The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-07-09PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2002 - 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. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE MINUTES: JUNE 25, 2002 REGULAR MEETING 3140-3144 *B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS 3145-3164 *C. APPROVE RESOLUTION AGREEING TO VOLUNTEER POLICE 3165-316g SERVICES FOR THE 2002 PGA CHAMPIONSHIP *D. APPROVE RESOLUTION AGREEING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL SERVICES WITH METROPOLITAN AIRPORT COMMISSION *E. APPROVE LICENSE FOR TREE REMOVAL COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.) PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CASE #02-18: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA LANGDON BAY SUBDIVISION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ROTTLUND HOMES/RH HOMES JIM STROMMEN OF KENNEDY & GRAVEN A. ACTION ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND REGULATION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHTS- OF-WAY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE AND REGULATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMITS AND APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE 3169-3175 3176 3177-3212 3213-3240 10. 11. 12. PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Co ACTION ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE GRANTING RELIANT ENERGY MINNEGASCO A NONEXCLULSIVE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION, DISTRIBUTION, MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF GAS ENERGY FOR PUBLIC USE AND TO USE THE PUBLIC WAYS AND GROUNDS FOR SUCH PURPOSE AND APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE ACTION REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT OF ENGINEERING COSTS FOR TRANMISSION LINE RELOCATION AND ACTION PROVIDING DIRECTION REGARDING THE UNDERGROUNDING OF TRANSMISSION LINES RELATED TO DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY ACTION ON REQUEST FROM LITTLE LEAGUE TO MODIFY LOST LAKE GREENWAY PROJECT AS IT RELATES TO THE TRAIL PLAN ACTION ON NUISANCE ORDINANCE AS IT PERTAINS TO VEHICLES AND SCREENING ACTION ON RESOLUTION DENYING REQUESTS OF BECKERS FOR NO- LOSS DETERMINATION AND EXEMPTION UNDER THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT ON FOUR LOTS IN THE CITY OF MOUND AND ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE ACTIONS OF CITY STAFF ACTION ON REQUEST TO REDUCE LETTER OF CREDIT FOR LANGDON WOODS SUBDIVISION ACTION RESETTING COUNCIL MEETING DUE TO ELECTION DAY: RECOMMEND 9/11 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. AMM Fax News B. LMCD correspondence C. Article: Mixed Masters D. Newsletter: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District E. Newsletter: Gillespie Center F. Article: Municipal Liquor Stores Boost Projects' Funding G. Public Safety building update H. Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative correspondence I. Letters: Students on phosphorous J. Minutes: Planning Commission - June 3 & 17 K. City Manager Sweden trip report 3241-3247 3248-3263 3264-3265 3266-3275 3276-3353 3354 3355-3356 3357-3376 3377-3382 3383-3390 3391 3392-3393 3394-3398 3399-3402 3403-3405 3406-3417 3418-3427 13. ADJOURN This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: www. cilyo, fmoutTd, com. More current meeting July 3, 2002 Mayor and Council Members: These letters should have also been included among the letters under Council Meeting Agenda item #6.C. Pardon me, please! Kandis H A RTER E D 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven, co m May 21, 2002 Mr. Harold Bagley Senior Attorney Xcel Energy, Inc. 800 Nicollet Mall, #2900 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Re~ CSAH 15 and the Mound Downtown Redevelopment Projects Detailed Engineering Cost Estimate - Cost Advance JAMES M. STROMMEN Attomey at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 Ermil: j strornmen@kennedy-graven .eom Dear Harold: Our office is holding a check in the amount of $18,240.00, as requested by Xcel and pursuant to the enclosed Resolution, a copy of which you have previously received. While the City Council adopted this Resolution on April 23, 2002, and we have sent a letter previously to Xcel informing it of this fact, no one from Xcel has requested these funds. The City has no indication that Xcel has moved forward on the detailed engineering cost estimate that is so important to the progress on the CSAH 15 and the Mound Downtown Redevelopment Projects. We assume that Xcel is moving forward with the engineering cost estimate at this time. Please be apprised that the advance of $18,240.00 is available pursuant to the City's April 23, 2002, Resolution. Sincerely, ~i~E ,/b~ & GRAVEN CHARTERED Zt~mm~~''~~''~ JMS:cr Enclosure cc: i anais Hanson Jo~ Cmeron Sco~ Jonson Jo~ De~ IMS-215025vl MU200-92 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION 02.50 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN ADVANCE TO XCEL ENERGY TO PERFORM A DETAILED ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE WHEREAS, the City of Mound (City)is undertaking redevelopment efforts in its downtown area, including the relocation and improvement of County Highway 15 as it. feed.s into the downtown area; and WHEREAS, these two related projects will cause Xcel- Energy (Xcel) to relocate its transmission facilities in the area; and,. WHEREAS, Xcel has represented that it mustperfo~ a detailed engineering cost estimate to determine the required or alternative new locations for. its transmission facilities, the cost of relocation and the relation of the relocation requirements to the County ~Highway 15 Changes and the City downtown redevelopment requirements; and WHEREAS, Xcel has requested that the City fund the cost of its detailed engineering cost estimate., estimated by Xcel to be $22~800, subject to a greater or lesser amount, depending on need; and, WHEREAS, Xcel agrees that the City rese~e~its right, to seek reim.bursement of the funds advanced and advances the funds on the assumption that the cost will be prudently incu~ed and the estimate will be expeditiously obtained, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED bythe City:Council :of~the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The advance of $18,240,00 to.Xcel .Energy.~for the purpose of the above~eferenced detailed er~ineering: cost estimate is hereby~ approved. The City Council will consider further advances at the request of Xcel Energy, and will approve requests~t,hat are determined by',the.CitY Council tobe reasonable and necessary. The foregoing resolutior~,-was moved.by COuncilmember Hanus~and, seconded by Councilmember Brown. The following voted in the affirmative; Brown, HanUs, Meisel, Osmek and Meyer. The following voted in the negative: None. Adopted by the City Council this 23rd day of April, 2002. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel H A RTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven.corn May 30, 2002 Mr. Harold Bagley Senior Attomey Xcel Energy, Inc. 800 Nicollet Mall, #2900 Minneapolis, MN 55401 JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 Email: jstrommen~kennedy-graven .com VIA US MAI-I, AND FASCIMILIE Re: CSAH 15-Mound Downtown Redevelopment-Detailed Engineering Estimates; Electric Franchise Comments Dear Harold: This letter is a follow-up to our earlier telephone communications. I trust you have received the $18,240 advance regarding the Xcel detailed engineering cost estimates. You had indicated that Xcel was in the process of carrying out this estimate even before receiving the payment, based on the agreement with the City. We have not discussed the timetable you expect to be needed for this cost estimate. The City is interested in receiving this information as soon as possible to keep the development process moving forward. Please provide me with an estimated report date. The City assumes that it will contain all of the information important to Xcel and the City regarding cost of relocation, cost relationsNp to the CSAH 15 and City Downtown Redevelopment Projects, separately, and other cost factors that would be necessary to know before moving forward with the physical relocation. IfI should be directed to another Xcel employee for the answer to these questions, please provide me with Ns or her name. I also received your comments to the proposed electric franchise between Xcel and the City. I will get back to you on your comments as soon as I have been able' to review these provisions with the City. If you have any questions please call. Very truly yours, james M' Strommen~'"'""""-"- ~IS:kjo Cc' JMS-215482vl MU200-96 KandiS Hanson John Cameron Bruce Chamberlin John Dean h A RTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven.com June 3, 2002 JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 33%9233 Email: j strommen~kennedy-graven .com Kandis Hanson City of Mound 5341 Mayw°0d Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1627 Re: City Advance to Xcel for Engineering Estimate Dear Ms. Hanson: This letter is a follow-up to the communications we have had regarding the City's agreement to advance funds to Xcel to study the engineering costs of its relocation in the County Road 15 - Mound Redevelopment Project, while reserving the City's right to recover those costs. The following is a brief discussion of the issues for consideration in deciding whether to seek reimbursement of the advanced funds. 1. Background. Since the comprehensive Right-of-Way Management Act was passed in 1997 and since the NSP v. Ci_ty of Oakdale decision was decided in 1999, Xcel and other utilities have objected to a number of issues that cities believe are allowed by law but are a change from past practice. The law clearly holds that utility facilities in public ground must relocate at their own expense. Prior to recent developments in the law, cities were asked to and paid for many of the costs associated with utility relocation during a public improvement project. This was particularly tree when undergrounding was required. Utilities such as Xcel realize that unless it promptly relocates, an entire development project is stalled. Such is the case in the establishment of detailed engineering cost estimates for the Mound project. Xcel will not move forward without these cost estimates. Xcel won't do it without payment from the City for the preliminary work. In an effort to keep the project moving while reserving its fights, the City agreed to advance these funds rather than to pay them outfight or refuse to pay. This means that the City could recover the recently authorized $18,240 and additional monies that may be requested by Xcel. Absent a compromise settlement, however, these are costs that must be recouped through a court proceeding. It is important for the City to know the costs and benefits of seeking recovery of these engineering estimate costs. 2. Discussion. It appears that the City will be asked to advance somewhere between $20,000-$25,000 for the estimates prepared by Xcel. This is an increasingly common issue between cities and Xcel so that this kind of demand is likely to be repeated. There would be no reason for Xcel to bear the cost itself as long as cities are paying the way. The law states that the cost of JMS-215497v 1 MU200-96 Kandis Hanson June 3, 2002 Page 2 relocation of facilities of a utility located in the public fight-of-way are to be bom by the utility, not the public body requesting or ordering the relocation. The only difference between an engineering cost estimate as to the relocation cost and the relocation itself, is the difference between physically relocating and preparing for that relocation. No court decision has clarified whether engineering cost estimates are a part of the relocation cost. The logic of the undertaking, assuming the utility needs the cost estimate before the relocation, is that it is a part of the relocation contemplated by the rule. This would be the basic City argument supporting the position that Xcel should not look to the City for payment for such costs. Xcel will take the position that relocation cost means the physical relocation and not related needs that ~e dictated by the project. In addition, Xcel knows that the cost of the estimate is usually going to be in the $20,000 range. For a city to seek a court determination over that amount of money is typically not going to have a very good cost-benefit ratio. For example, if this case were to go to court, the judge would be interested in a discussion of the law surrounding the cost of relocation and the other facts that enter into this project such as city/county effect, relocation from private land or "extra" cost associated with undergrounding of facilities. It is quite possible that the cost of arguing in court over the reimbursement could approach the amount at stake. If Xcel or the City were to appeal a decision by the district court, the cost of appeal would clearly exceed a $20,000 cost item. Nevertheless, this issue will arise again either in Mound or in some other city. Because the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance covers land use issues, it may be worth inquiring about coverage on an issue like this. The League has recognized the importance of issues involving right-of-way management and land use to cities around the state. It is probably best for the City to decide whether to seek reimbursement or not within the next couple of months. While the City may have up to two years or more after the advance to decide on a lawsuit to recover, waiting until the matter is "stale" is not likely to help the City in court. I suggest a decision by the City in July or earlier on whether to seek recovery of this advance. If you need any further information on this matter please call. Very truly yours, ,~~~ GRAVEN, CHARTERED James M. Strommen JMS:kjo cc: John Dean Jim Prosser Bruce Chamberlain JMS-215497vl MU200-96 COUNCIL BRIEFING July 9, 2002 Events Schedule: Don't Forget!! July 9 - 7:00 - HRA regular meeting July 9 - 7:30 - CC regular meeting July 11 - 7:00 - Music in the Park July 25 - City Hall closes at 2:30 for employee appreciation events July 23 - 6:30 - HRA regular meeting July 23 - 7:30 - CC regular meeting I will be on vacation July 4-14. Gino Businaro will act as City Manager in my absence, including at the July 9 meetings. #11. Moving the Council Meeting The Sept 10 meeting must be moved because it is primary election day. The 2003 Budget must be approved at first meeting of the month--before Sept 15. Pat leaves on vacation Sept 12. We set up for the election in the council chambers on Sept 9, leaving only Sept 11. I know that is not ideal for someone leaving on vacation the next day, but the only other option--holding the meeting the prior week--shortens up our time to complete the budget. This is not great but we feel it is the only option. Sorry. Other There will be a Public Safety building update at the July 23 meeting. The project is perfecting tracking the timeline set out in advance. The project land-use considerations will be heard by the Planning Commission later this month. The property next door will change hands mid-July, so attempts are being made to work with the ,new owner to purchase the triangle of land needed for parking. Have a fun holiday weekend! MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE ZS~ ZOO:) The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers of City Hall. Members Present: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, David Osmek and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Attorney, John Dean; City Manager, Kandis Hanson; City Clerk, Bonnie Ritter, Building Official, Matt Simoneau, City Planner, Loren Gordon; Sgt. John McKinley, Jim Prosser, Deb Grand, Donna Smith, Julie Luedke, Ann Eberhart, Todd Landon, Sue Pilling, Greg Kinney, Joel Krumm Consent Agenda: All items listed under the consent Ag:~d~::?re considered to be routine in nature by the Council and will be enacted ~i~ii~:'::~::roll~atl vote. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Cou~t~ember'~i~i~(~izen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the C~ent ,~genda ~considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING Mayo~~the meeting to ord~;i~!ii~::~32 p.~i!i:~iiiiii~::~d the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. MOTION by Brown, seconde~:~by O~:ek t°~prove the agenda. All voted in favor. Motion carried. :~?~ ?~?;~:; Hanus requeste~;;?~t ite~:: b~;~(~moved from the consent agenda for discussion. "::~:!:.~:::::~:.~::~ MOTION by BroW~?~;?;~¢conde~.~Sy Osmek to approve the consent agenda with the exclusion of item 3C:?Dpon~;~i~ call vote taken, all voted in favor. Motion carried. A. Approve minutes of the June 11,2002 regular meeting B. Approve payment of claims in the amount of $216,610.07. C. (removed) D. Approve 2002 Rip-rap Project E. Approve proposal from Brimeyer Group for Police Chief Search F. Approve appointment of City Manager as Director to Mound Marketplace Association -3140- Mound City Council Minutes - June 25, 2002 3C. PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT Fishers of Men have submitted applications for two fishing tournaments at Mound Bay Park, for August 3 and August 17, from 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Hanus wanted to discuss the request to waive the $300/day permit fee for these Public Gathering Permit applications. Though they claim to be a non-profit organization, there is a lot of prize money involved and they should be required to pay the fees for the permits. The fee for the permit is not to make money but to cover costs of park clean-up, additional satellite use, etc. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to approve the two Public Gathering Permits submitted by Fishers of Men, for August 3 and August 17, upon receipt of the $300/day permit fee. All voted in favor. Motion carried.' .~,~ii:::~i!??~ 4. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZEN!~i~?:~ESENT ON ANY ITEM D--~nn~'-~mi-~, ~n Drive, appeared before,,~t~i=~Council r~!~ing the regulations for garage sale signs. Mayor Meisel read a le~:ece ~ed from O~i~:'Lady of the Lake regarding signs for their upcoming Incredible l~tival:~? MOTION by Brown, seconded by agenda. All voted in favor. Motion carn~ 5. APPLICATION FOR LIVE MUStC Sue Pilling, 3005 Brighton music on August 2, 2002, the Sign Ordinance, to the the Council for a request for live ~ii~night. She stated that even though the application stated midnk to have the band stop at 10:00 p.m., which would comply~i~=G=ity ........ ~ance. ' MOTION by Sro~i!i~second'~iii'~iby "~i~i'~us to allow the live band at 3005 Brighton Blvd., with music to en~iii~;10:00 P.~iiiii There is no fee required for this permit as it is on private property. ,~i¥~i~eted in=~Vor. Motion carried. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS'~:~:::.ii~:'~': A. Zoninq ordinance to allow essential service and buildings by Conditional Use Loren Gordon explained that the ordinance up for consideration addresses three components, which are; public utility buildings that our code doesn't address today (tryng to anticipate the MCES lift station relocation to the Lynwood site), the Chateau watertower and the pumphouse at the Evergreen watertower site. The ordinance would also allow a conditional use for the Xcel substation if it changes locations by a few lots. Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. and asked for public input. No comments were heard so the public hearing was closed at 8:02 p.m. -3141 - Mound City Council Minutes - June 25, 2002 MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to pass the following ordinance. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 11-2002: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 350.310, 350.455, 350.640, AND 350.670 OF THE CITY CODE AS THEY RELATE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. B. Redevelopment Plan for Public Safety Facility Project Jim Prosser of Ehlers & Associates made comments relating to the findings that some of the area is blighted. The current public safety building is no longer able to function in the capacity it was originally designed for. It isi'¢i~='a state of dilapidation, with a concern for safety. The arrangement as it existsii~!~TM is faulty in terms of design as related to its use. There's a lack of prop~i~'~;~ii:,ation and light. He stated that SEH conducted an analysis and documented:ii~::~se fi~::~i~gs as part of their earlier report. The building doesn't work and t,~i~i?';~hole arra~i~ent requires redevelopment into a use more well suited ta~¢~=e site~?~?lt was ai'~::'found that the grade of the site doesn't a Iow other uses a=~i~s a?~° riate to consider redevelopment as described. Also the parkin~::~?~?~nd light ng factored nto the discussion. The building also doesn:.~eet ADA~[~dards as it now stands. Mayor Meisel opened the public heari='~ a~:~;m,' and asked for comments from the public. No comments W,~[~en, t~ayorMeisel closed the hearing at 8:06 MOTION by Brown, se;~::~"~O;:~::'~ adopt the following resolution A I voted in favor. Motion ' ":=~;~;~;~ .... RESOLUTIO~ ~:~. "::~?~:'~:' APPROVING REDEVELOPMENT ~::~.~:~ ~PROJ ECT AREA AN D PLAN. MO*IO~ by Hanus, "~;nded by Osmek to aOopt the followin~ resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carded. RESOLUTION NO. 02-71: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT, LEASE AGREEMENT AND CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT. 7. RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO RECONVENE HRA MEETING Mayor Meisel called for recess at 8:09 p.m. 8. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Meisel reconvened the City Council meeting at 8:17 p.m. -3142- Mound City Council Minutes - June 25, 2002 9, PRESENTATION OF INTERIOR DESIGN OF LIQUOR STORE Greg Kinney of Tushie Montgomery presented floor plan of the liquor store to the Council, along with interior material and color samples. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to approve the selections as appropriate and give authorization to proceed with interior design based on budget constraints. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Meisel called for a 10 minute recess at 8:35 p.m. Mayor Meisel called the meeting back to order at 8:47 p.m. 10. BUILDING OFFIClAL~ MATT SlMONEAU~ WITH OVER¥1EW OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Matt Simoneau gave a powerpoint presentation to the~¢Oun~iliiiii~n the policies and procedures of the Planning Department. Len( fdl:l~Wed regarding the use of Metro West for inspections, scheduling of in= point of contact is needed, instead of at times' times having to contact the City. It was noted ti the City was between Building Officials. Metro West was used when we had a we used exclusively them, and how Ha::~:' stated that one Metro West and at West was used solely when uested a report of how often often they were used when now. 11. REPORT ON ISLAND It was suggested that Public Works and Parks building can be hold until the space needs for the a couple of years. Then the fate of the MOTION by secon¢ refurbishing ~d Park gratitude and deel work won't be to cease with any further studies on at this time, and to disband the task force - expressing time that they put into this project. The Task Force's )e used in the future. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 11A. SIGN ORDINANCE (Item added to agenda earlier by unanimous vote) This item was added to the agenda following comments from residents regarding current enforcement of the ordinance regulating garage sale signs. John Dean suggested simply repealing the portion of the ordinance dealing with garage sale signs in the public way might be the thing to do at this time, until the entire ordinance can be reviewed and restructured. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Osmek to pass the following ordinance. All voted in favor. Motion carried. -3143- ORDINANCE NO. 12-2002: Mound City Council Minutes - June 25, 2002 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 365 OF THE CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO SIGNS, MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to direct staff to review the entire sign ordinance and present their findings to the Planning Commission for their comment and follow up to the City Council. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 12. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. AMM Fax news B. LMCD correspondence C. FYI: 2002 Elected Official Salary Survey D. Letter: Donna Smith on garage sale signs ~,~'~ E. Letter: Joanne Brandt on redevelopment - Mayor M~i§'el commented on this item because the a section of the subject letter sugge~t~ii~ie,[ connection as a property owner in the Lake Langdon Redevelopment ~i~i~t. ~i,Eeiterated that she has not been involved in the discussions of rede~10pment W~:9 related to the Lake Langdon District, and has abstained from~ing ~=.n maEe~:~e~a ning to th s district. Kandis will correspond with Ms?:~B[andt~d clari~ some of the points of the redevelopment that are obviously miS~'~e~ood. F. A~icle: thoughts about the gove[~aDce O. Repo~: Mound Police Depa~m~:~=.~20O~?~=~=~ H. Repo~: Finance Depa~ment- M~, 20~:~::~:~.~:::: :~ I. Repo~: Gift of charitabl~gambling:~[o:~:ed~':~" Fire Depa~ment J. LeEer: Follow-up w th..:~:~:'~ebeA~ on Mound City Days K. LMCC July schedule:~:~? L. Repo~: Public Saf~?Bui :~:~;;~ .::F:::::[ F :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 13. ADJOURN MOT~~o:~;~::'~econd'~by'::~6~mek to adjourn the meeting at 9:53 p.m. All voted in favor. Motio6::~:~:[ried. Mayor Pat Meisel Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -3144- JULY 9, 2002 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 062002SUE $366.00 062602SUE $500.18 070902 S U E $306,547.94 TOTAL $307,414.12 -3145- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/20/02 8:20 AM Page 1 Current Period: June 2002 Batch Name 062002SUE User Dollar Amt $366.00 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $366.00 $0.00 In Balance Refer 62002 TIMBERCREEK GOLF 6/25/2002 Cash Payment G 101-22801 Deposits/Escrow EMPLOYEE GOLF OUTING Invoice 062002 Transaction Date 6/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $366.00 Fund Summary 101 GENERALFUND $366.00 10100 Marquette Bank Mound $366.00 $366.00 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $366.00 $366.00 -3146- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/26/02 9:45 AM Page 1 Current Period: June 2002 Batch Name 062602SUE User Dollar Amt $500.18 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $500.18 Refer 62602 AMERICAN EXPRESS Cash Payment E 101-45200-430 Miscellaneous Invoice 062802 Transaction Date 6/25/2002 Refer 62602 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Cash Payment E 101-42110-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 2002-06-13 Transaction Date 6/25/2002 $0.00 In Balance 6/26/2002 MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES $24.60 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $24.60 6/26/2002 2002 TI:~FFIC TICKETS $375.58 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $375.58 Refer 62602 MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH 6/26/2002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-433 Dues and Subscriptions RENEWAL KIVISTO, SCOTT $23.00 Invoice 062602 PO 17326 Transaction Date 6/25/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $23.00 Refer 62602 NORLANDER, JILL 6/26/2002 Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $77.00 Invoice 062502 Transaction Date 6/25/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $77.00 Fund Summary 10100 Marquette Bank Mound 101 GENERAL FUND $477.18 601 WATER FUND $23.00 $500.18 Pre-Written Check $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $500.18 Total $500.18 -3147- CITY OF MOUND Payments 07/03/02 7:34 AM Page 1 Current Period: July 2002 Batch Name 070902SUE User Dollar Amt $300,547.94 Rear 70902 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $306,547.94 $0.00 In Balance ABDO EICK AND MEYERS, LLP 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-301 Auditing and Acct'g Servi AUDIT ENDED 12-31-01 $2,060.00 Invoice 104709 Cash Payment E 609-49750-301 Auditing and Acct'g Servi AUDIT ENDED 12-31-01 $2,940.00 Invoice 104709 Cash Payment E 601-49400-301 Auditing and Acct'g Servi AUDIT ENDED 12-31-01 $1,640.00 Invoice 104709 Cash Payment E 602-49450-301 Auditing and Acct'g Servi AUDIT ENDED 12-31-01 $280.00 Invoice 104709 Cash Payment E 281-45210-301 Auditing and Acct'g Servi AUDIT ENDED 12-31-01 $760.00 invoice 104709 Cash Payment E 101-41500-301 Auditing and Acct'g Servi AUDIT ENDED 12-31-01 $3,570.00 Invoice 104709 Cash Payment E 670-49500-300 Professional Srvs AUDIT ENDED 12-31-01 $730.00 Invoice 104709 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $12,000.00 Refer 70902 AL'S MASTER PLUMBING 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-409 Other Equipment Repair REPAIR BATHROOM Invoice A4381 Transaction Date 7/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 70902 ALEXAIRAPPARATUS, INCORPO 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair COMPRESSOR SERVICE Invoice 6642 Transaction Date 7/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 70902 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS, INCO 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-325 Pagers-Fire Dept. PAGER REPAIRS invoice 11768D Transaction Date 7/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou Refer 70902 ARCTIC GLACIER PREMIUM ICE 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice MB218207 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice MB217915 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice MB218007 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice MB217512 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice MB217306 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice MB217208 Date 7/2/2002 10100 $49.00 Total $49.00 $10.00 Total $10.00 $133.28 Total $133.28 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $192.36 $157.56 $117.60 $164.40 $95.64 $50.04 Total $777.60 Refer 70902 ASPEN EMBROIDERY AND DESIG 7/9/2002 -3148- CITY OF MOUND Payments 07~03/02 7:34 AM Page 2 Current Period: July 2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-218 Clothing and Uniforms EMBROIDER CITY LOGO $31.00 Invoice 062002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms Invoice 062002 Cash Payment E 602-49450-218 Clothing and Uniforms Invoice 062002 Transaction Date 7/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou Refer 70902 BELLBOY CORPORATION 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MISCELLAENOUS Invoice 3570400 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 34002300 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 34043200 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 24042800 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 EMBROIDER CITY LOGO EMBROIDER CITY LOGO $31.00 $31.00 10100 Total $93.00 $143.48 -$76.15 $603.75 $3,393.95 10100 Total $4,065.03 LIQUOR LIQUOR LIQUOR Marquette Bank Mou Refer 70902 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41110-331 Meeting/Travel COFFEE Invoice 295121 Cash Payment E 101-45200-331 Meeting/Travel COFFEE Invoice 295121 Cash Payment E 101-42400-331 Meeting/Travel COFFEE invoice 295121 Transaction Date 7/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou $52.00 $26.00 $26.0O 10100 Total $104.00 Refer 70902 BRAND NETWORKING 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41920-400 Repairs & Maint Contract POLICE COMPUTER REPAIR Invoice 15436 Transaction Date 6/25/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $316.25 $316.25 Refer 70902 CHAMPION AUTO 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair DUSTCAP Invoice D147960 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair LAMP, LENS Invoice D148308 Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AIR FILTER Invoice D148465 Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery OIL FILTER Invoice D148498 Transaction Date 6/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $2.44 $18.06 $120.69 $7.98 $149.17 Refer 70902 COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 61221131 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX invoice 61216172 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $104.10 $438.6O $542.70 Refer 70902 DA Y DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 7/9/2002 -3149- CITY OF MOUND Payments 07/03/02 7:34 AM Page 3 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $69.10 Invoice 181933 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,946.95 Invoice 181932 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $2,016.05 Refer 70902 DOSSETT, SINDI 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 101-49840-300 Professional Srvs 06-25-02 VIDEO MEETING Invoice 062602 Transaction Date 7/1/2002 Refer 70902 E-Z RECYCLING $20.00 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $20.00 7/9/2002 $7,700.00 Cash Payment E 670-49500-440 Other Contractual Servic 06-02 CURBSIDE RECYCLING Invoice 3905 Transaction Date 6/25/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $7,700.00 Refer 70902 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE Cash Payment Invoice 262947 Cash Payment Invoice 262846 Cash Payment Invoice 260203 Cash Payment Invoice 258780 Cash Payment Invoice 258779 Cash Payment Invoice 257140 Transaction Date 7/9/2002 E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609~49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER 7/2/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $29.40 $3,478.80 $58.00 $19.60 $7,297.60 $234.00 $11,117.40 Refer 70902 EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Cash Payment Invoice 19540 Cash Payment Invoice 19541 Cash Payment Invoice 19542 Cash Payment Invoice 19543 Cash Payment Invoice 19544 Transaction Date E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs E 401-46580-300 Professional Srvs E 401-46580-300 Professional Srvs 6/25/2002 7/9/2002 05-02 TIF ANALYSIS 05-02 PROJECT ANALYSIS 05-02 POST OFFICE PROJECT 05-02 PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECT 05-02 LIQUOR STORE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $900.00 $2,625.00 $495.00 SI,800.00 $1,192.50 $7,012.50 Refer 70902 EQUIPMENT SUPPLY, INCORPOR 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE Invoice SMC258 Transaction Date 6/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $25.31 $25.31 Refer 70902 FACKLER, JAMES 7/9/2002 ~Cash Payment E 101-45200-305 Medical and Dental Fees REIMBURSE EYE EXAM Invoice 062802 Transaction Date 7/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $50.00 $50.00 -3150- CITY OF MOUND Payments 07/03/02 7:34 AM Page 4 Current Period: July 2002 Refer 70902 FIRESIDE CORNER 7/9/2002 Cash Payment R 101-32239 Mechanical Registration REFUND PERMIT#15710 $84.75 Invoice 15710 Transaction Date 6/25/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $84.75 Refer 70902 FIRST STATE TIRE RECYCLING Cash Payment E 670-49500-460 Janitorial Services Invoice 28846 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 Refer 70902 G & K SERVICES 7/9/2002 RECYCLE JUNK TIRES $78.00 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $78.00 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-218 Clothing and Uniforms 06-11-02 UNIFORMS $30.92 Invoice 238570 Cash Payment E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms 06-11-02 UNIFORMS $30.92 Invoice 238570 Cash Payment E 602-49450-218 Clothing and Uniforms 06-11-02 UNIFORMS $30.91 Invoice 238570 Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials 06-11-02 MATS $16.22 Invoice 238570 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials 06-11-02 MATS $16.22 Invoice 238570 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials 06-11-02 MATS $16.22 Invoice 238570 Cash Payment E 222-42260-216 Cleaning Supplies 06-25-02 MATS $42.01 Invoice 252402 Cash Payment E 101-45200-223 Building Repair Supplies 06-25-02 MATS $51.48 Invoice 252400 Cash Payment E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services 06-25-02 MATS $101.53 Invoice 252401 Cash Payment E 609-49750-460 Janitorial Services 06-25-02 MATS $21.62 Invoice 252403 Cash Payment E 101-43100-218 Clothing and Uniforms 06-18-02 UNIFORMS $33.15 invoice 245423 Cash Payment E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms 06-18-02 UNIFORMS $33.15 invoice 245423 Cash Payment E 602-49450-218 Clothing and Uniforms 06-18-02 UNIFORMS $33.15 Invoice 245423 Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials 06-18-02 MATS $26.20 Invoice 245423 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials 06-18-02 MATS $26.20 Invoice 245423 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials 06-18-02 MATS $26.20 Invoice 245423 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $536.10 Refer 70902 GREEN WITH ENVY LAWN CARE 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic WEED CONTROL SIDEWALKS $777.45 Invoice 2051 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $777.45 Refer 70902 GRIGGS COOPER AND COMPANY 7/9/2002 -3151 - CITY OI= MOUND Payments 07/03/02 7;34 AM Page 5 Current Period: July 2002 Cash Payment E 609.49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $406.48 Invoice 561793 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 561792 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 558833 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 558832 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 Marquette Bank Mou $1,800.91 $3,794.55 $342.04 10100 Total $6,343.98 Refer 70902 HAWKINS, INCORPORATED 7~9/2002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-227 Chemicals HYDROFLUQSILICIC ACID $1,889.13 Invoice 444309 Transaction Date 6/25/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,889.13 Refer 70902 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 101-42110-210 Operating Supplies 2002 TRAFFIC TICKETS $375.58 Invoice 2002-06-013 Cash Payment E 101-41550-440 Other Contractual Servic 2002 ASSESSOR SERVICES $77,148.28 Invoice CA2213 Transaction Date 6/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $77,523.86 Refer 70902 HOME DEPOT/GECF 7/9/2002 Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies CELL PHONE ACCESSORIES $86.85 Invoice 461/2021288 PO 17254 Transaction Date 6/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $86.85 Refer Cash Payment E 101-42110-202 Duplicating and copying Invoice 2381822A Cash Payment E 101-42110-202 Duplicating and copying Invoice 23273952 Cash Payment E 101-42110-202 Duplicating and copying Invoice 23273952 Transaction Date 6/25/2002 70902 IKON OFFICE MACHINES 7/9/2002 FAX TONER CARTRIDGE 06-24-02 THRU 07-24-02 COPIER MAINTENANCE 06-24-02 THRU 07-24-02 OVERAGE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $189.65 $125.17 $19.10 Total $333.92 Refer 70902 INTER-TEL Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone Invoice 889694 Transaction Date 7/1/2002 Refer 70902 JESSEN PRESS INCORPORATED Cash Payment Invoice 45074 Transaction Date E 401-46580-300 Professional Srvs 6~25~2002 7~9~2002 RESET PASSCODE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 7/9/2002 PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECT FLYERS $365.00 Total $365.00 $294.37 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $294.37 Refer 70902 JOHNS VARIETY AND PETS Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Invoice 512457 -- ~~Transact~ 7~2~2002 ~Refer 70902 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR 7/9/2002 FRAMES $12.76 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $12.76 7/9/2002 -3152- CITY OF MOUND Payments 07/03/02 7:34 AM Page 6 Current Period: July 2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,116.04 Invoice 1422862 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 1422861 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 1422860 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 1422859 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 1422858 Cash Payment Invoice 1419743 Cash Payment Invoice 1419742 Cash Payment Invoice 1419741 Cash Payment Invoice 1419740 Cash Payment Invoice 1519739 Cash Payment Invoice 1419738 Cash Payment Invoice 196299 Cash Payment Invoice 196298 Cash Payment Invoice 196172 Cash Payment Invoice 196171 Transaction Date E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale 7/2/2002 WINE $1,579.70 WINE $1,112.20 LIQUOR $89.75 WINE $47.9O MISCELLANEOUS $66.93 LIQUOR $68.15 WINE $103.75 WINE $1,373.30 LIQUOR $166.00 WINE $0.00 CREDIT-WINE -$10.34 CREDIT-WINE -$6.89 CREDIT-WINE -$79.95 CREDIT-LIQUOR -$869.99 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $4,756.55 Refer Cash Payment Invoice 52257-A Cash Payment Invoice 52257-B Cash Payment Invoice 52257-C Cash Payment Invoice 52257-D Cash Payment Invoice 52257-E Cash Payment Invoice 52257-F 70902 KENNEDYAND GRAVEN E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs G 609-16200 Fixed Asset-Buildings E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs E 101-45200-300 Professional Srvs Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 52257-G1 Cash Payment G 101-22891 Kells Lane Vacation, J. Paul 05-02 SALE LOT 6 BLK 1 WYCHWOOD Invoice 52257-G2 Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 EXECUTIVE Invoice 52258-A 7/9/2002 05-02 PRIVATE DEDICATED COMMONS 05-02 CTY RD 15 REALIGNMENT 05-02 PJW ORDINANCE 05-02 NEW LIQUOR STORE 05-02 ACT II LOAN DEFAULT 05-02 ZERO GRAVITY SKATE PARK 05-02 SALE LOT 6 BLK 1 WYCHWOOD $449.04 $4,788.60 $108.00 $3,906.33 $51.00 $582.00 $39.00 $39.00 $895.90 -3153- CITY OF MOUND Payments 07/03/02 7:34 AM Page 7 Current Period: July 2002 Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 ADMINISTRATIVE $2,292.96 Invoice 52258-B1 Cash Payment E 401-46580-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 PUBLIC SERVICE BUILDING $828.96 invoice 52258-B2 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 AQUILINO ISSUES $873.95 Invoice 52258-B3 Cash Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 STREET MISC SERVICES $79.33 invoice 52258-C1 Cash Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 WATER MISC SERVICES $79.33 invoice 52258-C2 Cash Payment E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 SEWER MISC SERVICES $79.34 invoice 52258-C3 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 PLANNING MISC SERVICES $1,390.90 Invoice 52258-D Cash Payment E 101-41110-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 HRA MISC BILLABLE $330.40 invoice 52250-A Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 REDEV PROJECT AREA #1 $738.00 invoice 52250-B Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 POST OFFICE RELOCATION $701.30 Invoice 52250-C Cash Payment G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 05-02 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT $1,068.50 Invoice 52250-D Date 7/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $19,321.84 Refer 70902 LAKE RESTORATION, INC. 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 675-49425-440 Other Contractual Servic BEACHWOOD POND Invoice 22257 Transaction Date 6/25/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 70902 Cash Payment Invoice 207 Cash Payment Invoice 210 Cash Payment Invoice 211 Cash Payment Invoice 214 Transaction Date LAKER NEWSPAPER 7/9/2002 E 101-42110-351 Legal Notices Publishing 06-22-02 ORD #09-2002 E 101-42110-351 Legal Notices Publishing 06-22-02 ORD #08-2002 E 601-49400-351 Legal Notices Publishing 06-22-02 ORD #10-2002 E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs 06-22-02 BIDS STORM SEWER 6/25/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $403.50 Total $403.50 $115.42 $79.60 $33.83 $72.00 Total $300.85 Rear 70902 Cash Payment Invoice 070902 Cash Payment Invoice 070902 Cash Payment Invoice 070902 Cash Payment invoice 070902 Payment Invoice 070902 LEA GUE MN CITIES INSURANCE T 7/9/2002 E 101-41110-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc 2002 WORKERS COMP E 101-41310-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc 2002 WORKERS COMP E 101-41500-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc 2002 WORKERS COMP E 101-42110-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc 2002 WORKERS COMP E 101-42400-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc 2002 WORKERS COMP $17.51 $13.80 $38.74 $450.05 $45.11 -3154- CITY OF MOUND Payments 07/03/02 7:34 AM Page 8 Current Period: July 2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc 2002 WORKERS COMP $168.77 Invoice 070902 Cash Payment E 101-45200-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc 2002 WORKERS COMP $39.27 Invoice 070902 Cash Payment E 222-42260-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc 2002 WORKERS COMP $1,117.69 Invoice 070902 Cash Payment E 609-49750-151 Worker's Comp lnsuranc 2002 WORKERS COMP $161.87 Invoice 070902 Cash Payment E 601-49400-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc 2002 WORKERS COMP $232.45 Invoice 070902 Cash Payment E 602-49450-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc 2002 WORKERS COMP $343.38 Invoice 070902 Cash Payment E 281-45210-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc 2002 WORKERS COMP $49.36 Invoice 070902 Transaction Date 6/25/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $2,678.00 Refer 70902 LOWELL'S AUTOMOTIVE 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies OIL, FILTER, ETC Invoice 5-341227 Transaction Date 7/1/2002 $64.85 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $64.85 Refer 70902 MARINE RESCUE PRODUCTS Cash Payment E 101-45200-221 Equipment Parts Invoice 23594 PO 17246 Transaction Date 6/24/2002 Refer 70902 MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR Cash Payment Invoice 429742 Cash Payment Invoice 427244 Cash Payment invoice 427243 Cash Payment Invoice 427242 Transaction Date E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale 7/9/2002 LOCKING LINE FLOATS $490.70 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 7/9/2002 BEER BEER E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER 7/2/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $490.70 $3,739.00 $97.50 $42.25 $6,156.10 Total $10,034.85 Refer 70902 MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCI Cash Payment Invoice 39980 Cash Payment Invoice 39981 Cash Payment Invoice 39982 Cash Payment invoice 39983 Cash Payment Invoice 39984 Cash Payment Invoice 39985 Cash Payment Invoice 39986 E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs E 101-45200-300 Professional Srvs 7/9/2002 05-02 ANTHONY'S FLORAL 05-02 BEACHWOOD POND 05-02 WESTEDGE WATERMAIN EXTENSION 05-02 MISC ENGINEERING SERVICES 05-02 MISC ENGINEERING SERVICES 05-02 MISC ENGINEERING SERVICES 05-02 MISC ENGINEERING SERVICES $99.00 $495.00 $5,885.90 $1,504.00 $742.50 $354.50 $286.50 -3155- CITY OF MOUND Payments 07/03/02 7:34 AM Page 9 Cash Payment G 101-22851 Langdon Deveop, Gramercy 05-02 GRAMERCY DEVELOPMENT $99.00 Invoice 39987 Cash Payment Invoice 39988 Cash Payment Invoice 39989 Cash Payment Invoice 39990 Cash Payment Invoice 39991 Cash Payment Invoice 39992 Cash Payment Invoice 39993 Cash Payment Invoice 39994 Cash Payment invoice 39995 Cash Payment invoice 39996 Cash Payment Invoice 39997 Cash Payment Invoice 39998 Cash Payment Invoice 39999 Cash Payment Invoice 40000 Cash Payment Invoice 40001 Cash Payment Invoice 40002 E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 STORM WATER FUND 05-02 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT 05-02 CTY RD 15 RELOCATION 05-02 DOWNTOWN TIF DISTRICT G 101-22851 Langdon Deveop, Gramercy 05-02 GRAMERCY DEVELOPMENT G 101-22854 Langdon Bay Major Sub-Divi 05-02 LANGDON BAY DEVELOPMENT E 455-46379-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22869 Landgon Woods, 00-35 E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs E 401-43110-300 Professional Srvs E 281-45210-300 Professional Srvs E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs Cash Payment E 101-42400~300 Professional Srvs Invoice 40003-A Cash Payment G 101-22891 Kells Lane Vacation, J. Paul 05-02 KELLS ROAD VACATION Invoice 40003-B Cash Payment G 101-22895 Kells Lane Vacation Jeff Paul 05-02 KELLS ROAD VACATION Invoice 40003-C Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 1733 GULL LANE MODIFICATION Invoice 40004 Cash Payment Invoice 40005 Cash Payment Invoice 40006-A Cash Payment Invoice 40006-B Cash Payment Invoice 40007 Cash Payment Invoice 40008 05-02 POST OFFICE MISCELLAENOUS 05-02 LANGDON WOODS DEVELOPMENT 05-02 POND ARENA PARKING 05-02MCES LIFT STATION 05~02 WESTEDGE EXTENSION SOUTH 05-02 XCEL SUB-STATION 05-02 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT 05-02 SHORELINE FOOTAGE 05-02 WELL/PUMPHOUSE 05-02 KELLS ROAD VACATION G 101-22882 1642 Gull Lane 01-26 Weitna 05-02 1642 GULL SUB-DIVISION E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 SKAALERUD LOT SURVEY G 101-22890 2957 Cambridge Retain Wall 05-02 SKAALERUD LOT SURVEY G 101-22889 3033 Brighton Blvd 01-43 Va 05-02 3033 BRIGHTON VARIANCE E 401-46540-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 LOST LAKE/AUDITORS GREENWAY $t,804.78 $891.00 $495.OO $133.00 $99.00 $99.O0 $274.30 $198.00 $99.00 $963.5O $99.00 $495.OO $4,686.50 $148.50 $247.50 $33.00 $33.OO $33.00 $49.50 $49.50 $215.00 $215.00 $99.00 $238.0O -3156- CITY OF MOUND Payments 07/03/02 7:34 AM Page 10 Current Period: July 2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 BARTLETT/NORWOOD DRAINAGE $31.00 Invoice 40009 Cash Payment G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 05-02 ASSESSMENT PROJECT $10,130.80 Invoice 40010 Cash Payment E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT $8,333.50 Invoice 40011 Cash Payment G 101-22896 Lake Mtka Trail Sub-div #02- 05-02 LAZNIARZ LAKE MTKA TRAIL $558.30 Invoice 40012 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 ANDERSON VARIANCE 02-10 $72.50 Invoice 40013 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 BAKER VARIANCE 02-13 $166.90 Invoice 40014 Cash Payment E 401-46580-300 Professional Srvs 05-02 PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY $4,888.50 Invoice 40015 Cash Payment G 101-22899 Pastuck Natural Homes #02- 05-02 PASTUCK SUB-DIVISION $396.00 Invoice 40016 Transaction Date 7/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $45,741.98 Refer 70902 MINNESOTA PLAYGROUND, INCO Cash Payment Invoice 674670 Transaction Date E 101-45200-221 Equipment Parts PO 17250 7/1/2002 7/9/2002 BASKETBALL NETS, SLIDE SECTION' $290.80 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $290.80 Refer 70902 MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LA Cash Payment Invoice 125661 Transaction Date E 601-49400-470 Water Sam pies 6/24/2002 7/9/2002 COLIFORM, MF-WATER $72.50 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $72.50 Refer 70902 MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT Cash Payment Invoice 063002 Cash Payment Invoice 063002 Cash Payment Invoice 063002 Transaction Date E 222-42260-180 Fire-Drill Pay E 222-42260-390 General Maint-Fire E 222-42260-190 Fire-Monthly Salaries 7/2/2002 7/9/2002 06-02 DRILLS 06-02 MAINTENANCE 06-02 FIRE/RESCUE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $620.00 $1,250.00 $8,668.50 Total $10,538.50 Refer 70902 MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIA TIO 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 895-49990-124 Fire Pens Contrib 07-02 FIRE RELIEF Invoice 063002 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 70902 MOUND, CITY OF 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-382 Water Utilities 05-02 WATER AND SEWER Invoice 061802 Transaction Date 7/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $9,088.33 Total $9,088.33 $32.15 Total $32.15 Refer 70902 MYERS, TONY 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair REFUND BOAT REPAIRS Invoice 070102 Transaction Date 7/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 70902 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (PA/Y) 7/9/2002 $75.95 Total $75.95 -3157- CITY OF MOUND Payments 07/03/02 7:34 AM Page 11 Current Period: July 2002 ;;~;i! Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 iCash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Cash Payment Invoice 061802 Payment Invoice 061802 E 101-43100-321 Telephone E 601-49400-321 Telephone E 602.-49450-321 Telephone E 602-49450-321 Telephone E 101.43100-321 Telephone E 101-43100-321 Telephone E 101-43100-321 Telephone E 601-49400-321 Telephone E 101-43100-321 Telephone E 601-49400-321 Telephone E 602-49450-321 Telephone E 101-45200-321 Telephone E 281-45210-321 Telephone E 101-41310-321 Telephone E 101-43100-321 Telephone E 601-49400-321 Telephone E 602-49450-321 Telephone E 101-45200-321 Telephone E 601-49400-321 Telephone E 101-42400-321 Telephone E 101.42400-321 Telephone E 101-45200-321 Telephone E 101-45200-321 Telephone E 601-49400-321 Telephone 05-19-02 THRU 16-18-02 #16 JOHNSON, TIM $38.11 05-19-02 THRU 16-18-02 #17 POUNDER, $38.11 CHRIS 05-19-02 THRU 16-18-02 #18 HARDINA, $38.11 DAMON 05-19-02 THRU 16-18-02 #19 KIVISTO, SCOTT $38.11 05-19-02 THRU 16-18-02 #20 GRADY, DAN $40.06 05-19-02 THRU 16-18-02 #21 HEITZ, FRANK $38.11 05-19-02 THRU 16-18-02 #22 HEITZ, DON $38.11 05-19-02 THRU 16-18-02 ~23 KESTNER, AL $38.11 612-221-6812 #07 SKINNER, GREG $104.09 612-221-6811 #07 SKINNER, GREG $104.09 612-221-6811 #07 SKINNER, GREG $104.09 612-221-6812 #15 FACKLER, JIM $78.25 612~221-6813 #16 HOFF, KATIE $39,59 612-221-6814 #03 RAHN, JODI $38.77 612-221-6822 #02 NELSON, JOYCE $13.05 612-221-6822 #02 NELSON, JOYCE $13.05 612-221-6822 #02 NELSON, JOYCE $13.05 612-221-8385 #13 SWARTZER, BRIAN $39.15 612-282-1182 #14 GEISE, LEE $39.15 612-282-5889 #15 SIMONEAU, MATT $80.42 612-363-5883 NORLANDER, JILL $33.61 612-221-6740 BERENT, BRIAN $15.15 612-221-6794 TAFTE, JOHN $11.35 612-282-3599 ANDERSON, MIKE $32.95 -3158- CITY OF MOUND Payments 07/03/02 7:34 AM Page 12 Current Period: July 2002 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,066.64 Refer 70902 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (POLl Cash Payment Invoice 062202 Transaction Date E 101-42110-321 Telephone 7/1/2002 7/9/2002 05-19-02 THRU 06-18-02 CELL PHONES $447,70 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $447.70 Refer 70902 PBS GRAPHIC ART DESIGN Cash Payment E 401-46580-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 00603402 Transaction Date 6/25~2002 7/9/2002 PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECT NEWSLETTER $2,509,38 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $2,509,38 Refer 70902 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX invoice 33871772 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 Marquette Bank Mou $90,31 10100 Total $90.31 Refer 70902 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 847825 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 847824 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 847823 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 845592 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 845591 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,340.35 $227.45 $342.65 $717.25 $78.85 $2,706.55 Refer 70902 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CIGARETTES Invoice 62663 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ClGARE'I-I'ES Invoice 62663 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,880.93 $9O3.23 $2,784.16 Refer 70902 QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 140264-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 140263-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 1398555-0 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 139854-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 139779-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 137549-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 137015-00 $334.89 $828.20 $5,730.42 $152.33 $1,374.37 $544.07 $112.34 -3159- CITY OF MOUND Payments 07/03/02 7:34 AM Page 13 Current Period: July 2002 (:;e~h P~ym~nt E 608-~8700-Z~1 Liquor For R~GoI~ LIQUOR Invoice 137014-00 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $12,059.17 Refer 70902 RANDY'S SANITATATION 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41910-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos 06-02 TRASH SERVICE $t14.54 invoice 1727 Transaction Date 6/25/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $114.54 Refer 70902 RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING AS 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 101-42115-434 Conference & Training 2002 ROTA TRAINING DAY $80.00 Invoice 1297 Transaction Date 6/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $80.00 Refer 70902 SCHARBERAND SONS 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair LIFT LINK, LINK, ETC Invoice 02 2026820 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair BELT Invoice 02 2026979 Transaction Date 7/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $67.86 $54.51 Total $122.37 Refer 70902 Cash Payment Invoice 063002 Payment Invoice 063002 Cash Payment Invoice 063002 Cash Payment Invoice 063002 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 Refer 70902 SHOREWOOD TREE SERVICE Cash Payment E 101-45200-533 Tree Removal Invoice 4051 Cash Payment E 101-45200-533 Tree Removal Invoice 4050 Transaction Date 6/24/2002 SERVICE MASTER CLEAN 7/9/2002 E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services 06-02 CLEANING CITY HALL E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic 06-02 CLEANING P/W E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic 06-02 CLEANING P/W E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic 06-02 CLEANING P/W Marquette Bank Mou 10100 7/9/2002. REMOVE TREE CITY HALL REMOVE TREE 2616 GALWAY Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $1,096.95 $39.05 $39.05 $39.05 Total $1,214.10 $500.55 $402.04 Total $902.59 Refer 70902 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, I Cash Payment Invoice 0087921 Transaction Date E 401-46580-300 Professional Srvs 6/25/2O02 7/9/2002. 05-02 PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECT Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $15,156.27 Total $15,156.27 Refer 70902 SOHNS, BRUCE 7/9/2002. Cash Payment G 101-22848 2149/2155 Noble Lane, Sub- REFUND ESCROW CLOSE Invoice 062702 Transaction Date 6/27/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $633.90 Total $633.90 Refer 70902 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA (P/W Cash Payment Invoice 062402 Cash Payment Invoice 062402 E 101-43100-212 Motor Fuels E 601-49400-212 Motor Fuels 7/9/2002 THRU 06-24-02 GASOLINE CHARGERS THRU 06-24-02 GASOLINE CHARGERS $553.88 $331.18 -3160- CITY OF MOUND Payments 07/03/02 7:34 AM Page 14 Current Period: July 2002 Cash Payment E 602-49450-212 Motor Fuels THRU 06-24-02 GASOLINE CHARGERS $155.99 Invoice 062402 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 70902 SPEEDWAYSUPERAMERICA (POL 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-212 Motor Fuels THRU 06-24-02 GASOLINE CHARGES Invoice 062402 Cash Payment Invoice 062402 Cash Payment Invoice 070902 Transaction Date E 101-42400-212 Motor Fuels E 101-42110-212 Motor Fuels 7/2/2002 THRU 06-24-02 GASOLINE CHARGES THRU 06-24-02 GASOLINE CHARGES Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,041,05 $485.75 $21.88 $1,115.79 Total $1,623.42 Refer 70902 Cash Payment Invoice 231617 Cash Payment Invoice 231612 Transaction Date STS CONSULTANTS E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 7/9/2002 THRU 06-08-02 INVESTIGATION MAXWELL PROPERTY THRU 06-08-02 TESTING UTILITY CONSTRUCTION 7/2/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $793.50 $1,070.00 $1,863.50 Refer 70902 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE, IN 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts Invoice 10002399 Transaction Date 6/25/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 70902 SWARTZER, BRIAN 7/9/2002 E 101-45200-305 Medical and Dental Fees REFUND SAFETY GLASSES TIRES Cash Payment Invoice 070902 Transaction Date 7/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $296.71 Total $296.71 $113.95 Total $113.95 Rear 70902 TAHO SPORTSWEAR 7/9/2002 E 101-45200-218 Clothing and Uniforms CLOTHING Cash Payment Invoice TS021060 PO 17249 Transaction Date 7/1/2002 Refer 70902 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $224.00 Invoice 1-13-5 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $789.60 Invoice 265710 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $397.50 Invoice 265397 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BER $377.00 Invoice 226444 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $12,266.00 Invoice 265709 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $14,054.10 $694.42 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $694.42 Refer 70902 THYSSEN-KRUPP ELEVATOR COR 7/9/2002. Cash Payment E 101-41910-440 Other Contractual Servic 07-02 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE $0.00 Invoice 347417 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $0.00 -3161 - CITY OF MOUND Payments 07/03/02 7:34 AM Page 15 Current Period: July 2002 OL~~, ;~; '~i~;~i;;:~:;. ;ij,;;;!~ i~ ~;~ ii~ :' :?~i ~/,:; Refer 70902 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR COMP 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings REPAIRED DOOR $95.00 Invoice 145842 Transaction Date 7/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $95.00 Refer 70902 TWIN CITY OFFICE SUPPLY 71912002 Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $5.48 Invoice 34869709 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $5,48 Invoice 34869709 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $5.46 Invoice 34869709 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $5.48 Invoice 34869709 Cash Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $5.48 Invoice 34869709 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $1.83 Invoice 34869709 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $1.83 Invoice 34869709 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $2.74 Invoice 34869709 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $2.75 Invoice 34869709 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies CHAIR $164.01 Invoice 347421-0 Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $5.03 invoice 348619-0 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $5.03 Invoice 348619-0 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $5.03 Invoice 348619-0 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $5.03 Invoice 348619-0 Cash Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $5.03 Invoice 348619-0 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $1,68 Invoice 348619-0 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $1.68 Invoice 348619-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $2.51 Invoice 348619-0 Cash Payment E 602.49450-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $2.51 Invoice 348619-0 Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $9.80 Invoice 347885-0 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $9.80 Invoice 347885-0 Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $9.60 Invoice 347885-0 -3162- CITY OF MOUND Payments 07/03/02 7:34 AM Page 16 Current Period: July 2002 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $9.80 Invoice 347885-0 Cash Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies Invoice 347885-0 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies Invoice 347885-0 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice 347885-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 347885-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies Invoice 347885-0 Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies Invoice 347851-0 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies Invoice 347851-0 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Invoice 347851-0 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 347851-0 Cash Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies Invoice 347851-0 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies Invoice 347851-0 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice 347851-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 347851-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies Invoice 347851-0 Transaction Date 7/2/2002 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $9.80 $3.27 $3.27 $4.91 $4.91 $7.03 $7,03 $7.03 $7.03 $7.03 $2.34 $2,34 $3.51 $3.51 $346.30 Refer 70902 VERISIGN, INCORPROA TED 7/9/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41920-309 EDP, Software and Desi 08-23-02 THRU 08-23-04 DOMAIN NAME Invoice 53859295 Transaction Date 7/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $70.00 $70.00 Refer 70902 WHYTE, BRAD 7/9/2002 Cash Payment G 101-22840 5075 Windsor, Brad Whyte REFUND ESCROW CLOSE Invoice 071702 Transaction Date 6/25/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $8,063.00 $8,063.00 -3163- CITY OF MOUND Payments 07/03/02 7:34 AM Page 17 Current Period: July 2002 Fund Summary 10100 Marquette Bank Mound 101 GENERAL FUND $127,537.61 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES $14,427.28 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND $997.45 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS $31,693.48 455 TIF 1-2 $11,645.20 601 WATER FUND $10,867.49 602 SEWER FUND $2,205.78 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $78,468.54 670 RECYCLING FUND $8,508.00 675 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND $11,108.78 895 FIRE RELIEF FUND $9,088.33 $306,547.94 Pre-Written Check $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $306,547.94 Total $306,547.94 -3164- (WED) 6. 5' 02 12:42/ST. 12:41/N0, 2~760085417 p 1 Arthur J. Gailagher & Co. of Minnesota, Inc. 7825 Washington Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55439-2433 Date June 5, 2002 Number af page~ including cover aheet To: City Of Mound Gino Businaro From: Carl Bcnnetsen Business 952-472-0608 R~sidtmt Fax Phorm 952-472-0620 CC: Phone 952-944-8885 FaxPhone 952-944-9795 Urgent For your review Reply ASAP Please comment RE: LMCIT's Positions on MAC Contract and Chaska/PGA Police Volunteer Agreements Gino, see the attached response from Peter Tritz. The ChaskafPGA Police Services Agreement should be reviewed and revised by your City attorney. There are copies of the Lakeville and Crystal revised Agreements supplied by Mr. Tritz. Please call if you have any questions. Thanks, -3165- FROM ARTHUR J GALLAGHER (WED) 6. 5' 02 12:42/ST. 12:41/N0. 3760085417 P 2 mN Ci~lk5 612 281 i29B P.02/0~ Univer~ityAvenuc West, St. Paul, ~ 551o$-2o44 Phonez (651) 281-12oo · (800) 9zS-~t2z (651) 281-1298 , TDD_(651.) 