The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-08-27PLEASE TURN OFF Al,I, CEI,I, PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2002 - 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. In that event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 2. 3. 4. o o o 10. OPEN MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE MINUTES: AUGUST 13, 2002 REGULAR MEETING *B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS *C. RESOLUTION APPOINTING ABSENTEE BALLOT BOARD *D. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPONSORSHIP OF MATCH GRANT FUNDING PROJECT 0054-02-06A WITH THE SOUTHWEST TRAILS ASSOCIATION COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.) PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CASE #02-26: TIM BECKER & DALE & LORELL BECKER 5331/5341/5351/5361 THREE POINTS BLVD REZONING PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING UPDATE BY SEH AND AMCON REPRESENTATIVE ON SCHOOL DISTRICT REFERENDUM CONSIDERATION/ACTION ON BIDS FOR TEST WELL FOR THE NEW WELL UPDATE ON ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION AND PURCHASE OF BALBOA OPTION PARCEL 3992-3999 4000-4017 4018 4019 4020-4086 4087-4090 4091-4094 PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 11. 12. 13. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION A. CASE #02-12: JOHN PASTUCK/NATURAL HOMES 6385/6495 BARTLETT BOULEVARD MINOR SUBDIVISION B. CASE #02-29: HENRY AND GINA LAZNIARZ 4531 MANCHESTER ROAD FINAL PLAT - LAKE MINNETONKA TRAILS DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ZONING AMENDMENTS AND OVERVIEW FROM PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. LMCD correspondence B. Correspondence: Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative C. WAFTA Executive Committee meeting summary D. LMCC September schedule E. Memo: LMC on 2003 City Budgets F. FYI: Police Chief Profile 14. 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. citFo£mound, com. 4095-4118 4119-4146 4147-4170 4171-4204 4205-4206 4207-4210 4211-4214 4215-4220 INSERT More current meeting COUNCIL BRIEFING August 27, 2002 Upcoming Events Schedule: Don't Forget!I, Aug 27 - 6:00 - Liquor Store ground breaking Aug 27 - 7:20 - HRA regular meeting Aug 27 - 7:30 - CC regular meeting Aug 27 - Sept 10 - Filing for candidacy Sept 2 - City Hall closed for Labor Day Sept 3 - HRA/CC Joint workshop on redevelopment Sept 5 - 6:30 - CC workshop on public safety facility issues Sept 9 - 6:30 - HRA regular meeting Sept 9 - 7:30 - CC regular meeting Sept 10 - Primary Election Sept 11 - VFW monument dedication Sept 17 - 6:30 - Public Safety building ground breaking Sept 19 - 4:00-7:00 - Mound Market Place and Village by the Bay open house Sept 20 - 6:3:0-12:00 - Taste of the Lakes (see Jodi/Kandis for tickets) Sept 24 - 6:30 - HRA regular meeting Sept 24 - 7:30 - CC regular meeting Nov 5 - General and Local Election Nov 11 - Closed for Veteran's Day Dec 2 - 7:00 - Special meeting for Truth in Taxation and other business Dec 9 - 7:00 - Continuation for Truth in Taxation and other business, if needed Absences Sept 12-22 Sept 26-Oct 2 Dec 24-29 Mayor Meisel Kandis Hanson Kandis Hanson Human Resources Responses are being received by Brimeyer for the Police Chief position. My wishes are to only consider candidates from within a driving distance to avoid the cost of airlines, overnights and rental cars. A Minnesota candidate who knows Minnesota laws will have an edge over Wisconsin or Iowa candidates. Our new Police Chief needs to be experienced and hit the ground running. Denice Widmer of Watertown will begin in the position of Administrative Assistant, backing up streets, utilities, parks and docks, on Aug 23. She comes with experience in the Sheriff's and Child Protection Depts of Carver County. It will take some time to hire a Liquor Store Manager. That being the case, we will start by advertising for a full-time float clerk that will work a variety of hours and help us get through the next few months. That person will then be able to assist us with the move, whether it happens this fall or after Super Bowl. Next, I will be writing a job description for the Liquor Store Manager, and putting out the advertisements. In the meantime, Assistant Manager Julie Luedke will share the management responsibilities with Senior Liquor Clerk Deb Grand. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 13~ 2002 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, August 13, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers of City Hall. Members Present: Acting Mayor Mark Hanus, Councilmembers Bob Brown., David Osmek and Peter Meyer. Members Absent: Mayor Pat Meisel Others Present: City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Bonnie Ritter, Community Development Director, Sarah Smit.~l~.~,City Engineer John Cameron, Acting Police Chief John McKinley, Michael Suss~"n, John Hubler, Scot McKenzie, Ann Eberhart, Duane Norberg, Frank Weiland::iiiiii~istin & John Beise, Mike Gardner, David Bond, Chris Sankey, Jeff Anderson, G¢~' ¢'~!erson, J m Strommen, Bob Lindall ~,~:..' ........ ^P..OVE ^ ENO^, W,TH..Y Hanson requested switching i[~~ber~:~ ~'nd 10, and adding 18C, Set Spec a MOTION by Osmek, secon~?~?~:'rowm~?~pprove the agenda as amended. All voted in favor. Motion ca~?~;:~ 4. CONSENT ~NDA Meyer requested ~::mmoval.~::~f item 4D and 4G. MOTION by Brown, s;~:~ by Meyer to approve the consent agenda, excluding items 4D and 4G. All voted in favor. Motion carried. A. Approve minutes of the July 23, 2002 regular meeting. B. Approve payment of claims in the amount of $319,598.51. C. RESOLUTION NO. 02-77: RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES AS RECOMMENDED FOR THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS- SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 AND NOVEMBER 5, 2002. D. (removed) E. ORDINANCE NO. 15-2002: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 250 OF THE CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND SECTION 400 AS IT RELATES TO LICENSING 3992 Mound Council Minutes -August 13, 2002 F. RESOLUTION NO. 02-78: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK AND FRONT YARD SETBACK REDUCTIONS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 1599 BLUEBIRD LAND. P & 7' CASE #02-19, PID' #13-117-24-12,0128: G. (removed) 3D. APPROVE TWO-DAY PERMIT TO ALLOW 3.2 BEER LICENSE AND DANCE PERMIT FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL Meyer asked that the Council consider waiving the $100/day fee for the public dance permit. It was determined that this has been the practice in th, e~:.past. by Osmek, seconded by Brown to approve thDi~!?,~.ay 3.2 beer license for MOTION September 14 and 15, 2002, and to approve the pub[i.~i~n~.rmit for September 14, waiving the fee for the public dance. All voted in 1~; Motion'~:~i~[:ied. 3G. ACTION ON LETTER OF CREDIT RED~:iON,~0M MET=~0PLAINS DEVELOPMENT: VILLAGE BY THE BAY/MOO~i~Mi~RKETPLACE Meyer asked if it would be out of line if ~ld sweep the private roads due to the heavy construction in order to re( will follow up and determine if this item is addressed in th{ "reement. MOTION by Brown, letter of credit for grading, $100,000 to $23,830. All )prove the request to reduce MetroPlains 'nous trail from the original amount of carried. 4. COMMENTS NOT ON THE John Hubler, Concerned for rezoning issue that FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM a letter to the Council from Citizens Association. This is in reference to a proposed at a later Council meeting. David Bond, 6048 Aspeni:::expressed concern over the proposed development along Dutch Lake, stating he and neighbors are opposed to the proposed zoning change. Chris Sankey, 1711 Finch, asked how new residents are to be made aware of the dog license ordinance. He is a new resident and was recently cited for not having a license on his dog. It was stated that the Laker and City Contract have articles informing residents of the licensing regulation. It was suggested that the veterinarian in Mound be a possible place where new residents could be made aware of the regulation, either by posting on the bulletin board or having the vet inform the person when he notices that the animal doesn't have a city tag. 3993 Mound City Council Minutes -August 13, 2002 Scot McKenzie, 5251 Bartlett, expressed concern over interpretation of the fence ordinance. A neighbor has constructed a white vinyl fence and it's his feeling that this material is not allowed according to city code. Sarah Smith stated that staff interpreted that the oode doesn't address masonry, decorative iron, etc, but that these materials have been used throughout the community. It was the consensus that McKenzie get with Sara Smith to determine how to proceed with this matter. 6. SWEARING IN OF MICHAEL SUSSMAN AS PATROL OFFICER FOR MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT City Manager Kandis Hanson performed the swearing in of Michael Sussman as patrol officer for Mound Police Department. ~,,,~!,~iii~iiii!!!i:,~,. 7. JIM BRIMEYER OF BRIMEYER AND ASSOCIATES=~ii~ESENTATION':~:':~':::~:::~' OF POLICE CHIEF POSITION PROFILE Jim Brimeyer of Srimeyer & Associates presented:,,:~ii~.~"proP~!~a:, police chief profile to the Council. This will go to the printer tomorrow:,i~ii~:~proved. It"~ii!i~uncil consensus to go ahead with the profile as presented. 8. XCEL ENERGY MATTERS AS THEY ':~i~ig~Ai. TO THE PUBLIC SAFEY FACILITY AND THE DOWNTOWN RE~E:~0PM~?N~ PROJECT Jim Strommen of Kennedy-Graven repo~'~'~::~!i~a~i~: of Xcel Energy's engineering cost estimate and position on its reimburS~%'~::~ii~iii::~or some of the funds advanced by the City to carry out the esti~i~ii~f rel°~i~i~g transmission lines. He stated the City will be reimbursed an amou:~:ii~ca~::~::::~cel~iii~i~knowledges that they have obligation to relocate at their own expedi~i~, Whe~iii~i~iex~:~ numbers are known he will report back to the Council. It was the c~::~i~eBi~:~ of t~i~iiii~ouncil to pursue the underground ng of lines in the downtov~n:::?,~:~a~ .... "~::ii~'~iiiiiiiiiiiiiii~ ..... Strommen also ~:~i°rted on ~!~erg'~lnding the d stribution lines along the east and north streets flan~i~g~the City.~!iiiPublic safety facility, and petitioning the Public Utilities Commission to wai~?~ii~b,e sU~:~rge. In dealing with the Comm ssion, Strommen indicated that the City'~o~j~"look into the difference in relocating overhead to underground, versus ove~ead to overhead. That amount should be the issue because the cost to put overhead again would be incurred anyway. There are some funds allocated in the building budget to underground lines, but according to estimates it's not enough to complete the task. After discussion it was decided that Strommen would contact SEH and get some more firm estimates from Xcel. 9. FIRE DEPARTMENT A. Lease A.qreement for a Portion of Balboa Buildinq for Use as a Temporary Fire Station. Greg Pederson reviewed the proposed lease agreement with Balboa. Dean reviewed the items still under negotiation with United Properties, who are the lease agents for Balboa. 3994 Mound City Council Minutes - August 13, 2002 MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to approve the lease agreement with Balboa Center Limited Partnership, subject to insertion of a letter of understanding or addendum to include the changes negotiated by City Attorney Dean and Fire Chief Pederson. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Amendment to the Western Area Fire Traininq Association (WAFTA) Joint Powers Agreement. Greg Pederson stated that the joint powers agreement includes eleven member cities, with four members on the Executive Board.' This amendment changes this number of board members to five. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to approve th~ favor. Motion carried. All voted in C. Notice of Groundbreakinq Date for Public MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to s Safety Facility for September 17, 2002, at carried. ng for the Public Motion 10. ACTION ON RESOLUTION AUTHa~ZING E~EG. UTION OF CSAH 15 RIGHT- OF,WAY AGREEMENT, INCLUDING D~WNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT COSTS, FINANCING AND TIMING Bob Lindall of Kennedy-Graver Acquisition between Henne ' Hennepin County to unde~ west of CSAh 110, (2) approximately 600' intersections of C,~ Collectively sks phases (Phase I "W~ of the .~ Agreement for Right of Way and ~e City. It is intended to be the basis for CSAH 15 from approximately 600' of ~1~ 110 from 250' south of Lynwood Blvd to and (3) replacement of the existing two 110 with a single intersection at Lynwood Blvd. ~ject". The construction will be done in two crossing and the remainder in Phase 2). John Dean outlined t~!~i~L~bsed funding sources for the project, which has an estimated project cost oi~'~4,050,316. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to adopt the following resolution. All voted favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 02-79: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION FOR CSAH 15. 11. ACTION REGARDING WETLANDS MITIGATION FOR SKATE PARK MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor.' Motion carried. 3995 Mound City Council Minutes- August 13, 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 02-80: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT WETLANDS REPLACEMENT PLAN APPLICATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "ZERO GRAVITY SKATE PARK" LOCATED AT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD, SECTION 13 & 24, TOWNSHIP t17N, RANGE 24W. PID #13-117-24-34-0062, 12. ACTION REGARDING WETLANDS MITIGATION FOR DITCH CLEANING FOR 2002 STORM SEWER PROJECT MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 02-81: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A,~ETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT WETLANDS REPLACEMENT PL~¢=APPLICATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE STORMWATER MAINTEN~E PROJECT NEAR COTTONWOOD LANE AND THE DAKOTA RAIL LIN~?:~:~?~i~i::SW 1/4, SE % OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 117N, RANGE 24W, PIBiii~14-117'~i~.0024 AND 14-117- 24-43-0025 ..... ~:~iiii:iiii~I~::::'~ ...... ~ii!~:?:ii~:i~:?:ii!=::.~ 13. ACTION ON BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGR~i~EN~?:~ITH ROD DIETRICH FOR MOUND POST OFFICE DE~ MOTION by Brown, seconded by resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ::~::~:: RESOLUTION NO. 02-82: AGREEMENT BETWEEN AND FOR THE CITY OF ~ A BUSINESS SUBSIDY REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN R. DIETRICH AND DOREEN K. SUNSET~ WAIVER OF PLATTING MOTION by Os~, second6~ by Brown to adopt the following resolution as amended. All voted in favor. ':~'~tion ca[~ii~d. RESOLUTION NO. 2-8~:¢,.'RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REQUEST FROM MARK STEIN FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE LOTS 72 AND 73, MOUND ADDITION INTO TWO (2) LOTS. P & Z CASE #02-22, PID #14-117-24-41- 0041. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to add item 14A, New Well Location Property Assessment. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 14A. NEW WELL LOCATION PROPERTY ASSESSMENT John Cameron explained that a Phase I Property Assessment is required for the residential lot adjacent to Sorbo Park that is being considered for the site for the new well. Some of the work necessary for the Phase I will also be required for the Wellhead Protection Area for the new well. EOR is proposing to complete the Phase I Property 3996 Assessment for $1200. In consideration of the work EOR will complete for the Phase I Property Assessment, they will reduce the cost of the Wellhead Protection Area by $500. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to approve EOR performing the Phase I Property Assessment. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 15. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION - PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CITY CODE 365 (SIGNS) Sarah Smith stated that as requested by the Council, staff and members of the Planning Commission conducted a review of the sign ordinance at its August 6, 2002 meeting. In general, the majority of the discussion focused on temporary signs (i.e., garage sale, special event, etc.) and directional signage for real estate ope~. houses. Planning Commission members suggested that temporary freestandj~iiiii~igns in the downtown be reviewed for compliance with the City Code. There is a p~sed provision in the ordinance which allows placement of garage sale and:~'l'"'~a;I;e d rectional signs in the ROW as long as they are located (5) feet from the visibility at intersections. There was discussion regarding if there removed after use. Smith suggested re~[~.iting issue can be addressed if the signs d'=~ii!!!~t obstruct driver if temporary signs are not linance in 6 months, and then that MOTION by Osmek, seconded b' favor. Motion carried. g ordinance. All voted in ORDINANCE NO. 1 CITY CODE AS IT SECTION 365 OF THE 16. ACTION ON,:~OU:R INCREDIBLE MOTION by made by Our Lady carried. 17. LAKE PORTABLE SIGN REQUEST FOR THE Osmek to approve the request for portable signs the Incredible Festival. All voted in favor. Motion ..:~i~ii:~::.. PROPOSAL BY VFW FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO VETERANS' PARK Bill Anderson presented the plans for a black granite monument and flag pole to be placed in Veterans' Park to commemorate the attacks of September 11,2001. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to accept the plans for placement of the memorial, along with running electricity to the base of the flag pole. It was noted that the dedication for the monument is planned for 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 11,2002 followed by an open house at the VFW. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 3997 Mound City Council Minutes - August 13, 2002 18. SET SPECIAL EVENTS/MEETINGS A. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to set the Liquor Store ground breaking for August 27, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. B. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to set a Developer Workshop for September 3, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. This will be a joint workshop with the HRA. All voted in favor. Motion carried. C. Motion by Brown, seconded by Osmek to set a special meeting for December 2, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. for truth and taxation hearing and other pe~inent city business, and December 9, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. for the hearing continuatio.~:~i~i""Reeded. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 19. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS :,,~iii:~!??~::~:~:::: ....... ~'~i~iiii"iiiii!!~:=~' .... A. LMCD correspondence B. Report: Mound Police Department- July 2~ C. Report: Finance Department- June 2002 D. Report: Redevelopment Project Tea~ E. Report: Public Safety Building Proje:'~iii~: F. State Chamber of Commerce article ':~iiiiiiiiiiiiii~. ':":'?~?;ii~i~i!i~i'~ii~,~ .... '::~:;~ .... G. Memo: LBO on State Audito.,~:,s,,~,!:nvesti~t~iiii~i~ii:::io the Ci~ of Brooklyn Park H. Press release: upcoming ::~;~;~?~::::~. ?:~?:::~:~:,:. I. NewsleEer; Gillespie C~r ~::::?::.::;~ ::~:?~ J. RepoK: Charitable Ga~i:~9g c¢i~i~i~:::{{~m Jaycees K. Resignation: Liquor Stor~::~a~'ger J°:~i~K~mm - All members of the Council took a minute to commend:;;~f~?~E~.m~?~o:[ his excellent job while sewing as Liquor Store Manager for the.:P~{' 18 y~::~i a~::~:;~ sh him the best. MOT~mek:~:';~CO~d::~: by Brown to adjourn at 10:17 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Acting Mayor Mark Hanus 3998 This page left blank intentionally. 3999 AUGUST 27, 2002 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 081202SUE $671.88 081402S U E $12,855.97 082102SUE $3,033.50 082702S U E $154,305.20 TOTAL $170,866.55 40OO CITY OF MOUND Payments 08/12/02 7:43 AM Page 1 Current Period: August 2002 Batch Name 081202SUE User Dollar Amt $671.88 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $671.88 Refer 81202 MOUND POST OFF/CE Cash Payment Invoice 081202 Transaction Date E 101-41110-322 Postage 8/12/2002 $0.00 In Balance 8/12/2002 NEWSLETTER POSTAGE $671.88 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $671.88 Fund Summary 10100 Marquette Bank Mound 101 GENERAL FUND $671.88 $671.88 Pre-Written Check $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $671.88 Total $671.88 4001 CITY OF MOUND 08/14/021:39 PM Page 1 ~AM Payments ge 4. Current Period: August 2002 Batch Name 081402SUE User Dollar Amt $12,855.97 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $12,855.97 Refer 81402 DEBORD, JEANNE M. Cash Payment Invoice 081402 Transaction Date G 101-21716 Flex Plan Dependents 8/14/2002 $0.00 In Balance 8/14/2002 REIMBURSE DEPENDENT CARE $948.05 MarqUette Bank Mou 10100 Total $948.05 Refer 81402 FACKLER, JAMES 8/14/2002 Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $555.38 Invoice 081402 Transaction Date 8/14/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $555.38 Refer 81402 FRONTIER/CITIZENS COMMUNICA 8/14/2002 Cash Payment E 101-42110-321 Telephone & Cells 07-02 472-0621 $777.61 invoice 073002 Cash Payment E 101-41910-321 Telephone & Cells 07-02 472-0600 $1,049.83 Invoice 073002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells 07-02 472-0635 $350.81 Invoice 073002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells 07-02 472-0635 $350.81 Invoice 073002 ICash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone & Cells 07-02 472-0635 $350.80 Invoice 073002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-321 Telephone & Cells 07-02 472-3093 $279.07 invoice 073002 Transaction Date 8/5/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $3,158,93 Refer 81402 HANSON, KANDIS 8/14/2002 Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $395.48 Invoice 080802 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $395.48 Refer 81402 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 8/14/2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-430 Miscellaneous 23-117-24-43-0047 PROPERTY LIST $66.25 invoice 081402 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $66.25 Refer 81402 NORLANDER, JILL 8/14/2002 Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $74.00 Invoice 081402 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $74.00 Refer 81402 PETTY CASH 8/14/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies REPLENISH PETTY CASH MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Invoice 081402 Transaction Date 8/12/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total Refer 81402 ROBERTS, COLLETTE 8/14/2002 G 101-21716 Flex Plan Dependents REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE Invoice 081402 $26.65 $26.65 $323.14 4002 CITY OF MOUND 08/14/02 1:39 PM ~ AM Parle 2 ge 5 Payments Current Period: August 2002 Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $523.08 Invoice 081402 Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $2,002.00 Invoice 081402 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $2,848.22 Refer 81402 SPEEDWAYSUPERAMERICA (FIR 8/14/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-212 Motor Fuels THRU 07-26-02 GASOLINE CHARGES $326.03 Invoice Transaction Date 8/12/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $326.03 Refer 81402 SPEEDWAYSUPERAMERICA (P/W 8/14/2002 Cash Payment E 101.43100-212 Motor Fuels THRU 07-26-02 GASOLINE CHARGES $620.27 Invoice 072602 Cash Payment E 601-49400-212 Motor Fuels THRU 07-26-02 GASOLINE CHARGES $406.23 Invoice 072602 Cash Payment E 602-49450-212 Motor Fuels THRU 07-26-02 GASOLINE CHARGES $253.04 Invoice 072602 Transaction Date 8/8/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,279.54 Refer 81402 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA (PAR 8/14/2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-212 Motor Fuels THRU 07-26-02 GASOLINE CHARGES $534.37 Invoice 072602 Cash Payment E 101-42400-212 Motor Fuels THRU 07-26-02 GASOLINE CHARGES $21.41 Invoice 072602 Transaction Date 8~8/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $555.78 Refer 81402 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA (POL .8/14/2002 Cash Payment E 101-42110-212 Motor Fuels THRU 07-26-02 GASOLINE CHARGES $1,082.42 Invoice 072602 Transaction Date 8/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,082.42 Refer 81402 ST, MARTIN, RENEE 8/14/2002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic REPAIR/SEEDING WATER BREAK SITES $1,460.00 Invoice 081402 Transaction Date 8/14/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,460.00 Refer 81402 VERIZON WIRELESS 8/14/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41500-321 Telephone & Cells 08-02 296-9058 FINANCE $8.39 Invoice 081402 ~ Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells 08-02 590-4351 P/W SKINNER $11.77 Invoice 081402 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells 08-02 590-4351 P/W SKINNER $11.77 Invoice 081402 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone & Cells 08-02 590-4351 P/W SKINNER $11.78 Invoice 081402 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells 08-02 723-7560 MOUND FIRE $0.98 Invoice 081402 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells 08-02 750-2666 FIRE CHIEF $22.28 Invoice 081402 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells 08-02 751-3572 ENGINE #18 $1.94 invoice 081402 4003 ~ AM ge 6 cITy OF MOUND Payments 08/14/02 1:39 PM Page 3 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells Invoice 081402 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells Invoice 081402 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Current Period: August 2002 08-02 751-3573 MOUND FIRE 08-02 RESCUE TRUCK Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1.94 $8.39 $79.24 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 10100 Marquette Bank Mound $9,344.26 $361.56 $2,228.81 $615.62 $305.72 $12,855.97 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $12,855.97 $12,855.97 4004 CITY OF MOUND Payments 08/21/02 7:39 AM Page 1 Current Period: August 2002 Batch Name 082102SUE User Dollar Amt $3,033.50 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $3,033.50 $0.00 Irl Balance GRADY, DANIEL 8/21/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training ADVANCE INT ASSOC FiRE CHIEFS EXPO $800.00 Invoice 082102 Rear 82102 Transaction Date 8/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $800.00 Refer 82102 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (POLl 8/21/2002 Cash Payment E 101-42110-321 Telephone & Cells 06-19-02 THRU 07-18-02 CELL PHONES $633.50 Invoice 924573317 Transaction Date 8/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $633.50 Refer 82102 PEDERSON, GREG 8/21/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training ADVANCE INT ASSSOC FIRE CHIEFS EXPO $800.00 Invoice 082102 Transaction Date 8/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $800.00 Refer 82102 WILLIAMS, RICK 8/21/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training ADVANCE INT ASSOC FIRE CHIEFS EXPO $800.00 Invoice 082102 .Transaction Date 8/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $800.00 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FiRE SERVICES 10100 Ma~ueEeBank Mound $633.5O $2,400.00 $3,O33.5O Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $3,033.50 $3,033.50 4005 CITY OF MOUND Payments 08/22/02 1:51 PM Page 1 Current Period: August 2002 Batch Name 082702SUE User Dollar Amt $154,305.20 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $154,305.20 Refer 82702 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS, INCO AP Payment E 222-42260-325 Pagers-Fire Dept. Invoice 50231 Transaction Date 8/12/2002 Due 8/12/2002 $0.00 In Balance MINITOR POSITION $6.39 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $6.39 Refer 82702 ARCTIC GLACIER PREMIUM ICE AP Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Memhandise For R ICE Invoice MB222810 AP Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice MB222416 AP Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice MB222211 AP Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice MB222115 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 Accounts Payable $108.36 $138.00 $69.00 $114.00 20200 Total $429.36 Refer 82702 BELLBOY CORPORATION AP Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R Invoice 35945400 ,ment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 35945400 AP Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 24353300 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 MISCELLANEOUS $46.68 MISCELLANEOUS $117.46 LIQUOR $2,743.60 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $2,907.74 Refer 82702 BERENT, BRIAN AP Payment E 101-45200-430 Miscellaneous REIMBURSE MEDIClATION $24.89 Invoice 081302 Transaction Date 8/20/2002 Due 8/20/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $24.89 Refer 82702 BIFFS, INC PORTABLE RESTRO0 AP Payment E 101-45200-410 Rentals (GENERAL) - Invoice W167250 AP Payment E 101-45200-410 Rentals (GENERAL) Invoice W167251 AP Payment E 101-45200-410 Rentals (GENERAL) Invoice W167252 AP Payment E 101-45200-410 Rentals (GENERAL) 07-10-02 THRU 08-06-02 CENTER BEACH 07-10-02 THRU 08-06-02 HIGHLAND 07-10-02 THRU 08-06-02 MOUND BAY PARK 07-10-02 THRU 08-06-02 THREE POINTS PARK $328.26 $67.75 $429.87 $67.75 Invoice W167253 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $893.63 Refer 82702 BIG DOG EVENTS AP Payment E 101-41110-430 Miscellaneous EE APPRECIATION DINNER $1,217.30 Invoice 080102 AP Payment E 101-41910-220 Repair/Maint Supply REPAIR TYPEWRITER $99.00 Invoice 70988 4OO6 CITY OF MOUND Payments 08/22/02 1:51 PM Page 2 Current Period: August 2002 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $99.00 Refer 82702 BUSSE, TIMOTHY AP Payment E 101-41110-300 Professional Srvs 2002 CITY CONTACT Invoice 00038 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 $700.00 Total $700.00 Refer 82702 CHADWICK AND MERTZ AP Payment Invoice 080602 Transaction Date E 101-41600-304 Legal Fees 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 07-02 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Accounts Payable 20200 $6,003.00 Total $6,003.00 Refer 82702 CHAMPION AUTO AP Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Rel~air RTV BLUE Invoice D156863 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable $3.72 20200 Total $3.72 Refer 82702 CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPMENT, I AP Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies HOSE Invoice 33990 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 $239.26 Total $239.26 Refer 82702 COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST AP Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 61251161 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 Refer 82702 CONCO, INCORPORATED AP Payment E 455-46381-600 Debt Srv Principal Invoice 082702 AP Payment E 455-46381-611 Bond interest Invoice 082702 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 Refer 82702 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY AP Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 187772 AP Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale BEER Invoice 187771 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 ~ Due 8/22/2002 Accounts Payable Refer 82702 E-Z RECYCLING AP Payment E 670-49500-440 Other Contractual Servic 08-02 CURBSIDE RECYCLING invoice 4111 Transaction Date 8/20/2002 Due 8/20/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Accounts Payable 20200 09-02 PRINCIPLE TRUE VALUE 09-02 INTEREST TRUE VALUE Accounts Payable 20200 WINE Total $275.08 $275.08 $510.79 $451.05 Total $961.84 $35.30 $1,126.20 20200 Total $1,161.50 $7,700.00 Total $7,700.00 Refer 82702 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE AP Payment Invoice 282250 AP Payment Invoice 282249 ~,P Payment Invoice 282247 AP Payment Invoice 280258 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 $12.90 $2,960.50 $35.40 $107.00 4007 CITY OF MOUND Payments 08/22/02 1:51 PM Page Current Period: August 2002 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 