~. :: :./:[:=.=.: : .~:~:~.= ~ :.: :. i,~ R4255 1204 85.20 WAB-O OVAL 911 FANNY 22-4170-2200 I~ S4349 02-2023505 77.24 COUPLING 01-4340-3820 ii~i 11/27/01 i1/27/01 77.24 JRNL-CD 10I S~gO 0~1~27 2~6~8.49 12-01 LIeUOR RENTAL SPA~ 7~-7~00-~920 -9703- PAGE 10 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD HORELINE PLAZA VENDOR TOTAL 2638.49 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON~ VENDOR TOTAL ~875.20 54454 15336 8.0~ BRUSH ~I~?~5AL 54448 011127 325,00 12-01 DOG KENNEL FEE 01-4140-4270 SPORTING BREED KENNELS VENDOR TOTAL 325.00 54600 254027.1 ~06'~39 ..... JNyfkLL"-BRAKE SYSTE~; ETc'~ 0i-4140-5000 11/27/01 i1/27/01 106.39 JRNL-CD 101 STREICHER'S ' ~'~N'~ O'R' TOY ~"L ......... T4730 800-A .02 09-29-01 CBD PARKING BALANCE 01-4280-37~0 ...................................... ~/27/0~ ~/2~/0~ .02 JRNL-CD ~0~ ~ENDDR TOTAL .02 T~770 208364 ~'¥f']6~- BEER I1/27/0~ 11/27/0~ 292.00 JRNL-CD il/27/01 i1/27/0i ]~976.85 JRNL-CD lO1 !;.! THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN VENDOR TOTAL '~. T4825 10-229 7554.09 426.08 MONITOR 01-4095-5000 -9704- PAGE 11 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND TRI-STATE PUMP & CONTROL I VENDOR TOTAL 329.50 ~'~ 5'~:'~'Z~~.~ ' z~.z~ . ~20.36 10-01 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 01-4340-2300 10.64 10-01 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 01-43~0-2330 . 27.68 ~0-01 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 0~4190-2200 "~ :~':"T ''''~7 .......... ]':~T ~:'" ~":':'"'::?': ................ ': ........ :": ................ : ........... ' -' ":-'~ %'~ ~ ~-'"':~61~'~ 'i: ~:~:~'~ LE ~g~"'"'~g~:'~L '~ '~ ~ ...... :"~' ;'~: ~::,~ : · .: .~ ~,.._ :'.. '.. ....... · .L, ~,~o_.~.E~.;~,~L~,~:~L_~u_~;~z:~.~:...::.,_ :::~Z~~ ~'Z2.~8 -~0-0~ H[SCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 78-7800-2250 100.10 10-01 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 78-7800-2300 24.34 10-01 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 78-7800-2200 148.23 10-01 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 22-4170-2200 11/27/01 ii/27/01 946.73 JRNL-CD 101 .~?, 11/27/01 11/27/01 ;,, 090569 6.91 JRNL-CD 101 37.61 FENCE POST, ETC. 01-4340-2300 ~,~ T4970 ~33674 340.41 HINGE, ROLLER, ETC. 01-4320-3830 :~, 1i/27/01 I1/27/01 340.4~ JRNL-CD ~ 211.60 CLAMPS, SPRINGS, ETC. 78-7800-2330 .... 1~/27/01 1~/27/0~ 634.82 JRNL-CD ~0~ ~;-,;';;' : ...... . ...,: . ~;;', ............. ~T~¥""¥E~'EZ L- ~T6U ~ '6' PKi"~'~ --- 1.23 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-2100 1.23 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2100 ~'7: .......... ''~ ...... :'":7"':: ............. ::':'.' ......... ? .............. :""~ ............. :":':":': "''' ...... :'":'":::E:~:~'?:~¥~:t~K'~:~'E~'~b~:"':~T~'~,j'~¥:~:~:'~'~:~'~ ,', .62 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 73-7300-2:00 .,~?~ .62 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 78-7800-2100 ,~ 19.22 STAPLER, CLIP BOARD ETC. 7~-7100-2100 11/27/01 11/27/01 12.25 JRNL-CD 101 -9705- PAGE 12 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD ........... '~'b-Z'~ ;f~/9 6~', ~ ~"'~"~ ~ R"-' .-5~ fE ....... ~)'A f f ";¥f~ fO S.:'i ...... '$h'6]O'~:f ..... O'~ ~ R'~¥y.'i O-i~ 321902-0 24.50 PAPER 01-4190-2100 11/27/01 il/27/01 2~.50 JRNL-CD 101( 11727701 i1/~7701 214.0'3 ORNL~CD loll . ~ ~ z s s 9- o ~ ~ ."~ ~ '"--~ 6-0 ~',"" ~ O~L f ~ d'i ~¥~'~ 0'~'~i 0~ .... " 21.32 STAPER, CADDY, ETC. 01-409o-21oo ~ ................ 59.88 JRNL-CD , ~.21958 ~ 0 5,6~ 66 F R,A M E ", 322841-0 68.13 FILE 01-4340-2100 -~ 11/27/0! 11/27/~1 . 22722-~ ~77.71 PLANNERS' ::.AND CASES 01-4140-22'00 .... 323491-0 99.10 REFILLS 0~-4140-2200 .................................................. ~,.~.(..~? (P_~., Z_Z.Z ~ ~..~o ~ .............. ~,~ TWiN CITY OFFICE SUPP, LY CO VENDOR TOTAL 739.69 r;~'"'''u s'o'~ o' ''~'~'~'6'g' ~. 11/27/01 11/27/91 178.17 JRNL-CD lO1 ~"~:"~-~:E'R'~"Y~'~'""~';~C~ '~.~-';3~E~ ~9E~'~:bR~-' TOTAL UNIFORMS UNLIMITED VENDOR TOTAL 192.66 .......... lg2.66: _~LOTHING ~.ISC SUPPLIES 11/27/D1 II/27/D1 192.66 JRNL-CD 101 31.95 11-01 BALBOA PARKING 78-7800-4200 11/27/01 11/27/01 95.85 JR NL-CD 101 6.06 10-01 612-590-4351 STREETS 01-4280-3220 6.06 10-01 612-590-4351 WATER 73-7300-3220 6.07 10-01 612-590-4351 SEWER 78-7800-3220 3.89 10-01 612-751-3572 ENGINE #18 22-4170-3220 7.31 10-01 612-751-3573 MOUND FIRE 22-4170-3220 VERIZON WIRELESS VENDOR TOTAL 85.07 -9706- PAGE 13 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND 224.72 ROUGH CEDAR 01-4280-' 11/27/01 11/27/01 224.72 JRNL-CD ,~, 39.05 OIL FILTERS, ETC 73-7300-2310 , 39.04 OIL FILTERS, ETC 78-7B00-2310 ,, 8.44 GREASE 78-7800-23~0 ~ 11/27/0i 11/27/01 25.30 JRNL-CD 11/27/01 11127/01 WELLS FARGO VENDOR TOTAL ii? ~Y~ o E"ii/2~ ]~"~ ........ 375.00 JRNL-CD 101 375.00 478.50 10-03-01 BLACKTOP 73-7300-2340 11/27/01 11/27/01 87.91 JRNL-CD 101 49299 34.88 11-08-01 BLACKTOP 01-4280-2340 !~':~' '? ?~': ~?:~ i '~"T ::77~ -'~:-¥ ~: ':: ~? ~o~ [: :.:' , : : : :::~ ::: 1~/27/0~ 11/21/0~ 35.51 JRNL-CD 50678 69.42 ~0-24-0Z BLACKTOP 01-4280-2340 ,i~:i 16764 00013860 85.00 HIGH LEVEL RESCUE FLAIG 22-4710-4110 l~i 85.00 HIGH LEVEL RESCUE GUSTAFSON 22-4170-4110 i~.~.~ 'mF::i~:;':-::!!' ~ ~':: ? ! 7 ~: ¥"~ :': 7~::':!~:7 '!~ ':' :~: '?' :" ~: ":: ~: ;~ '~': ':~:' ~:"~ '¥7 :; :'.'~':~'~:~'~;~'~ :~:7~" ~::~'~!~ ~::~F ~ NESAB[ RANGE CONNUN[TY AND VENDOR TOTAL 255.00 [~;~ 16797 OiliiS ~5o.oo 2001/2002 DUES ~ '-::';[~:~ : :2 "::,. : ':.' '' '. :::, -9707- PAGE 14 AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR ]'NVOI CE DUE HOLD 11/27/01 11/27/01 32.29 JRNL-CD 101{ T, KATHY VENDOR TOTAL 32.29 HENNESSY, DONALD VENDOR TOTAL 262 50 r~ 14866 125.25 REFUND PERHIT FEE 01-3251-0000 ._ 11/27/01 11/27/01 125.25 JRNL-CD 1~/27/01 11/27/01 351.06 JRNL-CD 101 ~ TOTAL. ALL VENDORS ~74:~565.60 -9708- Association Flctropolitan Hunicipalitic$ Date: To; From: Re; August 16, 2001 Mayors, managers/administrators Jim Miller, LMC executive director Gene Ranieri, AMM executive director 2001 legislative changes to proper~y taxes, state aids MEMORANDUM With the passage of the 2001 omnibus tax bill, municipal officials need to be prepared to address the questions and concerns of taxpayers and the media. To assist city officials, the League of Minnesota Cities and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities are working on a three-prong effort: (1) help cities understand the impacts of the tax bill; (2) to help reporters who cover city hall understand the new changes at a workshop,Aug. 22; (3) further explain to legislators how city financing will change and impact taxpayers.. We believe it is important for all city officials to understand that the Legislature intended for cities to levy back any loss in state aids they might experience. In their budget discussions with community members, cities should point out their spending goals, not just the tax rate changes or levy increases. Finally, it's important to consider the changes in the education levy, most notably, how the average property taxpayer's bill may be lower overall. Background The 2001 omnibus tax bill enacted several sweeping reforms to the Minnesota state/local finance system, including continuation of compression of tax classification, the state takeover of the general education property taxes for school districts, and state takeover of transit levies. The combined impact of these changes will mean that school property taxes will drop markedly while city property taxes will generally increase--in some cases dramatically. In addition to decreasing the school reliance on the property tax, the Legislature eliminated the Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid program (HACA) m a reduction of $200 million per year in state aid to cities. The elimination of HACA translates into an immediate increase in the city reliance on the property tax. The overall impact of the elimination of HACA on cities is partially offset by an increase in local government aid by $140 million. However, because of how the LGA formula works, cities with less property wealth will generally receive more state assistance through LGA. Although the final LGA formula compromise has drawn criticism from some legislators and some city officials, the general LGA system served as an important policy tool to geographically balance the relief being provided through the elimination of the general education levy. -9709- Response Most property owners will see a tax reduction in 2002; however, the city share of the typical ~ property tax bill will likely increase. Although this outcome will be painful for city officials, it waS intentional. The Legislature expects most cities to levy back the amount of taxes lost in state aids. Clearly, city councils can and will choose whether and how much to levy, as you do each year..:. ~' But whatever the decision ~we believe it is important for you to explain to your community and media how these legislative changes have dramatically affected your city's property tax levy. An important element of that explanation is city spending. After talking about the fundamental property tax changes the Legislature passed this spring and how that may increase your city's levy, highlight your city spending increase (or decreasel). While these state aid changes will impact city taxpayers this year, it is city spending and budget priorities which may be of most concern to them. Finally, do not overlook the substantial reduction in property taxes most property owners will realize because of the state takeover of the general education and transit levies. The Legislature injected significant funds into the tax system, so most Minnesotans will see a decrease in their property tax bills. Educating the media Tell your city hall reporters about an opportunity to understand the new laws and how city budgets and citizens' property tax bills will change. The League and AMM will sponsor a workshop for news reporters, the morning of Wednesday, August 22, at the League offices in St. Paul, to help prepare reporters in time to cover the city budget hearings and the setting of preliminary levies. ' Helpful information We included in this packet a list of frequently asked questions on these tax changes and how cities may be affected. If you have additional questions, please feel free to call Gene Ranieri at 651.215.4001 or Gary Carlson at 651.281.1255. -9710- 2001 Omnibus Tax Bill: Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is the policy rationale that is driving all of these changes? One way to describe the tax outcomes is that the Govemor and the many legislators wanted the property tax to be more of a locally determined tax. Given that school property taxes have largely been set by the state, a state takeover of general education levies became a cornerstone of the governor's plan, the House tax bill and the final tax package. On the other hand, given that city services are primarily determined by city councils, the governor and legislature found that these services should be more fully supported by the property tax. In other words, by removing a large share of school funding from the property tax, cities and counties would be more able to tap the property tax to fund their services. Q: Isn't this rationale flawed by the existence of levy limits and the new state property tax? A: Yes, the fact that levy limits were included in the final tax package means that cities will not be able to fully exercise their discretion about service levels and property taxes. In addition, although the new state property tax is only paid by commercial, industrial and cabin property owners, it is certainly not a local tax. Q: Wasn't simplicity one of the goals of property tax reform? A: Simplicity may have been an initial goal of tax reform but the final tax bill arguably does little to simplify the system. Q: The Legislature and Governor have estimated that most taxpayers will see their overall property tax bill reduced. Do these estimates reflect the fact that many cities will have to increase their property tax levies to replace lost state aids? A: The estimates assume that cities will replace, dollar-for-dollar, lost state aid with increased property taxes. In other words, even with these increases in the city share of the property tax bill, taxpayers are expected to see a tax reduction in 2002. Q: Will the levy limits enacted in the tax bill allow the city to replace lost state aids? A: Yes, cities covered by levy limits (those over 2,500 population) will be allowed to replace lost state aids with property taxes. In a sense, the term levy limits are somewhat of a misnomer. A more accurate term might be revenue limits. Levy limits are essentially based on the total of the city's property tax and state aids from the previous year. To the degree that state aids are reduced or eliminated, the allowable property tax levy authority increases. Conversely, if state aids increase, levy authority is reduced. -9711- Q: Won't the city property tax increases to replace lost state aids draw intense criticism from our taxpayers? A: This could happen, particularly if city officials are not prepared to explain the legislative changes enacted this year. However, due to the magnitude of the changes to the tax system, the parcel-specific notlees sent to taxpayers thls fall will not ltemlze the 2001 city taxes and the 2002 proposed city taxes. The only direct comparison on the form will be the total 2001 taxes to the proposed 2002 total taxes. This structure will hopefully avoid any unnecessary taxpayer concerns about increases in city levies due to lost state aids. Despite this one-year change in the parcel-specific notice, you will still want to be prepared to explain these changes to taxpayers. Q: Levy limits will be in place for two years. ShouM we levy "to the limit" so that the city preserves its levy authority for future years? A: Each city council will have to make a decision on local needs and the level of property taxes needed. Fortunately, levy limits are structured so that unused levy authority in any year is carried forward for future years. This structure was established so that cities and counties would not be encouraged to simply levy to the limit. Of course, the legislature could always change this provision but the "if you don't use it you won't lose it" structure of levy limits seems to have broad legislative support. Q: Why was HACA eliminated? A: The answer is not simple but the overall cost of the tax bill, including the ~tate takeover of the total general education costs for schools, required the state to reprioritize its appropriations. HACA was viewed by many legislators as an undefined state aid that had little purpose largely due to the fact that there is no active formula to determine HACA distributions. The $200 million in HACA that had been distributed to cities was used to pay for the costs associated with the overall tax reform package. Q: Will the Fiscal Disparities program be affected by the significant class rate reductions contained in the tax bill? A: For 2002, the interaction of the tax reforms and fiscal disparities program will have no net impact on city finances. The fiscal disparities program is computed based upon property tax values from the previous year. Therefore, the amount of property taxes ultimately distributed to each city under the fiscal disparities program will not be affected. Q: In the future, will school districts levy any property taxes? A: Yes, school districts will still levy some property taxes including levies for community service, health and safety, integration and building leases. Many school districts also impose additional voter approved levies for operation and debt service for capital -9712- projects. In fact, due to school district concerns about the level of available school revenue under the 2001 omnibus education funding bill, there are preliminary indications that many school districts may seek new or expanded voter approval for operating levies. Q: Won't cabins and farmers be exempt from paying for voter approved school levies? A: Yes, farm land and cabin properties have been exempted from paying for voter approved levies. This will affect existing as well as future, new voter-approved levies for schools, cities and counties. The state will offset the impact of shifts in the school taxes by using state resources to "equalize" a portion of these voter approved levies. Q: Will the state levy a property tax? A: Yes, the state will leD, a new property tax that will be applied only to commercial, industrial and seasonal recreational (cabin) properties. The state tax will be administered just like any other local government's property tax levy and will be included as a line item on the property tax statement. The state property taxes will generally be deposited in the state's general fund and will therefore be available for general state spending. Q: The only class of property that was not granted a class rate reduction was low value homesteads. Will their taxes increase? A: The class rate applied to the first $76,000 of homestead value will remain at 1 percent. This is the only major property class that did not receive a class rate reduction. However, at least in the short term, taxes on even these properties will likely be reduced due to two factors. First, lower value homes will receive a new market value homestead credit that effectively translates into the state paying a portion of each qualifying homeowner's tax bill. In addition, all property owners including low value homes will pay significantly lower taxes to schools due to the state takeover of general education costs. According to legislative estimates, the combined effect of these changes will reduce taxes for most low valued homes. Q: How does the homestead credit work? A: The credit is equal to 0.4 percent of the market value of the home up to a maximum value of $76,000. For homes valued in excess of $76,000, the credit is gradually reduced by $9 for every $10,000 of the home's market value in excess of $76,000. Therefore, the credit is entirely eliminated for homes valued in excess of $414,000. Q: Our city has a charter provision that restricts our ability to increase taxes that did not anticipate large cuts in state aids. What can we do to replace lost state aids? A: The 2001 omnibus tax bill includes an override of city charters that in certain circumstances will allow charter cities with restrictive levy limits to replace lost state aids. -9713- Q: Will the future phase-out of limited market value eventually shift taxes to homes? A: Under state statute, limited market value was due to sunset after taxes payable in 2002. The tax bill actually delays the elimination of the statute by phasing it out over a six-year period. This will increase the taxable value of homes and cabins that currently benefit from limited market value and ultimately shift property taxes to homeowners. Future legislatures will likely have to address any taxpayer fallout due to the impacts of the phase-out of limited market value. Q) Why will my city receive less LGA in 2002 despite that fact that the legislature increased the overall appropriation by $140 million? A: The governor proposed and the legislature adopted several changes to the LGA system that modify the distribution of the LGA appropriation. These changes generally provide more aid to first class cities (Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth) as well as outstate regional centers over 10,000 population. Although these cities will receive more state aid, their levy limitations will be lower than it would have been in the absence of the aid increase due to the interaction of levy limits and state aid. Also, at the close of the legislative session, several key lawmakers indicated that the LGA system, including the 2001 changes, would be the subject of legislative review, possibly as early as 2002. In other words, the stability of these increases could be short-lived. Q: How will tax increment financing districts be impacted? A: Many existing TIF districts will experience TIF reductions from 20 to 40 percent. These reductions are due to the combined impact of the state takeover of the general education levy and the property tax class rate changes. Future districts will generate increments largely from the city and county tax rates since a large share of the current school property tax has been eliminated. Q: Are there any mechanisms to address impacts on TIF existing districts? Q: Yes, there is the TIF grant program with a significantly increased state financial commitment, expanded pooling authority, and a new special deficit authority. Procedures and qualification requirements are fairly complex. Since impacts from this year's tax bill will not be experienced until 2002, applications for TIF grants will not be due until August 1, 2003. August 16, 2001 -9714- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 01- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL 2002 GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $ ; SETTING THE PRELIMINARY LEVY AT $ ; AND APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR 2002. does hereby BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, adopt the following 2002 General Fund Budget appropriations: City Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections/Registration Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Emergency Preparedness Planning/Inspections Street City Retaining Walls City Property/Buildings Parks Recreation Contingencies Transfers TOTAL GENERAL FUND $, -9715- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby direct the County Auditor to levy the following taxes for collection in 2002: SPECIAL LEVIES Bonded Indebtedness- Public Works Levy Bonded Indebtedness- 2001A Judgment Bond Unfunded Accrued Liability of Public Pension Funds 86,020 23,000 33,350 Total Special Levies 142,370 PRELIMINARY REVENUE LEVY Preliminary Certified Levy BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the final overall budget for 2002 as follows: GENERAL FUND As per above SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Area Fire Service Fund Cemetery Fund Dock Fund TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ENTERPRISE FUNDS Recycling Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Storm Water Utility Fund TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 149,250 645,240 579,020 1,013,770 58,200 2,445,480 2 -9716- SUMMARY General Fund Special Revenue Funds Enterprise Funds TOTAL ALL FUNDS 2,445,480 The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: and seconded by Adopted by the City Council this 27th day of November, 2001. Mayor Pat Meisel Attest: Bonne Ritter, Acting City Clerk 3 -9717- SUBDMSION AGREEMENT MOUND VISIONS SECOND ADDITION SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT is dated this __ day of ,2001 by and between the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, ("City"), Mound Marketplace, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, (the "Marketplace") and The Village at Cooks Bay LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the "Village") (collectively, the "Developer"). Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve the subdivision of land and a plat of land to be known as Mound Visions Second Addition, which land is legally described on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). Conditions of Plat Approval. The City has approved the final plat via Resolution #01- 88, attached as Exhibit "B"; preliminary plat via Resolution #01-12, attached as Exhibit "C"; rezoning via Resolution #00-124, attached as Exhibit "D"; development plan via Resolution #01-13, attached in Exhibit "E"; street vacation via Resolution #01-14, attached as Exhibit "F"; and variance via Resolution #01-89, attached as Exhibit "G." Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved preliminary plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement. 0 Development Plans. The Subject Property shall be developed in accordance with the following plans, approved copies of which will be on file with the City. The plans may be prepared, subject to City approval, after entering into this Agreement, but before commencement of any work on the Subject Property. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the written terms shall control. The plans include: 1. Mound Visions 2nd Addition Final Plat 2. Mound Visions 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat 3. Paul Madson & Associates, limited, plan sheets for The Village by Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace including: (a) Site Plan (Al) (b) Great House Lower Level Plan (A2) (c) Great House First Floor Plan (A3) (d) Great House Second Floor Plan (A4) (e) Great House Third Floor Plan (A5) (f) Great House Exterior Elevations (A6) DJK-196172¢2 RC 145-451 A-1 -9718- (g) Building Floor Plans - Buildings (h) Building Elevations - Buildings 1 4. Korsunsky Krank Erickson Architects, Inc. plan sheets: (a)Mound Marketplace Floor Plan - (Al 01 and A201) (b)Mound Marketplace Elevations - (Al01 and A202 Damon Farber Associates plan sheets: (a)Landseape Plan (L1, L2) (b)Lighting Plan (L3, L4) 5. Sunde Engineering, Inc plan sheets: (a)Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan (C1, C2) (b)Sanitary Sewer and Water Utilities Plan (C3, C4) (e)Notes (C5) (d)Details(C6) (e)Mound Details (C7) Installation by Developer. The Developer shall install or cause to be installed and pay for the following: B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. Sanitary sewer Water Storm sewer Streets - private Sidewalks and trails - public and private Private Street lights and site lighting Setting of lot and block monuments Monumentation of the sidewalk/trail easement(s) along lot lines Surveying and staking of work required to be performed by the Developer Gas, electric, telephone and cable lines Landscaping Site grading Park equipment as described in Exhibit (Hereinafter referred to as the "Developer Installed Improvements") And other items as necessary to complete the development as stipulated herein. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all Developer Installed Improvements, enumerated in Paragraph 6 ~ which will serve the Subject Property, by November 15, 2003. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. DJK-196172v2 RC145-451 A-2 -9719- 70 Public Infrastructure Improvements~ The following improvements, which are part of the Developer Installed Improvements shall be installed in the Subject Property by Developer using a Contractor selected and paid by the Developer, and based on plans and specifications approved by the City: A. Sanitary sewer B. Water C. Sidewalks/trails D. Park improvements (Hereina~er referred to as "Public Improvements") Prior to acceptance of the Public Improvements, the Developer's engineer will certify to the City that the Public Improvements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Security for Cost of Public Infrastructure and Developer Installed Improvements. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, payment of the costs of all Developer Installed Improvements and construction of all Developer Installed Improvements (as noted in Paragraph 6), the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit from a bank ("security") for $' which is __ 125% of the estimated cost of the Public Infrastructure and Developer Installed Improvements. The amount of the security was calculated as follows: Cost 125% Public Utilities $ Sidewalks and Trails Grading & Erosion Control Park Improvements / Equipment Total The bank and form of the irrevocable letter of credit or other security shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager. The letter of credit will provide that the bank shall notify the City in writing 30 days prior to the date of any proposed cancellation, or of the expiration of the letter of credit. The developer shall have 10 business days from the date of such notification to reinstate that letter of credit or the City may draw upon the letter of credit an amount equal to 125% of the cost of the uncompleted work secured by the letter of credit. Such drawn amount will then serve as security for the Developer's obligation as to such work.. The City may draw down on the letter of credit without notice if the obligations of the Developer have not been completed as required by this Agreement. In the event of a default under this Subdivision Agreement by the Developer, the City shall furnish the Developer with written notice by certified mail of Developers default(s) under the terms of this Subdivision Agreement. If the Developer does not remove said default(s) within ten business days of receiving notice; the City may draw on the letter of DJK. 196172v2 RC 145-451 A-3 -9720- 10. 11. 12. 13. credit. With City approval the letter of credit may be reduced from time to time as financial obligations are paid and developer installed improvements completed to the City's requirements. No work shall be commenced under this Agreement until the letter of credit has been deposited with City. Gradim, Plan / Site Gradim,. Site grading shall be completed by the developer at its cost and approved by the City Engineer. The completion of grading activities will need to be coordinated by the City in conjunction with the installation of any Public Improvements to be installed by the City. Developer shall furnish the City ~ ......... *' .~ ,~ .... ~ ..... · ,-- ,~ '":, .... with 8 certification that the site grading is completed ~-' -~'-~ w:.th :freer and ~c,t ~'ade: in accordance with the annroved nlan,~ and anecificationa., If the installation of utilities is occurring simultaneously to the grading, the utility contractor shall have preference over the grading activities. No substantial grading activities can be completed over installed utilities unless otherwise protected. All improvements to the lots and the final grading shall comply with the grading plan as submitted and shall be the responsibility of the Developer. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the Subject Property to perform all work and inspections legally required by the City during the installation of Public Infrastructure Improvements. Erosion Control. Prior to site grading, and before any utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the Developer will obtain all necessary permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District relating to erosion control. Landscaping. The Subject Property shall be landscaped in accordance with the Landscape Plan and specifications on file with the City. The Developer shall provide sufficient security and performance guarantees, as described in Section 9 to assure compliance and implementation of said landscaping improvements. Weather permitting, all landscaping shall be installed prior to a final certificate of occupancy. Planting and Seedine. Prior to the City allowing occupancy, the Developer shall install sod and landscape plantings consistent with the Landscape Plan on Outlots B and C. 14. Park Equipment. The Developer will install the park equipment described in the attached Exhibit at the locations shown on the attached Exhibit 15. Park Maintenance. Following acceptance of all park and trail improvements by the City, the City shall be liable for the cost of maintaining all park and trail improvements. 16. Clean up. The Developer shall clean streets of dirt and debris that has resulted from erosion, siltation or construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. The City will inspect the site on a weekly basis and determine whether it is necessary to take DJK-196172v2 RC 145-451 A-4 -9721 - additional measures to clean dirt and debris from the streets. After 24 hours verbal notice to the Developer, the City Public Works Director, or designee, will complete or contract to complete the clean up at the Developer's expense in accordance with the procedures specified in Paragraph 12. The Developer shall inspect and if necessary clean all catch basins, sumps, and ponding areas of erosion/siltation and restore to the original condition at the end of home construction within this development. All silt fence and other erosion control should be removed following the establishment of turf. These items are to be secured through the letter of credit as is noted in Exhibit "II". 17. Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and City acceptance of the work and construction required by this Agreement, the public improvements lying within public rights-of-way and easements shall become City property without further notice or action. 18. Warranty. The Developer warrants all work required to be performed by it against defective material and faulty workmanship for a period of two (2) years after its completion and acceptance by the City. All trees and grass shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality and disease free for two (2) years after planting. 19. Responsibility for Costs. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developer shall pay all costs and charges imposed in conjunction with the development of the Subject Property by the Soil and Water Conservation District, and the MCWD. In addition, the Developer will reimburse the City for all legal, planning, engineering and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the subdivision and the plat, the preparation of this Agreement, and all costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting development of the Subject Property. The Developer has previously paid $ as partial reimbursement for such costs. It is presently estimated that unreimbursed costs to date are $ Estimated future costs are described in paragraphs C and D below. Bo The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat or subdivision approval and development of the Subject Property. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees. Co The Developer shall reimburse the City for preagreement fees incurred for the preparation of the Development Agreement at the time this Agreement is signed. Do The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including engineering, planning and attorney's fees. The fees DJK-196172v'2 RC145-451 A-5 -9722- 20. shall be deposited with the City at the time this Agreement is signed as calculated in Exhibit 'T' and shall maintain an escrow account with the City with a minimum balance of $ The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Agreement within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt development work and construction including, but not limited to, the issuance of building permits for lots which the Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of nine percent (9%) per year. The Developer shall pay all energy costs for street lights installed within the Subject Property. x~oc~ .~+~ :~ ~+ ~+ ,~ +:~ +~ the followin~ connection and availabili~ eha~es u n perm s ssue .......... v .......... v ................... A. M~ro~litan Council Environmental Se~ices Availability Charges per SAC unit (cu~em rate is $1150). Connection Charge per SAC "":+ ~ ...... '"' ~+ ~lt'I~:ICA/~ "":+\ ~ D 12. Sewer Connection charges Trunk Area Water Charge DJK-196172v2 RC145-451 A-6 -9723- p~ o ...... ~. ..... ~'~ ~'* Units will be comnuted accordin~ to the Metropolitan Council Residential Efluivalencv Unit Criteria~) 21. Occunancv Pormit~. In addition to tho other requirementa for the issuance of an occupancy permit, no occupancy permits shall be issued until (as to the structure to which the permit relates): A. The site grading is completed and approved by the City. All public utilities are tested, approved and accepted by the City, and have been placed in service. C. All curbing is installed and backfilled. D. The first lif~ of bituminous is in place and approved by the City. E. All building permit fees are paid in full. The Developer, in executing this Agreement, assumes all liability and costs for damage or delays, incurred by the City, in the construction of public improvements, caused by the Developer, its employees, contractors, subcontractors, material men or agents. No occupancy permits shall be issued until the public streets and utilities referred to in paragraphs 5 and 7 that serve the structure for which the occupancy permit is requested, are in and approved by the City, unless otherwise authorized in writing by the City Engineer. 22. Assessment for Certain Improvements. The Developer desires to have certain Public Infrastructure Improvements constructed to serve the Subject property as described in the attached Exhibit ("Public Infrastructure Improvements") The Public Infrastructure Improvements include, without limitation, the improvements listed as Public Improvements in Section 7 of this Agreement. As an inducement to the City's agreement to construct the Public Infrastructure Improvements, the Developer agrees to execute and deliver to the City not later that 30 days following the execution of this agreement, a Petition and Waiver Agreement in substantially the form of the attached Exhibit 23. Establishment of Special Service District, The Developer acknowledges that the City intends to establish a special service district in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101, and to annually assess benefited properties for the cost of certain public work performed within such district, including, but not limited to landscape repair, watering, dust control, snow and ice removal and street and sidewalk cleaning, repair and maintenance of streetscape, sidewalks, lighting and other public amenities and facilities. The Developer supports the concept of a special service district, and agrees to the annual imposition of fair and equitable assessments on the Subject Property during years that it is owned by it. DJK-196172v2 RC145-451 A-7 -9724- 22. 23. Developer's Defnult. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than two days in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, levy the cost in whole or in part as a special assessment against the Subject Property. Miscellaneous. ko The Developer represents to the City that the development of the Subject Property, that the subdivision and the plat comply with all city, county, metropolitan, state and federal laws and regulations including, but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the subdivision or the plat or the development of the Subject Property does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or development work on the Subject Property until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. B. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. Eo If building permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, material men, employees, agents or third parties. Fo The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. G° This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. The Developer shall take such steps, including execution of amendments to this Agreement, as are necessary to effect the recording hereof. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Contract, at DJK-196172v2 RC145-4~1 A-8 -9725- the Developer's request, the City will execute and deliver to the Developer a release. 24. 25. 26. 27. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to the City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so exciting may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. The Developer may not assign this Agreement without the written permission of the City Council, which permission will not be unreasonably withheld, and will be given in all instances in which the proposed assignee is owned or controlled by the Developer; or when the assignee demonstrates a capability to complete the development at least equal to the Developer. Such assignment will not relieve the Developer of its obligations hereunder unless the assignee executes an agreement with the City undertaking all of the obligations of the Developer and agreeing to be bound by all of the provisions of this agreement that are binding on the Developer. The trail easement(s) are attached to this agreement as Exhibit "Y', and shall be filed and recorded by the Developer along with the filing of the Final Plat. At such time the Developer shall also furnish the City with a policy of title insurance at the developer's expense showing an unencumbered marketable title in the trail easement area(sO Conveyance of Land. Outlot(s) B and C shall be conveyed to the City by deed within 10 days of City acceptance of those specified improvements. All such conveyances will be accompanied by a policy of title insurance provided at the developer's expense showing unencumbered marketable title to the lands conveyed. Homeowner's Association documents attached as Exhibit "K" are incorporated herein. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the following address: MetroPlains Properties Inc. Spruce Tree Center 1600 University Avenue Suite 212 St. Paul, MN 55104 Attention: Michelle Kaiser and Larry Olson Mound Marketplace, LLC,. Spruce Tree Center DJK- 196172v2 RC145-451 A-9 -9726- 1600 University Avenue Suite 212 St. Paul, MN 55104 Attemion: Michelle Kaiser and Larry Olson The Village at Cooks Bay LLC. Spruce Tree Center 1600 University Avenue Suite 212 St. Paul, MN 55104 Attention: Michelle Kaiser and Larry Olson Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: City Manager, Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364. DJK- 196172v2 RC145-451 A-10 -9727- IN WrrNEsS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. CITY OF MOUND By: By: Pat Meisel, Mayor Kandis Hanson, City Manager MOUND MARKETPLACE LLC. By: Its: THE VILLAGE AT COOKS BAY LLC By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS Coum'Y m* F~rPI~ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2001, by Pat Meisel, Mayor, and Kandis Hanson, City Manager, of the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing Notary Public ) ) ss ) instrument was acknowledged before 2001, by , , , a me this day of and , on behalf of the said Notary Public D.IK-196172v2 RC 145..451 A-Il -9728- $~z o~ Mm~so~. ) ) ss Coum'Y OF ~EPI~ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2001, by , , and , , a , on behalf of the said Notary Public Drafted by: City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 DJK-196172v2 RC145-451 A-12 -9729- Exhibit "A" - Legal DescriPtion Exhibit "B"-Resolution #01-88 Exhibit "C" - Resolution #01-12 Exhibit "D" - Resolution #00-124 Exhibit "E" - Resolution #01-13 Exhibit "F' - Resolution #01-14 -9730- Exhibit "G" - ResolUtion #01-89 Exhibit "H" - Letter of Credit Exhibit "I" - City Enforcement Fees Exhibit "J' - Trail Easements Exhibit "K' - Home Owner's Association Documents -9731- Exhibit Petition and Waiver Agreement ATTACHMENT A PETITION AND WAIVER AGREEMENT FORM OF PETITION This Agreement made this __ day of a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and WITNESSETH: ,200.._, by and between the City of Mound, ("Developer"). WHEREAS, the Developer is the fee owner of certain real property ("Subject Property") located in the City the legal description of which is set forth in Exhibit A, attached and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Developer desires to have certain public improvements constructed to serve the Subject Property as described in Exhibit B, attached and made a part hereof (the "Improvement Project"); and WHEREAS, the Developer wishes the City to construct and/or purchase from Developer the Public Infrastructure Improvements that comprise the Improvement Project and to specially assess a portion of the cost of the Improvement Project a~innt the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to conslxuct and/or purchase from Developer the Improvement Project in accordance with the request of the Developer, provided the assurances and covenants hereinafter stated are made by the Developer to ensure that the City will have valid and collectable special assessments as they relate to the Subject Property to finance the costs of the Improvement Project. NOW, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS AND AGREEMENT HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Developer petitions the City for construction and/or purchase from Developer of the Improvement Project. 2. The Developer represents that it i) is the owner of frontage of the real property abutting on the streets and other areas named in the petition as the location of the Improvement Project, ii) has full legal power and authority to encumber the Subject Property as herein provided, and iii) as of the date hereof, has fee simple absolute title in the Subject Property, which is not subject to any liens, interests or encumbrances, except as listed on the attached Exhibit C. 3. The Developer requests and consents to a portion of the assessable cost of the Improvement Project being assessed against the Subject Property. The Developer understands and agrees that the cunent DJK. 196172v2 RC 145-451 A-24 -9732- estimated cost of the Improvement Project is $ , of which, $ is proposed to be assessed against the Subject Prope~3~. The parties stipulate and agree that the amount of such proposed assessment is equal to the economic benefit that the Subject Property will receive as a result of the Improvement Project. 4. The Developer waives the right to appeal the levy of the special assessments in accordance with this Agreement pursuant to Minn. Slat. Section 429.081 and Laws 2001, Chapter207, Section 12, or reapportionment thereof upon land division pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 429.071, Subd. 3, or otherwise, and further specifically agrees with respect to such special assessments against the Subject Property or reapportionment that: Any requirements of Minn. Stat., Chapter 429 with which the City does not comply are hereby waived by the Developer; bo The increase in fair market value of the Subject Property resulting from the Improvement Project will be at least equal to the amount of the proposed assessment, and that such increase in fair market value is of special benefit to the Subject Property, and The Developer further specifically waives notice and right to appeal reapportionment of such special assessments upon land division pursuant to Minn. Stat., Section 429.071, Subd. 3. 5. The Developer understands and agrees that the City may provide for the payment of such special assessments in installments bearing such interest as may be determined by the city council. However, the decision regarding the period of time over which the special assessments may be paid and the interest rate to be applied is in the absolute and sole discretion of the city council, subject only to limitations imposed by law. 6. Developer represents and warrants that the Subject Property is not classified for tax purposes so as to result in deferral of the obligation to pay special assessments; and Developer agrees that it will take no action to secure such tax slams for the Subject Property during the term of this Agreement. 7. The City covenants and agrees that the Developer will construct certain of the Public Infrastructure Improvements on the Subject Property all in accordance with the terms of the Subdivision Agreement between the parties; and that the City will purchase said Developer-constructed improvements at the time they are accepted by the City. The purchase price will be equal to the assessable amount of such improvements. DJK-196172v2 RC145-451 A-25 -9733- 7. The covenants, waivers and agreements contained in this Agreement shall bind the successors and assigns of the Developer and shall nm with the Subjoct Property and bind all suggessors in interest thereof. It is the intent of the parties hereto that this Agreement be in a form which is recordabl¢ among the land records of Hennepin County, Minnesota; and they agree to make any changes in this Agreement which may be necessary to effect the recording and filing of this Agreement against thc title of thc Subject Property. 8. This Agreement will terminate upon the final payment of all special assessments levieA against the Subject Property for the Improvement Project, ara the City will thereupon execute and deliver such documents, in recordable form, as are necessary to extinguish its rights hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands the day and year first written above. CITY OF MOUND [DEVELOPER] By: By: Its: Mayor Its: By: By: Its: City Manager Its: DJK- 196172v2 RC145451 A-26 -9734- STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of , 200__, by Pat Meisel and Kandis Hanson, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Mound, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) $$. COUNTY OF HENNEPN) The foregoing , 2001, by Minnesota instrument was acknowledged before me this day and , and , on behalf of the respectively, [Developer], of the a Notary Public DJ'K- 196172v2 RC145451 A-27 -9735- EXHIBIT A Legal Description EXHIBIT B Improvement Project ]~xami~' c Encumbrances This redlined draR, generated by CompareRit¢ (TM) - Thc Instant Redliner, shows the differences between - original document · J:~DMSUBD\4#SF02!.DOC and revised document: J:~DMS~BD~4#SF03 !.DOC CompareRite found 13 change(s) in the text Deletions appear as Overstrike text Additions appear as Bold+Dbl Underline text -9736- EXHIBIT A Legal Description DJ'K- 196172vl RC145-451 A-A-1 -9737- I~XIIIBIT B Improvement Project DJK-196172vl RC145-451 A-B-1 -9738- EXIImlT C Encumbrances DJK-196172vl RC145-451 A-C-1 -9739- This redlined draft, gcneratcd by CompareRite (TM) - The Instant Redlincr, shows the differences between - original document · J:~DMS~IBD\4#SF02!.DOC and revised document: J:~DMS~-BD\44tSF03 !.DOC CompareRite found 13 change(s) in lhe text Deletions appear as Overstrike text Additions appear as Bold+Dbl Underline text -9740- Exhibit "A' - Legal Description DFd-196172v2 RC145-451 A-13 -9741 - Exhibit "B" -ReSolution #01-88 DJK-196172v2 RC 145-451 A-14 -9742- Exhibit "C' - Resolution #01-12 DJ-K- 196172v2 RC145-451 A-15 -9743- Exhibit "D" - Resolution 000-124 DJK-196172v2 RC 145-451 A-16 -9744- Exhibit "E' - Resolution 801-13 DJK-196172v'2 RC145-451 A-17 -9745- Exhibit "F" - Resolution #01-14 DJK-196172v2 RC 145451 A-18 -9746- Exhibit "K" - Home Owner's Association Documents DJK-196172v2 RC14~-451 A-23 -9747- Exhibit "G" - Resolution 001-89 DJK-196172v2 RC145-451 A-19 -9748- Exhibit "H' - Letter of Credit DJK-196172v2 RC145-451 A-20 -9749- Exhibit "I" - City Enforcement Fees DJK-196172v2 RC145-451 A-21 -9750- Exhibit "J" - Trail Easements DJK-196172v2 RC 145451 A-22 -9751 - 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: November 21, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Judith Milton CASE NUMBER: 01-43 LOCATION: 3033 Brighton Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R- 1A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND At its November 5, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance application from Judith Milton to allow a comprehensive renovation of her existing home located at 3033 Brighton Boulevard. Based on its review, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 2 to recommend denial of the application. Their decision, in part, was based upon the following issues: Lack of detail on the new survey with regard to site drainage. Lack of hardship especially with regard to the variance that is needed for the south deck. Unknown status of the existing single-car garage. Existing amount of impervious surface coverage. Members of the City Council are advised that members of the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of tabling the application in order for the applicant to respond to the issues brought up by the Planning Commission but a motion to that effect was not made. -9752- SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION City Engineer Field Inspection. John Cameron visited the subject site on November 9, 2001. Drainage on the subject site will not be negatively affected by the remodeling project. His comments have been included as a separate attachment. Updated Survey. The applicant submitted a revised survey on November 20, 2001 which includes topographical information. Rear Setback for Deck. Following review and discussion with the applicant's architect, City staff has determined that a (10) foot rear yard setback is required as it meets the yard setback encroachments regulations as set forth in City Code Chapter 350:440 as the height of the deck exceeds (30) inches. Therefore, a rear yard setback variance is not necessary. Basement / Crawl Space - Floodplain Elevation. The applicant's architect has indicated that the existing crawl space will be filled. Garage Demolition. The applicant's representative has confirmed that the existing single-stall garage is to be demolished and a new garage is to be constructed in the eastern portion of the lot near Brighton Boulevard in a conforming location. Please refer to the updated site plan and hardcover sheet dated November 21, 2001 that have been included as separate attachments. Members of the City Council are advised that an additional hardcover sheet may be necessary as it appears the applicant has used the 30% restriction and are allowed hardcover coverage up to 40% upon submittal and approval of an appropriate drainage plan. Based on preliminary discussion with the City Engineer, the proposal to relocate the garage further east will improve site drainage as the current garage is located in the lowest spot on the property. Additionally, an existing non-conforming condition will be eliminated. Planning Commission Resolution. A draft resolution based on the Planning Commission's recommendation has been included as a separate attachment. Additional Comment. In the event the City Council believes that conditions associated with the application have substantially changed, it may wish to consider remanding the application back to the Planning Commission for additional review. 60-DAY PROCESS The request from Judith Milton was received and deemed to be complete on October 12, 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. -9753- FROM :MCLARCHITECTSINC FAX NO, :6512225414 Now, 21 2001 12:08PM P1 RE: CARLOS RODiF~IGUEZ PI~REZ /, '-- DATE: PAGE 1 OF '~': TEL' f.,51-222 3~ FAX: 651-222 5414 REMARKS: -9754- FROM :MCLARCHITECTSINC FAX NO. :6512225414 Now, 21 2001 01:09PM Pi TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff. FROM: Carlos Rodrigucz Perez DATE: November 20, 2001 SUBJECT; Variance Remarks OWNER.: Judith Milton CASE NUMBER: 01-43 HKG FILE NUMBER: 01-05 LOCATION: 3033 Brighton Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential I.- Surw:y: 2.- Rear yard Setback: 3.- Basement: 4.- First Floor Elevation: 5.-Hardcover: 6.- Garage: 7.