1~81-1~90 www~_c~lmnc.or? June 5, 2002 To: Carl Bennetscn From: Pete Tritz ~~ 1. Police services for the PGA tour~m.nt in Ch~ska You had asked for comments on thc City of Chasks'S request that Mound police officcrs assist the Chaska police with security during thc PGA tournament this summer. Thc officers would be acting as volunteers, and neither thc individual offlc,~r nor the City of Mound would be compensated for the services. The draft agreement that you had received was an early version. As I understand the Chaska city attorney had not been involved in developing that draft, and it has some problems. Under that agreement, the City of Mound would bear both the liability and workers compensation risk for its officers, while those officers were performing volunteer services for Chaska. (Whether that agreement would even be enforceable is questionable, since there doesn't seem tO be any consideration of any kind to Mound.) I've attached copies of revised agr~ments that the cities of Lakeville and Crystal, respectively, have developed with Chaska. The two versions differ slightly, but the underlying concept in both is that the individual officers would be acting as volunteers for the City of Chaska. Chaska would therefor be responsible for liability elalms, and the individuals would be covered under Chaska's LMCIT liability coverage just as any other city volunteer is. As police volunteers for Chask0., they would also be part of a "law enforcement assistance organization" for pmpose, s of M.$, 176.011, subd. 9 (23), so that they'd be Chazka employees for purposes of workers compensation, and injuries would therefor be covered un&r Chaska's LMC1T work comp coverage. The contract between the two cities provides that in return for the city's agreement to authorize its officers to voMnt~r their services to Chaska, Chaska agrees to defend and indemnify the. elty against any resultin8 liability claims. If Mound i~s~its O~~erviccs to Chaska: we'd w~ s~o._~_gly suggest thai they d__o so under an agreement modeled after the. I~akcv_ilLe a~eemer~ts, rather than the initiaI draft that Chaska had provided. One slight modification you might consi&r is to add some language explicitly reflecting the paxties' intent that the volunteer offieer~ will be considered Chazka employees for work comp purposes, pursuant to M.S. 176.011, subd. 9 (23). -3166- VOLUNTEER POLICE SERVICES AGREEMENT 2002 PGA CHAMPIONSHIP AGREEMENT made this day of ,2002, by and between the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation and the City of Chaska, a Minnesota municipal corporation; WItEREAS, the 2002 PGA Championship Golf Toumamem ("Tournament") and related activities will be held within the corporate limits of the City of Chaska, from August 9, 2002 through August 18, 2002; and wmz~REAS, the Chaska Police Department has requested that the City of Mound assist with policing services and other related activities at the Tournament; and Wi~REAS, the City of Chaska has requested, and the City of Mound has agreed, that City of Mound Police officers may assist the Chaska Police Departmem on a volunteer basis during the Tournament; WltE~AS, it is in the best interest of the Cities of Chaska and Mound to enter into this agreement in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE As requested by the City of Chaska, the City of Mound will, on a volunteer basis, provide policing services at the 2002 PGA Championship and other related activities on August 9-18, 2002 in the City of Chaska. 2. VOLUNTEER STATUS OF MOUND OFFICERS The City of Mound will authorize its officers to volunteer their services to the Chaska Police Departmem during off-duty time with the City of Moun& Mound officers will receive no compensation from the City of Mound for volunteer service during the Tournament. COMMAND OF SCENE The City of Chaska shall be in command of the scene and will make the issue duty assignments. When appropriate and practical, Chaska officers, at the request of City of Mound officers, will handle the citing and arrests of persons, as circumstances require. 4, INSURANCE The City of Chaska shall provide insurance coverage for the City of Mound officers during the Tournament. -3167- 5. DAMAGE TO EQUIPMENT, INJURY AND DEATH The City of Chaska shall be responsible for injuries or death to its personnel or damage to ' its equipment during the Tournament. The City of Mound shall be responsible for damage to its equipment during the Tournament. 6. LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION ao For the purposes of the Minnesota Municipal Tort Liability Act (Minn Stat. 466) only, the employees and officers of the City of Mound are deemed to be employees (as defined in Minn Stat 466.01, subdivision 6) of the City of Chaska. The City of Chaska agrees to defend and indemnify the City of Mound against any claims brought or actions filed against the City of Mound or any officer, employee or volunteer of the City of Mound for injury to, death of, or damage to the property of any third person or persons, arising from the performance and provision of assistance pursuant to this agreement. Co Under no circumstances, however, shall a party be required to pay on behalf of itself and other parties, any amounts in excess of the limits on liability established in Minnesota Statutes Chapter, 466 applicable to any one party. The limits of liability for some or all of the parties may not be added together to determine the maximum amount of liability for any party. 7, SEVERABILITY If any portion of this agreement if found to be illegal, that portion of the agreement shall be severed and the remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force. 8. AMENDMENT This agreement may only be amended in writing by agreement by both parties. The City of Mound By: Its: The City of Chaska By: Its: -3168- (WED) 6. 5' 02 12:42/8T. 12:41/N0. 3760085417 p I Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. of Minnesota, Inc. 7825 Washington Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55439-2433 Date Jtme 5, 2002 Number cfi pag~ inoludiag cover sheet To.- City Of Mound Gino Businaro From: Carl Bcnnetsen Business 952-472-0608 Re. side, at Fax Phon~ 952-472-0620 CC: Phone 952-944-8885 Fax Phone 952-944-9795 Urgent For your review Reply ASAP Please comment RE: LMCIT's Positions on MAC Comract and Chaska/PGA Police Volunteer Agreements Gino, see the attached response from Peter Tritz. The Chaska/PGA Police Services Agreement should be reviewed and revised by your City attorney. There are copies &the Lakeville and Crystal revised Agreements supplied by Mr. Tritz. Please call if you have any questions. Thanks, -3169- FROM ARTHUR J GALLAGHER (WED) 6. 5' 02 12:4B/ST. 12:41/NO. 3760085417 MAC police smmrity agreement Mound is considering contracting with thc MAC to provide police officers to assist with airport security services over the next 12-18 months. You had asked us to confirlrl "that LMC1T is comfortable that the agreement will not result in any insurance coverage gaps that would otherwise have ~ covered by the LMC1T?' I can't really give you that assurance, but here's what we can tell you about the situation. As you know, the city's LMCrI' liability coverage exclude$ coverage for claims for bodily injury, property damage, or per.~onal injury arising from airport o~rations. In other word.% the city's LMCIT coverage would not apply to liability claims that might arising from the city's involvement in airport security for the MAC. The agreement will call for the city to retain the work comp risk. The city's LMC1T work comp coverage would respond, sinCe sex-'ices provided unde£ the city's agreement with MAC would be within the officer's duties aa a city officer. Accordingly, it's approprime to build the cost of the city's work comp coverage into the reimbursement rate MAC will pay to the city. For cities that agree to assist the MAC with security services, MAC will add thc city and the officers as insureds under MAC's existing liability insurance.. In other words, the city and the officer would have thc same insurance coverage that MAC and MAC's own officers have. MAC has further indicated that the contract between the city and MAC will include language providing for MAC to defend and indemnify the city and the officer for claJm~ arising from the airport security functions. LMCIT has not reviewed the MAC'~ insurance policy, so we can't speak to what it does or cloe~n't cover. But since in addition to the insurance the MAC would also be agreeing to al:fend and indemnify the city and the officer, any gaps in what the MAC's insurance Covers would really be the MAC's problem, not the city's or the individual officer's. I would note though that at this point, we understand that the MAC has not yet finalized the language for the formal contract, including the defense and indemnification language. From our conversations with MAC staff, we understand that the defense and indemnification provisions would likely have some limitations, to exclude the malfeasance / willful neglect of duty / bad faith I intentional wrongdoing type~ituations. In short, ~inauranc~ and indemnification arrangements that thc MAC has described u-a.PP~, t°-adequatelY prote~e'¢it-. However, the actual contract language and .r.prows?ns ~ n,o,t_Y..e_! fi~..ized. G.iv?n the importance of the airport security ncuon an0 the MAC s immediate need for security assistance, some cities may be comfortable beginning to provide the airP°rt security services right now, relying on what MAC has indicated about how the arrangements will work. Other cities may prefer to wait until the city has the chance to review and evaluate the actual contract language. 2 -3170- FROM ARTHUR J GALLAGHER (WED) 6. 5' 02 12:4:~/ST. 12:41/N0. 3760085417 p 4 Whether and when to begin providing airport security services is really aa evaluation that each city has to make individually. Essentially, it's a matter of weighing how cantious thc city wishes to be in protecting its own interests, a~ainst thc general public purpose that's served by providing thc needed assistance to MAC. 3 -3171 - USE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AGREEMENT This Use of Law Enforcement Personnel Agreement ("Agreement") is made by and between the Metropolitan Airports Commission ("MAC"), 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 and the Mound Police Department (Agency). WHEREAS, MAC needs assistance in providing licensed law enforcement officers (LEOs) at the passenger screening checkpoints; and WHEREAS, the Agency has indicated that it can provide LEOs to assist MAC. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE I SERVICES The Agency agrees to provide uniformed LEOs to MAC for airport security duties, The duties are primarily located at or around the passenger security screening checkpoints within the terminal buildings. The scheduling of the LEOs and the number of LEOs assigned to MAC for airport security duties shall be determined by mutual agreement of the parties. ARTICLE II .FEES ,AND,CHARGES MAC shall pay the Agency for the services rendered as agreed upon in Attachment A. MAC shall not be responsible for any additional costs beyond the hourly amount indicated in Attachment A. If a change in fees on Attachment A is required, then the Agency shall provide at least thirty (30) days written notice to MAC. ARTICLE III CANCELLATION This Agreement may be cancelled by either party without cause upon ten (10) days written notice. The fight to cancel is in addition to all other rights and remedies available to MAC under this Agreement or otherwise by law. ARTICLE IV L..IAB .ILITY 1) For the purposes of the Minnesota Municipal Tort Liability Act (Minn, Stat. 466), the employees and officers of the Agency are deemed to be employees (as defined in Minn. Stat. 466.01, subdivision 6) of MAC with respect to airport security services pursuant to this Agreement. -3172- 2) MAC LEO Agreement June 27, 2002 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to waive any fights, privileges, immunities, or tort damage limitations available to either MAC or the Agency under Federal or State law. 3) MAC agrees to defend and indemnify the Agency against any and all claims brought or actions filed against the Agency or the Agency's officers, employees, or volunteers, including but not limited to those for injury to any third person or persons, death of any third person or persons, damage to the property of any third person or persons, or violations of the civil rights of any third person or persons, arising from the performance and provisions of airport security services pursuant to this Agreement. 4) MAC agrees to maintain in effect during the duration of this Agreement and at its expense general liability insurance providing limits of at least $25,000,000 bodily injury, personal injury and property damage combined each occurrence/offense. The insurance policy will include the Agency as an additional insured with respect to the services provided in this Agreement. MAC will provide the Agency with a certificate of insurance naming the Agency as an additional insured and providing at least a ten (10) day notice of cancellation or any significant material change in coverage. ARTICLE V ,WORKERS' COMPENSATION Each party shall be responsible for injuries or death of its own personnel. The Agency will maintain workers' compensation insurance or self-insurance coverage, covering its own personnel while they are performing airport security activities pursuant to this agreement. Each party or its officers, employees, or volunteers waives the right to sue the other party or its officers, employees, or volunteers, for any workers' compensation benefits paid to its own employees or volunteers or their dependent, even if the injuries are caused wholly or partially by the negligence of the other party of its officers, employees, or volunteers. ARTICLE VI DAMAGE TO EOUIPMENT Each party shall be responsible for damage to or loss of its own equipment. Each party and their representatives waives all fights to sue the other party for any damages to or loss of its equipment, even ff the damage or loss were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other party or its officers, employees, or volunteers. ARTICLE VII EMERGENCIES MAC recognizes that the Agency may have to recall its personnel for emergency purposes. Agency will attempt to notify MAC at the earliest possible time that the Agency's LEOs are unavailable for services under this Agreement. ARTICLE VIII LEOs EMPLOYMENT,, STATUS -3173- MAC LEO Agreement June 27, 2002 LEOs provided by the Agency remain e~aployees of the Agency. It is agreed that nothing contained in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed in any mantmr as creating or establishing an employment relationship between the MAC and the Agency's employees. For this Agreement, the Agency's LEOs are expected to follow the policies and procedures of the Agency. The Agency agrees to be responsible for taking any appropriate action for performance related matter against its employees. MAC reserves the fight to deny an Agency's LEO from providing services under this Agreement. ARTICLE IX SUPERVISION MAC agrees to provide limited supervision to the LEOs. MAC will designate one LEO as the supervisor per shit. The supervisor's duties will involve coordination of the daily schedule and periodic monitoring of the LEO's activities. The supervisor will notify appropriate MAC staff regarding any performance issues. MAC will pass along the information to Agency for the Agency's follow-up. ARTICLE X NOTICE All notices required by law or this Agreement must be in writing and delivered in person or sent by mail to the following parties (or to any other address or person that one party provides to the other party in writing as the official notification): Jo Edblom Lieutenant, Airport Police Department 4300 Glumack Drive, Suite 370 St. Paul, MN 55111 Telephone: (612) 726-5115 AGENCY: John McKinley Acting Chief of Police 5341 Maywood Road Mound. MN 55364 Telephone: (952-472-0621) ARTICLE XI AUDIT Agency shall keep at their principal office, in a system acceptable to MAC, accurate books, accounts, records and documents relevant to the work conducted under this Agreement, and shall keep such information for a period of six calendar years. MAC and the legislative auditor shall have the right at all reasonable times during the business hours of Agency to inspect the books, accounts, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices relative to the work conducted under this Agreement. 3 -3174- MAC LEO Agreement June 27, 2002 ARTICLE XII MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT This Agreement and all data created by this Agreement are subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices' Act, regardless of who possesses the information. ARTICLE XIII ENTIRE AGREEMENT The parties agree that this document and Attachment A are the Entire Agreement between the parties. No promises, representations or oral agreements have been made between the parties that are not part of this Agreement; and no claim or liability shall arise from any representations or promises not expressly stated in this Agreement except as expressly stated in this Agreement. ARTICLE XIV MODIFICATION This Agreement may be modified only by a written agreement signed by both parties. The parties agree, intend to be bound and execute this Agreemem on the day and year as indicated. Date: METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION By: Title: Date: Mound Police Department By: Title: 4 -3175- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com TO: FROM: RE: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BONNIE RITTER LICENSE APPROVALS JULY 1,2002 The following license application has been submitted for approval. proof of insurance have been received. Tree Removal: Legacy Tree Care 21315 Valleyview Terrace Maple Grove, MN 55311 Forms, fee and i pn~lted on recycled paper -3176- 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: May 29, 2002 SUBJECT: PDA-CUP Amendment Request APPLICANT: Rottlund Homes and R.H. Development PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 02-18 LOCATION: Langdon Bay Subdivision - Intersection of Lynwood Boulevard and Robin Lane ZONING: R-I Residential COMPREI-IENSIVE PLAN: Residential CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING The City Council will hold a public hearing for review of an application from Rottlund Homes and R.H. Development for an amendment to the Planned Development Area- Conditional Use Permit that was approved in 2001 which limits hardcover to no more than (30) percent on each lot in the Langdon Bay subdivision. Specifically, the applicants are seeking flexibility to allow hardcover up to (33) percent on the following lots so that proposed buyers will have a variety of home plans to select from when lots are sold. The subject lots are identified as follows: Lot 2, Block t Lot 3, Block 1 Lot 4, Block 1 Lot 5, Block 1 Lot 2, Block 4 Lot 3, Block 4 Lot 4, Block 4 Lot 6, Block 4 Lot 8, Block 4 Lot 9, Block 4 Lot 13, Block 4 Lot 14, Block 4 Lot 15, Block 4 Lot 17, Block 4 Lot 18, Block 4 Lot 19, Block 4 -3177- Lot 21, Block 4 Lot 2, Block 3 CUP REVIEW PROCEDURE City Code Chapter 350:525 Subd. 3 (B) requires that all requests for conditional use permits are reviewed by the Planning Commission. Additionally, City Code Chapter 350:535 Subd. 3 (C) requires that a public hearing is held by the City Council. Members of the City Council are advised that the Notice of' Public Hearing for the public hearing was published in the Laker on June 22, 2002. Additionally, the Notice of Public Hearing was also mailed to all affected property owners located within (350) feet on or around June 30, 2002. 60-DAY PROCESS The conditional use permit application was received and deemed to be complete on April 30, 2002. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City of Mound has sixty (60) days to approve or deny a land use request. As the 60-day deadline expired on or around June 28, 2002, the City of Mound extended the review period an additional 60-days as provided for in M.S.S and provided written notice to the applicant on or around June 20, 2002. BACKGROUND Members of the City Council are advised that specific details regarding CUP request are outlined in Planning Report No. 02-18. Details regarding the Planning Commission's review of' the application are contained in the June 3, 2002 Planning Commission meeting minute excerpts. RECOMMENDATION Based on its review, the Planning Commission voted five (5) to two (2) to recommend Council approval of the Planned Development Area - Conditional Use Permit to allow (33) percent lot coverage for the (18) subject lots in the Langdon Bay subdivision subject to the Following conditions: The development shall maintain an overall hardcover average of (30) percent. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to verify and maintain documentation regarding the status of the hardcover calculations. No lot shall exceed (33) percent hardcover. A draft resolution based on the Planning Commission's recommendation has been included as an attachment. -3178- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE LANGDON BAY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TO EXCEED THE THIRTY (30) PERCENT HARDCOVER RESTRICTION FOR CERTAIN LOTS 'IN 'LANGDON BAY P&Z CASE # 02-18 WHEREAS, the applicants, .R.H. Helmet (developer) and Rottlund Homes (builder) have submitted an application for an amendment to the Planned Development Area-Conditional Use Permit for the Langdon Bay residential subdivision to exceed the thirty (30) percent hardcover restriction; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound granted final plat and development plan approval for Langdon Bay, a Planned Development Area by Conditional Use Permit on May 8, 2001; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 01-43 outlines the details associated with the City's approvals and includes a condition which regulates hardcover to no more than thirty (30) percent for all lots in the Langdon Bay subdivision; and WHEREAS, the applicants have indicated that the hardcover regulations set forth in City Resolution # 01-43 restricts their ability to provide a variety of house plans for certain lots in the development; and WHEREAS, one (1) lot in the Langdon Bay subdivision has been eliminated due to poor soils; and WHEREAS, the average lot coverage for the first (25) lots in the Langdon Bay subdivision is approximately (23) percent; and WHEREAS, the applicant's engineer has provided documentation that an average of (30) percent hardcover in the Langdon Bay subdivision does not affect the stormwater retention pond design; -3179- WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and voted five (5) to two (2)to recommend approval subject to conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: The City does hereby grant the Planned Development Area - Conditional Use Permit for the Langdon Bay subdivision to exceed the (30) hardcover restrictions as set forth in City Resolution No. 01-43 subject to the following conditions: The development shall maintain an overall hardcover average of(30) percent. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to verify and maintain documentation regarding the status of the hardcover calculations. No lot shall exceed (33) percent hardcover. This Planned Development Area - Conditional Use Permit Amendment is approved for the following legally described property: Lot 2, Block Lot 3, Block Lot 4, Block Lot 5, Block Lot 2, Block 4 Lot 3, Block 4 Lot 4, Block 4 Lot 6, Block 4 Lot 8, Block 4 Lot 9, Block 4 Lot 13, Block 4 Lot 14, Block 4 Lot 15, Block 4 Lot 17, Block 4 Lot 18, Block 4 Lot 19, Block 4 Lot 21, Block 4 Lot 2, Block 3 -3180- 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 July 9, 2002 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -3181 - Excerpts from the DRAFT MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION June 3, 2002 CASE #02-18 Rottlund Homes/RH Helmer PDA-CUP Amendment- Langdon Bay Intersection of Lynwood Boulevard/Robin Lane The applicants have submitted an application for an amendment to the Planned Development Area-Conditional Use Permit that was approved in 2001. They are requesting a little more flexibility with the hardcover on 18 specific lots. Due to bad soils on an existing lot it was eliminated. The current average is 23%. Request is 33%. Overall average would not exceed 30%. A recent Council meeting indicated general support. The project engineer has shown that the 30% will not impact the stormwater retention pond design. Tim Whitten, Rottlund Homes - A number of the homes that are creating some of the variety are unable to fit on some of the lots. It amounts to about 300 SF, or about the size of a front porch on a 10,000 SF lot. The positive elements will allow is to continue to promote the front porch, more one-level homes, to continue the variety of house types through the balance of the project, and finish the project in a timely fashion. There should be no impact on the ponds or wetlands, no additional tree removal. Chair Michael called for a motion to extend the work rules. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle, to extend the work rules to 11:20 p.m. MOTION carried unanimously. Mueller has a real problem with extra hardcover in new developments. The city made allowances for a 25 foot setback for the development. MOTION by Michael, second by Ayaz, to move approval of staff recommendation. Burma inquired about the lot description discrepancies. Staffwill make sure that the referenced lots are correct. Mueller doesn't feel that extending this to Rottlund is fair to other developers. Clapsaddle felt that the purpose of the hardcover requirement is being met by the overall percentage. Michael agreed. Weiland wanted to know if any of these lots are adjacent to lots that are sold already? He felt that would be unfair to the property owners that already made their choice with the 30% limitation. -3182- Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2002 DRAFT MOTION failed. Ayaz, Michael and Clapsaddle voted for; Mueller, Burma, Weiland and Hasse voted against. MOTION by Burma, second by Michael, to extend the work rules until 11:30 p.m. MOTION carded unanimously. Burma felt that the overall area looks good but what's to stop Rottlund or another builder to come and ask for more. Establishing some precedence. Weiland would feel bad voting this in with current property owners at 30%. Ayaz thought as a whole it was reasonable and makes great sense. How much will the neighbors be offended by it. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to reconsider. Burma and Hasse voted against; Ayaz, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Weiland and Michael voted for. MOTION by Michael, seconded by Ayaz, to move staff recommendation. Mueller requested an amendment to read: No lot shall exceed 33%. Michael and Ayaz agreed. MOTION carried. Weiland and Hasse voted against; Michael, Ayaz, Burma, Clapsaddle and Mueller voted for. MOTION by Burma, second by Mueller, to extend the work rules to 12:00 p.m. MOTION carried unanimously. -3183- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE Cf 02-18 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APiPLICATION FROM R.H. HELMER AND ROTTLUND HOMES FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PDA-CUP TO EXCEED THE (30) PERCENT HARDCOVER RESTRICTION IN THE LANGDON BAY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota will meet in the Council Chambel-s, 5431 Maywood Road, at 7:30 PM on Tuesday, July 9, 2002 to hold a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Planned Development Area-Conditional Use Permit to exceed the (30) percent hardcover restriction on certain lots in the Langdon Bay residential development project located south of the intersection ofLyn.wood Boulevard/CSAH 15 and Robin Lane. Copies of the application materials are available to the public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting Notice to be mailed to affected property owners within (350) feet on June 20, 2002. Published in The Laker on June 29, 2002. Inspections Secretary AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING HEARING NOTICE Case No. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) , being duly sworn, on oath says'that onlthe ,20 (~, he/she personally posted the attached notice in three public places in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit: 1) One true copy thereof on the bulletin board at City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota. 2) One true copy thereof on the front door of the Public Work~' Facility at 5468 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. 3) One true copy thereof on the bulletin board at the Westonka Community Library at 2079 Commerce Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. J Subscribed and sworn to before me, this ~(") day of 20 o . Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minnesota My Commission expires -3185- AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING HEARING NOTICE Case No. ~)~- I~ STATE OF MINNESOTA) " )SS. :. COUNTY OF HENNEPiN Jill Norlander, being duly sworn, deposes and says; I am a United States Citizen, over twenty-one (21) years of age, and the Secretary. for Planning and Inspections Department of the City of Mound, Minnesota. On ~ c~O ,2043c~q , acting on behalf of the City I deposited in the United States Post Office at Mound, Minnesota, copies of the attached notice of a hearing on proposed improvement, enclosed in sealed .. envelopes, with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses appearing opposite their respective names. NAME.. ADDRESS *See attached list. There is delivery service by the United States mail between the place of mailing and the places so addressed. Subscribed and sworn to before me this , ..... _-__=_=.. {~lij] , ; NOTARY PUBUC-MI:~N':SOTA Jill ~qorlander day of -3186- 5341 May'wood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: May 29, 2002 (Revised June 24, 2002) SUBJECT: PDA-CUP Amendment Request APPLICANT: Rottlund Homes and R.H. Development PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 02-18 LOCATION: Langdon Bay Subdivision - Intersection of Lynwood Boulevard and Robin Lane ZONING: R-1 Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential REQUEST The applicants, Rottlund Homes and R.H. Development, have submitted an application for an amendment to the Planned Development Area-Conditional Use Permit that was approved in 2001 which limits hardcover to no more than (30) percent on each lot in the Langdon Bay subdivision. Specifically, the applicants are seeking flexibility to allow hardcover up to (33) percent on a number of specific lots so that proposed buyers will have a variety of home plans to select from when lots are sold. The subject lots are identified as follows: Lot 2, Block 1 Lot 3, Block 1 Lot 4, Block 1 Lot 5, Block 1 Lot 2, Block 4 Lot 3, Block 4 Lot 4, Block 4 Lot 6, Block 4 Lot 8, Block 4 Lot 9, Block 4 Lot 13, Block 4 Lot 14, Block 4 Lot 15, Block 4 Lot 17, Block 4 Lot 18, Block 4 Lot 19, Block 4 Lot 21, Block 4 Lot 2, Block 3 -3187- Details regarding the request are contained the applicant's narrative which has been included as an attachment. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW CRITERIA As set forth in City Code Chapter 350:460 Subd. 2, a plan for the use and development of a tract of land in a residential district as a PDA by making an application for a conditional use permit. In granting a conditional use permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed land use upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that the conditional use permit review criteria are contained in City Code Chapter 350:525 Subd. I. CUP REVIEW PROCEDURE City Code Chapter 350:525 Subd. 3 (B) requires that conditional use permit requests (and amendments) are reviewed by the Planning Commission. Additionally, City Code Chapter 350:535 Subd. 3 (C) requires that a public hearing is held by the City Council. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that in the event a recommendation is received at the June 3, 2002 meeting, a public hearing will tentatively be scheduled to be held by the City Council at its June 25, 2001 meeting. Procedurally, state statute requires that the planning agency and/or governing body must hold a public hearing on all requests for conditional use permits and further requires that a Notice of Public Hearing is published at least (10) days in advance of the public hearing and is also mailed to all property owners within (350) feet. 60-DAY PROCESS The conditional use permit application was received and deemed to be complete on April 30, 2002. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City of Mound has sixty (60) days to approve or deny a land use request. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all applicable City departments for review and comment. To date, no comments have been received. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to the MCWD and the DNR for review. To date, no comments have been received -3188- DISCUSSION The applicants were present at the April 23, 2002 City Council meeting to discuss the Langdon Bay project and the (30) percent hardcover restriction. A copy of the meeting minutes has been included as an attachment. 2. Due to soils condition, one (1) lot has been eliminated from the lot inventory. 3. To date, the average lot coverage for the first (25) lots is approximately (23) percent. The development would maintain an overall "average" of (30) percent if the amendments were approved. The project engineer has provided documentation that an overall development "average" of (30) percent does not effect the current stormwater retention pond design. 6. The ability to provide a wide variety of house plans / designs is viewed as favorable. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the PDA- CUP amendment to allow (33) percent lot coverage for the identified subject lots in the Langdon Bay subdivision subject to the following condition: The development shall maintain an overall hardcover average of (30) percent. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to verify and maintain documentation regarding the status of the hardcover calculations. ATTACHMENTS Conditional use permit application dated May 28, 2002 Applicant narrative dated April 30, 200 Letter from Pioneer Engineering Dated March 25, 2002 Site plan - indicating status of subject lots Resolution No. 01-43 Memorandum dated April 19, 2002 April 23, 2002 City Council meeting minute excerpts Letter of complete dated May 13, 2002 February 23, 2000 Planning Commission meeting minute excerpts -3189- Goos City of Mound CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Conditional Use Permit Fee: $350,00 + Escrow Deposit. CITY CQUNCIL DATE: City Planner: c~ Eng~er:.. ~.*ASE NO. Please type or I wlnt the f~llowinlil infermaflon: INFORMA'nON / .... Name of Business LEGAl. Lot . ,, BIm:k Plat DESGRIPTION ~,v~o. /~/~ ~ OWNER ~~ ....... ~ ~'~-~?~ ~, ~¢E OF FROM: UaE ~ev£ee~ 0S/21/02 £0/~0'd -3190- S~DH ~N~ll~N CIT~ OF Desc, rlp~on of Proposed U~e: ~ ~006 EFFECTS OF THE pJRc)~ED USE: 'Ll~t i~ the.~d '~ ~ have on ~ in =the viqnKy, inCluding, but not limited to traffin, noise, light, amoke/~r, Pail<lng, arid d~ the stepe tal<en to mlflgate'ot ei'a~lllate the completion of the Pro~ ~0P~L' Estlma~ ~1~ COSt of ~le' Proje~'~c $. ~/,g¥ , Has an aPpi~ ever bMl~ made ~' zoning, varlanee, co~itlonal Uae ~it, or other zoning proCectura for this ~ ~ ( } no. If ~ list data(s) of application, action taken, msolutien number(s) and provide cepies of resolutions. exp/~et/o~ case. Applicatian muet be elgnecf bye# owners or,he. City Codes~0n 350:525 relating to C=ndm nii Use "e as must_ ~ 'reVieWed by the applicant. ff applying for a two '~IlY dwelling,. CitY Code $~On 350:630, Subd,;' 4. ~ ~ by the applicant. ~ev~ee~ 0S/.21/02 ................ se/£e'~ -3191 - 00:£T ~00~-8~-A~N S::INOH ([Nr'f-I.LLO;~ ROTTLUND HOMES'" A DM$1ON OF THE ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC, April 30~ 2002 Re: Langdon Bay - Mound, MN Dear City Staff, Members of the Planning Commission, Mayor and Members of the City Council: We at Rottlund Homes are very pleased with our initial success at Langdon Bay. Everything to date is exceeding our expectations and believe it will exceed yours as well. As you may recall, contained within the original P.U.D. approval was a requirement limiting the mount of building coverage on a lot to 30%. Presently, we have been forced to limit the availability of some home plans due to this condition. Specifically, we have found a great deal of demand for one level rambler plans and plans with front porches. The current maximum lot coverage of 30% has been difficult to comply with due to larger foot prints of these home plans. At this time, we are asking the City Council to consider allowing the flexibility to allow 18 lots to increase the maximum lot coverage from 30% to 33%. Keeping in mind that not all of these 18 lots would push the maximum, but would have the oppommity in some cases. We have met with staff to identify their concerns and have attempted to address them: --Will there be an impact at the storm ponds? Our average lot coverage to date for the first 25 homes sold is 23.21%, well below the 30% max. We have also eliminated one lot from our original approval due to a soil correction issue that will eliminate 3,300 Sq. ~. of approved lot coverage, which in and of it self, takes care of more than ½ of our request. We are below max. t.o date on the first 25 lots by 15,000 sq. ft. of their total lot coverage. Our reqUest would add a max. of an additional 5,400+- sq. ft. total. We have also requested and received a letter from our civil engineer (Please see attached letter from Pioneer Engineering), stitting that even if we max. the entire development at 30%, we would not affect the current storm sewer and ponding design. --Another concern of staff is the effective "look" of the lot if the surface coverage i?. increased by 3%. Our response is that 3% on a 10,000 sq. et lot is 300 sq. et., this equates to approximately a front porch. All setbacks would stay the same so the look from the street would not change. Also, no additional trees will be removed due to this request. To summarize, our request is for 18 lots of the 73 lots to have their max lot coverage increased from 30 to 33%, approximately 300 sq. ft per lot for a total of 5,400+- sq. ft. 3065 CENTRE POINTE DRIVE ROSEVII.I.I~.: MN 55113 -31@2- (651) 638-0500 FAX (651) 638-0501 --There would be no impact on the storm ponds or wetlands --No additional trees will be removed --We are tracking well below the 30% (24%) throughout the project (Please see the attached plan illustrating sold lots and 18 lots that we are requesting 33% max. lot coverage) ~ The benefits would be: --to continue to promote the front porch --to continue the variety of house types through the balance of the project --to allow for more one level plans to promote more variety in neighborhood and include more empty nesters to promote more d/versity of residents --to complete the proj eot in a more timely fashion, less disruption to neighboring properties If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 651-638-0500. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Timothy M. Whitten Executive Vice President enc -3193- PIONEER March 25, 2002 Civil Engineers · Land Planners ° Land Surveyors ° Landsoape Architects Mr. Dustin Kern Rottlund Homes 3065 ,Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Langdon Bay Mound, Minnesota P.E. Job # 100355 DeN Mr. Kem: As requested, I have reviewed the storm water hydrology for Langdon Bay. If the lot coverage throughout the development averaged thirty (30) percent impervious coverage, it would not effect the current storm sewer and ponding design. If you have and questions or need additional information, please call. Sincerely, PIONEER ENGINEERING, P.A. Paul A. Thomas, P.E. PAT/th 2422 Enterprise Drive ° Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 · (651) 681-1914 ° Fax 681 -9488 625 Highway 10 N.E. ° Blaine, Minnesota 55434 ° (763) 783-1880 ° Fax 783-1883 -3194- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION #01'-43 A. RESOLUTION OF THE. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY O.F MOUN O .. GRANTING FINAL.:.pL. AT AN.Q.:DEVELOpMENT ,PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AR~:B¥. CONDITIONAL.. USE PERMIT, FOR LA'NGD:ON BAY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT " CASE.#.01~I2 WHEREAS, the applicant, R.H. Development, has submitted a Final Plat application for a single family Planned Development Area development called Langdon Bay in the manner required for platting of land under, the City of'Mound Ordinance Code,~ Section 330~00 and under Chapter 462' of the Minnesota State Statue and.all proceedings have been duly cOnducted'thereunder; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development 74 Single family detached units on the 27.41 acres acresite inclUding proposed right-of, way to be vacated with"approval of the finel .plat. This land represents the largest 'single undeveloped parcel of land in the City. The development of the prope~y has been identified as a triggering mechanism to correct a number of public infrastructure deficiencies that the proposed development Would further impact inCluding roadways~.~..water systems, and drainage;, and, WHEREAS, the Mound City Code allows the establishment of Planned Development Areas "to provide a method by which parcels of land in the Residential Use Districts having unusual building characteristics due to' subsoil conditions, topographic :conditions, elevation of water table, unique environmental considerations, or because of the parcel's unusual shape or location in relationship to .lakes, trees or other natural resources requires a more unique and controlled platting technique to protect~and.promote the quality of life in the City"; and, WHEREAS, the development.is located in the R-t ZOhing District which requires for lots'of record, a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. lot area, a minimum lot width of 60 feet, a frontyard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, 15 feet rear yard setback, and a minimum bUildihg fioot'~area requirement of 840 squai'e~fee't; .and;:, :~ .j ·: .,- WHEREAS, all lots exceed the minimum lot size requirement of 10,000 square feet and lot Width i-eqdirements of 60 feet at the required front yard building setback as required in the R-1 zoning district; and, , WHEREAS, the: City has .considered traffic a'nd other aspects of'the.propOsed Project as it rnight affe~t"public health, safety' ot,. welfare and ~imposed conditions upon the approval addressing those considerations; and, 3. -3195- R~sOluflon N0. 01-43 WHEREAS, the planning commission and Ci:{y Council have studied the practicability of the preliminary Plat planned develOP~'~t area, taking into':C°nsideration the'requirements of the City, giving particular attentlo~ to the arra~gernent and location of the street, their.relation to 't0pograPhy, fld:bdpiain, wetlands:, water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, lot size and arrahgement,' the present and future development of adjoining lands and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other official controls; and, "' WHEREAS, the physical charaCteristics of the site are suitable for the type anddensity of development contemplated subject to the conditions imposed herein, and th~:.proposed subdivision as conditioned is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use in the area; and, WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to preserve wooded areas and to retain, as far as practicable, existing tree cover. The' property contains significant tree cover of native maple and basswood varieties. Construction of public roadways and building pads for single family units will require a large degree of grading to certai~n areas of the property. In these areas it is not practical to protect existing trees and vegetation.' In other areas Where limited grading will occur, especially in secondary grading of individual lots, there is a greater opportunitY'to protect existing trees; and, WHEREAS, an upgraded water system will/need to provide an acceptable level of water service to the development for private use and public fire protection. This.area of the city currently has. Iow water pressures: and an additional 74 homes' will further degrade the water supply to this area without system upgrades; and;. · WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of Ordinances of the City of'Mound; and, NOW THEREFORE, Mihnesota: ' BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council.of~the City of Mound, Final Plat issuance subject to compliance with the following requirements and conditions: 1. The final plat drawing labeled as. Exhibit A is hereby incorporated into this Resolution and all improvementsshall beas shown on the plans or as modified under the approval of the City Engineer. 2. Conditions and recommendations as contained in the Engineer's Memo dated May 4, 2001 report. 2 -3196- ,Resolution No. 01-43 3. Prior to the City releasing the final plat, the Developer shall sign a development contract with the City. Thedevelopment~contract shall stipulate that · constrUction of all public improvements covered· by.Said contract shall be completed within 280 days of the City releasing the final plat. As part of the development contract, the Developer shalJ., furnish the City,with a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security approved by the City Attorney in the amount of 125% of estimated construction costs as per plans approved by the City Engineer. 4. A 50 feet right-of-way be provided along Robin Lane to. its connectiOn with Lynwood Blvd. Outlots A, B, C~ and D,.be dediCated to the citY, The City Attorney shall examine title to the. property and shall render a title opinion to the city showing the ownership status of the property prior to filing. The appli¢~ant shall provide.the City Attorney a current abstract or register of property abstract for Langdon Bay. The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within one hundred eighty (180) daysof the City Council approving th, final plat. If the plat is notfiled within that time period, it shall become null and void. 8, Plat execution by parties and delivery by developer of consent and waiver for West Edge Blvd. improvements. ,-: ·. 9. Developer will reimburse the.~City for legals engineering and planning costs incurred for review and approval of this plat, Final Development Plan ·approval subject to·compliance with the. following requirements and conditions: . 1. The developer comply with HennePin CountY access requirements-of Robin Lane. at .Lynwood Blvd,~ · . ~.,~, , 2,, Yhe buildable area for.each 10t .include all structure encompassing the house, · attached garage, decks and porches, to meet. the setbacks as shown on the proposed building plans. 3,- Hard.cover for each lot be not more than 30%. 3 -3197- Resolution No. 01-43 The stormwater drainage Plan be.reviewed and approved by the Minnehaha c~eek watershed District (MCWD). The DeveloPer shall secure and provide the City with a copy of a Stormwater permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to the City releasing the final plat. 6. The homeowner's association be responsible for storm water pond maintenance. ¸7. The developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities. The utilities shall not be installed until the boulevard or utility easements have been graded and the grade elevations are approved by the City Engineer. All utilities shall be located undergrOund. ' UP to'3 bUilding permits may be issued prior to awarding contracts for utility and street construction, MPCA permit is issuance and the' Final Plat has been filed and recorded at Hennepin County. 9. The Conservation Easements be provided prior to release of the Final Plat for all wetland and bluff areas. 10. The Developer shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building Official of all reviews and all required permits from the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, or any other applicable permits, prior to beginning construction. The Building OffiCial will not authorize construction until all permits are secUred. 11.The developer shall comply With the Wetland COnServation Act (WCA) and other regulatory agency requirements including the Army corps of Engineers and Department of Natural Resources. 12. Right-of-way tree planting varieties be reviewed and apprOVed by the City planner. Minimum size and dimension for deciduous trees are applicable as prescribed b~y the City's landscaping regulations. Planting details shall be provided prior'to inStallation along With material warranty evidence from' the nursery. 13. A sidewalk be installed along the north side of Pintail Lane from Westedge Blvd. to Outlot B. 4 -3198- ResoluUon No. 01-43 14. The proposed right-of-way vacation request be conditioned upon meeting the conditions of final plat approval. 15. Prior to any occupancy the applicant shall secure Certificates of Occupancy from the Building Official. Certificates will not be issued for homes in the subdivision until utilities and access servicing the homes are approved by the City Engineer, Public Works Superintendent, and Building Official. 16. The MPCA's Best Mana,qement Practices shall be applied to the development ' and subsequent management of the property. 17. Development standards that are different than the R-1 District and other applicable standards as follows. Cul-de-sac right-of-way radius 45'r Lots: Setback for one side yard on all lots 6' Front Yard Setback 25' Lot 4, Block 2 - Bluff Setback 25' Lot 8, Block 2 - Bluff Setback 10' Approves a Conditional Use Permit conditioned on approval of a Final Plat. Approves the vacation request of Butternut Road as described and approved by the City Engineer in Exhibit "B" and conditioned on release of the final plat for recording. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdiv, ider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, ali in compliance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 and the City of Mound Code of Ordinances. ,. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Brown and seconded by Councilmember Hanus. 5 -3199- Resolution No. 01-43 The fc~llowing Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Brown, Hanus, Meisel, Anderson, Meyer, The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None. SS/Pat Meis~t Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk 6 -3200- 5341 Maywood Ro~d Mound, MN 55364~ (952) 472-3190 MEMORANDUM From Date: Re: SUlVIMARY Honorable Mayor and City Council Sa~ ,ah Smith,.Cc~mmunity Developmem Director 4/i9/200~. ~gdOn Bay SubdiVision Representatives from Rottlund Homes including Tim Whittenand Dustin Kern will be present at the City c°un;il meeting to provi~ a~bfief update regarding. the stares of the Langdon Bay development by R. Hi Development. Rottlund Homes would also like to .diScuss the PDA, CUP approvals which were granted as pan of the project which 'presently includes a hardcover restriction of (3.0),~perce. m :which. is the standard, req~emem of.the R,t zoning distriet~ it is Ci~: staff's under~ng:~ ROttlUnd Homes is experiencing diffi, eulti;~s ~odafing cern mod~}§ iri. lthe development. Members of the City Council are advised that any changes to the PDA-CUP WOUld reqUke formal review and approval by the Plmg Commission and City Council ATTAINTS Letter from Rottlund Homes dfited April 17, 2002 re lOt cov, er~e flehb{lity Letter from Pioneer Engineering.dated March 25, 2002 re: storm sewer ponding SketCh plan(s) re :~s of Langdon Bay . Resolution No. 0143 · February 28, 2000 Planning C0mmission meeting ~Utes -3201 - MOTION by, Meyer, seoended by Oemek to: approve He Joint Coopera{i.,.~ Agreement' ~oept. At1~ voted i~ favor~ MotiOn oarried. Ti~:'~~"'~~n.:~m"..~ Reffiar~ Hemes previa!ed, a.briefeverview regarding the L~n. B~.:~...~cA ~ ~e 30% ha~d~ver metri~n, They were aware ef ~ 30% limi{a~ien ~i~. waS.plaoed.en the de. vel~pment~ I~,t regreffatly misundere{eed what c~m:Pe~er~$' wemin~uded:in, the ha~d¢over cale~lations. He indicated that overall they believe the pr~eje.ct w~'.l~.be.a~der the 3~% rest~.ietion, ~ A~er diS¢uSsie~~, it .was deeided that Ret~lund Homes wi'Il 'pm'coed with .th® preparation ~;~'~ ~ssa~'la~l use' a~plirafions W, hich willb® forwarded to the Planning. C~mmi~-~ien: ~en a:pp~o~iate~ 9,. A~ANGE .QF...EUNDS?G, XCEL ENERGY FOE. A DETAILED ENGIN.EERINC~ Es~i:~A~ ........... . ' "" ":" ~ ' ' ' .... "~ M'~"-~'i~Y :Hanusl, self, dod'by Bre~ te adept the ~ll~ing resolution, A~ vot~ in fav~ Mean ~ed. RESQEU~iQN :,NO, 92~i= RE.SOLUtION AUTHORIZING .AN ADV,.ANGE TO XCEL EN~e¥': T~i:~ pE~oRM:;A DE:TAILED. ENOINEEmNG. GOST ESTIMATE. SA, EMJNEN.~i D. OMAIN. A~C;T!.ON .FOI~ .MAXWELL ,.EROPEI~ ' for ~e:p~:te~teda~ng~.~the ne~hside of ~emJi~e D~ve, whi~ iS e~d by Ga~ M~e1~;-. ~ame~enstatea~:~at {his ~pe~y is neede~ to. a'~m~da~ a namer of u~t~ies~i~el~ie~ :X~!-Ene~y; and:MGm;S,. Pe~i0~s am ass needed ~. a~me~e ~e. Ciys. ~e~Water .pe~d ~hiCh .will handle wamr ~ff: MO~N~'~¥~r, se.~l~ by B~own m, ade..~t the feikawing .mso~tutien. All. v, eted. in fa~er;. Me~en:,.~r,'~ied. · ' ' RESO~TI..O~N~ NQ~ '0.2~t:~; R~QLU~iO, N AUTHOR~{.NG ~INENT BQMAIN ~B, $~UE!URBAN.,RA~E.AU~H~. RI~ Hanus m~,..e. Ae;d':t~iat the. S~- re,~.y voted te mdu~ ~e. fees for the in~elved munieiPa'~tie:s.,~:, . He also briefly,.., diSeuSs~ the do~te~ pr~"..~" whi~ invoiced, ~he ~ete~flen ef X~l,S ,~ansmis-sien lines~ Hanus .r~ed -tha~ Mr: .St~men has commented ~at. M0und~.s de, tOwn preje~, may be a good: "test ~se" mga~dhg the 4 -3202- CITY OF MO.UND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FA.X: (952),.472-0620 WEB: www.cltyofmOund.com May 13,2002 Mr. Dustin Kern The Rottlund Company, Inc. 3065 Centre Pointe Drive North Roseville, MN 55113 RE: PDA-CUp Amendment Dear Mr. Kem: This letter is in.regard to the land use application you submitted on April 30, 2002 · for a proPoSed PDA-CUP amendment for the Langdon Bay project to exceed the thirty (30) percent hardcover restriction. Based upon review by City Staff, the application has been deemed to be complete and will be forwarded to the Planning Cormnission for review at' its june 3, 2002 meeting. If you haVe any questions regarding any of this information, please contact me at 952- 472-3190 SinCerely, 'Sarah J. Smith · Community Development Director ~Drinted on recycledpaper -3203- MINUTES MOUND ADVI'SORY pLANNING COMMISSION MONDAy, FEBRUARY 28, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Jerry Clapsaddle, BeCky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland; Council Liaison Bob Brown (dismissed at 9:05 p.m). Absent and excused: Commissioner Orvin Burma. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following public were present: Klm Anderson, Marshall Anderson, Jane and Marty Carlsen, Wayne E. Ehlebracht, Lisa Holter, Steve Howard, Tim Loberg, Peter C. Meyer, John Parker, Bart Roeglin, Sandy Roeglin, Linda Skorseth. Chair Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:39 p.m. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 14. 2000, MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Brown stated the Planning Commission would be receiving in their packets the City Council minutes in the future. He stated there have been delays in the minutes but this is being worked on, MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse, to accept the February 14, 2000, Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted. MOTION CARRIED: 8-0. on presented this case. He stated R.H. Development/Rottlund Homes submitted a sketch plan for staff and Planning Commission review and comment. They have a purchase agreement with Leroy Alwin, pending development plan approval. The proposal is for an 80 lot single-farfiily residential development on the undeveloped 27- a(~re parcel with typical 70 16t widths and 10,800 square feet lots. Gross density for the project as proposed would be 2.96 dwelling units .per acre, which falls within the iow density.residential range provided for in the Comprehensive Plan. It has been indicated -3204- Mound Plannino Commission Minutes, February 28. 2000 that the developer will pursue a Planned Unit Development (.PUD) approach for the projeCt.'The ProPerty is currently zoned R-1. Single fami'l~: residential which establishes a 1'0,000 square feet minimum lot area and 60 feet lot width.· Gordon commented on the sketch plan as' followS: a. The proposed sketch plan represents a Major Subdivision and would require preliminary and final plats if it proceeds. The developer has indicated they Would like to entertain the PUD ib'r~CeSS to allow for narrower ROW and Street widths. b. The concept Suggests a mix of typical grid and,.curvilinear subdivision design. The 80 single-family lots are all similarly sized at 10,800 square feet. This meets the minimum 10;000 Square :f~etstandard: for the R,.1 Single Family Residential zone.' The concept shOws the property "lotted out" with the exception of wetland/ponding areas and two park sites. Additional attention is needed at the p.lat~ing stage to remove butt/"sandwiched" .lots from some areas., c. The typical houSing plans seem to be agood "fit" in the neighborhood and also meet community needs for "upscale" single-family housing, It appears that the existing residence and outbuildings would be removed. They have some unique qualities that if retained, could add value to the property. Additional consideration should be given to see what potential exists for their continued use. d. The developer.would like to narrow the street corridor by narrowing the right-of- way~ street width and front yard setbacks. Conceptually, staff agrees with this approach to minimize environmental impacts. Less street pavement will reduce the amount of hardsurface and water runoff improving water quality. e. Park site dedication requirements would indicate the need for a minimum of 2.7 acres of. parkland on the property. Given t. hebuildout of the community,and the lack of parkland in this. area, staff would prefer a parksite on the property rather t-hah fees in lieu of land, The developer has shown a connection to the railroad right,of-way, which looks to be a future .regional trail connection. This,.is a positive feature for the development/community. Need to show additional pedestrian connections within the development. f. Additional topography information is.needed at a 2 feet interval. There may be some areas that could be considered bluffs. g. The site hasa number of natural features:that will affect this development concept including slopes.~ wooded areas, and wetlands.~Additional plans will need to be prepared-showing existing site conditions.toa.greater detai! than is provided, Tree protection~ policies will"require attention is given :te:'the,densely vegetated areas that cover a majority of the property, Additional wetland information will be needed to satisfy the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). h. Two access points are provided via undeveloped Robin Lane (Robin Lane currently' se~es as the driveway to the AIwi~ homestead) and West Edge ~Road. These ap'~)eat.to be:'l'Sgibal cOnnectionS to the. roadway network. Furthe~ detail is needed from the d'eVeloper to address road improvements on West Edge Road. The road is%t classified as State-Aid because the Minnetrista half cannot receive state funding. 2 -3205- Mound Planning Commission Minutes. February 28. 2000 · i. There are other dedicated public fights-of-way on the'Property that could be used a pedestrian trail system, j. Need to show a utility plan for the development, Watermain needs lOoping in the development and sanitary sewer main and connections need to be shown. . k, Storm drainage and ponding system needs to be further explored for the site. Gordon stated there might be additional comments from the Park Commission, Public Works, Engineering, and Fire Departments to this sketch plan that have' not been provided to him. yet. Gordon stated the Westedge location would need to be reviewed with great intensity because this is the dividing lining between Minnetrista and.Mound. Voss asked where the access Was going to be located for the fut:ure trail system. Gordon stated a small trail head would be developed through the park location near the railroad track. The developer stated he would expand on this question when he presents the Sketch.. Brown stated the City of MoUnd is in desperate need for parkland because they will be losing some park space with the redevelopment of downtown. He asked if it would be feasible for the developer to locate one large piece of property where a nice park with swingS and a Babe Ruth ballfield could be built. Tim Wittman, Vice President of Rottlund Homes, presented his sketch plan. He stated they have a valid purchase agreement With Rex Alwin regarding this property, in the beginning; Rottlund Homes WOuld have liked building townhomes on this property, but Mr. Alwin was quite offended with that offer and made it quite clear he wanted single family homes built. After discusSions, ,Rottlund Homes agreed to build single family homes on this property and they are very excited to be a part of this project. Mr. Wittman stated the property around Lake Langdon is being proposed for park use. He stated this park would have access to the lake with a trail or sidewalk going to and from the park through the development. He stated this property does have some steep edges, but' alSO includes very beaUtiful trees. He stated there is a wetland area desigria~ed in the developme'nt that Rottlund intends to stay away from and help preserve this area. Mr. Wittman stated there are storm ponding areas that need to be worked on as Well. He stated th& position of the road right-of-way Was in the Iow area which was odd:, but workable.' Mr. Wittman mentioned he met with the Park commission: The Park Commission would like more park dedication than required, although the developer is pleased with the 2.7 acres presented, bL~t al.~o a little flexible. He stated the Park Commission thought the park.dedication aroun~l Lake Langdon looked very attractive. The developer stated they would be putting in a second, small pocket park up by Lynwood 3 -3206- Mound Plannina Commission Minutes. February 28. 2000 that would include a gazebo and play structure. These 85 sing{e homes would be priced around $250,000. Brown restated he would like Rottlund Homes pursqe the possibility of having one large park dedicated in this development, rather than two s~aller parks. Mr. Wittman stated the public appreciated the site sizes and the lOcation of the houses on the sites for the purpose of saving as many trees as poss!ble behind the homes. He is hopeful to reduce the right-of-way surface that would allow the homes to be closer to the street. He further stated he is proposing the setba, cks not so far back and also keeping the homes more wide than deep. He further stated rather than 10 feet on the sides of the homes, a 6-foot side setback is being,proposed. All of these compromises will help save the trees in this development..: Clapsaddle suggested having mom flexibility in each'lot size. Mr. Wittman stated he would keep this possibility in:the back of his mind. Mr. Wittman stated it was asked of him if they Would be able to save Mr. Alwin's house or not. He stated Mr. Alwin's house would need to be brought up to the standards, but will certainly look at the opportunity of preserving his home. Mr. Wittman further stated the style of homes would be bungalow, one level, and two- story homes. He stated each home would have a two-car garage with a tandem for a third car. There would be a porch'proposed for each.home being built and also having a boulevard tree planted in the right-of-way. Voss suggested if this meets the upscale single family homes, he would recommend having 10 feet on each side of the homes rather than the 6 feet dimension proposed. He stated this would be more appealing to buyers. Brown stated having only 12 feet between each home might be a problem with the fire department. He stated the 20-foot dimension would help with fighting fires. Mueller stated he liked the sketch plan proposed tonight. He stated it appears Rottlund Homes is creating a ,nice neighborhood with parks made available for the public. He stated he appreciates the front porch on the homes. Mueller stated the 26 feet wide streets are probably workable, rather than the 28 feet wide in the City ordinance. Mueller asked if the City Engineer has commented yet about inc. luding a boulevard tree in the front yard which might be located where the' utility easement has been designated. Mr. Wittman stated Rottlund Homes could be creative with the City Engineer. in putting the utilities in a proper location. Mueller asked Mr. Wittman about the trail right-of-way and whether it should be sidewalk or a trail. Mr. Wittman stated he would prefer to see a sidewalk approach. Muelter asked if any of the trail site is being considered for the parkland dedication and 4 -3207- .Mound Planning Commission Minutes. February 28. 