812212002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $3,115.80 Refer 82702 EMERGENCY MANAGERS ASSOC. AP Payment E 101-42110-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2002 MEMBERSHIP MCKINLEY $100.00 Invoice 082702 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $100.00 Refer 82702 FACKLER, JAMES AP Payment E 101-45200-305 Medical and Dental Fees REIMBURSE EYE EXAM 08-13-02 $50.00 Invoice 081402-A Transaction Date 8/20/2002 Due 8/20/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $50.00 Refer 82702 FIRE CHIEF, MN ASSOCIA TION AP Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training REGISTRATION CONFERENCE $147.00 Invoice 082702 Transaction Date 8/21/2002 Due 8/21/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $147.00 Refer 82702 G & K SERVICES AP Payment E 101-43100-218 Clothing and Uniforms 08-06-02 UNIFORMS $30.12 Invoice 293893 AP Payment E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms 08-06-02 UNIFORMS $30.12 Invoice 293893 AP Payment E 602-49450-218 Clothing and Uniforms 08-06-02 UNIFORMS $30.13 Invoice 293893 Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials 08-06-02 MATS $16.68 Invoice 293893 AP Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials 08-06-02 MATS $16.68 Invoice 293893 AP Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials 08-06-02 MATS $16.68 Invoice 293893 AP Payment E 222-42260-216 Cleaning Supplies 08-20-02 MATS $42.29 Invoice 307721 AP Payment E 101-45200-223 Building Repair Supplies 08-06-02 MATS $53.27 Invoice 293894 AP Payment E 609-49750-460 Janitorial Services 08-06-02 MATS $21.29 Invoice 293897 AP Payment E 101-45200-223 Building Repair Supplies 08-20-02 MATS $52.82 Invoice 307719 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $310.08 AP Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies 07-02 WATER #32345800 $90.10 Invoice 073102 Transaction Date 8/12/2002 Due 8/12/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total ~0 10 AP Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $3,019,88 Invoice 584016 AP Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $394.20 Invoice 583774 ~'P Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $0.00 Invoice 583445 4OO8 CITY OF MOUND Payments 08/22/02 1:51 PM Page 4 Current Period: August 2002 AP Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $171.22 Invoice 580645 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $3,585.30 Refer 82702 HANSON, KANDIS AP Payment E 101-41310-321 Telephone & Cells DSL LINE $39.95 Invoice 080702 AP Payment E 101-41310-331 Use of personal auto MILEAGE $32.00 Invoice 080702 Transaction Date 8/20/2002 Due 8/20/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $71.95 Refer 82702 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMA TIO AP Payment E 101-41920-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 07-02 INTERNET SERVICE $37.07 Invoice 22077039 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $37.07 Refer 82702 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER AP Payment E 101-45200-430 Miscellaneous PROPERTY OWNERS LIST $43.75 Invoice 082702 AP Payment G 101-22857 Three Points, Backer Propert BECKER 13-117-24-21-0050 THRU 52 $395.00 Invoice 082702 AP Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs PROPERTY OWNERS LIST $274.50 Invoice 082702 1'ransaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $713.25 Refer 82702 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT AP Payment E 609-49750-412 Building Rentals 09-02 LIQUOR STORE RENTAL SPACE $4,342.00 Invoice 082702 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $4,342.00 Refer 82702 INFRATECH AP Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies PAINT $39.10 Invoice 021314P Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $39.10 Refer 82702 ISLAND PARK SKELLY AP Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair BATTERY, ETC $409.59 Invoice 10885 AP Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair CONDENSOR $466.48 Invoice 10873 AP Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery OiL CHANGE $25.86 Invoice 10872 AP Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery MOUNT AND BALANCE TIRES $51.86 Invoice 10969 AP Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery OIL CHANGE $25.86 Invoice 10973 Transaction Date 8/12/2002 Due 8/12/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $979.65 Refer 82702 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR AP Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,344.00 Invoice 1443422 AP Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,296.95 invoice 1443421 4009 GiT¥ OF MOUND Payments Page 5 Current Period: August 2002 AP Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $37.00 Invoice i440616 AP Payment E 609-49750-25i Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $138.00 Invoice i440615 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $2,815.95 Refer 82702 JOHNSON, PHYLLIS AP Payment E 455-46381-600 Debt Srv Principal 09-02 PRINCIPE TRUE VALUE $269.02 Invoice 082702 AP Payment E 455-46381-611 Bond Interest 09-02 INTEREST TRUE VALUE $400.09 Invoice 082702 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $669.11 Refer 82702 JUBILEE FOODS AP Payment E 101-41110-431 Meeting Expense COUNCIL COOKIES $45.88 Invoice 081302 AP Payment E 101-41110-430 Miscellaneous COUNCIL COOKIES $2.97 Invoice 081302 AP Payment E 101-41110-430 Miscellaneous COUNCIL COOKIES $19.55 Invoice 081302 AP Payment E 101-41110-430 Miscellaneous COUNCIL COOKIES $4.32 Invoice 081302 J'ransaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $72.72 Refer 82702 JUUT SALONSPA AP Payment E 101-41310-208 Instructional Supplies DAYMAKER BOOK (7) $104.00 Invoice 2002-2056 Transaction Date 8/20/2002 Due 8/20/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $104.00 Refer 82702 LAKER NEWSPAPER AP Payment E 101-41110-351 Legal Notices Publishing 08-10-02 FILING DATES $31.84 Invoice 294 AP Payment G 101-22857 Three Points, Backer Propert LEGAL NOTICES $39.80 Invoice 294 AP Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic 08-10-02 RETAINING WALLS $67.66 Invoice 302 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $139.30 AP Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair BELT WITH PUMP $173.29 Invoice 74936 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $173.29 Refer 82702 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT AP Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair GASKETS, ETC $221.64 Invoice 037852 AP Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair CHAIN, BAR $4.37 Invoice 037873 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8113/2002 . --,~ ,Acc°unts Payable 20200 Total ~6 01 :~efer 82702 LOWELL'S AUTOMOTIVE 8~27~2002 E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies LUBE FILTER $5.96 Invoice 5-342120 4010 CITY OF MOUND Payments 08/22/02 1:51 PM Page 6 Current Period: August 2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies FINANCE CHARGE $0.71 Invoice 39970 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies MIRROR GLAZE $27.99 Invoice 5-345414 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies SILICONE LUBE ETC $22.73 Invoice 5-234487 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies FINANCE CHARGE $0.06 Invoice 40183 Transaction Date 8/12/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $57.45 Refer 82702 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INCORP AP Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts THROTTLE CABLE $126.22 Invoice 2025266 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $126.22 Refer 82702 MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR AP Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $97.50 Invoice 443731 AP Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $3,133.06 Invoice 443730 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $3,230.56 Refer 82702 MES - SNYDER, INCORPORATED AP Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies FRONT AS MOUND FIRE DEPT $71.75 Invoice 080791 Transaction Date 8/12/2002 Due 8/12/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $71.75 Refer 82702 METRO WEST INSPECTIONS AP Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 07-02 BLDG INSPECTIONS $1,716.80 Invoice 073102 AP Payment E 222-42260-170 Fire Chief-Officer Pay 07-02 FIRE INSPECTIONS $787.50 Invoice 073102 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $2,504.30 Refer 82702 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIR AP Payment E 602-49450-388 Waste DisposaI-MCIS 09-02 WASTEWATER $31,869.30 Invoice 0000742644 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $31,869.30 Refer 82702 MINNCOMM PAGING AP Payment E 222-42260-325 Pagers-Fire Dept. 08-02 PAGERS $110.86 Invoice 20233308020 Transaction Date 8/12/2002 Due 8/12/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $110.86 Refer 82702 MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIA TIO AP Payment E 895-49990-124 Fire Pens Contrib 08-02 FIRE RELIEF $9,088.33 Invoice 082702 AP Payment E 895-49990-124 Fire Pens Contrib BALANCE DUE $110.00 Invoice 082702 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $9,198~33 Refer 82702 NELSON, JOYCE AP Payment E 101-41110-430 Miscellaneous REIMBURSE EE EVENT $19.35 Invoice 080702 4011 CITY OF MOUND Payments 08/22/02 1:51 PM Pac~e ? Current Period: August 2002 Transaction Date §/13/2002 Due 6/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $19.35 Refer 82702 NORLANDER, JILL AP Payment E 101--42400-210 Operating Supplies REIMBURSE PERMIT BAGS $3.20 Invoice 081702 Transaction Date 8/20/2002 Due 8/20/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $3.20 Refer 82702 NOVA COMMUNICATIONS AP Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells VOICE MAIL REPAIR $100.00 Invoice 1228 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $100.00 Refer 82702 NRC PROCESSING SOLLUTIONS L AP Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Se~ic 07-02 SERVICES $22.08 Invoice 19291 Transaction Date 8/20/2002 Due 8/20/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $22.08 Refer 82702 OHLIN SALES, INCORPORATED AP Payment E 222-42260-325 Pagers-Fire Dept. PAGER EQUIPMENT $201.60 invoice 00002097 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $201.60 Refer 82702 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY AP Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $81.60 Invoice 34775167 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $81.60 Refer 82702 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC AP Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale LIQUOR $1,971.55 Invoice 863189 AP Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $75.75 Invoice 863188 AP Payment E 609*49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $246.00 Invoice 863187 AP Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $107.40 Invoice 963186 AP Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,105.10 Invoice 861048 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $3,505.80 Refer 82702 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING AP Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CIGARETTES $1,212~50 Invoice 66082 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $1,212.50 AP Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 157655-00 AP Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 157217-00 AP Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 157173-00 AP Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 155140-00 $1,307.79 $4,055.86 $28.34 $369.54 4012 CITY OF MOUND Payments 08/22/02 1:51 PM Page 8 Current Period: August 2002 ~,; ~;i~ ~ ~ i~ ~;;~, ~ ~!~ ~ /;~i~,,¥i~ ~?~;~ AP Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $93.57 Invoice 154958-00 AP Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2,688.60 Invoice 154747-00 AP Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2,688.60 Invoice 154747-00 AP Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $120.53 Invoice 154743-00 AP Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CREDIT-MISCELLANEOUS -$23.40 Invoice 152876-00 AP Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$95,92 Invoice 152580-00 Transaction Date 8~22~2002 Due 8/22/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $11,233.51 Refer 82702 RELIANT ENERGY 8/27/2002. Cash Payment E 101-45200-383 Gas Utilities 06-18-02 THRU 07-19-02 #543-000-053-000 $24.26 Invoice 082702 Cash Payment E 101-45200-383 Gas Utilities $53.27 Invoice 082702 Cash Payment E 609-49750-383 Gas Utilities $15.98 Invoice 082702 Cash Payment E 222-42260-383 Gas Utilities $41.14 Invoice 082702 Cash Payment E 101-41910-383 Gas Utilities $43.35 Invoice 082702 Cash Payment E 101-43100-383 Gas Utilities $20.53 Invoice 082702 Cash Payment E 601-49400-383 Gas Utilities $11.20 Invoice 082702 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities $14.93 Invoice 082702 Transaction Date 8/12/2002 $224.66 Refer 82702 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO AP Payment E 222-42260-430 Miscellaneous AIR AND OXYGEN $22.45 Invoice R 07021065 Transaction Date 8/12/2002 Due 8/12/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $22.45 Refer 82702 SCHARBER AND SONS AP Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair BLADE $127.74 Invoice 02 2028116 AP Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair FILLER CAP $9.08 Invoice 02 2028211 AP Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair BLADE $98.36 Invoice 02 2028116 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $235.18 Refer 82702 SCHWALBE, NICK AP Payment G 101-22803 Police Reserves REFUND UNIFORM $100.00 Invoice 082702 PO 17430 Transaction Date 8~20~2002 Due 8/20/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $100,00 Refer 82702 SHOREWOOD TREE SERVICE 06-18-02 THRU 07-19-02 #543-095-800 06-18-02 THRU 07-19-02 #543-001-833-500 06-18-02 THRU 07-19-02 #5643-001-852-100 06-18-02 THRU 07-19-02 #543-853-000 06-18-02 THRU 07-19-02 #543-001-972-603 06-18-02 THRU 07-19-02 #543-001-972-603 06-18-02 THRU 07-19-02 #543-001-972-603 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total 4013 CITY OF MOUND Payments 08/22/02 1:51 PM Page 9 Current Period: August 2002 AP Payment E 10%45200-533 Tree Removal 2940 BRIGHTON 2 ELMS $426.00 Invoice 4128 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $426.00 Refer 82702 SOS PRINTING AP Payment E 222-42260-200 Office Supplies BLUEPRINT COPIES $6.39 Invoice 64073 Transaction Date 8/21/2002 Due 8/21/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $6 39 Refer 82702 SOUTHWEST TRAILS ASSOCIA TIO AP Payment G 101-22801 Deposits/Escrow SW TRAILS 07-12-02 $20,919.30 Invoice 645088264A' Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $20,919.30 Refer 82702 SPORTING BREED KENNELS AP Payment E 101.42110-445 Dog Kennel Fees 09-02 DOG KENNEL FEE $325.00 Invoice 082702 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8122/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $325.00 Refer 82702 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY AP Payment E 101-41110-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2002 MEMBERSHIP 2ND HALF $400.00 Invoice 080802 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $400.00 Refer 82702 SUBURBAN TIRE COMPANY AP Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair TIRES $129.93 Invoice 10004158 AP Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts TIRE (4) $280.14 Invoice 10004121 PO 17451 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $410.07 Refer 82802 SWENSEN, JASON AP Payment E 101-42110-430 Miscellaneous REIMBURSE EXPENSE K-9 TRAINING $215.46 Invoice 080702 AP Payment E 101-42110-218 Clothing and Uniforms REIMBURSE EXTREME ISSUE $325.00 Invoice 081202 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $540.46 Refer 82702 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN AP Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $4,591.90 Invoice 270199 AP Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $50.85 Invoice 270195 AP Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $234.00 Invoice 230311 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $4,876.75 AP Payment Invoice 05-256 Transaction Date E 101-41920-400 Repairs & Maint Contract REPAIR PRINTERS $95.00 8/13/2002 Due 8/1312002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $95.00 AP Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 13834 PO 16745 REGISTER PAPER $128.77 4014 CITY OF MOUND Payments 08/22/02 1:51 PM Page 10 Current Period: August 2002 AP Payment G 609-16200 Fixed Asset-Buildings 07-02 LIQUOR STORE $10,992,26 Invoice 12 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $10,992.26 Refer 82702 TWIN CITY OFFICE SUPPLY AP Payment E 222-42260-200 Office Supplies FILES $24.15 Invoice 354504-0 Transaction Date 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $24.15 Refer 82702 UNITED PROPERTIES E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic 09-02 BALBOA PARKING $31,95 AP Payment Invoice 082702 AP Payment Invoice 082702 AP Payment Invoice 082702 Transaction Date E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic 09-02 BALBOA PARKING $31.95 E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic 09-02 BALBOA PARKING $31.95 8/22/2002 Due 8/22/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $95.85 Refer 82702 US FILTER AP Payment E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply BALANCE DUE $57.89 Invoice 8547284-B Transaction Date 8/20/2002 Due 8/20/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $57.89 Refer 82702 WESTONKA MECHANICAL AP Payment E 602-49450-220 Repair/Maint Supply PiPE $36.00 Invoice 29046 Transaction Date 8/13/2002 Due 8/13/2002 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $36.00 Refer 82702 XCEL ENERGY 8/27/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41910-381 Electric Utilities 07-02 #2245-301-939 Invoice Cash Payment Invoice Cash Payment Invoice Cash Payment Invoice Cash Payment Invoice Cash Payment Invoice Cash Payment Invoice Cash Payment Invoice Cash Payment Invoice Cash Payment Invoice $1,738.90 E 101-42115-381 Electdc Utilities E 609-49750-381 Electdc Utilities E 601-49400-381 Electdc Utilities E 222-42260-381 Electdc Utilities E 101-45200-381 Electric Utilities E 101-43100-381 Electric Utilities E 601-49400-381 Electdc Utilities E 602-49450-381 Electdc Utilities E 602-49450-381 Electdc Utilities 07-02 #0466-607-223 $21.99 07-02 #1914-601-425 $709.97 07-02#0217-606-328 $4,141.52 07-02#2184-407-147 $499.14 07-02#0047-005-229 $226.32 07-02#0864-508-832 $174.20 07-02 #0864-508-832 $174.20 07-02 #0864-508-832 $174.20 07-02~0018-802-634 $2,232,82 4015 CITY OF MOUND Payments 08/22/02 1:51 PM Page 11 Current Period: August 2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-381 Electric Utilities 07-02 #0009-604-835 $342.96 Invoice Transaction Date 8/12/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $10,436.22 Fund Summary 10100 Marquette Bank Mound 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 455 TIF 1-2 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 670 RECYCLING FUND 895 FIRE RELIEF FUND $2,645.78 $597.73 $4,326.92 $2,421.95 $725.95 $10,718.33 20200 Accounts Payable $35,981.71 $2,725.81 $1,905.45 $136.64 $32,023.16 $53,915.77 $7,700.00 $9,198.33 $143,586.87 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $154,305.20 $154,305.20 4016 This page left blank intentionally. 4017 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 02- RESOLUTION APPOINTING ABSENTEE BALLOT BOARD WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statutes 203B.13 allows for the establishment of an Absenteee Ballot Board to process absentee ballots for the primary and general elections; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Mound to exercise this option as stated in the above statute; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby appoint an Absentee Ballot Board as provided for in Minnesota State Statutes 203B13. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it has been determined, based on the number of absentee ballots cast in the primary and general election of 2000, that two board members of different major political parties is sufficient. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of the Absentee Ballot Board for the primary and general election by hereby named as Sue Schwalbe and Jodi Rahn. The foregoing resolved was moved by Councilmember Councilmember and seconded by The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this 27th day of August, 2002. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 4018 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 02- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPONSORSHIP OF MATCH GRANT FUNDING PROJECT 0054-02-6A- TUCKER 2000 TRAIL GROOMER PURCHASE WITH THE SOUTHWEST TRAILS ASSOCIATION BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mound act as the legal sponsor for match grant funding to the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for project #0054- 02-6A - $60,799.50 Tucker 2000 Trail Groomer match for trails to be managed by the Southwest Trails Association. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon approval of its application by the state, the City of Mound may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above referenced project and that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the agreement; and accepts the Grant in the amount awarded as partial funding for this trail project and recognizes the match requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Mound is hereby authorized to serve as the fiscal agent for the above referenced project The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember and seconded by The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 4019 5341 Maywood Ro~d Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: August 22, 2002 SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Request for Rezoning to R-lA Single-Family Residential APPLICANT: Tim Becker and Dale and Lorell Becker PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 02-26 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 5-8, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, City of Mound LOCATION: 5331 Three Points Blvd / 5341 Three Points Btvd / 5351 Three Points Blvd / 5361 Three Points Blvd ZONING: R- 1 Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential (1-6 m~its/acre) SUMMARY The City Council will hold a public hearing to review a request from Tim Becker (on behalf of himself and Dale and Lorell Becker) to rezone Lots 5-8, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores from R-1 Single-Family Residential to R-lA Single-Family Residential. While the current rezoning application does not involve any construction activities, the applicant has provided preliminary site plans and demonstrated a proposed building pad on the subject lots and provided examples of possible house designs. Details regarding the request from the Becker family are contained in Planning Report No. 02-26 which has been included as an attachment. CRITERIA FOR GRANTING ZONING AMENDMENTS The City Council may adopt amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and zoning map in relation both to land uses within a particular district or to the location of the district lines. Such amendments shall not be issued indiscriminately but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals or the policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in the conditions of the City. 4020 REVIEW PROCEDURE An amendment to the text or the Ordinance or zoning map may be initiated by the City Council, the Planning Commission or by application of a property owner. Any amendment not initiated by the Planning Commission shall be referred to the Planning Commission for review and may not be acted upon by the Council until it has received the Planning Commission recommendation. Minnesota State Statutes 462.357 Subd. 3 states that no zoning ordinance or amendment can be adopted until a public hearing is held by the planning agency or by the governing body. Additionally, the notice of the public hearing must also be published at least (10) days prior to the hearing date. The notice of public hearing held by the Planning Commission was published in the Laker on July 30, 2002 and mailed to all affected property owners within (350) feet on or before July 25, 2002. City Code Section 350:520, Subd. 2 (D) also requires that a public hearing is held by the City Council. Members of the City Council are advised that the notice of public hearing was published in the Laker on August 10, 2002 and mailed to all affected property owners within (350) feet on or before August 15, 2002. 60-DAY TIMELINE Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, local government agencies are required to approve or deny land use requests within 60 days. The rezoning application was received and deemed to be complete on July 5, 2002. The 60-day timeline expires on September 2, 2002. Within the 60-day period, an automatic extension of no more than 60 days can be obtained by providing the applicant written notice containing the reason for the extension and specifying how much additional time is needed. OVERVIEW OF PLANNING RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AND Details regarding the public hearing held by the Planning Commission are contained in the August 5, 2002 meeting minute excerpts that have been included as an attachment. Several neighborhood residents attended the public hearing and expressed concern regarding the proposed application. Additionally, a petition opposing the proposed rezoning action was presented to the Planning Commission. In general, members of the Planning Commission did not support the application because they believed 6000 square foot lots would be out of place in the neighborhood and that the property should remain zoned R-1. Based on its review, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend denial of the rezoning application. Members of the Planning Commission also commented that the applicant could utilize the variance procedure as a possible option. 4021 CITY COUNCIL ACTION In making its decision on the rezoning application, the City Council should direct City staff to prepare a resolution based on the record of the public hearing including findings of fact which should then be brought back to the next meeting of the City Council to be held on Monday, September 9, 2002. Additionally, City staff should be directed to execute a 60-day extension for action on the land use request pursuant to M.S.S. 15.99 since the City's deadline for its decision expires on September 2, 2002. 4O22 Excerpts from the MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2002 CASE #02-26 - Public Hearing Request to rezone Lots 5-8, Block 4 Harrison Shores Replat fi:om R-1 to R-IA Tim Becket etal - 5331/5341/5351/5361 Three Points Boulevard Smith indicated that the request is to allow future development of the 4 lots located on the south side of Three Points Boulevard for single-family residential use. The proposed 20 foot front setback will maintain a similar building line with that of adjacent structures and the use of pilings for future foundations will be used to avoid construction activities within the designated floodplain areas and wetland boundaries will be maintained. Consistent with the Comp Plan, this area would be maintained as low-density residential use. Smith reviewed the issues outlined on the Planning Report as well as the individual house footprints for each lot. Lots 5-7 would conform in every way. Lot 8 had some issues with the wetland boundary. Discussion Brown questioned the rezoning to smaller square footage when the neighborhood around is 10,000 square feet. He reminded the Commission about the history of fill being brought in. There are test wells for hydrology on this property. He questioned the buildability of the the property given that data. Smith indicated that the fill history is an issue that has been resolved. The 929.4 is the current ordinary high water and is fairly consistent in this area. The test well question must be referred to Kelly Bopray, the consultant hydrologist for the City. Clapsaddle has a great deal of difficulty listening to the rationale for this change because, in effect, the only reason for the change is the need for the setbacks available in R1A. Chair opened the Public Hearing. A1 Jassim, 5301 Baywood Shores Dr - He's lived here for 30 years. Disappointed with the staff. They should be looking out for the current residents living in the area. He feels the City would be rewarding the filler of the wetlands. It is cun'ently zoned for 10,000 square feet; why change to 6,000? By granting such a variance it encourages other areas to do the same. Larry Overstreet, 1700 Jones Lane - Lives on the Lagoon. 1) Submitted pictures of Mr. Becker and his crew filling the Lagoon. 2) Submitted petition of Harrison Shores residents in opposition of the rezoning. 4O23 Planning Commission Minutes August 5, 2002 Michael Fitzgerald, 5321 Baywood Shores Drive - Purchased their lot as it was zoned in a lO,OO0 SF area. As you proceed east on Three Points Boulevard turning traffic is a big issue with the condominiums along that stretch. He doesn't oppose the development of the property, however, four new residences will adversely affect the traffic further. Jeff Skelton, 1770 Baywood Shores Drive - The development of the area isn't the issue with any of the neighbors. The issue is the density. We have a situation where we're trying to put 10 p0unds.0fpotatoes in a 6 pound bag. Paul Larson, 3865 Shoreline Drive - represents Tim Becker - These are platted lots of record. They have stubbed water and sewer and are taxed as building sites. The potential builder will build a nice product. There is a clear hardship for these lots. If the water ever comes up to the 931.5 it will be a first. The contractor who added fill took out more than they put in. Larry Johnson, 1724 Baywood Shores Drive - Look at pictures to see where fill was added. They will tell the tale. Tim Becker, Three Points Blvd - Mound approved these lots in 1962 for 4 single family homes. The City improved the lots with sidewalk and utilities. We purchase in 1986. It's time to move on to use them as they were originally intended. We are not going to move the lot lines or add more homes. City approved several variances for Lot 4. The fill was brought in and approvals were obtained from the MCWD and the DNR 4 years ago. The adjacent neighbors obtained variances for construction of their homes for some of the same issues that would be resolved by the rezoning. Neighbors across the street asked for and received the same rezoning. Brown said that if the property was sold tomorrow to a new developer they would have the right to come in and request a subdivision to 6,000 square foot lots. Richard Ambrose, 1717 Jones Lane - Becker's neighbors to the south are RI. Keep Becker's lots R1. A1 Jassim, 5301 Baywood Shores Dr - He's mixing apples and oranges. Variances were granted to neighbors but their lots were larger than 10,000. Larry Overstreet, 1700 Jones Lane - The houses adjacent didn't ask for a change from R1 to R1A to get their houses built. Closed public heating. Brown feels that the 10,000 square foot R1 zoning should stay. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hasse, to deny staff recommendation. Clapsaddle doesn't see where that judgement hurts the project at all. He'll build the same product with a variance. It's wise to leave at RI. 4024 Planning Commission Minutes August 5, 2002 Weiland felt a variance request would be the correct way togo. Glister felt lots of 6,000 square feet would be o_ut.o£place. Hasse added "in any neighborhood". MOTION carried unanimously Smith clarified that there was no variance on lot 9. Lot 4 variances were issued in 1994. 