- South Deck: A new survey has been submilxed with topographic information as required by thc city council. The west deck (ELV.-- 935.04 Ft.) is located more than 30" above the existing grade (ELV.--932.32 Ft.), as shown in new topographic plan. A variance tYr the rear yard setback is not required. The Lower Level Floor Elev. = 928.6 Ft. in the survey refers to actual basement elevatioa,, which will be infilled (See Revised Sheet A3. l). The first floor elevation match the existing elevation of the west deck (ELV.=935.04 Ft.) higher than the Regulatory Floor Protection Elevation in Mom ~(! = 933 Ft. All decks will be built with ¼" min. opening between boards with a pervious surface tutder (See Revised Sheet V4.2 and new Hardcover Calculation Sheet). Thc existing garage will be demoli sh and. a new garage will. be built conforming with code requirements and located in the eastern side of the lot (front yt~rd), which is higher thus improving so the drainage. The narrow width of the lot and th,.: project program require variance in the south side setback (Required= 6.0' Variance= 4.3') -9755- FROM :MCLARCHITECTSINC FAX NO, :6512225414 Now, 21 2001 12:09PM P3 · CiTY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS I (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COV'~_.I:::~AGE) ........... 7]]'-'] LOT AREA "~¢ X I'~O SQ. FT. X 30% =. (for all lots) ' L '?..,'-71 o o -] LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record) . J -] LOTAREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .................. j J * Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques an~ utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Sectl.0n 350!1225, Subcl. 8.B.1 (see back). A plan must be submftted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQFT '[p, AA'C H E D BUILDINGS GE/SHED) TOTAL HOUSE ................................................... ,'z,?,.o x 1.0. o = HHo · TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS.. ' ' '":~;&:~',' ~'~'b'i~'W;~i:i~'; .................... ETC. 5.5 X 1,.0. O =. '0FO. O DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. . Opening between boardst with e pervious surface under are not Counted as hardcover. TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ........... , ............................ X = X = X = TOTAL DECK ...................................................... TOTAL' OTHER ................................................... HARDCOVER/IMPERVIOUS SURFACE .................................................. . UNDER / OVER (]ndlgal:e ¢flffer~nce) ..... PREPARED BY -9756- DATE FROM :MCLRRCHITECTSINC FR× NO, :6S12225414 Now, 21 2001 12:09PM P4 TH PROPERTY LINE OF VACANT LOT ]TO~: OF M~,NHoLE I ELE VATlON=g33.8 I PE:{ CITY PLANS __ ~'L~.~ v-'., ELEV.'=g26-071 SANITARY SEWER LINE DGE OF GRA¥~ EXISTING DWELLING FIRST FLOOR ELEV, 936,6 22'-0" i 80'-0" FOUND IRON ;HAIN FENCE~ ~.1 Z I IlL * -9757- FROM :MCLARCHITECTSINC FAX NO, :6512225414 Now, 21 2001 12:iOPM P5 r © SEWER INVER1 APPROXIMATELY g22.8, F E_D VERIFY IRON g,o 24 2 FOUND IRON / / / ,/ / EXISTING DWELLING ,/' FIRST FLOOR ELEV. g33.9/ / DWELLING IS 0.lb FT SOU'iN OF' PROPER] Y LINE ,.., N 89"bi 05" - --200.28- 'FOP OF FOUNDATION ELEV, 9,34.6 LOW FLOOR ELEV. 928.6 GARAGE FLOOR E!..EV, g31,2 ....-~>00.07- - N 89"52'39" W -9758 FROM :MCLARCHITECTSINC FAX NO. :6S12225414 Nov. 21 2001 12:IOPM PG liB' FROM :MCLARCHITECTSINC FAX NO, :6512225414 Now, 21 2001 12:llPM PT 9760- Engineering ,' Planning o Surveying MEMORANDUM DATE: November 15, 2001 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director John Cameron, City Engineer ~, City of Mound Milton Variance 3033 Brighton Boulevard Case MFRA #13526 As you are aware, we conducted a field inspection of the subject property on Friday, November 9, 2001. The following conditions were observed and need to be addressed as a part of any approval of the subject variance: It appears the area at the east end of the existing house, where the addition is proposed, may be high enough to avoid any flood plain impacts; however, a revised survey must be submitted prior to building permit issuance, which shows existing and proposed elevations. If any building activity or associated grading were required below the 931 flood plain elevation, it would be the responsibility of the applicant to meet all DNR and MCWD requirements. The City owned lot adjacent to the north side of the subject property has a swale that carries the mn-off from this area towards the lake. Elevations of this swale need to be included on the revised survey. o It appears that a portion of the property to the south may drain across the Milton parcel to the drainage swale on the City property. The revised survey must show enough elevations on this adjacent property as well as the Milton parcel to allow for a thorough review of the proposed improvements, ' s:Xmain:WIou 13526:\Correspondence~smith 11 - 15 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-marl: mfra@mfra.com -9761 - o z Z S 00'01'24" E % -X- 40.01 - _~2.~ 3..~ z I EXISTING DECK ELEV=935.04 X CONCRETE CURB EXISTING SEV~ER -- -- 40.15-- -- s~.~c~ PER - -~ N 00'16'48" E CITY PLANS ZT)FIGHTO/V ~L o5' =~ m ~'~ ~ " ~'~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~'~' ~ ~ ~ 88 ~. m o ~ 0 0 ~~ ~. o ~ ~o o = ~' ~ Mound City Code 350.440 350.440 Required Yards and Open Space.. Subd. 1. No yard or other open space shall be reduced in area or dimension so ~ to make such yard or other open space less than the minimum required by this Ordinance, and if the existing yard or other open space as existing is less than the minimum required, it shall not be further reduced. Subd. 2. No required yard or other open space allocated to a building or dwelling group shall be used to satisfy yard, other open space, or minimum lot area requirements for any other building. Subd. 3. The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard requirements. Chimneys, window air conditioners, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters, and the like, provided they do not extend more than two (2) feet into the required yard area. Be Co Uncovered porches, stoops or similar entrance structures not exceeding 32 square feet which do not extend in elevation above the height of the ground floor elevation of the principal building, and steps that do not extend to a distance of less than two (2) feet from any lot line. Decks, balconies, and the like, attached to the principal building which extend in elevation above the height of the ground floor elevation of the principal building; and decks, balconies, and the like, ,dalac~d from_..the principal building and _exceeding 30 inches in height above the ~--'~-~dfl-dTn~ gra~fi-d~P~ided theY-do no~ ~ ~ t-~ (-~0) fe~et of the re~---'~-lbTll~ or ~ii-end beyond side yard and front yard accessory building setbacks. On lakeshore lots, such structures shall comply with the lakeshore setback of the principal structure. De Detached decks or similar structures which do not extend above 30 inches in elevation above the height of the surrounding grade and do not extend to a distance of less than two (2) feet from any lot line. On lakeshore lots, such structures shall comply with the lakeshore setback of the principal structure. 27 2/5/00 -9762- Mound City Code 350.440, Subd. 3. E. Yard lights and name plate signs for single and two family dwellings, lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes, provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property. Such fixtures may be located within five (5) feet of the front lot line. Fe Fire escapes not exceeding three (3) feet in width in side or rear yards only. Recreational equipment such as a swing set, slide, climbing apparatus, sandbox and the like, clotheslines, picnic tables and other equipment accessory to and associated with the residential use of. property. Ho Bay windows, provided the encroachment within the yard area does not exceed eight (8) square feet and provided the setback of the principal wall conforms to district setback requirements. Subd. 4. Buildings may be excluded from side yard requirements if party walls are utilized or if the adjacent buildings are planned to be constructed as an integral structure and a conditional use permit is secured. Subd. $. Comer Lots. Lots which abut on more than one street shall provide the required front yards along every street except for lots of record which shall provide a side yard setback abutting the street based on the lot width as follows: Lot Width Minimum Side Yard Setback On Comer Lots 40-50 feet 10 feet 51-80 feet 20 feet 81 feet or more 30 feet 28 2/5/00 -9763- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO DENY A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY AND FIRST FLOOR ADDITIONS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3033 BRIGHTON BLVD., LOTS 9 AND 28~ ARDEN, P & Z CASE # 01-43 PID # 24-117-24-43-0010 WHEREAS, the applicant, has requested a variance to remodel the existing residence, adding a second story and additional living space to the first floor. The proposed project will require the recognition of an existing setback as follows: Existing Proposed Required Variance Side yard setback (north) 0.15 feet Side yard setback (south) 10.3 feet 0.15 feet 6 feet 5.85 feet 4.6 feet 6 feet 1.4 feet ;and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Zoning District that requires a 6,000 square feet lot area, 20 feet front yard setbacks, and 6 feet side yard setbacks m~d 40 percent hardcover for lots of record; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a covered deck on the first floor that would maintain the existing side yard setback. An addition to the existing deck would extend to 4.6 feet feet from the south sideyard setback. A second story addition is also proposed to provide additional living space. The second story would maintain the same sideyard setback as most of the first floor at 5 feet; and, WHEREAS, the lot north of the property is owned by the City of Mound. A public sanitary sewer line runs east/west through the middle of that lot. West of the property is Brighton Commons and south of the property is a single family residence; m~d, WHEREAS, although the survey indicates the property is not in a floodplain, the house does have a crawl space that has an elevation of 928.6 feet which is below the regulatory flood protection elevation (RFPE) of 933.0 feet. Federal flood requirements will require the crawl space to be flood proofed in accordance with applicable design considerations or be filled to meet the RFPE; and, WHEREAS, as a part of the project, the existing gravel driveway will be removed and paved. The hardsurfacing will decrease the overall driveway hardcover. The property will be under the 40% hardcover maximum at 29% or 2349.6 square feet; mad, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended denial of the variance as recommended for approval by Staff. Staffs recommendation for approval is based on the following findings: 1. The project provides an overall improvement to the livability of the house. -9764- 2. The existing sideyard setback variance does not impact the use of the adjacent City property. 3. The project brings the house into conformity with flood regulation provisions. 4. The project is an improvement to the neighborhood and will not adversely impact the use or enjoyment of other surrounding properties. ;and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: o The City does hereby deny the variance as requested. This variance is denied for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: An updated survey is prepared by a professional surveyor pursuant to City of Mound survey requirements and must be submitted prior to issuance of the building permit. LOTS 9 AND 28, ARDEN 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 November 27, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk -9765- MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2001 Those present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Jori Ayaz, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Council Liaison Kim Anderson. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Community Development Director Sarah Smith and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. The following Public were present: Judith Milton, 3003 Brighton Boulevard Chairman Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. 1. APPROVE MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse, to approve the minutes of the October 15, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Michael said that he voted against the motion on page 3 of the minutes. MOTION carded unanimously. 2. INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER JORJ AYAZ Mr. Ayaz was introduced and welcomed. Smith offered to meet with him and walk him through the land use basics. Planning Commission also expressed interest in getting a copy of the materials Smith referred to. 3. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #01-43 Variance Request - New single-family home 3003 Brighton Boulevard - Judith Milton The applicant has submitted a variance request to rebuild the existing single story residence to a two-story home. The variance request is as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Side yard (north) 0.15 ft/0.15fi. 6 ft. 5.85 ft. Side yard (south) 10.3 ft/4.2 ft. 6 ft. 1.8 ft. Rear yard 12.4 ff./12.4fi. 15 ft. 2.6 ft. The project involves additions to the first floor on the north and east walls and a second story addition for bedrooms, office, and a bathroom. The north side yard setback would be maintained at 0.15 feet with the proposal. The adjacent lot to the north is vacant but is owned by the City of Mound and used the sanitary sewer main which is centered on the lot. The west setback remains unchanged as proposed. The Brighton Commons separates the -9766- Planning Commission Minutes November 5, 2001 property from Cook's Bay and a typical 15 feet rear yard setback is applicable. The survey indicates the low floor elevation below the current first floor has an elevation of 928.6 feet. The regulatory flood protection elevation for Lake Minnetonka properties in Mound is 933 feet which would require that floor to be filled or designed in a manner to allow flood waters to flow freely under the first floor. There are only a few spot elevations on the property, the garage floor at 931.2 and the sanitary sewer manhole lid at 930.5. Without additional spot elevations in the areas where the improvements will be made, it is unclear if the flood plain, land lying below 931 feet, is being impacted. Typically, a building project within 3 feet of a property line raised a number of zoning and building code issues related to fire separation of structures. In this case however, the adjacent City owned lot will in all likelihood, remain undeveloped indefinitely. The expansion of the house to the existing setback does not impact the use of the City property for sanitary sewer provision. The rear deck is remaining unchanged as proposed. The deck is setback 10 feet behind the deck on the property to the south so there is no additional impact on lakeside views. If the variances are approved the flood elevations need to be verified to determine if the improvements are below the flood elevation. If so, flood compensation will need to be provided by the applicant either on site or within the watershed per DNR rules. Filling within the floodplain is a permitted activity when volume compensation is provided. This is more or less an administrative action that does not need specific approvals as a part of the variance request. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following condition: Verify flood elevations on the property prior to building permit issuance. If building activity is planned in areas below the 931 feet elevation, it is the responsibility of the applicant to insure compliance with DNR rules for filling within floodplains. Discussion Weiland asked if this is the same place that has the multiple items stored outside including several boats, an old vacuum cleaner, cartons and misc. debris. Milton said yes. Weiland inquired as to plans for the garage. Gordon said there are no plans at this time. It is possible without a variance. Weiland also asked if the city had considered selling her some land to bring the property into conformance. Gordon said staff addressed that issue but did not come to a final recommendation as a part of this application. Burma wanted to know what the hardship was to allow a side-yard setback reduction. Gordon indicated that the portion behind the house has a setback allowance of 4 feet but the side-yard next to the house is 6 feet. Mueller has real concerns because we are maximizing the 40% akeady. We are currently too close to the rear lot line and requesting, both on the north and south side, Side-yard setback allowances. Staff indicated that a grading and drainage plan would be submitted for review by the City Engineer. Mueller is bothered by the fact that the planning commission isn't allowed to see the drainage plan before authorizing the variance. It is a problem with this lot -9767- Planning Commission Minutes November 5, 2001 because of the particular elevatiOn characteristics. Smith explained the review process that is followed to insure drainage problems are addressed before the building permit is issued. Clapsaddle agreed that a general drainage plan needs to be provided to the commission before they can be expected to make a recommendation of any sort. Glister feels this qualifies as an incomplete application. Gordon asked for clarification of the issue since the drainage isn't going to change significantly. Mueller felt the real issue was protecting the interests of the adjacent neighbors. Without a drainage plan we don't know what we are authorizing. Mueller agreed with Weiland regarding the outside storage issues. The concern is the possibility of a future application to expand the garage. Also, he questioned the storage of a 40-foot catamaran. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hasse, to deny recommendation of the variance. Mueller was concerned about the reason the commission would give to council for denial. Clapsaddle indicated he would probably vote against his motion. He was hoping discussion would spur a solution. Ayaz thought Mueller was asking for something that they all would like to see. He would feel much more comfortable making a decision with the additional information. Smith suggested the commission table the decision until the next meeting and staff would provide more information at that time. Also, the deck addition on the south side may be pushing things a little too far. It may be wise to modify the plan in that area. Burma is concerned about the reasons for denial. Maintaining, expanding and adding nonconformance on 3 sides without a valid hardship. Burma wanted to know what was the hardship? Gordon replied that the northeast comer and west setback is not being changed. The plan was a logical expansion of the property. Hasse thought the West Side variance should not be encouraged. Gordon said it conforms to the other properties along the street. Mueller inquired about the basement elevation being addressed. Gordon indicated that it was made clear to the applicant at the time of the site visit that the elevation needed to be brought into conformance to the standards. If we go with this project it doesn't increase footprint, the additional story improves the livability of the house, elevation will be improved because the project increases the value of the building by more than 50%. Weiland would like to see the 4.2 setback on the south disappear and increase the size of the garage to provide storage for the property. Clapsaddle will not approve something when information is lacking. Michael moved the previous question, Mueller seconded. MOTION carried. Voting against: Mueller and Clapsaddle. Voting in favor: Michael, Burma, Glister, Weiland, Hasse, Ayaz, and Anderson. Mueller was uncomfortable sending this to City Council without further information so Planning Commission could make an informed decision. Clapsaddle doesn't want to see another one brought to Planning Commission without sufficient information. Something could be worked out with the garage but not unless we have the information. -9768- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: November 1, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Judith Milton CASE NUMBER: 01-43 HKG FILE NUMBER: 01-05 LOCATION: 3033 Brighton Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-IA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a variance request to rebuild the existing single stow residence to a two-stow home. The associated variance request is as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Side yard 0.15 ft/0.15fl. 6 ft. 5.85 ft. Rear yard 12.4 ft./12.4fl. 15 ft. 2.6 The project involves additions to the first floor on the north and east walls and a second stow addition for bedrooms, office, and a bathroom. The north side yard setback would be maintained at 0.15 feet with the proposal. The adjacent lot to the north is vacant but is owned by the City of Mound and used the sanitary sewer main which is centered on the lot. The south and west setbacks remain unchanged as proposed. The Brighton Commons separates the property from Cook's Bay and a typical 15 feet rear yard setback is applicable. The survey indicates the low floor elevation below the current first floor has an elevation of 928.6 feet. The regulatow flood protection elevation for Lake Minnetonka properties in Mound is 933 feet which would require that floor to be filled or designed in a manner to allow flood waters to flow freely under the first floor. There are only a few spot elevations on the property, the garage floor at 931.2 and the sanitary sewer manhole lid at 930.5. Without additional spot elevations in the areas where the improvements will be made, it is unclear if the flood plain, land lying below 931 feet, is being impacted. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -9769- p. 2 #01-43 Milton Variance November I, 2001 DISCUSSION: Typically, a building project within 3 feet of a property line raised a number of zoning and building code issues related to fire separation of structures. In this case however, the adjacent City owned lot will in all likelihood, remain undeveloped indefinitely. The expansion of the house to the existing setback does not impact the use of the City property for sanitary sewer provision. The rear deck is remaining unchanged as proposed. The deck is setback 10 feet behind the deck on the property to the south so there is no additional impact on lakeside views. If the variances are approved the flood elevations need to be verified to determine if the improvements are below the flood elevation. If so, flood compensation will need to be provided by the applicant either on site or within the watershed per DNR rules. Filling within the floodplain is a permitted activity when volume compensation is provided. This is more or less an administrative action that does not need specific approvals as a part of the variance request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following condition: Verify flood elevations on the property prior to building permit issuance. If building activity is planned in areas below the 931 feet elevation, it is the responsibility of the applicant to insure compliance with DNR rules for filling within floodplains. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -9770- Engineering · Planning . Surveying MEMORANDUM DATE: October 29, 2001 TO: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Milton Variance 3033 Brighton Boulevard Case No. 01-43 MFRA//13526 As requested, we have reviewed the subject variance application and have the following comments and recommendations: There are only a few elevations shown on the survey, such as top of manholes, garage floor and the existing house, top of foundation and lowest floor elevations. From these elevations it appears this area could lie within the flood plain of Lake Minnetonka, especially as it relates to the MCWD elevation of 931.5. This may be an item of concern since there is a proposed 10-1/2 x 24-1/2 foot addition to the existing building footprint. The flood plain elevations may not be an issue if the City's elevation of 931.0 is used and the existing ground in the area of the addition is above that elevation. The City also has a lowest floor elevation restriction of 933.0. The existing and proposed lowest floor elevation is shown as 928.6; however it appears this area may be a crawl space. The proposed building plans show a mechanical room on the first floor; however they do not show where the furnace, water heater, etc. will be located. s:Xmain:XMou 13526:\Correspondenceksmithl 0-28 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra@mfra, com -9771 - '~-FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 MaywOod Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952-472.0607, Fax: 952-472-0620 CiTy OF MOUND Application Fee:~ (Planning Commission Dal~e:' ~City Council Date: 'Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC, 0oPERTY WNER' APPLICANT (iF OTHER THAN · OWNER) City Planner {~~~1~ City Engineer Public Works DNR PARK Other Address Lot ~ ~4b '~,~ Block 15 " Subdivision ZONING DISTRICT R-1 Name ~t~'t~ ,~. ~o~ R-2 'R-3 B-I' Plate B-2 B-3 Phone Name Address Phone (H) (W), (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for thi property?. ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copie of resolutions. '? Detailed description of PrOposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Revised 04/24/0I Vadance Application; P. 2 of 3 Do the existing structure~ compiy with all area, height, bulk,'and setback regulations for the zoning distr' in which' it is located? Yes (), NO ~X~. If no, specify each nOn-conforming use (describe reason vadance request, i.e. Setback, lot area, etC~'): 4:' SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ["~=t 'ft. ~/A ~ ft. Side Yard: O. Ig' ft. o. 1~' ~ff. Side Yard: ~o,~ ft. H.I[, ft. Rear Yard! Lakeside: ff. Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ' fl. ft.. ft. ft. ff. ft~ sq ff sq ff sq ft _sq ff sq ff _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 u'~ic~'e p'h'ysi~:'~l ~-a~a~i'~r-~tic--~'~'f-;[~-~"'~'~l~i~t-~)"l~'pr'~}'itS a~y of the uses permitted in that zoning .district? too narrow ( )topography (.(.) soil · too small · ( )drainage (~existing situation too shallow ' ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe:_ 11te l¢1' t~ O~Ju)' UlO~ ~J~E t:,Jt-tlCH tS Tho Nc, P-,~o~ T0 6Lc'J~p 1~' t'~o~p_.A~ Revised 04/24/0f -9773- Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property in;[erests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), NO ~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road'~ Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: ' Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), .No~. If. no, Iist some other properties which are similarly affected? Comments: I certify that all of the' above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or pl~ans to be submitted' herewith are true and accuratel I consent to the entry in or upon' the premises described in this' application by any authorized official Of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting; maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signatu~~ ('~... )licant's Signature Date_/~ -7-~ / Date Revised 04/24/01 -9774- · Gl'PC OF MOUND HARDOOVER CALCULATIONS '(]MPEtRVIOUS SURFACE COVE.PAGE) .. RECEIVED OCT 1 0 2001 MOUI~D RLANI~ING, &-INSP. PROPERTY ADDESS: LOT AREA' SQ. FT. X 30% =. (for all lots).. ' ' ' ...... ~ ~ LOT AREA "/,,00 X k O. SQ, FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record) ..... . ............. ..... [ %~ ~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X t5% = (for detached buildings' only). '[ · ~ "Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provide~ ~at techniques are utilized, as outi ~ned in Zoning OrdJ0ance Sect(on 350~1225, Subd. 6.B.1 (see beck). A plan 'must be SUSmitted and approved by the Building O~ciaL ' ' · ~ENGTH · · WIDTHSQ F~ House ~fl-~ x ¢~. ~ = ~%'tO.S _ · ' I~.