2000 at this point, it is not. Rottlund Homes has not reached into the final details of the development of the site. Mueller asked if hardcover had been calculated where the wetland areas have been planned. Mr. Wittman stated no calculations of hardcover have been discussed up to this point. Mueller was concerned about the setbacks being considered on corner lots. Mr. Wittman stated the lots would be 25 feet setbacks. Mueller asked Mr. Wittman if after reviewing a sketch plan, the Planning Commission should be looking at something that is comfortable to them with regard to zoning and what could be agreed upon and discussed at a later date. Mr. Wittman stated this was a true statement. Mueller questioned the 6-foot side yards. He stated he would appreciate Rottlund Homes supplying the Planning Commission with examples of homes in a development they have already developed and it has been a positive experience for them and the homeowners. Mr. Wittman would be happy to demonstrate homes of this type. Voss asked about how wide the Dakota Line currently is. Mr. Wittman stated it is about 100 feet. Voss asked Mr. Wittman if this property is being considered as park dedication property at this point. Mr. Wittman stated this is not being considered as park dedication, but rather open space where grass could be planted in some fashion. Clapsaddle stated the parkland space would be increased if the Dakota Line could be redone in the suggested way by Mr. Wittman. Clapsaddle is concerned about maintaining big boats/rv's in front of homes at this development. He would like to see it written there would be restrictions with such vehicles being allowed to be parked in the front of their homes. Gordon stated this is normally covered in the covenants. Clapsaddle stated covenants tend to fade away over time. He further stated he is very excited about the plan proposed, but strongly stressed he does not want to see big boats/rv's in front of these people's homes. Mr. Wittman stated he could possibly suggest the covenants of the association run beyond the normal 20-year period. Brown stated he appreciated the concept being proposed. He stated he does not approve of the 6-foot side yard, as well as having two parks in this development. He would propose having a few of the lots located by Lake Langdon to be considered lakeshore property, and moving the park by Lake Langdon up to a location where one large park could be dedicated to this development. Mr. Wittman stated Rottlund Homes is flexible. -3208- Mound Plannina Commission Minutes, February 28, 2000 Voss asked the Chair if the public could speak tonight if they wished even though this was not a public hearing. Chair Michael stated this would be fine. With regard to the 6-foot side setbacks, Sutherland suggested having each house built with six feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. With these dimensions, there would be 16 feet between each home, which is closer to the 20 feet requirement. Mr. Wittman appreciated Sutherland's suggestion and will highly consider it. Mueller stated he does not recall many plats coming to the City in a drainage wetland area. He stated there often are outlots, such as in Pelican Point or Teal Point. Gordon stated this is possible by having the property part of your own property. He stated platting back through a pond is favorable. Gordon stated this sets a situation where the homeowners association would maintain. Secondly, it could be a regional pond where the City would maintain it with an outlot. Gordon prefers not handling this problem with an outlot. Bart Roeglin, 2260 Westedge Boulevard, Mound. Mr. Roeglin is concerned whether the developer will actually keep all the trees it intends. He has seen other developers make promises and do not fulfill them. Mr. Roeglin would also appreciate the Commissioner walking the property by themselves and noting areas that will need to be filled. He stated when there are areas that need filling, this of course disrupts the soil, and causes trees to die. Thirdly, Mr. Roeglin is concerned about the traffic that will increase tremendously by Westedge with this development. He would like changes if possible in the routing of the traffic. Finally, Mr. Roeglin would like to see some control of the dirt blasts that will occur with this development. Mr. Wittman noted his concerns. Brown stated the City would like to cul-de-sac the ~rea near Westedge which would push the traffic out towards Hwy 110 and assist in the amount of traffic going in that direction. Secondly, he is confident from other reputable resources that Rottlund Homes is honest and reputable. Sandy Roeglin, 2260 Westedge Boulevard, Mound. She stated right now where she lives there are approximately eight homes and with this additional 85 homes being built in this location, she is concerned the property would be too dense with too many homes, f. Chair Michael wanted it clarified by Rottlund Homes that a motion be passed tonight does not represent the Planning Commission is in complete favor of the sketch plan. Mr. Wittman completely understands and stated this is not a binding situation and they still have a lot of work to do to finalize the plan. MOTION by Voss, second by Brown, to conceptually approve this project with a minimum of 2.7 acres of park dedication property and a road width minimum of 28 feet. 6 -3209- M0[jnd Planning (;;gmmission Minutes, February 28, 2000 Discussion, Brown made a friendly motion to have the distance between houses a minimum of 16 feet and suggest the 2.7 acre park dedication be one large park, rather than 2 smaller ones. Voss did not accept the friendly motion by Brown. Mueller stated he appreciates the location of the park being proposed. Brown stated he does not see Mound people using the park as suggested. Clapsaddle stated it is premature to narrow the street at this point. He further stated the location of the park is appreciated and the trail would be an added plus. Clapsaddle stated the City needs to solve the problem of having a Babe Ruth ballfield for the citizens of Mound, but it is not realistic to suggest a developer give the City a large park being requested, but rather a park that Rottlund has suggested today. Clapsaddle suggested having the motion amended to not include the size of the road width to be 28 feet at this point. Mueller agreed at this point stating the road width should be 28 feet is premature. Voss stated he would certainly remove this part of the motion, but a nice wide street for the children to play in when appropriate would be appreciated. Mueller offered a friendly amendment to keep below the 30 percent hardcover requirement for this development. Voss agreed to this friendly motion by Mueller. Brown stated he does not want two or three parks located in this development because of the neighbors possibly saying "this is our park in our development" and not appreciating those that do not live in the development using the park. Brown further stated having one large piece of property would look more city designated, although, he would be comfortable at this point removing his friendly motion. Clapsaddle stated he appreciated the boulevard concept with the sketch. He also stated he would like seeing the railroad section created as a historical thing. Brown asked if it would be possible to put the utilities down the middle of the street rather than in the location of where the boulevard would be suggested by the developer. Gordon stated having utilities in the middle of street is not done today because of access to them. He stated typically the utilities fall between the sidewalk or the back edge of the curb. 7 -3210- Mound Planning ¢0rrlmi~sion Minutes. February 28, 2000 AMENDED MOTION by Voss, seconded by Brown, to conceptually approve this project with a minimum of 2.7 acres of park dedication property,, a 16 foot side yard setback, and a maximum of 30 percent hardcover for the development. Motion carried. 8-0, DISCUSSION: SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. Gordon stated Mr. Dan Parks is here to continue the review process of the Surface Water Management Plan starting on page 26. Mr. Parks recapped he had updated all of the appendixes in a white book ~hich he passed out to the Planning Commission, as well as a book of colored maps in a blue book. Mr. Parks addressed Mr. Casey's letter and stated he incorporated most of his comments, about 10 to 15, into the Surface Water Management Plan. Mr. Parks stated in the SWMP he has identified snowmobile access points and further stated a lawn fertilizer ordinance may be something to consider in the future but the MCWD is not mandating at this time. Mr. Parks mentioned he would discuss Lake Langdon in a moment in his presentation and ended by stating the buffer zone section should be resolved before a page-by-page review of the SWMP proceeds. Mr. Parks handed out Table 3 in the SWMP that referenced information that was missing concerning Lake Langdon. Mueller confirmed Table 3 is on page17 and the language should go on page 18. Mr. Parks agreed. Mr. Parks further stated with regard to Table 3 he did a study of the normal water level, the high level and the flood analysis for Lake Langdon. He stated Mound's current code requires a 937 and he suggested not changing the code at this point in time. Clapsaddle stated he is concerned about the water level around the Catholic Church and proposed downtown redevelopment location. Mr. Parks introduced the buffer zone section of the SWMP. Mueller stated this section meets the intent of the Planning Commission's motion and is very concise and to the point. Mueller asked Mr. Parks if there might be issues the MCWD may not approve of in the buffer zone section. Mr. Parks stated there may be problems with the 20-foot width of the buffer and they may want it to be larger. Although, Mr. Parks recommended leaving the SWMP as written concerning the buffer zone and if the MCWD would like to negotiate this issue at a later point, that would be acceptable to him. 8 -3211 - I I 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council t~ From: Sarah Smith, Community Development Direc Date: 6/27/2002 Re: Proposed Right-of-Way and Gas Franchise Ordinances For your review and consideration, the proposed final drafts of the new right-of-way (ROW) and gas franchise ordinance(s) have been included. As the City Council may be aware, City staff, in cooperation with City Attorney Jim Strommen has been working on the new' ordinance(s) for the past few months. Members of the City Council are advised that the various private utility companies and Hennepin County have been involved in the City's ordinance process and were subsequently invited to meeting which was held on April 5, 2002 at which time City staff'reviewed the proposed new ordinances(s) also responded to all comments and/or suggested revisions. The proposed final draft(s) were forwarded to all utility companies on or around June 2, 2002 at which time they were notified that the item would be included on the July 9, 2002 City Council meeting. It is City staff's understanding that Excel Energy and Frontier Communication continue to have concerns regarding the proposed final draft of the ROW ordinance. It is anticipated that Pat Cline of Excel and Butch McConnell of Frontier Communication will be attending the meeting to share their concerns regarding the new ROW ordinance. Be further advised that Reliance/Minnegasco and Hennepin County have notified the City that they have no objections regarding the proposed new ordinance(s). Mr. Strommen will be attending the July 9, 2002 City Council meeting to present the new ordinances. -3213- ORDINANCE NO. , FOURTH SERIES, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND REGULATION OF PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE AND REGULATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMITS; ADDING SECTION 655 TO THE MOUND CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. The Mound City Code is amended to add a new Section 655 to read as follows: Section 655 - RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT 655.01 Findin~ Purposq and Intent. To provide for the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and to ensure the integrity of its streets and the appropriate use of the rights-of-way, the city strives to keep its rights-of-way in a state of good repair and free from unnecessary encumbrances. Accordingly, the city enacts this new Section of this code relating to fight-of-way permits and administration. This Section imposes reasonable regulation on the placement and maintenance of facilities and equipment currently within the City's rights-of-way or to be placed therein at some future time. It is intended to complement the regulatory roles of state and federal agencies. Under this Section, persons excavating and obstructing the rights-of-way will bear financial responsibility for their work through the recovery of out-of-pocket and projected costs from persons using the public fights-of-way. This Section shall be interpreted consistently with 1997 Session Laws, Chapter 123, substantially codified in Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.16, 237.162, 237.163, 237.79, 237.81, and 238.086 (the "Act") and the other laws goveming applicable rights of the city and users of the right-of-way. This Section shall also be interpreted consistent with Minnesota Rules 7819.0050 - 7819.9950 where possible. To the extent that any provision of this Section cannot be interpreted consistently with the Minnesota Rules, the interpretation most consistent with the Act and other applicable statutory and case law is intended. 655.02 Election to Manage the Public Rights-of-Way Pursuant to the authority granted to the city under state and federal statutory, administrative and common law, the city elects pursuant Minnesota Statutes, section 237.163 subdivision 2(b), to manage fights-of-way within its jurisdiction. 655.03 Defmitions. The following definitions apply in this Section of this code. References to "subdivisions" are unless otherwise specified references to subdivisions in this Section. Subd. 1. "Abandoned Facility" means a facility no longer in service or physically disconnected from a portion of the operating facility, or from any other facility, that is in use or still carries service. A facility is not abandoned unless declared so by the right-of-way user. JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 -3214- Subd. 2. "Applicant means any person requesting permission to excavate or obstruct a right-of-way. Subd. 3. "City" means the city of Mound, Minnesota. For purposes of Section 655.29, city means its elected officials, officers, employees and agents. Subd. 4. "Commission" means the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Subd. 5. "Congested Right-of-Way" means a crowded condition in the subsurface of the public right-of-way that occurs when the maximum lateral spacing between existing underground facilities does not allow for construction of new underground facilities without using hand digging to expose the existing lateral facilities in conformance with Minnesota Statutes, section 216D.04. subdivision 3, over a continuous length in excess of 500 feet. Subd. 6. "Construction Performance Bond" means any of the following forms of security provided at permittee's option: mo Do Individual project bond; Cash deposit; Security of a form listed or approved under Minnesota Statutes, section. 15.73, subdivision; Letter of Credit, in a form acceptable to the city; Self-insurance, in a form acceptable to the city; A blanket bond for projects within the city, or other form of construction bond, for a time specified and in a form acceptable to the city. Subd. 7. "Degradation" means a decrease in the useful life of the right-of-way caused by excavation in or disturbance of the right-of-way, resulting in the need to reconstruct such right-of-way earlier than would be required if the excavation or disturbance did not occur. Subd. 8."Degradation Cost" subject to Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 means the cost to achieve a level of restoration as determined by the city at the time the permit is issued, not to exceed the maximum restoration shown in plates 1 to 13, set forth in Minnesota Rules parts 7819.9900 to 7819.9950. Subd. 9. "Degradation Fee" means the estimated fee established at the time of permitting by the city to recover costs associated with the decrease in the useful life of the right- of-way caused by the excavation, and which equals the degradation cost. Subd. 10. "Department" means the department of public works of the city. Subd. 11. "Department Inspector" means any person authorized by the city to carry out inspections related to the provisions of this Section. Subd. 12. "Director" means the director of the department of public works of the city, or her or his designee. JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 2 -3215- Subd. 13. "Delay Penalty" is the penalty imposed as a result of unreasonable delays in right-of-way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration as established by permit. Subd. 14. "Emergency" means a condition that (1) poses a danger to life or health, or of a significant loss of property; or (2) requires immediate repair or replacement of facilities in order to restore service to a customer. Subd. 15. "Equipment" means any tangible asset used to install, repair, or maintain facilities in any right-of-way. Subd. 16. "Excavate" means to dig into or in any way remove or physically disturb or penetrate any part of a right-of-way. Subd. 17. "Excavation permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this Section, must be obtained before a person may excavate in a right-of-way. An Excavation permit allows the holder to excavate that part of the right-of-way described in such permit. Subd. 18. "Excavation Subdivision permit fee" means money paid to the city by an applicant to cover the costs as provided in Section 655.12. Subd. 19. "Facility or Facilities" means tangible asset in the public right-of-way required to provide utility service. The term does not include Facilities to the extent the location and relocation of such Facilities are preempted by Minnesota Statutes, section 161.45, goveming utility facility placement in state trunk highways. Subd. 20. "Five-year project plan" shows projects adopted by the city for construction within the next five years. Subd. 21. "High Density Corridor" means a designated portion of the public right- of-way within which telecommunications right-of-way users having multiple and competing facilities may be required to build and install facilities in a common conduit system or other common structure. Subd. 22. "Hole" means an excavation in the right-of-way, with the excavation having a length less than the width of the pavement or adjacent pavement. Subd. 23. "Local Representative" means a local person or persons, or designee of such person or persons, authorized by a registrant to accept service and to make decisions for that registrant regarding all matters within the scope of this Section. Subd. 24. "Management Costs" means the actual costs the city incurs in managing its rights-of-Way, including such costs, if incurred, as those associated with registering applicants; issuing, processing, and verifying right-of-way permit applications; inspecting job sites and restoration projects; maintaining, supporting, protecting, or moving user facilities during right-of-way work; determining the adequacy of right-of-way restoration; restoring work inadequately performed after providing notice and the opportunity to correct the work; and JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 3 -3216- revoking fight-of-way permits. Management costs do not include payment by a telecommunications right-of-way User for the use of the right-of-way, the fees and cost of litigation relating to the interpretation of Minnesota Session Laws 1997, chapter 123; Minnesota Statutes, sections 237.162 or 237.163 or any ordinance enacted under those sections, or the city fees and costs related to appeals taken pursuant to Section 655.31. Subd. 25. "Obstruct" means to place any tangible object in a right-of-way so as to hinder free and open passage over that or any part of the fight-of-way. Subd. 26. "Obstruction Permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this Section, must be obtained before a person may obstruct a right-of-way, allowing the holder to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of that right-of-way, for the duration specified therein, including a blanket permit for a period of time and for types of work specified by the Director, if deemed appropriate in his discretion. Subd. 27. "Obstruction Permit Fee" means money paid to the city by a permittee to cover the costs as provided in Section 655.12. Subd. 28. "Patch or Patching" means a method of pavement replacement that is temporary in nature. A patch consists of (1) the compaction of the subbase and aggregate base, and (2) the replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement for a minimum of two feet beyond the edges of the excavation in all directions. A patch is considered full restoration only when the pavement is included in the city's five year project plan. Subd. 29. "Pavement" means any type of improved surface that is within the public right-of-way and that is paved or otherwise constructed with bituminous, concrete, aggregate, or gravel. Subd. 30. "Permit" has the meaning given "right-of-way permit" in Minnesota Statutes, section 237.162. Subd. 31. "Permittee" means any person to whom a permit to excavate or obstruct a fight-of-way has been granted by the city under this Section. Subd. 32. "Person" means an individual or entity subject to the laws and rules of this state, however organized, whether public or private, whether domestic or foreign, whether for profit or nonprofit, and whether natural, corporate, or political. Subd. 33. subdivision 3. "Public right-of-way" has the meaning given it in Minnesota Statutes, section 237.162, Subd. 34. "Registrant" means any person who (1) has or seeks to have its equipment or facilities located in any right-of-way, or (2) in any way occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the right-of-way or place its facilities or equipment in the right-of-way JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 4 -3217- Subd. 35. "Restore or Restoration" means the process by which an excavated right- of-way and surrounding area, including pavement and foundation, is returned to the same condition and life expectancy that existed before excavation. Subd. 36. "Right-of-Way Permit" means either the excavation permit or the obstruction permit, or both, depending on the context, required by this Section. Subd. 37. "Right-of-Way User" means (1) a telecommunications right-of-way user as defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 237.162, subdivision 4; or (2) a person owning or controlling a facility in the right-of-way that is used or intended to be used for providing utility service, and who has a right under law, franchise, or ordinance to use the public right-of-way. Subd. 38. "Service or Utility Service" means and includes (1) services provided by a public utility as defined in Minnesota Statutes 216B.02, subdivisions 4 and 6; (2) services of a telecommunications right-of-way user, including transporting of voice or data information; (3) services of a cable communications system as defined in Minnesota Statutes, chapter. 238.02, subdivision 3; (4) natural gas or electric energy or telecommunications services provided by a local government unit; (5) services provided by a cooperative electric association organized under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 308A; and (6) water, sewer, steam, cooling or heating services. Subd. 39. "Supplementary Application" means an application made to excavate or obstruct more of the right-of-way than allowed in, or to extend, a permit that had already been issued. Subd. 40. "Temporary Surface" means the compaction of subbase and aggregate base and replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement only to the edges of the excavation. It is temporary in nature except when the rePlacement is of pavement included in the city's two-year plan, in which case it is considered full restoration. Subd. 41. "Trench" means an excavation in the right-of-way, with the excavation having a length equal to or greater than the width of the pavement or adjacent pavement. Subd. 42. "Telecommunication right-of-way User" means a person owning or controlling a facility in the right-of-way, or seeking to own or control a Facility in the right-of- way, that is used or is intended to be used for transporting telecommunication or other voice or data information. For purposes of this Section, a cable communication system defined and regulated under Minn. Stat. Chap. 238, and telecommunication activities related to providing natural gas or electric energy services whether provided by a public utility as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section. 216B.02, a municipality, a municipal gas or power agency organized under Minnesota Statutes, chapters. 453 and 453A, or a cooperative electric association organized under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 308A, are not telecommunications right- of-way users for purposes of this Section. Subd. 43. "Two Year project Plan" shows projects adopted by the city for construction within the next two years. JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 5 -3218- 655.04 Administration. The director is the principal city official responsible for the administration of the rights-of-way, right-of-way permits, and the ordinances related thereto. The director may delegate any or all of the duties hereunder. 655.05 Utility Coordination Committee. The city may create an advisory utility coordination committee. Participation on the committee is voluntary. It will be composed of any registrants that wish to assist the city in obtaining information and by making recommendations regarding use of the right-of-way, and to improve the process of performing construction work therein. The city may determine the size of such committee and shall appoint members from a list of registrants that have expressed a desire to assist the city. 655.06 Registration and Right-of-Way Occupancy. Subd. 1. Registration. Each person who occupies, uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the right-of-way or place any equipment or facilities in or on the right-of-way, including persons with installation and maintenance responsibilities by lease, sublease or assignment, must register with the city. Registration will consist of providing application information and paying a registration fee. Subd. 2. Registration Prior to Work. No person may construct, install, repair, remove, relocate, or perform any other work on, or use any facilities or any part thereof in any right-of-way without first being registered with the city. Subd. 3. Exceptions. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to repeal or amend the provisions of a city ordinance establishing the rights of and limitations placed on persons to plant or maintain boulevard plantings or gardens in the area of the right-of-way between their property and the street curb. Persons shall not be deemed to use or occupy the right-of-way, and shall not be required to obtain any permits or satisfy any other requirements under this Section for the following: A. Planting or maintaining boulevard plantings or gardens; B. Other surface landscaping works; CJ Construction and maintenance of driveways, sidewalks, curb and gutter, or parking lots, except repairs or restoration necessitated by utility cuts or other work; Construction or maintenance of street furnishings, bus stop benches, shelters, or posts and pillars; E. Snow removal activities. FJ Construction and maintenance of irrigation systems provided that the system does not connect directly to water mains in the right-of-way. Subd. 4. Gopher One Call Nothing herein relieves a person from complying with the provisions of the Minnesota Statutes, chapter 216D, Gopher One Call Law. JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 6 -3219- 655.07 Registration Information. Subd. 1 Information Required. The information provided to the city at the time of registration shall include, but not be limited to: Each registrant's name, Gopher One-Call facility owner code number or other One-Call identifier, address and e-mail address, and telephone and facsimile numbers. The name, address and e-mail address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers of a local representative. The local representative or designee shall be accessible for consultation at all times. Current information regarding how to contact the local representative in an emergency shall be provided at the time of registration. C. A certificate of insurance or self-insurance: Verifying that an insurance policy has been issued to the registrant by an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota, or a form of self insurance acceptable to the city; Verifying that the registrant is insured against claims for personal injury, including death, as well as claims for property damage arising out of the (i) use and occupancy of the right-of-way by the registrant, its officers, agents, employees and permittees, and (ii) placement and use of facilities and equipment in the fight-of-way by the registrant, its officers, agents, employees and permittees, including, but not limited to, protection against liability arising from completed operations, damage of underground facilities and collapse of property; Either naming the city as an additional insured as to whom the coverages required herein are in force and applicable and for whom defense will be provided as to all such coverages or otherwise providing evidence satisfactory to the director that the City is fully covered and will be defended through registrant' s insurance for all actions included in Minn. sota Rule p art 7819.1250; Requiring that the city be notified thirty (30) days in advance of cancellation of the policy or material modification of a coverage term; Indicating comprehensive liability coverage, automobile liability coverage, workers compensation and umbrella coverage established by the city in amounts sufficient to protect the city and the public and to carry out the purposes and policies of this Section. The city may require a copy of the actual insurance policies if necessary to ensure the director that the policy provides adequate third party claim JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 7 -3220- 655.08 Subd. 2. Subd. coverage and city indemnity and defense coverage for all actions included in the indemnity required by Minnesota Rule part 7819.1250. Such evidence as the director may require that the person is authorized to do business in Minnesota. above within of any Notice of Changes. The registrant shall keep all of the information listed current at all times by providing to the city information as to changes fifteen (15) days following the date on which the registrant has knowledge change. Reporting Obligations. 1. Operations. Each registrant shall, at the time of registration and by December 1 of each year, file a construction and major maintenance plan for underground facilities with the city. Such plan shall be submitted using a format designated by the city and shall contain the information determined by the city to be necessary to facilitate the coordination and reduction in the frequency of excavations and obstructions of rights-of-way. If by December 1 the registrant has not developed its construction and maintenance information for the coming year, the registrant shall file such information with the city thereafter as soon as it is developed. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: The locations and the estimated beginning and ending dates of all projects to be commenced during the next calendar year (in this section, a "next- year project"); and To the extent known, the tentative locations and estimated beginning and ending dates for all projects contemplated for the five years following the next calendar year (in this section, a "five-year project"). The term "project" in this section shall include both next-year projects and five- year projects. By January 1 of each year and subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act the city will have available for inspection in the city's office a composite list of all projects of which the city has been informed of the annual plans. All registrants are responsible for keeping themselves informed of the current status of this list. Thereafter, by March 1, each registrant may change any project in its list of next- year projects, and must notify the city and all other registrants of all such changes in said list. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a registrant may at any time join in a Next-year project of another registrant listed by the other registrant. JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 -3221 - 655.09 Subd. 2. Additional Next-Year Projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city will not deny an application for a right-of-way permit for failure to include a project in a plan submitted to the city if the registrant has used commercially reasonable efforts to anticipate and plan for the project. Permit Requirement. Subd. 1. Permit Required. Except as otherwise provided in this code, no person may obstruct or excavate any right-of-way without first having obtained the appropriate right-of-way permit from the city to do so. Excavation Permit. An excavation permit is required by a registrant to excavate that part of the right-of-way described in such permit and to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of the right-of-way by placing facilities described therein, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. Obstruction Permit. An obstruction permit is required by a registrant to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of the right-of-way by placing equipment described therein on the right-of-way, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. An obstruction permit is not required if a person already possesses a valid excavation permit for the same project. Permits for installation, repair or otherwise work on above-ground facilities within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 237.163, subd. 6(b)(4) will be obstruction permits, notwithstanding the need for excavation, provided the excavation is augered or hand dug for the purpose of placing a pole type structure. Subd. 2. Permit Extensions. No person may excavate obstruct the right-of-way beyond the date or dates specified in the permit unless (i) such person makes a supplementary application for another right-of-way permit before the expiration of the initial permit, and (ii) a new permit or permit extension is granted. Subd. 3. Delay Penalty. In accordance with Minnesota Rule 7819.1000 subp. 3, the city shall establish and impose a delay penalty for unreasonable delays in right-of-way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration. The delay penalty shall be established from time to time by city council resolution. A delay penalty will not be imposed for delays due to force majeure, including inclement weather, civil strife, acts of God, or other circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. Subd. 4. Permit Display. Permits issued under this Section shall be conspicuously displayed or otherwise available at all times at the indicated work site and shall be available for inspection by the city. JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 9 -3222- Subd. 5. Routine Obstruction and Excavation. The Director may approve a permit plan which, among other conditions, allows for routine excavations and obstructions without separate notice and separate compensation for such projects. Projects that do not involve excavation of paved surface and that last less than eight hours in duration may be included in such a plan. 655.10 Permit Applications. Subd. 1. Content of Permit Application for a permit is made to the city. Right- of-way permit applications shall contain, and will be considered complete only upon compliance with the requirements of the following provisions: A. Registration with the city pursuant to this Section; Submission of a completed permit application form, including all required attachments, and scaled drawings showing the location and area of the proposed project and the location of all known existing and proposed facilities owned or operated by the applicant. C. Payment of money due the city for: 1. permit fees, estimated restoration costs and other management costs; 2. prior obstructions or excavations; any undisputed loss, damage, or expense suffered by the city because of applicant's prior excavations or obstructions of the rights-of-way or any emergency actions taken by the city; Do Payment of disputed amounts due the city by posting security or depositing in an escrow account an amount equal to at least 100% of the amount owing. Posting an additional or larger construction performance bond for additional facilities when applicant requests an excavation permit to install additional facilities and the city deems the existing construction performance bond inadequate under applicable standards. 655.11 Issuance of Permit; Conditions. Subd. 1. Permit Issuance. If the Applicant has satisfied the requirements of this Section, the city shall issue a permit. Subd. 2. Conditions. The city may impose reasonable conditions upon the issuance of the permit and the performance of the applicant thereunder to protect the health, safety and welfare or when necessary to protect the right-of-way and its current use. IMS-202014v4 MU200-95 10 -3223- 655.12 655.13 Subd. 3. Screening. The Permittee shall screen all above-ground facilities as required by the Director. Screening methods shall include the use of shrubs, trees and/or landscape rock or installation using stelt or camouflaged forms of the facility. Permit Fees. Subd. 1. Fee Schedule and Fee Allocation. The city's permit fee schedule shall be available to the public and established in advance where reasonably possible. The permit fees shall be designed to recover the City's actual costs incurred in managing the right-of-way and shall be based on an allocation among all users of the right-of-way, including the city. Subd. 2. Excavation Permit Fee. The city shall establish an Excavation permit fee in an amount sufficient to recover the following costs: A. the city management costs; B. degradation costs, if applicable. Subd. 3. Obstruction Permit Fee. The city shall establish the obstruction permit fee and shall be in an amount sufficient to recover the city management costs. Subd. 4. Payment of Permit Fees. No excavation permit or obstruction permit shall be issued without payment of excavation or obstruction permit fees. The city may allow Applicant to pay such fees within thirty (30) days of billing, or on some other payment plan agreed to by the Director at his discretion. Subd. 5. Non Refundable. permit fees that were paid for a permit that the city has revoked for a breach as stated in Subdivision 22 are not refundable. Subd. 6. Application to Franchises. Unless otherwise agreed to in a franchise, management costs may be charged separately from and in addition to the franchise fees imposed on a right-of-way user in the franchise. Right-of-Way Patching and Restoration. Subd. 1. Timing. The work to be done under the excavation permit, and the patching and restoration of the right-of-way as required herein, must be completed within the dates specified in the permit, increased by as many days as work could not be done because of circumstances beyond the control of the permittee or when work was prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Subdivision 16. Subd. 2. Patch and Restoration. Permittee must patch its own work. The city may choose either to have the permittee restore the surface and subgrading portions of right-of-way or to restore the surface portion of right-of-way itself. JMSo202014v4 MU200-95 11 -3224- Ae City Restoration. If the city restores the surface portion of right-of-way, permittee shall pay the costs thereof within thirty (30) days of billing. If, following such Restoration, the pavement settles due to permittee's improper backfilling, the permittee shall pay to the city, within thirty (30) days of billing, all costs associated with correcting the defective work. Permittee Restoration. If the permittee restores the right-of-way itself, it shall at the time of application for an Excavation permit post a construction performance bond in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.3000. Ce Degradation fee in Lieu of Restoration. In lieu of right-of-way restoration, a right-of-way user may elect to pay a degradation fee. However, the right-of-way user shall remain responsible for replacing and compacting the subgrade and aggregate based material in the excavation and the degradation fee shall not include the cost to accomplish these responsibilities. Subd. 3. Standards. The permittee shall perform patching and restoration according to the standards and with the materials specified by the city and shall comply with Minnesota Rule 7819.1100. Subd. 4. Duty to Correct Defects. The permittee shall correct defects in patching, or restoration performed by permittee or its agents. Upon notification from the city, permittee shall correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required by the city. Unless otherwise agreed to by the Director, said work shall be completed within five (5) calendar days of receipt of the notice from the city, not including days during which work cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is prohibited as unseasonal or um'easonable under Subdivision 16. Subd. 5. Failure to Restore. If the permittee fails to restore the right-of-way in the manner and to the condition required by the city, or fails to satisfactorily and timely complete all restoration required by the city, the city shall notify the permittee in writing of the specific alleged failure or failures and shall allow the permittee ten (10) days from receipt of said written notice to cure said failure or failures, unless otherwise extended by the Director. In the event the permittee fails to cure, the city may at its option perform the necessary work and permittee shall pay to the city, within thirty (30) days of billing, the cost of restoring the right-of-way. If permittee fails to pay as required, the city may exercise its rights under the construction performance bond. 655.14 Joint Applications. Subd. 1. Joint application, registrants may jointly apply for permits to excavate or obstruct the right-of-way at the same place and time. JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 12 -3225- 655.15 655.16 Subd. Subd. Subd. Subd. Subd. 2. Shared fees. registrants who apply for permits for the same obstruction or excavation, which the city does not perform, may share in the payment of the obstruction or excavation permit fee. In order to obtain a joint permit, registrants must agree among themselves as to the portion each will pay and indicate the same on their applications. 3. With city projects, registrants who join in a scheduled obstruction or excavation performed by the city, whether or not it is a joint application by two or more registrants or a single application, are not required to pay the excavation or obstruction and degradation portions of the permit fee, but a permit would still be required. Supplementar~ Applications. 1. Limitation on Area. A fight-of-way permit is valid only for the area of the right-of-way specified in the permit. No permittee may do any work outside the area specified in the permit, except as provided herein. Any permittee which determines that an area greater than that specified in the permit must be obstructed or excavated must before working in that greater area (i) make application for a permit extension and pay any additional fees required thereby, and (ii) be granted a new permit or permit extension. 2. Limitation on Dates. A fight-of-way permit is valid only for the dates specified in the permit. No permittee may begin its work before the permit start date or, except as provided herein, continue working after the end date. If a permittee does not finish the work by the permit end date, it must apply for a new permit for the additional time it needs, and receive the new permit or an extension of the old permit before working after the end date of the previous permit. This supplementary application must be submitted before the permit end date. Other Obligations. 1. Compliance With Other Laws. Obtaining a right-of-way permit does not relieve permittee of its duty to obtain all other necessary permits, licenses, and authority and to pay all fees required by the city or other applicable rule, law or regulation. A permittee shall comply with all requirements of local, state and federal laws, including Minn. Stat. 216D.01-.09 (Gopher One Call Excavation Notice System). A permittee shall perform all work in conformance with all applicable codes and established rules and regulations, and is responsible for all work done in the fight-of-way pursuant to its permit, regardless of who does the work. Subd. 2. Prohibited Work. Except in an emergency, and with the approval of the city, no right-of-way obstruction or excavation may be done when seasonally prohibited or when conditions are unreasonable for such work. JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 13 -3226- Subd. 3. Interference with Right-of-Way. A permittee shall not so obstruct a right-of-way that the natural free and clear passage of water through the gutters or other waterways shall be interfered with, unless otherwise approved by the Director. Private vehicles of those doing work in the right-of-way may not be parked within or next to a permit area, unless parked in conformance with city parking regulations. The loading or unloading of trucks must be done solely within the defined permit area unless specifically authorized by the permit. Subd. 4. Traffic Control. A permittee shall implement traffic control measures in the area of the work and shall use traffic control procedures in accordance with the most recent manuals on uniform traffic control, traffic control devices and traffic zone layouts published by the State of Minnesota. 655.17 Denial of Permit. The city may deny a permit for failure to meet the requirements and conditions of this Section or if the city determines that the denial is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the right-of-way and its current use. 655.18 Installation Requirements. The excavation, backfilling, patching and restoration, and all other work performed in the right- of-way shall be done in conformance with Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 7819.5000 and 7819.5100 and other applicable local requirements, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Minnesota Statutes sections 237.162 and 237.163. 655.19 Inspection. Subd. 1. Notice of Completion. When the work under any permit hereunder is completed, the permittee shall furnish a Completion Certificate in accordance Minnesota Rule 7819.1300. Subd. 2. Site Inspection. Permit-tee shall make the work-site available to the city and to all others as authorized by law for inspection at all reasonable times during the execution of and upon completion of the work. Subd. 3. Authority of Director. At the time of inspection the director may order the immediate cessation of any work which poses a serious threat to the life, health, safety or well- being of the public. The director may issue an order to the permittee to correct any work that does not conform to the terms of the permit or other applicable standards, conditions, or code. If the work failure is a "substantial; breach" within JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 14 -3227- the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 237.163 subd. 4(c), the order shall state that failure to correct the violation will be cause for revocation of the permit after a specified period determined by the Director. The permittee shall present proof to the Director that the violation has been corrected within the time period set forth by the Director in the order. Such proof shall be provided no later than the next business day following the day of completion. If such proof has not been presented within the required time, the director may revoke the permit pursuant to Section 655.22. 655.20 Work Done Without a Permit. Subd. 1. Emergency Situations. Each registrant shall immediately notify the director of any event regarding its facilities that the registrant considers to be an emergency. The registrant may proceed to take whatever actions are necessary to respond to the emergency. Within two (2) business days after the occurrence of the emergency the' registrant shall apply for the necessary permits, pay the fees associated therewith and fulfill the rest of the requirements necessary to bring itself into compliance with this Section for the actions it took in response to the Emergency. If the Director concludes that a registrant is required to perform work at the facility solely because of an emergency created by another registrant and the work is performed in the immediate area of the emergency work, the Director may waive the permit otherwise required by the registrant(s) called to the emergency created by another party. If the city becomes aware of an emergency regarding a registrant's facilities, the city will attempt to contact the local representative of each registrant affected, or potentially affected, by the emergency. In any event, the city may take whatever action it deems necessary to respond to the emergency, the cost of which shall be borne by the registrant whose facilities occasioned the emergency. Subd. 2. Non-Emergency Situations. Except in an emergency, any person who, without first having obtained the necessary permit, obstructs or excavates a right- of-way must subsequently obtain a permit, pay an unauthorized work permit fee in an mount established from time to time by the City Council, deposit with the city the fees necessary to correct any damage to the right-of-way and comply with all of the requirements of this Section. 655.21 Supplementary Notification. If the obstruction or excavation of the right-of-way begins later or ends sooner than the date given on the permit, permittee shall notify the city of the accurate information as soon as this information is known. JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 15 -3228- 655.22 Revocation of Permits. 655.23 Subd. 1. Substantial Breach. The city reserves its right to revoke any right-of- way permit, without a fee refund, if there is a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of any statute, ordinance, role or regulation, or any material condition of the permit. A substantial breach by permittee shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: A. The violation of any material provision of the right-of-way permit; An evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the right-of-way permit, or the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the city or its citizens; Any material misrepresentation of fact in the application for a right-of- way permit; De The failure to complete the work in a timely manner; unless a permit extension is obtained or unless the failure to complete work is due to reasons beyond the permittee's control; or The failure to correct, in a timely manner, work that does not conform to a condition indicated on an order issued pursuant to section 19B-19. Subd. 2. Written Notice of Breach. If the city determines that the permittee has committed a substantial breach of a term or condition of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or any condition of the permit the city shall make a written demand upon the permittee to remedy such violation. The demand shall state that continued violations may be cause for revocation of the permit. A substantial breach, as stated above, will allow the city to place additional or revised conditions on the permit to mitigate and remedy the breach. Subd. 3. Response to Notice of Breach. Within a time established by the Director following permittee's receipt of notification of the breach, permittee shall provide the city with a plan to cure the breach, acceptable to the city. Permittee's failure to submit a timely and acceptable plan, or permittee's failure to timely implement the approved plan, shall be cause for immediate revocation of the permit. Subd. 4. Reimbursement of city costs. If a permit is revoked, the permittee shall also reimburse the city for the city's reasonable costs, including Restoration costs and the costs of collection and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with such revocation. MappinR Data. JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 16 -3229- 655.24 Subd. Subd. Subd. Subd. Subd. 1. Rule. Each registrant and permittee shall provide mapping information in a form required by the city in accordance with Minnesota Rules 7819.4000 and 7819.4100. Undergrounding. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Section 655.24 is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public and is intended to foster (i) safe travel over the right-of-way, (ii) non-travel related safety around homes and buildings where overhead feeds are connected and (iii) orderly development in the city. Location and relocation, installation and reinstallation of Facilities in the right-of- way or in or on other public ground must be made in accordance with this Subdivision. This Subdivision is intended to be enforced consistently with state and federal law regulating right-of-way users, specifically including but not limited to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 161.45,237.162, 237.163,300.03,222.37, 238.084 and 216B.36 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Title 47, U.S.C. section 253. 2. Undergrounding of Facilities. Facilities newly installed, constructed or otherwise placed in the public right-of-way or in other public property held in common for public use must be located and maintained underground pursuant to the terms and conditions of this section and in accordance with applicable construction standards, subject to the exceptions below. Above-ground installation, construction, modification, or replacement of meters, gauges, transformers, street lighting, pad mount switches, capacitor banks, re-closers and service connection pedestals shall be allowed. The requirements of this Subdivision shall apply equally outside of the corporate limits of the city coincident with city jurisdiction of platting, subdivision regulation or comprehensive planning as may now or in the future be allowed by law. 3. Undergrounding of Permanent Replacement, Relocated or Reconstructed Facilities. If the City finds that one or more of the purposes set forth in Section 655.24 Subd. 1. would be promoted, the City may require a permanent replacement, relocation or reconstruction of a Facility of more than 300 feet to be located, and maintained underground, with due regard for seasonal working conditions. For purposes of this section, reconstruction means any substantial repair of or any improvement to existing Facilities. Undergrounding may be required whether a replacement, relocation or reconstruction is initiated by the right-of-way user owning or operating the Facilities, or by the city in connection with (1) the present or future use by the city or other local government unit of the right-of-way or other public ground for a public project, (2) the public health or safety, or (3) the safety and convenience of travel over the right-of-way. 4. Exceptions to Undergrounding. The following exceptions to the strict application of this Subdivision shall be allowed upon the conditions stated: JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 17 -3230- Ao Transmission Lines. Above-ground installation, construction, or placement of those Facilities commonly referred to as "high voltage transmission lines" shall be allowed unless the council requires undergrounding of the Facilities after providing the right-of- way user notice and an opportunity to be heard. This provision shall not be construed as waiving the requirements of any other ordinance or regulation of the city as the same may apply to any such proposed project. Be Technical/Economic Feasibility; Promotion of Policy. Above-ground installation, construction, or placement of Facilities shall be allowed in residential, commercial and industrial areas where the council, following consideration and recommendation by the planning commission, f'mds that: Underground placement would place an undue f'mancial burden upon the landowner, ratepayers, or right-of-way user or would deprive the landowner of the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; or, Underground placement is impractical or not technically feasible due to topographical, subsoil or other existing conditions which adversely affect underground Facilities placement. Failure to promote the purposes of undergrounding. The right-of-way user clearly and convincingly demonstrates that none of the purposes under Section 655.24 Subd. 1 would be advanced by underground placement of Facilities on the project in question. Co Temporary Service. Above-ground installation, construction, or placement of temporary service lines shall only be allowed: During new construction of any project for a period not to exceed twenty-four (24) months; 2. During an emergency in order to safeguard lives or property within the city; For a period of not more than seven (7) months when soil conditions make excavation impractical. Subd. 5. Retirement of Overhead Facilities. The city council may determine whether it is in the public interest that all Facilities within the city, or Facilities within certain districts designated by the city, be permanently placed and maintained underground by a date certain or target date, independently of undergrounding required pursuant to Section 655.24 Subd. 2. of this Code (new Facilities) and subdivision 655.24 Subd. 3. (replacement Facilities). The decision to underground must be preceded by a public hearing, after published notice and written notice to the utilities affected. (Two weeks published: 30 days written.) At the heating the council must consider items (1) - (4) in Section 655.24 Subd. 5.B. of this Section and make findings. Undergrounding may not take place until city council has, after hearing and notice, adopted a plan containing items (1) - (6) of Section 655.24 Subd. 5.C. of this Section. Ae Public Hearings. A hearing must be open to the public and may be continued from time to time. At each hearing any person interested must be given an opportunity to be heard. The subject of the public hearings shall be the issue of JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 18 -3231 - Co JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 whether Facilities in the right-of-way in the city, or located within a certain district, shall all be located underground by a date certain. Hearings are not necessary for the undergrounding required under Subdivisions 24.B. and D. of this Section. Public Hearing Issues. The issues to be addressed at the public hearings include but are not limited to: The costs and benefits to the public of requiring the undergrounding of all Facilities in the right-of-way. The feasibility and cost of undergrounding all Facilities by a date certain as determined by the city and the affected utilities. The tariff requirements, procedure and rate design for recovery or intended recovery of incremental costs for undergrounding by the utilities from ratepayers within the city. Alternative f'mancing options available if the city deems it in the public interest to require undergrounding by a date certain and deems it appropriate to participate in the cost otherwise borne by the ratepayers. Upon completion of the hearing or hearings, the city council must make written f'mdings on whether it is in the public interest to establish a plan under which all Facilities will be underground, either citywide or within districts designated by the city. Undergrounding Plan. If the council f'mds that it is in the public interest to underground all or substantially all Facilities in the public right of way or in non-right-of-way public ground, the council must establish a plan for such undergrounding. The plan for undergrounding must include at least the following elements: 1. Timetable for the undergrounding. Designation of districts for the undergrounding unless the undergrounding plan is citywide. 3. Exceptions to the undergrounding requirement and procedure for establishing such exceptions. Procedures for the undergrounding process, including but not limited to coordination with city projects and provisions to ensure compliance with non-discrimination requirements under the law. A financing plan for funding of the incremental costs if the city determines that it will finance some of the undergrounding costs, and a determination and verification of the claimed additional costs to underground incurred by the utility. 6. Penalties or other remedies for failure to comply with the undergrounding. 19 -3232- Subd. 6. Developer Responsibility. All owners, platters, or developers are responsible for complying with the requirements of this Subdivision, and prior to final approval of any plat or development plan, shall submit to the Director written instruments from the appropriate right-of-way users showing that all necessary arrangements with said users for installation of such Facilities have been made. 655.25 Location and Relocation of Facilities. Subd. 1. Rule. Placement, location, and relocation of facilities must comply with the Act, with other applicable law, and with Minnesota Rules 7819.3100, 7819.5000 and 7819.5100, to the extent the rules do not limit authority otherwise available to cities. Ae Relocation Notification Procedure: The Director shall notify the utility owner at least three months in advance of the need to relocate existing facilities so the owner can plan the relocation. The Director shall provide a second notification to the owner one month before the owner needs to begin the relocation. The utility owner shall begin relocation of the facilities within one mOnth of the second notification. To the extent technically feasible, all utilities shall be relocated within one month or in a time frame determined by the Director. The Director may allow a different schedule if it does not interfere with the City's project. The utility owner shall diligently work to relocate the facilities within the above schedule. Delay to City Project: The Director shall notify the utility owner if the owner's progress will not meet the relocation schedule. The City may charge the utility owner for all costs incurred and requested by a contractor working for the City who is delayed because the relocation is not completed in the scheduled timeframe and for all costs incurred by the City due to the delay. Joint Trenching: All Facilities shall be placed in appropriate portions of right-of-way so as to cause minimum conflict with other underground Facilities. When technically appropriate and no safety hazards are created, all utilities shall be installed, constructed or placed within the same trench. Notwithstanding the foregoing, gas and electric lines shall be placed in separate trenches. Subd. 2. Corridors. The City may assign a specific area within the right-of-way, or any particular segment thereof as may be necessary, for each type of facilities that are or, pursuant to current technology, the City expects will be located within the right-of-way. All excavation, obstruction, or other permits issued by the City JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 20 -3233- Subd. involving the installation or replacement of Facilities shall designate the proper corridor for the facilities at issue. A typical crossing section of the location for utilities may be on file at the Director's office. This section is not intended to establish "high density corridors". Any Registrant who has facilities in the right-of-way in a position at variance with the corridors established by the City may remain at that location until the City requires Facilities relocation to the corridor pursuant to relocation authority granted under Minnesota Rules part 7819.3100 or other applicable law. 3. Limitation of Space. To protect the public health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the right-of-way and its current use, the City shall have the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional facilities within the right-of-way. In making such decisions, the City shall strive to the extent possible to accommodate all existing and potential users of the right-of-way, but shall be guided primarily by considerations of the public interest, the public's needs for the particular utility service, the condition of the right-of-way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities, the protection of existing facilities in the fight-of-way, and future City plans for public improvements and deVelopment projects which have been determined to be in the public interest. 655.26. Pre-excavation Facilities Location. In addition to complying with the requirements of Minn. Stat. 216D.01-.09 ("One Call Excavation Notice System") before the start date of any right-of-way excavation, each registrant who has facilities or equipment in the area to be excavated shall be responsible to mark the horizontal placement of all said facilities, to the extent technically feasible. To the extent its records contain such information, each registrant shall provide information regarding the approximate vertical location of their facilities to excavators upon request. Nothing in this subsection is meant to limit the rights, duties and obligations of the facility owners or excavators as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 216D.01-.09. Any registrant whose facilities may be less than twenty (20) inches below a concrete or asphalt surface shall notify and work closely with the excavation contractor in an effort to establish and mark the exact horizontal and vertical location of its facility and the best procedure for excavation. 655.27. Interference By Other Facilities. When the city does work in the right-of-way in its governmental right-of-way management function and finds it necessary to maintain, support, or move a registrant's facilities to carry out the work without damaging registrant's facilities, the city shall notify the local representative as early as is reasonably possible. The city costs associated therewith will be billed to that registrant and must be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of billing. Each registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any facilities in the right-of-way which it or its facilities damages. 655.28. Right-of-Way Vacation - Reservation of Right. JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 21 -3234- If the city vacates a right-of-way~ant's rights of way are governed by Minne~ta Rules 7519.3200. ~ ~ 655.29 Indemnificati~ MOUND in the vacated right- 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com By registering with the city, or by accepting a permit under this Section, a registrant or permittee agrees to defend and indemnify the city in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.1250. 655.30 Abandoned Facilities. Subd. 1. Discontinued Operations. A registrant who has decided to discontinue all or a portion of its operations in the city must provide information satisfactory to the city that the registrant's obligations for its facilities in the right-of-way under this Section have been lawfully assumed by another registrant. Subd. 2. Removal. Any registrant who has abandoned facilities in any right-of- way shall remove them from that right-of-way pursuant to Minnesota Rule Part 7819.3300, unless the requirement is waived by the Director. 655.31 Appeal. A right-of-way user that: (1) has been denied registration; (2) has been denied a permit; (3) has had permit revoked; or (4) believes that the fees imposed are not in conformity with Minn. Stat. § 237.163, Subd. 6 may have the denial, revocation, or fee imposition reviewed, upon written request, by the city council. The city council shall act on a timely written request at its next regularly scheduled meeting. A decision by the city Council affirming the denial, revocation, or fee imposition will be in writing and supported by written findings establishing the reasonableness of the decision. 655.32 Reservation of Regulatory and Police Powers. A permittee's or registrant's rights are subject to the regulatory and police powers of the city to adopt and enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. 655.33 Severabilitv. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Section is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. If a regulatory body or a court of competent jurisdiction should determine by a final, non-appealable order that any permit, right or registration issued under this Section or any portions of this Section is illegal or unenforceable, then any such permit, right or registration granted or deemed to exist hereunder shall be considered as a revocable permit with a mutual right in either party to terminate without cause upon giving sixty (60) days written notice to the other. The requirements and conditions of such a revocable permit shall be the same requirements and conditions as set forth in the permit, right or registration, respectively, except for conditions relating to the term of the permit and the right of termination. Nothing in this Section precludes the city from requiring a franchise agreement with the applicant, as allowed by law, in addition to requirements set forth herein. JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 2 rinted on recycled paper -3235- Section 2. The Mound City Code, Sections 605.05, 605.10, 605.15, 605.20, 605.25, 605.45,605.75, 617.01-617.50, inclusive, are hereby repealed. Section 3. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Adopted in day of session of the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, held this ,2002. Attest: Mayor of the City of Mound City Clerk JMS-202014v4 MU200-95 23 -3236- s. Effective date Unless otherwise specified within the ordinance, an ordinance becomes effective on the day following its publication in the official newspaper. Minn. Stat. ~ 412.151, ~ubd. 1; Minn. Stat 3~ 412.191, subd. 4. Minn. Stat. ~ 412.191, subd. 4; Minn. Stat. ~ 3314.02, Minn. Stat. ~ 33L4.04. Minn. Stat. ~q 412.191, subd. 4 Minn. Stat. ~ 412.191, subd, 4 12. Ordinance book Each statu~Sry city mustmaintain an ordinance book containing copies of all ordinan6es passediby the council. Every ordinance must be recorded in the ordinafice book vdthin 20 days of its publication. !! The ordinance book is a~public record and is evidence in court. If' the clerk uses Printed copies of the ordinance clipped from the newspaper, a printer's affidavit should be attached to each ordinance in the book. The city should have a numbering system adequate for indexing its ordinances. In most small cities where the number of ordinances is small, chronological order is satisfactory. When the number of ordinances is large or when tho city is reOodifying its ordinances, a more complicated system ofdecimalnumbers might be advisable. 13. PublicatiOn of:ordinances The following publication requirements apply to statutory cities: Every ordi~ance mustbe p~ublished once in the city's official newspaper. T ":' ~''~ :;;" o qualify:.~ an Official newspaper, the newspaper must be a legal newspaper~nder state' ,statute, and the council must have designated it as the city's official newspaper. Cities usually publish ordinances separately. If the city publishes them in full as part of the minutes, the publication meets all statutory requirements. In the case of lengthy ordinances or ordinances that include charts or maps, the city may publish the ordinance title and a summary of the ordinance if the council determines that such publication would clearly inform the public of the intent ahd effect of the ordinance. A title anda s~ maY be. published, only if directed by a four-fiPu% vote of the council. Along with the title and summary, there must be a notice thati9 printed .Cgpy 0fthe ordinance is available for inspection by any person~luring regular office hours at the city clerk's office or other location designated b~ the council. A copy of the entire text of the ordinance Shall also ~ie:posted in the community library. If'there is no library, the'~ntire text!Of.the ordinance must be posted in any other public location designated by the council. -3237- 169 Minn. bat. ~ 412.191, tubd. 4 Minn. Stat. ~ 331A. 05, subd. 2¢); ~.0: op. 277.B.4 11, 1986). Minn. Sta£ ,~ 412.191, subd. 4 ~.H. Barber Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 227 Minn. 77, 34 N.W.2d 710 (194g). Minn. Stat. ~ 331,4.05, subd. 6 Minn. Stat. ,~ 471.62 Minn. Stat. ~ 471.62. HANDBOOK I~01~, I~OTA (~ Prior to publication of the file and summary, the council shall approve the text of the sunuuary and d~termine that it clearly informs the public of the intent and ~ffect of the ordinance. Publishing the title and summa.n/shall be deemed to meet al~ legal publication requlromcn~ as completoly as though the ~ntire ordipance had be~ published. An ordinance must b~, published within 45 days after being passed. Failure to publish ~thin 45 ..,.days, however, will not necessarily invalidate the ordinance, i The text o~e summary shall be published in a font no smaller then brevier or dight-point type. Proof of publication shall be attached to and filed with the ordinance. Proof of publication is an affidavit of publication that the newspaper must furnish when it sends its printing bill· The absence of an affidavit ofpublication, however, does not invalidate an ordinance. The affidavit facilitates proof of publication should anyone challenge that t fact in a lawsmt. .~, d ! .ii ' - Errors in th? publication of an ordinan.ce may or may not affect the validity of the ordhiance. If~ errg. ~r is minor so that the correct meaning is clear from the cb~text, tho~rror, has no effect upon the ordinance's validity. When the e~Or is mote substantial, however, the ordinance provision containing the error is ineffective and void. "~ . · ' :'l .... In home rule crees, ~e charter can nnpose additional or spectai · ~ .~! , . ' · . · . qualifications for the pubhcation reqmremonts of ordinance notices or proceedingS. ' J4. Ad,Option bY reference StatutoW a~d.charter'~.ities~, can aVoid publication requirements when adopting certain complicated regulatory codes in ordinance form by using the processlof adopti6il by:reference. In effect, cities can adopt certain regulationSby pass~'and~.Publishing an ordinance that identifies statute or other rule §Y name. Cities mayi~.~Opt the t!ollb ~wing by reference: · Mirmesbta statu~; ' · State d~partment':,administrative roles or regulations affecting the city; · The state building code and the uniform fire code; 170 -3238- SUMMARY FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION - A COMPLETE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. A COPY OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE IS ALSO POSTED AT THE HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY IN MOUND. CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. -2002 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND REGULATION OF PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE AND REGULATIONS OF RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS; ADDING SECTION TO THE MOUND CITY CODE. The City Council of the City of Mound does ordain: Section 1. The Mound City Code is amended to add a new Section with subdivision titles as follows: Subd. 1. Findings, Purpose and Intent. To provide for the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and to ensure the integrity of its streets and the appropriate use of the rights-of-way, the city strives to keep its rights-of-way in a state of good repair and free from unnecessary encumbrances. Subd. 2. Election to Manaqe the Public Riqhts-of-Way Subd. 3. Subd. 4. Subd. 5. Subd. 6. Subd. 7. Subd. 8. Subd. 9. Subd. 10. Subd. 11. Subd. 12. Subd. 13. Sbud. 14. Subd. 15. Subd. 16. Subd. 17. Subd. 18. Subd. 19. Subd. 20. Subd. 21. Subd. 22. Subd. 23. Subd. 24. Definitions. Administration Utility Coordination Committee. Registration and Riqht-of-Way Occupancy. Registration Information. Reporting Obligations. Permit Requirement. Permit Application Issuance of Permit: Conditions. Permit Fees. Right-of-Way Patching and Restoration Joint Applications. Supplementary Applications. Other Obliqations. Denial of Permit. Installation Requirements. Inspection. Work Done Without a Permit. Supplementary Notification. Revocation of Permits. Mapping Data. Under.qroundinq. -3239- Subd. 25. Subd. 26. Subd. 27. Subd. 28. Subd. 29. Subd. 30. Subd. 31. Subd. 32. Subd. 33. Location and Relocation of Facilities Pre-excavation Facilities Location. Interference by Other Facilities. Right-of-Way Vacation - Reservation of Riqht. Indemnification and Liability Abandoned Facilities. Appeal. Reservation of Regulatory and Police Powers. Severability. Passed by the City Council this day of Summary published in The Laker the __ day of Effective the __ day of ,2002. ,2002. ,2002. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -3240- GAS ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF MOUND, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE GRANTING RELIANT ENERGY MINNEGASCO, A DMSION OF RELIANT ENERGY RESOURCES CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, A NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN FACILITHES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION, DISTRIBUTION, MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF GAS ENERGY FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE USE AND TO USE THE PUBLIC WAYS AND GROUNDS OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA, FOR SUCH PURPOSE; AND, PRESCRIBING CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Ordinance, the following capitalized terms listed in alphabetical order shall have the following meanings: City. The City of Mound, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. City Utility System. Facilities used for providing public utility service owned or operated by · City or agency thereof, including sewer, storm sewer, water service, street lighting and traffic signals, but excluding facilities for providing heating, lighting, or other forms of energy. Commission. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, or any successor agency or agencies, including an agency of the federal government, which preempts all or part of the authority to regulate gas retail rates now vested in the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Company. Reliant Energy Minnegasco, a division of Reliant Energy Resources Corporation~ a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns including all successors or assigns that own or operate any part or parts of the Gas Facilities subject to this franchise. Gas Facilities. Gas transmission and distribution pipes, lines, ducts, fixtures, and all necessary equipment and appurtenances owned or operated by the Company for the purpose of providing gas energy for public or private use. Gas. Natural gas, manufactured gas, mixture of natural gas and manufactured gas or other forms of gas energy. JMS-202004vl MU200-95 -3241 - Non-Betterment Costs. Costs incurred by Company from relocation, removal or rearrangement of Gas Facilities that do not result in an improvement to the Gas Facilities. Notice. A writing served by any party or parties on any other party or parties. Notice to Company shall be mailed to Reliant Energy Minnegasco, V.P., Regulatory & Supply Service, 800 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55402-2006. Notice to the City shall be mailed to the City Manager, City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364-1627. Any party may change its respective address for the purpose of this Ordinance by written notice to the other parties. Public Way. Public right-of-way within the City as defined in Minn. Stat. § 237.162, subd. 3. Public Ground. Land owned or otherwise controlled by the City for park, open space or similar public purpose, which is held for use in common by the public. SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF FRANCHISE. 2.1. Grant of Franchise. City hereby grants Company, for a period of 20 years from the date this Ordinance is passed and approved by the City, the right to import, manufacture, distribute and sell gas for public and private use within and through the limits of the City as its boundaries now exist or as they may be extended in the future. This right includes the provision of Gas that is (i) manufactured by the Company or its affiliates and delivered by the Company, (ii) purchased and delivered by the Company or (iii) purchased from another source by the retail customer and delivered by the Company. For these purposes, Company may construct, operate, repair and maintain Gas Facilities in, on, over, under and across the Public Ways and Public Grounds, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance. Company may do all reasonable things necessary or customary to accomplish these purposes, subject however, to such lawful regulations as may be adopted by separate ordinance and as currently exist under City Ordinance 570, codified as Section 7.17 ("Section 7.17"). The Company shall be notified 60 days in advance of proposed changes to Section 7.17. The City and Company shall negotiate in good faith to reach mutually acceptable changes. If the City and Company are unable to agree, disputes will be handled under the terms of Section 2.5 of this Ordinance. If a provision of Section7.17 conflicts with a provision on the same subject in this Ordinance, this Ordinance will control. 2.2. Effective Date~ Written Acceptance. This franchise shall be in force and effect from and after its passage of this Ordinance and publication as required by law and its acceptance by Company. If Company does not file a written acceptance with the City within 90 Days after the date the City Council adopts this Ordinance, or otherwise places the City on written notice, at any time, that the Company does not accept all terms of this franchise, the City Council by resolution may either repeal this ordinance or seek its enforcement in a court of competent jurisdiction. 2.3. Service and Gas Rates. The service to be provided and the rates to be charged by Company for gas service in City are subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission 2.4. Company. Publication Expense. The expense of publication of this Ordinance shall be paid by JMS-202004vl MU200-95 -3242- 2.5. Dispute Resolution. If either party asserts that the other party is in default, in the performance of any obligation hereunder, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the default and the desired remedy. The notification shall be written. Representatives of the parties must promptly meet and attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved wlthln 30 days of' the written notice, the parties may jointly select a mediator to ~'aeilltate further discussion. The parties will equally share the fees and expenses of this mediator. Ifa mediator is not used or if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 30 days after first meeting with the selected mediator, either party may commence an action in District Court to interpret and enforce this franchise or for such other reliefpen~tted by law. 2.6. Continuation of Franchise. If the City and the Company are unable to agree on the terms of a new franchise by the time this franchise expires, this franchise will remain in effect until a new franchise is agreed upon, or until 90 days after the City or the Company serves written Notice to the other party of its intention to allow the franchise to expire. SECTION 3. LOCATION~ OTHER REGULATIONS. 3.1. Location of Facilities. Subject to regulation under Section 7.17, Gas Facilities in the Public Way shall be located, constructed, and maintained so as not to disrupt normal operation of any City Utility System. Gas Facilities may be located on Public Grounds as determined by the City. 3.2. Restoration of Public Ways and Pnblic Ground. Restoration of the Public Way shall be subject to Section 7.17. After completing work requiring the opening of Public Ground, the Company shall restore the Public Ground to as good a condition as formerly existed, and shall maintain the surface in good condition for six (6) months thereafter. All work shall be completed as promptly as weather permits. If Company shall not promptly perform and complete the work, remove all dirt, rubbish, equipment and material, and put the Public Ground in the said condition and after demand to Company to cure, City shall, after passage of a reasonable period of time following the demand, but not to exceed five days, have the right to make the restoration of the Public Ground at the expense of Company. Company shall pay to the City the cost of such work done for or performed by the City. This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available to the city for noncompliance with this Section. 3.3. Waiver of Performance SecuriW. The City hereby waives any requirement for Company to post a construction performance bond, certificate of insurance, letter of credit or any other form of security or assurance that may be required under Section 7.17 currently or in the future. The City reserves all other rights under Section 7.17 to enforce Company performance requirements for work in the Public Way or Public Ground. 3.4. Avoid Damage to Gas Facilities. Nothing in this Ordinance relieves any person from liability arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid damaging Gas Facilities while performing any activity. JMS-202004vl 3 MU200-95 -3243- SECTION 4. RELOCATIONS. 4.1. Relocation of Gas Facilities. Relocation of Gas Facilities in Public Ways shall be subject to Section 7.17. City may require Company at Company's expense to relocate or remove its Gas Facilities from Public Grounds upon a finding by City that the Gas Facilities have become or will become a substantial impairment to the existing or proposed public use of the Grounds. Relocation Gas Facilities in Public Ground shall comply with applicable City ordinances consistent with law. 4.2. Pro.iects with Federal Fundine. Relocation, removal, or rearrangement of any Company Gas Facilities made necessary because of the extension into or through City of' a federally- aided highway project shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 161.46, as supplemented or amended. City shall not order Company to remove or relocate its Gas Facilities when a Public Way is vacated, improved or realigned because of a renewal or a redevelopment plan which is financially subsidized in whole or in part by the Federal Government or any agency thereof, unless agreement is made that the reasonable Non-Betterment Costs of such relocation and the loss and expense resuking therefrom will be paid to Company when available to the City. The City need not pay those portions of such for which reimbursement to it. is not available. 4.3. No Waiver. The provisions of Section 4 apply only to Gas Facilities constructed in reliance on a permit or franchise from City and Company does not waive its rights under an easement or prescriptive right or State or County permit. SECTION 5. CHANGE IN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Any change in the form of government of the City shall not affect the validity of this Ordinance. Any governmental unit succeeding the City shall, without the consent of Company, succeed to all of the rights and obligations of the City provided in this Ordinance. SECTION 6. FRANCHISE FEE. 6.1. Reservation of Rights. The City reserves all rights under Minn. Stat. § 216B.36, to require a franchise fee at any time during the term of this fi'anchise. If the City elects to require a franchise fee it shall notify Company and negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually acceptable fee agreement, which shall be set forth in a separate ordinance and not adopted until at least 60 days after Notice enclosing such proposed ordinance has been served upon the Company by certified mail. If the City and Company are unable to agree on a franchise fee or on any terms related thereto, each hereby consents to the jurisdiction of State District Court, Hennepin County, to construe their respective rights under the law, subject to all rights of appeal. JMS-202004vl 4 MU200-95 -3244- SECTION 7. LIMITATION ON APPLICABILITY; NO WAIVER. This Ordinance constitutes a franchise agreement between the City and its successors and the Company and its successors and permitted assigns, as the only parties. No provision of this franchise shall in any way inure to the benefit of any third person (including the public at large) so as to constitute any such person as a third party beneficiary of the agreement or of any one or more of the terms hereof, or otherwise give rise to any cause of action in any person not a party hereto. This franchise agreement shall not be interpreted to constitute a waiver by the City of any of its defenses of immunity or limitations on liability under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. SECTION 8. AMENDMENT PROCEDURE. Either party to this franchise agreement may at any time propose that the agreement be amended. This Ordinance may be amended at any time by the City passing a subsequent ordinance declaring the provisions of the amendment, which amendatory ordinance shall become effective upon the filing of Company's written consent thereto with the City Clerk within 60 days after the effective date of the amendatory ordinance. SECTION 9. PREVIOUS FRANCHISES SUPERSEDED. This franchise supersedes and replaces previous franchises granted to the Company or its predecessors. Upon Company acceptance of this franchise under Section 2.2, the previous franchise shall terminate. Passed and approved: Attest: Mayor of the City of Mound, Minnesota City Clerk, Mound, Minnesota JMS-202004v 1 MU200-95 -3245- Ene /. M/nne as¢o 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402 June 26,2002 Ms. Sarah Smith Community Development Director City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Hi Sarah: I have reviewed the Franchise Ordinance you sent me this p.m. Reliant Energy Minnegasco (REM) is in full agreement with the Franchise Ordinance as proposed. We look forward to working with the City of Mound through the term of the new Franchise Ordinance. REM values our relationships with the cities we serve and we are pleased with the outcome of our discussions for the renewal of our gas franchise. Sarah, normally I would be attending the Council Meeting on the 9th of July and be available to answer any questions Council might have regarding the Franchise. I will be on vacation that week with my family in northern Minnesota and not available. If you would like a representative from REM at the meeting please let me know. Thank you to you and City staff for a very efficient process on the franchise. Please let me know if I can be of help to the City in the future. Sincerely, Arne Hendrickson Local Government Relations -3246- SUMMARY FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION - A COMPLETE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. A COPY OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE IS ALSO POSTED AT THE HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY IN MOUND. CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. __-2002 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING RELIANT ENERGY MINNEGASCO, A DIVISION OF RELIANT ENERGY RESOURCES CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, A NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION, DISTRIBUTION, MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF GAS ENERGY FOR PUBLIC AND PROVIATE USE AND TO USE THE PUBLIC WAYS AND GROUNDS OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA, FOR SUCH PRUUPOSE; AND PRESCRIBING CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF. The City Council of the City of Mound does ordain: (For summary purposes following are the subsections of the subject ordinance) Subs. 1. Subs. 2. Subs. 3. Subs. 4. Subs. 5. Subs. 6. Subs. 7. Subs. 8. Subs. 9. Definitions Adoption of Franchise. Location, other Regulations. Relocations. Change in Form of Government. Franchise Fee. Limitation on Applicability; No waiver. Amendment Procedure. Previous Franchises Superseded. Passed by the City Council this __ day of__ Summary published in The Laker the day of Effective the __ day of ,2002. ., 2002. ,2002. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -3247- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com June 6, 2001 Mr. Patrick Cline, Manager Community and Local Government Relations Xcel Energy 5309 West 70th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 SUBJECT: Undergrounding of Electrical Distribution and Transmittal Lines Dear Mr. Cline: The City of Mound Housing and Redevelopmem Authority (HRA) has reviewed the four (4) options and the accompanying rough, preliminary estimates of cost for each alternate as provided by Xcel. The HRA passed a motion requesting Xcel Energy provide a detailed cost estimate and engineering study for burial of their transmission lines in downtown Mound as suggested in Option 2B. The City also requests that Xcel determine the potential ratepayerimpacts of this option. We would appreciate if a time schedule could be provided for this study. In addition, the HRA has' also directed Mound staff to negotiate for the purchase of Xcel land west of the substation and assist Xcel Energy in acquiring additional land east of the substation. The City of Mound also offers to work with Xcel Energy to enhance the landscaping around the present substation. The Mound staff and consultants are available to assist Xcel Energy in the City's endeavor to obtain an overhead utility-free zone for the downtown redevelopment district and suggest a meeting as soon as possible to discuss the land acquisition issuses. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Kandis Hanson, City Manager CC: Brace Chamberlain, HKGI John Cameron, MFRA Jim Strommen, Kennedy & Graven c 470 ?itlsl~ury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (6t2) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-931o fax http://www, kennedy-graven.com JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 Email: j stmmmen~kennedy-graven .com August 14, 2001 Linda Machemehl 5505 County Road 19 Shorewood, MN 55331 Scott Johnson 414 Nicollet Mall 7th Floor Minneapolis, MN 55401 Re: Mound Downtown Redevelopment Dear Ms. Machemehl and Mr. Johnson: As you know, we represent the City of Mound. Scott, I know that you are working on the Mound Redevelopment project, particularly with respect to easements and land acquisition matters. Ms. Machemehl, I was given your name as the person in charge of distribution line placement and cost. This letter is a request for information on behalf of the City on the following matters. It is my understanding that there will be undergrounding of distribution lines and facilities in connection with this project, as distinguished from the transmission lines. The Public Utilities Commission recently approved a tariff for Xcel that prov/des for a surcharge mechanism in the event undergrounding of distribution lines are found to be a special facility. Please advise whether Xcel intends to exercise the terms of that tariff regarding the incremental cost of undergrounding distribution lines. If that is the case, I would like an estimate of the undergrounding costs for distribution lines in connection with this project~ I would also like a printout on the estimated monthly cost Xcel would intend to surcharge to the various classes of customers. Finally, please provide a projected timetable for the undergrounding of distribution lines and identify anything that the City needs to do to facilitate this timetable. Regarding transmission lines, Xcel has provided cost estimates for undergrounding and that issue has been discussed at several meetings. As I understand it, there is also a plan to relocate the transmission lines within the railroad right-of-way using overhead facilities. Scott, has the railroad consented to the projected relocations on its right-of-way? I know, for example, there is an issue regarding the location as it relates to the tracks. It is also my understanding that this track is still used from time to time. What is your information on the railroad location and track use status? JMS-201685vl MU220-6 -3249- August 14, 2001 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your prompt response to these questions. If these questions raise other matters or questions requiring City action or information, please contact me. Very-truly yours, ~G~VEN, CHARTERED James M. Strommen JMS/car cc: Brace Chamberlain ~andis Hanson JMS-201685vl MU220-6 -3250- Page 1 of 1 kandishanson From: "Strommen, James M." <jstrommen@Kennedy-Graven.com> To.' <kandishanson(~msn.com> Cc: "Dean, John B." <jdean@Kennedy-Graven.com>; "'Bruce Chamberlain'" Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 12:30 PM Subject: Mound Downtown Redevelopment Dear Kandis: This email is a status report on my progress relating to the determination of costs Xcel would allegedly incur were the city to require undergrounding (u/g) of either distribution or transmission lines, or both (though it is my understanding now that the city will not u/g transmission lines). You should have received copies to several letters I have sent to Xcel reps asking for cost estimates on u/g distribution lines for the project, and issues related to the relocation of transmission lines above ground along the railroad ROW. These requests followed my meeting with Bruce on August 10 regarding outstanding cost and feasibility issues. To date I have received only a response from Scott Johnson of Xcel indicating the need for more information from the city on its plans relating to transmission line relocation. I have heard nothing from Xcel on the distribution line question. I will continue to send letters for the purpose of putting our questions "on the record" and obtaining responses that identify what we must do. Accordingly, at this point it is premature for me to report anything regarding u/g of distribution lines or relocation of transmission lines, from a cost to Mound ratepayer standpoint. Please note, however that the u/g of distribution lines for Mound's downtown redevelopment is a very good case to make to the PUC that neither the city' nor the city ratepayers should pay for the u/g costs Xcel will seek to surcharge. The new Xcel tariff procedure regarding city-ordered u/g of distribution lines allows a city to argue that there should be no surcharge because the u/g should be "standard." Currently, u/g in downtown Mpls. and St. Paul is standard, ie, no ratepayers in the city are surcharged for its installation, it is a general expense to the utility. If Mound places distribution lines u/g in the downtown area, it should attempt to extent the cost treatment enjoyed by Mpls. and St. Paul to suburbs with identifiable downtown areas. What Mound could establish both for itself and other suburbs is the rule that u/g of distribution lines in an identifiable "downtown" area is wholly or partially "standard" and therefore, recovered only from general rates. Clearly Mound has a downtown. The intent of the project is to revitalize the area as a city or West-Tonka area center. The presence of overhead distribution lines is both unsightly and unsafe, given the level of pedestrian traffic the project hopes to draw. The same argument holds for the transmission lines but is complicated somewhat by the greater cost to u/g transmission lines and the separate issues of authority to require transmission u/g and the railroad ROW, not public ROW over which the city has clear control. I will continue to press Xcel reps for cost estimates on distribution line u/g. When Xcel provides this estimate to me I will forward it to you and Bruce for evaluation. If you have any questions please call or email. -3251 - 08/21/2001 Ru~ 23 O1 Ol:lBp p.2 Crcativc So[ut½ons for Land planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. gill MEMO August 23, 2001 To' Mayor and City Council Mound, Minnesota CC: Kandis Hanson, City Manager John Cameron, MFRA Jim Strommen, Kennedy & Graven From: Bruce Chamberlain Mound Visions Coordinator Re: Transmission line relocation. Several months ago, the City Council reviewed options for transmission line relocation ranging from overhead relocation tO complete undergrounding. At that time, the Council directed staff to work with Xcel Energy in pursuit of the underground option and, to a greater degree, determine the impact on rate payers and feasibility. Since that time, Xcel has provided more information in each area. Here is our understanding of the situation: · Because it is the City's intent to construct County Road 15 in 2002 and because we are told ordering of underground cable takes over eight months, it appears infeasible to do the undergrounding work as part of the County Road 15 project. · As a result, there would need to be an interim, overhead relocation solution to accommodate the new alignment of CR15. The interim solution is expected to cost at least $500,000. · The undergrounding work would have to wait until 2003, which could disrupt Gramercy development activity. · Engineering costs fbr undergrounding the lines would be passed along to the City or rate payers. · The undergrounding option could cost the rate payers roughly $15/month five years. · If the City were to pursue the overhead option, the line would be upgraded to steel poles with an altered alignment that better accommodates redevelopment. · An overhead option would allow for the work to occur in conjunction with CR 15 relocation at a fraction of the cost to rate payers (in the range of $500k). - 3252-23 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 ,n~. t=~-~x ~e n~nn l~, [~ilgh ~3g-6838 8u~ E3 O1 Oi: lS~ MEMO - Mound City Council August 23, 2001 Page 2 This information caused City Staff to strategize a bit more. We subsequently contacted Gramercy Development to review the situation since their project would experience the greatest visual benefit of undergrounding. We asked if the absence of overhead transmission lines along the rail line would have financial or marketing benefit for their project and if so, would they consider directly paying a portion of the cost for undergrounding. Their response is that overhead lines adjacent to their project would have an impact on their marketing efforts but not a large one and they added that overhead lines would probably not have a financial impact. They would rather live with overhead transmission lines than directly pay for undergrounding. In fact, depending on the level of funding, undergrounding costs could be a deal-breaker for them. With this information, Staff suggests that upgraded, overhead transmission lines in the downtown area may be the wisest and most feasible approach. As a refresher, there are two levels of power lines currently on poles through the downtown area. Transmission lines are the high-power lines that run along th.e tracks and along Belmont Avenue. Distribution lines are throughout the downtown, serving · individual properties. It is still the intent to underground all of the distribution lines along with each redevelopment project as it is completed. An accompanying memo by Jim Strommen talks further about undergrounding distribution lines. Staff will be at the August 28 meeting to review the issue and answer your questions. M:%MOUND199.24~DOCS'~xce12.d°c -3253- H A RTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven, co rn JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 Email: j stro~kermedy-graven.com November 26, 2001 Kandis Hanson City Manager' Ci.ty of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1627 Re: Mound Downtown Redevelopment Dear Ms. Hanson: I reviewed a document prepared by Ehlers & Associates summarizing the costs connected to the downtown redevelopment, including Xcel's facility relocation cost (relevant excerpt attached). This information would necessarily have been supplied by Xcel. I am curious as to the basis of the line item: "Xcel franchise (ratepayers) $525,000." It is my understanding that the City is not asking Xcel to go underground with the transmission line. I also understand that some of the transmission lines lie outside of the public right-of-way. This does create a different issue with respect to relocation rights. It is unclear, however, where Xcel derives the relocation cost and how Xcel concludes that a specific amount will be surcharged. It is important that the City determines the specifics of this information and that it reserve its rights to object to cost allocation for utility facility relocation. Do you know the source of that information? While I have been in some meetings, I have not been involved in others. I would like to pursue whether the cost of this relocation is properly a ratepayer surcharge, a general expense (where private easement rights are involved) or a City expense to Xcel. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, G.~~ CHARTERED James M. Strommen JMS/cm Enclosure · cc: John Dean: Bruce Chamberlain JMS-206321vl MU200-95 -3254- Page 1 of 1 Kandis M. Hanson From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Bruce" <blc@HKGI.com> "Jim Strommen (E-mail)" <jstrommen@kennedy-graven.com>; "John Cameron (E-mail)" <jcameron@mfra.com>; "Sarah Smith (E-mail)" <Sarahsmith@cityofmound.com> "Kandis Hanson (E-mail)" <KandisHanson@cityofmound.com>; "Pat Cline (E-mail)" <patrick.v.cline@xcelenergy.com> Monday, January 14, 2002 2:42 PM Mound transmission line relocation January 14,2002 Meeting notice: January 25, 2002, 8:00 am, Mound City Hall Including: City of Mound, Xcel Energy Now that the County Road 15 roadway alignment is established, the railroad situation seems to be defined and the City has decided not to underground any transmission lines, the City is ready to meet with Xcel reps to develop a game plan for relocating the overhead lines. The agenda for the meeting is something like this: 1. Discuss proposed relocation alignments 2. Determine Kv upgrade needs 3. Define relocation of lines on roadway ROWvs easement 4. Begin discussion of agreements needed between City and Xcel 5. Determine what, if any, other property owners will be impacted by relocation 6. Discuss relocation expense and cost responsibility. If you have any questions, let me know. Bruce Chamberlain blc@hkgi.com <mailto:blc@hkgi.com> -3255- 01/14/2002 Page 1 of 2 Kandis M. Hanson From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Strommen, James M." <jstrommen@Kennedy-Graven.com> "'Bruce"' <blc@HKGl.com> <Sarahsmith@cityofmound.com>; <KandisHanson@cityofmound.com>; <jcameron(~mfra.com> Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:02 AM RE: Xcel meeting Hello Bruce, I was talking to John Dean about the utility relocation aspect of the redevelopment. What I would like to know is what amount Xcel is saying will be surcharged and where the undergrounding or relocation is relative to the downtown redevelopment (I assume it is central to the "downtown" area). The sooner we can get a handle on how much we are talking about, and how it would affect the city ratepayers, the sooner we can address the issue, if necessary, with the PUC. .... -Original Message ..... From: Strommen, James M. Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 4:34 PM To: 'Bruce' Cc: Sarah Smith (Sarahsmith@cityofmound.com); Kandis Hanson (KandisHanson@cityofmound.com); John Cameron (jcameron~mfra.com) Subject: RE: Xcel meeting Bruce, any dispute over payment should not result in delay. I don't believe Xcel has legal grounds to say that it will cause delay. To the extent Xcel "holds-up" any phase of the project because of payment issues, please contact me to discuss. ..... Original Message ..... From: Bruce [mailto:blc~HKGI.com] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 4:16 PM To: Jim Strommen (jstrommen~kennedy-graven.com) Cc: Sarah Smith (Sarahsmith@cityofmound. com); Kandis Hanson (KandisHanson~cityofmound.com); John Cameron (jcameron@mfra.com) Subject: Xcel meeting January 28,2002 Jim, As you know, we had a meeting on Friday January 25 with Xcel Energy reps. At the meeting the following items were discussed: · Expansion of the substation to the east may require 25 more feet of property than originally anticipated. · Substation expansion will likely require variances that seem most appropriate to secure at the time of property transfer. · The City needs to keep moving on necessary property acquisition. It appears wise to limit immediate relocation of transmission lines to only those that will be affected by the county road project (over half of the total relocation desired). This makes the project simpler and puts the relocation onus on the County - not the City. VVnat it does mean is that the City needs to stay well on top of County action on the issue in order to prevent delay of the county road project. According to Xcel, they need to be in a position of ordering steel poles by about April in order to be ready for spring -3256- 01/29/2002 Page 2 of 2 2003 construction. John Cameron will bring this up with the County at their meeting this Thursday. There is a cost difference between wood poles and steel poles - I would suggest that the City lean toward steel (especially since the County will be sharing in the cost of utility relocation). VVood poles will require guying; steel will not. Xcel is still saying that undergrounding of distribution lines within the downtown area is a cost to the Citylratepayers. The first distribution line undergrounding project will arise with the county road relocation. Jim, what do we need to do to begin challenging Xcel on this issue? We cannot let any dispute delay the county road project. These were the highlights. Let me know if you have questions. Lets figure out a strategy for points of conflict. Bruce Chamberlain -3257- 01/29/2002 C H A RTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven.com JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 Email: jstrommen ~kennedy-graven.com March 19, 2002 Kandis Hanson · citY Manager ' CitY of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1627 Re: March 14, 2002 Meeting and Follow-Up Dear:Ms. Hanson: This letter follows the meeting of March 14, 2002, at the Hennepin County facility in Medina. A number of issues were discussed regarding the downtown development project and what needs to occur first. Among the issues raised was Xcel's request for reimbursement for preliminary engineering costs in cOnnection with the transmission line relocation. This is an issue that will come to a head shortly in this process. If the CitY/County do not pay, Xcel will not proceed. Xcel's leverage is the fact that it needs to carry out this estimate or the project is delayed. If the City needs more information on this issue, please contact me. I assume it will come up again at the April 16, 2002, 3:00 meeting. By that time, the City should decide whether it will agree to bear the costs Xcel is requesting. I do not intend to do any further review of this unless so directed by you. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED JMS:peb JMS-211827vl MU200-92 -3258- h A RTER E D 470 Pillsbury Center 200 Sout~x Sixth. Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven.com JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 Email: j strommen@kennedy-graven .corn April 12, 2002 By Facsimile - To Follow by U.S. Mail Kandis Hanson City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1627 Re: Downtown Redevelopment - Utili _ty Undergrounding Surcharge Issue Dear Ms. Hanson: This letter follows your request for a summary of the issues of interest to the City in connection with Xcel Energy's intent to surcharge ratepayers in the City for the undergrounding of distribution lines necessary as part of the downtown redevelopment project. This information is relevant for considerationby the City Council of a possible challenge at the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to Xcel's surcharge. Background This issue arises because the City will be ordering Xcel to relocate the distribution lines in the downtown redevelopment project underground rather than overhead. The higher voltage transmission lines cormecting to the substation. ,M!! remakn overhead, as ! understand it. Underground distribution lines will greatly enhance the aesthetics and safety in the new downtown developments. Xcel has not yet given an estimate of the cost of the undergrounding, over and above relocating lines overhead. The City can assume that it is a substantial cost, in the six figures at least. That amount would be the subject of an automatic surcharge to ratepayers within the City of Mound (assuming neither the City nor the developer paid the cost). The surcharge amount to each customer is based on the class of service being received. Large commercial electric customers would pay a surcharge three or four times that paid by a residential customer. It is anticipated that this surcharge would be collected over a three-year period as a monthly bill identified as a surcharge for "City Requested Special Facility." The Xcel Tariffand PUC rules, however, allow a City to object to a surcharge by bringing a petition before the PUC. The objection could take the form of questioning Xcel's right to recover a JMS-212878v! MU200-92 -3259- Kandis Hanson Ltr April 12, 2002 Page 2 surcharge at all or object to the surcharge as imposed only on City ratepayers, rather than other ratepayers also. This is a completely new area of the law and results from the rights of cities established through the case ofNSP v. City of Oakdale. Basis For City Challenge Of Surcharge The rights of the City to challenge this surcharge would unfold as follows. As this project moves forward, Xcel will be required to provide an estimate of the cost of the undergrounding and the schedule of recovery amounts from the classes ofratepayers in the City. The City can then evaluate the surcharge amount that will be imposed and its impact on ratepayers. Assuming the surcharge is more than a very small amount on each ratepayer, the City may want to file a petition with the PUC objecting to Xcel's right to surcharge under these circumstances. Xcel may surcharge for what it regards as a "special" facility, as opposed to its standard facility. In its approved tariff, Xcel has identified underground distribution lines as "special" and overhead lines as standard. There is no hard and fast rule requiring all undergrounding to be special, however. The downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul areas demonstrate the fact that underground distribution lines may be standard in some areas. Overhead lines in the downtown areas would be less safe and unsightly. This fact alone puts the City in a good position to challenge Xcel's designation of undergrounding in this downtown area as special. The City has an identifiable and pre-existing downtown area, rather than a previously non-existent or "new" downtown. The downtown is in need of redevelopment and should rejuvenate commerce in the area. This downtown not only serves Mound but the surrounding communities of Minnetrista and others. Overhead lines would be unsafe and possibly deter new tenants or developers. The City would have the same types of arguments Minneapolis and St. Paul have. The question then should be why Mound, or all cities, should not have underground distribution lines in their downtown areas as standard facilities? Standard facilities are not surcharged, but are general expenses to the Company. Mechanics Of The Challenge Before The PUC After the City files a petition, it would be required to provide evidence and make argument to the PUC that this undergrounding should be "standard." This effort should involve a presentation depicting the downtown area, its appearance with overhead lines both prior to the development and after the development. By computerized illustrations, the City would be able to demonstrate the appearance of the downtown area both with undergrounding and if it were developed with overhead lines. The City may want to sponsor testimony by its public works people and development director describing the impact overhead or underground lines would have on safety, aesthetics and anticipated development. It is not known how vigorously Xcel will oppose such an effort. It may be that Xcel is willing to compromise and share costs. It may also be that Xcel feels compelled to let the PUC make a JMS-212878vl MU200-92 -3260- Kandis Hanson Ltr April 12., 2.002 Page 3 decision on this. The impact of any decision by the PUC is potentially significant because it involves a downtown redevelopment. Literally, any community in the state could argue that distribution lines in a downtown area should be underground. I believe that Mound has very good facts for making the case that it should have underground distribution line's as standard. There is no precedent on this issue. The PUC has not taken a position yet. The cost of this petition would include attorneys fees and one or more experts retained to prepare illustrations and/or testify regarding the effect of overhead lines on the development. If carried to a full conclusion, I would not anticipate more than one or two days of testimony at the PUC on this issue. The cost for such an effort could be anywhere fi.om $15,000 to $25,000. It is very difficult to estimate with high accuracy because of the inability to predict how vigorously Xcel would oppose this petition. I would be happy to make myself available to the Council to answer any more questions. Hopefully this summary would give the Council an idea of the risks and benefits of pursuing a challenge to the undergrounding surcharge that Xcel will seek to impose. If you have any further questions, please call. Sincerely, KE ~NS~D~ GRAVEN, CHARTERED James M. Strommen JMS :peb cc: John Dean Bruce Chamberlain JMS-212878vl MU200-92 -3261 - h A RTeRED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven.com JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 Email: j strowanen~kermedy-graven.com April 12, 2002 By Facsimile - To Follow by U.S. Mail Ms. Kandis Hanson City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1627 Re: Xcel Preliminary Engineering Proposed Agreement Dear Ms. Hanson: EncloSed is the requested' information I receiVed from Xcel regarding its position on payment by the City or other party for preliminary cost estimates and actual relocation cost reimbursement:' You will note Xcel's quote of $22,800 for the detailed cost estimate for the project. Xcel requires a deposit of 80% of that, $18,240 in its proposal. I note, in addition, this proposed agreement invites the City or other party to inform Xcel who will pay its transmission line relocation costs. (See ¶1 at 4). Xcel also seeks indemnity except for its own negligence. As we previously discussed, utilities placed in the public right-of-way asked to move by a public authority acting within its police power, are required to move at their own expense. I don't believe this basic principle is influenced by the fact that we are dealing here with transmission lines rather than distribution lines. If, on the other hand, Xcel has easement rights and/or is asked to relocate its facilities located on private land, it will have a fight to be compensated for that relocation. I do not know the percentage breakdown of transmission line facilities Xcel has in the downtown redevelopment that are outside of the city public right-of-way. Perhaps Bruce Chamberlain or John Cameron can identify those areas. You have indicated the City's willingness to pay the preliminary engineering costs to move matters forWard. If Xcel insists on this all-inclusive enclosed agreement, however, the City may be agreeing to front or pay for costs that it is not 'required to pay to Xcel. JMS-212878vl MU200-92 -3262- Kandis Hanson Ltr April 12~ 2002 Page 2 I suggest that those persons involved in this project on behalf of the City review this Xcel document and advise the City on what it should and should not agree to. I intend to be at the April 16 meeting in Medina. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this letter, please contact me. Sincerely, James M. Strommen JMS:cr Enclosure cc: John Dean (with enclosure) Bob Lindall (with enclosure) Bruce Chamberlain (with enclosure) John Cameron (with enclosure) JMS-212975vl MU200-1 -3263- STAFF REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound City Council and Staff FROM: Bruce Chamberlain, Project Manager DATE: July 2, 2002 SUBJECT: Proposed modification to Lost Lake Greenway Project BACKGROUND: The Lost Lake Greenway project, as currently designed, will extend a trail and landscape improvements from County Road 110, around the north perimeter of Lost Lake, along the Wolner Field parking area to Cypress Lane. The original grant application to fund the project described the project as providing a trail connection between the attractions of downtown, transit facilities and community ball fields. Knowing that the greenway project as currently designed would impact Wolner Field parking, City Staff has been working with the Little League Board of Directors to review the project and resolve concerns over the loss of parking. The project would result in the loss of four ball field parking spaces. During game events, parking is already in short supply and the Little League Board feels that the loss of even four spaces will make worse a current problem. One solution discussed with the Board is to eliminate the easterly segment of the trail that extends through the parking lot to Cypress Lane and instead end the trail at the western edge of the parking lot. Since the alternative represents a change to project plans and since MN/Dot is administering the ISTEA grant, the alternative has been reviewed with MN/Dot staff. It is their belief that the alternative approach fulfills the original intent of the grant and therefore plans could be modified. RECOMMENDATION: Although it is unforttmate not to link the trail with Cypress Lane, Staff believes that the proposed modification does not significantly detract from the function of the trail and therefore Staff recommends that the Council 1) authorize modification to the plans and 2) formally request a project modification from MN/Dot. The Little League Board has expressed the desire to prepare a new master plan for the Wolner Field/skate park site. If this occurs, Staff strongly encourages that a trail connection to Cypress Lane be one of the site's programmed uses. Staff will provide drawings at the Council meeting to illustrate the proposed plan changes. M: ~lOUND[OO-48[Correspondence~little_league_staff rpt. DOC 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -3264- Upper Tonka Little League 2345 Cypress Lane, Box 53 Mound, MN 55364 tvlEMO Date: June 26, 2002 To: Mound City Council From: Upper Tonka Little League Association Re: Requested modification to Lost Lake Greenway Project. For the past several weeks, the Upper Tonka Little League Association Board of Directors has been coordinating with City staff regarding the proposed trail extension as part of the Lost Lake Greenway Project. As you are aware, the Upper Tonka Little League Association leases the ballfield property from the City of Mound As currently designed, the project proposes to extend a trail and landscaping through the existing batting cage area and along the northern edge of the Little League parking lot. The batting cages can be moved to a different location so there is no conflict there. Since parking, on the other hand, is in such short supply during games, the loss of even the few parking spaces that the trail would cause would be a hardship. Therefore, even though the Board supports the Greenway project, we would like to formally request that the project be modified to extend the trail only as far as the western edge of the Little League parking lot rather than all the way to Cypress Lane. This would allow for trail access between downtown and the fields without impacting ballfield parking. We look forward to discussing this with the City Council at your July 9 meeting. Sincerely, Upper Tonka Little League Board of Directors Linda Kohl, Secretary -3265- CHADWICK AND MERTZ, P.S.C. FAX: (952) 975-9963 E-MAIL: CHADLAWI~PCLINK.COM TELEPHONE: (952) 975-9960 May 22, 2002 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK BUILDING 600 WEST 79TH STREET, SUITE 210 P.O. BOX 623 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 TAX ID NO. 41-2007769 Richard J. Chadwick* Craig M. Mertz Lynette M. Bledsaw** Of Counsel: Larry Gansen *Also licensed in Wisconsin **Also licensed in Michigan Sarah Smith Community Development Director 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Re: Nuisance Ordinance Amendments Our File No.:6678MZ Dear Sarah: After our last meeting at City Hall I was asked to re-work the draft of the proposed Nuisance Ordinance. First, I was asked to expand the provisions relating to derelict vehicles. You will find the new language in proposed section 1000.40. The new language expands the definition of vehicle so as to include motor vehicles, cars, trucks, recreational vehicles, watercraft and trailers. Second, I was asked to insert a provision which would specifically provide that equipment covered with tarps are not considered "screened." To address that concern I enclose (on a separate sheet) proposed changes to sections 350.710 and 350.720 of the zoning code. Very truly yours, P.S.C. Craig M. Mertz '~ CMM/emm ~ Enclosure T:\NETBACK\6678\CORX2002\SMITH3.LTR -3266- Mound City Code Section 1000:00 CHAPTER V. NUISANCES SECTION 1000 - Nuisances - Abatement Section 1000:00. Public Nuisance Defined. Whoever by his or her act or failure to perform a legal duty does any of the follow is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, which is a misdemeanor: (a) Maintains or permits a condition which unreasonable annoys, injures, or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of members of the public, or (b) Interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage, any public property, public highway or right-of-way use, or waters used by the public, or (c) Is guilty of any other act or omission declared by law or this Section to be a public nuisance and for which no sentence is specifically provided. (d) Permits or allows real property under his/her control or ownership to be used to maintain a public nuisance. Sections 1000:05, 1000:10, and 1000:15 relating to nuisances and abatement are hereby repealed in their entirety. (Ord. #29-1989 - 06-26-89). Section 1000:02. DEFINITIONS. The following words, when used in this ordinance, shall have the meanings ascribed to them: Garbage includes all putrescible animal, vegetable or other matter that attends the preparation, consumption, display, dealing in or storage of meat, fish, fowl, birds, fruit, or vegetables, including the cans, containers or wrappers wasted along with such materials. Rubbish is nonputrescible solid wastes such as wood, leaves, trimmings from shrubs, dead trees or branches thereof, shavings, sawdust, excelsior, wooden waste, printed matter, paper, paper board, paste boards, grass, rags, straw, boots, shoes, hats and all other combustibles not included under the term garbage. Section 1000:05A. Public Nuisances Affecting Health. The following are hereby declared to be public nuisances affecting health: (a) Carcasses of animals not buried or destroyed within 24 hours after death; -3267- (b) The keeping of any animal over six (6) months of age which has not been vaccinated against rabies with an approved vaccine as determined by the official Comprehendium of Animal Rabies Vaccines published by the Conference of State Public Health Veterinarians and the Center for Disease Control of the Department of Health and Human Services. (c) All public exposure of persons having a communicable disease as defined in Minn. Stat. Section 144.4172 and any building, conveyance, or place where contagion, infection, filth or other source of cause of communicable disease exists; (d) Accumulations of stagnant water, manure, animal feces, or rubbish which are likely to become breeding places for flies, mosquitoes, or vermin; (e) Depositing manure upon any city street, city sidewalk, or city property. (f) Garbage not stored in rodent free and fly-tight containers, or; garbage stored so as to emit foul and disagreeable odors, or; garbage stored so as to constitute a hazard to public health. (g) Accumulations of rubbish as defined herein. Accumulation o f junk, disused furniture, appliances, machinery, automobiles, and parts thereof or any matter which may become a harborage for rats, snakes, or vermin, which creates a visual blight, or which may be conducive to fire, or which endangers the comfort, repose, health, safety or welfare of the public. Section 1000:10A. Public Nuisances Affecting Morals and Decency. The following are hereby declared to be public nuisances affecting public morals and decency: (a) All gambling devices, slot machines and punch boards, unless approved as a legal device by the State of Minnesota; (b) Betting, bookmaking, and all apparatus used in such occupations; (c) All houses kept for the purpose of prostitution or promiscuous sexual intercourse, gambling houses, houses of ill fame, and bawdy hours; (d) All places where controlled substances, narcotics or intoxicating liquor is manufactured or disposed of in violation of law or where, in violation of law, persons are permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquor or use of controlled substances or narcotics, or where intoxicating liquor, controlled substances, or narcotics are kept for sale or other disposition in violation of law, and all liquor controlled substances, and narcotics and other property used for maintaining such a place; 2 -3268- (e) Any vehicle used for the transportation of intoxicating liquor, or for promiscuous sexual intercourse, or any other immoral or illegal purpose; (f) The use of any fish house, warming house, or other similar structure for any activity listed in (a) through (d) above. (g) Any building or premises to which there has been three or more police responses in a six month period (1) regarding illegal possession, and/or illegal consumption, and/or illegal sale of alcohol, or controlled substances, or (2) regarding noisy parties or noisy gatherings when disturb the peace, quiet, or repose of another person, or (3) regarding illegal discharge of fireworks and/or firearms. Section 1000:15A Public Nuisances Affecting Peace and Safety. The following are declared to be public nuisances affecting public peace and safety. (a) All snow and ice not removed from public sidewalks 12 hours after the snow or other precipitation causing the condition has ceased to fall. (b) All wires and limbs of trees or bushes which are so close to the surface of a sidewalk or street as to constitute a danger to pedestrians or vehicles, any limbs or bushes which block the clear view of traffic signs and all limbs of trees closer to the street surface than 15 feet and all limbs of trees closer to the surface ora sidewalk than eight feet. (c) Obstructions and excavations affecting the ordinary use by the public of streets, alleys, sidewalks, or public grounds except under such conditions as are permitted by the Section or other applicable law; (d) Radio aerials, radio towers, television antennae, television towers or satellite dishes erected or maintained in a dangerous manner; (e) Any use of property abutting on a public street or sidewalk or any use of a public street or sidewalk which causes large crowds of people to gather, obstructing traffic and the free uses of the streets or sidewalks; (0 All hanging signs, awnings, and other similar structures over streets and sidewalks so situated so as to endanger public safety, or not constructed and maintained as provided by this Section; (g) The allowing of rain water, ice, or snow to fall from any building or structure upon any street or sidewalk or to flow across any sidewalk; (h) Waste water cast upon or permitted to flow upon streets or other public property; (i) Accumulations in the open of discarded or disused machinery, household -3269- d) (1) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) ¢) (s) (u) appliances, automobile bodies, or other materials, in a manner conducive to the harboring of rats, mice, snakes, or vermin, or to fire, health, or safety hazards from such accumulation or from the rank growth of vegetation among the items so accumulated; Noxious weeds, as that term is defined in Section 18.77 of Minnesota Statutes, and any excessive growth of other weeds; excessive growth of weeds means weeds or grass which are 12 inches or more in height; Any wire, except clothes line wire, which is strung less than 15 feet above the surface of the ground; Any fence or other structure maliciously erected or maintained for the purpose of annoying the owners or occupants of adjoining property; All buildings, walls, and other structures which have been damaged by fire, decay, or otherwise, and which are so situated as to endanger the safety of the public; All dead standing trees which present a hazard to like or property, all elm or other trees found harboring the Dutch elm beetle, all dead standing elm wood, and all cut elm or other wood found harboring the Dutch elm beetle; All dangerous, unguarded machinery, including derelict autos, derelict boats, and derelict refrigerators and freezers, in any public place, or so situated or operated on private property as to attract the public; Swimming in a channel or swimming or diving from a channel bridge; Operating any water craft, motor vehicle, or powered device or propelled device, on the open water, or upon the ice of a body of water, in such a manner as to endanger life, limb, or property; Standing upon any street bridge or railroad bridge for the purposes of fishing therefrom; Causing to be made any fire on any public beach area or park except in fireplaces designated for that purpose; Any well, hole, or similar excavation which is left uncovered or in such other condition as to constitute a hazard to any child coming on the premises where it is located; Obstruction to the free flow or water in a natural waterway of a public street, drain, gutter, or ditch with trash or other materials; 4 -3270- (v) (w) (x) (Y) (z) (AA) The placing or throwing on any street, sidewalk, or other public property of any glass, tacks, nails, bottles, or other substance which may injure any person or animal or damage any pneumatic tire when passing over such substance; The depositing of garbage or refuse on a public right-of-way or on adjacent private property; Conditions which, in the opinion of the Enforcement Officer, are conducive to the harborage or breeding of vermin including materials stored less than 12 inches off the ground; Improper Storing of Firewood: All firewood shall be stored in neat stacks. The height of a woodpile over three feet shall be no more than twice its width but in no event shall the height exceed six feet. The stack of wood is to be piled in a regular orderly arrangement that is stable and reasonably resistant to collapse. No firewood shall be stored on the street side of the yard. The total amount of firewood stored on the premises is to be no more than two fireplace cords. Firewood may be stored upon residential premises solely for the use on the premises and not for resale. Any building or premises to which there has been three or more police responses in a six month period (1) regarding illegal possession and/or illegal consumption, and/or illegal sale of alcohol on controlled substances, on (2) regarding noisy parties or noise gatherings which disturb the peace, quiet, or repose of another person. The parking and/or storage of construction equipment, farm vehicles, and equipment, or any commercial vehicle with a length greater than 21 feet, or a height greater than 8 feet, or a gross vehicle weight greater than 9,000 pounds, continuously for more than two hours on any property within a residential zoning district. Such equipment and vehicles shall include, but are not limited to, the following: dump trucks, construction trailers, back hoes, front-end loaders, bobcats, well drilling equipment, farm trucks, combines, thrashers, tractors, tow trucks, truck-tractors, step vans, cube vans, and the like. The prohibitions of this section (AA) shall not apply to the following: 1) Any equipment or vehicle described above being used by a public utility, governmental agency, construction company, moving company or similar company which is actually being used to service a residence not belonging to or -3271 - occupied by the operator of the vehicle. 