4O25 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 CITY OF MOUND WEB: www.cityofmound.com PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MIN N ESOTA CASE # 02-26 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION FROM TIM BECKER TO REZONE LOTS 5-8, BLOCK 4, REPLAT O'F HARRISON SHORES, CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA FROM R-I SI. NGLE-FAMI.LY RESIDENTIAL TO R-lA SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 to consider a request fi'om Tim Becket (on behalf of Dale and Lorell Becket) to rezone Lots 5-8, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, City of Mound, Minnesota from R-1 Single-Family Residential to R-lA Single and Family Residential. The subject property is located as follows: 5331 Three Points Boulevard 5341 Three Points Boulevard 5351 Three Points Boulevard 5361 Three Points Boulevard Copies of the application materials are available to the public upon request at City Hall. All person,s appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. J~l ~ 5-rla n'-d er - Planning and Building Dept. Published in the Laker on August 10, 2002 Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on or before August ]5, 2002. prttlteCi Otl rocyclocl paper 4026 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING HEARING NOTICE Case No~ {~-,:~'~ STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY. OF HENNEPIN Jill Nodander, 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 Inspectionb Department of the City of Mound, Minnesota. On L/~~.?- z/,.~" ,20 ~ , 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 {he addresses appearing opposite their respective names. There is delivery service by the United States mail between the place of mailing' NAME '~' '-' ~',:- ,'~ · -' *see attached list. and the places so addressed. Subscribed and .sWorn to before me this 4027 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING :---,~ ...... :-: ~:---,~-. ...... HEARING NOTICE .... STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ~(~'~~ , being duly sworn, on oath says that on the /,.~ day of ~ ,20 Og:~, he/she personally posted tho attachod notico in throe public places in tho County of Honnopin, 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. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this day of ~ JOYCEC. NELSON NOT~Y PUBUC-MINNESOTA Commission Expires J:~. 31, 2::3 c -Notary Public, Hennepin My Commission expires 4O28 July 29, 2002 In the matter of an application from Tim Becker to rezone Lots 5-8, Block 4, Re-plat of Harrison Shores, City of Mound, Minnesota from R-1 Single-Family Residential to R-1A Single and Family Residential. Case # 02-26 We the residents of Harrison Shores, Citizens of Mound, do NOT support any zoning changes. NAME ADDRESS .. PHONE 4O29 July 29, 2002 In the matter of an application from Tim Becker to rezone Lots 5-8, Block 4, Re-plat of Harrison Shores, City of Mound, Minnesota from R-1 Single-Family Residential to R-lA Single and Family Residential. Case # 02-26 We the residents of Harrison Shores, Citizens of Mound, do NOT support any zoning changes. N ADDRESS PHONE ~1S2~- q'7~-- 778~7 4O3O July 29, 2002 In the matter of an application from Tim Beeker to rezone Lots 5-8, Block 4, Re-plat of Harrison Shores, City of Mound, Minnesota from R-1 Single-Family Residential to R-lA Single and Family Residential. Case # 02-26 We the residents of Harrison Shores, Citizens of Mound, do NOT ,support any zoning changes. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 4031 July 29, 2002 In the matter of an application from Tim Becker to rezone Lots 5-8, Block 4, Re-plat of Harrison Shores, City of Mound, Minnesota fi.om R-1 Single-Family Residential to R-lA Single and Family Residential. Case # 02-26 We the residents of Harrison Shores, Citizens of Mound, do NOT support any zoning changes. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 4032 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472--3190 PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: July 31, 2002 SUBJECT: Request for Rezoning to R- lA Single-Family Residential APPLICANT: Tim Becker and Dale and Lorell Becket PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 02-26 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 5-8, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, City of Mound LOCATION: 5331 Three Points Blvd / 5341 Three Points Blvd / 5351 Three Points Blvd / 5361 Three Points Blvd ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential (1-6 units/acre) REQUEST The applicant, Tim Becket (on behalf of Dale and LorcII Becket) has submitted a request to rezone Lots 5-8, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores from R-1 Single-Family Residential to R-lA Single Family Residential. The purpose for the rezoning request is to allow future development of the subject lots for single-family residential use. Pursuant to City Code Section 350:625, Subd. 1, the R-lA District functions as an area in Mound where historical platting practices of small lots calls for a relaxation of development standards for remodeling and construction of infill residential. While the current rezoning application does not involve any construction activities, the applicant has provided preliminary site plans and demonstrated a proposed building pad on the subject lots and provided examples of possible house designs. The applicant has indicated that the proposed (20) foot front setback of the R~IA district will maintain a similar building line with that of adjacent structures and further commented that the use of pilings for the foundations will be used to avoid construction activities within the designated floodplain areas and that the wetland boundary will be maintained. BACKGROUND The Becker family purchased the subject property approximately (15) years ago with the intension of developing the property for residential use. Over the course of the past few years, there has been on-going discussions between the applicant and the City of Mound regarding the wetland boundary following an application for a no net loss wetland exemption and/or determination which was submitted in 1999-2000. 4033 The wetland boundary determination w_as made by the Technical Evaluation Panel CT. EP)in Februa~ / March 2001: Shortly thereafter, the applicant requested an extension regarding the City's decision in order to allow additional time to cornplete their development plans and to consider whether or not they should retain the R-I zoning and apply for a variance(s) or propose an amendment to rezone the lots to R-I A. At its July 9, 2002 meeting the City Council adopted a resolution that denied the applicant's original request for a no-net loss wetland exemption and determination and also approved the wetland boundary as determined by the T'EP in February / March 2001. REVIEW PROCEDURE The City Council may adopt amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and zoning map in relation both to land uses within a particular district or to the location of the district lines. An amendment to the text of the Ordinance or zoning map may be initiated by the City Council, the Planning Commission for by application of a property owner. Any amendment not initiated by the Planning Commission shall be referred to the Planning Commission for review and may not be acted upon by tine Council until it has received the Planning Commission recommendation. Minnesota State Statutes 462.357 Subd. 3 states tlnat no zoning ordinance or amendment can be adopted until a public hearing is held by the planning agency or by the governing body. Additionally, fine notice of the public hearing must also be published at least (10) days prior to the hearing date. The notice of public lnearing was published in the Laker on July 30, 2002 and mailed to all affected property owners within (350) feet on or before July 25, 2002. City Code Section 350:520, Subd 2 (D) also requires that a public hearing is held by the City Council. To date, the public hearing to be held by the City Council, has not been scheduled. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that in the event a recommendation is made at the August 5th meeting, it is anticipated that the public hearing will be scheduled to be held at the City Council at its August 27th meeting. 60-DAY PROCESS The rezoning application was received and deemed to be complete on July 5, 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. The 60-day timeline expires on September 2, 2002. ISSUES ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Map included in the Mound Comprehensive Plan guides the property for future low-density residential use ( 1-6 units / acre.) 4034 Zoning. The follOWing tables includes the tot area, Mdth 'and setback requirements for the R-1 and R-1A Residential Districts. Lot Area Width Depth Front Side Rear Lake Setback Setback Setback Setback R-I 10,000 SF 60 VT 80 FT 30 VT 10 FT 15 FT 50 FT R-lA 6,000 SF 40 FT 60 FT 20 FT 10 FT 15 FT 50 FT Lot of Record Provisions in R-1 District. The following special provisions apply for Lots of Record in the R-I Single-Family Residential District: Side Yard Setback Requirements Lot Width Minimum Side Yard Setback -. One (1) Side 40-50feet 6fee! 80-100./ket 8.tee/ 101 .feet or over ! O.feet Front Yard Setback Requirements Lot Depth Minimum t;)'ont Yard Se/back 60feet or le.sx 20fee! 61-80.,/.eet 24feet 81feet or more 30fee/ Lot of Record Provisions in R-lA District. The following special provisions apply for Lots of Record in the R-I A Single-Family Residential District: Side yard setbacks'for Lois of Record shall be six (6).,/'eel unless the structure or site does not contain a garage itl which case, one side yard setback is required lo be ten (]0) feel lo accommodale a driveway accexs. Adjacent Land Uses: West Residential (10,000 SF lot size) East Residential (6000-10,000 SF lot size) North High Density Residential South Residential (10,000 SF lot size) Hardcover. Impervious surface coverage on residential lots shall not exceed (30) percent of the lot area On existing lots of record, impervious surface coverage may be permitted to a maximum of (40) percent provided the techniques are utilized as identified in City Code Section 350:1225, Subd. (B) 1. 4O35 Ordinary High Water Elevation, The Ordinary High Water Elevation for Lake Minnetonka is 929.4 Floodplain Elevation. The floodplain elevation in the City of Mound is 931.0 and the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) for the City of Mound is 933.00. The floodplain elevation for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is 931.5. Wetland Boundary. The wetland boundary as determined by the Technical Evaluation Panel in February / March 2001 was approved by the City Council at its July 9, 2002 meeting. A copy of the map and supporting information has been included as attachments. SITE INFORMATION The following table summarizes the lot area, lot width and setback requirements for the subject site as proposed by the applicant: Lot Area* Width Depth Front Side Rear Lake hnpervious Setback Setback(s) Setback Setback Coverage Lot5 8925 SF 94 FT 90 FT 20 FT '10 FT N/A 50 FT 26.6 % Lot 6 9040 SF 89 FT 117 FT 20 FT 10 FT N/A 50 FT 28.3 % Lot 7 9352 SF 90 FT 125 FT 20 FT 10 FT N/A 50 FT 27.3 % '1 Lot8 10010SF 120FT 116FT 20FT lOFT N/A 50FT 29.2% * NOTE: The proposed lot sizes provided by the applicant were measured from the 929.40HW contour. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all applicable City departments for review and comment. All comments are summarized below: City Engineer John Cameron Public Works Director Skinner Parks Director Fackler Fire Chief Pederson Police Chief McKinney No comment No comment No comment No comment No comment 4036 The subject property includes four (4) parcels located on the south side of Three Points that are currently vacant. It is bordered by residential uses on the north, west and east sides. It is bordered on the south side by a lagoon. Lots 5-8, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shore are lots of record. The following land use actions were approved previously for the subject property. Resolution 86-82 Resolution 86-97 Resolution 86-98 Resolution 86-99 Lot size and setback variance for Lot 8, Block 4 Vacation of certain utility and drainage easements for Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 Front yard setback variance for Lots 5, 6, and 7 Block 4 Final subdivision: Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 4 City staff believes that the previously approved variances are null and void as they were not utilized or executed within the one-year timeframe per City Ordinance. This issue has been preliminarily discussed with the City Attorney. Additionally, Resolution No. 86-99 regarding a proposed lot rearrangement included a condition which required recording within 180-days upon adoption of the resolution. Approval of the proposed rezoning of the subject property to R-lA constitute or guarantee future approval of any building permit(s) or necessary approval by other public agencies (ie. MCWD, DNR, etc.) does not any other Both the R-1 and the R-IA Single Family Residential Districts are reserved for single- family use only. Two-family dwellings are not allowed. In the event the proposed rezoning action is approved, the applicant has indicated that the subject lots can be developed under the R- 1A regulations without any variances. Portions of the subject property are located within the 100-year floodplain which is the 931.0 elevation in the City of Mound. The City's floodplain controls require that all new structures are placed at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) of 933.0. The proposed building fbotprints for Lots 5-7 appear to be at or around the 931.0 contour. The proposed building footprint for Lot 8 encroaches into the 931.0 contour for the City of Mound. The floodplain for the MCWD is 931.5. The 931.5 floodplain contour for the MCWD appears to encroach into all four (4) proposed building footprints. Approval by the MCWD is required in the event any fill is placed within the floodplain and compensation is required according to current MCWD rules. The floodplain issue(s) should be discussed with the applicant. 4037 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval to rezone Lots 5-8, Block 3, Replat of Harrison Shores from R-I to R-'lA as the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and adjacent properties.subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land use requests. 2. No future approval of any development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this land use action in the event the rezoning is approved. 3. Applicant shall be required to submit all required information upon submittal of' the building permit applications, when appropriate. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or permits including, but not limited to, MCWD, DNR, etc. 6 4038 FOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP / zONING DISTRICT COMPLETE THE/FOLLOWING It is req_uested that the_p_rppe _rty described below and shown on the attaChed site .plan be rezoned from g-- ~ ,o ~,.-~ [ A Address & Address ~'5 5' I / 5' 3"¢ I' j, 5' ~ S'-t , ~-..4 6 I Legal of Prope~y Addition ~¢ -,' J"o ~ ~"~ o f ~ ~ PID~ Plat Owner of Name Subject Site Address Phone (H) (W) (M) Present Use of ~ ~ ~'~ ~ -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ;'~' [~ ! certify that all of the statements above and statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I acknowledge that I have read ali of the information provided and that .I am responsible for all costs incurred bY the City related to the processing of this application. i consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of Posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be Date ~/~'"/0 2--, required by law. Applicant's Signatu re'~---~~. ~ Owner's Signature ~'~~ ~~"X Zoning Amendment Application Page 2 of 2 Revised 03/20/02 4O39 87/22/2882 28:51 7152325884 OWS/OUT P~SE 82 FRANK R. CARDARELLE Eden Pr~fie, MN 5.5344 Sur~y For Timo'hh.y 5ecker __ -.-. ..... ~k 3 1 8 Page__2~ . File __ 07/22/2002 20:51 7152325004 UNSTOUT PAGE 03 FRANK R. CARDARELL'E ~ok ~ [~ Page__?e File Survey For 4041 ~ R~. N~. ~ 87/22/2882 20:51 7152325004 UWSTOUT PAGE 84 CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES '3031 Inc.' Land Surveyors Eden Prairie, MN 553~4 , - .... : ........ Certificate Of Survey Survey For Timothy J~ecker i~ook 318 Page 72-- File__ L $c&2e- o~ lo~ ~ner record '""~'~"~" ..... ' ....... " .....~ ..... --,~~.~ Lot 7, Block 4, replat of Ha~r.J=so n .$horea " ' .......... '" ~ ~y, ~in.~ ~ ~ 1~ ~t~t, ~1 ~ mu4~l~s ~-~n ~ ~( .- .... e~~E~'oc~A~E~. ,. 4042 07/22/2002 20:51 7152325804 UWSTOUT PAGE 05 FRANK R. CARD^RELLE Eden Praide,.MN 55344 Scale: 1"=30' Size and dimensions .lot per reocrd plat. ~e Reg. No. 6.5D8 4043 07/22/2002 28:54 7Z52325004 UWSTBUT PAGE 02 FRANK B. CARDARELLE Eden Prairie MN 55344 Sumoy For Timothy Becket ~k}~8. Page~ File~ Scale: ', "=30 ' ~ .Size aug dfmCn~;ions of lot ~er '.~ecor4. T:tat, 87/22/2882 28:54 7152325884 UWSTOUT PAGE 83 CITY OF MOUND (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA ~l~ SQ. ~. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA ~2~ A.~ _SO. ~. X ~% = (for Lots,of.ecOrd*) ....... LOT AREA SO. ~. X 15% = {for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd, 6. B. 1..(see back). A plan must be submittbd and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks [1/4" min. opening between boardsj with a perVioue surface under are not counted es hardeover OTHER LENGTH W]DTH SO FT 44 x~3~'-4'~ =_. I;o?0.¢' Z. 6 x Xo'-o" = '760,0 TOTAL HOUSE .......................... 185'o.5' .X --..., X " ~, ..... =" 'x ......... ~'o ...... = I Z'o X -- TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ................... X X = X = TOTAL DECK ........................... X = X ,,~ TOTAL OTHER ............. . .............. TOTAL HARDCOVER ! IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I ~-'~ ?G.:.__~.. I ~OVER (indicate difference) .,. PREPARED BY..""~'~i.~~ ~If. ~~=~.~ .................. ' ' ""'''' ~' 7152325004 UWSTOUT PAGE 84 4046 PAGE 85 4O47 87/22/2882 28:54 7152325884 UWSTOUT PAGE 86 FRANK R- OARDARELLE Scale: Size mud dime:~j of lot Der. recor.i plat. L¢,'~. c¢'¢..,k ~,bove. Lo~ ~.~- ,6 ' o~w "t'z.',t..,,t ._- 5', o4 c, ¢ ¢[ooc eke,.,~-t--.,,o ,-, ;S 73 ~. 87/22/2882 28:54 7152325884 UWSTOUT PAGE 87 CITY OF MOUND HARD, COVER CA~C,IJLATIONS iiMFF__.F, VIOU$ SURFACE COVERAGE) OWNER'S I~IAME: ...-'~,--¢.t~,,.~~ y '~.: ~ ~[~'-_~-¢"' - - LOT AREA _~, ~ ~'~ SQ. IT, X 30% = (for all lots) ............ I ~_~_1..7 t ~-..l LOT AREA ~ O ,~1[[:) SQ. FT. X 40% =. (for Lots'of Record*) ....... I-~,_~L/_~_I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% ' = (for detached buildings only) .. I I *E×ist[ng Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. $. B. 1..(see back). A plan must.be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWA'LKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4' min. opening between boards) with a pervious surfeoe under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH 'SQ FT 2~;-~" x ~'-?'! = TOTAL HOUSE TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. Z.o x Zo = 400 · ' 4 .......... x ........ 5--~ ..... = I z o TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X X X TOTAL DECK 2,1£..c.'7 X ~ TOTAL OTILIER ........................... TOTAL HARDCOVER I IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I ~.. t~'/5,7 I (~/OVER (indicate difference) ......................... ...... I ~]~--0.- 3 I 4049 4O5O 87/22/2882 28=54 ?152325004 UWSTOUT PAGE 89 CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES. Inc. 94-t--303-1 Land Surveyors ,'-,~=n Prairie, MN Survey For .Timothy Certif,ica~ of. Survey 33eckez. . . Book 318 Page 72 . File. , Scale' 3"=DO' SiZe ~nd dimensions Of lot per.record 4051 87/22/2882 28:54 7152325004 UWSTOUT PAGE CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS pROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA ~$ ~5~,. SQ. FT. X 30% LOT AREA __~, 3 5 ~ SQ. FT. X 40% LOTAREA .SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots'of Record*) = (for detached buildings only).. !f74-0-$ I I *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH 'SQ FT .x 30 = 9o.0.0 X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. pervious surfaco under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HOUSE X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. / x 20 4.00 X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X X x TOTAL DECK ~ X ~ TOTAL OTHER ........................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I 2.~ ~...<'~l ~OVER (indicate difference} ............................... t~{ 4052 87/22/2882 28:54 7152325884 UNSTOUT PAGE 11 4O53 87/22/2882 28:54 7152325884 UHSTOUT PAGE 12 FRANK R. CAI=,D^RELLE Eden?r._a[~ ri_e, MN 55344 Survey For._. Timothy Becket , I Scale: 1"=30' $~[ze and dimensions lot per. reocrd plat. 87/22/2882 28:54 7152325884 UNSTOUT PAGE 13 CITY OF MOUND LOTAREA '~, O~O SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I. ~.(20] _I LOT AREA ~.t~, OIO SO, FT. X 40% LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% (for Lots,Of Record*) ' (for detached buildings only).. 'Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniq'ues are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ocdinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1..(see back). A plan must be submitted and ~pproved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SO FT HOUSE 3~ L,~" x 33 Lei" = !',5[.7.~- 35 L~" .x :~o ' = X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4' min. opening between boards} with pervious surCece under ere not counted es hardcover OTHER TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. · / 'x ...... '~'C~'"" = I ~O X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ET(:::: X X X TOTAL DECK X ~ TOTAL OT~ER TOTAL HARDCOVER/,IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I ~-, ~ 2.1 · 1 ¢ 4055 87/22/2802 28:54 7152325804 UWSTOUT PAGE 14 "'4056' 87/22/2882 21=34 7152325884 U~STOUT PAGE 82 Survey For Timothy [SeCker ~:)k_5_ 1_8.. P~ge_~?~_._ File. ' S c,~,.1 ~, ':. ', "=30' · Size abc d.~'mensl.~n~-.. ,/ ~' 87/22/2882 21:34 7152325884 UWSTOUT PAGE 83 FRANK R. OARDARELLE 87/22/2882 21:34 7152325884 UWSTOUT PAGE 84 941-3031 Eden Prairie, MN ~. 4 Certif.ica ,re of. Sur~.~ey Becket l~ok .518 Page 72 File · 4O59 7, Block 4, replat of. 87/22/2882 21:34 7Z52325004 UNSTOUT PAGE 85 . Cer tt.f. ~ of... S~rv~y /. S~ze and dimensions lot. p~r. reocrd plat. --%% .9'Zcl, 4 =.' CITY OF MOUND ~341 WLA. Y ~UUJ~ t~U~JJ MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1627 NOTICE OF WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT DECISION Name of Applicant: Application Number: Type of Application (check one): Timothy Becker and Dale and Lorell Becker X [] [] [] Exemption Decision No Loss Decision Replacement Plan Decision Banking Plan Decision The Beckers applied for an exemption and/or no loss determination for their property, Lots 5,6,7, and · 8, BloCk 4, RePlat of Harrison Shores, City of Mound, Minnesota. Specific site development plans are not proposed at this time. The City has adopted the TEP recommended wetland boundary to be used in any future development of the site. Date of Decision: July 9, 2002 Check One: []Approved List of Addressees: Tim Becker 6919 North Shore Drive Eau Claire, WI 54703 [] Approved with conditions Dale and Lorell Becker 5205 Beachside Drive Minnetonka, MN 55343 Doug Snyder BWSR One West Water Street Suite 20.0 St. Paul, MN 55107 Julie Ekman MNDNR 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Dave Thill HCD 6900 Wedgewood Rd. Suite 140 Maple Grove, MN 55311 Doug Norris MN DNR Ecological Services 500 Layfayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 X Denied Sarah smith City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1627 Kelly J Bopray MFRA 15050 23~d Ave. N Pl.wnouth, MN 55447 Joe Yanta Corps of Engineers 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101 You are hereby notified that the decisiOn of the Local Government Unit on the above- referenced application was made on the date stated above. A copy of the Local Government Unit's Findings and Conclusions is attached. Pursuant to Minn. 1L 8420.0250 any appeal of the decision 4061 m~ust~_be_ co _mmenced by_mailing a petition _for appeal tp the _M(nnesota Bo~d of Wa~er. and Soil Resources within fifteen (15) days of the date of the mailing of this Notice. Date of mailing of this Notice: City of Mound By: Kelly J Bopra¥ Title: Soil Scientist W:kALLFORMSkNotice of WCA decision.doc 4062 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 TI-W~ CiTY OF. MOUND AND ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING TI-W, ACTIONS OF crr¥ STA,IfF. 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 ("BWSK"), 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. 6. The TEP panel met with Ronald Peterson and James Amdt, consultants for the Beckers, and reviewed and considered the report of Peterson Environmental Consulting. 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 B arsted of MnDNK, and other staff members of BWSK. 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, .. 4063 9. After deliberations, the Technical Evaluation Panel concluded in a written recommendation dated October 10, 2000, that the Beekers had not met the requirements for a no-loss determination on the property. They also recommended that the exemption request be den/ed. 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 Reekers. 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 A_mdt 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 Staffand 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 oppommity to review possible concepts for the development of the site. 18. The City received a letter fromthe 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 4064 x u= %,umwu, a~ ua~a ~ugu~c ~, ,~uu~ m~mig, ~raut~d a second ~tcnslon to continue the review period through January 24, 2002. 22. The City received a letter from the Beckets 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 Beckets 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. H. 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 detem'dnes 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 4065 ~5341 MAYWOOD ROAD CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) February ~22, 2000 Becker Properties, Lots 5-8, Block 4 of Harrison Shores Development TEP members present: Applicants Representatives: TEP Advisors Present: Jon Suthedand, City of Mound Doug Snyder, Board of Water and Soil Resources David Thill, Hennepin Conservation Distdct Jim Amdt, Peterson Environmental Joe Yanta, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kelly Bopray, MFP, A/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 OHW 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. 4066 PH: (952) 472-0600 CITY OF MOUND WE~: www. cityofmound.com MEMORANDUM March 9, 2001 TO: FROM: Ron Peterson Peterson Environmental 1355 Mendota Heights Road, Ste 100 Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Jon Sutherland ~. 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 4067 ,u~d Date Doug Snyder Board of Water & Soils Resources 2/27/01 Date David Thill Hennepin Conservation Distdct 2/28/01 Date 4O68 This page left blank intentionally. 4069 0 0 jaa M:\SURVEY\2327A23\Wetlond-Monitor.dwg 30.00 08/27/1999 12:13:27 u~G.o I 0 0 Z --I 0 C m o z o 0 Z r'- I'q- __ Z 0 ' m -o July B, 1986 '" RESOLUTION NO. 86-82 KE~OLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING CO~MISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE AND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 8, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID #13-117-~ 22 00~6 P.C. CASE #86-518 WHEREAS, Steven Coddon, owner of the vacant parcel of land described as Lot 8, Block 4,' Replat of Harrison Shores, PID ~'13-117-24 22 0046, has applied for varianoes..i-n .,lot size and setback to the north Three Points Blvd. property line to allo-w' oonstruction of a single family dwelling with conforming side yard and lakesho, re setba'eks; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 10]000 squire foot in the R-1 Zoning Dlstriot with a front yard setback of 30 feet; ! and WHEREAS, the property described has a'lot area of 9,640 square feet above the 929.5 OH%/ 'elevaton, requiring..a setback variance to allow a structure within 20 feet of the north property line abutting Three Points Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does reoommend the lot size and setback varianoes be approVed to afford the .owner reasonable use of the property. ...'.' L_ NOI/, THEREFORE,~: BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the lot size varianoe and a 10 foot front yard setback variance, as the lot size is within 90% of the required lot area and the hardship is the shallowness of the lot to allow the 20 foot front yard. setback for Lot 8, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, PID #13- 117-24 22 0046, to allow the construction of a single family dwelling with conforming setbacks to the side lot line and the lakeshore for lots of record. The foregoing resolution was moved by Coun¢llmember Peterson and seconded by Couneilmember Paulsen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith. The following Counollme~bers voted in the negative: Mayor - Attest: City Clerk 4071 156 August 26, 1986 RESOLUTION NO. 86-97 RESOLUTION VACATING CERTAIN UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT OVER, UNDER AND THROUGH LOT 5 AND 6, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF 'HARRISON SHORES P & Z Case No. 86-530 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851 provides that the City Council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, or public way or any part.thereof, when it appears in the interest of the public to do so; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has claimed a drainage ~nd utility easement over the following described land:' The westerly 5 feet of Lot 5, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores The easterly 5 feet of L~t 6, Block 4, Replat of Harrlson Shores WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 26, 1986 as required by law; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that good area planning requires that these easements be vacated and that a portion be re-dedicated for drainage and utility puFposes and that it would be in the public interest to do so. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mo"-d, Minnesota, hereby vacates: The drainage and utility easement located over the westerly 5 feet of Lot 5 and the easterly 5 feet of Lot 6, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, upon the condition that the applicant, Mr. Steven Coddon, re- dedicate to the City of Mound, new drainage and utility easements along the proposed newly subdivided lot lines of the two parcels shown on Exhibit A being created from Lot 5, 6 and 7, Block 4, Replat of Harri- son Shores. The City Engineer is to approve the described.re-dedicated drainage and utility easements, the owner, Mr. Coddon, will then submit a registered copy of the newly recorded drainage and utility easements to the City offices. ~ A certified copy'.of this resolution shall be prepared by the City Clerk and shall be a notice of completion of the proceedings and shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder and/or Registrar of Titles as set forth in M. $. A. 412.851. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Paulsen, seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The fo'llowing Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the none. A:'test: City C-lerk ' ' Mayor 4072 157 August 26, 1986 -RE-SoLuTI-O~-NOT 86--98-.