~ x ~ 5.~ = ~fl.fl -, DE'~AOHED BUILDINGS (GAP, AGE/SHED) X O:RIVEWA~ PARKING '"~,~,~'~7 §'15~'W~'£ ~:'~:'" ETC. TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS.:.. ' ': ................ 17..5 .__ DECKS Open decks (1/4" rain, Opening between boards.) with a pervious surface under are not' counted as hard¢over, TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETO X. .. TOTAL DECK ................ '- TOTAL' OTHER ' IPREPARED BY f.~,Log ' -9775- DATE DESCRIPTION Lot: Lots 9 and 28, Block 15, Arden, Hennepin County, address 3033 Brighton Blvd. is located on the shore of Lake Minnetonka, in the city of Mound. To' the north there is a vacant lot, and through it runs the city's sewer system. See drawings V0.1 and V0.2. Project: The location of the single family home on the shore of Lake Mirmetonka is a major factor in the development of this project. ThroUgh the construction of two decks, one to the north and one to the south, the project attempts tO integrate the home and the lake. The objective consist, in increasing the living space to be able to develop the basic elements of the home (kitchen, living room, dining room,, two bathrooms, office, three bedrooms and laundry room). To accomplish this quality materials are going to be used (wood siding, wood shingles...) improving the interior and the exterior appearance. See drawings Al.I, Al.2, Al.3, A2.1 and A3.1 -9776- VARIANCE Variance: In order to develop this project, taking in account the existing conditions of' the lot, the following variances are required: North Facade: From the existing north footings of the building and considering that the lot borders to the north a vacant city lot (for installations of sewer usage) the continuation of the same fagade line in the new construction is proposed. See drawings VI.1 and V1.2. North Deck: Considering What was stated in the previous point and with the purpose of integrating the home with the views of the lake, the north deck is located in line with the most exterior wall of the home, 0.15 ft. south of the property line. The distance of the footings of this deck will not interfere with the possibility of digging a trench for the Upkeep of the sewer system. See drawing V2.1 South Deck From the existing south footings of the building a minimum 6.0' wide deck is proposed. Leaving a clearance of 4.2' between end of deck and south side property line. See drawings V3.1 and V3.2. -9777- James R. Anderson 3330 Huntington Ave. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 952 922 6639 ]ima17107@aol.com October 9, 2001 Subject: Variance on 3033 Brighten Blvd. Mound I am writing this letter to confirm we have no objections to the variance on the subject property. We have reviewed the building plans for the home that borders the North side of our property located at 3038 Brighton Commons. Dorothy A. Anderson ~ ~---'~' ~ RECEIVEr' CT ! 0 2001 ~'L^NNING &, INSP. -9778- Gary and Ivy Blix 3025 Brighton Bird Mound Mn 55364 Subject: Variance on 3033 Brighton Blvd in Mound. We have reviewed the Building plans and have no objection to the variance on the home directly south of our propemy. Gary Blix Ivy Blix RECEIVEP OCT 1 0 2001 IVtOUND PLANNING &-INS~'. -9779- David and Karen Brickley 3037 Brighton Bird Mound Mn 55364 Subject: Variance on 3033 Brighton Blvd m Mound. We have reviewed the Building plans and have no objection to the variance on the home that borders the north side of our property. David Brickley Karen Brickley RECEIVEr. OCT 1 0 2001 MOUND FLANNii~G & INSP. -9780- THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -9781 - .I .m .-ir pi ~o~ ~7 I S' 00'01'24" E j~ I --40.01 .... 2..2 19.9§' 5.31' '~-CONCRETEk- CURB : Ex~s~N~ S£wr.~ ---- 40.15-- -- go.2 MILTON'S RESIDENCE RENOVATION AND REMODELING 30~B Brighton Bird, MOUND, Minnesota 10.5 10.3 00'01'24" E --40.01-- --. o,-r1 '- o I~ > 'x '~.2.s. '% 20' '<~-o .-am rrl'~ 1.3 Z 2.2 ~ /~ ' '~- CONCR[IE CURB EXISTING SEWER -- -- 40.15-- -- SERVICE PER -----'~ N ~0'16'48" E CITY PLANS 20.6' / v- z BRIGHTON BZ VD. V1.1 .xMILTON'S RESIDENCE RENOVATION AND REMODELING 3033 Brighton Bird, MOUlqD, Mianosota ('Z-. 20' S 00°01'24'' E ,.,, .... 40.01 -- '7 '~'IL z -t1 10-~ o~ ~ 0 < ~ 0 o 1 < Z O~ m~ ~~' 2.2 z 20.6' ~NC~ CURB ,SER~CE PER ~Cl~ PLANS OOM 6'48" E -<Xo m _-I -~ m II F ~Xo BRIGHTON MILTON'S RESIDENCE RENOVATION AND REMODELING 3033 Bfigh~ Bird, MOUND, Mhmesota S 00'01'24" E 2o' ~. .... 40.01 -- -.. ~ ~o X .z I X ' ~ 20.6' ~CON~ CUR CI~ PLANS X r- ), BRIGHTON B~ VD. ~TO~S RESIDENCE RE~OVATION AND REMOD~ JNG 3033 Bti~ Blv6, MOUND, Minnesota S 00°0i '24" ---40.01 --- 10.5 z -0 r--O o-ri Z z-< .°m 20' '\ '7 rtl '~ m ..q --n oz OO '~.CON~E~ CURB EXIS~NG SE~ ---- 40.15' - SER~CE~ ~ANsPER ~N~,. o 7 1.5 Z hO0 GOCn BRIGHTON BZ S 00°0~'24" E 20' 40611 ,,'~ ~'om ..q,. ~,. ~ X~ lO5 ~..) .~.. 0oo _ ~ ~ _w~ 1.3 R ~ 20.6' ~CONC~ EX~S~N~ SE~ ---- 40. ~ 5- - · 1 I t~RIGHTON t~l VD. MILTON'S RESIDENCE RENOVATION AND REMODELI}4G 3033 Bli~ Btvd, MOUND, Minnesota -,, S 00'01'24" ---40.01 --- E 10.3 Z 00~ :~rno~ ~-<m 'x pm OZ O0 c~ 2.2 '~--CONCRETE CURB ----40.1.5--- EXISTING SEWER SERVICEcITY PLANsPER ~~~0~1 6'48''~ F_ 20' z yrl '13 m-dm r-'O ~11z Il ~-,- 0 1.3 z I I o0 rtl 2~. m I I I I t~RI~HTON t~Z VL~. -tO 00'01'Z4" E ' 20' .... 40.01 -- -.~ ~ ' ========================= ::: CURB ~ EXISllN6 SEWER -- -- 40.15-- -- SER~CE PEr ----'X N -00°16'48" E cITY PLANS{ ~_j ,,. '<~o .<~> 7O --I -ri '17 BRIGHTON BZ VD. V42 MILTON'S RESIDENCE RENOVATION AND REMODELING 3033 Brighl~n Blvd, MOUND, Minnesota \ ! / ~ AI.I ~ % MILTON'S RESIDENCE RENOVATION AND REMODELING 3033 Brighton Blvd, MOUND, Minnosota I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .[I I MILTON'S RESIDENCE RENOVATION AND REMODELING 3033 Brighton Bird, MOUND, Minnesota :%MILTON'S RESIDENCE RENOVATION AND REMODELING 3033 Brighton Bird, MOUND, Minnosota MILTON'S RESIDENCE RE~OVATION AND REMODELING 3033 Brighton Bird, MOUND, Minnesota City of Mound conversation subject: Conversation Record pho : -9782- 437.01 CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. -2001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 437 OF THE CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO DOCK LICENSES The City of Mound does ordain: Section 437.01, is amended by adding the following: Licenses~ Docks. Subd. 6. Watercraft to be Designated. The holder of a dock license shall not permit or allow an undesignated watercraft to be moored or parked at a city dock/slip site. Watercraft that are moored, parked or allowed to be parked at a city dock/slip site must be designated on the dock license application. The applicant must provide the City with proof of watercraft license 'in the form of a copy of the current DNR Watercraft License or recently applied for Watercraft License for each watercraft, at the time of application. If a different watercraft is to be moored or parked at a licensed dock, it must be designated by supplying the same proof of watercraft license to the City before parking or mooring the watercraft at the dock/slip site. Parking or mooring of a non-designated watercraft at a City dock slip site will result in the imposition of a civil penalty against the bolder of the dock license as established in accordance with the provisions of Section 500 of the City Code. Failure to pay the civil penalty within ten days of imposition is a misdemeanor and will remit in enforcement under Subsection 437.20. 437.05 Section 437.05, Subd. 3, is amended as follows: Applications For and Issuance of Dock Licenses Subd. 3. Two Residents May Share a Dock Subject to the conditions Contained Herein. Where dock permits are shared and issued to two residents entitled to permits of the first and second priority, then the following conditions shall apply: That duplication information (including boat licenses) for each of the licenses be included on the license application; That each of the licenses retains priority rights to individual dock permits as vacation occurs in the immediate subdivision shoreline. Before a licensee can claim priority rights they must have participated in the program a minimum of two consecutive boating seasons at the. same site. The full boating season requirement is met when the share is added between January 1't and May 31't of the license year. 1 -9783- Co That the fee for each licensee shall be one-half the fee plus a shared dock fee as established in accordance with the provisions of Section 500 of the City Code. (ORD. 45-1990, 12/29/90) (ORD. 01-2001, 2/25/01) Section 437.12 is added to read as follows: 437.12 Rehmlations for City of Mound Owned Multiple Slip Docks. Subd. 1. Watercraft Registration Required on City of Mound Owned Multiple Slip Docks. A watercraft must be registered by May 1 of the current boating season for a new/renewal permit to be issued for a City of Mound municipal slip. If a permit is not issued/renewed because of the permit holders' failure to register a watercraft as required in this subdivision, the permit holder may appeal in writing to the City Manager within 30 days after the refusal by the City to issue/renew the permit. The appeal must specify any reasons for objecting to the City's decision and any mitigating circumstances or other facts relating to the permit holders' failure to register a boat. The appeal will first be referred to the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) for review and recommendation. Following receipt of the DCAC review and recommendation, the City Council will hear the appeal at a regular meeting and will consider any written or oral information presented by the permit holder, the public, and the City staff. After consideration of such information, the City Council will affirm or reverse the decision not to issue/renew the permit. Subd. 2. Use Required. The registered watercraft identified to the slip for which the City slip permit was issued must be moored at the slip no later than June 15 of the boating season for which the permit was issued. If inspection by the City Dock Inspector discloses that the permit holder has not complied with this requirement, the City may revoke the permit by written notice to the holder of the permit. The permit holder will forfeit any fees paid to the City for the slip. The holder of the permit may appeal the revocation. Any such appeal must be filed in writing with the City Manager within 10 days after mailing of the City's notice of revocation. The appeal must specify any reasons for objecting to the City's decision and any mitigating circumstances or other facts relating to the permit holder's failure to register a boat. The appeal will first be referred to the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) for review and recommendation. Following receipt of the DCAC review and recommendation, the City Council will hear the appeal at a regular meeting and will consider any written or oral information presented by the permit holder, the public and the City staff. After consideration of such information, the City Council will affirm or reverse the decision to revoke the permit. If the decision is affirmed, the City may then issue a permit for the slip to the next qualified person on the waiting list entitlted to the slip upon payment of the full fee for the permit. 2 -9784- Subd. 3. Exception to Watercraft Registration or Use Requirement. At any time prior to the expiration of the rights to appeal set forth in Subd. 1 and 2~ a person may apply for an exception from the May 1 and/or June 15 registration and use provisions by written application to the City Manager stating the facts, circumstances and hardships which would support the requested exception. If the Council determines that there are circumstances which would create undue hardships for the permit holder if the May 1 and/or June 15 provisions are strictly enforced, the City Council may grant an ~l~rol~riate exception to the permit holder. The exception may be limited to a specific watercraft and may be subject to time limitations or other conditions as may be imposed by the City Council. Subd. 4. Voluntary Suspension of Permit. A permit holder, or a person entitled to a new permit, may volumarily suspend the right to such a permit for one boating season or part thereof by written notice to the City prior to June 15 of the boating season for which the permit is to be issued. The City may sublet the space to the person with the highest priority on the waiting list for that type of space for that boating season, or a specified portion thereof. If such written notice is given prior to June 15 of the boating season in question, the original permit holder will then be entitled to renew the permit for the following year and the person who sublet the space will be returned to the same priority on the waiting list. Any person who is entitled to a permit and who does not comply with the provisions of subdivisions 1 and 2 of this section, and who does not obtain an exception under subdivision 3 of this Section, or does not, before June 15~ provide the written notice of voluntary suspension, will lose all rights to the permit and all rights to any priority on the waiting list for that type of space. No person shall be allowed to voluntarily suspend the right to either a new permit or renewal of an existing permit for two consecutive boating seasons. Passed by the City Council this day of ,2001. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, Acting City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 3 -9785- Mound Advisory Docks and Commons Commission November 15, 2001 EXCERPTS FROM THE MOUND ADVISORY DOCKS AND COMMONS COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 2001 4. DISCUSS: PROPOSED SLIP USAGE REQUIREMENTS In previous years the City of Mound has seen a steady increase in requests from residents for municipal dockage for their boats. Currently there are ninety individuals on the 2001 Dock Waiting List. This list in 1999 was in the twenties and in 2000 grew into the forties. A question has been raised by those on the Waiting List along with the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) and city staff as to why there are slips on city docks sitting vacant of a boat throughout the boating season. In an attempt to see that the Municipal Slips are utilized to their fullest extend in 2002 the DCAC has recommended a change to the Mound City Code Section #437 Dock License. The Commission requested staff to investigate usage. This change has been mailed to all multiple slip holders as a proposed draft. Some residents stated they did not receive a copy of ordinance; however they did receive the letter indicated the meeting. Fackler then briefly explained the proposed changes in the Ordinance. Chair Funk then opened the public meeting. Questions, comments and concerns were directed to the Commissioners and staff. Pamela Janish, 1591 Eagle Lane, Woodland Point. The multiple slips are more visible. Why is there a difference between multiple slip dock holders and abutting dock holders. Commissioner Goldberg stated he is in favor of limiting this ordinance to the multiples at this time. Chair Funk agreed. Eisa Watson, 4610 tuxedo Blvd. Very against the idea of separating multiples and other dock usage. Knows of people who have not used their docks for numerous years. Dave Gorman, 2440 Chateau Lane, Carlson Park. How many non-users in the multiple areas as compared to the others? Fackler stated this is just a starting point. Gorman asked if there are any plans to dredge at Carlson Park. Fackler stated that in depends on the weather and water height. Also this area might be handled by the Storm Water Management Plan. Mary Ellen Storlein, 1595 Dove Lane in Three Points. She was assigned a dock on the south end of Bluebird Lane and trailers her boat most of the time. Her -9786- Mound Advisory Docks and Commons Commission November 15, 2001 boat is in the lake on the weekends. During the week it is in her garage due to algae, etc. Chair Funk stated the Commission is not trying to take away any ones dock. City Council Representative Hanus stated the Commission needs to define "usage". The intention is that the site gets used. Stipulations are in the Ordinance for most of the conditions mentioned. Fackler indicated most of these conditions are addressed in the Ordinance. Basically staff needs to be notified. Kelly Anderson 1733 Gull Lane. Does not want to micromanage her summer in regards to having to notify the city of her plans. Fackler stated this is a simple telephone call to staff for notification of a vacant slip for an extended period of time. It is less costly to the taxpayers if staff is notified instead of requiring staff to locate and contact owners. Staff indicated that all individual circumstances cannot be recognized in an ordinance. This is a learning process and we should concentrate on the intent of the ordinance. Staff does not have the budget to do investigations. Pam Janish, 1591 Eagle Lane, Woodland Point. Does not want to notify the city each and every time she leaves her dock. Hanus explained that these slips will be checked more than once and other indications will be examined as to whether or not a slip is being used. Commissioner Jones stated staff will be flexible and reasonable with residents. The Commission cannot write into an ordinance every possible situation that might arise. All other communities that have city owned docks have a similar program like this ordinance. This is reasonable and flexible; especially compared to other communities. The city has spent a considerable amount of money on these docks and would like to see them used. Chair Funk agrees. This program will be run with a number of different observations to determine if a dock is being used or not. Darlene Duchbjork, 2189 Fairview Lane. Waited two years for a dock slip. Then had to wait to get a better location. Has had a boat in her slip on and off. When there is a lot of rain she pulls her boat out. Feels shut into a corner having to notify the city as to why her boat is not at her dock. Last year her boat was not in the water at all. Just because the population is growing is no reason for this policing. Hanus stated the waiting list now is approximately 10 years for a slip. -9787- Mound Advisory Docks and Commons Commission November 15, 2001 Eisa Watson, 4610 Tuxedo Blvd. Other communities have a waiting list for docks. Some for more than 15 years. Believes if a boat is not registered to the dock then that resident should not be issued a slip. Mike Chitko, 3301 Warner Lane, Whipple Shores. Has a successful multiple slip situation. Will the resident be able to review the criteria as to any changes that are made? Staff would like to have this into place by the 2002 application process. This is scheduled to go to the City Council November 27, 2001. Staff indicated this needs to be decided tonight. Hanus explained that there is also an appeal process. If notice is received by a resident, the situation can be appealed. Mike Chitko, 3301 Warner Lane. Agrees with filling empty slips. This program is not a right but a privilege. If communication has to be made with the city, that seems fair. Public Meeting closed at 8:20 p.m. Chair Funk thanked the public for comments and concerns. Funk explained this Ordinance cannot cover every scenario. Staff can judge and administer this Ordinance reasonably. Fackler indicated to the Commission that as this plays out through the summer season, the Commission can revisit this Ordinance the end of September and/or October. This could be an annual item on the agenda for review. Staff is not expecting to many appeals. All appeals will be reviewed by the Dock Commission. There was not opposition to the dates in this Ordinance. MOTION by Ahrens second by Eurich to recommend to the Mound City Council approval of proposed Ordinance Section 437 Dock License. Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council November 27 at 7:30 p.m. for approval for 2002. -9788- Mound Advisory Docks Commission September 20, 2001 EXCERPTS FROM THE MOUND ADVISORY DOCKS COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 200'1 4. DISCUSS: PROPOSED CHANGES TO MOUND CITY CODE SECTION 437.00 DOCK LICENSES AND SECTION 500.00 FEES AND DESPOITS, LICENSES AND PERMITS Staff is requesting the DCAC look into two changes to the Mound City Dock Program. Dock Inspector Katie Hoff stated there is not specific language regarding the Ordinance as to how a share slip reverts to the share person should the primary person vacate. Staff is recommending language stating the resident must be a share slip for two years to obtain that particular dock. Hanus questioned time limitations, when does the time begin and is it two consecutive years. Suggested using the application date as to the start of the two consecutive years. Fackler stated this would be an ordinance and must be publicized and will be put on the information sheet provided with applications. Hoff stated as many as 82 boats at docks were not listed on applications. This change in language will help keep the operating of the dock fund down by penalizing to cover administrative costs. Approximately 20% of inspector's time is spent verifying dock licenses. Staff is trying to offset this cost. This applies to all docks. Funk stated the intention is to reduce the administrative costs; not to enforce more rules and regulations. Staff is directed to have this item reviewed by the City Attorney and will be in ordinance form for City Council approval. Businaro stated $25.00 is a good dollar amount for the penalty fee of $25.00. MOTION by Funk, second by Jones the Commission agrees to the wording as follows: l) That under Mound City Code 437.05 Subd. 3 "Two Residents may Share a Dock Subject to the Conditions Contained Herein." Language be inserted into "b' that requires a minimum of participation in two consecutive boating seasons as defined as "A Share added between time of renewal-January 1st and May 31st ora year on same site." Before a share may claim priority rights. -9789- Mound Advisory Docks Commission September 20, 2001 2) That under Mound City Code 500. O0 Fees and 437. O0 Dock License; *a) Any boat that is moored at a city dock~slip that is not listed on their Dock~Slip Appfication is subject to a penalty fee of $25.00. *b) Afl boats listed on appfication must provide the city is "CURRENT" DNR Watercraft License or recently appfied for watercraft ficense. Failure to do this by June Ist of the current boating season will result in a penalty fee of $25.00. MOTION carries unanimously. Staff is directed to bring this completed form back to the Commission as an F.Y.I. Staff is directed use a different color paper when notifying residents of this change. -9790- BOARD MEMBERS Bert Foster Chair, Deephaven Craig Nelson Vice Chair, Spring Park Lili McMillan Secretary, Orono Tom Skramstad Treasurer, Shorewood Andrea Ahrens Mound Bob Ambrose Wayzata Douglas E. Babcock Tonka Bay Craig Eggers Victoria Tom Gilman Excelsior Paul Knudsen Minnetrista Tom Seuntjens Minnetonka Beach Herb J. Suerth Woodland Katy Van Hercke Minnetonka Sheldon Wert Greenwood 50 Yo Recycled Content 20% Post Consumer Waste LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. · DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 9521745-0789 · FAX 952/745-9085 Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR October 12, 2001 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LMCD Member Cities Greg Nybeck, Executive Director Appointment of 2002 Board Members It is approaching the time of the year when terms for some of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board of Directors members will expire. Terms on the LMCD Board run from February 1st through January 31st of the following year. The state enabling LMCD legislation calls for Board members to be appointed for three-year terms subject to recall by the cities. There is no applicable term limits for Board members. Because the application of the LMCD ordinances are inherently unique and it takes some period of time for new Board members to come up to speed, it would be difficult and undesirable to have all Board members terms expire at the same time, possibly ending up with a completely new Board or a mostly new Board. The LMCD has, therefore, requested the 14 cities to stagger the member's terms by appointing five members the first year, five the second year and four the third year (5-5-4). We realize that some of the cities prefer to make all their appointments for a single calendar year at one time, however, this is not consistent with the LMCD enabling act. Also, the cities do have th~ ability to recall their member anytime and appoint another for the remainder of the term. Below is a list of when the current Board member terms expire in January of: 20O2 Andrea Aherns-Mound Craig Eggers-Victoria Paul Knudsen-Minnetrista Lili McMillan-Orono Craig Nelson-Spring Park Tom Skramstad-Shorewood 2OO3 Bob Ambrose-Wayzata Doug Babcock-Tonka Bay Tom Gilman-Excelsior Herb Suerth-Woodland Sheldon Wert-Greenwood 2004 Bert Foster-Deephaven Tom Seuntjens-Mtka. Beach Katy Van Hercke-Minnetonka In order to achieve the goal of staggering Board member appointments to the fullest extent possible, as previously approved by the LMCD Board of Directors, we request the following cities to appoint Board members for the following terms beginning in February, 2002: Minnetrista- 3 years Mound- 3 years Orono- 2 years Shorewood- 3 years Spring Park- 3 years Victoria- 3 years No action needs to be taken by the cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Tonka Bay, Wayzata and Woodland this year. Web Page Address: http://www.lmcd.org E-mail Address: Imcd @ Imcd.org -9791 - LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Please advise our office if for some reason your records are not in agreement with ours. Also attached is a spreadsheet that summarizes Board members attendance through September of calendar year 2001. This information is intended for review by your city council. Your prompt attention and cooperation in processing this important appointment is appreciated. -9792- -9793- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, November 14, 2001 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair' Foster · 11/15/01 Annual Meeting with the Hennepin County Sheriffs Office Water Patrol, 7:30 A.M. at the Water Patrol Headquarters in Spring Park · 11/28/01 Regular LMCD Board Meeting has been cancelled · Consolidation of December Regular Board Meetings READING OF MINUTES- 10/10/01 LMCD Regular Board Meeting 10/24/01 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. 