2) Any equipment or vehicle described above which is actually making a pick-up or delivery at the location where it is parked. Parking for any period of time beyond the time reasonably necessary to make such a pickup or delivery and in excess of the two hour limit shall be lawful. (BB) The outside parking and/or storage on vacant property of usable or unusable vehicles, trailers, watercraft, snowmobiles, recreational vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, construction vehicles and equipment, or similar vehicles, materials, supplies, equipment, ice fish houses, skateboard ramps, play houses, or other nonpermanent structures except as may be permitted by the Zoning or Sign Ordinances. (cc) The outside parking and/or storage on occupied residentially used property of usable or nonusable vehicles, trailers, watercraft, snowmobiles, recreational vehicles, all terrain vehicles and similar vehicles, materials, supplies, equipment, ice fist houses, skateboard ramps, or other nonpermanent structures unless they comply with Zoning and Sign Ordinances. All vehicles, watercraft and other articles allowed to be stored outside in an approved manner or occupied residentially used property must be owned by a person who resides on the property. Persons who are away at school or in the military service for periods of time but still claim the property as their legal residence, shall be considered residents on the property. (DD) Breeding sites of the Aedes Tris Eriatus (tree hole mosquito) including but not limited to: the basal holes of trees, unused fires (not mounted on wheels), pots, pans, cans, pails, bottles, or other containers left outdoors in which water or debris may accumulate. (Ord.#29-1989-6-26-89) ~. Duties of City Officers. The Police Department shall enforce the provisions relating to nuisances. Such officers shall have the power to inspect private premises and take all reasonable precautions to prevent the commission and maintenance of public nuisances. Section 1000:25. Abatement. The City may abate the nuisance by the procedure descried below: (a) Order. The Enforcement Officer shall serve a written warning upon the owner as -3272- provided herein. The written warning shall also be served upon any responsible party or property owner known to the officer and may be served upon any party known to have caused the nuisance. The written warning may be served by personal delivery or certified mail, or if the premises are unoccupied and the mailing address of the owner is unknown, by posting the warning in a conspicuous location on the premises. The written warning Shall contain the following: o A description of the real estate sufficient for identification; A description and location of the nuisance and the remedial action required to abate the nuisance; The abatement deadline, to be determined by the Enforcement Officer, allowing a reasonable time for the performance of any act required. A statement that the order may be appealed at a hearing before the City Manager by filing a written request containing the owner's mailing address, with the City Clerk before the abatement deadline designed in the order; and A statement that if the remedial action is not timely completed nor a request for an appeal heating filed with the City Clerk within the time specified, the City will abate the nuisance and charge all costs incurred therein against the real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the same manner as property taxes. Co) Setting Heating Date. In the even that an appeal is timely filed with the City Clerk, the City Manager shall promptly fix a date for an appeal. (c) Notice. The City Clerk shall mail a notice of the date, time, place and subject of the heating to the owner and known responsible parties. The City Clerk shall also notify the Enforcement Officer. (d) Heating, At the time of the appeal heating, the City Manager shall hear from the Enforcement Officer, and any other parties who wish to be heard. After the hearing, the City Manager may confirm or modify the order of the Enforcement Officer. If the City Manager's determination requires abatement, the City Manager shall, his/her decision, fix a time within which the nuisance must be abated and shall provide that if remedial action is not completed within the time specified, the City may abate the nuisance. The City Clerk shall mail a copy of the City Manager's decision to the owner and any other party that was provided notice of the appeal hearing. (e) Abatement. If the remedial action is not completed nor an appeal filed within the time specified by the Enforcement Officer, or if the remedial action is not completed within the time specified by the City Manager after an appeal hearing, the City may abate the nuisance. -3273- Section 1000:30. Recovery. of Cost. Subd. 1. Personal Liability. The owner of premises on which a nuisance has been abated by the City shall be personally liable for the cost to the City of abatement, including administrative costs and attorneys fees. As soon as the work has been completed and the cost determined by the City Clerk or other official designated by the City Manager shall prepare a bill for the cost and mail it to the owner. Thereupon the mount shall be immediately due and payable at the office of the City Clerk. Subd. Assessment. Any unpaid charges by the City for the cost of elimination of the public nuisance may be collected as a special assessment pursuant to Section 370 of the City Code. Section 1000.35 No Election of Remedies. The notice and abatement of above provided in Section 1000.25 above shall not be deemed the exclusive method for the enforcement of Section 1000. Without notice, a proceeding may be instituted in a proper tribunal for the prosecution of a misdemeanor, and the judge in such a criminal case may impose the fine or penalty authorized by law in such case made and provided, including that contained in Section 347.04 of Minnesota Statutes for the disposition of dogs constituting a public nuisance. The civil remedies at law and equity shall be deemed available at all times, without notice. The Health Officer may, concurrently with any such procedures, condemn such structures as unfit for habitation pursuant to Section 1005. Section 1000.40 Derelict Vehicle Public Nuisance. Subdivision 1. Derelict Vehicles are declared to be a public nuisance and are subject to the abatement provisions of this Chapter. Subdivision 2. As used in this Section 1000.40 the terms defined in this section have the meanings given to them in this Section: a. "Vehicle" means a motor vehicle as defined in Section 169.01 of Minnesota Statutes, motor cycle as defined in Section 169.01 of Minnesota Statutes, motorized bicycle as defined in Section 169.01 of Minnesota Statutes, electric assisted bicycle as defined by Section 169.10 of Minnesota Statues, truck-tractor as defined in Section 169.01 of Minnesota Statutes, farm tractor as defined in Section 169.01 of Minnesota Statutes, road tractor as defined in Section 169.01 of Minnesota Statutes, trailer as defined in Section 169.01 of Minnesota Statutes, semi-trailer as defined in Section 169.01 of Minnesota Statutes, self-propelled recreational vehicle as defined in Chapter 168 of Minnesota Statutes, water craft as defined by Chapter 86B of Minnesota Statutes, any contrivance used or designed for navigation on water, off-road recreational vehicle as defined by Chapter 169A of Minnesota Statutes, snowmobile as defined by Chapter 84 of Minnesota Statutes, and/or all-terrain vehicle as defined by Chapter 84 of Minnesota Statutes. -3274- b. "Derelict Vehicle" means a vehicle, as defined in this subdivision: 1. that has remained for a period of more than 48 hours on public property illegally, or 2. that lacks vital component parts, or 3. that has remained on private property with out the consent of the persons in control of such property, or 4. that is in an inoperable state such that it has no substantial further use consistent with its usual functions, or 5. that is not currently licensed to the owner or occupant of the property upon which it is being stored, or 6. in the case of motorized vehicles, that is not capable of movement under its own power. Subdivision 3. No person shall park, store, or leave, or permit the parking, storing or leaving of any derelict vehicle upon any property, including private property, within the city for a period in excess of 48 hours, unless: (1) such vehicle is completely enclosed within a building, (2) such vehicle is under the control of the City or its agent, (3) such vehicle is stored, or parked on private property in connection with a business or commercial enterprise, operated and conducted in a lawful manner and when such parking or storing of such vehicle is necessary to the operation of the business or the commercial enterprise, or (4) such vehicle is stored or parked on private property of the owner thereof, or a member of the owner's family, for the purpose of making repairs thereto, provided that at all times 'such vehicle is so stored that at least one-half of the total number of wheels of such vehicle are in contact with the ground, and only one such vehicle may be so stored or parked at any one time. In the event of a vehicle stored as provided in this Section, such vehicle may be stored for a period not to exceed 14 days, after which time, such vehicle is deemed to be a derelict vehicle. Any person who stores or maintains a derelict vehicle on any public or private property, is guilty of a misdemeanor. T:\NETBACK\6678\NUISANCE.ORD -3275- RESOLUTION NO. 02- RESOLUTION DENYING REQUESTS OF TIMOTHY BECKER AND DALE AND LORELL BECKER FOR NO-LOSS DETERMINATION AND EXEMPTION UNDER THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT ON FOUR LOTS IN THE CiTY OF MOUND AND ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE ACTIONS OF CITY STAFF. I. FINDINGS OF FACT The City makes the following Findings of Fact. 1. Timothy Becker and Dale and Lorell Becker (hereinafter "the Beckers") are the owners of property legally described as Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, City of Mound, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"). 2. On August 8, 2000, the Beckers, through Peterson Environmental Consulting, requested by letter a no-loss determination or exemption under the Wetland Conservation Act ("WCA") in order to proceed with development of the property. 3. The City Staff was concerned that a wetland was located on the property covered by the requested no-loss determination or exemption. 4. City Staff convened the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), consisting of Doug Snyder of the Board of Water and Soil Resources ("BWSR"), Dave Thill of the Hennepin Conservation District, and Jon Sutherland of the City Staff. 5. The TEP panel has visited the property several times in 1998, 1999, and 2000 and is familiar with the property. o the Beckers, Consulting. The TEP panel met with Ronald Peterson and James Arndt, consultants for and reviewed and considered the report of Peterson Environmental 7. The Technical Evaluation Panel also consulted with Kelly Bopray of MFRA, the City's consultant on wetland issues, Joe Yanta of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wayne Barsted of MnDNR, and other staff members of BWSR. 8. On or about October 7, 2000, the City Staff notified the Beckers of the need to extend any applicable 60-day period for an additional 60 days, up to and including December 6, 2000. JML-193487v2 MU200-86 -3276- 9. After deliberations, the Technical Evaluation Panel concluded in a written recommendation dated October 10, 2000, that the Beckers had not met the requirements for a no-loss determination on the property. They also recommended that the exemption request be denied. 10. After Peterson asked the TEP panel to reconsider its October 10, 2000 report, the TEP on October 23, 2000, issued a clarification letter. 11. Based on the recommendations of the Technical Evaluation Panel, City Staff on November 7, 2000, issued a notice of decision denying the no-loss determination and exemption. 12. Upon the request of the Beckers, City Staff agreed to withdraw its notice of decision so that the matter could be considered by the Council. 13. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Council on January 23,2001, and was rescheduled to the February 13 2001 meeting, by agreement with the Beckers. 14. The parties further expressly agreed to further extensions of any applicable 60-day period, up to and including February 27, 2001. 15. On February 13, 2001 the matter was heard by the Council. After an introduction by John M. LeFevre, Kennedy & Graven, presentation for Beckers was made by Ronald Peterson and James Amdt of Peterson Environmental, and the City's consultant, Kelly Bopray, responded by explaining the basis for the TEP reports. 16. After consideration of the evidence and hearing the presentations on February 13, 2001, the matter was continued to the Council meeting, on February 27, 2001, for submission of findings by City Staff and by the Beckers, if they so desired. 17. At the February 27, 2001 Council meeting the matter was further continued to May 22, 2001 to allow the applicant and staffto further review a modified proposal of the TEP panel that established a new delineation line for the wetland; and to allow the parties additional opportunity to review possible concepts for the development of the site. 18. The City received a letter from the Beckers dated May 16, 2001 requesting an extension to the agreed May 22, 2001 review deadline. 19. At the May 22, 2001 Council meeting an extension was granted to continue the review period to August 24, 2001. 20. The City received a letter from the Beckers dated July 31, 2001 requesting an extension to the August 24, 2001 review deadline. JML-157790 2 MU200-77 -3277- 21. The Council, at their August 24, 2001 meeting, granted a second extension to continue the review period through January 24, 2002. 22. The City received a letter I~om the Beckers dated January 15, 2002 requesting an extension to the January 24, 2002 review deadline. 23. The Council, at their January 24, 2002 meeting, granted a third extension to continue the review period through July 23, 2002. 24. On July 1, 2002, Community Development Director Sarah Smith and Consulting City Planner Loren Gordon contacted the Beckers regarding the status of a modified proposal and possible concepts for the development of the site. 25. During that conversation, the Beckers shared development options for each of the parcels. The Beckers stated that a number of interrelated development issues will be explored through future land use applications. 26. The Beckers stated that they were not prepared to present a modified proposal for the wetland delineation and are agreeable to the City Council's adoption of this Resolution which denies their requests for no-loss determination and exemption under the Wetland Conservation Act and the referenced TEP recommendation regarding the wetland delineation. II. CONCLUSIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota that in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act ("WCA"), Minn. Stat. Ch. 103G, the City Council hereby determines that no new information was presented at the February 13, 2001 or other subsequent meetings that would cause reconsideration of previous actions; accepts and adopts the actions by the City Staff, as contained in the November 7, 2000 notice of decision, based on the TEP recommendations of October 10 and October 23, 2000, to deny the Beckers' requests for a no-loss determination or exemption under the WCA; and the Council further directs City Staff to give any appropriate notices to the Beckers of this decision. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota this 9th day of July, 2002. ATTEST: Pat Meisel, Mayor JML-157790 3 MU200-77 -3278- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEE~: www. cityofmound.com MEMORANDUM March 9, 2001 TO: Ron Peterson Peterson Environmental 1355 Mendota Heights Road, Ste 100 Mendota Heights, MN 55120 FROM: Jon Sutherland ~L...~~ SUBJECT: Additional TEP Findings Attached are the additional TEP findings based on our most recent meeting with Jim Arndt of Peterson Enviornmental. As we understand, Mr Becker is going to follow up with a development plan that is consistent with these findings. JS;jn Enclosure Cc: Tim Becker Doug Snyder, BWSR Jim Hafner, MCWD Joe Richter, MNDNR Joe Yanta, Army Corps of Engineers Dave Thill, HCD Wayne Barsted, Ecological Services Section Kelly Bopray, MFRA Mac LeFevre, Kennedy & Graven CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-06OO FAX (612) 472-O62O Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) February 22, 2000 Becker Properties, Lots 5-8, Block 4 of Harrison Shores Development TEP members present: Jon Suthedand, City of Mound Doug Snyder, Board of Water and Soil Resources David Thill, Hennepin Conservation Distdct Applicants Representatives: Jim Amdt, Peterson Environmental TEP Advisors Present: Joe Yanta, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kelly Bopray, MFRA/City of Mound The TEP was called to revisit the submitted documentation and previous TEP decisions to determine if there was a possibility of finding a compromise on the wetland delineation that would protect the wetland resource and allow the applicant to proceed with steps to develop the site. TEP Findings The TEP and the applicant's consultant are in agreement that the site has been severely disturbed, which makes the delineation difficult and subject to the best professional judgement of all parties involved. On this site, each of the three mandatory wetland parameters (vegetation, soils, and hydrology) is difficult to interpret and sometimes conflict with observations of the other parameter. Several scenarios were considered to establish an area that reasonably reflected the wetlands on the site given the data available and the differences in professional opinion regarding the interpretation of the data. Contour lines and various setback distances from the DNR ordinary high water level (OHW) did not produce satisfactory results. In the end, a wetland line was agreed to that began on the west property line, 15 feet north of the OHW of the west boundary of lot 8 and connected to points on the west boundary of adjacent lots 7, 6, and 5, at 45 feet, 45 feet, 50 feet respectfully, and ending at a point 35 feet northerly of the OHVV on the east boundary of lot 5 as depicted on the attached 2/22/2001 map (3/23/99 Bart Engineering Base map). The wetland line would be used in the future to determine the extent of wetland impacts and wetland mitigation requirements resulting from development proposals for the site. TEP Recommendations Based on the discussions at this meeting the TEP recommends approval of the agreed to wetland The TEP recommendation does not infer any approval of a site layout, zoning, wetland impacts or replacement, flood plain alteration or other permits required by other agencies. 2/27/01 Doug Snyder Board of Water & Soils Resources Date 2/28/01 David Thill Hennepin Conservation District Date -3281 - THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -3282- jaa M:\SURVEY\2327A23\Wetlond-Monltor.dwcJ 30.00 08/27/1999 12:15:27 ,.-:. r-' ~1-' --lC) ITl o ~0 I 0 F" m .o CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (6] 2) ;337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax ht tp://www, kennedy-graven.com JOH~ M. L~FEVRr, JR. Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9218 Email: jl e fevre~kermedy-graven .eom February 27, 2001 Ronald P. Peterson President Peterson Environmental Consulting, {nc. 1355 Mendota Heights Road Suite 100 Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1112 By Facsimile - To Follow by U.S. Mail Re: Becker Property, Lots 5-8, Block 4 of Harrison Shores Development Mound, Minnesota Dear Mr. Peterson: This is in response to your letter of February 27, 2001. This is to confirm that we have an agreement that the decision period on the requests for WCA No LOss Determination and Incidental Wetland Exemptions on the Becker property is extended until May 22, 2001. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, cc: Kandis Hanson Jon Sutherland John B. Dean Kelly Bopray JML-194012vl MU200-86 OZ/Z~/Ol MUN 14:14 FAX §515~503§~ ~OOZ PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSOLTING, [NC. February 26, 2001 Mr. Mac LeFevre, Esq. Kennedy & Graven Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-1408 Subject: Resolution of Wetland Boundary Issues Becker prOperty, Lots 5-8, Block 4 of Harrison Shores Development Mound, Minnesota PEC Project No. 2000-047 Dear Nh'. Lafevre: Last week Jim Arndt from our staff met with the Wetland Conservation Act C9¢CA) Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) in a last attempt to reach a compromise solution on the wetland jurisdiction and boundary issue on the Becker property. I am pleased to inform you that a compromise boundary has been identified that both the 'rEP and the Beckers are willing to live with. While we continue to disagree as to the technical basis for the compromise line, the Beckers agree in principle to use this line as they move forward with their development plans. Pending our receipt and review of the TEP's revised Findings of Fact, we ask that the City Council table all action on the Beckers' pending requests and consider the applicable statutory decision-making time frame suspended for the time being. In the interim, the Beckers will work cooperatively with City and watershed district staff on a development plan for their property that addresses the remaining regulatory and planning requirements. We anticipate that the Beckers' will withdraw the previously submitted no toss and incidental wetland exemption requests when their development plan reaches the final approval stage. PleaSe feel free to call with any questions on this matter. Sincerely, Pe~nc' ~.onald P. Peterson President ~355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 100 · Mendota Heighls, Minnesota ~.¢~ ~n_l t ~ ? ~ 651-686-0151 · Fax 651.686-0369 . E-marl: Peclnc@PETERSONEN\,'.com ~-3285- Bi~ Ra~2irl$, ~Vlichi£an (231) 796-,2,903 , v.,w;,/.Petersonenv, com · "Mr. Mac LeFevre, Esq.' February 26, 2001 Page 2 PEC Project No. 2000-047 ~] oo3 CC. Tim Becker Smart Gale, Esq.' Kandis Hanson- City of Mound -3286- MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: THE CITY COUNCIL JOHN DEAN MOUND/BECKERS - MH200-86 February 23, 2001 As a follow up to the City Council meeting of February 13, 2001, further discussions have been held between City'Staff, flue TEP panel, and Peterson EnVironmental Consulting (Peterson) on behalf of the Beckers. It appears significant progress has been made toward agreement on a revised wetland delineation line. The options under consideration at this time appear to be the following: 1. Agreement. Agreement on a specific wetland delineation line, subject to survey, that could be the basis for preparation of proposed development plans by the Beckers. Based on such agreement, the Beckers would with&aw the requests for a no-loss determination and exemption. Such an agreement would not obligate the City to approve any particular development plans, approve variances, or take any other specific actions. Also, such agreement would 'not ad&ess the need for additional permits or approvals from other agencies, such as the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 2. Extension. Pending further discussions of a possible agreement, continue the matter for a specific period of time, say 30 days, provided that the Beckers expressly agree to a further extension of any applicable 60-day period. 3. Denials. If it appears that it will not be possible to reach ma agreement, the City Council will proceed with consideration of a resolution adopting findings to deny requests by Beckers for no-loss determination and/or exemption under the Wetland Conservation Act. We expect to be able to present this matter in more detail to the City Council on February 27th. JML-193846vl MU200-86 -3287- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD 1'~4OUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 PAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO.: LOCATION: City Council Agenda of February 13, 2001 City Council, Applicant, and Staff n Sutherland, Building Official Kelly Bopray, MFRA, LPSS, John M. LeFevre, Kennedy & Graven Requests from Peterson Environmental for the City Council to review the Staff Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) No Loss and Exemption Decisions Peterson Environmental/CO The Beckers 1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 100 Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120-1112 01-09 Lots 5-8, Block 4 of Rarrison Shores Development Back~round The current requests under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) on behalf of the Beckers were made August 8, 2000, by Peterson Environmental. The requests were for either: (a) "no-loss" determination; or, Co) exemption under the WCA_ The effect of granting the request would be to allow Beckers to develop their propcn'ty without the need to comply with the WCA requirements to accurately delineate the location of wetland and show that wetland impacts would not occur or to provide for replacement of any wetland impacted by development. The August 8 request was accompanied by a detailed report by Peterson Environmental. Peterson's argument was that jurisdictional wetlands were not involved because the Becker property had been substantially disturbed and filled by previous development in the area dating back to 1961, and that there were not clear indications of wetland. When technical w~land issues are involved in an application to the City, tlue City may convene the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) to consider such issues and make recommendations to the City. In considering this request, the City convened the TEP panel, consisting of Doug Snyder of BWSR, Dave Thill of HCD and Jon Sutherland of the City. The TEP panel has visited the site several times in recent years. The TEP panel met with Peterson and considered the Peterson submissions and held discussions with its consultant, Kelly Bopray of MFRA, Joe Ya.nta of Corps of Engineers, Wayne Barsted of MnDNI~ and other staff members of BWSR. After deliberations, the TEP issued its recommendation on October 10, 2000, which was to deny the request for a no- loss determination or exemption. After Peterson asked the TEP to reconsider its October 10 report, the TEP on October 23, 2000, issued a clarification letter, explaining that if additional relevant information was submitted, the issue might be reconsidered by the TEP. Copies of TEl~ reports are attached. On November 7, 2000, City staff issued its Notice of WCA Decision, accepting the TEP recommendation to deny the requests for no4oss determination or exemption (copy attached). When Beckers requested an opportunity to make a presentation to City Council, Cky staff agreed to withdraw its Notice of Decision so that the matter could be considered by the coUnCil. A copy of a letter from John M~ LeFewe, Jr., to Ron Peterson dated November 22, 2000, along with Peterson's responses dated December 5 and December 12, 2000, and John Dean's letter to Peterson (counter signed), dated January 18th, 2000, are attached. On behalf of Beckers, Peterson submitted to the Council members its letter of December 21, 2000, outlining its points in objecting to the TEP recommendations and in arguing in favor of a no- loss determination or exemption under the WCA~ No-Loss Determination. In order to show they are entitled to a no-loss determination under the WCA, Beckers must show that the work they propose will not drain or fill a wetland. WCA Rules 8420.0220. Beckers contend that the development of their property will not affect a wetland because thek property does not contain a wetland under applicable definitions. Exemption Request. In order to show they are entitled to the requested WCA exemption, Beckers must show that although wetland is present'on the property, it was created solely as a result of actions by public or private entities that were taken for a purpose other than creating the wetland. WCA Rules 8420.0122, subp. 5. The TEP recommendations, and the proposed staff decisions, were that Beckers had not met these requirements for either a no-loss determination or an exemption- Based on the documentation reviewed by the TEP, the TEP panel concluded that wetland existed on the site, but that Beckers had not adequately demonstrated the extent of the wetland or the extent of the proposed project. These conclusions are set forth in the November 7, 2000 Notice of Decision with attachments. Previous Action by City_ Council. The wetland issues on the Becker property have been before the Council before. During 1998, Beckers applied for a permit to fill and grade their property for purposes of development. The permit was denied by City staff, after consideration by the TEP panel, on grounds that wetlands existed on the property which had not been adequately delineated. When Beckers appealed the staff decision to the Council, the Council appointed an independent hearing officer to hear the evidence and make recommendations to the Council. The -3289- hearing officer, in detailed recommendations, found that wetlands were present on the ske.which had not been properly delineated. The Council adopted the findings' and affirmed the staff permit denial, but offered the opportunity to Beckets to continue to monitor water levels on lhe property and to submit additional data or a revised wetland delineation to the TEP if appropriate. The TEP met with Becker's former consultant (BARR Engineering) in the summer of 1999, agreed on a revised wetland boundary, however, the suweyed wetland boundary was never provided to the City or TEP, Format. The format for consideration of these issues will be as follows: a. John M. LeFewe of Kennedy & Graven will introduce the issues and summarize the background; b. Ron Peterson of Peterson Environmental will lead the presentation for the Beckers; c. City staff and consultant, Kelly Bopray, will explain the basis'for the TE~P reports; d. Council will decide how it wishes to proceed. It may, for example, request proposed findings from both sides; and, e. Council will consider final decision at'its meeting on February 27, 2001. Options for Council to Consider: 1. Affirm staff determinations, based on TEP recommendatiom, to deny requests for a no-loss determination and exemption. 2. Reverse staff determinations and grant requests for either a no-loss determination, or exemption, or both. 3 -3290- 0~-07-01 O~:Slpm From-KENNeDY & GRAVEN. *UI~(~IU I-bdb r.~b/U~ ~-~U · CITY OF MOUND ' ' FAX ~6~ 2} ~72-0~20 NOTICE OF CONSERV ACT 'DECISION APPLICANT: · T~m BecKet DATE OF DECISION: - Dale an(~ Lore. il Beck;er No~emt3er '7. 2000 oFpICtAL LGU Dr~CIStON; "' ' :~ The· C~ty a~Cep~ me atla{:~.ed TEP Parcel recommen~ati~ .~tam_ eq in ,~e tet~,, of 0.Ctol~er 10 20Ob (coPy at~ache¢l) anti' he~,el3y {3enies T~m, Dale and t. oral Beckets apPliCation rot a WCA No Loss request. Based upon ~e same TEP Panel rec~m~enoation, ~e G~y also heret3y ~3enies Tim, Dale an~ Loreli BeCket's applica~en.for an F~emptiGn Doris;on, in aC~it~c~, as exp[ainecl ~n the TEP Panel letter of October 23, 2000 (c~py a~ache~). ~f aoaitionat reievam ~nfo~ation ;s suDmlEBC, these issues may ~e reconsidered. TYPE OF APPLICATION (check all that apply); ~ Exempt,on D~cis~on ~ No Loss Decision ~ Replacemeh[' Plan De.cision ~ Ban~ng Pl~ D~ls~on LOCATION OF PROJECT: Lots 5-8, ~loc~ 4 of Haman Shores Development Landowners: Tim ~e¢~er 69~9 Norm, Snore Dnve Eau Claire. WI 5470:3 Dale and Lorell BecKer 5205 Beacnsiae Drwe Minnetonka. MN 55343 Technical EvaluatJon Panel: Doug Snyder BWSR One Wes~ wa[er S[ree~ · Suite 200 $[. Paul, MN 55107 Dave Thiit HCD 10801 wayza~ BIvc[ Suite 240 MinnemnKa, MN 55305 Jon Suthedano Ci~ of Mound 5341 May,wood Roe(3 Mouno, MN 55364 Wa[erst~ed Disu'ic~: Jim lda[ner Minnehana Creek Watersl3ed Dist,'~ct Gray Freshwater Center 2500 Sl~a~ywoo(3 Road E~cets~or, MN 5583'1 Departrnen~ of Na (ur'al Resources: Joe R~cn[er Wayne Bars[ed M N D N R Ecmog~cal Services Seotion 1200 Warner Re)a{3 500 Layfaye~e Roao. Box 25 St. paul, MN 55106 $£. Paul, MN 55155 0Z-07-01 03:SZpm From'KENNEDY & ~RAVEN +SlZ3379310 T-SSS' P. O7/Og F-?50 Pl~'tlot~,h, MN 55447 You are I~ereby nmifi~ ~hat l~e cleCiSi°n of the Local Government unit on me at:ove-referer~cecl application was mac3e on ~e date statea al3ove. A copy of Ule Local Government Unit's F~n~ings and Con:lusion~ is attar, ned, pursuant to Minn: R. ~420,0250 any appeal of tt~e c3eC~ic~n must commenceci by reading a peson for appeal to.the ~ii:nes°ta Bean: of Water an~ 'Soil Resour=es witl~ir~ fifteen (15) oays of T~e date of [he reading of tills Notice. DATE OF MAILJNG OF THIS NOT~CE: o'J. CITY OF MOUND ~ , TITLE: ~UILDI~G OFFICIAL -3292- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOU ND, MINNESOTA 55364-! 6,~7 · I61:2) 472-0600 FAX (6.12) 472-0620 October 23, 2000 Ron Peterson 1355 Mendota Heights Road Suite i 00 Mendota Heights, MN' 55120 Subject: Addendum to 10/10/2000 TEP Decision regarding the Becket sites Dear Mr. Peterson Please be advised'that ~ d[sCussiO~ between Technical EValuation Panel (TEP), members and the applicant's consultant (Peterson Environmental Inc.) have led the TEP to further clarify the 10/10/2000 recommendation pertaining to the application of the Wetland Conservat/on Act (WCA) incidental wetland exemption (MN Rules Chapter 84.20.122 subp.$). The TEP members are in agreement that the incidental wetland exemption would apPly to wetland'areas that were expanded as a result of the 1994 activities. TheW. CA Kules place the burden of proof on the applicant to show eligibility for the exemption. ~The appIicant has indicated that he has provided the best available informatiom · Howev. er~ .due to the degree of Precision of the technical information (i.e. surveys with two-foot contours), the historical disturbance of the Becker site, and the lack of a surveyect wetland boundary as determined by Barr Engineering in 1999, a precise determination of existing wetland eligible for the WCA incidental exemption remains quite difficult. Surveys with two-foot contours have, by definition, a margin of error of *_ 1 foot. Therefore, it is possible that the elevation changes shown in the cut/fill analysis provided by the applicant fall within the margin of error of the two surveys. In other words, the entire loss of elevation could be the result of differences in surveys, not from an actual removal of soil On the other hand, one would not often expect, on a site of this size and configuration, that the surveys would be reaching the limit of their margins of error. The TEP believes it would be reasonable to apply the incidental wetland exemption to wetland area(s) that ~..-3293 show greater than I foot of soil remov~ 6r,elevation change. However, without a sarvey of the delineated boundary by Bart En~g ~e TEP has no way to d~mine whether these areas fall inside or outsidl Of~ existing wetland. One suggested option is to me the 931.5(1998 BARR) elevati°n contour, which the "rEP believes closely to[lows the existing wetland boundary. Wetlands landward of the 931.5 contour as shown on the 1992Cardarelle survey which show a greater thau 1 foot elevation change might be considered incidental. While this is not as precise a method as having a surveyed wetland boundary it is a reasonable and prudent alternative for the WCA local governmental unit. to consider. Some work may still need to be done to determine if jurisdictional wetland is present above the elevation contour used to Building Official City of Mound Doug Snyder 10/24/00 Board of Water & Soils Resources David Thill 10/24/00 Hennepin Conservation District CC Tim Becket 6919 North Shore Drive, Eau Claire, WI 54703 Dale and Lorell Becket 5205 Beachside Drive, Minnetonka, MN 55343 -3294- October 1 O, 2000 V~Tina Becker 6919 North shore Drive' Eau Clarie, WI 54703 CiTY OF MOUND .~'-:DaIe'/'' and Lorell Becker 5205 Beachside Drive ' Minnetonka, lVIN 55343 S341 MAYWOoD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-~ (612) 472-0600 ~'RonPeterson . .... 1355 Mendom HeiSts Road Suite 100 Mendota HeiSts, ~ 55120 RE: Wetland ConservatiOn Act Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) September 28, 2000 ', · ', Becket Properties, Lots 5-8~ Block 4 of Harrison Shores Development. TEP members present: Jori Sutherland, City of M0und Doug Snyder, Board of Water and Soil Resources David Trill, Hennepin Conservation District Applicants Representatives: Ron Peterson, Peterson Environmental Jim A.mdt, Peterson Environmental TEP Advisors Present: Joe Yanta, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ...Kelly Bopray, IvlFRA/City of Mound. The TEP was cai!ed t0 review the Augus..~t 8, 2000 analysis 0fWetland Jurisdictional Status Report prepared~ ~y ? eterson Enviromental on behalf of Timothy B ecker. According to this report the si..te h~.been severely dis~bed and eac~ of the three rnandato~ wetland, parameters are only margina!!y if at all present 0n the site. Peterson Environmental indicated the preponderance.0f evidence and guichnce to use a conservative approach When evaluating distux~ ~ bed conditions should lead to .a conclusion that no wetlands are present on the BeCker site. The Becker~ me requesting the City o[MoUU~d, to make a No Loss Determin' ation or exemption decisiou,~ and ?eterson Environmenfal provided a signed apPlicaii on on SePtember 29, 2000. Another site visit was not conducted as part of this TEP meeting. (~- 3295-,~,o,,,,~o. TEP F~ndin§s S|te History.: The Peterson report provided a mOre.detailed analysis of the historical dist~-xrbances of the site. Aerial photos indicated excavation of the lagoon in 1960/61. These photos shc~w grading, presumably of the dredge sPOilS on the Beck~ site as well as the sites surrounding on the dredged lagoon. Soil borings identified ~edge soils on top of the original soil. Some soil borings also identified fill material from one or more events possibly related to road reconsu'uction, utility improvements, the 1994 riprap project/flood plain violation, or other undetermined fill episodes. Vegetation: Based on.the vegetation identified by Peterson Environmental all twelve observation sites (including upland areas) were dominated by hydrophytic vegetation. Tl'hs is consistent with previous reports on the site and obserVations by the TEP on previous site visits. The Peterson report indicates that some wetland Plant species, reed canary grass in particular, can continue to dominate disturbed areas and therefore is rlota reliable indicator of the jurisdictional status of disturbed area. The Peterson report, previous reports, and site observation by the TEP all acknowledged the presence of FAC - and dryer species in minor to connnon occurrences scattered through out the site. FACW and OBL wetland plant species were also noted in the areas in question. 'lite Peterson report suggests that where the vegetation is marginal or suspect to not being representative of current conditions a "conservative" determination should conclude hydrophytic vegetation is not present. The TEP disag-reed with Peters0n's interpretation and indicated that at the upper margin of a wetland (disturbed or not): marginal or suspect vegetation would be anticipated. Furthermore if the other wetland parameters are present the preponderance of evidence would support the conclusion that a hydrophytic vegetation community is present. Soils: The Peterson report relies on HydriC Soils Technical Note 5: Using Hydric Soils Indicators in Disturbed Soils published by the National Technical Committee on Hydric Soils (NTCHS) to conclude the soils on the site are not hydric soils. The basic argument made is that the thickness of the dredge and fill material converts the ori~nal soils to non-hydric soils. The Peterson report indicates the maximum fill that can be added to a mucky histosol is 16 inches; t2 inches to a mineral soil with an organic surface, on 0 to 12 inches for other mineral soils. The soils described by Peterson had 16 to 40 inches offiii and therefore Peterson concluded the soils were no longer hydric soils. The Peterson report is correct in concluding that where more than'l 6 inches of fill was placed over an organic soil, it no longer would be classified as a His~osol and therefore would not meet Criteria 1 0fthe hydric Soils de~fi0n. The TEP generallY agrees with the NTCHS TeChrfical Note 5, hOwevO~ one of its short-comings is it does not directly address if hydric soil is developing in the fill material placed on a hydric soil. Whether through compression of the original organic soils or a water level that o¢6urs aboVe the surface of the oriDnal soils, the water level may actually occur in the fill material and a "new" hydric soil will develop over time. The BeCker site is p~:oblemafic because much of the fill materiai~ Consists of dredged hydric soil material. With thee~cepti0n 0fthe upland fill material, nearly every, Soil horizon described had a soil matriX ~610r with a value of 3 or less, and a chrorna of 1 or less. The Peterson report mentioned the absence of redoximorphic features in one of the soil profiles but otherwise did not indicate their presence or absence. Previous soil descriptions by another Consultant (Bart End-:fi_ricer/rig) for the applicant, the Mirmehaha Creek Watershed District's -3296- Engineering Consultant (Wenck Associates, Inc.), the City's Engineering Consultant (MFP,.A), and TEP observations all identified redoxirnorphic features within 12-inches of the surface (in fill materi~)..I.t'%uld be argu~ that"so~e of these red0xirno~hi:C feati~esare relics frorra the source of~e fi!i ~ateria!? HOWeVer, some o~'soil p.r?fil~':~elude descriptilonsof OxidiZed rhizospl/~r~s, whi'Ch.~d~'cate: at lea~ thO~e ~edO~drp:hic fe~e~ Formed ~der~:ecent maerobiC conditions', TEP fie'ia ObServati°ns' Of sa~tion to ~e surface {~ i 9'99'"~ ·several areaS of' the site further support the TEP conclusion that newly formed or incipient hydric soils are present; since the soils developing in the fill material are relatively young (.4.0 years), they rni~at not have developed sufficiently to meet the N'RCS field ~cat~m ~riteria. HYdrologY'i: The Pe~erS°n report reinte~re~etl the piezometer data o~g~all¥ Pres~ted b3, Barr Enginee~g an~ P~es.em~d additi0n~ ~ta eOiiScte'd by ~e ap~liC~t 'd~u~g: 2'b00:. The P~-terSOn report concluded ~t ~e water levei in"th~'p~ezometers were 'Only' ~th~"i;) inC'he~' of the surface' for brief periods of time during 1999, an abnormally wet period based on'30 ~and:'90 day moving Precipitation sum dam, The TEl:' indicated that this analysis may over emphasize the effects of individual ~to~ eventS.: indi¥idual Store:' eVefits Can exceed the"daiiY~av~sge p'reciPiiatien'b~ several fold, and therefore, o~. : ': ':' ":" ' . a short-term bas~s, an individual st°~ eve~t"bF~efies of storm events over a short time period can ~ve the data the appearance ofbeirig:abnormaiiy wet for that period. The TE? !o0ked at a simi!ar clLmatic analysis overa longer period of time (attached) and concluded the ~) mgnth, period leading u? t0 April 1999 wa~ drier than agerage and While May was statistically a "wet" month, data col!~¢'ted in May should still be considered to fall within the normal, climatic range because the preceding' 12 m0n~hs were drier than'aVerage. Therefore; the TEP continues to maintain that the climatic cohditi~ were witkin normal rang~ during the periods when the piezometer data indicated a watertable within 12 inches of th'e gUrfac.e. Additionally, the TEP made direct observations of saturation to the surface, and the watertable within 12 inches of the surface in open bore holes 'in several areas of the s~te dUri~g.g pre_v/0US . TEP meeting. The presence of primary and seconda~ indicators ot wetila~'d hydrolo~ supcbm:: ~ the TEP conclusion that wetland hydrology does still occ~ in the area in question deSpite the "' historical disturbance. Topography: The Peterson report revisited the issue on the difference bet~veen pre-1994 and post-1994 surveys. The discrepar!ciesh~t~.~on the surveys (1992 and 1998) are attributed to over excavation, directed by th~ City":~thei~ehaha Creek Watershed Dis~ctin order to remove. a fl~ocipIain fill violation in 19194. ~ere is no 'dispute that there is a difference between the twO" surqeYS.' Other surveys of the site exit}, including a partia:i:!s~ey by MFKA performed for the Beckers in 1995. Plotting a cross,se~figg offhe site based 6n these topographic' surveys s~ows that there are differences between' each' of thee'Surveys (attached). ~re are dif~erenciib6tWeen the two pre-1994 smweys (1983 and 1992), as well as the three post-1994 surveys (1995, 1996, and 1998). Since no significant topographic changes should have occurred before or after 1994, the figure illustrates that difference between the surveys is not necessarily a "real" or on the ground difference attributable to the fill violation corrective action. Furthermore, 8 of the 12 soil profiles described in t_he Peters0n report identify upland fill at the surface. Four of the soil profiles specifically atrr/bute the upland fill to the 1994 actions. The TEP recognized that during the fill violation corrective action, some incidental "old fill'" may have been removed as well as some "1994 fill" being left in-place. The topographic analysis does not conclusively show that the City or Watershed District caused the Beckers to over excavate the site. -3297- Related to this issue, .the PeterSon report poims to the adjacent p~pe~es which maintain Iaw~ area in similar topographic.positions as occur on the Becker site, These sites were'..~gradecl and developed prior to the Wetland Cons~ati°n Att of' 199 !.. Site grad~g in 196016 i °eeurred on the Becker site, but it was not demonstrated thatweflandeOnditions were eliminated as a reSUlt of that ~ading.. T'~ P,.ecommeIlda~ions Based on the documentation renewed by the TEP, hydrophyti~ vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology do 'exist.on the Becket site, A no impact determination should not be issued at this time because the extent of the wetlands and the extent of the proposed project have not been demonstrated to the TEP. The OCtober t 999 TEP.recommendati°n ~o surveY the adjusted wedand boundary that"refleCts the areas which TE? believes meet the wetland criteria, and to use that boUndary in~ any future site plans for the lo~s still stands. AlthoUgh the 'rEP agrees the documentation supports the fact that the original wetland was severely disturbed,, it does not conclusively show that wetland conditions were completely eliminated, or the precise amount of wedand that may have resulted from the 1994 fill Vloladoti corrective action. Therefore, the extent that the incidental wetland exemption may apPlY is salt1 Doug Snyder Board of. Water &Soiis Reso~ces Date Hcnnepin C0nse~ation District D~ -3298- WETS station · MAPLE PLAIN, MN5136 Precipitation (inches) Monthly 30% chance will have Month Average less than mom than Jan 0,87 0.39 1.07 Feb 0.81 0.4 0.99 Mar 1.61 1.02 -1.94 Apr 2.62 1.61 3.17 May 3.82 2.7 4.52 Jun 4,49 3.18 5.32 Jul 3.96 2.81 4.69 Aug 3.76 2.48 4.51 Sep 3,36 2.18 4.04 Oct 2.7 1.4 3.3 Nov 1.6 0.66 1.94 Dec 1.16' ~ 0.56 1.47 Actual Precip Annual 30.74 24.64 More 32.96 Less . 27.04 ActUal Precip above includes the .73 from St Boni site. Even with this addition, the 12-month period would be considered statistically Dry. Climate Data Retrivel "Closest Hennepin 117N 24W S24 Year Month P¢~ip 1998 Apr 0.911 -- May 3.79 Jun 5.21 Jul 3~25 Aug 3;56 Sep 0.95 Oct 2.~ Nov 0.72 Dec m 1999 Jan 1.41 Feb 0.21 Mar 1.56 Apr 2.42 May 6.57 Total 32,9' - m = missing record The next closest reporting station. .73 inches in December of 1998 -3299- ation" 215665 Mound Deviation Normal, from Average Wet, or Dry -1.71 Dry · -0.03 Normal 0.72 Normal -0.71 Normal -0.2 Normal -2.41 Dry -0.36 Normal -0.88 Non, al 0.54 Wet -0.6 Dry -0.05 Normal -0,2 Normal 2.75 wet -3.14 at St Bonifacius reported -3300- ~'~--~., -3301- -3302- -3303- -3304- -3305- -33O6- 01-17'01 DB:lgpm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +~123~Tg310 T-D~5 P.OZ/D5 F%B4 November 22, 2000 B. onald P. Pe~erson Pres~dem Pcz:r~on Buv~rarm~en=a.1 Consuking, Inc. 355 ~endo~a Heigh~ Ro~d S~e 100 Mendo~a Heights, ~ 55120-1112 B~, Facsimile - To Follow by U.S. Mail Becket ProperO,, Lots 5-g, Block 4 of Harrison Shores Developmen~ MottoS, Mtm~esota Dear Mr. Pe%erson: As I ~old you by telephone, w.e have now had a chance ~o consuk ,,,kb ~he Morned City Manager, K~dis H~son. over the s~gna%ure of 3on Sub=rimed on November 7, 2000, concerning ~he ~bove prope=y. Ncve~eless, ~he City is willing to co~der h~ving your concerns brough~ before zt~e City Council ~s a manet of :oumes>, ~nd fmmess. However, such ~ pl~ would have ~o procetd under c=m~in The conditions are as follo,~,,s: 1. The hex: City Council meeting at which ~ime is available to consider th~s manet ~s ]anua~' 23, 2001. ~e Becket m~n~ could be considered at ~at time. 2 Reportable ~m: limit. ~d fo~a~ would b: diseased ~d a~eed cpon in advice. 3. There ~ould have ~o be ~ express ~,nuen agreement for a fu~her extension of ~h5 60- day role, on ~e assumption ~ha~ ~l~e ml~ appli=s %o %Ns manet. The ex~ensio.n ~itl ri=ed to =e ~o ~t least ~ough the new Co~cit meeting following zhe 3anuaW 23 meeih~g ~o allow for fne ~dopzion of findings. Thru da~e is Feb~ 13, 2001. wkhdra~,n, wi~hom prejudice, so ~ha~ the t 5~ay WCA appeal p,no~ ~oula . unnl aRer the City Council h~ considered your cot, ceres ~d m~e a 6ete~manon. -3307- 01-17.Ol OS:19pm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +81Z3379310 T-085 P.OZ/O5 F-~94 P, onald Page ~ of 3 In :he evem :he conditions described in paragraphs 2 and 3 above have nol been sa:isfied by December 5, 2000, ~xs prop~szl shall be deemed auzom~:ical]y withdrawn ~'~:hou: ~nher no:~ce, ~d ~e Novemb~ 7, 2000 notice of decision will r:mam in effete ~ d~e final dzcisxon of :he LGU Please call or wrote as soon as possible to confirm :he above conditions. :c' .M:s. K-~ndis Hanson (By f~ssimile - To Fol]ow b)' U.S. ~u~oo.~ -3308- 01-1T-D1 05:1gpm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN BY FAX AND Mm Mr MacL~ev~e, Esq. Kermedy & Ctmven Chartered 4?0 Pillsbury Cenxet 200 Sou~ Six~' S~eet M~u~eapo~is, M~o~ 55402-140~ De~r Mr. Lafevre: reSpOnse m you~ correspondence of Nov~b~ 22, 2000 regarding the manet This lctier is in . .. cm's ..~e~d ~v'e O~ ehen~ con ; ~. ..... ~ ~:~nnn -~fl will su ply the co,nell m~{ng '~ a~e ~ bfiff disc~Smn pe~ ,.., ....: ,.. who mi t be present. ~e len~ of ~e flxscussmn session woul~ ~p :~.:":: ~;.c_ ~:~, ~: Mo~d. W-e apprecmte ~e C~ty mop~fion i~ dealing wit~ ~s maug md look fo~gdm l~ua~ 23~- Feel f~ office wi~ Sincerely, peterson gnvir~g' Inc. ?resident cc. ]okn De.~, Esq, - Kermedy & Graven 'rim Becket $ohn Mi~sc~, Esq. - Lindquist & Vermum ~dis M~nson - Ci~ of~d FrOm-KENNEDY & G~AvEN T-1~.8 P. 08/Og F-?SO PETER$ON j~ N VI R 0 N,'v't it I~ TAL CON~U g'l h',tC, INC. December 12, 2000 Mr. Mac LeFevre, Esq. Kennedy & Graven Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South SixTh Stree: Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-140g Mu, bi cL-~: Ex:ensiOn of Decision Period re: WCA No Loss Determination Request Be.~ker~property;~ Lo~ 5-8, Block 4 of Ha~is0n Shores Development Mo~& Mi~esom PEC Proje~ No. 2000-047 , , Dear Mr. La.f'evre: This letter' ig in"r'esponse to a vo'icem~il I received fi.om John Des of your office in which he ~ked'tha.~ we .explicitly agree m. e~end the st~tuiorily mandated decision period for the manet refer~ced ab°ve. The-;B'eckers agree that the.decision period for L~e requesl~d WCA no loss de~eminatiO~ 0n ~eir~prop~y:m~Y be.~en4~d u~ii!"the date of'~e, f~rs~ Ciw .CO?cii meeting on ~e m~iifi'i we willbe:presenlingo: J~u~ 23~. ~"no:~ before, ~k~ ,B ecke'~, a~r?ment to ~s ~ ec~c ~x~ensi6n in no w~y represen~ ~helr aeOie~'ei~:e' ~o p~s~ de!~}'~~' 0f a ~m'ver o~ ~ ...... ,- "- "-. .... '-' · ' W ' ~'':' their ri~:s under Minn S~t. IS.~9 regaling previous unnmely decisions, e ~]1 be Bddr. essing ~o~e lssues m our J~ua~ 2~ pr~enlauon. Sincerely, Pemr~on Environmental Consulting, Inc. Ronald P. Pe~er~on Presidem CC ]ohn Dean, Esq.- Kennedy & Graven Tim Becket John Miesen, Esq. - Lindquis~ & Vennum Kandis Hanson - City of Mound OZ-O?-01 03:SZpm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +EIZ33?g310 . T-G36 ?.09/09 F-?50 M ~ ~ D Jolt( B. D£.~J~' January 18, 2001 Ronald P. P~tcrson Presiden~ Pctcrson Emdromncn:al Consuh~ng, Inc. 1355 Mendota He~ts Road Suit, 100 M~dota Heights, MN 55120-1112 By F~similc - To FollOw'by U.S. Marl'. Becket Property, Lots 5-8, Block 4 ofHan'ison. Shorcs Development Mound, Minnesota" Dear Mr. petcrson: This is t0 confirm [he rescheduling o£ the Becket ProPcr~y wetland issues to the city council meeting. OfFebm~, 13. 2001. T~i~s will also ~her confim o~ exPres~ agreement to extend ~Y ~pPlicablc 60,day period ~0 ~d inclu'~ng, lhe date of~c Subsequent m~Cfing of FCb:m~ 27, 2001. Please coafi]er:sign ~d return t~'s 'l~itdr to me in thc space indicated b~low: as soon as pOS~ibi:. Sincerely, J'oh~' B. Dean ]BD/car -. cc: : ~a'Ud{s H:mson JOhn M. LcFcvi~c jan ~u~h~tl~d Kelly Bopray Agreed to: Da[ed: JML-[9217%'1 M U2OO-go -3311 - PETER£ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, [NC. December 21, 2000 /~ Mayor Pat MeiseI 5501 Bartlett Boulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 Subject: WCA No Loss Determinatio~ Kequest .. Becker Property, Lots 5-8, Block 4 of Harrison Shores Development Mound, Minnesota Dear MayorMeisel' Last summer our firm was retained by Mr. Tim Becker and his parents to assist in resolving wetland jurisdictional issues relating to their property on Three Points Boulevard. In this role, we were asked to review in detail; (1) work done in the past by the Beckers' prior consultant, (2) the findings and recommendations of the Wetland Conservation Act (ViCA) Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), and (3) decisions made by the City of Mound based on the TEP's recommendations. As a result of our review, we have determined that the TEP recommendations and City decisions regarding the jurisdictional status of the property were based on incomplete or erroneous information ~md that, in fact, the propert~ dges ~ot encompass any juriSdiCtional wetland. You may or may not be aware of all the decisions that the City has made, since it is our understanding that the Mound City Council has delegated V~CA exemption and no loss determination' authority to City staff. The most important fact that was missed was that the Becker property was entirely filled with dredge spoil when the adjacent lagoon was excavated in 1961. The amount'of fill that was placed on the property was sufficient to render it non-wetland in 196! and it remains non-wetland today. The practice of filling wetlands for residential development around Lake Minnetonka was common in the 1960s and. many. of the.iakefront neighborhoods in Mound are essentially identical to the Becker property in their o~igin and topography. This is particularly true of the other residential properties surrounding the lagoon adjacent to the Becket property. In accordance with our findings regarding the Becker property, on August g, 2000 we reqUested from the City of Mound a VCCA No Loss Determination. The TEP me, once to review and discuss our findin~ and recommended to the City that the no loss determination be denied. They declined to re-visit the site with us to review the basis for our finding. We strongly believe that the basis 'for the TEP's recommendation runs Rapids, Michigan (231.; 796-0903 , www. Petersonenv. corn ~/' _ ~ Mayor Pat Meisel December 21, 2000 Page 2 counter,to both a common sense interpretation of the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual as well as written guidance from the Corps of Engineers and the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources on its proper use. In October 2000} we Verbally requested City staffto provide us an opportunity to present our 'findings and no loss request to the City Council. On October 24, 2000 that request was presented to staff in Writing. While'we were waiting for a response, City staff unilaterally issued On November 7, 2000 a decision document denying the no loss determination. In. an effort to resolve the matter without resorting to a formal apPeal to the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSK), we renewed our reqUeSt for an opportunity to be heard before the. City Council. Throu~ the City Attorney, the City has agreed to withdraw without prejudice the November 7, 2000 decision and provide us. the opportunity to address the City Council at its meeting on january 23, 2001. Because the analysis underlying our no loss determination request is detailed and somewhat voluminous, we are sending you that information directly to give you sufficient time to review it before the January 23, 2001 meeting. We will be supplying you with additional relevant information via the City Council's agenda packages as We get closer to the meeting date. In particular, we will be supplying in the council agenda package a detailed response to the TEP findings, a disCUSsion of appealable procedural and technical errors, and a request for appropriate resolution of the matter by the .City Council. The following summar7 outlines the key issues we will bringing to the City Council's attention on January 23a: · TEP Failure to Objectively Consider New Information Until we submitted our r. eport, all of the TEP and LGU decisions were based on erroneous or missing information with reghrd to the history and level of disturbance on the Becket property. The TEl> did, not recogn'.tze.the extensi'~e filling disturbance (described below under Hydric Soils) and analyZed the site as if it were relatively undisturbed prior to the 1994 fill event (see Kelly Bopray's TEP report comments referenced on page 4 of our August 8, 2000 report). While we cleared' up that misconception in our report, it was apparent that the TEP did not seriously or obj~ctiveiy consider the implications of that new (~...onnation on their jurisdictional determination. We emPhasiZed fo the TEp that We felt it was imp0~ant foi- them .to red, sit the site'so that we ;¢oUld Show them th'e basiSl for OUr findings, Theydeclinealto re-visit the site With US. -33'13- Mayor Pat Meisel D~cemb~r 21, 2000 Page 3 · Hydric soils The Becker property no longer has hydric soils--one of the three mandatory criteria, for an area to be jurisdictional wetland. Historic wetland on the Becker property, as ',,well as 'throughout the entire Harrison Shores development, was filled in 1961 with spoil materials generated by the excavation of the lagoon. Natural Resources ConserVation Service [NRCS) Technical Note 5, clearly states that the amount of fill that covers the entire Becket site renders the underlying histosols non-hydric. We. do not believe that the TEP has not given any defensible rationale for ig-noring NRCS Technical Note 5. · Wetland Hydrology The preponderance of the evidence 'indicates that the Becker property does not exhibit jurisdictional wetland hydrology. The 1987 Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual defines wetland hydrology as inundation or saturation to the. surface for a minimum of 5 percent of the groWing season (i.e. 7-8 consecutive days falling between approximately April 25 and October 1) in most years. The Corps defines "most years" as 51 out of 100. It is generally accepted that saturation occurs in fine textured soils when the water table rises to within 12 inches of the surface and remains there for the requisite duration. A hydrol%mf study was done in 1999, a. year having approximately normal annual precipitation but an abnormally wet spring. The only'documented time period when the water table rose to within 12 inches was during an abnormally wet period in April and May of 1999. Both Lake Minnetonka's water level and preCiPitation levels were at very high levels during this period. Data from the Minnesota Climatology WOrking Group indicate that April 1-May 17,: 1999 had approximately 150 percent of normal precipitation for that period and had a Precipitation ran~ng of between 90 and 98 percent (i.e. April 1 to Mayl7, 1999 was wetter than the April 1 to May 17 period in 90 to 98 percent of the years on record). TheSe are clearly conditiofis that would not OccUr in 5 i out Of every 100 years. HoweVer, the TEP has stated in.wring that they consider the climatic conditions during this time period to have been within the nomal range. 'This is demonstrably untrue. ' Vegetation The ~ did not apPropriatelY Consider the exteTM and' distribution of upland plants o'n the Becker property. While mUch.Of' the area in question is vegetated predomlnanily With reed canary grass (a hYdr0'~shytic plant), it is well dOcUmented in the scient~e literature that this species; (1) tolerates a very broad range of hydrologic regimes and is drought tolerant, (2) readily invades and becomes monotypic on disturbed soils regardless of hydrolog~y and (3) is commonly found in non-wetlands. We have also observed that upland plants became dominant or co-dominant when portions of the Becker property were mowed in 2000. This would not occur if jurisdictional wetland hydrology were present. -3314- Mayor Pat Meisel December 21, 2000 Page 4 · Cautionary Guidance Regarding Use of the 1987 Manual in Disturbed Areas Written Corps of Engineers and BWSR guidance cautions delineators to be cons ervative in delineating wetlands and making jurisdictional determinations in highly d. isturbed areas. In all cases, agency guidance requires the delineator to obtain strong evidence of all three wetland parameters before calling such disturbed areas jurisdictional w-etlands. In other words, at the very least, the predominance of the evidence must point to an area as being jurisdictional wetland before it is to be designated suchl In the Becker case, the TEP has mined the applicable BWSK and Corps guidance on its head.' At every turn, they have interpreted both the data and the 87 manual criteria in the most liberal possible fashion. We find the TEP's treatment of such a severely disturbed site to be in clear · contravention of Corps and BWSK guidance. · Similarly Situated Properties Treated Differently The Becker property has been treated differently than other identically situated properties in the neighborhood. If the Becker property is wetland, then so is every other residential lot that surrounds the adjacent lagoon. Moreover, we believe that there are other similar properties in the City that have been recently developed without wetland issues even being raised.. · Minnesota Statute 15.99 Over the extended time period in which Mr. Becker has attemPted to get wetland issues resolved on this property, he has submitted several exemption requests to the City of Mound. On one or more occasions, these requests were not handled in accordance with Minn. Stat. 15.99, which sets forth a statutory time frame for making decisions under color of state law. In particular, we believe that the statute was not followed in processing the incidental'wetland exemption applied for by Mr. Becker last summer. As the remedy for non-compliance, the statute deems the actions requested of the offending government unit to have been approved. We Will be asking the City Council to acknowledge approval of the previously requested incidental wetland exemption by virtue of its untimely processing by City staff. To provide the City an alternative to such an acknowledgement, we will also be requesting that the City Council reconsider and formally approve the previous exemption request submitted by Mr. Becker. You should note that approval of Mr. Becker's previous exemption request may obviate the need for the City Council to resolve the no loss determination request. We very much appreciate your review of the enclosed materials. We fully understand that we are asking the City Council to do something unusual--to overrule previous findings and decisions made by Staff and consultants the council relies on every day. However, we believe that the evidence in this case is so compelling that your intervention is warranted. We hope that you will keep an open mind and objectively review the -3315- Mayor Pat Meisel December 21, 2000 Page 5 enclosed material before January 2?.' If at any time between now and then you have questions on our analysis or have an interest in visiting the Becker property, plea. se feel free to contact us directly. Sincerely, Peterson Environmental COnsulting, Inc. President . ' Professional Wetland Scientist No. 11 i 8 Jat~ne~s L. Amdt, Ph.D. ~ff~priCe President: · · ' ofession~l Soil Sciemist No. 3 0684 Enclosures CC. John Dean, Esq. and Mac LeFevre, Esq. - Kennedy & Graven Kandis Hanson - City of Mound Tim Becker John Miesen, Esq. - Lindquist & Vennum -3316- PETE'R$ON ENVIRONMFNTAL CONSULTING, INC. BY MES S]ENGEI~ February 8, 2001 Ms. Kandis Hanson City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 553 64-1627 Subj eot: WCA No Loss Determination Request Becker Property, Lots 5-8, Block 4 of Harrison Shores Development Mound, Minnesota Dear Kandis: In preparation for the February 13, 2001 City Council meeting, we are supplementing the correspondence we sent to the city on December 21, 2000 with regard to the property by Mr. Tim Becker and his parents. With this letter, we are: (1) Re-iterating the request for a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) no toss determination fn'st submitted to the City of Mound on August 8, 2000 and denied by city staff without Council involvement on November 7, 2000. (2) Supplementing our earlier discussions as to why the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) findings regarding the jurisdictional status of the subject property are in error, (3) Re-applying for the WCA incidental wetland exemption that Mr. Becker applied for on March 17, 2000 andwas denied by city staff without Council involvement on May 25, 2000. (4) As an alternative to (3) above, requesting the City Council to acknowledge that the incidental wetland exemption applied for by Mr. Becker was already approved because it was not processed in accordance with the statutory time frame set forth in Minn. Stat. 15.99 (a chronology and statutory analysis is enclosed) and, (5) Describing Other similarly situated properties in Mound that have either; (a) received different WCA regulatory treatment by city staff or (b) would now need to be treated as jurisdictional wetland if the staff's denial' of the no loss request is ratified by the City Council. 