~ ..................... RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOTS· 5, 6 AND 7, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES PID NO. 13-117-24 22 0050/OO51/OO52 (53XX Three Points Boulevard) P & Z Case No. 86-531 WHEREAS, Mr. Steven Coddon, as owner of the prope?ty described as Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, PID # 13-117-24 22 0050/ 0051/OO52, has applied for front yard setback variance to allow constructi6n of a new dwelling; and WHEREAS Exhibit A has also been submitted to indicate the requested ' setback of plus 50 feet to lakeshore, plus 10 feet to side yard and 20 feet to north (Three Points Boulevard) setback; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires 30 foot to the north front yard set- back abutting street right-of-ways in the R-1 Single Family Residential District and a 10 foot side yard and a 50 foot lakeshore setback; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval of the setback variance due to shallowness of the lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED t.hat the City Council of the City of Mounc Minnesota, does hereby approve the 10 foot front yard setback variance shown on Exhibit A for Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 4, Replat. of Harrison Shores, PID No. 13-117- 24 22 O050/0051/0052, upon the condition of the subdivision under Case No. 86-532. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Paulsen and seconded by Councilmember Peterson. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson,' Polston and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 4073 Z 0 0 [ ! 158 August 26, 1986 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND TO APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR LOTS 5, 6 AND 7, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF (53XX Three ?oints Boulevard) P & Z Case No. 86-532 WHEREAS, an applicant to waive the subdivision requi'kements contained in Section 22.00 of.the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound by the applicant, Steven Coddon; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that there are special, circumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance w~uld deprive the applicant of the reasonable use' of his l~nd; and that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and,enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City. Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota; The request of the City of Mound for a waiver f°rom the provisions of Section 22.00of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five acres, described as follows: Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores according to the recorded plat thereof PID Numbers 13-117-24 22 0050/0051/0052 It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision in the following manner, as per Exhibit A: Parcel A: Lot 7 and the westerly 12 feet of' Lot 6, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the west line of said Lot 6; all in Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, according to the re- corded plat thereof with a lot area equal to 10,073 square feet above 929.4 NGVD contour line of Lake Minnetonka Parcel B: Lots 5 and 6, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, according to the recorded plat thereof EXCEPT the westerly 12.00 feet of said Lot 6 as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the west line of said Lot 6 with a lot area of 15,090 square feet above the 929.4 NGVD contour line of Lake Minnetonka Upon the further following conditions: 1. Utility and drainage easements are to be rededicated along the new lot lines and shall meet the City Engineer's requirements. 2. No fill of materials shall be allowed below the elevation of 931.5 NGVD without the proper Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permits or. any other State aBency applicablE. 3. The side yard setbacks and shoreline setbacks shall conform to the' City Zoning Codes. 4. Minimum floor elevation of the habitable space for the dwelling shall be 933.5 or above to meet minimum flood plain requirements. 4075 159 August 26, 1986 ..................... 5. New curb cuts will be required from Thre~ Points Boulevard 6. Utilities for sewer and.water shall be brought to the property line'from Three Points Boulevard as a .condition for subdivision. 7. Submit soil reports for the newly created parcels. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with the adjacent properties. The City Clerk .is authorized to deliver a c~fi~d copy of this .resolution to".the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show ~compliance with the subdivision regulations of this City. This lot subdi, gision is to be filed and recorded within 180 d3ys of · the adoption date of this resolution. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Paulsen and seconded by Councilmember Peterson. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City C 1 erl~- 4076 ¸,2' RESOLUTION #86-99 / Z 0 0 (D /. RESOLUT ION #86-99 EXHIBIT "A" Lots 5, 6. and 7, Block ~. REPLAT .OF HARRISON SHORES, according- to the recorded plat thereof. PARCEL a Lot 7, and the westerly 12.O0 feet of Lot 6, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the west line of said Lot 6: all in Block 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, ~ccording ~o the recorded plat thereof. pARCEL B Lots ~ and 6, Block 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, according to the recorded plat thereof, EXCEPT the westerly [2,DO feet of said Lot 6 as measured at a right ' ~ a~.g~e to and parallel wil th~ west ii'ne of said Lot 6. DESMAR8 - GABRIEL LAND SURYE¥OR8, INC. 3030 H.,rDor L'~,".~ No. P~ymou:h MN 554.~1 Pno~-',: (B121 55-~-Cg¢8 4078 This information sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at z~72-0600. General Zoning Information Sheet R'I zoning DiStrict , singleFamily Residential PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS - Lot Area. Lot Width. and Setback Requirement-,: Minimum Lot Area (measured above the flood elevation) ...................... 10,000 square feet Minimum Lot Width* ......................................................................................... 60 feet Front Yard Setback ........................................................................................... 30 feet Side Yard Setback ............................................................................................. 10 feet Rear Yard Setback ............................................................................................ 15 feet Minimum Lot Depth ........................................................................................... 80 feet Lakeshore / Ordinary High Water Setback ............................................................ 50 feet Minimum Floor Area Requirement: ......................................................... 840 square feet *Minimum lot frontage on an improved public street shall be 60 feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be 60 feet at the front building setback line. Building Height: Maximum 21/2 stories or thirty-five (35) feet in height. Building Height is defined as "the vertical distance to be measured from the average grade of a building line to the top, to the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof." LOTS OF RECORD Special Provisions: Corner Lots: lot width minimum side yard setback 40 - 50 feet 10 feet 51 - 80 feet 20 feet 81 feet or more 30 feet ~ide Yard Requirements: The required side yard setback shall be a minimum of 10 feet. lot width minimum setback on 1 side yard 40 - 79 feet 6 feet 80 - 100 feet 8 feet 101 feet or more 10 feet Front Yard: Except as regulated in Section 350:440, Subd. 6 of the City Code, the front yard setback shall be based on the lot depth as follows: lot depth minimum front yard setback 60 feet or less 20 feet 61 - 80 feet 24 feet 81 feet or more 30 feet Rev. 3/97 4079 R-1 Zoning District General Zoning Information HARDCOVER REQUIREM.EN?~: Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed $0 percent of the lot area. On existing IbtS of' record*, impervious.coverage m ' "' a maxirrtum of 40 percent providing that techniques are utilized as identified in Sect~13,~3~3:1 225, Subd. 6.B?I~ Impervious cover is any surface impervious or resistant to the free flow of w'a~r ~r ;~rf.-.c~_~mc!~;, ,~cluding ali buildings, driveways and parking areas whether paved or not, tennis courts~ sidewalks~ patios' and swimmingpoOlS. Open decks (1/4" minimum opening between boards shall not be counted in impervious cover calculations. DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (GARAGES/SHEDS) - Lot Coverage and Setback Re0uirement~: An accessory building shall be considered to be an integral part of the principal structure unless it is five (5) feet or more from the principal structure or use and providing that the structure exceeds 1 20 square feet. Area and Size Re0uirements (see hardcover reouirements on Dace 1): Accessory buildings shall not exceed a total gross floor area of 3,000 square feet or 15% of the totai lot area whichever is less. Each individual accessory building shall not exceed 1,200 square feet of gross floor area. The total number of aCcessory bUildings for lots measuring 10,000 square feet or less shall be two (2). On lots exceeding 10,000 square feet, accessory buildings shall b'e limited to a total of three (3). Front Yard Setback. All aCcessory buildings shall meet the same front yard setback requirements as the principal building, except for lakeShore and through lots. For detached garages on a lakeshore br through lots, a minimum twenty (.20) foot front yard setback is reqUired if the garage door(s) open to the street; an eight (8) foot front yard setback is required if the garage door(s) open to the side lot line. Side Yard SetbaCk. A detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of the side lot line in the rear yard with a minimum of a six (6) foot setback in side yard location. On thrOugh and lakeshore lots, a detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of. the side lot line in the front yard. Whenever a garage is designed with the doors facing a side lot line, the minimum distance between the doors and the side lot line shall be twenty (20) feet. 4. Rear Setback. A detached accessory building may be located wii~'hin four (4) feet of the. rear lot line. Lakeshore Setback. Detached accessory buildings must maintain a 50 foot setbaCk from the Ordinary high water. DECKS; See separate deck handout for more information. Front and Sides ..................................................... Same aS AccessOry Building Setbacks Rear ............................ , ................................................................................... 10 feet ordi~a~ High Water Flood Elevation Lowest Floor Elevation LAKE MINNETONKA 929.4 931 (CI~) 933 931.5 (MCWD) DUTCH LAKE 939,2 940 942 LAKE LANGDON 932.1 935 937 R~v. 3/97 4O8O This information sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City ~3f Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. General Zoning Information Sheet R-lA Zoning District Single Family Resiclentiai PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS - Lot Area, Lot Width, and Setback Re(mirement.~: Minimum Lot Area ..................................... 6,000 square feet Minimum Lot Width ............................................ 40 feet Front Yard Setback ............................................ 20 feet Side Yard Setback ............................................ 10 feet* Rear Yard Setback ............................................ 15 feet* Minimum Lot Depth ............................................ 80 feet Lakeshore / Ordinaw High Water Setback ............................. 50 feet Minimum Floor Area Requirement: ........................... 840 square feet Minimum lot frontaqe on an improved public street shall be 40 feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be 40 feet at the front building setback line (i.e. 20 feet back from front property line). *Applicable side or rear yard setbacks apply to lot lines abutting fire lanes or alleys not exceeding 15 feet in width. Building Height: Maximum 2Y2 stories or thirty-fi~'~(3~'f'b'et in height. Building Height is defined as "the vertical distance to be measured from the average grade of a building line to the top, to the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a fitched or hip roof." LOTS OF RECORD - Special Provisions: Corner Lots: lot width minimum side yard setback 40- 50 feet 10 feet 51 - 80 feet 20 feet 81..feet or more 30 feet Side Yard Setback Requi[e.~'ents: Side yard setbacks for I~ of record shall be six (6) feet unless the structure or site does not contain a garage in wlsich case, one side yard setback is required to be ten (10) feet to accommodate a drivewaY access. HARDCOVER REQUIREMENTS: Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. On existing lots of record*, impervious coverage may be permitted by a maximum of 40 percent providing that techniques are utilized as identified in Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.1. Impervious cover is an,/surface impervious or resistant to the free flow of water or surface moisture, including all buildings, driveways and parking areas whether paved or not, tennis courts, sidewalks, patios and swimming pools. Open decks (1/4" minimum opening between boards shall not be counted in impervious cover calculations. Rev, 3/97 4081 R- lA Zoning District ' ' General Zoning Information DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS {GARAGES/SHEDS) - Lot Coveraqe and Setback Requirement,~: An accessory building shall be considered to be an integral part of the principa structure un ess it is five (5) feet or more from the principal structure or use and providing that the structure exceeds 1 20 square feet. 1. Area and Size Requirements (see hardcover requirements on page 1): Accessory buildings shall not exceed a total gross, floor area of 3,000 square feet or 15% of the total lot area whichever is less. Each individual accessory building shall not exceed 1,200 square feet of gross floor area. The total number of accessory buildings for lots measuring 10,000 square feet or less shall be two (2). On lots exceeding 10,000 square feet, accessory buildings shall be limited to a total of three (3). Front 'Card Setback. All accessory buildings shall meet the same front yard setback requirements as the principal building, except for lakeshore and through lots. For detached garages on a lakeshore or through lots, a minimum twenty (20) foot front yard setback is required if the garage door(s) open to the street; an eight (8) foot front yard setback is required if the garage door(s) open to the side lot line. Side Yard Setback. A detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of the side lot line in the rear yard with a minimum of a six (6) foot setback in side yard location, On through and lakeshore lots, a detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of. the side lot line in the front yard. Whenever a garage is designed with the doors facing a side lot line, the minimum distance between the doors and the side lot line shall be twenty (20) feet. Rear Setback. A detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of the rear lot line. Lakeshore Setback. Detached acceSsory buildings must maintain a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water. · .. DECKS: See separate deck handout for more information. Front and Sides .......................... Same as Accessory Building Setbacks Rear ....................................................... 10 feet -'LEVATIONS Ordinary High Water Flood Elevation Lowest Floor Elevation LAKE MINIVETONKA 92,9:4 931 (CITY) 933 931.5 (MCWD) DUTCH LAKE 939.2 940 942 LAKE LANGDON 932.1 935 937 Rev. 3/97 4O82 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROA[ MOUND, MN 55364-16; PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MO U N D MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE # 02-26 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER. AN APPLICATION FROM TIM BECKER TO REZONE LOTS 5~8, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA FROM R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-lA SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NOTICE IS I-IEREBY GIVEN, that tile Planning Commission of' the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, August 5, 2002 to consider a request fi'om Tim Becket (on behalf of Dale and 'Lorell Becket) to rezone Lots 5-8, Block 4, Replat of' Harrison Shores, City of Mound, Minnesota fi'om R-I Single-Family Residential to R-lA Single and Family Residential. The subject property is located as ¢ollows: 5331 Three Points Boulevard 5341 Three Points Boulevard 5351 Three Points Boulevard 5361 Three Points Boulevard Copies of the application materials are available to tile public Ul)On request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with ref'erence to the above will be given tile opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Jil~ Noriand~r Planning and Building Dept. Published in tile Laker on July 20, 2002. Mailed to prope~-ty owners within 350 feet of' alTected I)roperty on or before July 25, 2002. printed on recycled paper 4083 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING HEARING NOTICE Case No. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) the attached notice in three Minnesota, to wit: , being duly sworn, on oath says that on the ,20.~=~, he/she personally posted public places in the County of Hennepin, Stat~'of 1) 2) ' 3) -One true copy thereof on the bulletin board at the Westonka Commur Library at 207g Commerce Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. One true copy thereof on the bulletin board at City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota. One true copy thereof on the front door of the Public Work~'Facility at 5468 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. Subscribed and. sworn to before me, this ~,~'"'day_ _ of ,- ~,~' : .~.: ~:,:.%:?.~!~?~ ?.. Nota~ Public, Hennepin Count, My Commission expires 4O84 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING "HEARING NOTICE Case. No. 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 Plannino and Inspections Department of the City of Mound, Minnesota.', On ~' ,20 <~;7~r~ :'acting on . ·'-I deposited in the United States Post Office at Mound, Mihnesota, co '.. ~-.~; attached notice of a hearing on proposed improvement, enclosed in sealed · envelopes, with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the following'persons ~e addresses-appearing opposite their respective names. ~s delivery service by the United States mail between the so addressed. ,' 7;'. ',' .' :_Subscribed and sworn to before me this. ¢.o day 4085 (WEST ARM) OUTLOT 2 1'3- 11-7- 2. ti- '4086' Meeting Minutes Mound Public Safety Facility Meeting held on 08/1202 Date printed 08/13/02 The meeting was convened at 4:00 PM Monday, August 12, 2002 at Mound Fire Station: Present: Greg Pederson Mound Fire GP Kandis Hanson City KH Todd Christopherson Amcon TC Sarah Smith City SS Matt Simoneau Building Off, MS Tim Palm Mound Fire TP 1. Lease is ready for signature. GP will be at the Council meeting for the lease and two other agenda items. Still not sure about the office space - GP to meet with broker to determine. Working on details of snow removal. 2. GP said that they have met with phones vendor. No recent activity on floor plan layouts. 3, JM has gone through the police areas on the plan and laid out phone jacks. GP to do the same for the fire. 4. TC updated on the soils issue. It is estimated to be between $100 k and $150k additional cost. We will have the two options competitively bid in BP 1. 5. TC updated schedule. Bid Package 1 will have 6 contracts. Documents have been sent to the printer. Bid opening is on 9/4. Council is on 9/9. 6. SS updated permits. All are in progress. TC to get additional prints for City. MS needs three and Mike Wyatt at MCWD needs a full set. 7. TC reviewed process used to hold contractors to the project schedule. The standard notice is shortened to 3 days from 7. No liquidated damages are specified due to better bidding if not included. 8. Financial Issues - GP and KH updated on financial status with member cities. Still not known if all members are officially in. The current agreements are in place until 2003. Budget - GP met with furniture vendor (metro systems) and JM today. The company used to sell a lot of refurbished furniture. Today, the market for new furniture has gotten so competitive that refurbished is not as attractive. The company is approved under the County bid for public entities in Hennepin County. Metro will do the layouts on CAD and will make changes as necessary at no additional cost mark ups. 10. Strommen will be on agenda tomorrow evening to discuss status of the power line relocation/burying. GP has given Strommen an estimate of how many calls are related to downed power lines and outages. 11. Closure of test wells. Amcon has received pdces. The Iow bid is approximately $500. We are waiting on written confirmation of the authorization to proceed from MPCA. We have gotten a verbal OK from them to Braun. 12. GP to walk over and talk to MediaCom to discuss use of road. 13. KH stressed importance of keeping track of photographic record of building progress. Especially shooting a picture at a regular interval from the same point using the FD aerial. GP will ask Gus to take care of the photography. 14. Brian from TCAT has contacted GP. The contractor wants to do the work last week in August. It will require shutting down the water. TC and GP to teleconference with TCAT to see if we can delay it slightly without penalty. 15. SB to check with design staff at SEH to see if permit process is running smoothly. C:\WlNDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\Content.lE5~A5OFYFYJ\MPS 08 12 02.doc 4087 Page 1 of 2 ~ OF MOUND Meeting held on 08/1202 Date printed 08/13/02 Building Committee ended at 5:15. SS left. SB, JM, Gus, JA, & SA joined meeting for Design at this point. 16. Discussed the neighbor property. No decision yet. GP to follow up on this. 17. SB showed pictures from Wells Concrete of the red colored panels that the Committee is leaning toward. 18. SB showed pictures of different anodizing colors. Discussed keeping one color for consistency. TC said that clear anodizing is less expensive and also is easiest to match colors between different supplier sources. 19. SB reviewed floor plan layout. Having difficulty keeping the door openings where desired into the two holding cells. Discussed hanging the 10' wide wall panel there from the two adjacent panels and do an inflll of masonry to get the doors where needed. 20. All doors will be handicap accessible per code. 21. MS asked about security doors. Failsafe mode was discussed. Some hospitals go into a lock down mode when the alarms are activated. SB said SEH is almost done with code review. Once done and reviewed by MS, we should review requirements with fire alarm company. 22. Molly - SEH color person will be here at next meeting. 23. SB reviewed updates to the floor plan as discussed last week. Copy room changes, lavatories, ddnking fountains. 24. Fire pole is now shown adjacent to the stair well. There will need to be a wall/window with door for climate control and safety at at least one of the two levels that the pole connects. If it is included, there should be an open look from the apparatus bay so that it is visible. SB will look into a glass curtain wall detail that will give the open look and take up minimal space in the day room. The day room could have a pie railing with gate for safety around the floor opening and the glass wall and glass door could be at the lower level in the wall that separates the two buildings. 25. SB discussed some minor changes in the laundry area of the apparatus bay. Also affects the SCBA room layout. The suggested modifications were approved. 26. Looked at the room layout and door locations for all rooms located under the mezzanine. The floor in those areas will be at floor elevation 100' 0", not raised 6" above apparatus bay floor. 27. Floor drains in those rooms will be large enough to minimize plugging. 28. Kitchen consultant will have a preliminary layout for next meeting. Dennis Hahn will be coming to the building to look at the existing equipment to vedfy sizes, hookups, etc. The issue of washing area will be reviewed by Dennis Hahn. 29. Discussed an overnight drop box. JM does not see a need for it. People with tickets need to hand them off in person. 30. There will be more glass between lobby and police and fire open offices. 31. Next week meeting for design will be at 5:15 PM. Colors will be reviewed at that meeting. 32. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 PM. Minutes by TC. Call if any missing items or discrepancy. C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\Content. IE5~A5OFYFYJ~VIPS 08 12 02.doc 4088 Page 2 of 2 Page 1 of 2 Kandis M Hanson From: To: Sent: Subject: "Todd Christopherson" <tchristoph@amconconstruction.com> "Mound Fire Department" <moundfiredept@hotmail.com>; "Bontrager, Sam" <sbontrager(~sehinc.com>; "Britz, Miles" <mbritz(~.sehinc.com>; "Hanson, Kandis" <kandishanson@cityofmound.com>; "Harrel, Len" <LOH1251@aol.com>; "McKinley, John" <johnmckinley814@yahoo.com>; "Smith, Sarah" <sarahsmith@cityofmound.com>; "Prosser, James" <jprosser@ehlers-inc.com>; "Ritter, Bonnie" <bonnieritter@cityofmound.com>; "Schultz, Nancy" <nschultz@sehinc.com>; "Simoneau, Matt" <mattsimoneau@cityofmound.com> Tuesday, August 20, 2002 7:35 AM MPS 08 19 02 Meeting Minutes Mound Public Safety Facility The meeting was convened at 4:00 PM Monday, August 19, 2002 at Mound Fire Station: Present: Greg Pederson Todd Christopherson Matt Simoneau Kandis Hanson Sarah Smith John McKinley Nancy Schultz 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Mound Fire GP Amcon TC Building Off. MS City KH City SS City JM SHE NS GP gave TC the name of Green Acres, a local firm that wants to bid on the demolition. TC to contact them. Green Acres, Wes Bendickson, 6705 Hwy 12, Maple Plain, MN 55359. Lease is almost done. GP met with John Dean last week on details. Council approved last week contingent upon details to be worked out. TC and GP visited lease space prior to meeting and looked at temp office options. Leaning toward renting the interior existing office space that is available in lieu of renting a trailer. Floor plan is almost done. SB and MS to finalize code analysis, Office areas in police and fire administration areas are also not finalized due to copy room requirements. JM to meet with file system vendor tomorrow to talk about high density filing system. Thursday watershed district meeting - SS will attend and get permit approved. TC to have Albinson send a set of floor plans to MCES, attention Jody Edwards. She will do a SAC unit calculation and forward to MS. TC to fill out the building permit application on behalf of the owner and forward to MS. The state surcharge will be charged, however, the normal building permit fee will be waived. Schedule - TC updated the Committee on the additional time estimated to complete the soil correction or Geopier work. The added 3 weeks of work translates to about two weeks added to the completion date. The new estimated finish date is 6/20102. Discussed options for recovering the lost time and/or changing the date or location of the Fish Fry. GP to talk with White Sidewalls regarding options for other dates. There is a pre-bid walkthrough of the building at 3 PM on Monday, August 26. TC and JA to run meeting and expect it will last about 1 hour. We expect most demo bidders to take part; however, it is not mandatory for bidders to attend. KH updated Committee on member City participation. There is a Mound Council meeting planned for addressing this issue. Discussed the buried tank. We will have a tank removal company lined up to remove the tank after the building is removed. Strommen talked to Council last week about the overhead lines for this project and the downtown project. They are more confident of Xcel paying for this downtown than they are for this project. TC has sent them a plan. Strommen will 4O89 8/20/02 Page 2 of 2 address a letter to Xcel to the same person that we are dealing with. JA suggested relocating overhead lines to the rear/west side of the site if the burial option is not approved. TC to discuss with Xcel and Strommen. 15. GP said that they have talked with MediaCom about the street use. They are not as concerned about losing access to the street for staging as they are concerned about interrupting the existing fiber optic that goes into their building. TC to check into the location and any issues with this line. 16. Site title - GP and KH are working on neighboring property issues. 17. Demo - TC asked that all items shown and specified to be demolished be left in place, If items are scavenged by others, it opens up the owner to potential claims from the demo contractor. 18. Communications - discussed potential communications pieces for the project. KH has had one phone call from a resident that thought there should have been a referendum for the project. Most believe that the three open houses and numerous Council meetings have addressed the issues of public endorsement and support for the project. 19. Asbestos removal will take place from 9/9 through 9/11. This is later than originally planned based upon GP request. 20. Land use approval is done per SS. Bonnie has filed the resolutions. Probably will be last meeting for SS. 21. Next week, GP will be gone. We will meet as planned. KH and TC to run the meeting. 22. On the Labor Day week, we will move to Tuesday that week, same time. 23. TC is on the Council agenda for building update on 8/26. Miles or SB to attend and present as well. Building Committee ended at 5:30. SS left. SB joined meeting for Design at this point. 24. SB showed pictures on his projector of buildings that have similar materials to those being considered for our project. 25. SB showed the renderings of the building which has been colored to show different color scheme possibilities. 26. Discussed the different options for exterior colors at length. 27. Decided to choose two precast colors and bid them as alternates. Discussed the importance of staying with the standard colors for the metal roofing to avoid big up charges for custom colors. 28. The textures and reveals in the precast need to be determined now prior to issuance of BP 2 drawings on or about 09/10. The colors could come later as discussed as part of a bid alternate. 29. Brick red was the color of choice and will be the base bid. An alternate will use a different color. 30. Meeting adjourned at 6:45 PM. Minutes by TC. Call if any missing items or discrepancy. 4090 8/20/02 Partners for Llfelonoo Learnin$ August 6, 2002 Mound City Council Members 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear City Council Members, I am ~riting to provide some background for a short presentation at your August 27 Council meeting. On September 10, voters in the Westonka School District will choose between two options of budget cuts that are required to balance the School District's operating budget. The vote reflects a serious situation. We believe it's important that everyone, including leaders in the cities served by the School District, know the facts about the operating levy referendum so · that theY will fully understand the choices in front of voters this September. Enclosed is an item that summarizes into a brief Question and Answer sheet the proposed operating levy referendum. At your meeting on August 27, a Mound resident and volunteer with the citizens' campaign supporting the levy will share some comments on behalf of the "Yes Westonka" committee. In addition, a representative from the Westonka Public Schools will b~ present to speak, very briefly, on behalf of the District:' If you have any questions about the levy, either before or after your Council meeting, please call the District's Levy Hotline at 952.491.8443, or e-mail welisten@westonka.kl 2.mn.us. A school district staff person will respond promptly. Thank you for your consideration of this important topic. ely, Gwenn M. Spence" -- Independent School I)istrict z77 4091 This page left blank intentionally. 