1. LAKE USE & RECREATION A) Update on phosphorous free fertilizer legislation; B) Ordinance Amendment, Second 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 (previously tabled at 10/24/01 Regular Meeting); C) Additional Business; 2. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A) Review of 2001 EWM Final Harvesting Report; B) Update on 10/30/01 Zebra Mussel Stakeholders Meeting; C) Report frOm the 11/9/01 EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting; D) Additional Business; -9794- 3. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers (11/1/01 - 11/15/01); B) Update on LMCD Investments; C) Additional Business; 4. ADMINISTRATION A) Discussion of Optional Projects Priority List discussed at 8/8/01 Board Workshop/Planning Meeting; B) Additional Business; 5. SAVE THE LAKE A) (*) Minutes from 10/24/01 Save the Lake Advisory Committee Meeting; B) Additional Business; 6. WATER STRUCTURES A. (*) Gregory Fall, staff recommends the Board refund $184.00 of the $250 deposit for a dock length variance granted at the 10/10/01 Regular Meeting; B. Additional Business; 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10.ADJOURNMENT -9795- DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, October 10, 2001 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Foster called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Lili McMillan, Orono; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Paul Knudsen, Uinnetrista; Tom Seuntjens, Minnetonka Beach; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Sheldon Weft, Greenwood. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Craig Eggers, Victoria; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Katy Van Hercke, Minnetonka. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster There were no Chair announcements. READING OF MINUTES- 9/12/01 LMCD Regular Board Meeting MOTION: Seuntjens moved, Babcock seconded to approve the minutes from the 9/12/01 Regular Board Meeting as submitted. VOYE: Ayes (7), Abstained (2; Skramstad and Wed); motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda. Ms. Mary Sue Simmons, a White Bear Lake Conservation District Board member, stated that she was in attendance to observe the proceedings of a LMCD Board meeting and to learn some of the issues on Lake Minnetonka. Foster welcomed Ms. Simmons and stated that he believed the Board would welcome discussion with her after the meeting. 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. Nybeck recommended that agenda item 4A be removed from the consent agenda. Wert moved, Skramstad seconded to approve the consent agenda, removing agenda item 4A. Motion carded unanimously. Items so approved include: 2B, Hennepin County Shedffs Office Water Patrol, and 3B, August financial summary and balance sheet. -9796- Lake MinnetOnka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 10, 2001 Page 2 WATER STRUCTURES A. Gregory Fall, consideration of draft Findings of Fact and Order for approval of a variance application from LMCD Code for dock length requirements. Foster asked staff for comments on this agenda item. Nybeck stated that there are two alternative site plans attached to the draft vadance Order that was discussed at the previous Board meeting. The first site plan includes a 96' long dock that parallels the south side site line and would meet the five foot side setback requirement. Three watercraft would be storedOn the north side of the dock and a "L" dock section has been added to the north side of the dock between the first and second watercraft from shore. The second site plan also includes a 96' long dock that parallels the north side site line and would meet the five foot side setback requirement. Three watercraft would be stored:on the south side of the dock and a "L" dock section has been added to the south side of the dock between the first and second watercraft from shore. The first site plan was discussed by the Board at the previous meeting; however, the applicant would also like the Board to consider the second site plan because he and his wife prefer it. McMillan asked if the abutting property owner to the north was aware of the proposed site plan that,was preferred by the applicant, especially since it appears to affect them more. Nybeck stated that the abutting property to the noah was provided a copy of the draft Findings of Fact and Order, including both altemative site plans. He added that the Board should keep in mind that the dock installed by the abutting property owner to the noah does not comply with Code for dock length requirements. Babcock questioned whether the second site plan would require.the Distdct to renotify the abUtting property owner to the south or if the previous public notice and public hearing would suffice since the variances would essentially be the same other than the relocation of docking and boat storage. LeFevere stated that he believed the District would not need to renotify the residents in the area because the public headng notice included two variances from Code that were determined by the Board to not be needed, including side setbacks and an adjusted dock use area. He noted that the draft Order prepared was for a straight dock that was 96' long with no "Ls" or "Ts", adding that this could be amended by the Board. Babcock stated that he would not be opposed to adding "Ls" or "Ts" to the approved site plan, provided it does not obstruct navigation within the applicants authorized dock use area. Foster asked if there was a dimension on the "L" on the proposed site plans. Mr. Gregory Fall, 3036 Island View Drive, stated that the "L" is an eight-foot dock section. Foster asked Babcock if he was comfortable with the second site plan since he made the original motion to approve the variance application at the previous Board meeting. Babcock stated that he was comfortable with either site plan, as long as the "L" section does not require the applicant to navigate over the side site line of the abutting property owner. -9797- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 10, 20(11 Page3 Foster suggested adding language that would prohibit the length of the "L" section to not exceed eight feet. LeFevere stated that he believed some minor wording changes could be made to the draft Findings and considered by the Board this evening. These wording changes would include: 1) deleting the word "south" and adding the word "north" in condition one, and 2) amending condition two to allow only "Ls" or "Ts" except as shown on Attachment One. MOTION: Babcock moved, Knudsen seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Order for a dock length variance at the Gregory Fall residence, subject to the language changes recommended by LeFevere in conditions one and two, and subject to adding an eight dimension on the approved site plan for the "L" or "T" dock section. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Mr. John Aquilina, 3030 Island View Drive, stated that he was the abutting property owner to the north. He asked for clarification regarding the status of his dock from his property. Nybeck stated that the dock installed in 2001 was approximately 100' from the 929.4' NGVD shoreline at the site that has approximately 60' of shoreline. This exceeds what Code allows and the resident either needs to bring the dock in compliance with Code by reducing its length or submit an application for variance from Code. The consensus of the Board was that Mr. Aquilina should contact the office to discuss his alternatives with staff, 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. Foster introduced the agenda item by stating that it was tabled at the 9/12/01 Regular Meeting at the request from a member of the public. He asked for comments from staff. Nybeck made the following comments: · At the 9/12/01 Regular Meeting, the Board requested follow-up from staff on three related issues to the proposed ordinance amendment. This included: 1) a map identifying the locations of Six Mile, Painter's, and Long Lake Creeks, 2) the 929.4' NGVD contours within Six Mile, Painter's, and Long Lake Creeks, and 3) the number of properties that would affected by this ordinance amendment if it is adopted by the District. · He reviewed a map of Lake Minnetonka that highlighted the locations of Six Mile, Painter's, and Long Lake Creeks. The number of affected properties if this ordinance amendment is adopted by the District would be approximately 12 in Long Lake Creek that currently cannot navigate to Tanager Lake because of the clearance of the railroad trestle, zero in Painter's Creek, and a couple in Six Mile Creek. -9798- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 10, 2001 Page 4 · The 929,4' NGVD contours could probably be delineated by signage in Long Lake and Painter's Creeks, and the use of buoys in Six Mile Creek. Staff needs further time to work on identifying the 929.4' NGVD contours within these creeks. · Staff has worked with Hennepin County staff members using their GPS system to identify latitude and longitude coordinates that generally identify the mouth of Six Mile Creek into Lake Minnetonka. Foster provided some additional background on this agenda item. There has been a concern of a number of Board members that Halsteads Bay has probably the poorest water quality on Lake Minnetonka with a significant amount of phosphorous loading. A subcommittee was established by the Board to evaluate water quality issues on tributaries that run into Lake Minnetonka and adjacent wetlands. He believed the Board is mainly concerned with prop dredging in the identified tributaries and the environmental impacts that it would have on Lake Minnetonka. He believed a prohibition on motorized watercraft in these areas would not be a large impediment to use of the lake since these areas currently are used primarily by canoes, kayaks, and paddies boats. He asked for other comments from the Board prior to receiving input from the public. Babcock reminded that there is a sentiment from some Board members to protect wetlands from over storage of boats. He reminded the Board of the Code provision that takes into consideration meandering wetlands, Wert reminded the Board that the tributaries leading into Lake Minnetonka and the adjacent wetlands identified by the Task Force were bifurcated.' The pdmary focus of the Board at this time is to' deal with the tributaries, noting that there might be further work for Task Force at a later time on the adjacent wetlands. Seuntjens stated that he had concern with restrictions imposed by the adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment, especially those affected existing properties in Six Mile Creek that may have changed hands and could decrease property values. He suggested the Board might want to consider protecting the rights of these properties, possibly through grandfathering. Wert stated for existing properties that might be affected by adoption of the ordinance amendment, a question for Board to consider is that these properties may have had the dght but not the use. They currently would have difficulty accessing Lake Minnetonka with a larger watercraft because that would require ddving through shallow water and mucky conditions. Babcock questioned whether it would be possible to grandfather in one watercraft for each affected property that existed before a specific date. Knudsen stated that he intends to contact the two property owners that would be affected by the adoption of this ordinance amendment to get their feedback. He also intended to bring the Minnetrista City Council up to date on what the Board is currently considering and to get their feedback. Babcock asked if the buoy area that delineates the 929.4 ' NGVD contour or the latitude and longitude delineated with buoys would take precedent from an enforcement standpoint. LeFevere stated that he believed intent of the ordinance amendment is that the buoyed area would prevail, similar to the establishment of a quiet waters area on the lake. The proposed ordinance amendment has identified three areas of the lake that use of motorboats Would be prohibited as delineated by use of buoys or signs. -9799- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 10, 2001 Page 5 Foster recognized that there were no fudher comments from the Board and he entertained comments frem the public on the draft ordinance amendment. Mr, Jim Blakeway stated that he lived on Halsteads Bay in the area near Six Mile Creek, The water depths in Six Mile Creek are very shallow and the only type of watercraft that can currently use Six Mile Creek are personal watercraft. The two affected preperty owners can only get watercraft to Lake Uinnetonka using Six Mile Creek on certain years for only part of the season. He believed they should not traverse Six Mile Creek to get to Lake Minnetonka because the objective should be to protect the wetland, habitat, and water quality of Halsteads Bay. Mr. Jim Steubner, owner and developer of Upland Farms, made the following comments. · He thanked the Board for tabling the first reading of the proposed ordinance amendment at the last Board meeting. · Upland Farms is a 17t acre equestrian community on Highway 7 in the City of Minnetrista. He updated progress in the development and noted that it is getting national recognition for the City of Minnetdsta. · When he originally purchased the property to develop, he did not realize that Six Mile Creek existed because of the difficulty of locating the mouth into Halsteads Bay from the lake. The concept of storing boats from the property came up when a few prospective buyers inquired regarding the use of Six Mile Creek for the use of a dock and storage of a watercraft. A contact was made with the MN DNR and they supported the idea as long as the docks are clustered and seasonal. A subsequent application was submitted to the MN DNR for these purposes. · A concern that current and future owners have is whether they can store a boat on Six Mile Creek. There are 20 pages of restrictions in the covenants for the harbor area, including a maximum boat length of 20'. He stated that there currently are docks on Six Mile Creek with boats that navigate it. · Originally, the application submitted to the MN DNR included the removal dams of cattails that formed in recent years. He noted that the higher water levels this past spring caused by above average precipitation washed these areas out. His intent has never been to dredge Six Mile Creek to Lake Minnetonka for navigational purposes. · He questioned the purpose of the proposed ordinance amendment and stated that he did not fully understand it. Frank Svoboda and Tim Hassett were in attendance to ask questions to further understand the proposed ordinance amendment and to address any questions the Board had. Mr. Frank Svoboda stated that he would be addressing environmental questions relating to the proposed ordinance amendment. He made the following comments: · He indicated that he had 13 questions and six comments on the proposed ordinance amendment, noting that he would summarize them to allow the Board to determine how to allow him to present these questions for clarification. · He was accustomed to ordinance amendments with a preamble statement that states this is the purpose of the ordinance and this is what the organization is trying to accomplish. Because a preamble statement was missing in the proposed ordinance amendment, he could not determine the purpose of the ordinance, · He provided his background on familiarity with environmental issues on Halsteads Bay, In the early 1990's, he prepared the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the channel that was dredged at the Carlson development in Halsteads Bay. In the mid 1980's, he represented the City of Minnetdsta when they objected to the location of the public access at Kings Point Road. He stated -9800- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 10, 2001 Page 6 that he has extensive experience of phosphorous loading and re-suspension of sedin~ents on Halsteads Bay, and how this can be impacted by boat speed and draft. He requested that he be copied on studies or reports that would pertain to phosphorous loading and re-suspension of sediments in the Six Mile Creek area. · He addressed the benchmark of 929.4' NGVD and indicated that he would like to fully understand what datum reference the District is using so that there is a common definition. He questioned whether the buoys to be placed at the 929.4' elevation would be at a hydrologic elevation or a ground contour elevation. He stated that he would like to better understand how far this elevation goes up from the mouth of Six Mile Creek, noting it could possibly goes as far as Mud Lake because it has a ground contour of 929.31'. · District staff has reported that watemraft movement on the west side of County Road 110 on Painter's Creek and the north side of the railroad trestle on Long Lake Creek as being limited. He has conducted reseamh of channels around the lake and they questioned why the proposed ordinance amendment would not apply to them if they have the same physical and environmental characteristics as Six Mile Creek. He believed this might indicate that the proposed ordinance amendment is singling out the Upland Farms project. · He believed this summarized the questions and comments he had and he encouraged suggestions from the Board on what is the best means to respond to them, possiblY through a letter. Foster stated that he believed responding to these questions and comments through a letter might be appropriate. He pointed ouHhat a Section of the Code outlines a statement of purpose for the District. He believed there is a distinction between the creeks identified in the proposed ordinance amendment and the channels referenced by Svoboda because there is flow from the tributaries into Lake Minnetonka that create environmental concerns. He asked forfeedback from LeFevere on the submittal of a letter from Svoboda that would summarize his questions and comments. LeFevere questioned whether the submittal of questions and corresponding answers is the best way for the District to handle this. The proposed ordinance amendment is a legislative act and is not subject to cross examination. For an ordinance amendment to be legally defensible, the District should demonstrate it has legitimate public purposes. He questioned whether there is a need to have a preamble or statement of purpose in the proposed ordinance amendment. He believed it is helpful for the Board to get the issues raised by Svoboda on the table to address them prior to the potential adoption of an ordinance amendment, although the Board is not subject to cross-examination. Babcock asked whether the 929.31' lake elevation of Mud Lake was NGVD. Svoboda stated that he was unsure. Babcock stated that assuming the lake elevation of Mud Lake is correct and that Lake Minnetonka has an ordinary high water mark of 929.4' NGVD, he questioned whether there would be a point on Six Mile Creek that has a lake elevation higher than either Lake Minnetonka or Mud Lake. Svoboda stated that the MN DNR has established an ordinary high water mark of 930.6' NGVD on Six Mile Creek at the point of the Upland Farms development. This elevation could vary because the gradient of the creek dses when you go up stream. -9801 - Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October '10,'2001 Page 7 Babcock stated that he believed it would be beneficial for discussion purposes to use the same scale, gradient, or datum when discussing the elevations of the affected water bodies identified in the proposed ordinance amendment. Svoboda stated that he concurred with Babcock. Babcock stated that it might be appropriate to take the 929.4' NGVD reference in the proposed ordinance amendment and cleady specify the points of delineation. LeFevere stated that could be done provided the upstream point of delineation is below the 929.4' NGVD. He added the elevation referenced in the ordinance amendment is a ground contour elevation, not a hydrologic elevation. Seuntjens asked how far upstream is the Upland Farm development from Halsteads Bay. Svoboda stated that he was unsure of the exact distance; however, he estimated that it is approximately one mile to a mile and half upstream from Halsteads Bay. McMillan asked for an assessment of the navigability of Six Mile Creek for powerboats from ice out to the time the lake freezes. Svoboda stated that is a function of water depth because of fluctuation within a season. Ideally they would like a water depth of four feet in Six Mile Creek for navigational purposes, similar to the standards used in the channel dredged in the Carlson property on Halsteads Bay. McMillan asked whether this could be attained on a consistent basis without dredging. Svoboda stated that it would be difficult because that was a primary reason a dredging permit application was made and secured at the Carlson property for the channel that was dredged in the 1990's, The fundamental question there was that riparian rights had been established with the previous dredging of that channel that required a maintenance dredge, Babcock stated that one of the questions the Board has is how sustainable is Six Mile Creek without dredging. It was blocked eadier this year and that could occur in the future, He questioned whether the dredging of the harbor project at the Upland Farms project is viable because the channel could be blocked in the future and require dredging, McMillan stated that she was concerned with the development being sold as lake access; however, it probably would be not consistent without mechanical dredging. She believed one of the primary reasons for the draft ordinance amendment is to maintain these natural areas and to not make them into something that they are not currently. Babcock asked what type of sediment exists at the bottom of Six Mile Creek. Svoboda stated that channel bottom examples have not been taken; however, he believed it would fairly soft, water-saturated peat soils. -9802- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 10, 2001 Page 8 Ambrose asked Svoboda if he believed the dredging of the proposed harbor at the development gives them riparian rights. Svoboda stated that he believed that question would be more appropriate for Steubner or the legal representation present at the meeting. Steubner re-stated that there is no intention to dredge Six Mile Creek. To the best of his knowledge, the Corps of Engineers has mechanically dredged it only once in the 1940's. He believed the bottom of Six Mile Creek is similar to the bottom of Halsteads Bay in the area. Up until the 1950's or 1960's, the immediate area was primarily farms until the MN DNR raised the exit point for water from Lake Minnetonka on the east end of Grays Bay that flooded these farms. The Upland Farms development is very pristine and the last thing they want to do is disturb it. Mr. Tim Hassett, legal representation for Steubner, made the following comments: · An open question relating to the proposed ordinance amendment is how far up Six Mile Creek is the 929.4' NGVD contour line, · Further explanation needs to be clarified on the concerns of the District regarding the proposed ordinance amendment. · The Six Mile Creek area is outside of the jurisdiction of the District. · He stated that they would take into consideration the concerns raised by the Board and come back ~" with something that would address these concems and not require further restrictions onthe Upland Farms development, · He believed that the proposed ordinance amendment would not apply to either Long Lake or Painter's Creeks because of the existing culvert at County Road 110 or the railroad trestle. Babcock stated that he believed there is a need for regulations in those creeks because culverts and bridges could disappear in the future because they are man-made barriers. Hassett concluded that it appeared to him that the upland Farms development is being singled out and he thanked the Board for their comments and allowing him to comment. Mr. Eric Evenson, District Administrator for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), supported the Board getting out in front of the issue. Related issues including use of riparian and property rights, economic development, and a number of other sensitive issues have been discussed by the Board. The MCWD is concerned with water quality on Halsteads Bay and future work is being discussed upstream from all the creeks highlighted in the proposed ordinance amendment. The MCWD has taken a preliminary look at impacts from the proposed harbor project at Upland Farms on water quality, comparing them to sites that have been done in Flodda and Wisconsin. Although these studies conducted were on lakes rather than creeks, water quality is potentially estimated to decrease at 30% in Six Mile Creek and possibly 10% in Halsteads Bay. He noted that these figures are preliminary and that he was glad to hear the developer indicate that dredging is not planned in Six Mile Creek. He stated that the dredging previously conducted in Six Mile Creek classifies it as a ditch and that ditch law would apply to it. He concluded that he supported the proposed ordinance amendment indicating that it would be good for Lake Minnetonka on a long-term basis. Babcock re-stated his concern with approving a dredging permit for the harbor project because Six Mile Creek might not be navigable for motorboats to Lake Minnetonka. He believed that this would create an -9803- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 10, 2001 Page expectation for the Upland Farms residents and that a condition should be placed on the dredging permit for the harbor project addressing this. A pressure to dredge Six Mile Creek in the future could possibly be expected because of the dredging of the harbor project. The District has received feedback in the time that this issue has been discussed by the Board that the wetland areas in the immediate area were not back flooded until the establishment of the Grays Bay dam. He believed this indicates that the area is below the 929.4' NGVD contour and that the Distdct has some jurisdiction. He stated that he would like some feedback from the MCWD on the state of the land before and after the establishment of the Grays Bay dam. Evenson stated that those were good points that could possibly be looked into. LeFevere asked Evenson if the MCWD has taken jurisdiction over the ditch laws of Six Mile Creek. Evenson stated that they had. Mr. John Baden, a Hennepin Parks employee, stated that he had participated on the Lake Minnetonka Wetlands Task Force that has examined protection of the wetland areas, including those that are adjacent and contiguous. He supported this type of an ordinance because it is a great step in protecting wetland areas around the lake that are vital to assist in long-term water quality management. Wetland areas historically serve as a filter for incoming storm water and he expressed concern with activities that disturb them. There is a significant amount of data available that suggests motorboat traffic in shallow water areas less than six feet in depth cause significant re-suspension of sediments, 'and this increases the likelihood of higher phosphorus levels that could flow into Lake Minnetonka. Hennepin. Parks has been