1355 Mendota Hei,qhts Road. Suite I00 · Mendota Heights. Minnesota 5512(;-I 112 · 651-686-0151 ' Fax 651-686-0369 · E-maih Pectnc~PETERSONENV. com ,~L,,t~,.~ l~ig, Rapids, Michigan ,-_,33,,, .,,,1 7,,,'jO~. · www. Peter.conenv. com Iris. Kandi$ Hsn$on F ~bn..tary g, 200 l Page 2 We look forward to addressing the City Council on this matter on February 13m. Sincerely, Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. President Professional Wetland Scientist No. 1118 V/cy'President Rr, Cfessional Soil Scientist No. 3 0684 Enclosures (8 copies) CC. John Dean, Esq. and Mac LeFevre, Esq. - Kennedy & Graven Tim Becker John Miesen, Esq. - Lindquist & Vennum -3318- Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act CERTIFICATE OF NO LOSS OR EXEMPTION* APPLICANT AND PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION Tim Becket Name(s) of AppliCant ~919 North Shore Drive ..... Street Address Eau Claire~i ~ '54703 ..... CitY, State~ Zip Code (715)232-1199 ( ).N/A Telephone (Day) (Evening) LGU: Cit~ of Mound ProjectLocation:T.1iTN 'R 24W S 13 '1/.4 ~ .,. :' UTM Coordinates: X: 448000 Y: 4977(D61 County Name/Numbe~. H~epin .... Major Water~hed Name/Numb~ 20 Mississip]~i Kiver ~etro) Size of entire wetland: N/A square feet Wetland type: Circular 39 N/A .;NWI Iq/A Check one: [] <50% [] 50%-80% or 12 > 80°0 Check one: El Agricultural land; [] Non-ag. larad PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ,~ . ,. Des~be....the nature and purpose of the proposed project: The proposed .project involves the consllnlctioll of foursin~le family residences on four platted lots on the subject property. additional p~es ii'needed) (attach Timetable: proj ect will begin on ,10 / I / 00 (mo/day/yr) and will be completed by 12 / 1 ./..03 The wetland aCtivity.at the above site qualifies for the following under the'Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) (check one): No Loss Determination (attach plans) Exemption # 5 (per MN Pule Chapter 8420.0122) (Note: Applicant is responsible for SUbmi~ng the proof necessary to show qualification for the exemption claimed.) Description of Exemption Claimed: All wetlands on the:site were filled, in 1.961 'to a,,d~th sufficient to render the. entire,subject prop.erty non-w~l~nd The applicant sub,ts that~e Pr°Perl¢' :remains non,wetlaUd today:. If.any wetlanddid exist on the site, it ~ould be:on or wilhin fill historically placed on the property. Such wetland would have been re-established by the actions of a private entity takeu for a purpose other than creating wetland. Accordingly, any such wetlands would be considered created or "incldent~l" to the hi~Ori¢ filling' %tiVity and a~ m~,ered by the incidental weilimd' exemPtion c.0n~iid in tli~ weti~d ~/tion A- (Minn. Stat 8420.0122 Subpart 5). There are multiple precedents for this interpretation of the incidental W.~t]~,i~ ex~tit Moreover, BWSR revised the applicable exemption language in 2000 to :clariS.that thisdnterpretation: is correct' · APPLIC'.M~T SIGNATURE The information provided for this detcnxninafion is truthful and accurate to the best of my knowledge. · I ensure that, in draining or filling the subject wetland under an exemption 'noted above, appropriate erosion control measures will be taken to prevent sedimenta..tionlof?e water, the drain or ~l .win not b!oek f'..mh passage, and the drain or fill will be conducted in compl~ce with all other applicab e edeml, state and local reqmrements, including best management Practices and water resource proteetion~requlrements established underMinnesota Statutes~ Chapter. 103H. (Signature of Applicant)(Date) .. . Note: Any approval is not effective until signatures below are complete. No work should begin until the IS-day appeal window has lapsed, or, in the event of an appeal, until the appeal has been,finalized. FOR LGU USE ONLY ' .. .4..) LGU has received~adequate documentation for claim of No,Loss or Excmptio~ and approves ~ certificate as outlined above. (LGU This certificate expires ; (Date) (Date)~ . .: : Elis certificate for an exemption under M.P. 8420.0122; Subpan 1 or Subpan 2, Item B? LGU sign below. ZIf not, signature above is sufficient, and certificate is complete~ LGU write"'Not Applicable" in signature block below. B.) LGU has. received evidence:of, recordiRg of Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Impacted Wetla.SJnd~r~Agricultural Exemption (BWSR Form B): (County where recorded) (Date recorded) (Doctuneat # assigned by recordex)~ (LGU Official Sigaamre) (Date) * THIS CERTIFICATION ONLY APPLIES TO' THE WCA. Permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Check with the appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. The Combined Project Application form can be used for this purpose. ¢.~,~/~ -3319- Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act CERTIFICATE OF NO LOSS OR EXEMPTION* APPLICANT AND PROJECT LOCATION INI~ORlVIA~ON Of, Applicant 919 North Shore Drive SU'eet Address Eau C~e, WI 54'/03 ~ City, State, Zip Code (715) 232-1199 ( ) N/A Tel~hone (Day) (Ev~g) PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION LOU: City of Mound ProjectL°cation:T llTN R 24W S 13 1/4 UTM Coordinates: X: 448000 Y: 49770~51 Cowry NaraefNumb~. Hcnn~pin Major Watershed Name/Number. 20 lVlississipp5 River OVletro) Size of entire wetland: N/A square feet Wetland type: Cirmlar 39 N/A ', NWI CheCk one: E <50% [] 50%-80% Or [] > $0% Cheek One: [] Agricultural land; BI Non-ag. land Describe the .nature and purpose of the proposed project: The proposed project involves the consumction of foursingle family residences °n f°ur platted l°ts °n the subject pr°pertT. ' . (attach additional pages if'needed) Timetable: prOject will begh on 10 / 1 / 00 (mO/day/yr) and will be completed by 12 / 1~/... 03 The wetland activity at the abOVe Site qualifies for the fOnowing unUer the w'ethanU Conservation ^ct (WC^) (Check one): [] No Loss Determination (attach plans) . Exemption # (per MN Rule Chapter 8420.0122) (Note: .4ppficant is responsible for submitting the proof necessary to show qualification for the exemption claimed.) Description of Exemption Claimed: All wetlands on .the site Were filled in 196.1 to a depth ~cient to render the entire subject property non-wetland.. Based on an analysis :done by Peterson EnvirOnmental Consulting~ Inc dated August 2~ 2000, the propert~ rm'aaiuS non~Wetiand todayl ~PPLICANT SIGNATURE The information.provided for this,determinatiOn is truthful and accurate to the best of my knoWledge. I ensure that, in draining or filling the subject wetland under .an' exemption noted.above, 'appropriate erosioncona'ol measures will be taken to prevent · sedimentation of the water, the drain orffll will not bi°ek.fish passage, and the drain or fill will.be conducted in compliance with all other applicable federal, state and local requirements, including best management practices and water resourae prote~0n requirements established under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 10314_ · (Signature:of ApPlicant) ' (Date) Note: Any approval is not effe~l~ve until signatures below are cornpl~t~ No work should begin ua, the l$~lay t~peal window has lapsed, or, ~n the e~ent of an appeal, until the appeal has be~n fmalized. FOR LGU USE ONLY 3,.) LGU has received adequate documentation for claim of No-Loss or Exemption, and approves this certificate as outlined above: ~ c~eate expires .... (Date), (LGU Official Signature) (Date) · · []Is c~cate f6~ :~ ex~tion ruder M.R. g420,0122; SUbpart 1 or Subpart 2~ It~B? LGU si~ b'elO~. RIIf not, signature above is sufficient, and c~Cate iS"~mpiete. LGU write "Not Applicable" in sigmture block below. B.) LGU has received evidence of recording of Declaration of Restrictions and C0V~ants for Impacted W~iider A~cUlmral Exemption 0BWSR Form B): : ~, -.:' " .'-}: ' '! i: : .: (County where reCOrded) · , (Date recorded) (DOmment # assigned by reCOrder) J Official Signature) (Date) THIS CERTIFICATION ONLY APPLIES TO THE ~CA. Permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be requir~ Check with the appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. The Combined Project Applicatipn form can be used for this purpose. a:exmpeert.for (NoVOmb~r, 1998) -3320- ~f ti PETE-RSON ENVIR©NME'NTA'L CONSULTING INC. INCIDENTAL.WETL~ EXEMPTION REQUEST~ BECKER PROPE~, MOUND, MINNESOTA C'F[RONOLOGY (1) . Exemption request received by City of Mound March 17, 2000 (2) (3) (4) Letter sent by staff to Mr. Becker indicating iment to Convene TEP; no indication that the application was. incomplete and no time extension requ~ied TEP meeting TEP recommendation signed and mailed to Mr. Becker April 13, 2000 April 20, 2000 April 20, 2000 (5) LGU decision dated and postmarked May 25, 2000 (6) .LGU decision received by Mr. Becket ~ MINN. STAT. 15,99 ANALYSIS May 30, 2000 Mr. Becker requested the City or,Mound to provide an incidental wetland exemption certificate on .March 17, 2000,~.. If the.apptication was' :inCOmplete, the:city had I0 business days to so indicate .to Mr, Beckon Such a letter would need to have been Sent On March 31,2000 to meet this'requirement~ No such letter waS 'sent by the citY.either during the 10 b~iness-daypefiod or ,thereafter. No reqUests for' additional inf0m~ation 'Were ever, tr~mitte'd to. Mr, Becket:: 'Given that the application was.complete ~ oftlie~ dare of its submission, the: City 0fMo~d had 60 days to render a final decision on the request. The city. could have requested an extension of an additional 60 days by 'writing Mr. Becker before the end of the initial 60-day period and indicating; (1) the need for an extension, (2) the reasons for the extension and (3) the anticipated length of the extension. Such an extension could not exceed 60 days unless:approved by ~e. applicant. The City of Mound never requested an extension. The only correspondence Mr~ Becket re¢~Ned from the city waS a letter dated April 13, 2000 indicating the city's intent to call a TEP meeting. That letter did not request or notify Mr. Becker of a time extension. Accordingly, the statutory deadline for sending om the final decision on the incidental wetland exemption was 60 calendar days from the date of application~i.e. May 16, 2000. Since the decision was dated and postmarked May 25, 2000, that deadline was not met Accordingly, the remedy specified in Minn. Stat. 15.99 Subd. 2 became operative as of May 16, 2000! "Failure O'f~m ~ency'tb deny a request within 60 days is approval of the request." :' ' ' ..... Copies of all correspondence cited here and of the relevant statute are a~ached. 1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 100 · tvlendota Heights, Minnesota 55120-1112 · 651-686:0i$1 · Fax 65~-686-0369 · E-mail: Peclnc~PETERSONENV. com 09/28/00 17:10 .SIT U~ STOUT-M~N WI ~ 651GSGO~S~ NO. a69 QO~ '3, 2000 Tim Becket 691 g North .Shore Drive Eau Claire, WI 5470:3 Dale and Loreli Becker 5205 Beachside Drive Minnetonka, MN 55343 (cJo Tim Becker) sUBJECT: Wetlands Certificate of Exemption Request.Received March 17, 2000. Dear Mr Becker, Mr &. Mrs Becker: We hav:e ~ece!ved:your. exempt!on, reque~ and due to the large volume of information the review is still o process.~ I.n. aOdition to the.c~W sta.ff,, it is our intent to reoonvene the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) asSi~ in the review and this may require another site vis~. I would like'to' remind yOU'l~at.city staff would, be happy to assist yOU to discuss Your potential development':ofYyour property andthe impacts of the'City's Ordinances:from acomprehensive approach. Your properly'is'located wi',hin:the· R-I' Single Farru]y Residential:'District that'has a lot area requirement of 10,000 square feet (of !and above the 931 elevationS, a :30 :foot ~rorrt yard setback,:side yard' sell, acks of 1=0 feet~ .and a .iakeshore seltback of 50 feet:tD.~l~e:~929.4 elevation, You may contact our City Planner LorenGordon at 33B-0800 if you have any s~ecificzoning ques~ons. Jon Suther[and Building Official J$:rkj " Enclosure CC: , Jo. hn'Cameron, City Engineer MFRA Kelly Boprey, Wetlands Consultant MFRA -3322- -3323- CITY OF MOUND The TE? met on April 20, 2000 to review Mr. Tim Becket's request for a WCA exemption for incidental wetl~ds (8420.0122.B.5.). The TE~ m~ present were 3on suth~land (City of Mound),Doug Snyder (BWSR), and Dave Thill (HCD). Joe Yaata (CoE) was not able to attena. In addition, .~g Larson ('BWSK) and Kel.ly Bopray (City's Consultant) were also in attendance. The premise °f'the application is that as part of a floodplain ordinance violation and subsequent restoration order in 199zt, the City and/or Minnehaha Cre~k Watershed Districtrequired more material removed from the site'than was brought into the site for a shore~e riprap project. The gro~d surface was left lower thanbefore the 1994 project and wetlands have become established as a result of the action required by the City and/or' Mirmeh~ Creek Watersh~ District. The ~? found that'historically there were and currently are wetlands on the site. I.a 1999, the TEP revised the wetland delineation line with Mr. Be~;ker's ~:onsultant (Ban- Engineering) and requested de.cation be surveyed and submitted for review along with any proposed site devel°Pmen~ plans. This requested baformation was n~t provided with the.application. The uplands on the site appear to consist of fill material Pl~ed sorn~me in the past. As submitted, the,.application does not prove that the entire ~te :was filled to the extend that no '~stlands exi~d prior to the 1994 action. The apl~Iica~on also did not establish the extent locations of Uplands which were "over excavated" a.nd ~nVerted to wetlands by the 1994 actions. This i~:;~n important tmim because if this exemP~°n were to be applied., it would be llrnite~ to tha~i~art of"over excavated" upland areas. Previously di~ m'eas which remained · wetlands would not be exempt from thc WCA replacement requirem=ts. Based th{i information provided in the aPPlication, as well as information gen;rated by the Becket's previous applications, the TEP recommends that the exemption requeSted be denied. If additional information such as aerial photographs, grotind level photographs or documentation of the.;,.~tent o£previous actions on the site were submitted and eonclusivel~ established the extent o£the W~~or to the 1994 actions the TEP could reCOnsider the exemption -3324- CITY OF MOUND May 25, 2000 Tim Backer Oale and Loreli Backer 6919 North Shore Drive 5205 Beachside Drive Eau Claire, WI 54703 Minnetonka, MN 55343 SUBJECT: EXemption Request and Conclusion XXXX Three Points Boulevard Dear M~ Backer, Mr & Mrs Backer: Please find the at:ached Technical EvaluatiOn Panel's (TEP) recommendation in regards to your exemption rec~ues1: at 5331/5341/5351/5361 Three 'Points Blvd..The City of MoUnd has adopted the TEP · recommendation and hereby denies yoUr eXemption request as otrtlined by the TEP. ':' ~ologize for the extended time period to respond to your request; however, in order for the city to -4ko a determination, it was necessary to reconvene the TEP to review your exemption request and to ,'~c~ive the TEP recommendation before responding, Please contact me if you have any cluestions at ~L7'2-0614. Respec[fu~l~ Building Offioial JS'.rkj Enclosure cc; John Cameron, City Engineer Kandis Hanson, City Manager David Thill, ~ICD Doug Snyder, BWSR -3325- ,Minnesota Statutes 1999, 15.99 http://www.revisor.leg.statemm.us/stat~/15/99.htral Minnesota Statutes 1999, Table of Chapters Table of conten~ for Chapter 15 i'!:i:' 15,99: Time daaclline for agency action. Subdivision 1. DefinitiO~. For 9~r~oses of this sectlon, "agency" means a department, agency, board, commission, or other group in the executive branch of state government; a statutory or home rule charter city, county, town, or school district; any metropolitan agency or regional entity; and any other political subdivision of the state. Subd. 2. Deadline for response. .Except as otherwise provided in this section and notwithstanding any other 1aW to the contrary, an agency must approve or deny within 60 days a written request relating to zoning, septic systems,, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area for a permit' license, or other governmental approval of an action. Failure of an agency to deny a request within 60 days is approva! of the request. ' If an agency denies the request, it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the. time that it denies the request. Subd. 3. Application; extensions. (a) The time limit in subdivision 2 begins upon the agency's receipt of a written request containing ail information required by law or by a previously adopted rule, ordinance, or policy of the agency. If an agency receives a written request' that does not contain all required information., the 60~da~'limit starts o~er'oniy if the agency sends notice within ten business days of receipt of the request telling the requester what information is missing. (b) If an action relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area re~ire~ the approval of more than one state agency in the executive branch, the 60-day period in'subdivision 2 begins to 'fUn for all executive branch agencies on the day a request containing all required information is received by one state agency. The agency receiving the request must forward copies to other state agencies whose approval is required. (c) An agency response meets the 60-day time limit if the. agency can document that the response was sent within 60 days of receipt of the written request. (d) The time iimit in subdivision 2 is extended if a state. statute, federal law, or court order requires a process to occur before the agency acts on the request, and the time periods prescribed in the state statute, federal law, or court order make it impossible to act on the request within 60 days. In cases described in this paragraph, the deadline is extended to 60 days after completion of the last process required in the applicable statute, law, or order. Final approval of an agency receiving a request is not considered a process for purposes, of this paragraph. (e) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if: (1) a request submitted to a state agency requires prior approval of a federal agency; or (2) an application submitted to a city, county, town, school district, metropolitan or regional entity, or other political subdivision requires prior approval of a state or federal agency. In cases described in this paragraph, the deadline for agency action is extended to 60 days after the 1 o/2 - 3326- 9/27/09..6:23 PM .Minnesota Statutes 1999, 1539 httpJ/wwwxevi$or.leg, state.rnn.us/stat~dl 5/99.hlml required prior approval is granted. (f) An agency may extend the time limit in subdivision 2 before the end of the initial 60-day period by providing writ%eh notice of the extension to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and .~t$ anticipate~ length, which may not exceed 60 daYs'!~iess approved bY the~ap~licant. HIST: 1995 c 248 art 18 s 1; 1996 c 283 s 1 Copyright 1999 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. :z of 2 ~'~ -3327- 9/27/00 6:23 PM PETERSON ENVtRONM£NTAL. CONSULTING, INC, SIMH~ARLY SITUATED PROPERTIES INTRODUCTION' The type of historic wetland disturbance present on the Becker property is not unique in the City of Mound. In fact, a review of historical aerial photographs reveals that. it was · common, practice during the 1960s to excavate channels and lagoons for navigational access and to fill lakeside wetlands with dredge spoil· to facilitate residential development. We have become aware of a number of properties that are similarly situated to the Becker property. There are undoubtedly many more around the fringes of Lake Minnetonka. Two of the identified properties were developed shortly after they were filled. We do not mean to suggest that the filling and development of these properties was inappropriate. No regulatory constraints were then in place with regard to the filling of wetlands. However, we are suggesting that a city finding that the Becker lots encompass jurisc}ictional wetland-will mean that these other properties encompass jurisdictional wetlands as well. As responsible Local Government Unit (LGU), the City of Mound will .need to be. fully prepared.to enforce the provisions of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) with'regard .to these (and ..many. other) properties. Given that all of these properties are within: the shoreland of Lake Minnetonka, any grading or filling that exceeds 400 square feet would require approval of a wetland replacement plan. PROPERTIES DEVELOPED IN THE PAST 1701 :Baywood Lane This lot adjoin, s the easternmost lot on the Becker property'and is Lot 4 of Block 4 of the Harrison' Shores subdivision. It was filled in 1961 at the same time and with the same material as the Becker property. The pre-fill character of this property can be seen on Figure A.l.a. in our August 8, 2000 report. The precise date of home construction on this lot is unknown but it was probably in the 1970s. The topographic survey for this lot indicates that much of the rear yard adjacent to the lagoon is at the same elevation as the southernmost parts of the Becker lots. If the southern part of the Becker property is jurisdictional wetland, then most of the rear yard of 1701 Baywood Lane is also wetland. The fact that the rear yard of Baywood Lane has been re-vegetated with sod is not relevant to its jurisdictional status. The placement of sod does not represent "normal 1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 100 · Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120-1112 · 651-686-0151 · Fax 651-686-0369 · E-maih Peclnc~PETERSONENV. com .Big Rapids, mtcntgan {z~ , ~ , ~,,- .... www. Petersonem,.com ~ [ ~ circumstances"k Given this area's similar topography and origin to th~ adjacent Becker Pr°p'e~i it W°uidbe eXpeCted to re:vegetate ~ a Si~nilar plant community if tta-f gras~ wasn't being maintained. 1700 Jones Lane This parcel abuts the Becker property on the west, This lot is of identical origin as 1701 Bayw0od Lane and the Becker lots. The house that exists on the property appears to have been constructed in 1986. The rear yard encompasses eleVations ranging from 930.2 to 931.2. Again, if, the southern part of the Becker property is jurisdictional wetland th~ most of the rear yard of' 1700 Jones Lane is wetland as'..well. I~ECENTLY D~VELOPED PROPERTIES We found two other lO~s similar to the Becker Property that were granted lot area variafices and developed in,..! 999 but on. which wetland issues were never raised. They have very similar topography and consist of' former lakeside wetlands that were historically fi!led in the same manner as the Becker property These properties were developed wi~out wetlands becoming an issue. No wetland delineations or jurisdictional determinations were made during development, approvals on these sites. Given the similarity of these properties to the Becker lots, their disparate treatment under the WCA suggests a potential equal, prot~.cfi'On issue that the city should be aware of. Th9, similar properties ~-e haVe ide~atified ar~ desc~bed below. 1790 ResthaVen Lan~ (referred to in some citY documents as 17xx Wildhurst Lane) This parcel is Lot !. of Block !.3 of the Shadywood Pq~t subdi~isi°n, h. rece{veg a lot: siZe. V~ce (6,927 square feet above ele~;mion 93"i' versus the 10,000 square :feet reqaired. Under th-e zoning °/dinance) in 19991 The varianc~ was granted in order m:.. afford the owners i'easonable use of their land and to create a buildable lot. A 1945 aerial photograph of this area shows that this lot was historically wetland adjacent to Harrison Bay. Later photos show this area to have been filled'. The topography of this lot is similar to that of the Becker parcels, with elevations in the rear yard ranging from 929.8 to 931.5. Site photographs dated September 24, 2000 (previously provided to you by Mr. Becker) show. filling activity in the rear.yard in an area with an. elevation somewhere between 930 and 931.5. The overstory trees visible in the ph°to are American elms (Ulrrrus americana) and shrubs appear to be willows (Salix sPP.). Both are considered hydrophytic plants. We do not have data on the ground cover plants and may now be unable to obtain such dam. Grading and re-vegetation activities associated with this lot are likely to have obliterated the grouni:l cover that previously existed. Given the similarities between this lot and the Becker property, the fact that no wetland delineation ~ Jurisdictional wetlands are "...areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." The 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual defines "normal circumstances" to mean "...the soil and hydrologic conditions that are normally present, without regard to whether the vegetation has been removed". -3329- or determination Was required at 1790 ResthaVen Lane suggests diSparate treatment of one property owner versus another. 2350 Driftwood This parcel .is Lot 10 of the Skarp's East Lawn subdivision.. It received a let size variance (5,900 squar~ feet above elevatl6n 931 versus the 10,000 square feet required' under the'Z°ning 6rdinance) on June 8, 1999. The variance was ..granted in order to axeford the owners reasonable use of their land for the purpose of building a single-family dwelling. The topographic maP of the Property indicates the rear yard to have.elevations ranging from 930 to 931,7, which is very similar to the elevati0m on the lOwest portion of the Becker property. The presence of buried wetland is documented in the August 11, 2000 geotechnical evaluation by Braun Intertec, which' indicated the 2 to 7 feet of mixed "topSoil, fill or swamp .deposits" underlain by "clayey alluvial soils". Groundwater was encoUntered at depths of 1 to 2 feet'below, the surface. We do not. have data regarding the' pre-development vegetation on this site and it probably has been altered' si~ice the lot Was developed. H°w~Ver, given'the aPParently similar Soils and hydrology, We mould expect them to have been similar to the vegetation on. the Becket propertY. The waterwaxd side of the lot is Protected bY a sheetpile seawall that serVes the same purpose as the ri~rap shoreline protection in Place on the Becker property. An August 1.2, 2000 survey reView mere0 from. Jon Sutherland to jOhn'Cameron did not raise wetland issues, despite the fact that grading:work that would extend to'elevati°n 929.4 (i.e. {he DNR. OHWL of Lake Minnetonka). Again, given that this Property has topography ~d S0{lS that ate very similar to the Becker property and:that the proposed grading would involve areas below elevation 930, it is unclear why a wetland deteminatlon,: ot delineation Was not required.as pm:of the apProvaLprocess Ag~ the applican(~in this case appem to have received different' regulatory treatment under the WCA. -3330- 0 0 _1 ~. _3331 _ July ZS, 1992 TO ALLOW CONSTHUC~ION OF & DECK P~ ~ ~~ 92-019 ~~ ~e *appli~ts, Geurg~ ~ ~e~l Fougeron, ha~e a~lt~a for a' ' e~ansion to ~e ~=~, the subject pro.perry is located within the R-1 Code re~lr~s a m~'~ lot. area of 10,'000;:s~are ~ee~, a 30 foot front yard se~ack"to ~o~ ~e, a 20 ~t ~ront yard se~auk t° ~ree Points'~ Blvd., ~ a 50 foot se~ack to ~e Or~na~ High Water election= an~ W~EAS~ Ail other Set~acks an~ lot area are conforming, W~EP~B, The.Planninq Co~ssion reviewed the requested variance and reco~ed appr~ wt~ 6 ,in favor and 3 opposed. Approval wa= reco~n~e~ bas,'On ~e fact.~at ~ re~est..:ts minimal in nature, that ~e aec~ a~ttiun is.a reas~n~l~ u~e of ~he. property, aha there exists a practical ~/fficulty An the fact that there ls no other reasonable 1coat/on for a aeck expansion to ser~e the property. NOW,~B~Rg~OR~,. .... ~g 1~ RZSO~D., ~y the City Counci! of the City of.~ourJa, ~eso~a, as follows: .The 'City does hereb~ approve a 6 foot lakeshor~ variance to allow an-extension to an existing noncon~Or'm~n~ deck at 1701Baywoodr~e, upon thecon~itio~thatanas-buil~ ~ui-~eF be subm/tte~prior:to buil~ingpermit issuance. The Cit~ Council au~ortzes the alterations set =orth below, pursuant to Section23.404, Su~ivision (8) oft he Zoning Code wi~h~he clear andexpressunderStandtngthatthe use remains as a lawful, nonconformix~ use, subject to all of the provisions an~ restrictions of Section 23~404. It is determinea~ that the liva~iltty of the residential property will be £mproved by t~e authorization of ~he following, alteration to a nonoon~orming use o£ the property to afford the *owners reasonable use o~ their land: 152 -3333- MINNEHAHA C£EE): WATERStIED DISTRICT NO'TICE'O~ PER~4IT APPLICATION STATUS Permit Application No: 83-0S Applicant: Walter F. 14elland 1701 ~: BaYwO0~l Lane Mound, MN 55364 Location: City of Mound, Sec. [3BAC~: Three Points Boulevard, IJarrison Shores, Harrison Bay P urpo.se: Lake. setback variance allowing' a building setback' of ¢8 feet to a man-made lmgoon adjacent to Harrison 8ay At the regularly, scheduled.February 17, 1:983 .meeting.pr the Board of Hanagers, the Subject permit application was reviewed, .Action was taken allowing District staff to issue your permit for a 48 foot setback variance .only after receipt and staff approval ofI the following: "Verification of a 20 foot front setback varia6ce issued to the applicant by the City of Mound. Please .'be advised .that the.project is not authorized until the above.:has been Submit.ted and you have .been 'not'ifted of permit issuance. Should.you bare any questions !regarding this matter please contact, me. at ¢73-¢Z24. Very trulX yours, EUGENE A. Engineers f.ot; the District HICK, OK AND AS$OC[AT£S cc: 8oard G. Nacomber ~d~y of llound -3334- '[[ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY . Fo,: ,~'~f .,C',,=-,,~,z~. I ~~~ ~THREE _, ""'"POINTS BLVD It ,,_ Z o X 000.0 (OOO.O') Denot~ iron m°nument . D~not~ offmt ~t~ke D~not~ Propo~d el~. Denot~ ~urflc~' Propo~:? ~rage floor elev.- ~41.~ ! DEMARS -. GABRIEL LA, ND SURVEYORS, INC. Proposed lowest floor elev. = ~.~£ ~.,R~b Proposed top of foundation elw. = ~4 .~' ' File No. ~ ~ ¥/-,~. Book - P I~/-~/ 3030 Hlrbor Line No. P~ymouth MN 55441 Phone: (612) 55943908 I hereby,~certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundkries of the above described land and of thc location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any. from or on said land. Proposed Top of Block Proposed Goeoge Proposed Lowest Type of Building - 8700 Jefferson HJghwoy O%mffo, Minnesota 55369 (?e~) ,49s-5?m 92~J. 8 ~ .I~INNETONKA. LOT I. BLOC~ 13, SHADYWOOD POINT , 20 0 Denotes Iron Mo~ur'~ent · Ocn0~c$ F~xt Iran ri D~otes Wo~ Hub ~t F~ Exc~t~ ~1~ x~.O q~otes Exls[~9 ~ D~otes Pr~osed Eie~ti~ ~ D~otes ~foce ~o~oge Prop~ty L~ot~ In Port Of ~c. ~ Twp. . E. · RECEIVED JUL O 5 ZODO MOUND PI~NII~G & aSP. on October I2, I~ .: ,, October, 1999. " -3337- ' $1980 lot ~ and ~ ~ ~e ~'~ a b~ie lot ~ ~t ~~ p~; and, WH~, ~e ~u~ ~~ v~~ ~ ~~: Exfs~na~oased Igor ,Area 6,92'[ sr. .. 10,000 st' : -;'~ 3,072 sf ; and, feet OHW and 6,g27 sf'are above the g31 ~~ur ~ for determined lot area.' improved street frontage along Resthaven ~:'is 57 feet ~ additional unimp .roved · met fn~ntage on Sunset Landing;, and, WHEP. EA$, Sunset landing is ur.improved public land ~as ~ a¢~_~_._~ point to HarTiSOn'$ Bay. 'l'he applicant propc~ses to use it as an access point to ~ parcel; WHEREAS, ~e applicant ~ indicated a proposed building pad o~ the prol~rty which mee~ City Code requiremerr~ indud'mg se~,cks and hardcaver; and. , WHEREAS, a portion of Re building pa~ is betray lhe 931.6 feet =nt~ur and may be Subject to,,~ew by the ~ Creek Watemhed District (MCWD). Buading WHYS, the S~ ~d ~e P~bg and m~end~ ~t ~e ~a3 deny ~e and, NOW, T1-1~RF_. BE IT i~-.SOLVED, by the City Counc~ of the ~ uf I~1ouncL ainne~,z3t:a, as -3338- 4. This vada.' h'ce is approved for the following legally described property as ...s~..t~.in .the H.e. nn. ePin Co.m~ Property lr~mation System: ]:'~T 1 :' ~C)~ '~ 3, SI'J~YWOO0 POINT, HENNE~N COUNTY, MINNESOTA. 'Tl~is variance sl~all be recorded with ~ County Recorder or t~e Registrar of T'r~.e-s in Hennepin County pursuant to bfmr~_~ State $1atute, $e~on 46'2.38, SubaJvision (1). This shal~ be cansicbu'ed a restriction on haw this · :... .: iS. The properly owner ~ have the respans~'llty of'filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying ~ costs far such recording. 'A buading permit for ~e subject construclJon sh~ not be ?s~ed un~ proof of I'eca~ing has been fried w~h the City Clerk. The foregoing was moved by Councflmember Brown, seconded by Councilmember Hanus_ The following Counciimembe~. voted in the affaTnat~ve: Ahrens, Brown, Hanus, Meisel, and Weycker. The foUowing Cou~c:='lmembers voted in the negative: None. A~est: C~j Clerk ss/Pat Mayor -3339- 40' Ook ATER UNE t -' INVERT · :::!. :8.04 PER END OF I 931.~ ~3o.~ ,'930.4 * =129 .930.2 93i ~ ~,,-,- / / .! / 4-'. CEDARS / / / ? ~30:~/ 36' .. ' Maple 9,30.7 .SEA WALL WATER . 92,&41 ON I Mople ?,.,6". ' (Remove) . ;./ , -.. ,-~.~ :~s~ 'WALL I -.... , I;~ I ~' .... ~ ~,, I . ' %o.,' /~©.' ':.;~ ' · / '.. k' . // .,.~ ' . / '~' .......... ..// ... r'-.~ ~. g29.6 930 3 / ..... ~'..-'~o..~ /; · ' ../ X929.9 I "~.,, ~ // · ../~ /~o..^;~...:-? ,q .: . / ";~. //\ ,'" ' ' ' Xgo. o ~ " " · --,x/~o.o x9~,/,/9;;.3 ~'S'EA WALL ~- ~ ~/' ' -3340- u.~~m~.~a J~e&t~9 RESOLUTIoN TO ~ROVE ~L~ ~::~, ~D~.: ~D"~LOoDPLAIN FILL' ~ATION 5'T~~' V~CES ' TO CONSTi~U~ A.~ ~G~ F~Ly DWelLING LOT 1{}, SKARP'S FAST LAWN, PID 13-117-;[4 5,g~ sf 10,~ sf . 4,100 sf Lot ~,, Lot Width 5~'ff :: ":~ :':' '~;:~'. ' 5 Grading within the floodplain .fringe is required f~ be at 932ff for a distance of 15 I~ ~m ~e ... ;oint where the grade meets. I~e ~=undation, g31.,5 ft is pro~ ~r.5 ft on two sides and 15ff on a third; and, ' ....... : ' ::;" :'::'::' '~ WHEREAS. the,~Subject pro~7 is ~i~...?ithin the R-1 single F~rr.~y Residential .. Zoning District which a~i'~ling~to'~G~ Code requ~ a minimum lot area ef 10,000 square feet~ front yard ,setback, of 30 fe~.-6.~eet $ide,y.ard se~. a~:.~ feet setbaclq ahd· WHEREAS. ~e current use of l~e property is a dilapidated c~ttage would be r~moved with the proposal; and. WHE~, ~ere: is a substan~ porli~ ~.this., .p.,~r~, in the floodplain mat cannot be used in ~e calculation of lot area; and, .... :~ -3341 - WHEREAS, the city does not have jurisdi~;n over fill in the flac~plain; and, WHEREAS, the Mirmehaha Creek Watemhecl Dis~ict (MCWD) uses 931.5 as the regional flood elevation for Lake Minnetonka and does not allow any ~I to be placed below that elevation, unless compensa!Jng volume is provided. The plan as submitted appears to provide for this compensation, but a permit .must be granted I~ ttte MCWD; and, WHEREAS, the p~ hard'c=c~er is 1830 s~ or 27,85%; and, WH£REAS, the proposed foundation with a finished floor e~fion ~ 9~.8 E ~i~ m~ ~sidenfi~ ~m ~e~on s~n~ ~r fl~p~in. ~; and, WHE~, ~e s~ ~nd~ns ~:~e pm~ ~ ~r b~ ~ proper engulfing. and building ~niqu~, a home ~n WHE~S. ~e p~p~ ~ ~i be bU~ ~ ~ ~ aPPli~ble zo~ng -.~ regulations; and, ~E~, ~e Dep~ent of Na~ ~u~ (DNR} ~m~nded denial; and. WHEREAS,:, I~e Planning Commission has re,4ewed l~e request and mc:~mend denial of the varianc~ with a vote of 4-3; and, WHERE. AS, the City Council has reviewed ~ racluest and has granted l~e r~lue..5't with conditions; and, NOW," THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the C~ Council of the City c3f Mouncl, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a I{3t ~ Ic~ ~, and floodplain fiil Variances listed below as gra.r!.ted by Be City Council in'ca'der to construct a new Single Famiiy Dwelling with conditions: 10,000 sf Lot Area 5,900 sf Lot Wid'~ 55 Grading within the fl~pl~h point where the grade meets the foundation. 931.5 ff ~s proposed f~r 5 ~ on two sides and 15'ft on a third. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. The variances be approved pending ~ aPproVal of th.e Minnehaha Watershed District. -3342- AoprovaJ of drainage plan by the City Engineer. The b~'ing conform to the setback requirements for the R-1 zoning distr~ct Connec~n to water and sewer u'dltfies shall be installed at the owners e:~aense. Removal of the septic tank if present. The City Coun~ authorizes the alter-a~ns set forth below, pursuant to Subdivision '8 'of the Zoning Ordinance ~h the clear and express und~dihg that: the slructures described in paragraph number one above remain as ~1~' rio~~i~' .structures subject to all of the provisions and restr~'0ns of Se~on 350:420. It is determined that the rrvabir~y of the residential property will be improved by ~e autho~On ~ lhefol~ ~on to a ner~=nforming use cE the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: con=c~°n of a new sin~e Far~ Owe~. Tnisvatiance is granted ~or ~ ~ig ~ ~ Property as stated fr~m Hennepin County property Inf°rmation: LOT 10, SKARP'$ EAST LAWN, HENNEPlN COUNTY, This va~ sba, be mco~ed w~ the.aunty ~m~r Hennepin ":County p~t to .Minneseta Sl~te,~; .Secl~ort ~36,: SubCwision (1). This shall be ~ide~ ~a :~ction on how~this property may be used. County 'Clerk. by Counolmember Hanus. ~ The following Councilmembe~s voted in ..... Ah~n'~/Bmwt~ Hanus~:. MeiseL Weyc~r 'Tl'J:e foil~:,,~neqmem~ vOted:in the negative: -3343- r BR.AUN.~. INTERTEC 612.94hS6g13 ~ Aufft~ 11, 2000 Mo~d, Mi~om .somc oflFID's calc~lation~d plans f~r thc s~-~etwe. Aft~ a.'"'vigw afth~ g~tachntcal crayon r~pon '(fl~,97-I rc. sid~cc. We undcmand r~be s=ue~'e is based on an tncl~er Cal:~t~ of 20 tons per ant. hat. The -3344- .~4. 2000 ·?/ Pzi~e 2 3/3 .... ?~ ~J Sir~.~ d~.s~R ~ an: nn~.y on. Ru~ ~ of 20 1/2 feet below ~ :~t would be'jnu:l~ of'thC compm~-~"y ofs°U'co~itions beknv the ~fn~e soil-ba~nl~ck'pr.~. Genre, al~ This ~-r~~,,,,~- on~ find~z~-apd ~utu-e~vcd and st~2dards Jistcd bm-dh. This ~dCe~ wat dine r~sw~n~s. }40 wan'm~ expr~sed or implied, is ,~-, l[you hav~ Smcm,~ly, Sm'Jio~. F. nSin~ C: Mr. Mik~Mo~]im':-, A.d~ Foun~ Compen~ -3345- JonSutherland · From; To: Sent: Subject~. 'John Cameron' <JCameron~mfra.cam> "Joe ,~uthedand" cjonsuthedan~ll~msn.com> Saturday, Augus~ 1Z, 2000 9:23 AM Survey review- Z35ODriftwood Lane ~Pa§e. 1 o£ l Jon- The following are my comments concerning the SUrvey submrd~d with the building Permit a~PliCaUon for subject location. . 1, Need MCWD apwoved Silt fence along thesW and NE Property lin.es ar~ also ai~ng lhe we~edy side of the sea wall. 2. Grading plan must be approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ~MCWD) and perrr~A issued for the floodplain volume mitigation. 3. Street excavation permit .is required for inst~ullation 'of water service. If.anY work is done on ~e e~st/ng driveway apron or a new apron installed, permit is also required. Public works mus~ approve all work within the City right of way. 4. The elevation forJh~.~pp 0fthe ~a wall is Shown atappmx, g30~S anti the..ouflet for the swale constructed to meet the mquiremen~ for floodplain mitigation is shown at' g29.4. This indicateS that the top of the-seawall is to ~e lowered over a foot. Will this be covered under MCWD review ? Who owns this wall anti regulates any modifications made to It, or is each adjacent property owner respens~le ? 5. Runoff from the garage and house ~rected to the lake, must'be '~ined in the sWales c~nstructed along the lot lines and not allowed to flow onto adjacent property. 6. It appears that eg~ from the:easterly garage stall will be ve~, difficult and can only be 'aCCOmplished by backing out into the street. : -3346- 8116/00 PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, [NC.' SUPPLEMENTAL INFO~TION IN ~SPONSE TO PAST TEP FIND~GS~CO~~A~ONS ~ LGU ]~EC~SIONS Introduction This narrative .provide~' supplemen~'[hformafion with respect fo ~e findings of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Tec~ical Evaluation panei"(~) a~d PaSt decigiom'by the City of Mou~d as ~ey relate tO Potential wetland oh..,~e Becker ?mperty. Our Decembei~ 21, 2000 letter to ~e City COuncil set forth in some detail the reasons that we believe the TEFs findings and reeommendafi0ns are err0ne°u'q. ACCOrdingly, ~is n~tlVe does not re-hash ali-cf` the points maiie in ~at' letter. HOWever, there are sofi-ie'~pec~C issUes that We wish to elaborate on. TheSe areas follows: Wetland Hydrology and Climatic, Context. Bas6d on. the ~'s October 1, 1998 findings and Kelly Bopray%. written testimony for the December 17, 1998 WCA appeal hear/rig, it' is clear that the severe disturbance to the Becker site's., soils .and hydrology went completely unrecognized. In Ivl~,~.,~ Bopray"s .~estimony, he states that"ira]cst wetland professionals consider soils and vegetation reliable indicators of hydrologic condi.'.~c~ns °fthe Site }~f the' hYdrology h~ n°t b~ ~ign~'¢antly altered'i~ H~ go~ 'on t~ quote at len~"supporting Corps. of Eng!neer~ .~d BWSR guidance. Clearly, the Becket property has been substantially altered hydrologically and the TEP'~s earlY reliance on soils (which were mis- c~t~i-ized; se~',below) and vege~on Were misplaced. Th~"-Oii'ly evidence Suggesting th~ p6s~il~le pre~:ence Of wetland h~logy is ~ eOIlected by B~' Ett~n6ering"during the spring of 1999/As s~tei:l in our repo~ .the cited ~e Period had ~hor~ly:"high precipitation l~V~Is ~cl min¢i'd~ with hi~. ~alce 16Vels ~iis Well; Th~ TEP has conelud~ that ~e e~6mely w~'6onditi0~S in e~ly.~y 1999 shOtild', be. consiclefe~l ,'within the normal range" due to drier COnditions d~g~''ant~ced~t12-m~'penoit;...' ' ......... ' ......... ~s.4og~c:'~" ' would -lm, tenti,a!!y..h, gv~ ~ome' v ,~id~ty if~,:~e~ in .qu~n w..ere .~n:i. so!ated depr-essiona!.wefl~d out in. a:~.~P fi~!d..,s. 0m.e.~her~, Howev~r~ ~e,hy~0!~gy 'of.. the ~e~ker site wo~d be stmng!y affected by the !.~..v..el. offS0 ~n~o~.. Who..g,L ...~.M~tonka is higl~., it rea!!g skoul ~ ~..!tmmer how d.~..~V...prec~!ag:~ye~ h~as b,~n .-~.~e ~.o. Und~ateL~b~n~ath ~eas in:g,a-edi~ely adj-a¢~t to the lak~, (including..the. Becker prop,,,mj) ¥~i1!. be.:,at or near the,level, of, the ~ake,. M~eover~ when 6.57 inches of rain falls over a 17-day period encompassing the datoS~ of the hydrologic observation,. ~e importance of the preceding year fades even more. ' :" ': .}',' : ~ .. Miri~fffie cli~iific data::''we have compiled '~. obb"~(6s :~:.~'n0rmal!~ ~et C°nditi0n~' in early ma~ i999: : i: Dady' ' ' '::"prempltation' ': ..... dam;~'?"ob~ed;; ~om'"'"~ the' ''::?IVInDNI~''~''s DIViSiOn?' ' ' of Water~'"" '" .... web site" for the City' of M¢und ih$:eat~ ~ of~e i'Ldiy p~'Od'l~een May 5 ~d ~y 21, 6.57 inches of rain fell. 1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 100 · Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120-1112 · 651-686-0151 · Fax 651-686-0369 · E-mail: Peclnc~PETERSONENV. com D3 , www. Petersonen v. com Supplement: Becker Wetland Information PEC Pro.~ect'Lqo. 2000-047 February g, 2001 Page 2 Normal May precipitation for the Maple Plain Weather Station is 3.72 inches_ The 90~ percentile (I year in 10 is wetter) is 6.1g inches, placing May preclpitatlon recorded in Mound. well above the g0~ percentile (hardly normal). The preciPitationranlcing, maps developed ~rorn th~ precipitation reporting-network of the State Climatologist's office indicates the period April 01 - May 24 to be between the 85- 95 percentile, again indicating that the period was much wetter than normal. Quote: "[SJpring has been very moist over much of Adinnesota. Some c~reas have received double the normal amount of precipitation since April 1. May has been especially wet With some rivers again reaching flood stage. Many regions of the state are at or near record amounts of preci~itation sin ce. Aprii'L Weekly Precipi tation and Seasonal Departure ~s i~cate that as of mid-May, most of JVl~rmesota is at or · above the 90th Percentile for growing season'rainfall.' The deluge led to very high stream and river levels[.] <http ://climate. umn. edu/doc/j Ournal/wetspring99.htm> Kainfall during tiffs period did not occur all in one "slug." Of the 17-day period, 14 days (82%) had measurable precipitation. Five days-had precipitation levels in excess of 0.5 inch. Ten days had precipitation levels in excess of 0.1 inch. In an interview on Minnesota Public Kadio, Mark Seeley (University of lVlinnesota professor of climatology aud. extension:climatologist) provided valuable .insight as to how unusual the May 1999 series of rainfall events actually was: · Quote: :~R listener question: Earlier this month, I heard that some communities reported measurable rainfall On eight consecutive days? Isn't.this unusual? What is the. record for most consecutive days with me~rable rainfall? Answer: Indeed, eight consecutive.days with rainfall is quite unusual. Most years produce at least one period of 4 consecutive days with rainfall. It is $ or more consecutive days with rainfall that starts to become an unusual streak of wet weather in our typ~ of~,climate. The record number of consecutive days. with. meaa2~ .able rainfall in the Twin Cities: is JO, occurring from june 18,27, 1951. i.$tate,vide the reCo~d is 14 consecutive daYs'witti measurable rainfall at Faribctult, June 5-1.8, 19.67. <http://climate. . umn~. edu/cawap/mpr/\990521 ,mt> D~ng the wet May 1999 Period the Minnesota Streamflow database malnffined bythe MnDNK DiVision Of Waters indicated stre~s in the area of:Lake Mi~eto~ tO be' ab0Ve'th~,M~y Qi0 level/This data is in agreement ~th the~y preciPitation data ~at · sh~ws the sarn'e: 14n,10 year (or. less th~ 1 in 10 year)probabili¢ levels:.' NOte' that thesedata are based on average MaY floWs, ~d thus would ~nSider sp~g, flOoding ~ .~ riatural"Conditi6n. Lake Minnetonka has au ordinary high water level established by the ~NK of 929.4 feet above sea level (fASL), and: average water le~e! of 928.48 fASL. A highest recorded level of~30.51 fASL, and a lowest recOrded level of 921.78 fASL.' During the wet May, 1999 period in question, Lake Minnetonka was above the established O~ from May 14th ~rough July 2?. Note: Becker lots are.immediately adjacent to Lake IvIinnetonka. The area ~ question is at most only 100 feet removed from the lake, and should closely mimic the lake level. -3348- Supplement: Becker Wetland Information PEC Project No. 2000-047 February 8, 2001 Page 3 The 90-day and 180-day precipitation graphs supplied by the TEP with its fimdings also clearly illustrate that early May 1999 was well outside the normal range for this portion of the year. The FAQ section of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District web site pr°-vides some insight into what are considered "normal" levels for lake Minnesota: "Y?hat is considered "normal" levels of the lake and creek? Normal is faiJ'ly relative. Despite our three mild winters in the Twin Cities, the '90s actually saw above average precipitation here. Natural conditions always fluctuate. Last year [1999], "no wake" regulations almost kicked in because the water level in Lake 3~nnetonka ,,vas high in May. Anyone who has lived on the lake for some time knows that it is common for water levels to fluctuate and that all it takes is a couple of thunderstorms to get the lake. back up to 'nOrmal' and a couple more to start.flooding out lawns along the creek. http : //www. minnehahacreek, org/ The .TEP's October 10, 2000 findings evidence a basic misunderstanding of both the hydrology of the Becker property and the climatic context in which the 1999 hydrologic observations were made. What we believe is more telling than the water table response to abnormally heavy rains is what happens when those rains stop. As shown in Figure D2 of our August 2,2000 report, the water table under the Becker property dropped precipitously back to levels below 12 inches from the surface within 7 days after the rain events ceased. Mischaracterization of Soils and Disturbance Level On-Site The nature and implications of site filling and disturbance were not recognized until documented in the'PEC report Analysis of Wetland Jurisdictional Status dated August 2, 2000, over two years after the initial delineation and permit application submittals. The initial Barr wetland delineation performed on'the property during 1998 did not'recognize the 1961 fill event. The subsequent review of this delineation by City of Mound's technical representative (see Kelly J. Bopray's Outline of Testimony on V?etland Delineation dated 12/17/1998) was, in part, the basis for the original denial. The 12/17/1998 correspondence also did not recognize site soils as consisting primarily of fill generated during the lagoon excavation. Assumptions relative to site. hydrology and hydric soils that were relied on by the TEP in subsequent findings were apparently based on the original interpretations in Mr. Bopray's 12/17/1998 correspondence. It is obvious from this correspondence that soils on the Becker lots were misidentified as consisting of native Histosols with a thin, discontinuous fill cover placed by Mr. Becker during 1994. The implications of the misidentification of site soils, and the implications of site disturbance for wetland delineations performed on the site are examined in detail in our August 2, 2000 report and elsewhere in the present correspondence. It is important to recognize that the original delineation and TEP reviews relied upon a routine interpretation of the wetland soil, hydrology, and vegetation indicators provided in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (the 1987 Manual). In essence the site was evaluated as if it were a relatively andisturbed -3349- Supplement: Becker Wetland Information PEC Pro~eet No. 2000-047 February 8, 2001 Page 4 wetland setting. The two following quotes provide important caveats provided in the 1987 Manual and subsequent guidance regarding disturbed situations: ."Many plant .species' can grow.'.suecessfully in both wetlands and nonwetlands, and hydrophyfic vegetation and.hYdric Soils may persist for decades following alteration of hydrology that will render an area a nonwefland." [1987 Manual, paragraph 19, emphasis supplied] "[!] want;to.again emphasize that the 1987 Manual.stressed the need to verify that all three parameters exist prior to identifying and delineating an area as wetland. Further, the 1987 Manual focuses on.. hydrology (i,e. inundation &/or saturation to the surface). In situations where hydrology is questionable, the 1987 Manual requires stronger evidence regarding the hydrophytic nature of the vegetation. The 1987 Mant~al also stresses the need to use sound professional judgement, providing latitude to demonstrate whether an area is wetland or not based on a holisfic and careful consideration of the evidence of all three parameters." [Questions and Answers on the 1987 Manual, Memorandum foe SEE distribution dated 7 October, 1991, John F. Studt, Chief, Regulatory Branch.] The 12/17/1998 testimony of Kelly Bopray emphasized the' hydric nature of the soils and als° relied on soil morphology to a large degree as an indicator of the presence of wetland hydrology. However, subsequent analysis of soils information as documented in the August 2, 2000 PEC report indicates that the soils do not consist of native hydric soils covered with thin upland fill deposited in 1994. Kather site soils consist of thick deposits (12-30+ inches) of hydric and non- hydric fill deposited as early as 1961. These fill events constitute a significant alteration of hydrology necessitating a complete re-evaluation of previous delineations and interpretations. The presence of hydric fi!! must be a~counted for in an assessment of hydric soils. The August 2, 2000 PEC report provides Technical Note 5 as gui.dance that indicates that the site soils cannot be considered hydric by hydric soils criteria. 'Fmtherm(Jre, the presence of hydric fill ori. ginafing as .lagoon spoil limits the application of hydri¢ soil indicators to non-reli~ redoximorphic indicators such as the. presence of 2% or more redoximorphic features around living roots or the smell of~hyd!rogen sulfide gas. These indicators were evaluated in the field; however, 0nly one profile (see Profile #5~PEC August 2,.2000.Report), had evidence of the presence of an aquic moisture regime. Hydric soils are soils that~meet the hydric soil definition, i.e. "soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the qgper part." [Federal Register, July 13, 1994). Assuch~ the.presence of criteria and hgdric soil indicators is positive evidence of hydric soils. With the possible exception ora small area around Profile #5, criteria and hydric soils indicators point to the soils on the site being non,hydric. The TEP "generally agrees with [N~CS] Hydric Soils Technical Note 5" and also appears to concur that the amount of fill historically placed on the Becker property was sufficient to render -3350- Supplement: Becket Wetland Information PEC Project No. 2000-047 February 8, 2001 Page 5 the soils non-hydric under the guidance contained in that Technical Note. However, the TEP suggests that '.'~new' hydrie soil could develop above .the elevation of the original ground' surface within the fill profile due to; (1) Surcharging of the original hydric soil or (2) a water level above the surface of the original soils. The TEP states that "[s]ince the soils developing; in the fill material are relatively.young (40 years),, they might not have developed sufficiently to meet N-RCS field indicators'criteria": Notwithstanding"that fact that 40 years is more than enough time for redoxymorphic features to develop, the mere possibility that hydric soils may someday reformin the lower part of fill pile is not, tantamount to those soils having already formed. The TEP's C°mment seems to support rather than refute our conclusion as to the absence Of hydric soils. However, even if we agreed that"new" hydric soil was forming for the reasons suggested by the TEP, the TEP should be proactively recommending an .incidental Wetland exemption on that basis. The incidental wetland exemption states that "Iai replacement plan for wetlands is not required for activities in wetland areas created or reestablished solely as a result of: ... (C) actions by public or private emities that'were taken for a purpose other than creating the wetland" (Minn. Kules 8420.0122 Subpart 5(C))(emphasis supplied). As stated in our December 21, 2000 letter, we believe that the soils.on the Becker site were rendered nomhydric in 1961 through"filling. If they were to subsequently become hydrie, through subsidence or an anifically maintained higher lake level, the re'establiShment' of hydrie soils would represent created or incidental Wetlandi In guidance attaCh~ to' its year 2000 amendments to the wCA roles, BWSK "[c]larifies that the te~ "create" here is bro~der than rule definition and thus :this exemptibn can apply to wetlands~ that.have reformed subsequent to effective tlrainage or being totally filled ~ (emphasis supplied)." Vegetation We will not re-hash the vegetation discussion:contained in 'our December 21~ 2000 letter'. The only P~int we would Stress is that the dominant hydrophyte l~i,ei 'reed canary grass) that the TEP relied:on is a highlY invmive plant.~that thrives in.' disturbed areas and h~' :a~ally been found bY researcher~ to be .drought-tolera~t~ Because Of its. adaptabiliW and invasi.veness, it 'is .an unreliable indicator ofj~sdictional wetlandi par~iculai'lyin disturbed areas. F~erm0r~, the guidance cited in the. hydric soii~..se~on; above' indicates~that vegetation must be reviewed cfiti~ly in areas' that hlive bee~:'~h~'dr~gieally'altered by drainage or: fil~ing;~ webelieve~: that the TEP has not critically reviewed the :vege~fi°n pmeter:in the. li'~'t :of a' ~astie~ly diS~bed setting. Re-APPli~tioa' for '~e. iden~ 'Weflanfl Exemption On behalf of'the~ Becl~'s W~'.haVe re, applied for an incidental wetland exemption relating to their property: ~le,the pr~?Onder~ce of th~ avaiiable ~dence indicates' no wetl~ds ,to on the"propen'y, we. have ap'plied fo'r ~.~i~eidental wetland exemption, tO 'provid~ th~' city with alternative to: rendering a:n~'log~ flet~iriafi0n~ Mt. Beekerp~evi0usly 'applied'~for' an incidental wetland exemption in March 2000. The exemption was denied on the basis that the applicant hadn't demonstrated that the property was sufficiently filled to render it non-wetland. We have supplied that information as follows: -3351 - Supplement: Becker Wetland Information PEC Project No. 2000-047 l%bmary 8, 2001 Page 6 (1) The historic aerial photographs contained in our August 2, 2000 report show the enire neighborhood encompassing the'Becker property to have been filled, (2) The topographic and soil profile information we supplied shows that sufficiemt fill was placed to render the soils non-hydric an.d eliminate wetland hydrology. (3) Not-withstanding the TEP's concerns about the accuracy of past topographic surveys, the 1992 Cardarelle'survey is consistent with the amount of fill we described in our AugUSt 2, 2000 report That survey was signed by a registered land surveyor who attested to its accuracy. The elevations shown on that survey are consistent with the topographic surveys the city has on file for the adjacent properties (1700 Jones Lane and 1701 Baywood Lane). The Cardarelle: survey is the best pre-1994 topographic .information' available and should be considered reliable. - Topography The .TEP points to discrepencies among the various surveys done on the site and suggests that, due to these discrepencies, we cannot rely on any of them to determine whether the site was "overexcavated" during the City,directed fill removal in 1994. The ~'s analysis is documented in a graphic entitled "Cross Sections Lots 7 and 8", attached to the 'rEP report. This analysis is flawed because: (t) not all of the "surveys" included inthe analysis are actually legitimate topographic su~eys, (2) the analysis only depic/s one cross-section which may or may not be representative of the overall character of the property before and .after the 1994 excavation. The 1993 drawing prepared by Design 2 Architects does not purport to be an. accurate topographic survey and was neither prepared or signed by a RegiStered Land Surveyor 0~,S). The origin of the topographic information ,it depicts is unknown:and we agree that its accuracy is suspect.. For that reason, we did not rely on this survey, in our analysis. In contrast, the 1992 Cardarelle survey referenced in our report, is held outto be an accurate topographic surveY and was prepared and signed by an RLS~ It-.is the.only reliable pre, 1994 topographic survey information available for the site; Absent substantive information that this survey is inaccurate, it is inappropriate for the TEP to suggest that the Cardarelle survey is in error; The October 23, 2000 supplement to the October 10, 2000 TEP report discusses the "+/- 1 foot" margin of error inherent surveys witha 2,fo. ot;eontour interval..We would point out that the surveys that continue to be relied on by the City of Mound in its deVelopment review process have the same contour interval. From our 'review of file materials for recently developed, similarly situated properties, the city routinely relies on surveys with 2-foot contour intervals: in granting development approvals., If surveys of that accuracy level what. the city requires and relies upon for other ,projects, the city should have no compunction about relying on them here; -3352- Supplement: Becker Wetland Information PEC Project No. 2000-047 February 8, 2001 Page 7 Standard of Proof We believe that the available evidence demonstrates clearly and convincingly that the Becket · property was rendered non-wetland by the 1.961 fill event. It is tree that Minn. Rules 8420.0210 require the applicant to submit proof that a WCA exemption applies. However, the rules do not set forth a specific standard of proof. Ia the vegetation discussion on page 2 of the October. 10, 2000 TEP fundings the TEP cites a preponderance of the evidence as the appropriate standard of proof under the WCA. Notwithstanding this statement, the TEP seems to be requiring the applicant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no wetland existed on the Becket property after the 1961. The applicant should be held to the same standard' of proof as the TEP. We believe that the preponderance of the evidence we have supplied indicates that the Becker propemy does not encompass.jurisdictional wetland and, that even. if it did, such wetland would be covered by the incidental wetland exemption. -3353- Jun-24-02 11:3lA Brenshell Homes 9524958121 P.O1 LANGDON WOODS IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT REDUCTION REQUEST Date: June 24, 2002 City of Mound B~t Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Attn: Sarah Smith 1, The purpose of this letter is to request a reduction in the amount of the subject letter of credit based on the progress of the construction project to date. 2. The areas for which progress has been completed on the Plan ^ Improvements, their respective completion percentages, and dollar reduction amounts am as noted below:. 1B0% - % Complete Component $, Total LOC $ ~.. Catego.,ry Value % Complete $ Value Value Reduction 'Site Grading $14,750.00 85% $12,537,50 $18,806.25 $18,806,25 Improvements $40,632.16 30% $12,189,65 $18,284.47 $18,284.47 Storm Sewer "' "' Improvements $10,099,80 95% $9,594.8t $14,392~ Sanitary ,T, awer ... .-- $.14,392 ?? Improvements $13,775.77 95% $13,086.98 $19,630.47 $19,630.47 watermam . Improvements $26,559.80 95% $25,231.81 $37,847,72 $37,847.72 Permanent St,-c;~ .... .. .. , Improvements $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 lra~c Sign Improvements $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.08 Landscaping & . , Park Improvements $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 .. Utility ' $0.00 ilmprovements $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 'Paths and' ' $0,00 Pathways $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 . Lighting ,, ,. $0.00 Improvements $0.00 $0.00 ,. $0,00 $0.00 To{al $105~817.53 $72,640.75 $108,961.12 $108.961.12 3, It is requested that the City of Mound authorize the State Bank of Long Lake to mduc~ the value of the Irrevocable Letter of Credit by $108,981.12 to a new value of effective immediately. 4. The undersigned will hand carry your letter to the State Bank of Long Lake in order to expedite the process. Tom Stokes, Brenshetl Development~~~~Z~ cc: Mr. Tom Johnson, State Bank of Long Lake -3354- AMM FAX Partnerships in providing services and s01uti0ne Comments on Met Council Household Forecasts Due July 12 On May 24, the Metropolitan Council sent updated household and employment forecasts for 2010, 2020 and 2030 to all cities in the region, with the request that cities provide the Council with some initial feedback by July 2002. To date, the Metropolitan Council reports that it has not been able to contact all cities for comment. If your city has not com- mented on the forecasts, please contact your city's sector repre- sentative at the Met Council. Once finalized, the forecasts will be adopted as part of Blueprint 2030, and cities will be expected to in- clude the additional households in their 2008 comprehensive plans. Annual Stanton Salary Survey Now Available Volume I of the 2002 Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Salary Survey, prepared by the Stanton Group, is now available. Volume II, with in- formation about employee ben- efits, will be available in approxi- mately two weeks. A single copy of Volume I was mailed to all AMM members on July 1. Member cit- ies may request up to five addi- tional copies by calling Laurie Jennings atAMM (651/215-4000). Price for non-members is $160 for the two volume set. £g0 ~O ZBB al~c~ uasu~H July I - 5, 2002, page f of 2 Met Council Approves Redistricting Procedure Following the 2000 census, the Metropolitan Council, like most other levels of government, must nowprepare a-redistrictlng~flan~6 ......... districts. At its June 26 meeting, the Council agreed to establish a five- person redistricting committee, consisting of three Council.rmembers and two non-council members, to work on specific plans for review and comment by the full Council and various stakeholders. The fUll Council will then select an option for submission to the Legislature no later than October. The legislature will have the final word on the districts' new boundaries. The approved redistricting plan will not only apply to the Metropolitan Council but also to the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission and the Metropolitan Airports Commission. "redlstrlcting" continue~ on pg. 2 Begining with this edition, AMM will now be delivering the latest news and information to our members via email rather than fax. The new for- mat will be similar to that used by the League of Minnesota Cities to deliVer its Cities Bulletin. With each new edition, subscribers will re- ceive an email message containing a direct link to the newsletter page of our webslte. Simply click on the link and the latest version of our newsletter will appear on your screen. This new mode of transmission allows AMM to better serve our mem- bers. With emaii distribution, multiple individuals within a single city will each receive their own copy of our newsletter without waiting for it to be routed around city hall, thus allOwing you instant access to the most up- to-date information. All city managers/administrators and Board members will automatically be switched over to the new email system. Additional city staff and elected officials can be added simply by sending an email with the sub- ject line "Online Newsletter" to amm~ammt45.or,q. We will maintain the ability to send via fax to a small list of individuals without email. If you would like to continue receiving our newsletter via fax, please call us at (651)215-4000. As we convert to this new method of distribution, we would appreciate your feedback. Please feel free to contact us with any questions, com- ments or concerns. Simply call (651)2154010 or email amm~'~am .m 145.o_r~. i :~':;~,'I ~.'-~'_'3~3"~5, <_ x,~_z ~!~ ?9__ca~_T_x _7_a~n? _z0 !