4092 Questions and Answers about the upcoming lewj referendum Why is the levy referendum necessary? T~e School Board is taking stops to balance the budget, which means that $1. ! million of cost reductions must be made unless other funding is made available. Passage of the levy will bring additional operating funds to the school district, reducing the mount of projected budget cuts required in the future. The proposal asks voters to choose between two levels of cuts: 1) A successful levy vote will provide an estimated $800,000 in additional revenue for 2003-2004. The School Board has identified the remaining $300,000 in cuts that would result in a balanced budget for 2003- 2004. These cuts will take place even if the vote passes. 2) An additional $800,000 in budget cuts will be required to balance the budget if the levy falls. The School Board has identified those additional cuts and is now taking steps to communicate the information to the public to help voters make a decision. How much will it cost? The owner of a home valued at $100,000 will see an estimated School District referendum levy tax increase of $33 in 2003 ($2.75 per month). Manet CuffentRef. Est. Proposed Est, P~posed V~ue Taxes2002 R~.Taxes2003 R~.Taxes2012 $100,000 $100 $133 $137 $200,000 200 266 274 $300,000 300 399 411 $500,000 500 665 685 (Figures assume 5.5% annual increase in property values and no net gain in number of students.) Why is the vote scheduled for Primary Election Day? The law permits school districts that are in statutory operating debt (like Westonka) to hold levy referendum elections outside of the General Election Day. Primary Election Day was the earliest a vote could be scheduled. What are the District's sources of operating revenue? Federal Local Aid Revenue 4% 7% Note: figures are for 2000-2001, the most recent audited data available. Local Revenue = food service sales, tuition, gifts, interest Where can I get more information about the levy? · Check the District Web site, www.westonka.k12.mn.us · Call the Levy Hofline at 952.491.8443 · E-mail welisten@westonkc~kl2, rnn. us · Attend one or more of the Levy Question and Answer sessions: -Tuesday, August 20, 10 a.m., at the Gillespie Center -Tuesday, August 20, 7:30 p.m., at the Early Childhood Center, Hilltop Primary, Shirley Hills Primary, Grandview Middle School, and Mound Westonka High School -Monday, August 26, 7:30 p.m., in the Little Theater · of Mound Westonka High School (in conjunction with School Board Study Session) -Wednesday, September 4, 7:30 p.m., at Hilltop Primary, Shirley Hills Primary, Grandview Middle School, and Mound Westonka High School 4O93 over Why is the School District in debt? There arc two interrelated masons the District has carried Various levels of debt since 1990. 1) In 1988, and again in 1994, local operating levies failed, which meant a loss of approximately $1 million annually in operating funds. 2) Open enrollment became available in 1989, creating competition among school districts vying to offer educational programs that would meet their community's demands. After the local levy losses in 1988 and 1994, the School Board faced difficult choices. In order to survive in an open enrollment environment, the Westonka Schools needed to remain competitive by offering as many educational oppommities as possible. Doing so, however, would come at a price: taking on debt that would take years to eliminate. Believing it would be easier to recover from debt than to lose students to open enrollment, the Board chose to preserve as much of the educational program as p°ssible. Budget cuts were made, but they were made in areas that were considered to be the least harmful to the educational program. The SchOOl Board has been on a debt reduction plan for the past several years. In 1999, the Board adopted financial principles, one of which requires yearly balanced budgets. The School District is committed to paying off all debt by 2005, and is continuing to work within balanced annual budgets. How will the Westonka Schools change if the proposed operating levy fails? The major changes you will see include: · larger class sizes · fewer course offerings · longer student walking distances to bus stops and schools (primary students will walk up to one mile; middle, and high school students up to two miles) · reduced co-curricular opportunities · higher numbers of students open enrolling to other districts · teachers and other employees looking for more stable opportunities in other school districts Does westonka compete with neighboring school districts for new families? Yes. Many families choose a school district before they shop for a specific home, so a competitive academic program is important. The choices that relocating families make regarding where to enroll their children directly affect the property values in the communities where they buy--or don't buy--their new homes.' Local operating levies help pay for a strong academic and co-curricular program, whiCh is one way the School District stays competitive. Simply stated, the School Board believes that the Westonka Public Schools need to be as excellent as possible so that students who live here will choose to attend here. How has the School District improved in recent years? The Wcstonka School District of today is quite different from that of 15 years ago. The best evidence of change can be found in the bright and talented students who graduate every year, but here are some other examples: · High test scores. A detailed research analysis by the Star Tribune found that Westonka students had higher- than-predicted passing rates on state tests. · Acclaimed schools. Grandview Middle School and Mound Westonka High School were nominated by the State of Minnesota for the Blue Ribbon School of Excellence Award, the highest national recognition possible. · National recognition. The Westonka School District has earned the "What Parents Want" award from SchoolMatch, a national school research, performance auditing, and consulting firm, every year since the award's inception. · Talented staff. Westonka can boast of the 2000 Minnesota Music Educators Association Teacher of the Year (Mary Gorder), and the 2001 Principal of the Year, representing more than 250 schools in Hermepin and Carver Counties (Gene Zulk). · Growing positive reputation. In a recent survey of area realtors who attended Westonka's annual "Realtors Day" workshop, 100% of the respondents said the Westonka Public Schools provide a high quality education. 96% said the District is developing a more positive reputation. 83% said they consider.the Westonka Schools an asset when they list a home in the area.' A Fall 2000 survey found that 86% of Westonka residents agree that "high quality public schools increase property values for homeowners in the district." This publication was prepared and paid for by Independent School District 277, Westonka Public Schools, to share information with community residents. This publication is not circulated on behalf of any candidate or ballot questior[ 4094 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP / Sarah Smith, Comm. Dev. Director DATE: August 21, 2002 SUB~-ECT: Minor Subdivision APPLICANT/OWNER: John Pastuck CASE NUMBERS: 02-12 ltKG FILE NUMBER: 02-05 LOCATION: South side of Bartlett Blvd between Highview and Halstead Lanes ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential SUMMARY At its August 5, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the minor subdivision request from John Pastuck for the vacant parcel south of the cemetery on Bartlett Blvd. The parcel consists of about 28,429 square feet and has about 150 feet of frontage on Bartlett Blvd. (CSAH 110). Refer to Planning Report No. 02-12 for details regarding the request. Additionally, details regarding the Planning Commission's review of request are contained in the August 5, 2002 meeting minute excerpts. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Based on its review, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommended approval of the minor subdivision as recommended by Staff. A draft resolution based on the Planning Commission's recommendation has been prepared. 4095 RESOLUTION # 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6380 BAY RIDGE ROAD P & Z CASE # 02-12 PID # 23-117-24-32-0065 WHEREAS, the applicant, John Pastuck, has submitted a request for a minor subdivision to create two buildable parcels from a vacant existing non-lot of record; and, WHEREAS, the parcel consists of about 28,429 square feet and has about 150 feet of frontage on Bartlett Blvd. (CSAH 110). It is located between High View and Halstead Lanes and is not currently assigned a property address. The property is legally described in Exhibit "A", and; WHEREAS, the request meets all requiremems of the zoning and subdivision codes that pertain to lot area, lot width, building setbacks, and hardcover. The following are the development standards proposed for Parcels A and B: Proposed Required Parcel A Lot Area 13,679 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Lot Width 75 feet 60 feet Sideyards 10 feet min. 10 feet Frontyard 30 feet min. 30 feet Hardcover 2,962 sq. ft. (21.6%) 30% max. Parcel B Lot Area 13,016 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Lot Width 75 feet 60 feet Sideyards 10 feet min. 10 feet Frontyard 30 feet min. 30 feet Hardcover 2,892 sq. ft. (22.2%) 30% max. ; and, WHEREAS, the property was previously subdivided as referenced by City Council Resolution #98-44. A condition of that resolution to dedicate right-of-way along Bartlett Blvd. was not satisfied during the recording of the plat; and, 4O96 WHEREAS, the 1998 subdivision request (PC Case ~98-04), noted a number of drainage issues regarding surface water coming through a culvert under Bartlett, over the site, and then south and east off the site. Additional water generated from the proposed development will cause an increase in stormwater as it drains from the property. The City Engineer's report dated August 1, 2002, details the project's grading and drainage issues; and, WHEREAS, formal commems from Hennepin County Transportation Departmem are provided in a June 13, 2002 letter and include recommendations on a shared driveway and easements for a bike trail; and, WHEREAS, Staff has reviewed the applications and have recommended approval of the minor subdivision with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application at its August 5, 2002 meeting and has recommended approval per the conditions noted in the July 31, 2002 Plmming Report. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby: Approve the minor subdivision as requested by the applicant with the following conditions: 1. All conditions as noted in the City Engineer's report. 2. All conditions as noted in the Hennepin County Transportation Department letter of June 13, 2002. 3. Payment of park dedication fees of $1,100.00 at the time of building penmt issuance. 4. Approval by the MCWD as applicable and/or needed. 5. The driveway width not be more than 24 feet as measured at the right-of- way. The minor subdivision is approved for the following legally described property included on Exhibit "A". The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: 4O97 Adopted: August 27, 2002 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk Exhibit A 4O98 Excerpts from the MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 2002 BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #02-12 Minor Subdivision John Pastuck/Natural Homes South side of Bartlett Boulevard between Highview and Halstead Lanes The parcel consists of about 28,429 square feet and has about 150 feet of frontage on Bartlett Boulevard. The parcel history includes a number of subdivision requests since the early 1990's. In 1990 it was split into 2 parcels, one on north and one on the south. Parcel A (west), Parcel B (east) Hardcover for proposed building pads and driveways show it could be under 30%. The issues are drainage related and what needs to be dedicated as easements along CR 110. The county would like an additional 7 feet platted as road right of way and an additional 10 feet for trail easement. They have shown 2 driveways that join at the roadway into 1 access point. The county sees that as a positive. Drainage issues - cemetery is on north side. Water in ditch gets to the south side in a culvert but is restricted somewhat. When the subdivision was approved in 1998 the homeowners on Bay Ridge created a drainage swale in the sideyard. It isn't very effective. A new storm sewer system that will take the water on the SE comer of this property in a pipe into Bay Ridge Road is proposed. Cameron is supportive of the plan with some further data to come. The City will probably maintain it after it's installed to City standards. The rerouting of the force main is an issue. It was created to lift the sewage up to CR 110. The driveway is a little steep and the grading on Parcel A must be adjusted carefully. Discussion Weiland asked how they would acquire the additional easement for the storm drainage? Gordon indicated that it should be no problem since the property owners are in favor. Burma wanted to know if the bike trail easement would qualify as part of the $1,1007 Gordon said the $1,100 is for local parks in Mound. Burma feels it's double dipping for the property owner. Hasse was concerned about the steep grade of the driveways. Michael Zimmer 2990 Highview Ln - What is the elevation between CR110 and the middle of the property? Gordon said it was about 10 feet from the property line; about 18 feet from the road edge. Zimmer has great concern about the safety of the speed and grade factor. How much fill would have to be put in? Gordon indicated it was not determined at this time. Zimmer - would neighbors have to adjust their sloping walls adjacent to the property? Gordon said the 4O99 Planning Commission Minutes August 5, 2002 slope is proposed to stay generally the same. Zimmer - Would they have recourse to come to us and say "your property is draining onto our property, you have to do something about it"? Gordon couldn't speak to what might happen in the future. Zimmer - greatest concern is safety. Dave Mesick - 3000 Highview - The road is so much higher than the ditch on the left side. If the house on Parcel B is to be on that road it is a lot different than Parcel A. Brown - There is no building plan yet. Gordon said there will be some cut and fill to make the lots work. The property owner submitted an idea of what might be put in. This is a typical lot split. Often we don't have a specific plan. That happens between the Building Official and City Engineer. Weiland advised Zimmer that, if he has any concerns about drainage, to get a survey of his existing property conditions. John Pastuck - 20345 Excelsior Blvd, - Water is all going to go to the south where it's going now. Henry Sandoval - 6370 Bay Ridge Rd - He lives on the so part of Parcel B and feels everyone passes the buck regarding the drainage issue. He hopes that the drainage is taken care of. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Burma, to approve staff recommendation. MOTION carried unanimously 2 41 O0 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff' FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: July 31, 2002 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision APPLICANT/OWNER: John Pastuck CASE NUMBERS: 02-12 HKG FILE NUMBER: 02-05 .... LOC ATIONTSO~'Fl~-gFd e-o f Biii-t 16t t - B l-gd-b~Fw~e~wH i-gl~-vie-w a~-d -H~l-~,t-e a-d -k ~s ZONING: R-'I Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND The applicant has submitted a minor subdivision request for the vacant parcel south of the cemetery on Bartlett Blvd. The parcel consists of about 28,429 square feet and has about 150 feet of frontage on Bartlett Blvd. (CSAH 110). In 1998 the property was subdivided, resulting in the north and south parcels that exist today. During the review of the 1998 subdivision request (PC Case #98-04), a number of drainage issues were raised that focused on the surface water coming through a culvert under Bartlett, over the site, and then south and east off the site. The concern at that time was the additional amount of water generated fi'om tine proposed development that would drain to Bay Ridge Road to the south. That concern has not changed. The City Engineer's report details grading and drainage issues. DISCUSSION In terms of zoning, the request meets all requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes that pertain to lot area, lot width, building setbacks, and hardcover. The following are the proposed development standards fbr Parcels A and B: North Third Street. Suite 10(): Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 .) o.~8-, gOO Fax (61 3.38-68.38 4101 p. 2 # 02-12 Pasmck ~[im~r ,qltbdivisio~? ·July 31. 2002 Proposed Required Variance Parcel A Lot Area 13,679 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. Lot Width 75 feet 60 feet Sideyards 10 feet min. 10 feet Frontyard 30 feet min. 30 feet Hardcover 2,962 sq. ft. (21.6%) 30% max. Parcel B Lot Area 13,016 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. - Lot Width 75 feet 60 feet - Frontyard 30 feet min. 30 feet - Hardcover 2,892 sq. ft. (22.2%) 30% max. - Hennepin County Transportation Department provided formal comments to the proposal in a June 13, 2002 letter. Conditions in the recommendation note the County's cornments. This development will utilize a shared driveway for access to CSAH 110. As you will note on the plans, the portion of the driveway commonly shared will be within the right-of-way which negates the need for private cross-easement agreements the City usually attempts to make sure are in place as a part of development review. CITY DiEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and supporting materials were forwarded to all City departments for review and comment. All written comments received to date have been surnmarized below: Fire Chief Pederson Police Chief Harrell Public Works Director Skinner Building Inspector Simoneu City Engineer Cameron Parks Director Fackler No objections. No objections. No objections. No objections if structures meet approved setbacks. See report attachment. Park dedication fees apply. Agrees with 10 feet trail easement on the south side of Bartlett 123 North '['hird Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Mirmesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 4102 ,0.3 # 02- ] 2 Pa.sluck A,linol' ,S'~tbdi~;i. Won July 31, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Cormnission recommend Council approve the minor subdivision as requested with the following conditions: 1. All conditions as noted in the City Eh=meet s report. 2. All conditions as noted in the Hennepin County Transportation Department letter of' June .~, 2002. 3. Payment of' park dedication fees of' $1,100.00 at the time of' building permit issuance. 5. The driveway width not be more than 24 feet as measured at the right-of-way. 6. I..~ North Third Street, ,Suite t00. Minneapolis, Mirmesota 55401 (612) 338-()800 Fax (61.') '~ .~38-68.~8" "' 4103 PROPERTY ADDESS: CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVEF~GE) LOTAREA ~'%05'-O SQ. FT. X30%= (for all lots) ....................................... [ .~,~,~,~-¢~ ~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record) ............................. [ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .................. ~ * Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.1 (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE '7.. ')' X "~ (,=, = i ~' ~ "/' / X = TOTAL HOUSE .................................................... DETACHED BUILDINGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ............................... x = X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC... ..................................... DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. Opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover. TOTAL DECK ....................................................... TOTAL OTHER .................................................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ................................................... I ~OVER (indicate difference) .................................................................... I PREPARED BY '~J--~ '~4~.~'yzJ¢ ~ DATE Revised 03/20/02 41 O4 CITY of MOUND 534t MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1657 Received of '~/~]~ RECEIPT Date No. 5101/+ $ 125o, oD Fund Object Dept, Amount Description }lved By 41 O5 CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOTAREA ~'5o5'O SQ. FT. X30%= (for all lots) ....................................... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record) LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .................. * Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd, 6.B,1 (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE '7'-' ')' X % (:, = J b'" ~ ~ X = TOTAL HOUSE .................................................... ! DETACHED BUILDINGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ............................... x ': X = ~-Y X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC " DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. Opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover. TOTAL DECK ....................................................... TOTAL HARDCOVER/IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ............. ~ ..................................... I (~~OVER (indicate difference) .................................................................... I PREPARED BY -mj-~ ~'>~.,T'0¢ ~ DATE Revised 03~20~02 4106 70. O0 ¢o'oo,'oo7 r ... ~ ~ %> ~ ~ ,~ ,/,,/~ ~,~,~=o,~,,~ .... CONCEPT PLAN A ~. ~ DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS QUAU~ SITE DESIGN, LLC ~~ G =ooK ~ PA~, ~,,]s.,,~.,,.~.:~-.2.~,~-,~ ~o,,, ~.... ~.,,. ,~ 6580 BARTLETT BL VD ~ ~E~O Br SD H~l~T~ sc~ ~.c~ ~ ~,~, .... ,,,,, MOUND, MINNESOTA Minnehaha 05/28/02 15:27 FAX 9524720679 CITY OF MOUND M~Y-28-2882 15:02 MII~XEHRH~ CREEK WATERSHED ENG. ~ 001/001 6124710~82 P.01/01 Watershed District Gray F[eshw~e[ ~ Hv~s. 15 & 19, N~varm M~II: 2500 Shs~lywoo¢l Excelsior, MN S~'331-9578 Phone: (g52) 471-0590 Fax: (952) 471.0682 Ernall: admln · mlnnehahaemel~org Web Site: www. mlnneh ahab. reek.erg Board of Menegem P~mele G. Blixt James Calkins Lame Fisher Me, ica Gross Scott Theme8 I~cha~ Miller Robert Sohroeder DATE: TO: FROM: RE: MEMORANDUM May 28, 2002 Sarah Smith, City of Mound; John Pestuck Michael Wyatt, District Technician Permits I'or two home subdivision on CSAH 110, Mound This memo Is to inform the City of Mound and the project applicant for the project c[ted above that from the current proposal, the project above appears to require permlts from the MInnehaha Creek Watershed District. Due to the size of the project, it ts apparent that the new home construction will involve the significant amount of grading and/or excavation (5000 ft.~ or 50 yds.3) required for the MCWD Rule B' erosion control permit. In addition, there appear to potential wetlands on site, which would subject the application to additional requirements, Permits for such construction will require Board of Managers approval. Applications such as these typically require 30-45 days prior to permits being issued. Please submit an application for this project for District review as soon as possible. Delays in submittals will ultimately delay the project timeline, Please mail the enclosed application to: Attn: District Technician Mlnnehaha Creek Watershed District G~ay Freshwater Center 2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 140 Excelsior, MN 55331 Co~Oe~,. Co. ,"--~ ',.y-, Phone # Phone # Fax # !Fax # 4109 TOTP~_ P.O1 Hennepin County Transportation Department 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340-5421 763-745-7500, Phone 763-478-4000, Fax 763-478-4030, TDD www. co.hennepin.mn.us June 13,2002 Ms. Sarah Smith, Planner City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Proposed Plat - Pastuck Minor Subdivision CSAH 110, West of West Edge Boulevard Section 23, Township 1 !7, Range 24 Hennepin County Plat No. 2686 Review and Recommendations Dear Ms. Smith: Minnesota Statutes 505.02, 505.03, and 462.358, Plats and Surveys, require 30 days for county review of proposed plats abutting county roads. The Plat Review Committee reviewed the above plat at its regular meeting on May 28, 2002. The following comments are provided for your consideration. · The developer should dedicate 50 feet of right of way/easement from and along the centerline of CSAH 110. Of this 50 feet, 40 feet would accommodate any roadway upgrading, utilities, etc., while 10 feet could be a trail easement, The attached graphics demonstrate the potential uses of the property if the city anticipates a bikeway in this area as showing on the county bike system. · The access driveway should be a shared facility at the common property line. Minimizing access points on the county's minor arterial reduces the conflict points thereby enhancing motorist safety and roadway efficiency. · Other issues: Through discussions with the city engineer, we understand there are on-site drainage concerns. The existing roadway drainage pattern at the crossroad culvert must be retained. We assume the city will coordinate any on-site activities to assure this requirement. · · All proposed future construction within county fight of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to access, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 763-745-7601 for the appropriate permit forms. Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstrom at 763-745-7643. Sincerely, James N. Grube, P.E. Director Transportation Department JNG:DKZ c. Plat Review Committee - Byers/Johnson/LindgrerffHoltz/Smrcka/Zetterstrom Rob Wied, Hennepin County Surveyor's Office Hennepin County Permits Office John Cameron - City Consulting Engineer (MFRA) An Equol Opportunity Employer 4110 Recycled Poper HENNEPZb7 COUNTY BICYCLE TR,4aVSPORT.4TION PLAN Barton-~schman ./~soc~ates, Inc. Executive Summary 4111 xiii HENNEP~ COUN'iT BICYCLE TR, iN~PORT.4TI©N PLAN Bx¢cuth,¢ S m-nma~/ xii 4112 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 1, 2002 Sarah Smith, Community Development .Director John Cameron, City Engineer City of Mound Pastuck Minor Subdivision Bartlett Boulevard Case #02-12 MFRA #'13770 As requested, we reviewed the Pastuck Minor Subdivision request and have the following comments and recommendations. Genera/ This parcel was created by a minor subdivision approved in 1998 by Resolution #98-44. There is a long history on this property, including other subdivisions and applications, which will be covered in the planning report. Grading and Dr'ainage This property lies in the drainage path from a culvert under Bartlett Boulevard (Hennepin County Road 110). The old existing driveway on Parcel B acts as a dike probably because the existing culvert has filled with sediment and appears to be totally blocked. The drainage from the County Road and this parcel has been a problem for the neighbor to the south (6370 Bay Ridge Road) for many years. 4113 Ms. Sarah Smith August 1, 2002 Page 2 The applicant has proposed to extend the storm sewer in Bay Ridge Road to the southeast corner of Parcel B, which in concept is what needs to be done; however, final drainage calculations are necessary and final plans will need to be developed as a condition of any approval. This proposed storm sewer may need to be extended across the old driveway or connected to the existing culvert to ensure that the County Road drainage is captured. Additional drainage and utility easements will surely be necessary once the final plans are developed. This storm sewer system will need to be installed to City standards by the Developer at his expense and turned over to the City upon completion. All easements necessary from the two parcels between subject property and Bay Ridge Road must be acquired by the Developer. The survey submitted with the application shows only tentative house locations and proposed elevations. The proposed grades shown for the driveways are not acceptable, in particular Parcel A, which indicates a 21 percent grade from the edge of the bituminous to the low area in front of the garage. The grade for the driveway on Parcel B appears to be 17 percent. This plan needs to be revised to lower the driveway grades closer to 15 percent and also provide some kind of landing area at the edge of the County Road. The revised grading plan must also show invert elevations for both existing and proposed culverts. An additional culvert may be required for the driveway to Parcel B. The drainage swale on the lot line between the two homes must be more defined to keep the County Road runoff.within the easement area. The proposed grading fbr the house on Parcel A in particular, does not provide for any sort of level rear yard. The contours indicate a 3 to 1 slope starting almost immediately at the rear walkout. This entire site will be a very difficult one to grade; therefore, more thought must be given to both the appropriate house design and how the grades can be adjusted to work properly. Utilities It appears that an easement was never provided for the private sanitary sewer forcemain located in the old driveway, that serves the home at 6380 Bay Ridge Road. This forcemain will need to be relocated and easements provided. A new sanitary sewer service will need to be installed for Parcel B since the previously mentioned force main is connected to the existing service stub. We have reviewed the City's record plans and can not find any record of existing water services to this property; therefore new water services will need to be installed for both parcels. Pe~wTits The applicant will need to obtain the following permits: 1. Hennepin County entrance permit for the common driveway. 2. Hennepin County utility permit for the sanitary sewer and water service connections. 3. Storm Water Management permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) or the City of Mound if the permitting authority has been transferred to the City. 4114 Ms, Sarah Smith August 1, 2002 Page 3 Recotnmendations We recommend the following conditions become a part of any subdivision approval. 1. Final grading and drainage plans must be revised and approved by the City Engineer prior to release of documents fbr recording. Final storm sewer plans, including all necessary drainage calculations, must meet approval of the City Engineer. 3. Provide drainage and utility easements which accommodate all drainage swales and new storm sewer construction. These easements must meet approval of the City Engineer. 4. Dedicate additional 7 feet of permanent right-of-way for a total of 40 feet from center line of County Road 110. Provide 10 feet trail easement beyond the 40 foot roadway easement. 5. The necessary utility work, including new sewer and water services, relocation of existing force main and the new storrn sewer must be completed prior to release of the resolution; or some type of financial guarantee provided such as cash escrow, a letter of credit or performance bond. 6. All necessary permits must be obtained by the applicant, including but not limited to Hennepin County access and utility permits and storm water management permit. cc: Loren Gordon, H'KGI s \ na ~ \mot ~ 377 J'~correspondence~smilh7-30 4115 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: April 13, 1998 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision OWNER: Mark and Val Stone - 6380 Bay Ridge Road CASE NUMBER: 98-04 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5p LOCATION: 6380 Bay Ridge Road ZONING: Residential District R- 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicants have submitted a minor subdivision request for the property currently addresses to 6380 Bay Ridge Road. The existing parcel would be subdivided into two parcels, the vacant parcel A having frontage on Bartlett Blvd. and the developed parcel B retaining its frontage on Bay Ridge Road. Each parcel would meet the R-1 district requirements for lot area and width. The developed parcel B would meet all yard setbacks and hardcover requirements. Parcel A would meet yard setbacks and hardcover as shown in the survey. There is a culvert that drains water from the cemetery north of the property under Bartlett and outlets at the north property edge. The drainage continues south across the property to another ,,culvert that extends under an old driveway. It then follows the property line of parcel B to the catch basin on' Bay Ridge Road. A sanitary sewer service runs through the property from Bartlett to serve the home on parcel B. There is not currently an easement for this line. The City Engineer's report details drainage and utility related issues on the property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision with the following conditions. 