conducting water quality monitoring studies on Lake Minnetonka for a number of years in conjunction with the District and the MCWD, noting that Halsteads and Jennings Bay have the poorest water quality. He concluded he believed the Task Force work should be on-going to include how to protect the wetlands on the lake and the native macrophyte beds. Foster stated that based on the Board discussions, there might need to be some further adjustments of the proposed ordinance amendment, including whether to grandfather boats from existing properties and the delineation points of the 929.4' NGVB contour in the three creeks. He believed the first reading of the proposed ordinance amendment could be approved at this meeting, with any changes to be made prior to the next Board meeting. Another option for the Board to consider would include not approving first readings and make the proper changes for Board consideration at a future meeting. He asked the Board for feedback on how to proceed. Wed stated that he would be in favor of a motion, taking into consideration the possibility of grandfathering existing properties and the delineation of the 929.4' NGVD contour in the three creeks. LeFevere questioned whether it would be practical from an enforcement standpoint for the Water Patrol to allow some motor boats to use the creeks and not allow other motor boats that might be following right behind them. In the past, the Board has decided to grandfather property rights rather than an activity, which is the case in this situation. MOTION: Wed moved, Ambrose seconded to hold first reading of the ordinance amendment and set second reading for the 10/24/01 Regular Meeting, subject to further delineation of the 929.4' NGVD contours in the three creeks. -9804- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 10, 2001 Page 10 Ambrose stated that he was sympathetic to the need for uniform enforcement with regards to the possibility of grandfathering certain properties. Knudsen stated that the grandfathedng of affected properties in the creek areas are generally marginal and that the activity on the creek could cause water quality problems that affect other properties that actually live on the lake. Babcock stated that if it is the goal of the Board to protect the areas identified in the proposed ordinance amendment, other governmental bodies could take jurisdiction of surface use upstream from the area where the Distdct has jurisdiction. He suggested that the District might want to pursue with the cities of Minnetdsta and St. Bonifacius to put in place a similar ordinance that protects Six Mile Creek from Mud Lake to Lake Minnetonka in its entirety. This would set a consistent message and set of expectations that this area would be protected from motorized boat traffic. Wert questioned the timing of working with the other governmental jurisdictions while the proposed ordinance amendment is being considered by the District. Babcock stated he believed the District would be setting the expe6tations that the District would manage the surface use upstream in these areas up to the 929.4' NGVD contour. He questioned whether the other governmental agencies that would have jurisdictional authority on the SMd:ace.use need to reconciled pdor to adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment by the District. LeFevere stated that raises an important point that the Board should be comfortable with the effect of an ordinance that is adopted. Other than limited regulatory authority.at beaches and marina's, all District surface use ordinances stop at elevation 929.4' NGVD. The ordinance could be adopted by the Distdct without knowing the exact location of the 929.4' NGVD contour in these areas; however, it would need to be located prior to the placement of buoys or signs for enforcement purposes. Babcock stated that other Board members have expressed concern about how the adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment would affect historical use in the identified areas. The District has previously adopted ordinances that have affected historical use, noting that the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld these ordinance amendments. LeFevere clarified that those ordinance amendments pertained to docking regulations. When the Distdct adopts ordinance amendments for "Quiet Water" areas, this changes the boating dghts of both the residents in the affected areas and the public water space in general. Seuntjens stated he believed LeFevere is stating that the buoys or signs would need to be placed sufficiently downstream from the 929.4' NGVD contour to ensure that the District is within its jurisdiction. McMillan stated that there appears to be some concern on the Board about the delineation of the 929.4' NGVD contours within the areas identified in the proposed ordinance amendment for placement of the buoys or signs. She suggested that the Board might want to consider three readings of the proposed amendment after the delineation points have been clarified. LeFevere stated that there had been no discussions by'the Board on moving the area covered by the proposed ordinance amendment further into the lake. The proposed ordinance amendment currently covers -9805- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October ~O, 2OO~ Page the area from the cattail mouth of the three areas upstream to the 929,4' NGVD contour delineation points. In terms of fairness, he believed three reading are not necessary because the only changes being considered by the Board would be to possibly give affected property owners greater rights, Babcock stated that if the District would like to consider protecting these areas through an ordinance amendment and there are jurisdictional concems about the location of the 929.4' NGVD contours, it might be more beneficial have the ordinance amendment state that motorized watercraft cannot cross a specified boundary or use a certain area of the lake. This would prohibit a motorized watercraft from using the areas identified in the proposed ordinance amendment because they would not be able to cross a specified boundary or use a certain part of the lake. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Wed left at 9:05 p.m. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 3. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers (9/16/01 - 9/30/01) & (10/1/01- 10/15/01), Skramstad reviewed the audit of vouchers as submitted. MOTION: Knudsen moved, McMillan seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for 9/16/01 - 9/30/01 and 10/1/01 - 10/15/01 as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Staff update on LMCD Investments. Foster stated that staff has included a memo in the Board packet that summarizes District investments in the Board packet for informational purposes. D. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 4. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE B. 9/14/01 EWMIExotics Task Force Meeting Report, Suerth stated that there were three primary items discussed at this meeting, This included the joint zebra mussel project with the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA), a preliminary 2001 EWM harvesting report, and the potential destination points on Lake Uinnetonka in the future. C. Staff update on "Let's Keep Zebra Mussels Out of Lake Minnetonka" project. -9806- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 10, 2001 Page12 Suerth asked Nybeck to update the Board on this project, noting that a lot of progress has been made. Nybeck stated at the 8/22/01 Regular Meeting, the proposal was discussed and the Board made a motion supporting it, to bring it back to the EWM/Exotics Task Force to review the details, and to get going on the first phase of situation analysis. A series of meeting have been conducted with Dick Osgood, the LMA Executive Director, has resulted in a preliminary list of stakeholders and the creation of a situation analysis that describes how zebra mussels could get into Lake Minnetonka and the ways to reduce that possibility. The first meeting to assemble stakeholders to identify the issues and concerns has been scheduled for Tuesday, 10/30/01, at 7 p.m. at the Gray Freshwater Center in Navarre. A Lake Minnetonka resident has agreed to be the facilitator for the anticipated series of meeting. He asked Osgood for further comments and to provide an overview of anticipated costs associated with these meetings. Osgood estimated costs for these meetings are approximately $1,200. This includes limited costs per meeting for the facilitator, reom rental, and copying and postage expenses. It is estimated that there will approximately six small group meeting in addition to the 10/30/01 initial meeting. He requested that the District cover these expenses. Nybeck stated the District has a $5,000 budget line for zebra mussels that could cover these expenses. The consensus of the Board was that they were not opposed to the District picking up these expenses, provided staff checks into alternative places to conduct future meetings With the zebra mussel stakeholder. One possibility was to check with special density license holders that have' meeting spaces approved as a public amenity. MOTION: Skramstad moved, McMillan seconded to authorize up to $1,200 of funds for the series of zebra mussel stakeholder meetings. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. D. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 5. ADMINISTRATION A. Staff update on the vacant Administrative Secretary position. Nybeck updated the Board on this vacancy, noting that a relatively small pool of candidates was received after it was advertised and posted. Staff screened ten candidates, with four candidates being interviewed, five not scodng high on the screening tool, and one withdrawing themself from consideration. At this time, staff is not prepared to offer the position to any of these candidates. Alternatives for the Distdct to consider include to re-advertise and re-post the position, fill it with a temporary employee with the possibility of hiring this individual, and to contact the MN Department of Economic Security to inquire whether they have a potential pool of candidates for the vacant position. He complimented the efforts of current staff while the Distdct is searching for the right candidate for the position. B. Appointment of nominating committee for 2002 Board Officers. -9807- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 10, 2001 Page 13 Foster asked for volunteers to serve on the nominating committee for 2002 Board officers. Board members Babcock, Knudsen, and Seuntjens agreed to serve on the nominating. MOTION: Foster moved, Suerth seconded to appoint Board members Babcock, Knudsen, and Seuntjens to the nominating committee for 2002 Board Officers, with Babcock to serve as Chair of the nominating committee. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Review of draft letter to be forwarded to LMCD Member Cities regarding Board appointments for 2002. Foster stated that a letter would be forwarded to the 14 member cities in the near future regarding Board appointments for 2002. He asked if there were comments by the Board. Seuntjens stated that he suggested the letter be changed to seek a two year appointment from the City of Orono rather than one year. D. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 6. SAVETHELAKE McMillan reported on the following: · The Lord Fletchers Tent Events were not as successful as they had planned due to the poor weather and the events that occurred on September 11th. The proceeds from this event that were to be donated to the "Save the Lake" fund did not occur because they generated just enough money to offset expenses. A possible donation to the "Save the Lake" fund might be donated from Lord Fletchers out of their kindness in the future. · A possible pilot project to place solar lights on a limited number of buoys in 2002 is being considered by the Advisory Committee. She stated that she had contact with Tony Brough from Hennepin County and that he would like to address this at the December Board meeting. · She has been working on the coordination of a speaker for the February "Save the Lake" Recognition Banquet Dinner. Mr. Jim Augland, who has authored a book called "Picturing Lake Minnetonka", has expressed interest. She targeted a tentative date of 2/7/01 for the date of the Banquet Dinner. · A "Save the Lake" Advisory Committee meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, 10/24/01, at 11:30 a.m. in the District office. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck reported on the following: · The lake level as of 9/29101 was 928.61' NGVD, with no discharge because the dam was closed. · A quarterly Executive Director Newsletter, which has been forwarded to the 14 member cities and their respective Mayors, was included in the handout folders for informational purposes. · Staff questions whether there will be a quorum for the 10/24/01 Regular Board Meeting based on members that have already indicated that they will not be present. -9808- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 10, 2001 Page 14 The Board discussed quorum for the 10/24/01 Regular Board Meeting, with a consensus that there should be a quorum present at this meeting. 8. OLD BUSINESS Foster stated that a priority list of optional projects that were discussed at the 8/8/01 Planning/V¥orkshop Meeting would be discussed at a future meeting. 9. NEW BUSINESS McMillan stated that she and Nybeck attended the 9/24/01 Orono City Council meeting to observe the public headng conducted on open water issues during the wintermonths in the Ooffee CoveChannel area. Testimony was received on the use of a land alternative slightly to the' south of Coffee Cove Channel that involved a 15' wide firelane in between two houses. The Orono City Council voted to close the firelane for the upcoming winter, except for emergencies bythe Water Patrol, and directed Orono staff to work with the Distdct and the MN DNR to investigate other viable land alternatives. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION, PerfOrmance Evaluation of Executive Director (Note: Board~may vote to conduct evaluation in closed session). MOTION: Babcock moved, Skramstad seconded to go into executive session at 9:37 p.m. to conduct a performance'evaluation of the Executive Director, as allowed.bythe Open Meeting Law: VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. . 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further bus ness, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p,m. Albert O. Foster, Chairman Lili McMillan, Secretary -9809- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, October 24, 2001 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER NelsOn called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Lili McUillan, Orono; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Paul Knudsen, Minnetrista; Tom Seuntjens, Minnetonka Beach; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Katy Van Hercke, Minnetonka; Sheldon Weft, Greenwood. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Vice Chair Nelson Nelson stated that the Zebra Mussel Stakeholders Meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, 10/30/01, at 7:00 P.M. at the Gray Freshwater Center in Navarre. · Nelson stated that the Annual Meeting with the Hennepin County Sheriffs Office Water Patrol was scheduled for Thursday, 11/15/01, at 7:30 A.M. at the Water Patrol Headquarters in .Spring Park. · Nelson stated that staff has recommended that the Board consolidate the two Regular meeting scheduled in November, 11/14/01 and 11/28/01. Nybeck stated that the Board in recent years has generally cancelled the second meeting scheduled in November due to the Thanksgiving Holiday. He questioned whether the Board would like to have a meeting on 11/14/01 or move it up to 11/7/01 due the meeting with the Water Patrol on 11/15/01, and whether the Board would like to have a meeting on 11/28/01. The consensus of the Board was to have a Regular Board Meeting on 11/14/01 and to cancel the Regular Board Meeting scheduled for 11/28/01. READING OF MINUTES. 10/10/01 LMCD Regular Board Meeting Babcock stated that he believed the minutes on page 10 did not properly reflect two of his discussion items on the proposed ordinance amendment that would prohibit motorized watercraft on certain parts of Lake Minnetonka. First, he stated that he made a suggestion that the District pursue a downstream solution by prohibiting motors in the bays rather than up the creeks.' Second, he believed there was discussion about talking with municipalities about adopting similar ordinances for consistency purposes. He recommended that the minutes be sent back to staff to allow these changes to be included in the minutes for the 10/10/01 LMCD Regular Board Meeting. The consensus of the Board was to send the minutes back to staff to include these changes in the minutes for the 10/10/01 LMCD Regular Board Meeting. -9810- Lake Mii~.netonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 24, 2001 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS. Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda. There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA. Consent Agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. Gilman moved, Ahrens seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Items so approved include: 2A, Minutes from the 9/14/01 EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting, 3B, September financial summary and balance sheet, and 4A, Staff recommends Board approval of the following 2001 Appointments: Auditor Selection- Abdo, Abdo, Eick, & Meyer, Legal Counsel- Kennedy & Graven, Prosecuting Attorney- Tallen & Baertschi, Official Newspaper- Lakeshore Weekly News, Bookkeeper- Specialty Bookkeeping, Bank Depository for 2002 fiscal year- First National Bank of the Lakes. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Ordinance Amendment, Second reading of an ordinance prohibiting the use of motorized watercraft on cedain parts of Lake Uinnetonka; adding new Section 1.02, Subd. 28 and new Section 3.021. Nelson introduced this agenda item noting that first reading of the draft ordinance amendment was discussed considerably at the 10/10/01 Board Meeting. He stated that there were some open issues to be resolved for this meeting, including identification of the 929.4' NGVD contours within the creeks identified in the preposed ordinance amendment. Staff has had difficulty locating this information and it still needs to be completed. He questioned' if the Board wished to have additional discussion or consideration of second reading. Weft asked for a summary of information that staff was directed to research from the previous Board meeting. Nybeck stated that there was significant discussion about the need to establish the 929,4' NGVD contour line within the three creeks identified in the proposed ordinance amendment. Staff has been unsuccessful to date in locating these contour lines after consulting with a number of other public agencies, LeFevere stated that there have been efforts by staff to locate the 929.4' NGVD contour lines at the three creeks referenced in the proposed ordinance amendment. Some of the sources exhausted by staff include municipal wetland inventories, subdivision and grading permit applications, and other sources. The problem with using these types of sources is that they ordinarily do not identify the location of the 929.4' NGVD contour line. Most surveys that have been located to date use 2' contour increments, mainly 930.0' and 928.0' NGVD contour lines. The 929.4' NGVD contour line is somewhere in between these two contour lines and it might require that the District conduct a survey. In the case of the Upland Farms project on Six Mile Creek, a construction plan suggests that the 929.4' NGVD contour lines extends quite a ways up the creek near the development. Wert questioned Whether the information being researched by staff will be used to determine jurisdiction for the District. LeFevere stated that the jurisdiction limit of all District surface use ordinances is the 929.4' NGVD contour ' line. The proposed ordinance amendment is a little different because he questioned how far the 929.4' NGVD contour extends into the creeks identified in the proposed ordinance amendment. The exact location may be important only because the Board is considering extending into the creeks as far up as possible. -9811 - Lake Mi~netonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 24, 2001 Babcock stated this reinforces his idea of restricting motorized watercraft from the mouth of the creeks into the bay through a zone rather than extending into the creeks. This would allow the Water Patrol to enforce the proposed ordinance amendment without concerns about jurisdiction extending into the creeks. McMillan stated that she recently presented the proposed ordinance amendment to the Orono City Council. The Orono City Attorney raised the issue on the location of the 929.4' NGVD contour line as an open issue. She stated that she would like to notify the affected residences that abut Long Lake of the proposed ordinance amendment. Seuntjens stated that he believed the Board needs to cladfy whether the 929.4' NGVD contour language should be maintained in the proposed ordinance amendment. If the Board believes this language should be maintained in the proposed ordinance amendment, he believed there is a need to establish the location of the 929.4' NGVD contours within the three creeks identified. If the Board concludes that this language should not be maintained in the proposed ordinance amendment, the lakeward option proposed by Babcock might make sense. He expressed concern about residents who have properties that abut Six Mile and Long Lake Creeks and the affect the proposed ordinance amendment would have on them. Knudsen stated that he was scheduled to meet with the Minnetrista City Council in the near future to update them on the proposed ordinance amendment. He added that residents who abut Six Mile Creek who would be affected by the proposed ordinance amendment were in attendance and that they would like to provide the Board with comments. Wert questioned why the reference points for the three tributaries in the proposed ordinance amendment are not sufficient for jurisdictional and enforcement purposes. Babcock stated that at the last Board meeting, he asked for clarification from LeFevere on whether the line between the latitude and longitude points or the area delineated by buoys or signs would take precedent from an enforcement standpoint. He recalled that the area delineated by buoys or signs would take precedent and he suggested that the buoys could be moved further into the lake. He believed the intent of the proposed ordinance is to protect the three creeks by prohibiting motorized watercraft across a certain zone in the lake. LeFevere addressed the concept of restricting motorized watercraft across a defined zone in the lake that has depth to it. If Board decides to change the proposed ordinance amendment to this concept, it should have enough depth to discourage motorized watercraft in these areas. Babcock stated that he believed that the proposed ordinance amendment could be changed to prohibit motorized watercraft period, whether or not the motor is operating. He believed that this is another justification to encourage other governmental agencies to take judsd'iction of surface use upstream from the area where the District has jurisdiction in the three creeks identified in the proposed ordinance amendment. He stated that id addition to environmental concerns with the three creeks identified in the proposed ordinance amendment, he was also in favor it of it because he questioned whether the three creeks could support the storage and access density that the Code might otherwise allow, such as the 1:50' General Rule. Seuntjens stated that he would prefer latitude and longitude coordinates rather than man made reference points because they could change in the future. -9812- Lake Miri~netonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 24, 2001 Page 4 Nelson asked if there were comments from the public on the proposed ordinance amendment. Mr. Craig Smith, 3840 Farmhill Drive, stated that he is one of three property owners that have permanent access via Six Mile Creek into Halsteads Bay. He made the following comments: · An application was submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) in Apd11987 for dredging dghts from his property to Halsteads Bay for navigational access. At its 4/16/01 Regular Meeting, the MCWD Board of Managers took action to approve the application submitted, with a permit issued on June 22, 1987. · The MN DNR issued a permit in June 1987 allowing him to dredge to a level of 926,5' NGVD at his site and to allow him to construct a permanent dock. The MN DNR also granted him extension rights for maintenance dredging purposes. On June 20, 2000, he contacted the MN DNR to notify them that he would like to freshen the dredging permit to maintain the depth the MN DNR previously authorized. The MN DNR notified him that they had no concems, provided he made application and secured a permit from the MCWD. He stated that he had not submitted a dredging application to the MCWD. · He believed it was navigable from his property to Halsteads Bay, noting that he owned a boat with an inboard/outboard motor. In Iow-water conditions, he occasionally needs to lift the motor up or he trailers his boat to the lake. He stated that he believed he is environmentally conscious and that he is a quiet user of Six Mile Creek. · He believed had had vested riparian rights to Lake Uinnetonka because he had approved permits from the MN DNR and the MCWD. He believed these rights are valuable to him and that he should be compensated if there are taken away from him. · He entertained questions or comments from the Board. Nelson asked what the distance was from his property to Halsteads Bay. Smith estimated that the distance from his property to Halsteads Bay was approximately one-third of a mile. Nelson asked Smith if there are other residents between his property and Halsteads Bay. Smith stated that there are a couple of other residents in the same vicinity on Six Mile Creek. Knudsen asked for clarification of the dredging rights secured in the past. Nelson stated that his dredging rights are specific for an area in the vicinity of his property, including around his dock. Mr. Ralph Hatch, 4000 Kings Point Road, stated that his residence is directly across from Greg Smith on Six Mile Creek. He noted that he was a long-time resident of Lake Uinnetonka and he purchased his current residence in 1994, stating that he believed he had' access to Lake Uinnetonka for fishing purposes. When traversing in Six Mile Creek, he idles his motor through a channel that he is aware of. He stated that he believed it would be unfair for the District to adopt an ordinance amendment that would affect residents that purchased a property with the assumption that they had access dghts to Lake Uinnetonka, He suggested that water levels in Six Mile Creek are less than desirable north of the area that he and Smith have properties. If the Distdct adopts the ordinance amendment, he believed it should also apply to snowmobiles in the winter. -9813- Lake Mir~'netonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 24, 200'1 Page 5 Babcock stated that under Section 3.021, subd. 1, he would like more definitive language that states the prohibition of motorized watercraft begins either at these points or the area delineated by buoys, whichever is further into Lake Minnetonka. Seuntjens stated that he would like to see the ordinance amendment grandfather rights of those affected properties that currently are using Lake Minnetonka. Nelson asked LeFevere if this could be included in the ordinance amendment and how that would be achieved. LeFevere stated that he would need to further check into how specials privilege, such as grandfathering affected properties, could be granted by the District. Babcock suggested that LeFevere might want to investigate whether there have been previous examples with similar circumstances, such as the Boundary Waters. Seuntjens stated that LeFevere should investigate the feasibility of a license or permit for those affected property owners. Nelson summarized that he believed there are three issues that need further clarification. They included: 1) including the GPS coordinates at the mouths of Painters and Long Lake Creeks, 2) identifying the 929.4' contour lines within the three creeks, and 3) identifying the property owners who would be affected by the ordinance amendment in the first 1/3 of a mile on Six Mile Creek and the immediate area in Long Lake Creek. An open issue for the Board to deal with is whether there is a need currently to identify the 929.4' NGVD contour line with Six Mile, Painter's, and Long Lake Creeks. MOTION: Wed moved, Seuntjens seconded to table second reading to the 11/14/01 Regular LMCD Board Meeting and to direct staff to follow-up on the three issues summarized by Nelson. The Board discussed parliamentary procedures of tabling the agenda item versus continuing it. VOTE: Ayes (9), Nayes (2, Babcock and Seuntjens); motion carried. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 2. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE B. Additional Business. The Board discussed the recent newspaper article regarding the recent dying of zebra mussels in the Mississippi River. 3. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers (10/16 01 - 10/31/01) & (11/1/01 - 11/15/01). Nybeck reviewed the audit of vouchers as submitted, noting that check #13857 payable to Glen Morrisette should be added in the amount of $450. -9814- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 24, 2001 Page6 MOTION: Gilman moved, McMillan seconded to approve the audit of vouchers as amended, adding check #13857 payable to Glen Morrisette in the amount of $450. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATION B. Update of 10/10/01 Executive Session to discuss performance of Executive Director. Nelson stated that he was unable to attend the 10/10/01 Regular Meeting when the performance of Nybeck was discussed in closed session. He discussed the Executive Session with Chair Foster and he understood the consensus of the Board was that they were pleased with his performance and that they recommended a $3,000 annual adjustment for Nybeck, effective 11/1/01, adjusting his annual salary from $51,000 to $54,000. He believed that the consensus of the Board in the 10/10/01 Executive Session needs to be approved in an open meeting. MOTION: Babcock moved, Gilman seconded to adjust the annual salary of Greg Nybeck from $51,000 to $54,000 effective 11/1/01, and to commend, his performance during the last appraisal pedod. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 5. WATER STRUCTURES There was no discussion. 6. SAVE THE LAKE McMillan stated that there was a productive "Save the Lake" Advisory Committee on 10/24/01, with two ideas discussed at this meeting. They included watercraft inspection on Lake Minnetonka by the Minnesota Conservation Corps and a summary by John Baden of the 2001 Lake Minnetonka Water Quality Sampling Report. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Them was no Executive Director Report. 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 9. NEW BUSINESS McMillan updated the Board that there was a shoreline presentation meeting scheduled for 11/3/01 at the Freshwater Society. -9815- Lake Mir~'netonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 24, 2001 Page7 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p,m, Craig Nelson, Vice Chairman Lili McMillan, Secretary -9816- DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Save the Lake Advisory Committee Minutes 11:30 a.m., Wednesday, October 24, 2001 LMCD Conference Room CALL TO ORDER. McMillan called the meeting to order at 11:45 a.m. PRESENT. Lili McMillan, Chair; Herb Suerth, LMCD-Woodland; Dick Osgood, LMA; Paul Pedersen, Grays Bay Marina; John Barten, Hennepin County; Heidi Wolf, DNR MCC Watercraft Inspection Program; Tiffanie Knapp, DNR MCC Watercraft Inspection Program; Judd Harper, LMCD Administrative Technician. MINUTES FROM THE 10/4100 MEETING. The minutes from the 2/21/01 "Save the Lake" Advisory Committee meeting were accepted with the following change: Page two, Item two: "The Project, which was budgeted for $500 in 2000, sampled fi';~ .six sites on the lake." REVIEW OF LAKESCAPING PROJECTS McMillan explained that Fortin Consulting developed a shoreline buffer presentation to educate the public, planning commissions and city council's of member cities on the possibilities of shoreline planting, and the impact on the ecosystem. She stated that copies of the PowerPoint presentation would be available on CD ROM for the public use. McMillan stated that groups can obtain copies of the disk to present to planning commissions and city councils, but having Fortin Consulting or an LMCD Board Member present the material would be much more effective. REVIEW OF ZEBRA MUSSEL PROJECTS Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) Zebra Mussel Monitoring Osgood explained that 2001 was the LMA's second year utilizing sampling kits from the MN Sea Grant to test Lake Minnetonka for zebra mussels. The project, which was budgeted out of the Save the Lake Fund for $500 in 2001, sampled six sites on Lake Minnetonkal Osgood stated that the most of the expenses for this project are lab costs. He reported that the volunteers found no traces of zebra mussels during the testing in 2001. McMillan told Osgood to submit a formal request by February if the LMA anticipated conducting the zebra mussel monitoring program in 2002. The Advisory Committee applauded the efforts of the volunteers in this project. Let's Keep Zebra Mussels out of Lake Minnetonka Osgood explained that this was a cooperative effort between the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) to research the process of keeping Zebra Mussels out of Lake Minnetonka. He explained that the LMCD and -9817- SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, 10124101, PAGE 2 the LMA have agreed to proceed with the first phase of a proposal submitted by Osgood, which consisted of identifying the stakeholders, creating a situation analysis and assembling the stakeholders. The situation analysis was created and the stakeholders were identified and contacted for a meeting to be held on October 30, 2001 at 7:00 at the Gray Freshwater Center. Osgood explained that this was the first meeting with all of the identified stakeholders invited with subsequent meetings having a narrower group of participants invited. REVIEW OF ON-GOING PROJECT~. McMillan stated that Hennepin Parks has conducted water clarity testing on Lake Minnetonka for a number of years. She commended the work of Hennepin Parks over the years. John Baden gave a summary of the 2001 water cladty testing to the advisory committee and explained that the full water clarity report would be available in late fall. The Advisory Committee also commended the efforts of Hennepin Parks and John Baden on this project. Baden stated that he would continue the project in 2002 and submitted a request for $2,500 of Save the Lake funds for the 2002 Lake Minnetonka Water Clarity · Testing project. McMillan asked Baden if it was possible for him to write up a shod summary about the water quality of individual bays that have been sampled. She suggested that this would be good information to be placed on the LMCD web site. Baden agreed and stated he would work on it as his schedule allows. OTHER BUSINESS McMillan introduced Tiffany Knapp and Heidi Wolf of the DNR MCC Watercraft Inspection Program. They explained that their program was a watercraft exotic species inspection program, which is legislated to complete 20,000 inspection hours on public water accesses throughout the state. They stated that as the number of bodies of water in Minnesota becomes infested with exotics, the program has to reallocate its resources statewide. Knapp and Wolf explained that in the 2000 season, 13.3% of the watercraft inspection efforts were at accesses on Lake Minnetonka and during the 2002, the efforts are projected to be reduced to 6.7%. They proposed a pilot effort between the Minnesota DNR and the LMCD to cooperatively hire watercraft inspectors for the summer of 2002 to make up the decrease in coverage on Lake Minnetonka. The · Advisory Committee discussed: The possibility of tying in the DNR inspector program with the "Let's keep Zebra Mussels Out Of Lake Minnetonka" project. Concerns with the current scheduling of the watercraft inspectors and the ability to have influence on scheduling the inspectors at certain accesses during specific days and times. The limitations of the inspectors with enforcement. Knapp and Wolf explained that if a boater refuses to have their boat inspected and are in obvious violation of state exotic species transportation laws, the inspector can call DNR Conservation Officers or local law enforcement officers to assist. They also explained that the -9818- SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, 10124101, PAGE 3 * ~ DNR could provide training to dock attendants at the new public access on Grays Bay. It was also discussed that training could be given to local law enforcement officers and seasonal workers at private marinas. The Advisory Committee agreed that this could be a potential project in the future and should continue communication with the DNR on this issue. McMillan and the committee discussed the working with Hennepin County to put solar lights on some of the buoys around Lake Minnetonka to improve night navigation. This was discussed as a potential new project for 2002 from the Save the Lake Fund. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, McMillan adjourned the meeting at 1:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lili McMillan, Chair Save the Lake Advisory Committee -9819- Xov 19 Z801 17:Z7:89 Via Fax AMM FAX -> Kandis Hanson Page 882 Of 88Z PartnemhipS in providing services and solutions November 19-23, 2001 Just a Reminder! Please RSVP for AMM Regional Meetings by calling (651) 215 - 4000. Wednesday, Nov. 28: Ramsey County Cities 7:30 - 9:00 a.m., Arden Hills City Haft Washington County Cities 3:30 - 5:00 p.m., Oakdale City Hall Thursday, Nov. 29: Dakota County Cities 7:30 - 9:00 a.m., Eagan City Hall Anoka County Cities 3:30.5:00 p,m., Coon Rapids City Halt Friday, Nov. 30: Hennepin County Cities 7:30 - 9:00 a.m., Minnetonka City Hall Thursday, Dec. 6: Carver & Scott County Cities 3:30 - 5:00 p.m., Chaska City Hall Metropolitan Council Updates Proposed 2002 Operating Mondale Announces Committee Budget Amended and Staff Reorganization At its November 14 meeting, the Met- ropolitan Council made several changes to the Councirs :2002 pro- posed budget, including a $435,000 reduction in the proposed general op- erating levy. This would result in a $4.6 million general operating levy for 2002, which reflects a 4 percent in- crease over the 2.00I levy, However, the levy reduction will not reduce spending by the same amount. The budget for the commu- nity development division will be re- duced by $135,000, and reserves will be used to cover approximately $300,000 of the levy reduction, Other budget changes were proposed in the environmental services division and debt service. Capita[ Budget and Program Approved for Public Hearing The Metropolitan Council's 2002 Pro- posed Capital Budget and 2002-2007 Capital Improvement Program have been approved for public hearing, The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, December 12. The pro- posed 2002 capital budget appropria- tion is $545 million, of which $385,3 million is for transit projects, The largest single transit item is $229.3 million for the Hiawatha Corridor light rail line, Copies of capital budget and capital improvement program are available from the Metropolitan Coun- cil by requesting publication number 21-00-011. - 9820- Metropolitan Council Chair Ted Mondale has also proposed several changes to the Metropolitan Council's committee and staff struc- turos, including the creation of a new Regional Growth Strategy Commit- tee to direct development of the 2030 Blueprint. The committee will consist of all Council members and is scheduled to meet twice a month. Frank Hornstein will chair the com- mittee and Carolyn Rodriguez will be vice chair. The staff reorganization will consoli- date all policy plans under the juris- diction of the deputy regional admin- istrator for policy planning. Former Councilmember and current Com- munity Development Director Caren Dewar will fill this new position, The community development division and the policy planning units of all oper- ating agencies will report to Ms, Dewar. Association tunicipalities 145 Univers#)' Avenue F/est St. Paul, MN $$105.2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: amrrt~.),amml 4 $.or~, ,~MM Fax News is foxed to all ~IMM city managerx and administralors, le,gJ$1ativ~ con. tacts altd Board ~ne~nbers. Please ~'har¢ this rio; with your map'ors, councilmembers and staff to lieep thorn abreast of important metro city issues. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT Oct. 2001 83.33% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments TOTAL REVENUE Oct. 2001 YTD BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE 1,429,370 0 732,752 4,340 0 7,295 160,920 47,799 231,739 970,380 61,019 551,962 132,750 1,737 105,820 100,000 7,731 73,202 142,400 441 113,146 153,000 0 0 12.500 8_~2 10,823 VARIANCE (696,618) 2,955 70,819 (418,418) (26,930) (26,798) (29,254) (153,000) (1,677) PERCENT 51.26% 168.09% 144.01% 56.88% 79.71% 73.20% 79.46% 0.00% 86.58% 3.105.660 118.809 1,826,739 (_1.278.921) 58.82% FIRE FUND 403,270 50,364 RECYCLING FUND 121,880 11,491 LIQUOR FUND 1,900,000 149,326 WATER FUND 510,000 49,502 STORM WATER UTILITY 101,000 9,579 SEWER FUN D 990,000 106,919 CEMETERY FUND 6,250 25 DOCK FUND 81,350 314 423,O33 113,157 1,557,158 385,956 80,126 873,186 , 3,405 70,233 19,763 (8,723) (342,842) (124,044) (20,874) (116,814) (2,845) (11,117) 04.90% 92.84% 81.96% 75.68% 79.33% 88.20% 54.48% 86.33% 11/19/2001 rev01 Gino -9821 - CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT Oct. 2001 83.33% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers Oct. 2001 BUDGET EXPENSE 81,320 4,000 48,000 229,430 2 300 73 450 196 830 18 950 118 980 1,125 850 6 950 261 980 496 120 80 440 247 740 42,260 25,000 206,740 YTD PERCENT EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED 9,457 74,255 7,065 91.31% 0 4,000 0 100.00% 0 36,396 11,604 75.83% 15,944 152,528 76,902 66.48% 0 179 2,121 7.78% 8 77,400 (3,950) 105.38% 14,031 149,315 47,515 75.86% 28,842 69,231 (50,281) 365.34% 18,068 111,755 7,225 93.93% 78,406 831,937 293,913 73.89% 44 3,779 3,17t 54.37% 30,341 217,364 44,616 82.97% 43,070 444,345 51,775 89.56% 11,608 109,997 (29,557) 136.74% 13,807 204,861 42,879 82.69% 0 0 42,260 0.00% 146 65,560 (40,560) 262.24% 15,847 158,469 48,271 76.65% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 3~266,340 279,619 2,711,371 554,969 ..8.3.01% 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 29,664 305,487 110,363 73.46% 37,294 523,027 (523,027) 23,804 118,463 17,017 87.44% 40,117 289,530 42,920 87.09% 32,342 433,789 44,831 90.63% 1,221 22,837 689,163 3.21% 86,869 833,500 114,710 87.90% 900 2,874 4,626 38.32% 18,489 168,760 (24,140) 116.69% Exp-01 11/19/2001 Gino -9822- General Fund $1,430,915 CDBG 1,639 Area Fire Protection Services 353,039 MSA 21,338 Sealcoat (59,535) PW Facility 94,999 931,381 Capital Improvement CDB 1,302 Commerce Place TIF (93,203) Downtown TIF 1-2 (1,465~981) Grant Revolving 5,525 Recycling 82,448 Liquor Store 1,601,451 Water 1,381,410 Storm Water 803,084 Sewer 977,685 Cemetery 2,041 Dock 157,563 Fire Relief (72,599) 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 f~)m the independent auditor is performed and an official Comprehensive Report will be presented to the City Council and made available to interested parties. In no way this schedule is intended to represent balances of funds available for spending. 11/19/2001 CashReportCouncil Gino -9823- GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 18D North [Vlichigan Avenue, Suite BDO, Chicago, Illinois 80801 312/977-9700 · Fax: 312/977-4806 November 08, 2001 Ms. Kandis M. Hanson City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1687 Dear Ms. Hanson: We are pleased to notify you that your comprehensive annual finan- cial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000 qualifies for a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. The Certificate of Achievement plaque will be shipped to: Mr. Gino Businaro Finance Director under separate cover in about eight weeks. We hope that you will arrange for a formal presentation of the Certificate and Award of Financial Reporting Achievement, and that appropriate publicity will be given to this notable achievement. To assist with this, enclosed are a sample news release and the Certificate Program "Results" for reports with fiscal years ended during 1999 repre- senting the most recent statistics available. We hope that your example will encourage other government offi- cials in their efforts to achieve and maintain an appropriate standard of excellence in financial reporting. Sincerely, GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Director/Technical Services Center SJG/ds WASHINGTON OFFICE 1750 K Street, N.W., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20008 202/429-2750 · Fax: 202/429-2755 -9824- GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 1@0 No~h Michigan Avenue, Sui~ BOO, Chicago, Illinois 60601 312/97~97OO · Fax: 312/@7~4B06 November 8, 2001 For information contact: NEWS RELEASE Stephen Gauthier (312) 977-9700 (Chicago)--The Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Finan- cial Reporting has been awarded to: City of Mound, MN by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) for its comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR). The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplish- ment by a government and its management. An Award of Financial Reporting Achievement has been awarded to the individual(s), department or agency designated by the government as primarily responsible for preparing the award- winning CAFR. This has been presented to: Gino Businaro, Finance Director The CAFR has been judged by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of the program.including demonstrating a construc- tive "spirit of full disclosure" to clearly communicate its financial story and motivate potential users and user groups to read the CAFR. The GFOA is a nonprofit professional association serving approximately 14,000 government finance professionals with offices in Chicago, Illinois, and Washington, D.C. - 30 - WASHINGTON OFFICE 1750 K Street, N.W., Suite 350, Washington, DC 20OO6 202/429-2750, Fax: 202/429-2755 -9825- Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative Agenda-November 16, 2001, 7:15 - 9:00 a.m. Mound City Hall 1. Social - Coffee, tea, rolls, fruit and juice start at 7:15 2. Introductions 7:30 3. Additions or Changes to the Agenda / Minutes 4. Announcements (10 min.) 5. Nominations for chair and vice chair for 2002 (10 min.) 6. Zero Gravity Skate Park Update (15 min.) The budget for the skate park is complete. We are moving into the fund raising phase and need help from everyone. 6. Student Survey Data, Kathy Jones (30 min) Kathy will cover the newest student survey data. Every three years, the questions are asked of students in 6th, 9th, and 12th grade. 'Where is no cause half so sacred as the cause of a people. There is no idea so uplifting as the idea of the service of humanity." Woo&ow Wilson Any comments or questions, call Leah Weycker, Collaborative Coordinator, at 952-491-8058 or WeyckerL @ westonka.k 12. mn. us -9826- Work Group Updates Health Sandy Olstad, Laurie Fitz, Mary Go0de, Jeanette Metz, Mark Brekke The Health Group is working on a public health model of suicide awareness. Youth Activities Sandy Rauschendorfer-temp chair, Jean Ann Thayer, Patsy Kiesow A detailed list of the supplies that we need to build the skate park are done. The task force is moving into fund raising mode. We will be presenting to the WHCC. The After School Activity Bus first quarter data will be reviewed. Parenting Sandy Wing, Sandy Olstad, Bill Erickson The Allies for Change grant involving Parent Mobilization is in draft form. The grant is for designing and maintaining a web site and a parent newsletter for middle and high school families. Community Margaret Holste, Cathy Bailey, Cheryl Fischer This group has not met. Communications Anne Wilbur, Carol Olson The annual report is done and will be printed before the end of the month. This small group is working on a donor packet of information for the skate park. Finance and Operations Mary Hughes, Len Harrell, Margaret Holste, Craig Anderson This group has not needed to meet. Executive Craig Anderson, Carol Olson, Margaret Holste, Sandy Wing, Sandy Raushendorfer The Executive Group reviewed the annual report. Alliance for Families and Children in Hennepin County We are working on the Primary Project. We viSited the Hopkins Primary Project site. We explained the project to the Shared Decisions groups at Shirley Hills, Hilltop and District Guidance group. We are looking for a "child associate" that will play with the individual child. The person is key for the suc- cess of the program. -9827- Westonka Health Community Collaborative Minutes - Ootober 26, 2001 Present: Craig Anderson, Sandy Olstad, Kathy Jones, Jean Ann.Thayer, Jonathan Engle (CASH), Mary Hughes, Brian Powers, Laurie Fitz, John Braland, Sandy RaUschendorfer, Bill Erickson, Deb Truesdell (Hennepin County Rep.), Carol Olson, Mark Brekke, Margaret Holste, Leah Weycker 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda or Minutes: The minutes had not been distributed to everyone, so they were tabled until the next meeting. 2. Announcements: · Jean Ann Thayer shared that two large banners will be made for the entrances at Grandview Middle School using the words from Our Welcome Back t-shirts and magnets. There will also be 25 smaller banners with these words to be hung throughout the building. · A chemically free student group has started at the High School called "Hip and Free." They will help with Chemical Health Week and hope to have a kick-off event at St. John's in the Harbor. · Several WHCC members recently met with the Shared Decisions team at the High School to discuss ideas for involving parents. They recommended doing a newsletter or developing a website. Kathy Jones also has information for a parent newsletter giving parenting ideas to promote asset development but needs someone to do the layout. We discussed doing her newsletter jointly with WriCO through our parent mobilization grant. We will write the grant for our $13,000 to include these ideas. Leah plans to check into websites including linking to the school district, cities, and WeCAN's websites. John Braland offered that he has some contacts for this as does Marcy from CASH. · Carol Olson reported that CASH will become the fiscal agent for the Alliance. A subgroup was formed to make recommendations about the use of LCTS funds. · · Jonathan Engle(from CASH) is available to assist us with grant writing but asked that he be given plenty of lead time. · Deb Truesdell will be our representative from Hennepin County as Patricia Anderson has changed jobs. Deb shared that Patricia was sad to leave our group and says "goodbye" to all of us. · Stephanie Nelson had a baby girl in July. · The Family Support Program for victims of domestic abuse has changed it's phone number. The new number is 612-381-0695. · WHCC meeting dates were shared. Leah challenged each of us to ask one new person to join the WriCO or a work group. · Carol Olson and Leah are completing the annual report. They will include it in the "New Member Packet" when it's completed. · We have received $20,000 from the Alliance for our school district to implement the Primary Project pre-K to grade 3. The program brings students together with a "child ass?_iate" in a series of weekly sessions. The goal of the program is improving these student s connection to school. We plan to implement the program in January. Carol and Leah are going to visit the Hopkins site on November 1 and welcomed others to join them. · Laurie Fitz shared that Headstart now has 14 children enrolled with the program maximum being 20. 3. Laurie Fitz, the new Executive Director for WeCAN, shared information about their programs. She shared a brief history of WeCAN and social action in the.Westonka area. Besides the director, there are three part-time staff persons who handle Meals on Wheels, the jobs program, and family advocacy and volunteer coordination. As trends become apparent, Laurie is hopeful that WHCC would help determine ways to respond to meet identified needs. She is'also working on ways to have the outlying communities in the service area feel more a part of WeOAN. 4. Kathy Jones shared initial information from the MN Student Survey and will share more at our next meeting. Although the trends since the survey began in 1989 are showing decreased use of -9828- tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, and decreased sexual behaviors, sUicide attempts among gids seem to be increasing as they get older and over time. 5. Mark Brekke shared a proposal for Suicide Prevention that focuses on education of all sectors of the community to increase awareness of depression using the SAVE Community Action Kit. Laurie shared information about a person who would work with students to develop a theater production on the topic. The Health Work Group plans to meet today to further develop the plan and review potential funding. 6. Since there was not sufficient time to solicit volunteers, Craig will appoint a nominating committee who will seek candidates for WHCC officers. Carol Olson made the motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Craig. The motion passed. Margaret Holste, Recorder -9829- LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE .5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525.6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Kandis Hanson ChiefLen Harrell Monthly Report for October, 2001 STATISTICS~ The police:department responded to 888 Calls' for service during the month of October. There were 32 Part I ,o~fen~es reported. Those offenses include ! criminal sexual conduct~ 2' aggravated assault, 13 burglary, 3 vehicle theft, and 14 larcenies. ? Z,i There were 74 Part II offenses reported. abuse, harassment, and 31 ~Other offenses, Those offenses include 2 child 3 weapon, 6 7 domestics (4 with assaults), 5 The p trol &wmon issued: 105 adUlt~mtatlons and 5 juvenile citation. Parking V o!ations accounted for an additional 14 tickets. Warnings were issued to ~71'individ~als fora Variety of violatiOnS. ';.. There were.i adult:.