~l' As~oclation of Metropolitan MuniGipeli~i¢a IVew~ F~X July f - s. 2oo2, page 2 of 2 "Redistricting" ¢ontinucd frora ~oag¢ I The 2000 census indicates that each of the Council's 16 districts should consist of 164,875 resi- dents. Current districts range in size from 140,837 (District 8) to 212,892 (District 4). The redis- tricting criteria endorsed by the Council state that districts should be drawn in a way that avoids split- ting cities (except for Minneapolis and St. Paul), and that takes into account the social, cultural, ethnic and sub-regional communities of interest existing in the region. LMC Releases 2003 LGA Estimates AMM Policy Committees Begin Meeting July 16 AMM is still seeking city staff and officials to serve on our four policy committees- Housing & Economic Development, Metropolitan Agencies, Transportation & General Government and Municipal Rev- enue & Taxation. These four committees will be developing AMM policy positions and priorities for the upcoming legislative session and for the Met Council's current work on Blueprint 2030. Elected officials and all levels of city staff are welcome to participate. Member cities may have up to two representatives on each of the four committees. Meeting dates and times are listed below. All com- mittees meet at the League of Minnesota Cities Building, 145 Uni- versity Ave. W., St. Paul. Housing & Economic Development Thursdays, 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. July 18, Aug. 8, Aug. 22, Sept. 12 and Sept. 26 The League of Minnesota Cites (LMC), with the assistance of House Research, has prepared preliminary estimates of Local Govemment Aid (LGA) for 2003. The 2003 LGA distribution will be approximately $587 million, which is $22 million more than the 2002 distribution. The increase is due to both inflation and, for some cit- ies, the addition of aid intended to compensate for the reduction in tax base due to changes in the class rate for apartment properties. A copy of the estimates is included in the LMC's 2002 Law Summa- ries, which will be mailed to all cit- ies shortly. If you have questions regarding the estimates, or would like to receive a copy, please call Gene Ranieri at (651) 215--4001. Metropolitan Agencies Tuesdays, 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. July 16, Aug. 6, Aug. 20, Sept. 10 and Sept. 24 Municipal Revenue & Taxation Tuesdays, 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. July 16, Aug. 6, Aug. 20, Sept. 10 and Sept. 24 Transportation & General Government Wednesdays, noon to 2:00 p.m. July 17, Aug. 7, Aug. 21, Sept. 11 and Sept. 25 To sign-up for a committee, please call (651) 215-4000 or email amm@amm145.org. Asf0ciation of Hetropolitan Hunicipaliticl 145 Univttsi~y Avenue West · ~ Patti, MN 55103.2044 Pl~ont: (651) 215-4000 Fttr: (651) 2~1.1299 E-mail; amrt~-~tttnml 4$.org ~IMM Fact New.,/ is fa,ced W all .4MM ciO~ rtutnagers and administrators, legislative con- tarts attd Board rn~mbet$, Please share this fa.~ with yottt mayors, councllmerabers and staff to keep them abreast of in~portant metro city issues. £08 JO Egg ~ud uosu~H s!pu~ 8Z90Z,U~§~6_ <- x~j o!A 55:50:TT ZOOZ ZO lnr LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, June 26, 2002 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster · Annual Board Lake Inspection Tour (Wednesday July 10th) READING OF:.MI.NUTES. 6/12102 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items 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, PUBLIC HEARINGS · Lafayette Club, new multiple dock license application to expand a conforming multiple dock facility from 23 to 24 Boat Storage Units (BSU's). 1. Public Hearing (Continued from 6/12/02 Regular Board Meeting) 2. Discussion and/or Consideration John & Kathy Aquilina, variance application from LMCD Code for side'setback and dock length requirements. 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration Fredrick & Michelle Packovsky, variance application from LMCD Code for side setback and dock length requirements, plus an adjusted dock use area. 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration 1. LAKE USE & RECREATION A) Discussion of Lake Minnetonka Wetland Protection Ordinance Amendment; B) (*) Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Water Patrol Significant Activity Report; C) Additional Business; WATER STRUCTURES A) (*) Robert Stierna, staff recommends Board approval of $188 of $250 application deposit submitted for approved dock length variance; -3357- B) Additional Business; 3. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers (6/1§/02 - §/30/02); B) (*) May financial summary and balance sheet; C) Review of draft 2003 LMCD Budget; D) Additional Business; 4. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A) Update of "Let's Keep Zebra Mussels Out of La'ke Minnetonka" PrOject' (hand.oUt); B) Additional Business; 5. SAVE THE LAKE 6. ADMINISTRATION 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10.ADJOURNMENT -3358- DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wed, Besday, June 12, 2002 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Foster called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Members Present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Lili McMillan, Orono; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Paul Knudsen, Minnetrista; Tom Seuntjens, Minnetonka Beach; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Members absent: Orr Bi, rrna' Mound; KatY van Hercke, Minnetonka; Sheldon Wart, Greenwood, Victoria has nO appointed Board member CHAIR ANNOU'NCEMENTS, Chair Foster Foster announced that the annual Board Lake Inspection Tour is planned for Wednesday, July 12th, with a departure time of approximately 5 p.m. He stated that he would finalize the departure location and proposed itinerary with the Executive Director in the ..near future. READING oF MIN.UTES-~ 5/8/02 LMCD..Regular Board Meeting 5/22/02' j. MOD RegUlar Board Meeting MOTION: Skramstad moved, McMillan seconded to approve the minutes fromthe 5/8/02 Regular Board Meeting as · submitted VOTE: Ayes (8), Abstained (2, Ambrose and Seuntjens); motion carded. MOTION: NelS°n.moved, KnUdsen seConded to approve the minutes from the 5/22/02 Regular Board Meeting as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMEN~S- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda · 'Mr: Pa'~i ~.~e~:ker, ~!.925 BYron circle, pro¥ided, a~'Update' to the BoardOna docking siiuati°n he.~ad with the abdttii~g. ~ig~or to thenOrth: ~He circ~!~ted a~d~aWing that identified docking aPProved for.a varian~e by the District~at~'th~ :~° sites and the cu~ent do~kinst~iiatioii °fhis abUtting neighbor to the nOrth, noting that it is not c~nsistent with the.approved varian~ order.. The c~rent.dock installed has.a canopy and it encroaches in the 20' minimU~ Side set~ack requi~re~ent from 'the adjUSted d°C~~us~~ areal~'~ He. rep&rted it to the ~bistrict,.~office this spring and ~mis !a~gu~ e in the cOde· ~at allo,~s ithe Dist~ct.t~ remove ii'legail stmctu ms after they hdve been notified at least 48 hOu~ in. advance He concluded ~at he wa~'i~°k'ing for aSsistanCe from the B°ard On the situation. -3359- ~a~k~ MinrietOnka Conservation District · P~egui~r ~oa~d Meeting June 12, 2002 Foster asked for an update fr(~m NybeCk on the situation. Page2 Nybeck stated that the sites in questio~ are the first ~o propeftie~ north of the Nedegard twinhomes on the west end of St. Albans Bay. The Board granted a variance fo¢these two sites in 1991, with the common side site line being deflected to the north approximately 23 degrees because of the pie-shaped lot with lines that converge in front of the Boedecker site. The dock at the abutting property to the north of Mr. Boedecker had a~ permanent dock through the 2001 season; however, the seasonal dock installed for the 2002 season is not'consistent with the approved variance. He believed that staff has exhausted the District philosophy of volunt,ary compliance and the neighbor needs to move the dock in compliance with the aPprOved vadanC~ o~'make application tQ amend the previouslY approved variance So that the BOard can consider it, If neither One of these ~ptions is complied with by the abutting neighbor in question, he believed that it should get tumed over to the District prosecuting attbrney for criminal Prosecution. LeFevere stated that it has been the Distdct policy to secure volunta~ compliance whenever Possible without incurring legal fees for criminal or civil proceedings. There are instances where legal procedures cannot be avoidedi generally criminallYfor doCking situationsl The'Board co~Jid direct.Starf t0'~ deal with the PUbliC ~ifferent y than it has in the past to secure voluntary compliance, noting that this could create mbre'tensiOn With thepublic to correct situations. He addressed the Code provision referenced by Mr. Boedecker that allows the Distdct to impound structures after a short notification period, noting that it could expoSe the DiStii~Ct't6 legal ii;abilit~ ahd' is generally reserved for public safety purposes. He stated that he was unaware of the Distdct ever utilizing this Code provision. ' . Foster stated there have been cases in the past where the Distdct has allowed structures. in non.cOmpliance to continue while the Board was considering a pending application, which in this case wou d be a variance application. He asked the Board if they would like the d0ckin non-c6mPliance tobe m0~e~"b:~c~in %~Plianbe with the approved variance order while the Board was considering an application fOr variance. The ConSensus of the Board waS that staff had estabiiShed a Process'to bring the docking s!!uation into compliance with the variance order and that it. should be followed through, Any further disCUsSiOn of this docking situation should take place under "New Business" later in the meeting. Mr. Ralph Hatch, 4000 King Point Road, provided the Board another wetland protection option for the District to COnsider that he believed Would satisfy the District, the reSidents Who already have dockS°~ Six Mile creekl and Upland Farms. Gilman arrived at 7:19 p.m, Mr. Tom Elsen, 4280 Northem Road in Deephaven, stated that he rePresehted th~; Wayzat~r yabht Club this past winter on applications considered by the Board of Directorsand that he wanted to ~espond to the update,of wayzata BOard M~rnber Bob AmbroSe a[t~e ~/'2~02 Regdjar Meeting, HePmvided a ve'~j.'d~e~iew of his comments Pertaining to this in a letter, daied .6/1~021 noting'thatrhe WOUld ik~'~'io %i~the ~:e:~o~ Ambrose stated that his cOmmentS at the"~/22/02 Regular'Board Meeting were ·based on minuie~ and let{ers be~een the Wayzata yabht Club and thb"City of WaYZata. ~here are c ear difference§ between the two Parties oh whe'ther the proposed jib crane reviewed ~ the BOard ih February required a Pe~it.from the Ci~ ~f ~ayzata. He believed that the B0'ar~tequested the Wa~ata.~aCht CiU§ :io resolve the:~en~'ing ~e~it iequir~m.entS for the proposed jib crane, with the City of Wayzata requesting a conditional use permit for the project. The waYZata Yacht Club, noting they have taken the position that a conditional use permit is not required for the jib crane has -3360- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District " Regular Board Meeting Juhe 12, 2002 page 3 ini, tiated no contact or applications for the.proPosed jib crahe, The Pi~ose of the uPd~ie at thelast meeting was t°'info~~ the aoard"~f t~e status of th~diScusSi~p$ with the Wayz'~ YaCht Club. He ~ncluded that a meeting with rep~S~tative~'i°f bbth th~ wayzata Yacht ~i~lb and 'the Ci'~~ of WaYzat~ was conduct~d on june 11th to oat a bettel' un~tan~i~: Of the iSsd~, ·; " : ~ ' ' ~ Skramstad %ked fo~'an update from Elsen on the status of'the proposed jib crane Pr~ct Elsen stated that the Wayzata Yacht Club was currently in diSCussions with the City of Wayzata to resolve the issue on whether a conditional use permit is required Babcock stated that he would prefer to allow the Wayzata Yacht Club and the City of Wayzata to resolve this issue. The District has already given conditional approval of the proposed jib crane and it is not the intention of the DistriCf to be in the' middle of the discussions or dei~berati0ns. He cautioned Ambrose that Board had not taken a position on whether a COnditional Use permit for the proposed project was required, noting that this was deferred to the Wayzata Yacht Club and the City of Wayzata. Mr. M~rk Janda, 8361 W. 109th Street in Bloomington, further updated the Board on the Wayzata Yacht Club situation. He stated that he was the Wayzata Yacht ClUb Commodore and he provided an update on the June 11~ meeting b~tween Wayzata Yacht Club and City of Wayzata officials, noting that the issues were discussed and that there is a disagreement on whether a conditional use permit was required for the proposed jib crane. Legal counsel for the Wayzata Yacht Club has stated that he believes the proposed jib crane should not require a conditional use permit and that there was a need for further discussion between legal counsel for both parties. Babcock questioned how the Wayzata Yacht Cub concluded that conditiona! permit for the proposed jib. crane was'hot required from the City of waYZata' after the lengthy discuSSions of What was required by the Distdct and other governmental agencies before construction could commence. Ambrose stated that he was encouraged'that legal counsels for the two parties were talking and that 'he hoped a common understanding could be reached. The view of the City of Wayzata is that city ordnances need to be complied with, whether it is a pdvate yacht club, private business, or private residence. CONSENT AGENDA; Consent agenda items: with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requeSts ~liScuSSibn 0f ~ny' ite~, in whiCh case the tam'Will be remOved from the consent agenda. Nelson moved, Skramstad seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Ayes (9), Abstained(I, Babcock); motion carried. Items so approved include: 2A, 2002 Multiple Dock Licenses, sta~ ~e,.~mmends approval of 2002 renewal without change applications for Harrison Harbor Twinhome Associa%n' Grandview POint Association, a:nd Minh~tbnk~i'-I~0Wer s~Oaidi;°~, and'2D, RObert~tlerna, staff reCommends Board approval of $'188 of $~50 apPliCatibn depoiit sbbmiffed fo;r apPr0:Ved dock leng~ variancel PUBLIC 'HEARING' ,, ' Lafayeffe Ci'Ub, new muitipie dock 'license application to expand a conforming multiple dock facility from 23 to 24 Boat storage Units (BSU's), Fo~ter Opened the Pu'bliC headng at 7:48 p.m. and asked for background or comments from the applicant or the pulpilY. -3361 - Lake M|nnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting ' June 12, 2002 = ~ i~age 4 Nybeck stated that a question on whethe,.r a mandat~ry Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) needed to be c°nduct6d fOr th~ ~rop°sed aPplicati'~n was raisei~ in the staff memo. The proposed change W0Uld tdgger a mandatOry EAW b=~use it Wo'ui~ jncreas~"dock si~Ctbre''and maneuvering s~a~ square f0-°.tage at th~ faci ty If the applicant WoUld like to a:VOid the m~ndatory EAW requirement, they wOuld: ne~t0 am~rid the neW multiple dock license application so that dock structure and maneuvering space square footage remains the same or is reduced from the approved site plan. Because there was no representation at the meeting for the applicant, he recommended that~'~he BOard consider cOntifiUing th~ 'public hearing to the 6/26/02 Regular Board Meeting to allow the applicant to address t~e mandatory EAW issue. Foster asked if there was anyone fm~ the public that wanted to comment on the proPOSed application. There were no comments. MOTION: Gilman moved., Babcock seconded to continue the new multiple docklicense application public hearing for the Lafayette Club to the June 26, 2002 Regular Board Meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Foster asked if the District could waive the requirement for a mandatory EAW fOr the proposed application. LeFevere stated that the District cannot waive the state requirement when the dock structure and maneuvering space trigger the need for a mandatory EAW. Seuntjens asked if the mandatory EAw had been cleady communicated with the applicant in advance. Harper Stated that EAWcalculationS were not calculated until the staff memo for this public hearing was prepared Nybeck stated that he would be in contact with Scott Bremer ih the next few days to exPlain the status of the proposed application and the potential need to conduct a mandatory EAW. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Three Rivers Park District, 2001 Water Quality of Lake Minnetonka Repod presented by John Baden. FOster stated that John Baden from the Three Rivers Park DiStrict WaS in attendance to revieW the 2001 Water Quality Of Lake Minnetonka Reportlr He Welcomed Baden on behalf of the Board and aSked for an overview. 'Baden · made. the follOwing comments: 16 bays were monitored in 2001, n°ting that th!s ~d 15eon done for. the Past three years,.'~ Of these 16 bays, i3 of them have been mor~itored for the'~)ast ~ev%: ye-arsl He repod~ that ~h~re was both good and not so good. news relating to Waterquality of Lake'Minnetonka in 20011 He reviewed a graph that summarized the phosphorous contents for the 16 bays monitored,, noting that seven of the bays did not meet the phosphorous criteria t0 suppod full use and other bays were approaching it. Based on this assessment, I:ake Uinnetonka in 2~i was poorer n water~qua ity than in past years. He reviewed graphs that summarized Chlorophyll A, Total Phosphorous, and Secchi Disk reading on Lake Minnetonka in 2001. Nine of the bays had phosphorous and' chlorophyll A levels that exceeded good water quality conditions that were suitable for swimming. He padly attributed this to water sampling being conducted on poorer water quality bays. -3362- 'Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting JUne 12, 2002 Page 5 · In past years.,. Halsteads Bay hashad the poorest water quality on Lake. Uinnetonka. In'2001, the poorest water quality on Lake Uinnetonka for phosphorous, and chlorophyll A'levels, plus sec, chi disk readings, was in Jennings Bay. He reviewed a phenomenon in 2001 that the Water quality of bays in Lake Minnetonka was poorest in the spring and improved as the summer progressed. He believed that higher snow cover from the previous winter contributed to this. In Jennings Bay and Other poor water quality bays, water quality did not have the same phenomenon. These bays had poor water quality, in the'spring and continued to decline during the summer:.. This past wnter, the MCWD convened panel of experts across the U.S. to discuss Jennings Bay and m Iockinto what could be done. toimproveits water, quality~ The data collected-thepast-seven years for this project, especially Jennings Bay, was shared with these experts and they complimented the data collected. The panel complimented the District for having the foresight to collect this data record... · He updated the Boardon the phosphorous-~free fertilizer law that was passed this past session. .While this legislation was being considered, the Three Rivers Park District was monitoring the effectiveness of the phosphorous-free ordinance in the Cities of Plymouth and Maple Grove the last year. He reviewed the methodology used in the study, noting that the focuS of the study Was evaluating the phosphorous concentrations of runoff in selected neighborhoods. Plymouth has had a phosphorous-free ordinance since 1995 and Maple Grove does not have one. The ~n~lUSion of this study was that the phosphorus concentrations in the neighborhoods of Maple Grove were 23% higher than in Plymouth. He reported that the nitrogen concentrations in Plymouth were slightly higher than in Maple Grove. Further work has been coordinated with the Elm Creek Watershed District on Fish and Weaver Lakes in Maple Grove, noting that there were slight improvements to the eutrophic index pdmadly due to funds invested by Maple Grove on upgrades to detention ponds to make them more effective. During the same time pedod, the City of Plymouth has spent no funds and water quality has improved on Medicine Lake enough for the MPCA to remove it from the list Of impaired water bodies. He believed that the phosphorous-free ordinance in Plymouth has contributed to these .improvements ' · He thanked the Board for their support in the phosphorous-free fertilizer and:Lake Minnetonka water quality sampling project. He entertained questions or comments from the Board. Skramstad asked Baden if there were a couple things the District could do to improve water quality on.Lake Minnetonka. Barren stated that he believed'the'District could get involved on twO issues. First, there is a need to get involved with small feed lots or hobby farms around Lake Uinnetonka. Second, there is a need to get a handle on' intema oading on Ha Steads Bay, Jennings Bay, and other shalloW'bays on Lake Minnetonka. Foster ihanked Baden on.behalf of the Board of Directors. Additional Business. There was nO additional business. WATER STRUCTURES B. City of Deephaven, consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of special density license and temporary dock length variance applications. Foster entertained comments or a motion for the draft Findings of Fact and Order. -3363- 'Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 12, 2002 page 6 MOTION: McMillan moved, Seuntjens seconded to approve the Findings of. Fact and Order as submitted for approval of the Deephaven special density license and temporary dock length variance applications. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance extending a moratorium on the erection, construction or establishment of new docks, moorings or launching ramps on certain parts of Lake Uinnetonka. Foster entertained comments or a motion for the draft ordinance amendment. MOTION: Babcock moved, Nelson seconded to approve first reading of the ordinance amendment with an expiration date of 8/1/02, to waive second and third readings; and adopt the ordinance amendment. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. E. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 3. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers (6/1/02 - 6/15/02). Skramstad reviewed the audit of vouchers as submitted,. MOTION: Skramstad moved, McMillan seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for the pedod of 6/1/02 - 6/15/02 as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Review of draft 2003 LMCD Budget. Skramstad asked Nybeck to update the Board on the draft 2003 LMCD Budget precess; Nybeck stated that the Board first reviewed the draft 2003 LMCD BUdget at the 5/22/02 Regular Meeting. This version was forwarded to the member cities after this meeting and the cities were notified that comments are due in the DistriCt office by no later than June 19~. A meeting Was conducted in the Distdct office on June 5· to review the draft 2003 LMCD Budget, noting that there was representation from the cities of Deephaven, Greenwood, and Tonka Bay, as well as Board members Skramstad and Burma. Final, review of the draft 2003 LMCD Budget is scheduled for the 6/26/02 Regular Meeting, with the approved budget to be forwarded to the cities by the July 1~ deadline established in the District's state enabling legislation. Additional Business. There was no additional business. -3364- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 12, 2002 4. EWMIE~OTICS TASK FORCE 2002 EWM Harvestin.q Pro.qram Page 7 Suerth asked for an update on the 2002 EWM Harvesting Program. Nybeck Stated that the' harvesting equipment for the EWM Harvesting program was launched on June 11th, with training conducted the day before.. Both launching and harvesting tO date have gone relatively Well. Harvesting has commenced in Carmans and Old Channel Bays, with harvesting in upcoming days planned consistent with the Lower Lake North b~tion, The Crew has done a gOOd job With the majOdty of them returning from the 200i season. Harper, the 2002 EWM Project Manager, will be Working with the crew the first two weeks of the season to ensure that the season is kicked off propedy and to set the proper tone for the remainder of the season. Update on "Let's Keep Zebra Mussels Out of Lake Minnetonka" proiect. Suerth stated that he had been in contact with a Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) representative regarding their fund ddve for this project. To date, there, have been a number of promises with a small amount of funds committed for this project for the 2002 season. The Distdct has committed $8,000 of funds for this project in 2002 and he encouraged proceeding with the pilot project for public access inspectionS, on a scaled-back basisl io learn from the experience this year. He suggested that it might be appropriate to proceed with the project in 2002 by hiring one person for it. He asked the Board for their comments on this request. Nybeck stated that the MN DNR had communicated some questions and issues Pertaining to this Program, noting that there has not been much progress in addressing them with the MN DNR. Foster stated that he would have trouble with the District spending funds on this project when the LMA committed to match the funds and it appeared that this might not occur in 2002. He added that he would like the questions raised by the MN DNR addressed before the.District proceeds With spending funds for this pi'oject. Suerth stated that he would like the support of the Board to move forward with the program on a scaled-back, pilot program for the 2002 season, Babcock stated that he would prefer the Board grant conceptual approval at this point and then get the MN DNR to commit to this project, with final approval after the MN DNR has committed to the project. He expressed cen~;m'with timing for the projectin 2002 and :the impact:it might have'in 2003 and beyond. Ne!son,,stated.that he would like answers to .,the,questions raised by the MN DNR before proceeding with spending funds on this project in 2002. He expressed concern that the District is paying for the project with' the, LMA financially participating in it. LeFevere stated that he would be surprised that the MN DNR would participate in this project on a verbal basis. Based on past experiences, he believed that the MN DNR would need a contract or an agreement if they dec de to participate in this project in 2002. He believed that there might some additional work and communications that need to be done by both the,District and MN DNR.,staff members:. Suerth made a motion to direct staff and Suerth to proceed with the hiring and training of one employee with the ,,MN DNR for the 2002 pilotprogram The motion failed, due to-the lack ora second. -3365- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ,, , Regular Board Meeting June '12, 21)02 Page 8 Babcock stated that he would like the MN DNR to respond to whether they can commit to tile projeCt,arid Whether they want to commit to the project in 2002. He suggested that these questions could be addressed in the next few weeks and further discussed at the next Board meeting. He stated that he might be willing to givec0ncePtual approval for the project at this point to allow staff to work out the details with the MN DNR. MOTION: McMillan moved, Skramstad seconded to approve conceptual approval to allow staff to approach the MN DNR regarding the possibility of hiring andtraining one MN DNR employee for the 2002season, with a maximum of $8,000, to inspect for zebra mussels on Lake Minnetonka at selected public accesses, subject to review by the Board at an upcoming meeting. VOTE: Ayes (9), Nayes (1, Gilman); motion carried. 5. ADMINISTRATION There was no discussion. 6, SAVE THE LAKE McMillan stated that it appeared that the "Solar-Light" pilot project was going well based on the comments being .received. Foster stated that staff had been informed by a representative of the MN DNR that the Solar lights should flash and that he would check further into it. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck reported on the following: · The lake level as of 6/10/02 was 929.47', with a discharge of 75 c.f:s. · There were two comments from the public on the solar lights in the handout folders. · There was a copy of the 6/4/02 new article from the Lakeshore Weekly News that summarized the 5/22/02 Regular Board Meeting. 8. OLD BUSINESS gm Skramstad provided an update.On his communications with Hennepin County Commissioner Mary T~rmbOmino regarding long-term funding for the increased presence of Water Patrol Deputies on Lake Minnetonka. He stated that he sent her a summary of the results of the projeCt during the 2001 season and that he w0iJId keej~ the Board informed on,his discussions with her. ~,~'~' '. NEW BUSINESS rpauI Boedecker Discussion Boedecker requested the Board to direct staff.not to furthetdelay resolving this dOCking situation by allowing his neighbor to submit a vadance application to amend the vadance already approved. The consensus of the Board was that it appeared the dock installed by the abutting property Owner to the north was not consistent with the vadance approved in 1991. The Board stated that there was nothing to prevent this -3366- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 12, 2002 Page 9 property owner from making application to amend the variance; however, staff was urged to correct the situation this season by having the neighbor move his dock. The Board discussed the concept that dock installers on Lake Minnetonka might need to be licensed as professional contractors by the District in the future, noting that staff might want to assemble a meeting with them in the near future to send this message that they need to install docks in compliance with Code or go through the proper process to get a variance from Code. Nybeck pointed out that Mr. Boedecker currently has a canopy at his dock, noting that it is prohibited by the variance approved in 1991. LeFevem Stated that it is quite possible that the abutting neighbor to the no~ might submit a varian~ application to amend the previously approved variance; however, not move the dock. He believed that the prosecuting attomey would advise the Board that the District would not receive a sympathetic hearing from the court on a criminal prosecution when the District had a pending variance application that might make the illegal dock in question legal. Nybeck stated that a letter had been prepared to be sent to the abutting property owner to the north that either the dock needed to be adjusted in compliance with the 1991 approved variance, without a canopy, or he needed to submit a variance application to amend the 1991 approved variance. A deadline of July 1st will be established in the letter, with criminal prosecution planned if neither one of these options is complied with by the deadline. Babcock stated that all parties included in the approved 1991 variance should be in compliance with conditions of the Order, including no canopies. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjoumed at 9:15 p.m. Albert O. Foster, Chairman Lili McMillan, Secretary -3367- BOARD MEMBERS LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. · DEEPHAVEN. MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 952/745-0789 · FAX 952/745-9085 Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR June 27, 2002 Bed Foster Chair, Deephaven Craig Nelson Vice Chair, Spring Park Lili McMillan Secretary, Orono Tom Skramstad Treasurer, Shorewood Bob Ambrose Wayza[a Douglas E, Babcock Tonka Bay On/Burma Mound Tom Gilman Excelsior Paul Knudse~ Minnetrista Tom Seuntjens Minnetonka Beach Herb J. Suerth Woodland K~aty Van Hercke Minnetonka Sheldon We~t Greenwood TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LMCD Member Cities Greg Nybeck, Executive Director ~'~ ~~ Adopted 2003 LMCD Budget Enclosed is a copy of the 2003 LMCD Budget, which was recently adopted and certified by the LMCD Board. Minnesota State Statute 103B.635, Subd. 1 requires the LMCD 'Board, on or before July 1 of each year, to prepare and submit a detailed budget of the District's needs for the next calendar year to the governing body of each municipality in the District with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each municipality. The 2003 LMCD Budget consists of these parts: 1. One page that outlines the city-by-city levy allocation 2. Three pages of budget detail 3. Two pages of budget assumptions 4. One page of notes (Appendix A) Let me provide some background on how LMCD activities are funded. The LMCD maintains five reserve fund accounts (Administration, EWM/Exotics, Save the Lake, New Equipment Acquisition, and Equipment Replacement). Administration, EWM Exotics, and New Equipment Acquisition funds are derived from tax doll-am, which are levied to the 14 member cities. Administration and EWM/Exotics funds are used for operating purposes. New Equipment Acquisition funds have been eStablished to either replace or refurbish depreciated capital equipment used in conjunction with the Eurasian Watermilfoil harveSting program. The levy for the adopted 2003 L'MCD Budget will, therefore', be allocated for these three reserve fund accounts. The. remaining two reserve funds, Save .the Lake and Equipment Replacement, are funded by private donations, not from member cities' contributions. 50% Recycled Content 20% Post 3onsumer Waste Back inthe early 1990's, the member cities agreed with the LMCD to place money in reserve funds for both the Administration and EWM/Exotics programs. This was done to provide financial resources in the event that something out-of-the-ordinary occurred ina given year. The agreement stated that the Administration fund should have a six-month reserve. (50% of the annual budget) and the EWM/Exotics program should have a 12-month reserve (100% of the annual budget). At year-end in Web Page Address: http://www.lmcd.org E-mail Address: Imcd @lmcd..org -3368- LAKE'MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2001, the reserve fUnd balances for Administration and EWM/EX°tics were below these levels' (a 33% reserve for the Administrative Fund, which should be 50%, and a' 38% reserve for the EWM/Exotics FUnd, which should be 100%). Expenditures in the 2003 LMCD Budget remained relatively constant when compared'to the 2002' LMCD Budget.. ExpenditureS inthe 2003' LMCD Budget ($427,295) decreased approximately 1.5% from the 2002 LMCD Budget ($433,921). The levy to the member cities in the 2003 LMCD Budget ($244,995) has remained relatively constant compared to the 2002 LMCD Budget ($244,621). if your city has an objection to the adopted 2003 budget, please let me know. We are glad to discuss this further, and are required by statute to schedule a public hearing on this matter, if requested. On behalf of the LMCD Board, I would like to thank all 14-member communities for their continued participation and support for District related activities. Feel free to contact me at the District office if you have questions or concerns. -3369- m,.D m 8~8 <-- ..<0 -3370- )> 0 7 m m r--~x ,,05'0 O~ i'- -, - u m -~o__~og ~>82~' ~-~ 0 ::3 0 --.m ¢:: D. _. > =. ~m >5' ~ z o × ~ ~'~' 0) 0{33 O~ O~ 0 000 ~00 O0 ~ 00 O000 ~ O00000 ~ O0 O0 O0 000000 0~ ~o ~00 00~ ~00000~ rn ~.~ ~°z 0 '--I --IZ 0~000~0 ~=~ 0 ~,'1 ~Eo8 ~000000~ ~00 O0 ~00000 ~o oo ~ ~00 O0 ~ ~000000~ -3371 - r; . . .o', ~ ~oo -..q o o o o o-o'o ~ %,',-o 0 0 0 0 000 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ooooooo~ oooo~g§ ° I; ~ O1000 O1 .-a, 0 CO (O O0 CO 0 CO 0 0 01 C~40 0 0 o 'o o'o'o 'o 'o-o 0 0 000 0 00 0 00000 00000 0 O0 O~ 4~ 0004~ -A 00 ~ ~ 4~ 04~ b b b b bbb ~ bb 0 0 0 0 000 0 O0 0 00000 00000 0 O0 ¢~ 0000000000 CO 0 0 00000000000 00 ,-~ I~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 000 0 O0 0 0 00000 00000 0 O00 ~~ 0~0~ 0~0 ~ 0 0 ~0000000000~0 0 0 0000000000 00 ~ -3372- O0 000000~ ~ O0 0000000 ~ 0,3 0) %,1 C) 01 01C:) CO 0030,) 0*'W..-~1%..3 01 00101 0000 0 000 0000 0 °~°~°°~ ~ oooooo§ ~ 000 0000 ~ -3373- -3374- m -3375- -3376- ,Mix Masters iscover the secrets to success with mixed-use developments. Find a tired corner on a busy intersection and you may be looking at the next location for an urban village. Urban villages, mixed-use developments that bring together multi-family housing, retail and services in one project, f'n'st appeared in inner cities about 15 years ago. Now a popular method of breathing vitality into a neighborhood, they have migrated to the suburbs, where they provide answers to a variety of metro challenges. "The best of these developments tend to make more vibrant, self-contained communities," says David Graham, AIA, a founding principal of Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc., Minneapolis. Graham leads the residential design work at the 75-person finn, which has designed several developments that combine multi-housing and commercial space. Mixed-use projects in suburban areas emerged as a trend in the past five years, says Rick Fenske, vice president of Maxfield Research, a Minneapolis Firm that specializes in market feasibility studies on housing. He notes that a village provides identity and a focal point for community events in a suburb that lacks a defined downtown. "They're still not widespread," Fenske says, "No doubt you'll see more, and they should be common in he next 15 years," /leanwhfle, urban villages have evolved with 'ariety. Today, the housing may be for the general ~opulation or seniors, for rental or ownership or >otb. It may be separate but integrated with the retail or be in a tower above the retail. It also may include office space. Graham and Fenske agree that urban villages offer one solution to a number of trends that signal a need for higher density, mixed-use housing developments: Sprawl prevention. "There's a basic perception nationally that we can't continue to consume land the way we have;' Graham says. "With urban villages, you can build the same number of dwellings on half the amount of land." Among the benefits are lower costs for infrastructure and less impact on the environment. Redevelopment. "With the in-fill phenomenon, cities want to rebuild their downtown and establish a sense of who they are as a community; Graham says. "What better way than with mixed use. You take an underutilized site, like surface parking, and thoughtfully integrate it into the heart of new projects." Affordable housing. Higher density .ia.more affordable in both rental and owner-occupied housing. The dwelling units are the same, but public and private partnerships develop incentives for affordable units. Transit-oriented housing. A project built near public transportation reduces reliance on automobiles. Graham says that makes housing more affordable because residents can save the cost of owning and maintaining a vehicle and apply it toward housing costs. Despite their appeal, these projects pose challenges. Redevelopment projects are expensive because existing property must be purchased and razed and may require soil corrections. They also involve more approvals red tape and neighbors often resist plans for change. However, local government ten& to see the long- term advantages. These projects replace underutilized and worn property with dense development that introduces new styles of housing and new retail activity. They also attract empty- nesters and young professionals who don't have kids, don't want a big yard or don't want a long commute. -3377- For an urban village to succeed, Fenske and Graham say, the project needs several fact0m crgood location. Adequate street access and itical mass are essential. So is a large site. Graham suggests a mirdmum of five acres. A joint vision. The city, developer, market analysis from and design team need to pursue a viable and compatible mix. Use restraint to avoid the commercial space dominating the housing. With redevelopment, putting commercial space on the street level and housing above creates a pedestrian-friendly streetscape that doesn't compete with housing. The right retail. "You want retailers to be a community draw with an anchor like a restaurant or specialty retailers to bring people in from a larger area," Fenske say. "To create excitement, you do want mass appeal." Design quality. The creation of a master plan that provides a strong public realm, creatively intega'afing streets and blocks, green spaces, and architecture is essential to the success urban villages. Well designed green space - one advantage gained from higher density - can create a system of parks and trails for running, walking and bike. Space that showcases public activities is important, too. The housing might feature taller ce'2ings, communication technology for a home office, and more units with their own front door. Fenske says many residents want the same features they would Fred in a Single-family home - ample square footage, high finish in fixtures, quality appliances, hardwood floors, marble countertops and a two- car garage. City incentives. Those incentives often make the housing and commercial space affordable for the local market. "Without assistance of the city, a lot of these projects wouldn't be feasible," Graham says. As urban villages become more common in cities and first-ring suburbs, Graham outlying communities will recognize their merits, too. D t m e n s i o n s S u m m e r 2 0 0 2 -3378- CITY OF MOUND July 3, 2002 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 W ER: www.cityofmound.com Joanne Brandt 2609 Grove Lane Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Joanne, The Mound City Council discussed you letter regarding Mound redevelopment its June 25, 2002 meeting. They have asked that I respond to your comments. Providing a variety of housing options to Mound area residents is a priority for the Mound City Council. They feel that is being achieved through the redevelopment of the various districts currently underway or in the planning. Yes, the Langdon District will have apartment rentals, with the rents ranging from $900- 1,300 per month. For those not wishing to rent, the MetroPlains Development on the former school site, Village on the Bay, will have 99 for-sale townhomes and condos, starting at about $220,000. The Senior housing expected on the west side of Commerce Boulevard provide still another housing alternative and enables life-long residents of Mound to stay in Mound. Seniors generally enjoy being close, to downtown amenities, since the proximity enables them to walk to services. The main levels of buildings constructed on Commerce Boulevard and Auditor's Road will provide a myriad of commercial and retail opportunities for all. When the redevelopment is complete, it won't look like Wayzata or Excelsior or Maple Grove. It will be unique to Mound and it will be a place where people will be attracted to living, working and shopping. The developments described above take in about 40-50 acres of land in the downtown. It would be a huge undertaking for one individual or firm to redevelop such a huge expanse of land. ,Therefore, the Council thought it wise to consider development proposals that would include multiple developers. Under the umbrella of Landform Development, there are four additional sub-developers: Wara (commercial), Brenshell Homes (housing), Stonewood (housing), Bloomquist (hotel). That is in addition to MetroPlains Development on the Old School site (retail and housing) and Dietrich (post office). It is also expected that this mix will result in creative and interesting results! Most people would agree, Joarme, that the boarded up buildings on Commerce Boulevard are less than attractive. Had Gramercy Corporation stayed in place as Mound's developer, the former Longpre Building might have been gone by now. But life's obstacles cannot usually be foreseen, and now it must sit there until our current development team takes down the whole block. The alternative is for the City to remove it, which poses some serious logistical issues, and would cost in the area of $100,000. The good news is that the new Landform development proposal also includes taking down the former Williams Shoe Store. Both buildings could be replaced in the next year and a half, or so. Page: Two Date: July 3, 2002 Subj: Redevelopment response Finally, you are correct in that Mayor Pat Meisel owns some of the land in the Lake Langdon District. However, she has made great efforts to disassociate herself from the decision-making surrounding that district. She avoids discussion by either absenting herself from the meeting or stepping down from her position as Mayor. She also abstains from voting on issues, involving the Lake Langdon: District. In fact,. allegations of Conflict of Interest regarding Pat Meisel were the subject of an independent investigation and Mayor Meisel was found absolved of any conflict. I can assure you that any intent to profit is far exceeded by Mayor Meisel's greater desire to benefit Mound and its residents. Joanne; the plans for the redevelopment of Lake Langdon, Auditor's Road, Lost Lake and South Commerce Boulevard Districts are in the conceptual stage. Much could change over the next few months as the plans are solidified. The current plan is on display in the lobby of City Hall. You are invited to view them, and I would be happy to explain the details as we know them today. I invite your visit. I will be available to meet with you after July 15. Please call me at 472-0609. Sincerely, Kandis Hanson City Manager -3380- Page 1 of 2 Kandis M. Hanson From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: "joanne Brandt" <Joanne. Brandt@genmllls.com> <KandisHanson@cityofmound.corn> Wednesday, June 19, 2002 1:32 PM anabnr2.gif; Nature Bkgrd.jpg Thoughts about City Development A few things I'd like to share with you, as a resident of Mound. disappointed, to hear of the new developments for the city. I was very Using Lake Langdon for apartments..is..,absur..d!!!L,.,Why,use,abeautiful na resource for transient apartment-dwellers? ! know you say.they will be iuxury.....but I have never seen a luxury apartment except in New York City or L.A. Let's get real here!! Besides, there are already apartments on Lake Langdon and they don't look too hot. I like the past developers' idea better, by. putting up luxury townh°uses for permanent residents (oVer $250,000). PLEASE DO NOT PUT APARTMENTS ON LAKE LANGDON!!I!! Why do we need a "seniors" buildinf~ on the main drag? Can't we keep' the main street for upscale shopping, nice restaurants, etc.? We don't want to clutter the downtown area with apartments for Pete's Sake. The downtown area will never look or even resemble Wayzata or even Excelsior (or the new Maple Grove area). We need to rethink this plan. We need more than one developer. Last question: When are you going to tear down those horrible boarded, up buildings on 1107 They looks peutrid!! Please respond. I'd also tike my comments made known to the Mayor and to the Council. i don't care if Pat Meisel owns part of Lake Langdon, i still think it should have very upscale permanent homes on ft. Thanks for listening. ~'oanne Brandt, Staff Division Telephone Coordina?or Yopl~il' bivision/E;ener~l ~Aills ,ioanne. b~andt~nmllls.com 763-7~-4865 -3381 - 06/19/2002 r South Ninth AVenue Suite !...0! Hopkins, MN 55343 voice: (952) 94S-0246 fax: (952) 945-0102 e-maihbrimgroul~aol.com web: www. brimgroup, com Summer Issue june 2002 Vol. 1% Issue 2 Gov ce Model by iames Brimeyer Several years ago, we ran a series of four. articles in The Brim' Report based on the book Boards That Make A Difference by }ohn c~er; These articles used Carver's model for governing for public and non-prOfit bO~ds, tiHii~:Lng poli~ as a leadership tool,, focusing on results bY clarifying the org~ationts mission,'.and de~g the relationship between the Board and the Chief EXeCutive Officer. DUring this time, I was elected to the St. Louis Park City Coundl~ and introdu~d the governance model to the:organization in 1997. This governance model has remained an important tool in The Biimeyer GroUp's consulting work with city; cOttnty, school board and non-profit clients. Five years later I would like to sharewhat I have observed and learned by using this model from both sides of the table. What It Is The model provides a process, even a disdpline, of decision making to help the Board define issues and focus on desirable results. It helps the CEO and Staff by providing a methbd to identify the issues, consider the options and develop recom- mendations that meet the or§anization% mission. The model talks about a BOard focusing on the outside world and moving toward · resu. 1~' termin010~ · succinct language, and ~ is' reeogn~ed and accepted both in the community and within the organization. In' St. Louis P~k, we feell fo~ate to. have such a ~$ion: 'i,.O. ttr Community of Choice for a L~etSme. 'Coral5ined with eight guiding p~dples (Value state- . ~ent~), our ~si°n Statement is clearly defined and se~es the org~ation and the community Well. However, when lacking this guidance, the model. Can still be effective if a board- member wilt ask the following questions (at least mentally): -- Can I comfortably explain this decision to an. 8~ ~ade' civics class? --- What will our successors say about this decision five to ten years from now? If this were your mone3~ would you spend it on this program or Proposal? -- If it were free, is it still agood idea? What It Is Not The model disCuSses how Boards spen, too much time on internal matters ~ methods, structures, means (everyone know~ how to wash Windows) versus results (keep the building dean and well maintained). The model will not prevent these distractions from taldng place. It will not automatically produce better decisions ~ but it can. What It Provides The governance model, is more than strategic planning, which succeeds only by the push of individuals. The model takes control and builds the framework' to motivate the-organization by defining: ~ A sense of mission, vision, and values thaf is shared by the Board~ disci- omes. -- A high level of trust between the Board, the CEO and the staff which holds the CE(5 / staff accountable for the achievement of ends policies. -3382- The ~fCWD was established in 1 g67 by the I4N State Legislature to preserve and protect water quality and to reduce flooding of I29 lakes, numerous wetlands 8 streams; including Iffinnehaha Creek, within i~s boundaries. Its goal is to improve recreation, communities, environment and. property ~atues jbr the citizens oJ~ the entire watershed. VOL. 7,~ ISSUE 2 A PUBLICATION OF' THE HiNNEHA HA CREEK 'WATERSHED. DISTRICT (HCWD) LAKE MINNETONKA'S 3ENNINGS BAY. WATER QUALITY EXAMINED BY NATIONAL PANEL 'Value Methodology" process and recommendations will improve 3ennings Bay, Painters Creek & overall take area The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), im conjunction with District consultant HDR .Engineering of Golden ~Valle¥, sponsored a week,long symposium/pilot project about Lake Minnetonka's 3ennings Bay.water quality challenges . in late '~ebruary-l~arch. The symposium featured a national panel of experts from ~a var/ely of environmental disciplines. "Our panel of experts helped us explore cost-effective' and value-added ways to improve 3ennings Bay, while also helping us to maintain a.h.igh level of water quality and smart land use .for the rest of this landmark lake," says Glenda Spiotta, MCWD Planner and Program Manager. The event examined the important issues related to water quali62 on Lathe Minnetonka's 3ennings Bay using a.process called "Value Method0logy." Value l~ethodology is a multi-disciplinary study process focused on cost-effective ways to improve the ecological, aesthetic, and cultural values as they apply overall to Lake l~Iinnetonka and specifically to one of the lake's bigger water quality .challenges in 3~nrdngs Bay and Painters Creek. The public participated in the symposium ' · at an open house reception mid-Week with nearly '100 people in attendance. (See WaterPro pages 2-3 for detailed information, on the expert panel's findings and their recommendations.) The symposfum's national panel included experts in a variety of environmental disdplines: (frol~t l.r) Dr. $ohn Hadsea, Hinnesota'State,Unfversity; Gordon Culp, Smith Culp Con- suiting; Dr. William Walker, Environmental Engineer. (back i-r) Dr. Curtis,Richardson, Duke. University; Dr. Eric Dibble, hfissfssippf State Univer- sity; Dr. Lowell Klessig, University of Wisconsin; Dr. Eugene WelCh, UnfverMty of Washington -3383- DICK MTLLER AND PAMELA ~BLIXT ARE REAPPOINTED TO MTN.NEHAHA C. REEK WATERSHED DTSTRTCT'-S BOARD OF MANAGERS- Mi[ter returns after a prior stint on the Board while Biixt resumes her tenure as 'MCWO Board President Edina resident Dick Miller and Minneapolis resident Pamela Blixt recently were reappointed to the MCWD Board of Managers. Ms. Blkt, who was first appointed in' 1993, wilt resume her duties as the Board's President. Mr. Miller returns to the MCWD Board after serving on .it from 1985 to 1992 and fills the vacancy left by retiring 'MCWD Board member Malcolm Reid. Managers serve three- year terms and are' appointed by the Hennepin and Ca~ver..Coun~ Commissioners. "Our citizens' Board of 'Managers is 'the lifeblood of the .Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and demands'a great deal of time and service," notes Eric Evenson, MCWD District Administrator. "The reap- pointment of Para Blixt and the return of Di~k Miller to the Board will 'help maintain the District's resources while als0 helping .to info'tm and educate abou~ water quality resources. We are thankful for their services." 2 NewSplash ~ -3384- MALCOLM REID STEPS DOWN :FROM MCWD BOARD Minnetonka resident'and Gray Plant Mooty attorney lauded for accompUshmentSand service to the Oistrict and his community Minrietonka resident and Gray. Plant Mooty attorney Malcolm Reid has stepped down from the l~iinnehaha Creek Water.shed District Board of l~anagers after six .years of public service. Reid joined MCWD in 1996 with an active inter- est in en.vironmental issues and the regulatory process, serving three years as Vice President of the organization. He served two three-year terms. Two MCWD Managers are appointed by Carver County Commissioners and five am appointed by. Hennepin County Commissioners. "Malcolm always WOrked to balance' envi- ronmental concerns such as his personal allen; tion to wetlands with the concerns of the tax payer and .property owner/' notes para Blixt, President, MCWD Board of Managers. 'He was a dedicated Board member'who gave countless hours of'service in addressing the p~oblems around the Chain of Lakes in Minneapolis as well a~ the challenges in the Lake Minnetonka- area. We will miss his participation." "Public service requires new faces and enthusiasm every once in awhile so that the' process is rejuvenated," says .Reid. "I Was pleased to serve on the MCWI~ Board, which is often ahead of the curve on important environ- mental issues and solutions. I learned a' lot 'from fellow. Board members and the community,. whether it was. about issues in my o.wn commu- nity in the Minnetonka area or in the' broader reaches of the entire'Yhnnehaha Creek Water~ shed. Watershed districts are a good 'concept and a viable avenue' for citizen participation. I'm grateful for the opportunity.to be part of it." CLARA BARTON STUDENTS CREATE' sCuLPTuRE FROM "TRASH" COLLECTED ALONG LAKE HARRIET Water .quaUty project funded, by MCWO · Cynthia Krieg Memorial stewardship Fund The late CYnthia Krieg was a tireless sqpporter of environmental' water quality issues as £he former media consultant for the Minne- haha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). NOW, two years, after a Memorial Stewardship. grant program was established 'and funded in · her name by the MCWD, first and second graders at' Clara Barton Open School (4237 CoLfax Ave. South, Mpls.)'created an art sculpture out of trash, .with help from the non-profit Art~ta~ organization this spring. Working with local naturalist Karen Shragg and artist Marcia Mcl~achron, Barton students COllected 98 isounds of garbage from the shores of Lake Harriet in a recent study of v~ter quality protection. The completed sculpture is being displayed in 'neighborhood coffee houses and 'at Barton. "Young students got a hands-on lesson in the kinds of junk that hurt their favorite lakes anCl streams. They also recycled trash' from out of the ecosystem, .and learned about public art in .the process;" says. Susan Cairn, MCWD Cynthia Krieg Memorial Stewardship Fund Program Coordinator. The'next call 'for applications will begin in August 2002 for the Cynthia Krieg Memorial Stewardship Fund. Recipients wilt be announced tater in the fall. To receive an application, Contact the MCWD office at 952-471-0590, or online www.~nnehahacreek.org. Clara Barton students and artist .~farcia HcEachran fit HfnneaP ous learned how' art and the envfranrnent can work together as theY created theft own "~trash sculpture." The project was ~unded by the. HCWD's Cynthia Krfeg Afemorfal StewcirdsMp Fund; -3385- 3 NewSplash ' PHOSPHOROUS-.REDUC ON 'TI'PS: MCWD MAYORS'AND CITIZENS SHOw I-iOW Mayors in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, McWD and' l~inneapoLis.Park and Recreation .Board members and" Hopkins High School Freshwater Academy students volunteered Saturday May 18,. to show how citizens can contribute to improving water quality by keeping phosphorous, a majo.r pollutant, from storm water mn-off. The participants demon- mated environmentally safeWays to wash cars On the grass, fe~Lize .lawns with zero-phosphorous fertiUzer, rake and · Compost [eaves and grass, and pick, up pet Waste. From left to right:Marie Hauser, MinneaPolis Pork Board Hembe~' Woody Love, Hayoc Shorewood; Para Blixt, President HCWD Barbara Peterson, Mayor Orono; Marvin $ohnson~ Mayor Independence; Se[~ Sacobs, Mayor St. Louis Park;-Ed Solomon,. President Mplc, Park Board; Marly Kirsch, HaY°r Richfield; Honica Gross, MCWD Board Member, Jan Callison,. Acting Hayor Minnetonka; Jack Vigoren, Mayor Maple Plain; Ginny Black, City Councilperson Plymouth Printed 'on i00% post-conSumer recycled paper, 100% non-deinked pulp, using soy ink. · 'Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distrilct. Gray ~reshwater Cen~er 2500.Shadywood Road Excetsior, liN 55331-9578 OlTY RD~INI~TRRT~R CITY OF MOUND 5~4'~ ~YWOOO RO ~OUNO MN 553~4-~G87 -3386-' ' PRESORTED STANDARD U.S. pOsTA6E PAID . I, linneapolis, biN Permit No. 4656 INFORMATION FROM THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT FOR PROFESSIONALS WORKING WITH WATER ISSUES VOL. 1, ISSUE 2 SPRING 2002 · WATERWISE: CITY OF MINNETRISTA · NEW PERMIT BROCHURE · NOKOMIS AWARD · JENNINGS BAY REPORT · MEET RENAE SCHUBERT WaterWiso: "Crooked Waters," Rolling Hills and Valued Green Space The City of Minnetrista is a largely residenUal community located near Lake Minnetonka in western Hennepin County. Minnetrista, a Native American word meaning crooked waters, most likely reflects the curving bays of Lake Minnetonka, smaller lakes and the two major watersheds of Minnehaha Creek and Painters Creek that lie within city boundaries. What sets Minnetrista apart is a rural feel to the community. A handful of dairy farms still operate within city borders, descen- dants of the first homesteaders to come to the area. A rare octag- onal barn is listed on the National Register of Historic Buildings. Many of the 4,100 residents enjoy hobby farming and horseback riding. Apple orchards dot the landscape. Residents and visitors enjoy more than 800 acres of parks, trails and open area, includ- ing Gales Wood, 410 acres of recently donated parkland. The town government was organized in 1859 and incorpor- ated as a city in 1960. Today, it enjoys a calculated rate of devel- opment with about 70 new households added annually. "We have taken a deliberate, planned approach to how Minnetrista is devel- oped. We want to preserve the rural feeling of our community," notes Minnetrista Mayor Cheryl Fischer. Minnetrista City Council Member Lisa Whalen, a proponent . of wetland and stream protection who is also involved with MCWD and the Pioneer-Sarah Creek Watershed activities, explains that "Minnetrista is located in an environmentally sensiUve area with many wetlands, creeks and lakes. Our job is to protect these resources by asking hard questions every time a new develop- ment is proposed." Recently, a developer agreed to deed Wetlands that were along Six-Mile Creek to the city in order to ensure that the area was not improperly developed with docks and launching sites. "We were concemed about riparian access so we worked with the developer to protect this stretch by making it public land. It worked very well," says Whalen. The City of Minnetrista has developed a close working rela- tionship with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), particularly in working to protect wetlands in the city. "We have very strict ordinances dealing with wetlands," says Fischer. "We work with MCWD on wetland protection and environmentally sen- sitive development, both through our water management plan and our permitting process. We generally do not let a permit out for development until the MCWD board has approved their permits. This way, developers don't get ahead of themselves on what they ' can or cannot do." "We have a highly detailed template and checklist that goes out to commercial and residential developers. This standardized template incorporates both the city's permit requirements and MCWD's permit requirements," explains Minnetrista City Planner Ran Fuchs. This front-end effort really pays off by helping to eliminate confusion about the site in question. We also require that developers provide us with one main contact. This way we can track down the responsible party if there's a problem at the site such a silt fence collapsing. It makes it easier to get it fixed so there's minimal damage to the natural resources." Minnetrista holds remnants.of the Big Woods forest, which used to cover much of the Lake Minnetonka area. One of Minnetrista's comprehensive planning goals is to preserve the city's green spaces and natural environment. "We are very protective of our mature trees," says Whalen. "We have many stands of beautiful hardwoods. When a development recently went in, we asked the developer to redesign the layout so an old stand of trees wouldn't be bulldozed." The city works closely with developers when a site is developed. "We encourage the use of conservation subdivision design; this approach concentrates the development in one area, leaving a large percentage of a site open as green space," explains Fuchs. "Our storm water management plan and city ordinances are key to protecting our natural resources," notes Whalen. "We also rely on citizen advocates to raise flags when necessary. Having watershed guidelines in place helps us do this." Minnetrista continues to work with its neighboring cities and watershed districts as partners in protecting the area's natural resources. "We work closely with the MCWD. We rely on them to help us," explains Fisher. "They are our ears and eyes in what is sometimes a complicated permitting process as well as in ongoing monitoring. It's critical to understand the relationship between land use controls and environmental protection." -3387- MCWD SYMPOSIUM ABOUT LAKE MINNETONKA'S JENNINGS BAY WATER QUALI'rY PRODUCES RECOMMENDATIONS Process featured top national panel of experts in Iimnology, hydraulics, lake restoration & other disciplines; '~Value Methodology" process will help improve Jennings Bay, Painters Creek & overall lake area The Jennings Bay contributory watershed of Lake Minnetonka is comprised primarily of rolling farmland, dispersed residential development and wetlands with Painters Creek flowing into the Bay. It is the most westerly bay of Lake Minnetonka and lies in the northwest corner. But the water qualify in Jennings Bay is the poorest of any in Lake Minnetonka. In the MCWD annual water quality report card, Jennings Bay has received below-average Iow grades for many years. Ongoing water quality monitoring tests generally show unacceptable levels of phosphorous and poor water clarify while game fish and healthy aquatic life are greatly diminished. Between 1971 and 1986, the watershed received diverted wastewater discharges from a Maple Plain treatment plant, contributing to the deterioration of the Bay. Although the waste- water treatment discharges ceased in 1986, the bay continues to exhibit all the signs of a struggling water body. "Water qualify data gathered since the mid-'70s on Jennings Bay has consistently been well below that of other areas," says Glenda Spiotta, MCWD Planner and Program Manager. "Point and non-point source phosphorous loading has a direct impact on algae growth. The water qualify of Painters Creek, which drains into the bay, was also degraded by past discharges from a treatment plant and by agricultural land use and other drainage alterations over the years." The MCWD convened an expert panel managed by HDR Engineering Inc., of Minneapolis to conduct a one-week workshop in February-March of this year. The panel members and their areas of expertise were: Dr. Eric Dibble, Mississippi State University, Fish/Aquatic Plant Interactions Dr. Lowell Kleeslg, University of Wisconsin, Surface Water Use and Shoreline Development/Land Use Dr. John Madsen, Minnesota State University, Macrsphyte Ecology Dr. Curtis Richardson, Duke University, Wetlands Dr. William Walker, Environmental Engineer, Loading/Modeling Stormwatar Dr. Eugene Welch, University of Washington, Lake RestaraUon Gordon Culp, Smith Culp Consulting, Panel Facilitator The panel used the Value Methodology (VM) process during their workshop, which provides a structured process consisting of sequential phases for identifying and evaluating alternatives. "in the past, the MCWD focused more on one aspect or another of lake management, but by bringing experts from diverse fields together for a concentrated effort, we have covered the fisheries, -3388- National water quality experts take questions during their pub/lc presentation recently about the challenges and possible solutions for Jennings Bay, habitat, recreational, engineering and biological issues in a unified and strategic manner," notes Bob Beduhn, Vice President/Water Resources at HDR Engineering. case, these alternatives involved control measures that In this can maintain or improve the water qualify of Jennings Bay. Some of the measures and concepts developed by the panel may also apply to other areas within Lake Minnetonka, but this particular study focused on Jennings Bay. Phases of the VM approach include: Information Phase Brainstorming Phase Evaluation Phase Investigation Phase Recommendation Phase During the information phase, local officials and consultants presented their work to the expert panel. Staff from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Minnesota PolluUon Control Agency (MPCA), Three Rivers Park District, Minnehaha Creek Water- shed District, Wenck and Associates, Emmons and Olivier, HDR Engineering Inc. and Dick Osgood presented information to the Panel. After the information phase, the panel focused brainstorming on ideas to 1) reduce internal phosphorus loading to the Bay and 2) to control extemal phosphorus loading from Painters Creek Watershed. The Panel determined that the MCWD needs to collect additional information on water qualify, water flow and wetlands soil chemistry, and lake sediment chemistry to fully understand the interactions of the lake and its water qualify. However, during the process, the panelist developed three improvement scenarios for the Bay. (See top of WaterPro, page 3.) HDR ENGINEERING AND MCWD RECOGNIZED FOR NOKOMIS PROJECT Consulting Engineers Council of Minnesota awards Lake Nokomis water quality improvement project --Wenck Engineering provided Initial research and design --Partnership of many Pr°fesionals brings science and engineering expertise to Lake Nokomis cteau-up HDR Engineering Inc. of Golden Valley was recently recognized by the Consulting Engineers Council of Minnesota (CEC/M) with an award for its water quality improvement work for Lake Nokomis in south Minneapolis. Increased algae blooms in summer months from phosphorous carried by stormwater runoff and other sources had affected swimming, fishing and other recreational activities. The long-range cleanup efforts for Lake Nokomis have involved many professionals and citizens over a period of years. Wenck Engineering identified the water quality issues with Lake Nokomis and Hiawatha and executed the planning, diagnostics and feasibility work, including all the modeling and monitoring. Wenck also developed the preliminary designs while HDR handled the construction contract. $2 million dollars of water quality Improvements included: · Rerouting of five storm water systems · Installation of two swirl technology grit chambers · Installation of an Obermeyer adjustable weir · Technical assistance in coordinating carp/rough fish removal · Technical assistance in conducting a whole lake alum treatment · Construction and permitting service to create three wetlands -3389- MCWD CONTINUES TO STREAMLINE PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS FOR HOMEOWNERS MCWD cities encouraged to offer permit brochures at city halls If the idea of applying for a permit through Minnehaha Creek Water-shed District seems daunting at the least, take heart. The District continues to actively work on demystifying the permit application process for homeowners by offering several options. The District recently published a permit brochure primer that outlines who may need to apply for a permit and how to access more information. "We want residents in the District to be able to experience a smooth, efficient trans- action from when they first inquire about a possible permit to the end of the process," says Mike Wyatt, MCWD District Technician in the MCWD Permitting Division. "The Division handles more than 450 annual permit requests. Most of these are residences built near water resources such as wet- lands, ponds, creeks, streams and lakes," explains Wyatt. "But not all of the development that requires MCWD permits are near water so it's best to check with us at the front end of the process." Each city or township in the District also has its own permit requirements for building or proper- ty improvement projects that abut water resources."City or township permits may be different from those permits required by the MCWD," says Wyatt. "We try very hard to work closely with District cities when multiple permits are required." Copies of the MCWD permit brochure are also available for District cities to offer to their residents. For citizens who know what permit they need to apply for, the appropriate MCWD permit application is available for downloading at www. minnehahahcreek.org. Citizens can also call the District office at 952/471-0590 or stop by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Office at 2500 Shadywood Road in Navarre at the Gray Freshwater Center. City officials who would like multiple copies can also call the District office for help. RENAE SCHUBERT NAMED MCWD COMPLIANCE OFFICER/DISTRICT TECHNICIAN Schubert brings knowledge, personal enthusiasm and resourcefulness to the position Renae.Schubert has been named the new Compliance Officer/District Technician for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Schubert's dual role will focus on enforcement of the MCWD permit- ting requirements with residents, builders and developers and on communications with cities and officials about flooding, erosion and water quality issues within the District's boundaries. Schubert was previously an intern at the MCWD while she completed her B.S. in Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, Water and Soil and Soil Conservation at the University of Minnesota. She graduated in December 2001. "I'm very excited to join an organization that understands water quality management issues and does such an outstanding job of enforcing laws and regulations while also educating the public about clean water practices," says Schubert. "I'm looking forward to working with and assisting homeown- ers, cities, builders and developers so that together we can make a difference in the quality of life and the environment here in the metropolitan area with its numerous valuable water resources." -3390- The Gillespie Gaze vol x NO 7 July- 2002 PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE June 24, 2002 Dear Members and Friends, The calendar tells me that the year is half over. I look back on the first half of 2002 and wonder what I have missed. The years are going by so fast. I haven't been able to keep pace. I go to a lot more f~nerals than weddings these days and my retirement years are whizzing by. We are almost to the end of our Annual "5200" Sweepstakes ticket sales. For some newer members, once a year we sell sweepstakes tickets to raise f~nds for our Center. Sweepstakes tickets are available for a $52.00 donation and one lucky winner gets $100 in the drawing each week. There are also four bonus quarterly drawings for $250. Since we only sell 300 tickets, your chance to win is reasonably good. Your ticket is in 56 separate drawings. I think that all of our members who can afford $1.00 a week should buy a ticket to support the Center. The Hot Dog Fundraiser earned just over $700 to help support our Center. The Jubilee Foods staff was great to work with and our thanks to them and to Kirby's Bait Shop for supplying the gas for the grills. I would like to thank those who worked and made this f~ndraiser a success. Thanks to Gene Adams, Muriel Reinitz, Orvella Hanson, Colleen Hanson, C~.