1. All drainage, utility and building permits be reviewed and approved by the City. 2. Park dedication fees be paid as stated in Section 330:120 of the City Code. 3. The applicant secure a driveway pemlit fi'om Hennepin County prior to the City issuing a building permit, i; 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 4116 City of Mound MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION Planning Commission Date: ~/~. ~ City Council Date: PAID APR 0 3 ~OOZ Application Fee: $ 250 Escro~v Deposit: $1,000 Distribution: X~,- City Planner DNR Deficient Unit Charges? ,~ Public Works . Parks Delinquent Taxes? City Engineer X Other Variance Required? Please type nt c PROPERTY Subject Address INFO [O~[-T ~p- (..o~ 5- EXISTING Lot Block Subdivision LEGAL DESCRiPTiON PID# "'~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ O ~ ~ Plat ~ DISTRICT Circle: R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT The applicant Is: ~wner o~e~ Name Address Phone (H) (W). .(M). OWNER Name ~~ ~S~C~ ~ I~1~/~ L ~G~5 ~ (if other than applicant) Address '~ ~ Y ~ ~~ ~ ~d~ ~, O ~ ~/ Phone(H) ~Z- YTO--~ ~'~ (W) ~/~- ~ YZ -Gl I~ .(M) SURVEYO~ Name ~~ ~ S * ~ ~i~ ENGINEER Address '~O '~O ~0~ ~r~ ~O ~C~ . ~J ' Phone (H), ~) ~43 --~f -~¢~ (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (.~"~o. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or explanation given why this is not the case. I certify that all of the statements above and statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I acknowledge that I have read all of the information provided and that I am responsible for all co.~[~'hincurred by the City related to the processing of this application. I consent to the entry in or upon the premi~e'~ de/cribed in this ~al~cation by any authorized official of the City of Mound for~tt~e purpose of inspecting, or of po~'~g, m/ntaining an.ql.-d'.em"oving such notices as may be required by law. (A ~/~a'~t/Signa¢ ~_.__ Date. / / ' ~er;s Signature Date Minor Subd Appli~tion Page 1 of 1 Revised 03/20102 41 1 7 CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET SURVEY ON FILE'f/eYES)/ NO :RECORD? YES / NO YARD ] DIREC'rlON [ ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~nx~. x0,0oo/6o~:nx 7,500/0 RiA 6,000/40 :~:;B2~ 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3'10,000/60 R2 14.000/80 R3 SBR ORD. :I1'30,000/100 REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: ,. LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE HOUSE ......... FRONT ~ SIDE ' N S E W N S E W N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N S E W · I0' OR 30' $IIED ..... DETACI lED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W -:- FRONT N S E W ','.~ ..,:"~. '' SIDE' ', "' ; ' N S E W 4'OR6'' ,,i, .-, :, . SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' : REAR N S E W 4' LAKE 7.: ' N S E W ', ..'~+ . · 50' ', .' *.?:!'='~'~-~i.' *,'.~'-"'"'" TOP OF.BLUFF 10' OR 90' . ' '. HARDCOVER 30% OR 40% .... : C ON,O,,N . NO ? I BY: lO^TED: This Zoning Informatl{~n 8hee! oniv summarizes a portion of thc tequirementn outlined in thc City of Mound Zoning Ordinance.; For further information, contact Ihe City of Mound Planning at 472-0600. ....:., , (~) ;.. ..... (51) "'"~:;~':' ' :. :,. L.-.- · ,..~.~~ 0 ......... ~ :...' .. · :.,'~:~"' '¢"'" ~ ;'" '"~' "":'" 8 ° ·' ,;,~'~3':" . ~.4 t'q : ...., ,..~a.;~;{.~.~ '. c-q ~ ..q- ,,:: ~.~, 0~'~ = :';:~'" ' , ' ~ r--. o'1 e,4 4118 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: City of Mound Staff, Planning Commission and Council FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 21, 2002 SUBJECT: Final Plat - "Lake Minnetonka Trails" APPLICANT: Henry and Cfina Lazniarz OWNER: Henry and Gina Lazniarz LOCATION: 4531 Manchester Road PID: 19-117-23-31-0062 and 19-117-23-31-0063 ZONING: R-2 Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND / EXISTING CONDITIONS The applicant, Henry and Gina Lazniarz, have submitted a Final Plat for a 4 lot single family development named "Lake Minnetonka Trails." The Preliminary Plat was reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 20a~, comments from that meeting are included in the packet material. The City Council reviewed and approved the Preliminary Plat at its June 11th meeting. The resolution and meeting minutes are included as well. Existing Uses The project is located on the north end of Inverness Lane, south of Manchester Road. The property consists of 28,736 square feet, or about 2/3fas of an acre. The property today has one house which is located on the proposed lot 4. The driveway and access to the house is off Manchester Road from a gravel drive. The surrounding neighborhood is small lot single-family residential generally consistent with current R-1A District regulations. Zoning within a two block area includes single-family R-1 and R-1A and two-family R-2 District. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Mi~meapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 4119 p. 2 #02-06 Lake .~dinnetonka Trails Final ]>tat August 21, 2002 Current Property Holdings The property was previously subdivided into three parcels during the time Inverness Lane was constructed. That subdivision approval was granted as a waiver of plating in Resolution 79-479. Legal descriptions from that approval are reflected on the proposed plat. One of the confusing aspects of how the property is currently viewed is that the tax parcels are held differently than the parcel descriptions in the Certificates of Title. The tax parcel information indicates two parcels divided east and west on the property. This is somewhat important to note in this review as it is somewhat odd although not uncommon to have differing torrens and tax parcel boundaries. Site Conditions Topography is generally conducive to the development as proposed. A ridge runs east/west through the middle of site and drainage patterns are to the north and south. A two tier retaining wall with a height of about 6 feet was constructed with the Inverness Lane roadway improvements and affects about ½ of the roadway frontage. The site is fairly void of trees, except for a few high quality trees that are worth noting. They include: · 24" Oak on lot 2 · 10" Oak on lot 1 · 12" Oak on lot 1 · 28" Maple on lot 4 As it appears that the applicant wants to preserve the trees, some preventative measures an oversight from an arborist are advisable long before grading and construction activities commence. Initial grading and drainage plans for lots 1 and 2 show the oak trees will be preserved. Attention will need to be given to the construction activity around the tree base that could harm their long term health. Oaks are extremely sensitive to disruption of soils within their canopy. The City's wetland inventory does not identify wetland areas on the site. Staff's analysis of site conditions also concludes there is no evidence of wetland conditions. Roadways and Utilities Inverness Lane and Manchester Road provide the improved roadway access to the subdivision. The subdivision will not require any additional road upgrades other than normal curb cuts for access. The plat indicates lot 1 includes the full width of vacated Cumberland Road. The previous subdivision approval in 1979 included the vacation as a part of that plat and is evidenced by the certificates of title and examiner's directive. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 4120 £.3 #02-06 Lake Minnetonka Trails Final Plat August 21, 2002 Water and sanitary sewer services are stubbed to the property line in 6 locations. Connections and possible removal of unused services will need to be addressed by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. All other utility issues are addressed in the City Engineers report. Proposed Final Plat The subdivision is essentially creating 4 lots from the existing 3 that were platted in 1979. Although the proposal is very much like a minor subdivision, because it creates 4 lots, the major subdivision process is required per Section 330:20 of the Subdivision Code. This section provides the ability to use the minor subdivision process when not more than 3 lots are created. As proposed, the existing 3 lots would be reconfigured to create 4 new lots. Specifics of the proposed Lake Minnetonka Trails Final Plat are as follows: PARCEL SIZE 28,736 sq. ft. PROPOSED LOTS 4 PROPOSED NEW HOUSING UNITS 3 DENSITY 6 units/acre ZONING (EXISTING) R-2 ZONING (PROPOSED) R-2 Minimum Lot Size 6,000 sf Minimum Lot Width 40 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 20 feet Mininmm Side Yard Setbacks 10 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setbacks 15 feet LAND USE PLAN SUBDIVISION STREET DESIGN Right-of-way width Pavement width PARK SITE DEDICATION Low Density Residential (1-6 units acre) No additional ROW needed No improvements needed Minimum requirements for major subdivisions are 10% of plat land area for a park site or equal cash amount based on County Assessor's land value General Discussion The proposed platting of the property essentially creates an additional lot from the existing three lots. The resulting lot sizes and configurations are very typical of those in the surrounding neighborhood. With the absence of roadway improvements, the density of the development is within the range of low density established in the Comprehensive Plan. Lot Configurations The lots are platted and house plans are intended to fully comply with applicable development standards of the R-2/R-1 A District for single family residences. Proposed development standards for each lot in the plat are as follows: 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 4121 p. 4 # 02-06 Lake Minnetonka Trails Final Plat August 21, 2002 Setbacks Proposed Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Front Side Rear Hardcover Lot 1 7166 44.3' 100.54' 20' 10' 15' 25.4% Lot 2 6280 -71" 83.55' 20' 10' 15' 23.3 % Lot 3 6018 73.8' 81.55' 20' 10' 15' 24.4% Lot 4 8504 86.2' 98.67' 20' 10' 15' 29.9% Surface Water The property will generate more surface water run-off as proposed than what currently occurs. Water mn-off'from Lots 1 and 2 will end up in the Inverness Lane roadway and water from lots 3 and 4 will flow to Manchester Road curb and gutter systems. No on-site storm water improvements are proposed. At present, the City has not yet assumed permitting authority from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Any necessary permits required by MCWD for the development would be the applicant's responsibility to secure. Park Dedication As a major subdivision, the property is subject to park dedication fees unless they were paid with the 1979 approval. The resolution approving the plat makes no mention of park dedication, and it is likely that they were not paid based on the fact that the two proposed homes were not built. A review of City records will need to be conducted to substantiate this assumption. If park dedication did not occur, the final plat approval will need to make the appropriate contributions. Because the property is so small, land dedication for a park site is not advisable. Fees in lieu of land would be preferred for this subdivision. Hennepin County's land market value for the property is $57,800 for both parcels 0062 and 0063. Based on the 10% value formula, fees paid to the City would amount to $5780. Hennepin County Asseser's Land Value Tax parcel 0062 $36,800.00 Tax parcel 0063 21,000.00 Total $57,800.00 10% of total land value $5,780.00 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Mirmeapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 4122 p. 5 # 02-06 Lake Minnetonka Trails Final Plat August 21, 2002 House Plans The applicant has submitted typical house plans for the subdivision to show how they would fit on each lot. They show a tuck under garage design with a total footprint of about 1000 square feet. Given the small lots and the character of the neighborhood, these designs seem to fit well with other housing styles in the area. Although the applicant is a residential homebuilder, it is likely that they will not be involved in construction. DISCUSSION ITEMS Park Dedication Fees The City Council had some concerns about the application of major subdivision park dedication fees outlined in Section 330:120. Subd. 3 provides the option for the City to require a minimum 10% cash contribution for subdivisions based on the fair market value of the land being divided. Subd 3. further states, "In no case shall the dedication in cash be less than $i lO0. OO for each new lot being created." The per lot amount was increased from $500.00 by City Council Ordinance in late 2001. Either approach, 10% cash value of the land or $1100.00 for each new lot, is acceptable by Code. As noted, Staff's recommendation is to take the 10% cash approach provided for by the major subdivision process. If it is the Council's wish to relax the park fees, the Code certainly allows that to occur and the Resolution should reflect that change. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the Lake Minnetonka Trails Final Plat as requested with the following conditions: 1. Provide drainage and utility easements, 10 feet wide along the front lot lines and 5 feet in width along side and rear lot lines. 2. The applicant must furnish a letter of exemption to Rule N from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Property owner to be responsible for all reconstruction of existing stone retaining wall necessary when the driveway for Lot 2 is installed. 4. Concrete driveway aprons must be provided when the new driveways are constructed, and the driveways must be hard surfaced. 123 North Third Sta-eet, Suite 100, Mirmeapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 4123 p. 6 #02-06 Lake Minnetonka Trails Final Plat August 21, 2002 5. Two (2) deficient street unit charges, in the amount of $1,768.45 each, for a total of $3,536.90 shall be paid. 6. Sanitary sewer and watermain area trunk charges shall be paid. 7. Park dedication fees of $5780.00 be paid prior to the release of the final plat for recording. 8. The applicant is highly encouraged to work with an arborist prior to the commencement of construction activities on measures to preserve the Oak trees on lots 1 and 2. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (6141 24-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 RESOLUTION #02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE LAKE MINNETONKA TRAILS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT P&Z CASE #02-06 WHEREAS, the applicant, Henry and Gina Lazniarz, have submitted a Final Plat application for a single family residential development called Lake Minnetonka Trails in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound 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 includes 28,736 square feet of land as proposed. The site consists of three lots which were created with the approval of Resolution 79-479 through a waiver of platting process. As proposed, the existing 3 lots would be reconfigured to create 4 new lots and would include the existing single family residence located on the property; and, WHEREAS, the site is generally conducive to the development as proposed. A ridge runs east/west through the middle of site and drainage patterns are to the north and south. The site is fairly void of trees, except for a few high quality trees which include a 24" Oak on proposed lot 2, a 10" and 12" Oak on proposed lot 1, and a 28" Maple on proposed lot 4; and, WHEREAS, the applicant desires to preserve the trees and preventative measures are advisable long before grading and construction activities commence. Construction activity around the tree base could harm their long term health, especially the Oaks which are extremely sensitive to disruption of soils within their canopy; and WHEREAS, the surrounding neighborhood is small lot single-family residential general!~ consistent with current R-lA District regulations. Zoning within a two block area includes single- family R-1 and R-lA and two-family R-2 Districts. Current R-lA zoning for non-lots of record require a minimum of 6,000 sq. ft. lot area, a minimum lot width of 40 feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, 15 feet rear yard setback, and a minimum building floor area of 840 square feet; and, WHEREAS, all proposed lots meet the minimum standards for newly created lots in the R-1A zoning district and are detailed as follows: Minimum Setbacks Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Front Side Rear Lotl 7166 44.3' 100.54' 20' 10' 15' Lot2 6280 ~71" 83.55' 20' 10' 15' Lot3 6018 73.8' 81.55' 20' 10' 15' Lot4 8504 86.2' 98.67' 20' 10' 15' ; and, 4125 WHEREAS, existing roadway and utility infrastructure is in place and would not require the construction of additional facilities to accommodate the proposed subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and density of development contemplated and proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use in the area; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on May 20, 2002, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to review the proposed subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, on June 11, 2002, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to review the proposed subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability of the Final Plat taking into consideration the requirements of the City, giving particular attention to the lot arrangement their relation to topography, water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, the present development of adjoining lands and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other official controls; and, WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City Comprehensive 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, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: The Lake Minnetonka Trails Final Plat is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The issuance Final Plat subject to compliance with the City Engineer's reports dated May 16, 2002, and August 21, 2002, and conditions conta/ned therein. 2. Provide drainage and utility easements, 10 feet wide along the front lot lines and 5 feet in width along side and rear lot lines. 3. The applicant must furnish a letter of exemption to Rule N from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 4. Property owner to be responsible for all reconstruction of existing stone retaining wall necessary when the driveway for Lot 2 is installed. 5. Concrete driveway aprons must be provided when the new driveways are constructed, and the driveways must be hard surfaced. 4126 6. Two (2) deficient street unit charges, in the amount of $1,768.45 each, for a total of $3,536.90 shall be paid. 7. Sanitary sewer and watermain area trunk charges shall be paid. 8. Park dedication fees of $5780.00 be paid prior to the release of the final plat for recording. The applicant is highly encouraged to work with an arborist prior to the commencement of construction activities on measures to preserve the oak trees on lots 1 and 2. 10. The Final Plat drawing labeled as Exhibit A is hereby incorporated into this Resolution and all improvements shall be as shown on the plans or as modified under the approval of the City Engineer. The location of all dwellings shall be only as provided on the City's Zoning regulations, or as modified by official action of the City Council. 11. Hardcover for each lot shall not exceed 30%. 12. The applicant 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. 13. The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within one hundred eighty (180) days of the City Council approving the final plat. If the plat is not filed within that time period, it shall become null and void. 14. The applicant shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building Official of all reviews and required permits from the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 'or any other applicable permits, prior to beginning construction. The Building Official will not authorize construction until permits are secured. 15. No building permits shall be issued until the Final Plat has been filed and recorded at Hennepin County. 16. 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. 17. The applicant will reimburse the City for legal, engineering and planning costs incurred for review and approval of this plat. 4127 Bo The Lake Minnetonka Trails Final Plat is consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat. C. The Lake Minnetonka Trails Final Plat is legally described in Exhibit "A" BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 and the City of Mound Code of Ordinances. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted: August 27, 2002 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk 4128 City of Mound MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION CITY COUNCIL DATE: DISTRIBUTION DATE DISTRIBUTION D,4TE CHECK TYPE OF APPLICATION FEE BOX CITY PLANNER POLICE SKETCH PLAN REVIEW $350 CITY ENG MCWD PRELIMINARY PLAT $350+$15 per lot PUB WORKS HENNEPIN COUNTY [// FINAL PLAT $350+$15 per lot PARKS ASSESSING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ $350 PDA DNR FIRE ESCROW DEPOSIT $5,000 VARIANCE $200 TOT^, $ ~/~, ~ Please type or print INFO Name of Proposed Plat Z~ ~4//~t/~j"~,~ EXISTING Lot ~/7/~/~/~ ~//~/~ /~ Subdivision LEGAL DESCRIPTION PID~ /~-//7~--~/-- ~ /~ --//7 ZONING DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-lA R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT The appli~nt is: ~wner o~e~ Name OWNER (if other than Addr~s applicant) Phone (H) .~). .(U). Major Subd Application Page 1 of 2 Revised 03/20/02 4129 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity,' including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed 'development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Number of structures:J~9~d/~"J'/'~,;~~~~N;~e;Oi'Dwell;ng''U~;;s/Si;~t~;~: ~ Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: 7/0~ ~ s q.~. ~'~ Total Lot Area: Z~ ~ ,q~ ~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( )' yes, (') no. If yesl list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or explanation given why this is not the case. I certify that all of the statements above and statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I acknowledge that I have read all of the information provided (including Section 330 of the Mound City Ordinance) and that I am responsible for all costs Incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the j~urpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notice's as may be required by law.' /' -- ~rint ApJ~licant s Name Applicar~.~ture d_..,'" ~ Date Print Owner's Name Print Owner's Name O~ner's Signatur~ Date ag Date Major Subd Application Page 2 of 2 Revised 03/20/02 413O $77J; W~ Bouleva~ Ad~ LO~ $.M!6 Notary P~flc Minnesota I~! 4131 This page left blank intentionally. 4132 O~ O~ 3,,9'~ ,C3~oOON / ! / : ,. cj9'~L , / O0 '9# .......... ~,,9'V ,q'VoOOS ,,.,' 00'091, ; ,,;':;.":. ..... ~l 207 30 3N/ 7 .2~3A, I 6 /07 30 3N/7 J$3fl 3HJ.." 30 NO/SN3JX3 /7d3Hi/70£ ':',:,~,, .,,. 4133 (",:::') Engineering · Planning · Surveying August 21, 2002 Ms. Sarah Smith, Community Development Director City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1627 SUBJECT: City of Mound Final Plat - Lake Minnetonka Trails Case #02-29 MFRA #13724 Dear Sarah: Enclosed is our final report for the final plat of Lake Minnetonka Trails. Subject to conditions listed, we recommend approval. Sincerely, MFRA John Cameron, City Engineer JC:pry Enclosure s:Xmain:Wlou 13724:\CorrespondenceksmithS-21 4134 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-maiL' mfra@mfra, com CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA ENGINEER'S MEMO TO THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL DATE: CASE NO: PETITIONER: FINAL PLAT: LOCATION: AUGUST 21, 2002 02-29 HENRY AND GINA LAZNIARZ LAKE MINNETONKA TRAILS INVERNESS LANE AND MANCHESTER ROAD ASSESSMENT RECORDS: N/A Yes No [3 [] X 2. E3 X 3. D X 4. [--] [--] X 5. [] X Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use. Watermain area trunk charges on 3 units at $1,500 per unit. Total due $4,500. Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed use. Sanitary sewer area trunk charges based on 3 units at $1,500 per unit. Total due $4,500. SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are issued. Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at the time of final plat approval. Area assessments. Other additional assessments estimated: SEE SPECIAL CONDITION 24. LEGAL / EASEMENTS / PERMITS: 6. [--] X [--] Complies with standard utility/drainage easements - The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and five feet (5') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines. All standard utility easements required for construction are provided - The City will require twenty feet (20') utility and drainage 4135 N/A Yes N__9_o o X easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines were these utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed with the final construction plans and the following changes are necessary: Complies with ponding requirements - The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for ponding purposes on all property below the established 100- year high water elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive stormwater drainage plan. 10. 11. X X X All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have been vacated - It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of- way to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic process in conjunction with the platting process. It is the Owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated. The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the City with this application If it is subsequently determined that the subject property is abstract property, then this requirement does not apply. It will be necessary for the property Owner to provide the City Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order that he may file the required easements referred to above. All necessary permits for this project have been obtained The following permits must be obtained by the Developer: [--] DNR [--] Hennepin County [-] MPCA [-] State Health Department X Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ['-] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [~ Other The Developer must comply with all conditions contained within any permit. 4136 N/A Yes TRANSPORTATION: No 12. X I~ [-'] Conforms with the City's grid system for street names - The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the City grid system for street names. The following changes will be necessary: 13. X [221 [23 14. X I-I [~] Conforms with the City's Thoroughfare Guide Plan - The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan. Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided - Acceleration/deceleration and turn lanes are required at the intersection of and All existing street rights-of-way are required width Additional right-of-way will be required on 16. X [--] [--'l x [2] X Conforms with City standards requiring the Developer to construct utilities necessary to serve this plat - In accordance with City standards, the Developer shall be responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the development. Final utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements- The Developer has submitted the required construction plans for the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities; and has also furnished profiles of these utilities as well as the proposed street system (public and private). Per the Developer's request, final plans will be prepared by the City. 41,~7 N/A Yes ..No x [2 If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as part of its Capital Improvement Program, a petition must be submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1st of the year preceding construction, if the Developer is paying 100% of the cost. The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan - The following revisions will be required: 20. x El The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan - The following revisions will be required: 21. El X [2 It will be necessary to contact Greg Skinner, the City's Public Works Superintendent, 24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The Developer shall also be responsible for contacting the Public Works Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the City right-of-way. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL: 22. X [-] Have minimum basement elevations has been established. Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following lots: 23. [3 x [2 Complies with Storm Drainage Plan - The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted to the City's Consulting Engineer for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control, including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations. Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary: Applicant must obtain approval from MCWD. 4138 N/A Yes No SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQ~D: 24. Two (2) deficient street unit charges, in the amount of $1,768.45 each, for a total of $3,536.90 shall be paid. 25. The Developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities, such as telephone, electric, and natural gas services. 26. Applicant for building permit shall be responsible for all reconstruction of existing stone retaining wall necessary when the driveway for Lot 2 is installed. 27. Concrete driveway aprons must be provided when the new driveways are constructed. Driveways must be hard surfaced. Submitted by: John Cameron, City Engineer s:'~main:'aMou 13724:\Correspondence\engineersmemo8 -21 4139 Mound City Council - June 11, 2002 B. Case 02-06: Henry & Gina Lazniarz, Preliminary Plat, Minnetonka Trails (4) Major Subd, Lots 6,7,9,18,19,20,21, Block 14, Avalon Loren Gordon presented the major subdivision preliminary plat for consideration, stating that the subdivision takes three lots and makes them into four lots. Staff and Planning Commission are both recommending approval of this Preliminary Plat with conditions as contained in the resolution. The park dedication fee will be verified with the resolution to state that this fee shall be determined and paid before the final plat is presented. Mayor Meisel opened the hearing at 11:32 p.m. Henry Lazniarz approached the Council, asking for approval of this Preliminary Plat and stated that he agrees to grant the neighbor a perpetual easement for the retaining wall and its maintenance. Mayor Meisel closed the hearing at 11:33 p.m. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Osmek to adopt the following resolution as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 02-69: RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE LAKE MINNETONKA TRAILS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, P & Z CASE #02-06. 9. PROPOSED POST RETIREMENT HEALTH CARE SAVINGS PLAN Gino Businaro presented the proposed Post Retirement Health Care Savings Plan to the Council. This plan is the result of the City Personnel Committee negotiating a proposal with the Employee Retirement Program Committee. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Meyer to approve this plan as presented, as an amendment to the City Administrative Code. The following voted in favor: Brown, Meisel and Meyer. The following voted against: Hanus and Osmek. Motion carried. 