~d 2 jiiveniie felons arrested, and 23 adults and 11 J felony warrants, 6 The were 32 other occasions~ ¢ injuries. There Mound assisted assistance on 2 -9830- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - October, 2001 II. INVESTIGATIONS The Investigators worked on 1 child protection, 1 adult protection case, and 1 criminal sexual conduct in October. Other cases included robbery, burglary, assault, theft, stolen vehicle, domestic assault, possession of a controlled substance, identity thefL indecent conduct, damage to property, fraud, deprivation of parental fights, NSF checks, forgery, weapons, harassing, and absenting. Formal complaints were issued for minor consumption of alcohol, noise, domestic assault, and worthless checks. III. PERSONNEL/STAFFING The department used approximately 113 ours of overtime during the month of October. Officers used 44 hours of comp-time, 30 hours of sick time, and 158 hours of vacation and 6 holidays. Officers earned 72 hours of comp time. IV. TRAINING The depaxtment provided in-service training in the form of defensive tactics. Officers attended "Scanning & Interviewing", Crime Prevention, Intoxilyzer refresher, and a seminar concerning anthrax. Harrell attended the IACP Conference and was the moderator and panelist in the community policing presentation. V. COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER CSO Salter handled 336 calls for service including 50 animal complaints, 62 ordinance violations, and 222 miscellaneous calls. Two citations were issued. VI. RESERVES The reserves donated 135 hours to the community in October. The unit currently has nine members who contribute on a regular basis. -9831 - Chief Len Harrell and Officer Jason Swensen were invited to the Minnesota Chapter of the American Society of Industrial Secudty to make a presentation regarding our ITT/IACP Community Policing Award and to accept recognition for the "use of Best Practices to Protect Citizens by the enhancement of law enforcement services." The plaque was presented at a luncheon on November 8, 2001, at the Thunderbird Hotel in Bloomington. -9832- THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -9833- Metropolitan Council Building communities that' work Mears Park Centre, 230 E. Fifth St., St. Paul, MN 55101 KANDiS HANSON ,CITY MANAGER CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD RD MOUND MN 55364--1627 STANDARD U.S. POSMGE PAll? MINNEAPOLIS, MN PERMIT NO. 1610 !.'O NS Blueprint for, Shaping a region that Works Metropolita________~n Cou___ncij · Building communities that work PUBLICATIONS, · Regional E'arks 2002 Afap & Guide - ' ' see "In Brief" above. $1 if mailed'. Free i! picked up at CounCil's Data Center, regional park Partners, Department of ' Natural Resources Information Center and major libraries.. '· Framework. for the B[uep~int 203~, no charge; also ~vailable online at: www. metrocouncil.org/planning/ blueprint2030_ouerview, hbn * Summary of 2000-2001 Twin Cities · Annual Survey;, $2.50. · 2002-2004 TransportaUon Improvement Program $8. · Blue Sky Guide i $20. To order these and more online: www. metrocounciLorg/metroarea/ pubmain.asp Or call Regional Data Center, 65~-602-1140 (651-291-0904 TI'Y). Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 2001 Present: Chair John Beise, Commissioners Derrick Hentz, Ron Motyka, Gene Hostetler, Susan Taylor, and City Council Representative Peter Meyer. AlSo present: Parks Director Jim Fackler, Recording Secretary Sue Schwalbe. Absent and excused: Norman Domholdt Citizens present: none Chair Beise called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 11, 2001 POSC MINUTES MOTION by Motyka second by Hostetler to approve the October 11, 2001 Parks and Open Space Meeting Minutes. MOTION carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES None 3. INTERVIEW PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION CANDIDATES Chair John Beise and Commissioner Norman Domholt commissions' expire December 31, 2001 are up for re-election. Both applicants have submitted the proper application forms. MOTION by Taylor second by Motyka to recommend to the Mound City Council approval of Chair Beise and Commissioner Motyka for another term to the Parks and Open Space Commission. MOTION carried unanimously. ,4. REVIEW: EXISTING PARK AND NATURE AREA INVENTORY SHEET COMBINED WITH ITEM #5 REVIEW: PARK AND NATURE INVENTORY See attached spreadsheet as updated by the Commission. Commission requested old and new spreadsheets in packet. -9836- Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 MOTION by Taylor second by Hentz to approve the changes as attached. MOTION carried unamiously. 6. REVIEW: CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENDITURES FOR 2001 Staff provided capital out information to commission for review. 7. REVIEW: KIDS WALKING MAP Staff provided information to the commission for review purposes only. 8. REVIEW: DECEMBER AGENDA ADD: Park and Nature Inventory with colored map ADD: Community Service Officer Michelle Salter for presentation regarding storage on public lands. REPORTS CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE PETER MEYER > Kells Lane Vacation still in the data gathering stage. > Ground breaking at Metro Plains site. PARK DIRECTOR JIM FACKLER ;> Budget process in moving forward. Tuesday's Council Meeting will be informative. A substantial amount of money is to be cut. > Avalon park ramp installed to direct snowmobilers. Commissioner Taylor thank staff for the survey results in the packet. Very informative. -9837- Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission Minutes November 8, 2001 Commissioner Hentz reported on the Island Park Task Force. The City Council approved $7,800.00 for a feasibility study. A report will be forthcoming in the next month. MOTION by Hentz, second by Motyka to adjourn meeting at 10:15 p.m. MOTION carried unamiously. -9838- ZZOZ -9839- Mound Advisory Docks and Commons Commission November 15,2001 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY DOCKS COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 2001 Present: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Mark Goldberg, Frank Ahrens, Greg Eurich, Gerald Jones and City Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Katie Hoff, and Recording Secretary Sue Schwalbe Citizens Present: Pat Meisel, Bartlett Blvd. David and Betz Gorman, 2440 Chateau Lane Steve Arne and Ingrid Pearson, 4823 Lanark Road James and Debra Powers, 1791 Resthaven Lane Mike Chitko, 3301 Warner Lane Cathy Bailey, 1554 Bluebird Lane Mary Ellen Storlien, 1595 Dove Lane Ken Reich, 1582 Canary Lane Pamela Janish, 1591 Eagle Lane Eisa Watson, 4610 Tuxedo Blvd. Kelly Anderson, 1733 Gull Lane Darlene Duchbjork, 2189 Fairview Lane Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 20,2001 DOCKS AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES MOTION by Jones second by Goldberg to approve the September 20, 2001 Docks and Commons Advisory Commission Minutes with the following change: Page 3, paragraph 9 "Ahrens stated the fund has a significant $192,000.00 fund balance. Therefore, was can project increases. CORRECTION: Ahrens stated the fund has a significant $192,000.00 fund balance. Therefore we do not need to increase fees at this point." MOTION carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES See revised agenda. -9841 - Mound Advisory Docks and Commons Commission November 15,2001 Item #6 Sarah Smith cannot attend meeting. This item tabled until December 2001 meeting. Motion by Funk second by Goldberg to approve handout agenda as revised. MOTION carried unanimously. INTERVIEW DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION CANDI DATES Chair Jim Funk and Commission Greg Eurich terms expire the end of the year. Each has submitted the appropriate application. Michael McGreeney and Corey Huson have submitted the appropriate applications. Only the incumbents are in attendance and have chosen not to interview. MOTION by Goldberg second by Ahrens to recommend to the Mound City Council approval of Chair Funk and Commissioner Eurich for another term to the Docks and Open Space Commission. Discussion: the Commissioners agreed all the applicants seemed well qualified. However it is not the preference of the Commission to have like members. To be a Commissioner requires many hours of time and much effort. Corey Huson does not qualify, as he is not in the Docks Program. MOTION carried unanimously. Mark Goldberg stepped down at 9:30 p.m. 4. DISCUSS: PROPOSED SLIP USAGE REQUIREMENTS In previous years the City of Mound has seen a steady increase in requests from residents for municipal dockage for their boats. Currently there are ninety individuals on the 2001 Dock Waiting List. This list in 1999 was in the twenties and in 2000 grew into the forties. A question has been raised by those on the Waiting List along with the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) and city staff as to why there are slips on city docks sitting vacant of a boat throughout the boating season. In an attempt to see that the Municipal Slips are utilized to their fullest extend in 2002 the DCAC has recommended a change to the Mound City Code Section #437 Dock License. The Commission requested staff to investigate usage. This change has been mailed to all multiple slip holders as a proposed draft. -9842- Mound Advisory Docks and Commons Commission November 15, 2001 Some residents stated they did not receive a copy of ordinance; however they did receive the letter indicated the meeting. Fackler then briefly explained the proposed changes in the Ordinance. Chair Funk then opened the public meeting. Questions, comments and concerns were directed to the Commissioners and staff. Pamela Janish, 1591 Eagle Lane, Woodland Point. The multiple slips are more visible. Why is there a difference between multiple slip dock holders and abutting dock holders. Commissioner Goldberg stated he is in favor of limiting this ordinance to the multiples at this time. Chair Funk agreed. Eisa Watson, 4610 tuxedo Blvd. Very against the idea of separating multiples and other dock usage. Knows of people who have not used their docks for numerous years. Dave Gorman, 2440 Chateau Lane, Carlson Park. How many non-users in the multiple areas as compared to the others? Fackler stated this is just a starting point. Gorman asked if there are any plans to dredge at Carlson Park. Fackler stated that in depends on the weather and water height. Also this area might be handled by the Storm Water Management Plan. Mary Ellen Storlein, 1595 Dove Lane in Three Points. She was assigned a dock on the south end of Bluebird Lane and trailers her boat most of the time. Her boat is in the lake on the weekends. During the week it is in her garage due to algae, etc. Chair Funk stated the Commission is not trying to take away any ones dock. City Council Representative Hanus stated the Commission needs to define "usage". The intention is that the site gets used. Stipulations are in the Ordinance for most of the conditions mentioned. Fackler indicated most of these conditions are addressed in the Ordinance. Basically staff needs to be notified. Kelly Anderson 1733 Gull Lane. Does not want to micromanage her summer in regards to having to notify the city of her plans. Fackler stated this is a simple telephone call to staff for notification of a vacant slip for an extended period of time. It is less costly to the taxpayers if staff is notified instead of requiring staff to locate and contact owners. Staff indicated that all individual circumstances cannot be recognized in an ordinance. This is a learning process and we should concentrate on the intent of the ordinance. Staff does not have the budget to do investigations. Pam Janish, 1591 Eagle Lane, Woodland Point. Does not want to notify the city each and every time she leaves her dock. -9843- Mound Advisory Docks and Commons Commission November 15, 2001 Hanus explained that these slips will be checked more than once and other indications will be examined as to whether or not a slip is being used. Commissioner Jones stated staff will be flexible and reasonable with residents. The Commission cannot write into an ordinance every possible situation that might arise. All other communities that have city owned docks have a similar program like this ordinance. This is reasonable and flexible; especially compared to other communities. The city has spent a considerable amount of money on these docks and would like to see them used. Chair Funk agrees. This program will be run with a number of different observations to determine if a dock is being used or not. Darlene Duchbjork, 2189 Fairview Lane. Waited two years for a dock slip. Then had to wait to get a better location. Has had a boat in her slip on and off. When there is a lot of rain she pulls her boat out. Feels shut into a corner having to notify the city as to why her boat is not at her dock. Last year her boat was not in the water at all. Just because the population is growing is no reason for this policing. Hanus stated the waiting list now is approximately 10 years for a slip. Eisa Watson, 4610 Tuxedo Blvd. Other communities have a waiting list for docks. Some for more than 15 years. Believes if a boat is not registered to the dock then that resident should not be issued a slip. Mike Chitko, 3301 Warner Lane, Whipple Shores. Has a successful multiple slip situation. Will the resident be able to review the criteria as to any changes that are made? Staff would like to have this into place by the 2002 application process. This is scheduled to go to the City Council November 27, 2001. Staff indicated this needs to be decided tonight. Hanus explained that there is also an appeal process. If notice is received by a resident, the situation can be appealed. Mike Chitko, 3301 Warner Lane. Agrees with filling empty slips. This program is not a right but a privilege. If communication has to be made with the city, that seems fair. Public Meeting closed at 8:20 p.m. Chair Funk thanked the public for comments and concerns. Funk explained this Ordinance cannot cover every scenario. Staff can judge and administer this Ordinance reasonably. -9844- Mound Advisory Docks and Commons Commission November 15, 2001 Fackler indicated to the Commission that as this plays out through the summer season, the Commission can revisit this Ordinance the end of September and/or October. This could be an annual item on the agenda for review. Staff is not expecting to many appeals. All appeals will be reviewed by the Dock Commission. There was not opposition to the dates in this Ordinance. MOTION by Ahrens second by Eurich to recommend to the Mound City Council approval of proposed Ordinance Section 437 Dock License. Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council November 27 at 7:30 p.m. for approval for 2002. Hanus stepped down at 8:30 p.m. 5. REVIEW: PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT The applicant is John Anderson, the location is 1733 Gull Lane. Staff distributed digital pictures to the commission. The applicant is requesting a Public Lands Permit in order to commence grading activities within the Gull Lane right-of-way and Wiota Commons so that drainage in and around the lower level garage area can be appropriately diverted away from the existing home. The applicant has indicated that the property is subject to flooding problems due to improper drainage. The project includes the removal of the existing asphalt and curb within the Gull Lane right-of-way and re-grading activities in and around the Wiota Commons area in order to improve drainage. As it appears that some of the runoff is being generated from Gull Lane, the Public Works Department is offering assistance by removing the asphalt and curb in the proposed project area. Following grading activities, the right-of-way area and Wiota Commons areas will be properly restored including the installation of sod and/or landscaping elements. The property is recognized as having a special permit to allow the private structure (retaining wall) in the right-of-way. There are three (3) mature Oak trees located in and around the proposed project area. The condition of the trees should be evaluated by a qualified professional prior to the commencement of any grading activities so as to determine the health and condition of the trees as well as evaluate whether or not the trees can withstand the proposed construction activities. Additionally, a tree preservation plan should bed submitted. -9845- Mound Advisory Docks and Commons Commission November 15,2001 City Code Chapter 350 regulates shoreland management in the City of Mound. ,Specifically, topographic alterations and grading and filling activities are regulated by City Code Chapter 350:1225 Subd. 4 (B.) The project does not involve the construction or installation of any permanent structure in either the Gull Lane right-of-way or Wiota Commons areas. Staff recommends approval of the Public Lands Permit to undertake grading activities so that proper drainage can be accommodated. Staff recommends that the following be conditions of approval. ~ The applicants shall be responsible for all activities associated with the project with the exception of the asphalt and curb removal. ~ A tree condition report and preservation plan prepared by a qualified professional submitted to the City prior to the approval of the Grading Permit. ~ The permit is made subject to all suggested conditions from staff. Ahrens questioned if this is a city issue or a private issue. Fackler explained the road was in place prior to the road improvement. The wall is in the street right- of-way. The city is somewhat responsible. The new homeowner is looking at improving this area. Hanus arrived back at 8:35 p.m. Applicant Anderson stated they would like to speed up the process. The run off and water creates mold and they have spent considerable time and effort in cleaning, repainting, and sealing to rectify this problem. The applicant is willing to take on expenses to expedite this process. MOTION by Ahrens second by Fund to approve the 1733 Gull Lane Public Lands Permit Application as per staff recommendations and conditions. MOTION carried unanimously. This will be reviewed by the City Council on Tuesday December 11, 2001. b. James Powers, 1791 Resthaven Lane. Applicant present. The applicant is requesting an "after-the-fact" Public Lands Permit to allow a number of evergreen trees and retaining wall section to remain within Sunset Landing. Member of the Docks and Commons Commission are advised that is appears the landscaping elements were installed in the Sunset Landing right-of- -9846- Mound Advisory Docks and Commons Commission November 15, 2001 way in error by the builder, Superior Value Homes, when the new home at 1791 Resthaven Lane was constructed. Details regarding the proposed are contained in the application and survey that have been submitted. The applicant has expressed desire for the landscaping elements to remain in the public right-of-way so as to minimize overflow and runoff from the street and driveway areas as well as to buffer the public landing area from the new residential home. Staff recommends denial of the Public Lands Permit request from applicant to allow continued placement of the evergreen and retaining wall in the Sunset Landing right-of-way due to the following: As the evergreen trees continue to grow, they will encroach further into the Sunset Landing area thereby impacting access and parking. ~ It appears that the improvements that were installed can be easily relocated on to the applicant's property. There appears to be no public benefit of allowing the landscaping encroachments to continue on the City's property. Staff believes that the tree line help to provide a separation between Sunset Landing and the subject property and also enhances the visual appearance of the area. Hanus is concerned in regards to the property lines. Staff indicated the builder was asked to identify the property markers. The Planning Department issued a certificate of occupancy and the issue was dropped. Residents have complained that the trees are encroaching on the parking area. Plowing is an issue with staff because this area needs to be kept obstruction free and the blades will catch on the trees and the trees restrict the entrance. Commissioner Eurich stated the retaining wall and trees were installed after the certificate of occupancy. Applicant stated there is room to relocate the trees closer to the house; but would be difficult. There is a very Iow use of traffic on this site. (Eurich disagrees 6-8 trailers during the summer months). The applicant is happy with the privacy the trees provide. Staff recommends the homeowner provides a survey and flag all markers. The commission agrees that the property stakes need to be located before a decision can be made. Applicant will provide location of property stakes. MOTION by Funk second by Jones to table item until the applicant produces location of the property irons. Staff directed to include item on agenda after locations are confirmed. -9847- Mound Advisory Docks and Commons Commission November 15, 2001 MOTION carried unanimously. 6. REVIEW FLOW CHART/PROCEDURE MANUAL Item #6 Sarah Smith cannot attend meeting. This item tabled until December 2001 meeting. 7. DISCUSS: 2002 DOCK LOCATION MAP CHANGES The following changes were approved: · #54 changed from non-abutter to abutter. · 10220 was changed to an abutting site last year. · Page 77, Devon Multiple Site 42800G 18X8 small craft slip. This was eliminated previously. As Item #10 · Eliminate 42800H and 428001 on Devon Commons which were designated as temporary sites. · Highland Park on Page 78 the entrance was switched. This should be noted as a change. · 60835G was eliminated and then renumbered and 60835G, 60835H (should be permanent, second watercraft site), and 608351 (I needs to be eliminated.) Both 75 square feet and permanent. · Avalon Park questions regarding watercraft. Keep the larger size. Marking G and H as temporary sites then eliminate as the sites are not renewed. Leave lines 6 and 7 but change 8 and 9 as no longer temporary but remove MOTION by Funk second by Ahrens to extend the meeting by 15 minutes. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Funk second by Jones to approve the 2002 Dock Application changes as amended. MOTION carried unanimously. 8. REVIEW: 2002 PROPOSED RIP-RAPPING LOCATIONS. Staff suggested Commissioners to visit the sites. Tabled until January 2002. -9848- Mound Advisory Docks and Commons Commission November 15,2001 9. DISCUSS: SURVEY ON SECONDARY WATERCRAFTS ON MULTIPLE SLIP DOCKS TO BE SENT OUT IN DECEMBER. As per request of Commissioner Mark Goldberg, will be reviewed at December 2001 meeting. CALENDAR ADD IN DECEMBER: Discuss: Survey On Secondary Watercrafts on Multiple Slip Dock To Be Sent Out In December. ADD IN DECEMBER (IF COMPLETE) Public Lands Permit, John Power Staff requested Commission to review letter on page 127 of the packet. The buffer is dwindling. Staff believes in 2002 it is more than likely that the City will exceed the BSU. The shoreline study is being completed. Staff consulted with the LMCD. MOTION by Funk second by Jones to adjourn meeting at 10:15 p.m. -9849- 11/21/01 14:48 FAX 1 952 472 4771 THOMAS E. CASEY ~01 November 21, 2001 Mound City Council c/o Kandis Hanson, City Manager 5341 MayWood Road Mound, MN 55364 VIA FAX ONLY 472-0620 Re: City Council Vacancy - Special Election; Appointment of Interim Councilmember Dear city Council and Ms. Hanson, The 11/17/01 Laker newspaper reported that a process has been established to fill the City Council vacancy arising from the resignation of Kim Anderson. It appears that your intentions are to appoint a replacement though December, 2002. A special election will be held in conjunction with the November, 2002 general election to select a Councilmember to fill out the remaining two years. If the Laker is accurate, I offer the following comments: 1. The City Council has the disc=etlon to hold a special election before the next general election. Minn. Stat. 205.10 states, "Special elections shall be held in statutory cities to fill vacancies in elective city offices as provided in section 412.02, Subdivision 2a." Minn. Stat. 412.02, Subdivision 2a states that, if vacancy occurs before the first day to file an affidavit of candidacy for the next general election an_~d more than two years remain in the unexpired term, "... a special election shall be held at or before the next regular city election ..." 2. The special election can be held fairly ~uickl¥. Minn. Stat. 205.16, Subd. 4 states that the municipal clerk shall provide a written notice of the election date and the offices to be voted on at least 49 days before the election. At least two weeks' time is necessary to publish notice 'of the dates to file affidavits of candidacy. (See Minn. Stat. 205.13, Subd. 2.) However, the city is not bound by Minn. Stat. 205.13, Subd. la (pertaining to the 70-day time to filing affidavits of candidacy) because the statute pertains to municipal general elections only. However, even with the most generous interpretation of the statutes, a special election could be held by mid-February, 2002, Perhaps February 12, 2001 would be a good date - it's Lincoln's Birthday! 3. The Minnesota Legislature intended expeditious special elections. Although Minn. Stat. 351.055 applies only to prospective vacancies, it is clear that the legislature -1- -9850- 11/21/01 14:48 FAX 1 952 472 4771 THOMAS E. CASEY ~02 intended special elections to happen quickly when i~ stated, "If a future vacancy becomes certain to occur and ~he vacancy must be filled by a special election, the appropriate authorities may begin procedures leading to the special election so that a successor may be elected at the earliest possible time. For prospective vacancies that will occur as a result of a resignation, preparation for the special election ma~ begin immediatel~ after the written resignation is received by the official provided in section 351.01, subdivision 1." 4. It is not clear what the cost would be to hold a special election. In the event that the "cost of democracy" is a concern to some of you, I suggest that: (a) you obtain an itemized estimate of the cost to hold a special election; and (b) hold a public meeting to gain input from Mound citizens as to whether they think it is worth their tax dollars to hold a special election before the next general municipal election. 5. Balanced against any special election co~t are the benefitm the citizens of Mound will receive by 10-1/2 additional months of · demoar&ticall~ elected Cit~ Co~cil momberl! Because time is of the essence, please place this matter on the T~esda~, November 27, 20~1 city council agenda for discussion. Thank you. 2854 CambridgeILane Mour~d, MN 55364 (952) 472-1099 -2- -9851 -