~e Partyka, Joanne Widmer, Connie and Fred Hanley, Mary Scruton, Jack Piche, Marge Stutsman, Arnold Karstens, Henry Ebert, June Rude, Bernice Putt, Para Horton, Neal and Jack Wilson, Jo Soderlund, Alma Quist, Betty Strong, Gloria Heinrich, Murlel Kolar, Don and Dana McCarville. You made this fundraiser a real success. I know that any of you who visit our Center regularly have noticed the beautiful flowers on our grounds. We have a Garden Club which does a magnificent job keeping our grounds looking beautiful. Jerry Henke heads · our Garden Club and his talented helpers are Gerry Dodds, Gene Cook, Roger Westman and Bill Stewart. Thanks, guys, for the great job you do making our landscape beautiful. At our May meeting, we enjoyed being entertained by our Line Dancing Group led by their enthusiastic leader, Carol Laurie. Our Line Dance Group includes Becky Anderson, Ferold Andersen, Doris Eckert, Vera Johnson, Mary Malcheski, Ella Richter, Joan Schoenecker, Marlin Sicheneder and Lois Towner. Thanks for entering us and others during the year. Jack Weist Chairperson Gillespie Center Advisory Council -3391 - Municipal Liquor Stores Boost Projects' Funding Michelle Tan St. Cloud Times This summer, the city of Gilman will undertake its largest road improvement project in years, and its liquor store will pick up the tab. Gilman is one of more than 230 Minnesota cities that rely on municipal liquor store revenues to boost money for projects such as road repairs, sewer inspections and snow removal. "The municipal liquor industry has transformed itself," said Paul Kaspszak, director of the Minnesota Municipal Beverage Association, the trade association that represents cities with these stores. "They've worked very hard to treat their liquor operation like a business, yet still understanding they represent the community." Gilman Municipal Liquor Store' recorded a new income of $13,807 in 2000. An additional $4,193 was taken from liquor store savings to give the city $18,000 it needed to balance its budget, said Mike Wettish, Gilman city clerk. "Other than taxation, what other revenue can a town make?" said Leander Bretz, store manager. In 2001, the store brought in $25,791, Wertish said. About $20,000 will be transferred to the city. This summer's road project is expected to cost $134,000. The city's engineer reviewed bids Thursday, and, if everything checks out, the project should start in June, Wettish said. About three blocks of 103rd Avenue will be reconstructed. Workers made minor fixes about 15 years ago, but this is the first time the road has been reconstructed. "The road is breaking up and it called for either a patch or a fix, and we chose to fix," Wertish said. The city won't sell bonds for the project. Instead, savings from liquor store operations will pay for the project, Wertish said. Profitable busines~ Municipal liquor stores were created in 1933 after Prohibition ended. State law allows cities with fewer than 10,000 people to own and operate on-sale and off-sale liquor establishments. Once a city establishes a municipal liquor store, it can continue to operate it regardless of subsequent population growth, according to the auditor's office. Municipal liquor store managers work to balance profitability and control, Kaspszak said. "It's an inherent part of our mission to take the high road all the time," he said. Privately owned on-sale liquor stores need city council permission to open a store in cities that have a municipal liquor store, said Mike Hilliard, assistant manager of Sauk Rapids Liquor. Operating a municipal liquor store and tapping into its revenue is "an effort to keep taxes down," said Ross Olson, administrator for the City of Sauk Rapids. "It offsets a certain percentage of costs for municipal improvements that would otherwise be allocated to taxpayers," he said. The way cities use income from their liquor stores vary, Kaspszak said. "Some cities rely on it to supplement their everyday budget. They need the revenue. They count on it," he said. "Other cities don't necessarily do that. They save it up for future needs. And some cities, there's a combination of both." "Sauk Rapids Liquor netted $147,305 in 2000. It pumped about $100,150 of that into the city's general fund. The city's revenues, which include money from the liquor store, taxes, fines and license fees, totaled about $3.5 million a year, said Jack Kahlhamer, finance director. Almost 60 percent of the store's income comes from beer sales, said Wayne Anderson, store manager. About 30 percent is liquor, the remaining 10 percent is wine sales. Each year, the store tums around its roughly $280,000 inventory about seven times, Anderson said. "Our net profit has more than doubled since 1994," Anderson said. It's typical to leave between 30 percent and 40 percent of a liquor store's net profit with the store, said Jack Kahlhamer, finance director for Sauk Rapids. "We like to keep some working capital in the liquor fund itself so it functions on its own," he said. Popular product~ Preliminary numbers show the liquor store in Sauk Rapids netted a $187,633 profit in 2001, Olson said. About $102,000 of that will be transferred to the general fund. Although the city hasn't earmarked any of the money for specific projects, funds from liquor sales paid for a $25,000 road grader in 1998, Olson said. In Gilman, many of the store's regular customers live within a 10- to 15-mile radius of the store, Bretz said. The store, with an inventory of between $15,000 and $20,000, also sees customers stop on their way up north for vacation or the weekend. Sales at the store increase roughly 5 percent each year, Wertish said. Gilman also operates a bar'~that also serves as a place for locals to gather for coffee, Bretz said. Because of the on-sale facility, Gilman pays high liability insurance, Bretz said. "A privately owned place similar to ours would probably pay $4,000 to $5,000 a year," he said. "Ours is probably $12,000." Sauk Rapids, which is much larger but is strictly an off-sale facility, pays about $4,000 a year for insurance on its store, Kahlhamer said. (Continued on Page 14) - 3392- MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES 11 Fergus Falls Finance Director Bill Sonmor recently praised Duane Jensen for his liquor store management abilities. "I feel the Fergus Falls liquor store is very well run," Sonmor said. Sonmor .also said the city's general fund receives $200,000 from liquor store revenue each year which lowers the need for the city to raise property taxes. The Bigwood Event Center and the Soccer Field Center are two of the projects the money helped fund... Good Luck to new Herman Liquor manager John Honzo. John thinks working at Herman Liquor will be a good fit for him. "I've known a lot of Herman people over the years· I think it will be kind of fun," he said. · ..Renovation is complete at one of Edina's three liquor stores. "The store is really 40 years old and was quite outdated," said MMBA President and Edina Liquor Manager Steve Grausam. "It was apparent the store needed remodeling to be more in line with how liquor stores are laid out today." ·..Congratulations to former MMBA president Gary Buysse who was recently hired as manager of Rogers Liquor. Good luck to retiring manager Wayne Howe... Baudette Liquor recently completed a renovation project which included a new ventilation and air filtration system, new tongue-and-groove paneling on the interior walls, new windows and an extension of the main bar. Two rooms were combined to create one large space and with new lighting the place looks bright and fresh. The project was completed one week ahead of schedule... The Alexandria City Council recently thanked liquor Manager Carol Lanigan for a successful 2001 when sales topped $3 million for the first time. Councilmembers also noted that the liquor store funds transferred into the city's general fund help keep taxes down...Congratulations to new Frontier Bar and Lounge (Fairfax) Manager Jesse Hola. Jesse previously worked for MMBA director Tom Byrnes at Silver Bay Liquor. His goals are to improve revenue for the city. "The facility is a financial asset to the community and is a gathering place for people to meet and enjoy friends," Jesse said...Despite construction which completely diverted traffic and decreased facility access, South Shore Liquor (Howard Lake) had a very successful 2001. Mayor Gerry Smith commended Manager Ruth Voight for her hard work. "You did a great job," he told her...Congratulations to Bob Rizzi, new manager of The Pond (Blaekduck)... In accordance with Minnesota Statute 256.998 and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) all employers, regardless of size or type of business are required to report each new and rehired employee to the Minnesota New Hire Reporting Center. Employer compliance helps Minnesota's children by locating parents who should provide financial support and also increases the likelihood of regular child support payments for children. Employer compliance also reduces fraudulent reemployment insurance claims and worker's compensation claims. Employers must report their new hire or rehire information to the Minnesota New Hire Reporting Center within 20 days of the employee's date of hire or rehire. The new hire data is transmitted to the Child Support Enforcement Division where it is matched against child support records. This information is used to locate parents and enforce existing child support orders. The new hire information is also sent to the National Directory of New Hires and used by child support agencies nationwide. All new hires must be reported, even if they are part-time, short-term, or seasonal employees. This includes anyone who has come back to work after being laid off, granted leave without pay, or terminated from employment. Reporting new hires is a simple process. There are a variety_ of ways for employers to report new hires: · Online reporting · Electronic reporting · Fax · Mail In accordance with Federal legislation, the State of Minnesota requires only six pieces of information: · Employer's Federal Identification Number (FEIN) · Employer Name · Employer Address :. · Employee Social Security Number · Employee Name · Employee Address Employers play a pivotal role in helping children receive child support. Those children who do not receive financial support often depend on public assistance. By meeting requirements of the new hire reporting law, employers will help children get the support they need and deserve. Minnesota New Hire Reporting Center PO Box 64212 Saint Paul, MN 55164-0212 651-227-4661 or toll free 800-672-4473 www. mn-newhire.com FUNDING (From Page 11) Despite the insurance, Bretz swears by municipal liquor stores. "The basic idea of a municipal liquor store is to augment the cost of improvements in a small town," Bretz said. "Otherwise you're ending up paying a higher tax rate." A municipal liquor store's contribution to its community makes it a desirable business, Kaspszak said. Talk that these liquor stores are dying isn't true, he said. "The trend in our business is remodeling and expansion," Kaspszak said. "In a time when people don't want to be taxed, why not have a municipal liquor store that makes money?" -3393- MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES 14 -3394- -3395- ClTY OF MOUND Meeting Minutes Mound Public Safety Facility Meeting held on 06/24/02 Date printed 06/25/02 The meeting was convened at 6:00 PM Monday, June 24, 2002 at Mound Fire Station: Present: Greg Pederson Mound Fire GP Sarah Smith City of Mound SS Todd Christopherson Amcon TC Matt Simoneau Building Off. MS Kandis Hanson City KH Greg Palm City Gpalm Tim Palm City TP Miles Britz SEH MB John McKinley City JM Jeff Anderson City JA Len Harrell City LH No response to messages and visits from GP to the next door neighbors to discuss the property acquisition. Property has been sold; GP will attempt to work with Buyer of property. Temporary Fire station was discussed. GP has talked with the broker, there is space available and price and terms need to be negotiated. GP will get details to KH for legal and council approval. The gross rental rate is quoted at $5 per square foot, which is in the current project budget. 3. KH reported that the road project proposed for the street in front of the temporary building has been split into two parts with the portion in front of the temporary fire station being delayed until 2004. The space under consideration does not have any offices and may require some minor buildouts or modular furniture. GP asked about the PODS for storage of equipment that will not be needed until the new building is ready - he will investigate this option. 5. MB said the paver/grass detail would not be a good solution as it is difficult to maintain. He suggests using hard surface- asphalt, concrete, etc. We are probably going to exceed the hard surface allowable area, which may necessitate a variance. MB says still on track for submittal of packet on Friday as planned. 15 copies to be submitted. Submittal will include site plan, floor plan, elevations, preliminary utility plan, and preliminary grading plan. It is anticipated that a CUP for the use will be required as well as a variance for hard surface coverage and a variance for The redevelopment plan and HRA lease agreements that Mary Ippel was involved with are done, Prosser has forwarded to KH and Council will be acting on. 9. TC said the cost of the building construction would be updated now that the plans are tied down. 10. The well switchover date is set for 9/16/02. 11. The cost proposed by Excel for burying the utilities is about $60,000 to $70,000. The City has an expert lined up to discuss negotiating the costs. There is a budget line item for this it is $50,000. 12. TC updated the boring status - borings are done. Braun has indicated verbally no great concerns on soil conditions. SEH engineers are working with Braun to formulate foundation and paving recommendations. 13. Discussed land title issues. There was a title opinion that was done. Gino B was working on. C:\WlNDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\Content.lE5~A5OFYFYJ~VIPS 06 24 02.doc Page 1 of 3 -3396- Meeting held on 06/24/02 Date pdnted 06/25/02 CITY OF MOUND 14. The ground lease agreement is on the Council agenda for tomorrow night. The HRA wilt be the fee owner of the property with the City making lease payments to the HRA. 15. KH said the newsletter is progressing. 7/1 is deadline for getting info to Jill. 16. A meeting is set for 7/2 with a delegate for each of the member Cities. This will be the time to determine which Cities are going to stay in with new building and new contracts. 17. TC said the environmental work is progressing. Braun will be contacting GP to ask questions about building history. TC to make sure that Braun reviews the test well information provided to the City previously by GME. 18. Next meeting is 7/1 at 4:30 Building, 5:30 Design. John Cameron has been invited and he will be bringing Srommen (sp?) to discuss utility issues. 19. SS said that the City would be acting as the storm water management permitting agency. She is working with MPCA currently. 20. MS asked about dumpster locations. 21. Design Meeting started at 7 PM. 22. Scott Alden, Trent Luger (SEH landscape architect) and Sam Bontrager joined meeting. SS and MS left at this point. 23. TL reviewed the site plan. The parallel parking on both streets will be done by bumping out the curbs at the corner instead of moving the existing curbs in. 24. The landscaping at the corner would be Iow for better visibility. 25. KH pointed out the concerns with on street parking on Wilshire. The Council has previously eliminated on street parking on both sides of Wilshire for two blocks. The three stalls in shown on Wilshire will be problematic with the previous Council action. The three stalls on the West side of Wilshire will be designated as "emergency personnel only." These stalls will be shown as parallel. 26. TL affirmed the decision to not use the grass pavers. Instead, the shaded areas will be built with an altemative hard surface. Concrete will be used in front of the apparatus bay for maintenance. Plain concrete will be the base bid and colored concrete, stamped concrete, pavers could be considered as bid alternates. 27. TL reviewed the landscaping plan. The trees shown are in excess of the City requirement. It is desirable to use shade trees. This will necessitate the lowering of the utility lines. If the lines are not lowered, then ornamental trees will need to be considered for the boulevards. 28. Current City facilities are irrigated. This facility should be irrigated. 29. Discussed getting approval on a plan that will slightly exceed the minimum requirements. A bid alternate could be done to do additional plantings beyond that basic approved plan. 30. The front entry - TL would like to see limestone retaining walls. The retaining walls in other areas would be modular block (keystone or Allan block) If budget dictates, front also could be modular. 31. The hard surface walks to the main entry could be pavers if budget allows, or colored, stamped colored concrete. 32. There should be a monument sign located at the corner of the front yard. It should include 3 flags. An option to consider would be putting the signage on the front curved retaining wall in lieu of a freestanding design. 33. The plantings in front of the display window need to be Iow so that they do not cover up the view. SEH is suggesting a taller tree that is trimmed up and provides open, airy branching pattern (i.e. locust tree.) A ~I~I~~N Page 2 of 3 C:\WlNDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\Content. IE5~A5OFYFYJ~vlPS 06 24 02.doc -3397- Meeting held on 06/24/02 Date printed 06/25/02 CITY OF MOUHD 34. KH suggested that SEH review other design standards that are set for downtown redevelopment by HKGi. LT to call them to get standards. 35. Discussed generator location, dumpster location, and electrical transformer. The sizing and location of the generator were discussed. SEH electrical engineer will review existing generator and look at design for new. 36. The police garage needs be accessed by a tow truck backing into the garage with a towed vehicle attached. 37. The dumpster is shown on the South side of the apparatus bay. SEH will look at ways of getting it to the west side of the building on the lower level. 38. The retaining walls will be submitted for approval as modular block. If budget allows some to be limestone, it will be an upgrade and avoid going back for re-approval. 39. SB reviewed plan updates. 40. The lower level has been reconfigured. There is no longer a need to put windows into the north side of the lower level for fitness. The EOC is now in that area and should not have windows. 41. Discussed the front entry. Security concerns are dictating little or no windows and use of bulletproof glass. Aesthetics are dictating lots of glass. It was agreed that lots of glass would be used to bring the natural light and views back into the workspace. The lower part of the wall will be block to provide a safe space for staff to duck below in the event of a gun-wielding customer. The glass should be resistant type if not bulletproof. 42. The kitchen area needs to have a separate area for prep from the clean up and dishwasher areas. 43. Discussed the exterior elevations, window treatments. ^ number of ideas were generated for SEH to study further. 44. The planning commission submittal needs to be made this week with the understanding that it is primarily for land use, building footprint, and site plan. The exterior elevations will still need some flexibility to allow committee input and possible redesign during the next few weeks. 45. SEH and Amcon to meet Tuesday AM with mechanical consultant Emanuelson & Podas to discuss preliminary systems design. Structural framing issues also to be discussed. 46. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM. Minutes by TC. Call if any missing items or discrepancy. C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\Content.lE5~5OFYFYJ~vlPS 06 24 02.doc Page 3 of 3 -3398- .............. Westonka-Healthy-. -CommunitY.-.CoHaboratiVeAgendaNEW LOCATION:'June 26,,. . 2002'Gillespie~ '12:30Center- 2:00~ PM 2590 Commerce Blvd. Mound 1. NEW Lunch 12:30 Our new time will include lunch during the meeting. Feel free to bring your own bag lunch or join us for a sandwich buffet. The buffet will be a free will donation, suggested value of $6.00. 2. Introductions start at. 12:45 3. Additions or Changes.to the Agenda / Minutes 4. Announcements 5. Skate Park Update (15 min.) Gene Hostetler will show us the skate park design and cover where we are in the process. We will have a display of all our promotional materials. 6. Sojourner Project, Denise Eng (30 min.) Denise will talk about the Family Support Group for Mom's and their Children who have witnessed or experienced domestic violence that we help sponsor. "If you wait until the wind and the weather are just right, you will never plant anything and never harvest anything." -- Ecclesiastes 11:4 Any comments or questions, call Leah Weycker, Collaborative Coordinator, at 952-491-8058 or WeYckerL@westonka.kl2.nm.us -3399- Work Group Updates 'Health ........................... S-andy .Olstad~, Laurie..Fitz¢--Mary.Goode;- Jeanette--Metz; Mark. Brekke ......................................... The task force is planning the second annual "Blue Skies, Blue Summers," a two'part series on depression. The series will take place July 24th and July 31, two Wednesday evenings at 7:00 at the Gillespie Center. W.e are seeking.poetry as a way to describe "feelings" that will be distributed in book form at the event. A camp to train youth on bringing depression awareness to their own school - community is also being planned for October. We are very excited at the progress this group is making'. YOuth Activities Sandy Rauschendorfer-temp chair, Jean Ann Thayer We started NYPUM, minibike program with 5 middle school students. Two adults, Mary Harrell and Patrick Garberick, take the kids to a YMCA camp in Monticello for the program. Zero Gravity task fOrce is busy planning an event for Dog Days in Navarre, Aug. 10. There will also be a hot dog sales fundraiser at Jubilee grocery store Saturday, Aug. 3. Kristy, a student intern with the City of Mound, has been a boost of energy to the group. Parenting Sandy Wing, Sandy Olstad, Bill Erickson The Parent Education group is working on the development of a Web site at www. westonka, org. Community Margaret Holste, Cathy Bailey, This group has not met. Communications Anne Wilbur, Carol Olson This group worked on the three grants that were due. Evaluations of the programs Hand in Hand- Primary Project, Parent Mobilization and the Attendance project are being reviewed and requests for second year funding has been submitted. Executive Craig Anderson, Carol Olson, Margaret Holste, Sandy Wing, Sandy Raushendorfer. The executive work group has not met. Alliance for Families and Children in Hennepin CountY Leah attended a two day, state wide collaborative conference in Wilmar. They covered strategic planning, state reporting, projections for future state funding, and lobbying laws. -3400- Westonka Health Community Collaborative Minutes - May 17, '2002 Present: Craig Anderson, Carol Olson, Sandy .Olstad, JeanAnn'Thayer, Kathy Jones, .................... Margaret HOlste, Deb Truesdell, Peter Meyer, jeanette Metz, Sandy Rauschencl'Orfer, Marc Harris, Brian Powers and Leah Weycker Y 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda or Minutes: A parent advocate posi.tion and project request formS were added to the agenda. 2. Announcements: * There will be an Open House for Margaret Holste on May 20, 2002 from 3:30 - 5:30 p.m. at · Shirley Hills to celebrate her retirement. Members of the WHCC are invited. * Relate Counseling Center is offering a six week group called Healthy Teens/Healthy Bodies about eating disorders for teens and parents. It will be he d on Wednesdays from 6:30 to 8 p.m. * Hennepi, n County Health Services is offering a program called "Parents as Sexuality Educators On May .21 in St. Paul and on May 23 in Hopkins. * Sue Cathers sent information from the'Westonka Historical Society about an open house being held on June 15 from 10:30.a.m. to 1:30 p.m. regarding renovating the Island'Park Hall. She wondered if we'd want to be involved in such a project. * Although Bill Anderson (VFW) couldn't attend the meeting today, he dropped off poppies for people to purch'ase in support of Veterans. * We. reCeiyeda reque.st.fo~ funding, for_Music in..theP_arks._ Howe~er,...our._~funds_c. an,tb.e_us_edJn that way. . ' * John Braland's sOn is doing better and is, receiving treatments on a weekly basis. A card was distributed to sign. Sandy Wing has started radiatiOn. Len Harrell is doing well after gastro- bypass surgery. He is planning to retire in June. . 3. Meeting Time: Leah has heard from many members and plans to contact thOse who haven't responded to the survey about meeting times. Meeting over the lunch hour was the preference of those Who have responded. Leah has checked with the Gillespie Center about meeting .there. The charge is $50 per hour if they don't Serve food, and approximately $5 for a light lunch or $7 ' for breakfast with no room rental fee based on a minimum number of meals. After discussion, we decided to Leah check about holding our meetings on June 26 and August 28 at the Gillespie, Center at 12:30 p.m. With a light lunch, (There is no meeting in July.) Leah will ask for RSVP s but will order 10 lunches. Payment for the lunches is yet to be determined, but we will possibly ask for a "gOod will" donation from those who eat. 4. Parent AdvoCate Position: Since Leah needs help with' the workload of the WHCC, the Executive Committee recommends hiring a part-time person (10 ,.15 hours per week) to serve as a "parent advocate" and assistantto Leah. Funding is available from the Alliance through the second year of the parent mobilization grant. Job description would include such things as recruitment of new members, especially parents, assisting with work groups, attending parent ' meeting as the representative of WHCC, assisting with outcome reporting, and other duties as assigned. The recommendation is to pilot this position for a year since funding is only available for one year. We would need to seek additional funding if the position were to continue beyond the one year "pilot." Kathy Jones made a motion to utilize the parent mobilization grant for a parent advocate, seconded by Jeanette Metz. Motion approved unanimously. Leah also mentioned that our proposal fo~ the Kid Stability grant ($20,000) is due June 15. We also need to include results from the current attendance projects being offered at the Primary Schools by the School Social Workers. There is money to continue that project, so we need to consider additional options. Expanding the attendance project to the Middle School was one ' Suggestion. Marcy offered to help Leah develop a proposal, possibly partnering with the West Hennepin Employment Partnership whose funding ends on June 30. The goal of that project expanded from providing donated cars to clients Who need them for employment purposes to housing, rental assistance, car repairs and car insurance. Marcy mentiOned that the issue in our area is the working poor rather than those who are on M-FIP (welfare). Linking with WeCAN -3401 - could be another component of such a project. L~ar~ A.) a~ ~ep.o.r[ing Hesul~s ~a~ B) were snared. In oraer To reauce Lean's workload, the ~-xecutlve g;ommittee is recommending that when a proposal is made, it be assigned to the appropriate work group for review and recommendation about funding as well as oversight of the project with periodic check-in. Work groups could develop their own projects or seek other groups to develop projects that fulfill the goals of the WHCC. Sandy R. made a motion to approve the forms with a second by Brian. The motion was approved unanimously. 6. Chairperson: Based on Carol's offer to again serve as Chairperson, Jeanette nominated Carol as Chairperson with a second from Marcy. Sandy Rauschendorfer volunteered to continue as Vice Chair. Brian Powers suggested that we close nominations. Motion passed. Margaret moved a white ballot. Deb seconded this motion which was passed unanimously. (Craig offered that he will help out when Carol is unavailable.) 7. Excel Academic Coaching: Kathy Jones shared a funding request for $13,5000 to hire a paraprofessional to work with non-special education students who are part' of the Excel program for 8th and 9th graders at the High School. The 'person would serve as a tutor, mentor, oUpp,ort.,er, and motivator f.or thes..e students.w, ho a. ren't currently successful .!n school. The g°al is neap tnem become aca(3emica,y successtu~ ana reconnected to school with the ultimate goal of graduation. The Youth Work group reviewed the proposal and recommended approval. Kathy wouldbethe school-person'overseeing the person'hired throughthe grant; 'After much' discussion of whose employee they'd be as well as what other funding will be used for the program, Margaret made a motion that we approve the request for $13,500 for an academic coach for_ next schOol year, pending the .school district's accePtance of hiring the employee and that the new outcome forms are completed. The motion was seconded by Craig and approved unanimously. 8. Other: * We have Zero Gravity T-shirts in two colors. The young people on the task force were pleased with them. * We will have five spaces in NYPUM this summer, so staff are encouraged to refer 6 or 7 at-dsk students. * The discussion of Search Institute Asset Building was postponed to the next meeting. Carol made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Jeanette. The motion was approved unanimously. Margaret Holste, Recorder -3402- June 3, 2002 Dear Mayor and Council Members, Hi, my name is Jacob Thies and I'm a seventh grader at hill School in Orono. I've been studying phosphorous in it. PhosPhorous causes slimy algae in our lakes. I know a law passed restricting phosphorous in fertilizer, but it doesn't come into affect until 2004. That gives the algae two years to grow and spread. I am writing to ask you to let your citizens know more about phosphate reduction. Some ideas you could consider are: educate the public by having a seminar, or putting up signs, or writing a letter to the public about this problem. This could help the algae decrease and become less harmful to the environment. Did you know that when the algae dies masses of bacteria break off and consume all of the oxygen killing the fish and other living substances in the lake? The swimming season is sneaking up on us fast and I know I don't like to swim in algae. Also people are starting to fish more and the alga doesn't help. It kills the fish and the algae sticks to your fishing line. Again we can stop this by preventing phosphorous getting into the lakes and steams though education and awareness. Please consider helping to educate you citizens as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration and time. I hope you take some time to help raise awareness in our community. Sincerely, Jacob Thies -3403- June 4, 2002 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Did you know that every year more algae than is normal are infesting our lakes? Thanks to the man-made products containing phosphorus, our lakes are becoming bad for swimming. My name is Taylorann and I am a seventh grader asking you to help raise awareness about our growing algae-related phosphate problem. Phosphates are very popular to use. They are used in fertilizer, soaps, and many different cleaners. Most people are not aware of the harm they are doing to our lakes by using too much phosphorus. Yes, phosphorus is a very useful element, but using too much of it can harm our beautiful bodies of water. Even if we reduce the use of phosphates, trace~ amounts end up in our lakes. This is a problem that needs to be solved sooner than later. With your awareness we can help others understand the problem. Making flyers or writing articles that states your support for a solution would make a huge difference. I thank you for your time and interest. Sincerely, Taylorann Grand -3404- Dear Mayor or Council Members, Hi, my name is Keatyn Blaeser. I am a 7th grader at Hill School andour'class is currently learning about phosphates in lakes. Many phosphates in our great lakes that are causing too many algae for the 2004 to reduce phosphate use you to increase awareness about excess phosphatesin our lakes. · Many people do not know that phosphorous causes problems for~our lakes but maybe they would care in a year or two when they are swimming we wait until 2004 to do something about phosphates, the lakes will Every year even more phosphate seeps into our lakes and make swimming less enjoyable. Summer is here and many people fertilizers that have many phosphates in them. Ifpeol[ thing by using organic fertilizer our lakes might have Minnesota is full of lakes and I hope these lakes can_stay possible. Since many people do not know the harm phosphatesdoto work to create more awareness. I think people.who are shOuld speak out and do seminars or make posters. If more phosphates contribute to excess algae maybe more lakes cleaner. Please consider doing the ,following: create poSters :to edUcate seminars about phosphorous, or ask people to use organic fertilizers before the billi passed in 2004. Sincerely, Keatyn Blaeser -3405- MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION June 3, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Those present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Jorj Ayaz, Orvin Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland. Absent and excused: Glister. Absent and unexcused: Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Community Development Director Sarah Smith and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. The following individuals were present: Steve and Vicky Wright - 5972 Sunset Rd, Roy and Fran Hagen - 6224 Red Oak Rd, Jim Turner - 2000 Dutchview Rd, Sandi Schmidt - 6216 Red Oak Rd, Kerry Plovie - 4365 Game Farm Rd, Gregg Towley - 5842 Grandview Blvd, Jeff Smith - 5872 Grandview Blvd, Stacie Bigelow - 6190 Red Oak Rd, Shelly Young - 6190 Red Oak Rd, Ruth Schmudlach - 6248 Red Oak Rd, Dennis Helgoe - 6256 Red Oak Rd, Matt and Angela Lajoy - 4831 Shoreline Dr, Martin Carlson - 5782 Ell Rd, Amy Pudil - 2213 Chateau Ln, Eva Hasch- 4804 Northern Rd, Jim Bedell - 2627 Wilshire Blvd, Duane Norberg - 6015 Aspen Rd, Jim Sampson - 2203 Chateau Ln, Ken Custer- 5533 Shoreline Dr, Joe and Renae Schlechter - 5058 Shoreline Dr, Derek and kelly Goddard - 5068 Shoreline Dr, Noel Towley - 5842 Grandview Blvd, Tom Brossard - 1818 Commerce Blvd, Dave Beede - 1824 Commerce Blvd, Bill Baker - 4948 Wilshire Blvd, Brad Starmard - 4930 Wilshire Blvd, Ernie Rosenberg - 4967 Wilshire Blvd, Victoria Pawlowski - 2212 Fairview Ln, Greg Fenzl - 2212 Fairview Ln, Mark Hagen- 6382 Maple Rd, John Hubler- 5816 Grandview Blvd, Karen Thompson - 5436 Sunset Rd, Skipp Lajoy - 1780 Hillside Ln, Gary Simmons - 6316 Linden Ln, Brian Klassy - 4957 Wilshire Blvd, Katie Hoff- 6440 County Road 15, Steve Bedell - 4823 Bartlett Blvd, Dustin Kern - Rottlund Homes. APPROVAL OF MAY 20, 2002 MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse, to approve the minutes of the May 20, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Page 2 - clarify to be city council public hearing Page 4 - 5th Paragraph - sight to site MOTION carried unanimously. -3406- Plann{n~ Commission Minutes June 3, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING/COMPREI-IENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS This is a request for amendments to the zoning map to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The State of MN requires city in the seven county area to adopt zoning maps and comp plans that are consistent. Gordon explained the proposed changes on a lot by lot basis. Chair Michael opened the Public Hearing. Amy Pudil, 2213 Chateau Lane - Lots are so small. Would 2 lots together even be big enough to use for high density? Gordon - the idea is that for those that haven't been upgraded in the past few years it is an opportunity for those to combine and upgrade. Ken Custer, 5533 Shoreline Drive - Wanted Gordon to explain why the change to the properties at Seton Channel and Shoreline. Gordon - We are making the change to make comp plan and zoning agree. Jim Turner - 2000 Dutchview Rd - He would like to be notified when Dutch Lake is affected. He is concerned about the amount of traffic on the lake, especially if density is increased. Minnetrista has gone to great lengths to preserve the character of the area. Please consider carefully the impact. Stacy Bigelow, 6190 Red Oak Rd - She received no notification. The vague terms on the agenda made it seem like Mound was trying to slide something by. She has serious doubts about the process. Consider the impact to the area. Steve Wright, 5972 Sunset Rd -Concemed about the effect on Grandview Middle School, particularly the traffic in the area. Noel Towley, 5842 Grandview Blvd. - She thinks Mound should stick to the comp plan. Sandy Schmidt, 6216 Red Oak Rd - She wanted to know why everything is being switched to high density? What is the advantage? Gordon - High density allows single family, twin homes, duplexes, condominiums and apartments. The inquiries staff has had to-date have all indicated that they can't make the Anthonies parcel work without high density. Schmidt - She thinks the city needs to consider the traffic impact before making any change. Is anyone monitoring it? Michael - Plenty of people are monitoring. There will be several public hearings and formal proposals before decisions are made. John Hubler, 5816 Grandview Blvd - He wanted know if all the properties were being changed in a lump sum? Michael - Gordon recommended individual consideration. Hubler thought the Dutch Lake area ought to be considered separately. He counted high-density areas within a 4- block area. They are considerable. In this week's Laker there are several potential sites being considered for high density. He thinks Mound should reconsider the high density and address the Dutch Lake area as a separate entity. -3407- David Beede, 1824 Commerce Blvd - He is a resident of the Harrison Bay Townhomes - 1. Will the rezoning make Anthonies nOn-conforming? Gordon - Yes, but the greenhouse operation can continue until use changes. Mueller - Anthonie's is sandwiched between a school and business. Other things can come in as a commercial use that can increase the use of the land severely. If it continues to be zoned business land use could be as high as 75%. David Beede - 2. Harrison Bay Townhomes represents 4 families. Are we collectively or individually considered as it pertains to zoning? Will this have any affect on one or more of our units? Gordon - You are currently zoned single-family. Your property has a conditional use permit to allow the townhome use. All of you would be notified if one of you wanted to change that permit. Mueller - Your association bylaws would not allow an individual to change zoning of their unit. David Beede - 3. What difference would it make in the tax classification. Would the change in zoning have an impact on the property taxes? Gordon - We don't know and don't try to alter zoning in consideration of tax impact. Jim Sampson - 2203 Chateau Lane - He doesn't like the people element that comes with high density. He doesn't want apartment buildings across the street. What is the chance? Gordon - It would take at least 2 lots or more to build multi-family housing. Joe Schlechter - 5058 Shoreline Dr - He's concerned about traffic issues. Think ahead. Traffic is already backed up done Shoreline and visibility is limited at the intersection of Chateau and Shoreline. Concerned about the noise - more 911 calls. Do we want the image of apartment buildings all along a major road into Mound? Clapsaddle - How does the zoning affect how many family units per square foot. Single family is 1 house for every 6,000 sf; R3 would allow from a unit for every 4,000-5,000. Jeff Smith, 5872 Grandview - He asked for an explanation of the Anthonies property. Gordon - The City is requesting a comp plan change from medium to high density residential and a zoning change from business to high density residential. Jeff Smith- He is concerned that if we rezone to R3 and a developer came in wanting to put in a large apartment complex, there would be no reason for Planning Commission input if they follow zoning regulations. Clapsaddle - He recommends the city require a PDA to maintain control. Mueller - The change from Business to R-3 is the smallest change we could make. The small 40- foot lots with minimal homes could be improved if we change zoning and making the improvement more feasible. Kelly Goddard, 5068 Shoreline Dr- Please take in consideration the traffic. Put in more homes with small children and their safety is jeopardized. Jim Bedell, 2627 Wilshire Blvd - It wouldn't be economically feasible to buy multiple properties to build high density. -3408- Greg Fenzl, 2212 Fairview Ln ~ Will R3 zoning permit sale of property? Gordon - Yes, it doesn't affect sale of property. David Becde, 1824 Commerce - He is concemed that the Commission or staff doesn't know how these changes affect taxes. Weiland - We don't make our decisions based on taxes. Jim Turner, 2000 Dutchview Rd - He doesn't like the crowding of the lake and loss of recreational opportunities. If you make it R2 it gives us a chance for input in the future. Martin Carlson, 5782 Elm - He has no problem with the re-zoning. He is concerned with the need for a garage at 2117 Fern Road (lots 1, 2 and 3) which isn't allowed in the new zoning. How did the church get zoned RI? Staffwill research. Chair closed the public hearing. MOTION by Burma, second by Weiland, to table action. MOTION carried. Mueller voted against. Ayaz, Burma, Clapsaddle, Hasse, Michael and Weiland voted for. Burma suggested that those that were in attendance be notified of the next meeting. MOTION by Mueller, second by Clapsaddle, to take it from the table MOTION by Clapsaddle, second by Mueller, to continue the public heating. Public hearing will be continued on July 15, 2002. Mueller confirmed that no notice will be given for the continuation on July 15, 2002. New comments will be welcomed but please do not repeat the same comments as they will appear in the minutes. MOTION by Mueller, second by Clapsaddle, to move the continuance on July 15, 2002. Chair Michael declared a short recess. June 3, 2002 -3409- Planning Commission Minutes 4. BOARD OF APPEALS June 3, 2002 CASE #02-15 CUP - Open Lot Sales - Matt Lajoy/Ken Custer 4831 Shoreline Boulevard Applicants have submitted a CUP request to allow for open sales for used cars. Following the last meeting, staff reviewed previous actions for the property. The 1997 permit nullified the 1995 permit. Additionally, the 1997 permit is also null and void, as it appears it was not renewed as required by condition "k" of Resolution No. 97-19. In the event another use was contemplated, an additional conditional use permit and/or amendment would need to be processed. It is important that future redevelopment of the land is contemplated and the proposed new use could be considered to be an "interim" use. Applicant has indicated that there is significant cut-through traffic. Hennepin County supports eliminating accesses off the county road. Change of use will require another conditional use permit application. The applicant has expressed interest in planting annual flowers in the greenspace. Business activity is preferable to a vacant building. Since beginning operations earlier this year, the subject site has been maintained in an orderly fashion. Primarily, the questions are: is the use appropriate, is it reasonable and how many cars should be allowed? Are there any site problems with the comer? Is it reasonable to eliminate one of the accesses off of Shoreline? Would there be an objection to 20 cars on the lot? Clapsaddle would advise the owner not to give up the curb cuts to Shoreline Drive. This is not a parking lot; this is a sales lot. We shouldn't orchestrate exactly how he can park his cars. Mueller said that keeping the east entrance open would allow for the most parking without bothering the flow of traffic in and out of the lot. We need to permit only one type of use at a time, even though it will be an extra expense for him at the time he requests a change. Public hearing for conditional use permits are only at the council level. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to allow a conditional use permit for an open sales lot with no more than 20 vehicles for sale at one time. All signage, including banners and flags, must meet ordinance. Weiland agrees that we shouldn't restrict how the vehicles are to be displayed. Also, that flags and banners should be controlled. Mueller requests an amendment to not allow any parking of vehicles on the public right of way. Amendment was withdrawn after discussion. Michael asked the applicant if he was willing to plant flowers? Lajoy indicated he was. Michael wanted to know if all he would sell would be high end cars? Lajoy said he couldn't guarantee it but they would all be good vehicles with no mst. MOTION carried. Chair Michael voted against. Ayaz, Burma, Clapsaddle, Hasse, Mueller and Weiland voted for. -3410- Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2002 CASE//02-13 Variance for New House Construction - Bill Baker 4948 Wilshire Boulevard The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow construction of a new single-family dwelling at 4948 Wilshire Boulevard. Zoning is R1 residential. Proposed Required Variance Front (S) - upper st. wall 8 feet 30 feet 22 feet Side (W) - wall 3 feet 6 feet 3 feet Side (W) - pilings 0 feet 6 feet 6 feet Side (E) - deck 2 feet 4 feet 2 feet Lakeside (N) 29 feet 50 feet 21 feet Lot Area 6,010 sf 10,000 sf 3,990 sf A variance request was submitted in 1980 to expand the living area that acknowledge encroachments and the undersized lot. However, the request was tabled by the City Council and staff is unable to locate a resolution verifying that the request was granted. Property fronts Wilshire Boulevard on the south and is bordered by a single-family use to the east and a "dock lot" to the west. Approximately ½ of the lot is located under the 929.40HW and is not included in the minimum lot size calculation. Setback requirements create a building pad of approximately 750 SF. Property is irregularly shaped. The proposal may require separate permitting from the MCWD. The proposal removes the encroachments from the neighboring property and the county road right-of-way. Turning movements into the garage may be problematic. The proposed improvements will visually enhance the property. The east side of the proposed lakeside deck will be modified to meet the required setback of four feet. Staff's primary concern is the reduced lake setback. Neighbor is concerned about the pile driving on the west lot line would disturb the lilac bushes. Discussion Mueller wanted a building height interpretation: Is garage basement or first floor. Smith said the Building official indicates that, if a level is more than 50% exposed it is considered a story. Mueller thought it looks like the garage level is a story. Baker said it conforms to the 35 feet requirement. Mueller wanted to know why are we calling a carport with a solid roof a cantilevered area when it is on posts? Why didn't we call that a deck? Per the code, a deck that goes to the property line attached to the dwelling is not allowed. Baker replied that the cantilever allows us a tm-around and space for 2 cars on the property. Mueller asked if, from a structural standpoint, is it necessary to have those posts and beams go west that far. Baker indicated that we couldn't back out of the garage without running into the posts. Clapsaddle wanted to know what the deck would be built of?. Baker said it would be a basic floor structure with beams. The second story wall could be moved back to the 6 foot setback line. Burma liked the sound of that. Weiland (Referring to Item 9 under recommendations) Why should we go through the variance process if after a natural disaster it would be required to be rebuilt according to current setback requirements. -3411 - Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2002 MOTION by Mucller, seconded by Burma, to recommend a 6 foot setback on west, 6 foot from the wall of the house on the east, 29 foot lakeside deck setback, 8 foot front yard setback, 35 foot (as measured by the calculation of the building official) maximum height and maximum 40% hardcover. Also include all items under staff recommendation except #2 and require removal of the lakeside shed before occupancy is granted. Clapsaddle could not understand why staff brought a proposal to construct a house with variances on every side. It is creative but unbelievable and not the intent of the code. MOTION failed. Mueller and Burma voted for; Michael, Weiland, Hasse, Ayaz, Clapsaddle voted against. MOTION by Clapsaddle, second by Michael, to move denial of the variance request. Clapsaddle would like to see an in-between or a new plan. Burma feels that it is somewhat of an in-between because the east and west setbacks are being increased and it's a weird shaped lot. Baker submitted a petition of all but one neighbor in support of his plan. Mueller said that it currently has a dwelling on it and wasn't it City Attorney advice that we have to let them improve their property. The encroachments are being improved. The condition of the propertY will deteriorate and this would be an improvement. I consider this reasonable use of the property. MOTION carried. Clapsaddle, Ayaz, Hasse, Weiland and Michael voted for. Burma and Mueller voted against. CASE #02-18 Rottlund Homes/RH Helmer PDA-CUP Amendment - Langdon Bay Intersection of Lynwood Boulevard/Robin Lane The applicants have submitted an application for an amendment to the Planned Development Area-Conditional Use Permit that was approved in 2001. They are requesting a little more flexibility with the hardcover on 18 specific lots. Due to bad soils on an existing lot it was eliminated. The current average is 23%. Request is 33%. Overall average would not exceed 30%. A recent Council meeting indicated general support. The project engineer has shown that the 30% will not impact the stormwater retention pond design. Tim Whitten, Rottlund Homes - A number of the homes that are creating some of the variety are unable to fit on some of the lots. It amounts to about 300 SF, or about the size ofa fi'ont porch on a 10,000 SF lot. The positive elements will allow is to continue to promote the front porch, more one-level homes, to continue the variety of house types through the balance of the project, and finish the project in a timely fashion. There should be no impact on the ponds or wetlands, no additional tree removal. -3412- 3, 20O2 Chair Michael called for a motion to extend the work rules. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle, to extend the work rules to 11:20 p.m. MOTION carried unanimously. Mueller has a real problem with extra hardcover in new developments. The city made allowances for a 25-foot setback for the development. MOTION by Michael, second by Ayaz, to move approval of staff recommendation. Burma inquired about the lot description discrepancies. Staffwill make sure that the referenced lots are correct. Mueller doesn't feel that extending this to Rottlund is fair to other developers. Clapsaddle felt that the purpose of the hardcover requirement is being met by the overall percentage. Michael agreed. Weiland wanted to know if any of these lots are adjacent to lots that are sold already? He felt that would be unfair to the property owners that akeady made their choice with the 30% limitation. MOTION failed. Ayaz, Michael and Clapsaddle voted for; Mueller, Burma, Weiland and Hasse voted against. MOTION by Burma, second by Michael, to extend the work rules until 11:30 p.m. MOTION carried unanimously. Burma felt that the overall area looks good but what's to stop Rottlund or another builder to come and ask for more. Establishing some precedence. Weiland would feel bad voting this in with current property owners at 30%. Ayaz thought as a whole it was reasonable and makes great sense. How much will the neighbors be offended by it. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to reconsider. Burma and Hasse voted against; Ayaz, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Weiland and Michael voted for. MOTION by Michael, seconded by Ayaz, to move staff recommendation. Mueller requested an amendment to read: No lot shall exceed 33%. Michael and Ayaz agreed. MOTION carded. Weiland and Hasse voted against; Michael, Ayaz, Burma, Clapsaddle and Mueller voted for. -3413- Planning Commission Minutes /~ ~F/~ U~ ~/~L~J June 3, 2002 MOTION by Burma, second by Mueller, to extend the work rules to 12:00 p.m. MOTION carried unanimously. 5. OLD / NEW BUSINESS Text Amendments - Essential Services and Buildings Previously Planning Commission has discussed the zoning issues related to the proposed MCES lift station relocation to the Balboa property. The lift station is permitted in the I-1 district but must maintain a lot size of 30,000 square feet according to the zoning code. The parcel has less than the required minimum. Over the next few years, the City will also be building new pump stations and a new water tower which would not be permitted in the chosen locations according to code. To correct this deficiency, we are considering zoning that pertains specifically to essential services and buildings. Mueller wanted to know what was being taken away from the code. Does the language that we are adding give you the ability to put a sewer lift station on a lot smaller that 30,000 sf?. Gordon said it did. MOTION by Mueller, second by Burma, to move staff recommendation on Zoning text amendments. MOTION carried unanimously. Public Safety Building Financing The Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority authorized the construction of a new Public Safety Facility including the use of a financing tool called lease-purchase. As part of the preparation of the bonding documents, a resolution from the Planning Commission is necessary indicating that the pending construction project is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan in order to proceed with creation of a Redevelopment Project Area. The project also requires the approval of a conditional use permit and it is anticipated that the application will be reviewed by the Commission in July. Mueller feels that the city is doing things that they wouldn't allow anyone else to do. Clapsaddle thought they should come and tell us we have to do this. Gordon said they are only asking that we confirm that the new public safety facility follows guidelines already in place. Mueller thought that a redevelopment plan assumes something has been already been developed. There is no plan in front of us. HRA has already made the decision and not showed us a single plan. Gordon advised that the commission shouldn't read anything into this. -3414- Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2002 Mueller said they need something from us and haven't provided anything for us. Gordon said you can't design it first and then try to get bonds. This is the process that is customarily followed. Burma felt we could never say no to this in the future if we say yes to this tonight. Smith asked if it would help if we could play with the resolution language a bit. MOTION by Mueller, second by Weiland, to deny the request. MOTION carried unanimously. Mueller said he is not opposed to the project just the process without information. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse, to adjourn the meeting at 11:55 PM. MOTION carded unanimously. Chair Geoff Michael Attest, Planning Secretary 10 -3415- MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Those present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Jorj Ayaz, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland. Council Liaison Bob Brown arrived at 7:53. Absent and excused: Orv Burma and Jerry Clapsaddle. Staffpresent: Community Development Director Sarah Smith and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. The following individuals were present: Jeff Anderson, Mound Fire Department; Jim Prosser, Ehlers and Associates. 3. APPROVAL OF APRIL 15, 2002 MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to approve the minutes of the June 3, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION carried unanimously. 4. PRESENTATION RE: PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING BY CITY FINANCIAL ADVISOR JIM PROSSER The City Council has directed the use of revenue bonds for financing. State Statutes require that the Planning Commission review and comment on the redevelopment plan so that the plan is consistent with existing city code. Planning Commission denied the request at their June 3, 2002 meeting. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to reconsider the previous motion on June 3, 2002. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to adopt the resolution concerning the housing and redevelopment authority in and for the City of Mound, Minnesota's redevelopment project area proposal. MOTION carried unanimously. 5. PRESENTATION RE: PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING BY MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT Jeff Anderson, Mound Fire Department, presented the preliminary building plan for the Public Service Building. He indicated that the design team is meeting every Monday to finalize plans within the budget set by the City Council. -3416- Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 2002 DR. FT Mr. Brown joined us at 8:53. 6. OLD / NEW BUSINESS Smith reviewed the projects update provided in the Commission packet. Mueller reminded Smith of the disclosure policy should a non-conforming property be sold. Smith indicated it would be taken under advisement and forwarded to the City Attorney for direction. 7. MISCELLANEOUS A. Mueller requested that staff investigate some regulation for POD storage containers and boat canopies in yards before they become too prevalent. B. Mueller requested staff investigate regulations regarding storage issues, i.e.; boats, fish houses, dock sections, etc. C. Ayaz was concerned about what is being burnt in the residential fire rings. The type of material to be burned is regulated by city code. Call the Police Department to report. D. Brown updated the Planning Commission on the proposal of"Landforms", the developer chosen to complete the downtown redevelopment. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse, to adjourn the meeting at 8:37 PM. MOTION carried unanimously. Chair GeoffMichael Attest, Planning Secretary 2 -3417- -3418- ~:~e s~e government n~,~uruzes ~ economic dlvers!ty ~'t] results in vi~y no fils;. tinetion be~een classes. "It re~ level~ ~e playing field," s~ Hanson.: "~ey live a much siegler, life ~- ~n~ of back4o- basics." ~.~ n the ~a. ftemoon~ ~e MiCnesota d~!~gati0n ."visited n~sing hOm~. 'sch°OIs~ ahfl 'Residents in the nursing h~es had private ac-co~6da~; fi~ which includ~ ~eff own bhi~0om ~d a mini htfihen, "They were ~e~ ?C~mb!~- loohng r~'}~i~)l°~s: b~'~at- u~ light, s~gH~$6fi. }':.::i~e schOols ~'se~med t6 p~62' ... From Page 1 mixed-use development. :Re ~p marked a personai iriumph for Hanson, who made her ftrst trip overseas. "I got over my apprehension about traveling abroad." On a business note; the trip "helped blur the distinctions between nations," sail! Hanson. "I think We all l~:',to appre- ciate' and value both. the 'similar. ifies and diffe~en~e~t/,bet!Ve?.. nations." Hanson said th~ trip-at~6 reinforced the impi~rtanee working, together: ~th ne~gl~}...'') boring communities and cieS.' ~'S6 much more accomplished, xvith cOOperation · between govemi'ng bodies~ Vi'd~ a loosely-structUred' envi~' said. , ronment and to promote crc- The Swedish-delegafioniw~'~ ative-thinking, she added. ' spend one Week in ~nnesOiii in Yhe delegi~ti0n v.i~t~d '~ September, f011ow6d bY a fafihs, forests and shot¢i~ne in Philadeiphia for areas, where they discuss:~'d ICMA conferenCe~ w~eh restoration of wetlands, eontam- inffion and land management p~a:tices. son. "i~a contrast, ~.~.~. Minnesota d~gation was:5~d't~ attend a banquet with ~:~P ~0h~ th~ S~den to g~t-sb~e ideas on how to deal v/i~:tiiW seW~tge. ate being ' ~':Hanson' '~d,¢ tti~. 'others attendeff' a ~il:'~ meeting Whir; a forme~i.,m.a, fig~a~lUring area was ,being~}e~iiice&;by a Hanson will also attend. Len and Mary Harrell of MoUnd wi!! host one .of the del- egate~ during the Visit. While sPecific pl~g have not yet been worked out, the trip is likely to include a riumber of' 16i:al emment.innoyafiogs, a!ong,.~.ith .-.~. possibly a..Twins game and a visit to Mall of America: . "We're gOing to m~e the daily transportation situation. less stressft~!;by Pr~iding'~."!? vets for 'our gue~," said Hamon. '~And w6~refg°ing to cut down on the i~erary allow more time for.pursuing' personal interests~" Hanson' said she was l~6k~ mg forward to ~the opport~ ;i to snow. off of th ' underway in Mound. -3419-