9A. LETTER RECEIVED BY MAYOR REGARDING SlGNAGE WITHIN THE CITY Mayor Meisel informed the Council that she received a letter regarding signage put on corners and right of ways. Sarah Smith will investigate the current regulations and take steps to have these signs removed according to code. 10. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS B. C. D. E. F. G. AMM Fax News FYI: Officer Alexander resignation Newsletter: Gillespie Center Letter: Governor Ventura Lake Minnetonka fireworks celebration Newsletter: Ehlers & Assoc Report: Minnesota Health Dept 6 4140 CERTIFICATE City of Mound STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and the Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that: 1. As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached and forgoing extract was transcribed. 2. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record. 3. I find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held of the date indicted in said extract, including any resolution adopted at such meeting, insofar as they relate to: CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 02,69 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE LAKE MINNETONKA TRAILS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT P & Z CASE No. 02-06 Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on the 11TM day of June, 2002. WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the seal of said City, this 14th day of June, 2002. Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk 4141 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION #02-69 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE LAKE MINNETONKA TRAILS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT P&Z CASE #02-06 WHEREAS, the applicant, Henry and Gina Lazniarz, have submitted a Preliminary Plat application for a single family residential development called Lake Minnetonka Trails in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound 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 includes 28,736 square feet of land as proposed. The site consists of three lots which were created with the approval of Resolution 79-479 through a waiver of platting process. As proposed, the existing 3 lots would be reconfigured to create 4 new lots and would include the existing single family residence located on the property; and, WHEREAS, the site is generally conducive to the development as proposed. A ridge runs east/west through the middle of site and drainage pattern§ are to the north and south. The site is fairly void of trees, except for a few high quality trees which include a 24" Oak on proposed lot 2, a 10" and 12" Oak on proposed lot 1, and a 28" Maple on proposed lot 4; and, WHEREAS, the applicant desires to preserve the trees and preventative measures are advisable long before grading and construction activities commence. Construction activity around the tree base could harm their long term health, especially the Oaks which are extremely sensitive to disruption of soils within their canopy; and 1 4142 Resolution No. 02-69 WHEREAS, the surrounding neighborhood is small lot single-family residential generally consistent with current R-lA District regulations. Zoning within a two block area includes single-family R-1 and R-lA and two-family R-2 Districts. Current R-lA zoning for non-lots of record require a minimum of 6,000 sq. ft. lot area, a minimum lot width of 40 feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, 15 feet rear yard setback, and a minimum building floor area of 840 square feet; and, WHEREAS, all proposed lots meet the minimum standards for newly created lots in the R-lA zoning district and are detailed as follows: · Setbacks Proposed Lot Area Lot Lot Front Side Rear Hardcover Width Depth Lot 1 7166 44.3' 100.54' 20' 10' 15' 25.4% Lot 2 6280 -71" 83.55' 20' 10' 15' 23.3% Lot 3 6018 73.8' 81.55' 20' 10' 15' 24.4% Lot 4 8504 86.2' 98.67' 20' 10' 15' 29.9% ; and, WHEREAS, existing roadway and utility infrastructure is in place and would not require the construction of additional facilities to accommodate the proposed subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and density of development contemplated and proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use in the area; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on May 20, 2002, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 330.00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to review the proposed subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability of the preliminary plat taking into consideration the requirements of the City, giving particular attention to the lot arrangement their relation to topography, water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, the present development of adjoining lands and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other official controls; and, WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City Comprehensive 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, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: 2 4143 Resolution No. 02-69 The Lake Minnetonka Trails Preliminary Plat is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The issuance Preliminary Plat subject to compliance with the City Engineer's May 16, 2002, report and conditions contained therein. 2. Provide drainage and utility easements, 10 feet wide along the front lot lines and 5 feet in width along side and rear lot lines. 3. The applicant must furnish a letter of exemption to Rule N from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 4. Property owner to be responsible for all reconstruction of existing stone retaining wall necessary when the driveway for Lot 2 is installed. 5. Concrete driveway aprons must be provided when the new driveways are constructed, and the driveways must be hard surfaced. 6. Two (2) deficient street unit charges, in the amount of $1,768.45 each, for a total of $3,536.90 shall be paid. 7. Sanitary sewer and watermain area trunk charges shall be paid. 8. Park dedication fees must be paid prior.to the final plat being presented. The applicant is highly encouraged to work with an arborist prior to the commencement of construction activities on measures to preserve the oak trees on lots 1 and 2. 10.The preliminary plat drawing labeled as Exhibit A is hereby incorporated into this Resolution and all improvements shall be as shown on the plans or as modified under the approval of the City Engineer. The location of ' all dwellings shall be only as provided on the City's Zoning regulations, or as modified by official action of the City Council. 11. Hardcover for each lot be not more than 30%. 12.The applicant 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. 3 4144 Resolution No. 02-69 13.The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within one hundred eighty (180) days of the City Council approving the final plat. If the plat is not filed within that time period, it shall become null and void. 14. The applicant shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building Official of all reviews and required permits from the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, or any other applicable permits, prior to beginning construction. The Building Official will not authorize construction until permits are secured. 15. No building permits shall be issued until the Final Plat has been filed and recorded at Hennepin County. 16. 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. 17.The applicant will reimburse the City for legal, engineering and planning costs incurred for review and approval of this plat. B. The Lake Minnetonka Trails Preliminary Plat is legally described in Exhibit "A" BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 and the City of Mound Code of Ordinances. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and seconded by Councilmember Osmek. 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 11th day of June, 2002: SS/Bonnie Ritter Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk SS/Pat Meisel Pat Meisel, Mayor 4145 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. 02-69 Lot 9, Block 14, That part of Lots 7, 8, 18, 19 lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the East line of Lot 6 of said Block 14, distant 30.00 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Lot 6; thence Northwesterly to a point on the West line of said Lot 18 distant 45.00 feet South of the northwest corner of said Lot 18 and said line there terminating; and which lies Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot 8; thence Northeasterly to the Northeast corner of said Lot 7 and said line there terminating; all in block 14, "Avalon". Records of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Registered Property, as evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 602680 And That part of Lots 6,7, and 8, Block 14, "Avalon", lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the East line of Lot 6 of said Block 14, distant 30.00 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Lot 6; thence Northwesterly to a point on the West line of Lot 18 of said block 14, distant 45.00 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Lot 18 and said line there terminating. And which lies Easterly of the following described line: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Lot 8; thence Northeasterly to the Northeast corner of said Lot 7 and said line there terminating. And That part of adjoining vacated Cumberland Road, dedicated as Cumberland Lane in the plat of Avalon, lying West of the southerly extension of the East line of Lot 6; Block 14 and easterly of a circle having a radius of 45 feet, the center of said circle being the intersection of a line 25 feet South of and parallel with the North line of said Cumberland Road, with a line 13 feet East of the southerly extension of the West line of Lot 9 in said Block 14 all in Avalon. Records of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Registered Pr6perty, as evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 602681. And Lots 20 and 21, and That part of Lots 6,7,8,18 and 19, lying Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the East line of said Lot 6 distant 30.00 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Lot 6; thence Northwesterly to a point on the West line of said Lot 18 distant 45.00 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Lot 18 and said line there terminating, all in Block 14, "Avalon". Records of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Registered Property, as evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 602679. 5 4146 MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. To.' From: Date: Subject: Mound Honorable Mayor, City Council and Staff Loren Gordon, AICP August 22, 2002 Zoning Map / Comprehensive Plan revisions BACKGROUND As many of you are aware, Staff and the Planning Commission have been working on the City's Land Use Plan and Zoning Maps over the past few months. These revisions are needed to comply with Minnesota Statute that states that the Zoning Map shall be consistent with the Land Use Plan. This law was enacted in 1994 and is a change from prior land use/zoning practice. Under the Statute, the Land Use Plan establishes how parcels should be zoned. Zoning is still the "law of the land," but only when it is consistent with the Land Use Plan. The Statue makes it the City's responsibility to maintain consistency between the two. At the January Planning Commission workshop meeting, Staff introduced a new parcel based zoning map that is part of the City's evolving Geographic Information System (GIS). The Zoning Map hadn't been updated since about 1995, so a new map is long overdue. The new Zoning Map and Land Use Plan Map are the basis for the update. One of the useful tools GIS provides is the ability to readily identify inconsistencies in parcel land information. have used this to identify parcels with zoning classifications that don't match the guided use designated by the land use plan and vice-versa. A comparison resulted in the property lists noticed for the public hearings during May and July at the Planning Commission. We DISCUSSION For purposes of this meeting, Staff wanted to discuss procedural matters with the Council regarding how to move this project forward. There are a couple of items that the Council should consider when setting a hearing date for both rezoning and land use plan amendments: 1. Should the rezoning and land use plan public hearings be held at the same meeting like the Planning Commission or separated? Staffwould suggest a concurrent process. 2. When should a hearing be scheduled? If they are held concurrently, the earliest date a hearing could be scheduled is September 24th. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Mirmesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 4147 p. 2 Mound Honorable Mayor, City Council and Staff August 22, 2002 Items to consider: 1. Most of the rezoning/land use plan amendments are not controversial and actually improve the use status of a property. A couple of properties have envoked neighborhood discussion'- Anthony's Floral and the single family neighborhood on/adjacent to Chateau Lane north of Shoreline Blvd. In particular: Anthony's Floral property - Mound and Minnetrista residents have concerns about future use of the property and it's impact on the lake. A neighborhood group has organized and have had preliminary discussions with the Community Development Director since the Planning Commission meeting and would like to be involved in all future discussions and meetings. Concerns include, but are not limited to the following: site density, the City's development review process, dockage, traffic and lake access. 3. Any land use plan amendment will need to be approved by the Metropolitan Council. These amendments have been initiated by the City therefore, there is not a need or obligation to comply with the 60-day rule in State Statute Section 15.99. Taking additional time to hear and consider the issues is possible if desired. This report does not attempt to address all of the issues that have been raised in previous staff reports and Planning Commission meetings. Staff is however prepared to address any item the Council wishes to discuss in determining how to approach these amendments. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Mim~eap01is, Mirmesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 4148 Excerpt from the MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Jorj Ayaz. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Community Development Director Sarah Smith and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. The following individuals were present: Mark Hagen - 6382 Maple Rd, Gloria & Lewis Ely - 5900 Sunset Rd, Bill Baker - 4948 Wilshire Blvd, Fran & Roy Hagen - 6224 Red Oak Rd, Michael Huspek - 5908 Sunset Rd, Jill & David Bond - 6048 Aspen Rd, Jim Turner - 2000 Dutchview Rd, Noel Towley - 5842 Grandview Blvd, Carol Wagner - 6020 Aspen Rd, Katie Catton - 6376 Maple Rd, Kris Sieckert - 6376 Maple Rd, Lord Ham - The Laker, Didi Wagner - 6020 Aspen Rd, James Jackson - 6032 Aspen Rd, John Hubler - 5816 Grandview Blvd, Richard Kryck - 5986 Sunset Rd, Dave Laube - 6000 Aspen Rd, Karen Thompson - 5936 Sunset Rd, Mike Gardner- 1599 Bluebird Ln, Kathy Shea- 6382 Maple Rd, Joe & Renae Schlechter- 5058 Shoreline Dr, Ruth & Fred Schmudlach, Cathy & Cathy Boyland - 5824 Grandview Blvd, Beth Erickson - 2098 Grandview Blvd, Shari Erickson - 6064 Aspen Rd, Kelly & Derek Goddard - 5068 Shoreline Dr, Sandi Schmidt - 6216 Red Oak Rd, Linda Brustad - 6485 Game Farm Rd, Jeff Anderson - Mound Fire Department, Miles Britz - S.E.H. Inc., Katie Hoff- 6440 CR 15. 3. APPROVAL OF APRIL 15, 2002 MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Weiland, to approve the minutes of the June 17, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION carried unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING Gordon reviewed the information presented at the June 3rd Public Hearing. He addressed 4 points made at the previous public hearing. 1) What difference in tax rate from Commercial to Residential? Zones R1 to R3 are essentially taxed the same. Taxes don't change with zoning only with use. Tax rates are higher for commercial than for residential. 2) Methodist Church property on Commerce Blvd and Fern Ln- our records indicate it is zoned R1. Staff could not find documentation for any change to B 1. 3) 2020 Commerce should be R3 (it was an error) 4149 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2002 4) The notification procedure per Hennepin County was explained. Regarding the Anthony's/Dutch Lake property: Some of the neighboring residents had concerns about impacts on the lake including additional recreational activities that might result because of a high density residential development. Although Staff doesn't necessarily disagree with their concerns, Staff considered these alternatives: Rezoning to R1 to create less intense development. This might lessen development intensity, but will not necessarily create more open space. Single family homes are more likely to have boats and other recreational toys than an apartment or condominium complex. Leaving the property zoned as B2. A B2 zoning would allow commercial development which would be allowed up to 75% hardcover. Residential would be limited to 30%. A boat marina is also a listed conditional use in this district. Brown asked if it was left as B2, could we make exceptions (like not allow a marina or other objectionable operations). Gordon said that would be very difficult because the assumption is that it is permitted. It would not be possible to eliminate it. Mueller wanted to know if the City would control the docks permitted. Gordon said there are some regulations from the DNR. Not sure of the details; it woUld be a question for Parks Director Jim Fackler. Public Hearing opened. Mark Hagen, 6382 Maple Rd - Represents the Concerned Citizens for Dutch Lake. Dutch Lake is a good example of a balanced development area. 1) Protection of this asset is much easier, more vital, and less costly than correction. 2) We are not seeking to limit someone's ability to develop their land. 3) We don't want to see Anthony lose his investment. 4) We do want to maintain the integrity of the lake. Questions we have (answers given are in parenthesis): 1) What is the process for converting a property from commercial to a different zoning? (We are an advisory board. Staff brings the desired changes to the light. Planning Commission reviews and advises. City Council adopts changes. Comprehensive plan changes goes to the Metropolitan Council for approval.) 2) What was the rationale behind changing to R37 (Our process is based on what the community wants to be. The focus in this case was to redevelop the downtown. In a number of areas we are taking lands out of the business designation and putting them into residential. The reasons we considered residential in this case was; the property is large and a commercial 415O Planning Commission Minutes ~ul~/15, 2002 development at this location would not aid in drawing traffic into the downtown area. It could generate a considerable amount of commercial development. We also considered the school and the apartments next door. The lake and traffic aspects were more negatives. Anything that comes in under R3 would be reviewed stiffly by the Commission and the Council.) 3) Because there are wetlands, what sort of easement is in place? 4) Is anyone considering other styles of development? (Nothing else has been presented.) We want to be very vigilant, we want to live here and be attentive to the process because the lake is what it is. Rhys Evans, 5920 Sunset Rd - Our family has enjoyed the quiet over the years. Anthony has indicated that he wouldn't want to see an intensive commercial development. They would like to see a personal lake for the people that live there. Dave Lobby, 6000 Aspen Rd - The lake is all RI except for the school and Anthony's. How about split zoning? Front commercial, back residential? (It's a possibility.) Noel Towley, 5428 Grandview Blvd- Asked for clarification of the processes. She feels that R1 suits the area best. Carol Wagner, 6020 Aspen Rd - Is it possible for the Citizens of Dutch Lake and the City of Mound to work in partnership for Dutch Lake development? (Brown suggested a representative be chosen and staff will notify them when items come in that affect Dutch Lake.) Derek Goddard, 5068 Shoreline Dr - Please consider leaving this property zoned as is. John Huber, 5816 Grandview Blvd - Please don't lump multiple properties together. It's been an hour and 10 minutes listening to other issues. What impact does the High Density zoning have on sewer and water? What impact on Police, Fire and other services? Has high lake density analysis been done? Has the LMCD been involved? (All these items are taken into consideration at the time a development application is received.) Ruth Schmudlach, 6248 Red Oak Rd - Has split zoning ever been done? (Brown - It can be.) Single family homes have vested interested in the school next door and the children that go there. R3 is not acceptable. She would prefer single family - split zoning or all single family. Jim Turner, 2000 Dutchview Rd - Last meeting we were told that the Comp Plan said it was R2. Was that a mistake? Keep it out of high density. David Bond, 6048 Aspen Rd - We are all here to maintain development, not change it. R1 is most appropriate development for the area. We moved to Dutch Lake because of certain qualities. Wetlands are sensitive. 4151 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2002 Kelly Goddard, 5068 Shoreline Dr - What are the benefits to change to R37 (The idea for this area is to make it available for other residential redevelopment possibilities.) We are not in favor ofrezoning our lot to R3. Joe Schlecter, 5058 Shoreline Dr - If there are some properties that need updating why didn't staff stick it to those properties south of Shoreline that are in need of restoration? (Mueller - This is one way to make it happen. We can only do so much at one time.) Shah Erickson, 6064 Aspen - She is against the high density. Split zoning, i.e. on lakeside keep at RI, Commerce side go R2. She is a little concerned about Gordon's comment about a developer not wanting to come in to do a single family development. (Gordon -A developer will want to develop as intense as they can to maximize profits.) Dave Peterson, 1715 Sterling Dr? - What provisions are made for Anthony's to continue business after rezoning to residential? (Michael - It would be allowed with a conditional use permit.) Could a split zoning include a lakeside parcel dedicated to park land? (It's a possibility.) Noel - Dutch Lake issue should be handled separately from all the others because it is a rezoning not simply a change to the Comprehensive Plan. Chair closed public hearing. Recess at 9:25. Recalled meeting to order at 9:37. Michael indicated he would be in favor of removing the Shoreline properties and Anthony's property and move the rest as recommended. Burma disagreed with the Chairman. In the best interest of Anthony's Floral and surrounding property a decision should be made. MOTION by Brown, second by Glister, to split zoning for Anthony's Floral, RI at the lake, R3 on Commerce and remove the block on Shoreline between Chateau and Fairview. The rest of the staff recommendations as is. Clapsaddle is very uncomfortable with that from the standpoint of how a developer will look at the property. He wanted to know'if it could be designated a PDA? Gordon said yes. Mueller agreed that a PDA would be the tightest means we have to control the development of a property. Gordon stated it could be zoned R3 and overlay it with a PDA. That means that today the flower shop has a CUP and it could be a flower shop forever. If it sold and the new owner wanted to do something other than a flower shop it would need to go residential and go under strict review. Brown rescinded the motion, Glister agreed. 4152 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2002 MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to change 4828 Edgewater Dr to RI and 4804 Northern Rd to R3. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, second by Clapsaddle, to leave the area east of Chateau Lane unchanged. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, second by Burma, to change zoning on those properties between Chateau Lane and Fairview Lane north of Shoreline Boulevard south of the railroad tracks to zone R3. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, second by Brown, to change zoning to B 1 for 2116 Commerce and the adjacent unassigned parcels. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma, to change 2117 Fern Road to R3. MOTION carded unanimously. MOTION carried unanimously. Mueller would also support a variance for the church to put in a garage should they make that request in the future. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to change the remainder of the parcels in the proposal east of Commerce to R3 to conform with current use. MOTION carried unanimously. (Motion includes 5551, 5553 & 5555 Three Points Boulevard and 1816, 1818, 1822, 1824 & 2020 Commerce Boulevard.) MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to change the underlying zone to R3 with PDA criteria for the Anthony's Floral property located at 1861 Commerce Boulevard. Brown asked ifMueller would be willing to change zone to R1. Mueller declined. MOTION carried unanimously. Brown voted against. Brown hates to see it be anything but R1 by the lake. These zoning changes will likely be brought to the August 13th Council meeting. Michael requested that, since Minnetrista residents would like to be notified when Mound has meetings that concern them, they extend the same courtesy to Mound. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle second, that all the zoning changes recommended this evening be coordinated by Staff and passed on to City Council. MOTION carded unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to change the Comprehensive Plan to Low Density Residential for those properties east of Commerce Blvd north of Shoreline Drive. 4153 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2002 MOTION carded unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to change the Comprehensive Plan to High Density Residential for the property north of City Hall on Maywood Road. MOTION carded unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to change the Comprehensive Plan to commercial for the property on the south side of Shoreline Drive along Seton Channel. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to change Comprehensive Plan from High Density Residential to Low Density Residential for that piece east of Chateau Lane. MOTION carded unanimously. 4154 IViEMORANDU M Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. To: Mound Planning Commission and Staff From: Loren Gordon, AICP Date: July 10, 2002 Subject: Continued Public Hearing - Zoning Map / Comprehensive Plan revisions This item was continued at the June 3''d Planning Commission meeting until July 15, 2002. There were 4 items staff identified for follow-up. They include: 1. Tax rate comparison of residential and business property. 2. Current zoning status of 2117 Fern Road and 2116 Commerce Blvd. - City property information for the addresses indicates the zoning is R-l. 3. The property at 2020 Commerce BIvd should be proposed for rezoning to R-3. 4. Due to concerns regarding the noticing area, staff will present an overhead of the coverage as prepared by Hennepin County. Much of the meeting focused on the proposed rezoning and comprehensive plan amendments for the Anthony's Floral property. Some of the neighboring residents to the north in Minnetrista and Mound residents along Dutch Lake had concerns about impacts on the lake including additional recreational activities that might result because of a high density residential development. Although Staff doesn't necessarily disagree with their concerns, consider these alternatives: · Rezoning to R-I to create less intense development. This might lessen development intensity, but will not necessarily create more open space. Single family homes are more likely to have boats and other recreational toys than an apartment or condominimn complex. · Leaving the property zoned as B-2. A B,2 zoning would allow commercial development which would be allowed up to 75% hardcover. Residential would be limited to 30%. A boat marina is also a listed conditional use in this district. Procedurally, the public hearing will be open. The Commission specifically asked residents to only discuss new issues not covered during the last meeting.. ,If the item is moved forward to the City Council, it would be the prerogative of the Council to hold public hearing if they deemed it necessary. If they do choose to hold a hearing, Staff will need to coordinate scheduling based on noticing requirements. At this time, we will work under the assumption that a hearing will not be held until directed otherwise. I ,., North '['laird Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis. Minnesota 554(3 I (612) .~38-08( t Fax (612) 338-6838 41,~5 Excerpts from the 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. 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 Elm 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 Stannard - 4930 Wilshire Blvd, Ernie Rosenberg - 4967 Wilshire B lvd, 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 Kem- Rottlund Homes. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING/COMPREHF, NSIVE 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. 4156 Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2002 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 - Concerned 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. 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. 4157 Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2002 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 fi.om medium to high density residential and a zoning change fi.om 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 fi.om 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. Greg Fenzl, 2212 Fairview Ln - Will R3 zoning permit sale of property? Gordon - Yes, it doesn't affect sale of property. David Beede, 1824 Commerce - He is concerned that the Commission or staffdoesn'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 oppommities. 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. 4158 Planning Commission Minutes June 3,2002 Chair closed the public hearing. MOTION by Burma, second by Weiland, to table action. MOTION carried. Mueller voted against. Ayaz, tturma, 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 hearing. 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. 4159 MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. To: Mound Planning Commission and Staff From: Loren Gordon, AICP Date: May 30, 2002 Subject: Public Hearing - Zoning Map / Comprehensive Plan revisions Over the past few months, we have been reviewing the Land Use Plan and Zoning Maps for inconsistencies between guided land use and current zoning designations. All of the revisions as discussed minus the commercial property on Dutch Lake at Commerce and Bartlett has been noticed for hearing. During the week of May 20th, staff sent notices to the identified property owners of parcels that needed a change in zoning or land use to maintain the consistency provided in Minnesota State Statues section 462 as well as those properties within 350 feet of a proposed revision. Copies of the mailings are provided in this packet for your review. In terms of meeting process, we should handle each item separately, making independent motions on each. Since the Comprehensive Plan provides the guidance to the zoning map, the Comp Plan hearing could be held first. We don't anticipate holding an additional hearing at City Council, but will plan accordingly based on input received at the Planning Commission. 123 North 'Fhird Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 416O CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com May 22, 2002 As you may be aware, the Planning Commission has been reviewing its zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan for consistency as required by state statute and is recommending a number of proposed changes to the City's land use documents. For your review and consideration, we are enclosing a series of public hearing notices and maps that indicate the areas that are subject to a proposed amendment(s.) From a procedural standpoint, in order to undertake any proposed amendment to either the zoning ordinance or the comprehensive plan, state statute requires that a public hearing is held. The purpose of this correspondence is to notify you that your property may be subject to a proposed amendment(s) or may be located within the required notification area. Please be advised that the matter will be discussed at an upcoming meeting to be held on Monday, June 3, 2002 at 7:30 PM. On behalf of the City of Mound, I would like to cordially invite you to attend this meeting and comment on the aforementioned matter. In the event you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (952) 472-3190 at your convenience. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Sarah Smith Community Development Director SJS CITY OF MOUND City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 553 17 Planning Commission Holding Public Hearings for Rezonings What: Public Hearing to Consider the rezoning of certain properties When: Monday, June3, 2002, beginning at 7:30p.m. Where: City Council ~hambers, 5341 Maywood Road ;- Why: To maintain consistency the City's Comprehensive Pian and/or correct zoning inconsistencies,.: The Planning ~nmXission will be holding a public hearing to consider rezoning a number of properties throughout the community. The Conunerce Bird corridor in particular l~as a nmnber of properties that are not consistent with their guided land use designations and/or lmve zoning designations that do not fit with the current use of the property. The proposed rezonings are hatended to correct these inconsistencieS. 'ha many instances, the proposed rezonmg benefits a property by brhaging it into c0nfom~ance with the code. This public hearing is being initiated by the Ci.ty as a part of its obligation to maintain conformance between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. The Comprehensive Plan. is One of file key docmnents the City uses for makingpolicy decisions regarding land use matters. MinneSota State Statutes require that: a City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code be consistent with one another, thus requiring amenchnents from time to time. During the,last few months the Planning Commission Ires been reviewing the ComPrehensive Plan and Zoning Code to identify inconsistent properties. This mee~g'~,~0ws property owners and surrounding residents to make formal comment on the proposed chang~:..~t.~ll be considered by the Planning Commission in making a recommendation to the City' C°~ff~i;!.'~t'~s th6 Council that will ultimately- approve the proposed clmnges. The follo~ng listed and idet~[~ properties ate being considered for PID Proper~y Addre~ Existing Pmpo,~,e'fil" ' Re~on for' r'~zoning Zonintl Z-~a~n8.. 1311724220022 Unassi~,nod B-~ '"R-3 Use consistency with Comp Plan/Zonin~ .. 1311724220270 5551 Three'Point~ Blvd. B-2 /R-3 - Use eonsisteficy with Comp Plan/Zoning 1311724220269 5555 Three Poi,, .mZ BIv~ :.'i B~2 :~ R-3' Use eonsiste~/~y ~,ifl~ Comp PI .mVZonin~ 131.1724220268 5553 Tlu'¢e Poia~s Bird', Bk2 R~3.. - Use eon~¢n,~ W[fl~. Comp PtardZonln$ 131~[824220267 5551 Three Points Blvd.. B-2 . R:3" Use e0nsisteff~y,wifla Gon!p Plan/Zoning 13117~..4.220.251 1790 Cmmneroe Bird ~ i B~2 R,31~ Use eonS~t~'.~yi':,w!t!, ¢o0]p Plan/Zoning 1311724~20261 1766 Conmaeree Blvd. B-2 I[23' .. Use eo~i~i~teii~yWifl~ comp Plan/Zoning 13117242~'-60. 1760 Commerce Blvd. B~2 R;3. Use ¢61isi~t~i;~j'~Wifl~,.G0ia~p Plan/Zonin[l 1311724220259. 1762 Commerce Blvd. B-2 '~ ' l~,3 i Use eoti~isteti~"V/ith.~n,'Sp PlaiffZonlng 1311724220258' 1764'~6~ Blvd. B-2 R-3 Use eb~0sisi&iby' Wifli 2C~:'nyPlmiiZoni6g 13~ 17242202S;/ 1766 ~tieree Bird i B-2 R-3 . Use eOnsist?fi'~)~ y~ifl~ 131172~230052 1816 c0nmaereo Blvd. R,I . : R;3 Use Cdnsis~enby wlflii~Fab: Plan/z6nih!l 131.1724230047 1824 C0mmerce Blvd. ' R-I R~3, Use cbnsiSteney wifli. C0mp Plan/Zdnin~ 1311724230046 1822 cormnero¢ Blvd. R-I R,3' Use consistency wifl~ G. omP Plan/Z0nlng 1311724230045,. 1818 Conm~erce Blvd. R-i R}3 , i. Use donsistenSy With OOn3'p. Plan/Z01alng .. 131172i~230044 1816 Commerce Blvd. R-I . R~3 " Use'¢muistehey with ~.Cg~i¥.pla!~/Z6fiing 1311724230053. Unassigned R-2 R,3 Use Sonsi~t6ne¥ Wifl~ C, om~ Plan/Zoifin8 1411724140004 1861 Corem,tee Bird B-2 R-3 Zoning consistency with Coinp PI&ti' 1311724320030 2020 C~ffffi~'eree Blvd. R-2 B-1 Use Consistency with Comp Pla[gZonlng 1311724320128 2116 Commoree Blvd. R-1 B-1 Use Consistency with' COmp Plan/Zoning 1311724320127 2116 Conm~eree Blvd. R-1 B-1 Us~ eonsi,tene~'witli Comp Plan/Zohin~' 1311724320126 2116 Commerce Blvd. R-I B-1 Uso consistency with Comp Plan/Zoning . 1311724320123 2117 Fora Road R-I R-3 Zoning oonsi,toney wifl~ Comp Plan 4162 4163 CITY OF MOUND City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55317 , '? Planning Commission Holding Public Hearings for Comprehensive Plan Amendments What: Public Hearing to consider Comprehensive Plan Amendments to certain properties When: Monday, June 3, 2002, beginning at 7:30 p.m. Where: City Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road Why: To maintain consistency with existing/proposed zoning and existing land uses Tl~e Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing to consider Comprehensive Plan. Amendments to a number of properties throughout the commtmity. The proposed amenchnents are intended to dorrect inconsistencies with zoning and existing use of the property.. This public hearing is being initiated by the City as a pan of its obligation to maintain conformance between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. The Comprehensive Plan is one of the key docmnents the City uses for making policy decisions regarding land use mattem Minnesota State Statutes require that a City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code be consistent with one another, flius requiring amendments from time to time. During the last few months the Planning Commission tms been reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to identify inconsistent properties. This meeting allows prOperty owners and surrounding residents to'make formal comment on the'proposed amendments that will be COnsidered by the Planning Comxmssion in making a i~ecOmmendation to'theCity Council. It is the Council that will ultimately approve the proposed amenciments. Tl!e following listed and identified properties are being considered for Comprehensive Plan amendments. PID Property Address' Current Comp Plm~ Proposed Comp Pla~ 1311724230048 1838 Commerce Blvd. MDR LDR 1311724230005 1806 Commerce Blvd. MDR LDR 1311724230027 1910 Cormuerce Blvd. MDR LDR I311724230029 5574 Commerce Blvd. MDR LDR 1411724140002 1801 Contmcrce Blvd. HDR NC 1411724140003 Unassigned MDR HDK 1411724140004 1861 C. ontmeree Bird ..... MDR , .,HDR, 1411724140001 Unassigned,,. MDR HDR. 1311724340045 5322 Ma,~vood Road Auto-Destination HDR 131172,44~, 0094 4804 Notlhem Road LDR HDR 1311724440051 4805 Bartlett Blvd. LDR NC 1311724440052 4801 Shoroline Blvd. LDR NC 1311724440053 4809 Bartlett Blvd. LDR NC 1311724440054 4823 Bartlett Blvd. LDR NC Key to terms: · LDR - Low Density Residential · M DR _ MediUm Density Residential .. : .. HDR - High' Dev-sitY Residemial ' · .~. NC - NeighbOrhoo~l,!Cl~tmm~Cial' ...... Ai~t0xDesthmfibn'- A!iit~iDesth~atioir pUD.' - 4164 4165 CITY OF MOUND City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road. Mound, MN 55317 What: When: Where: Why: - . Planning Commission Holding '~ Public Hearings for Rezonings Public Hearing to consider the rezoning o£ certain'properties Monday, June 3, 2002, beginning at 7:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road To maintain consistency the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or correct zomng inconsistencies The Planning Cmm-ais.qon- Will l~e holding a i~iblic heahng to conmder rezontng a mirnbet df prOPerties throughout the community. The Shoreline Drive corridor in particular Ires a number of properties that are not consistent with their guided ha~ use designations and/or have zoning designations that do not fit with the current use of the property, The proposed rezonings are intended to correct these inconsistencies, ha many instances, the proposed rezoning benefits a property by bringing it into confornmnce with the code. This public hearing is being initiated by the City as a pan of its Obligation to maintain confommnce between the Comprehensive Plan ~d Zoning Map. The Comprehensive Plan iS one:Of the key documents the City uses for making policy de~!0ns regardiXi'g land use matters..MinnesOtaState:Statutes require that a. City's Comprehensive Plan and'Zoning COde be consistent with one anoth~f~: thUS requiring amenchnents froTM'time tO time. ' : ' :i "~ .... ..... . ~ · ~ ~ . C6~.~ki0ii~ :.6,eai reviewing i~e;. ComPrehensive Plan and Zoning Code to.identify inconsistent properties. Tltis meeting:iillOws prope~ bwners and surrounding residents tO make formal commem onthe propo~ed"~lmnges that Will be considered by the Plmming CommiSsion in making a recommendation to tlie City Council. It is the Council that will ultimately approve the proposed clmges. The fOllowing listed and identified propertieS'ate being considered for rezomg. PID ProPerty AddreSS Existing Proposed ' "Reason for Rezo~ting Zoning Zoning . 1311724430064 2200 Fairvi~ L~e R-2 R-3 Zoning consistency with COlnp Plan 1311724430063 2208 Fairview ~e R-2 R-3 Zonin~ COnSistency with Colnp Plan 1311724430.062 2212'Fair.vie~ Lmie R,2 R-3 ;" .7.Qn, iiii~Sc¥sisteney Witli C6ni~ PI,,, 13117244 30061 22.i6 E~iew ~e R~-2 :R-3 ' Zoninii ~6nSistcncy with c°mP Plan 13 t 1724430055 2203 Chateau.~e R;2 R-3 Zoning c6nsistency wltl~'C0nap Plan 1311724430057 2209 Chateau. L~in~ R-2 R-3 Zonig~':~nsistency with ComiC' Plan 1311724430058 2213 Chateau Lane R,2 R-3 Zonipg coitSistency with ~°mp Plan 1311724430059 2217 Chateau Lane R-2 R-3 Zoning:consistency withComP Plan 1311724430060 222 ! Chateau Lane R-2 R-3 Zoning~c?nsistency with Co~ Ptan 1311724430041 i 2200 CliateaU,Lane R-2 R-3 . Zoning c0iislstency WlthCon/p Plan 1311724430046 5068 Shoreline Drive R-lA . R-3 Zoning?qnsistency withC0mp Plan 1311724430045 5080 .Shoreline Drive R-iA R-3 Zoning c~nsistency with COmP Plan 1311724430044 ' "1 5092 Shorel'~,e Drive 'R~IA R-3 Zoniias cons!stency with Comp Plan 1311724430148 5098 Shorelige Drive R;2,' R-3 Zoning consistency wi[l~ Comp.Plan-' 1311724440094 · 4'804 N6rtli~r6 Road B;2/i- ~..i; R.3 'G6nsistenqy ~i, ith Colnp ~lm~7,6i~ing 1'3117244~00"~ . 4828 Edge~a..ter~Road B:2" ..... R,,1 4166 4167 PU BMC ~.I~.IEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND .. ' MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REZONINGS FOR CERTAIN · PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPLE- ~='~ ~;,MENTING THE MOUND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, June 3, 2002 to consider rezoning a number of properties to maintain consis- tency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The following properties are proposed for rezoning. PID' Properly Address F, xistin 13 ! i~4~22 Unns~i~ B-2 R~ 1311~4~70 5551 ~ P~pts BI~. ~2 R-3 ~311~4~9 5555 ~ P~!~ Blvd. ~2 · ~-3 1311~42202~ 5553 ~ Poims Bird, R-2 R-3 1311~42~267 555 ! ~ Poims Bird, B-2 R-3 131 ~4220251 17~ C~m~ Blvd. ~2 R-3 13117242~61 17~ C~m~ Blvd. B-2 R-3 ~3j 1~42202~ 17~ C~e~ Hlvd. B-2 R-3 .. ~311724~259 1762 C~ Blvd. .B.2 R-3 ~311~4~58 : IT~ C~ Blvd. B-2 R-3 1311~4~~ 1816 C~ Blvd. R-I R-~ 1311~423~7 1824 C~ BIv~ R-I R-3 ~311~4~6 1822 C~mer~ BI~. R-I R-3 . 13l l~4~5' 1818 C~er~ Blvd. R-! R-3 ' 1311~42~4 1816 C~mcr~ BI~. R-I R-3 131J~4~53 U~ed K-2 R-3 ~31 !~432~0 2020 c~mer~ Blvd. R-2 ~-1 13 i 1~432012g, 2116 C~ Blvd. 1311~43~127 2116 C~mer~ Blvd. 131 i~43~!26 2116C~m~ Blvd. R-I B-I ... 1311~43~1~: 2lit F~ R~ R-I R-3 ~311~44~" 22~ Fni~ew ~ne K-2 R-3 ~311~443~3 2208 F~icw ~ne R-2 R-3 1311~44~2 2212 Fai~icw ~ne R-2 R-3 1311~443~1 2216 F~icw ~c ~ R-2 R-3 1311~443~55 2203 Ch~, ~ne R-2 .. R-3 1311~2443~57 22~ ~at~u ~c R-2 R-3 ~311~443~58 2213 ~aS~u ~nc E-2 R-3 ~3l i72443~59 2217 Chat~u ~ne 131 i~3~0 2221 ~m~u ~ne R-2 R-3 131 !~443~t 22~ ~ I~nc R-2 R-3 · -1311~3~6 5068 Sh~eline D~ve E-IA R-3 131i~443~5 5080'.Sh~cline ~ve R-IA R-3 13[ 1~443~4 5~2 Sh~cl~c ~ve E-IA R-3 1311 ~444~4 48~ N~m R~d B-2 ~13 ! 122444~2.. . 482g Ed~watet E~d B-2 R- son~.appearing at said hearing ~th referenc~ to the aSove wm De i~ven the opporiumty to be heard at this meeting. Jill Norlander Planning and Building Dept. 2~02.Mailed_ to property., owners within.. 35~L~feet of alfected.: property on or before May 23, (Publis~e~n The ~r May 18, 2~2)/~. · . Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed Rezoning For Certain Properties For Implementinq Comp. Plan which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for 1 successive weeks. It was first published Saturday the 18 day of Hay 2002, and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and inCluding Saturday, the__day of~ 2002; Authorized Agent Suscribed and sworn to me on this 18 day of. May ,2002. By: '"'?~i#.~/-¢'¢¢/.~/~',U/N otary p u blic "'~Y PUBUC- MINNESOTA ~ Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rme paid by commercial users for oomparabl~ spacs: $15.50 psr inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above minter: $15.50. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.96 per inch, Each additional suocessiMe week: $5,79. 4168 MOUND, MINNESOTA . EARING TO cONSIDER MINOR COMPREHENSIVE ~OTtCE OF A pUBU_C_H_E ...... PROPERTIES L~ATED INTHE C~ OF ~ AMENOME"~S Fo.. ..... ;OUND ~OTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that ~e Pl~ning Commission of the CIH of Moue, · - il Chambers ~41 Ma~ R~d, at.7:~ p,m. on nesOta will meet in the Counc ~ _~_~..~ ~ ~n ~me n to a number of M~n - .' - ~ 0~2 to consider uompr~n~-=, ........ 7'-~me m - pm~rties as indica~ Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendments For Certain Mound Properties which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for i successive weeks. It was first published Saturday the 18 day of May 2002, and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, tile __ day of Authorized Agent Suscribed and sworn to me on this 1 8 day of May ,2002. .1> f~OT PUBLIC - MINN"~SOTA ffi Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $15.50 per inch, (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $15.50. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.96 per inch. Each additional successive week: $5.79. " 4169 This page left blank intentionally. 4170 DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, July 24, 2002 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Foster called the meeting to order at 7:00 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; Paul Knudsen, Minnetrista; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Katy Van .Heroke, Uinnetonka. Also. present: Members absent: Crv Burma, Orono; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Tom Seuntjens, Minnetonka Beach; Sheldon Wed, Greenwood. Victoria has no appointed Board member. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster There were no Chair Annou.ncements . , READING ,OF. MINUTES._ ~ ,6i26/02, LMCD Regular. Board,Meeting~ Foster stated-that Nybeck had informed him that the minutes had not been finalized and that they would be finalized for review by the Board at_the .8/;14/02. Regular Board Meeting.. PUBLIC COMMENTS-p~rSons in attendance, subjects not, on the agenda. Mr,Grog .Smith, 3804 FarmhilI.Drive, stated that his legal counsel was in route to the meeting and he'would like to address the Board on the recent y adopted ordinance thatimpacts usage of Six Mile Creek. Foster stated that Smith haddisoussed with him before the meeting the idea of discussing and refocusing the wetlands protection Ordinance that was adopted atthe 6/24/02 Regular Board Meeting. He.has sent.:the Board matedal for review, noting this discussion, was not planned forthe agenda,at this meeting. He suggested that it might be more appropriate to h(~!d off from. discussing this request to the 8114/02Regular Board Meeting to allow the request to be placed ontha~ agenda and to allow theBoard to review the matedal sent out by Smith in the past few days, He asked the Board how they wanted, to address the request made by Smith. Babcock stated that he had received a significant amount of materials from' Smith and did not:have enough time to review it. He supported the idea of scheduling this discussion as an agenda item for the 8/14/02 Regular Board Skramsiad stated that he would support the opportunity for Smith to make his comments at this meeting, limiting their comments to around five minutes. LeFevere has prepared a memo that addresses the comments that have been raised,,.by S~ th and b~lieved..a, brie~.pverv ew by LeFevere at this meeting would be beneficial. After bdef comments from both Smith and .LeFevere, he believed an agenda item should be'scheduled for the.8114/02 Regular Board ' Meeting. 4171 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 24, 2002 Page2 McMillan stated that she had some recommendations for preparations for the next Board Meeting if an agenda item is scheduled for it. The consensus of the Board was to move the request made by Greg Smith to "Old Business" later in the meeting. 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. Skramstad moved, Babcock seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Items so approved include: lB, Foxhill Association, staff recommends approval of $113.60 of $250 application deposit for approved dock length and side setback variance, and 2B, June financial summary and balance sheet. PUBLIC HEARING . .... · Terry Nagel, vadance application from LMCD Code for side setback requirements plus an adjusted dock use area. Foster opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. and asked for background on the proposed application from staff. Nybeck made the following comments: · The applicant has submitted an application for vadance from Code for the residence at 21895 Byron Circle in the City of Greenwood on St. Albans Bay. The applicant has proposed a variance from Code for side setback requirements for a canopy and an adjusted dock use area. The physical hardship identified for the proposed variances is a converging, oblique lot line. · In 1991, the applicant submitted an application at this site for vadance from Code for side setback requirements for a canopy and an adjusted dock use area, with a physical hardship of converging lot lines that were generally oblique. The Board denied the request for a side setback vadance for canopies for his property and the parcel to the south owned by Wilhemine Saucier, 21915 Byron Circle. However, both of the side site lines from the Nagel site were granted an adjusted dock use area. Richard Pards owned the abutting site to the north, 21885 Byron Circle. The Nagel/Saucier side site line was deflected 23 degrees to the north and the Nagel/Pards side site line was deflected 28 degrees to the north, both from the 929.4' NGVD shoreline: · The applicant has submitted a new vadance application because three conditions that existed in t991 have changed. First, the ownership of the two abutting sites has changed. The applicant currently owns the Pards site and the Saucier site is currently owned by Paul Boedecker. Second, the 929.4' NGYD shoreline at the proposed site, 21895 Byron Circle, has increased approximately 27', from 53'to 80', when the applicant purchased the Pards property, and there is a need to update the adjusted dock use area between the two sites owned by Nagel. Third, the dock installed at the applicant's site has recently changed from a permanent to a seasonal dock structure and it was not installed consistent with the site plan approved with the 1991 Vadance Order. Babcock stated based on the proposed site plan, it appeared that the Boedecker dock was not meeting the 10' side setback from the adjusted side site line extension granted in 1991. He asked if the dock had changed since 1991. Nybeck stated that he believed the dock had not changed because it is a permanent dock. A drawback of the approved site plan associated with the 1991 Variance Order was that it was hand drawn rather than through a survey. 4172 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July24, 2002 page3 Mr. Terry Nagel, 21895 Byron Circle, stated that the dock at the Boedecker site is a permanen~ '§t~cture and was constructed in 1988 without a permit from the District, It was constructed illegally and was diSCOvered during the review process for his previous vadance request. -'- '- ·" :' ,~ Nybeckcontinued his,comments: · The proposed site plan would maintain the adjusted dock use area on the south end of the site by deflecting the Nagel/Boedecker side site line 23 degrees to the north. The proposed dock would be "H" shaped and would extend' approximately 45' into the 'Lake from the 929.4' NGVD shoreline, with a slip that would be approximately 12'x 32', The proposed dock would include a canopy and the number of watercraft to be stored at it is unclear. The proposed site plan would take into consideration the increase in shoreline at the site and deflect the Nagel/Nagel side site line 33 degrees to the north, · Code Section 2.01 that requires docking and watercraft to be contained within an authorize, dock USe area, and Section 1.07 that alloWs the BOard to consider applications for variance from Code, were reviewed. The Board may permit a variance from Code if there is a practiCal difficulty'or~ a Physical hardship. A typical hardship considered the Board for vadance from Code for side setback requirements and an adjusted dock. Use area is converging lot lines. · Because the current dock inStallation at the applicant's site was not consistent with' the 1991 Variance Order, the applicant has submitted a new variance application for Board consideratiOn 'to amend it. In :reviewing the,proposed variance,appliCatiOn, theBoard should~focus its attention primarily on the proposed adjusted Nagel/Boedecker'extended side site line extensionahd 'the dock and boats stored at .bOth sites; The applicant should ~clariYtl~e number.,and Iocati0ns of;boats..that it WOu'ld 9'tore at the proposed dock. At the. Boedecker':site, lt.,appears that:the' number and IoCatidn of,watercraft to be stored ~ might:'needto,belimitedto,one,becaUSe:~bOatiStorag'e'.heeds',tdbecontained withih theauthodzed dock use; area, lt.'appears that:any additional boat storageat, the Boedecke¢ site would :n~eed:to be done on the south side;rather than the north because itapPearSthat it.would'not be contained Withinthe authorized dock use area establishedby the 1991 VarianceOrder~; 'TheBoard might want to consider deflecting the Nagel/Boedecker. a few degrees to the south so thatit;interSects the nearest'comer of:the Boedecker dock,granting a side setback variance from the adjusted dock :use areafor Boedecker, and requiring Nagel to adjust the placement of the proposed dock SO that it complies with the 20' minimum side setback requirement for canopies from the proposed adjusted side ,site line extensions. · In compliance with MN DNR General Permit 97-6098, the City of Greenwood and the MN DNR were provided..a copy of the proposed vadance.applicatbn on 7/11/02, with comments due in the District office by 7/22~02. The City of Greenwood stated that they had no objections on the proposed application and staff was awaiting feedback from the MN DNR. · He had three:Comments on~thepreposedapplicafion. Firsti theapplicationofCodecauses:a physical hardship to the Boedeker site and there is a need to adjust the Nagel/Boedecker eXtended side site line for dockage and boat storage. However, staff questions whether the extended side site line needs to be adjusted 23.degrees to:the north becauSe,b0atCstOrage~on'the 'nOrth'side Of the Boede~ker dock wOuld not be .contained within the adjusted dock use area for the site.. , The' Boedecker site currently.has a canopy at .~ '., ": -,'the~'doct~that ~iS'.not':consistent:With:the-,199~',,Variance':'Otde~: :,.seb~t~d~when an~;aathodze-d,do(~l( ~u~e area ,. ' is'adjuSted,,:theBoard can redUCe the !impact o/ithe:abt]ttin§iprbp~bwne¢~by~ithCg'ral3'ti~§ a"'Side setback or. dock length .variance. Rather than adjusting the extended side site' line and requidn~-that the nearest structures at the two sites maintain a 10' side setback from it, he recommended that the Board adjust the side site line extension slightly to the south and grant Boedecker a zero foot side setback variance and require Nagel to meet the 20' minimum side setback from both of its adjusted extended side site line extensions. Otherwise, the Board might want to consider less of a side setback requirement for 4173 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 24, 2002 Page 4 the proposed Nagel canopy, such as 15'. Third, any approval by the Board should take into consideration Whethers!imitations should.be Placed Qn the size,, location, and number of watemraft to be stored in the Nagel and Boedecker dock use areas, He entertained comments or questions from the Board. Babcock stated that he would like to see a survey that documents the north side site line of the second property owned by the applicant. Foster concurred with Babcock that it would be beneficial to have the north side site line of the second property owned, by the applicant to evaluate the impact of adjusting the dock use area to the north between the two properties owned.by NageL made the f°ilowing comments: · He stated that he could document the north side site line of the second property' that he owned on the proposed site plan,, · He worked with the District: a number of years ago to defend the adjustment of the north side site line between the Nagel/Pards sites granted through the 1991 VadanceOrder, He believed that a number of things.could have been done at that time with the south side Site line extension between the Nagel/Saucier sites. · ... Oneof the reasons why a.variance was required ~in,1991'.~vas that,an illegal permanent :dock was constructed at the Sauciersite and the DiStrictdecided to grantavadanCe.andpush the hardship to the _ : n~rth.' ~l~t988:when:this::,dock:~was constructed at'"thesaucier site,~asketch~on thelayoUtwas provided ,:: .. andthe actual dock~installation.,,greatlyvadedfrom:it,.resulting init>Cressirig over:thecommon extended side site line~.~. Hebelieved thatthe Saucierdockcould have:been conStructed within the extended side lines, with azem foot side. setback vada,nce, and would ;not have 'required adjustment:of the two side site lines to: the north. Instead ofrequesting the Saucier,'.s to make application for and secure a variance for this~dock struotur, e;.an umbrellavadanCe wasgranted,fOt both sites, ,.~: .. ~ ~ Access to his dock,has recently improved with the removal of the Old Cochrane's doCk.and'the Nedegard twinhome developrnent,. When he installed his neW' seasonal dock"this 'past sPdng; he stated that he made his best effort to maintain the 20' side setback requirernent.fromthe extended side ~ite line and not infringe on the Boedecker site line,. Babcock stated that there Was langi,tage ii'i the.. 199]~ Variance. Order that prohibited canoPies at both sites and there are currently canopies installed at both docks in 2002," Nagel stated that canopies were allowed at.both sites 'if there was mutual consent of both parties, which was secured in the past, ~ Babcock stated in.the approved. 1'99.1 Vadanm Order;, the first'condition was that thepatt Of the application requesting a variance from 'Sidesetback requirements of the .Code applicable'to, canopies wasdenied. What might have.been.,discussedpertaining tomutual consentatWater @tructures"oomrriittee"arid,l~reviOus Board meetir~g:in~J99.1, was not,in,the,Finldings,ofFact, and Order,. The danger of.grariting a,:varian~and-allowing canopies.,thr6ugh mutual coriSent is~What,haPpbnS~when rnutual~bonsent goes away;Which he b~elieved was the case in this example. . ~.~ ....... · 4174 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting JUly 24, 2002 Page5 Nagel stated that he had 80' of lakeshore frontage and he'fgund it ,difficult to infdn_ge qg the P..rqp,~rty to the north '~nd i~PaCt its :va)u~' t~ just put' up a: c~"iiOpy'. ~ ~b add'eS'~ha~:'h~' ~6i~:id ihbt C~re i{~h~:i§~h'rd :"~il'j~d a Canopy at the Boedecker site, :"" ,;~-~' ,. '.~ .,~- .... ~'~ .- There being no further Comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Foster stated that he believed that the proposed vadance application Should gO to a working group to address pending issues, which would include staff and interested Board members. Babcock stated that he believed the proposed variance application was relatively close to something the Board to could act on. The intent of the variance granted in 199t was to maintain 10' side setbacks from the adjusted dock use areas and it aPpearS that it mig,ht not have been achieved because of the hand drawn drawings. He believed.that maintaining, side setback is ~mportant and that he would be ~iiling'tb setV~-~n the working group recommended by Foster. Foster stated that he would not be opposed to the Board granting side setback variances for both'sites because the houses on the two sites ovedook the lake and their site lines are not greatly impacted by canopies. Babcock stated that he would have trouble supporting a variance from Code for side setback variances on a lot that has approximately 50' of lakeshore frontage because of the precedent it would s~t Cna lakeWide basis. The consensus of the Board .was to direct.staff to facilitate a working group that would consist CBabcOCk, Nagel, Boedecker, and staff to resolve the= pending issue andio bringit~baCk for revieW, at!a future Regblai BOard Meeting. · _. WATER STRUCTURES A. John and KathY Aquilina, consideration of Findings. of Fact and Order for approval of a dock length vadance application. .' ·., Foster entertained comments or a motion for the draft Findings of Fact and Order. MOTION: Babcock moved, McMillan seconded to approve the Findings of FaCt and Order as submitted for approval of the John and Katy Aquilina dock length vadance application. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. City of'Deephaven, staff review of expenses incurred by the DiStrict in the processing and administration of approved new multiple dock license, special density license, and temporary variance applications. Foster Stated !hat.the City.of D~pliaveh had reCentlY 9Ubmitted,applicattons (hat were approved bY the Board.to pr°wde ~e~P °~ary :,doCk:in~ fo' ~.:~n.~,~e~s~n :f'or the residents.,sO Uth:,~f the ~bridge wh lie, it iwas under c°nStr'~Cti0fi"i:'DeePhave~'has teqb~Sted the B°ai'dt~ %~'~ der;~'funding:~t~ei' all o'ra POrt~0n °f'the fees sub[hitter and he reCom mended:, th at.tl~; Board c0nsider'aPproving this reqUest, Possibly$1,0001 He asked for feedback from· other B0ard ni6~be.~.On ti;iis agend~ McMillan stated that she would suPPort fees subrfiitted for the sPeCial density and variance aPPlications, $850. This would include $500 for the vadance aPi~lication and $350 for the special density license application. 4175 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 24, 2002 Page6 m M. TIQN.....Mc~!lan m0v, e~, ~kramstad. se~nded to refund $850 to the C ty of Deephaven, $500 for the "' va~:iance appiic~ti0n approi/ed and $350 for the Special density license approved. ' BabCOck stated that he would support refunding $878.00~ This would include the $250 deposit for the variance application, the entire $350 fee for the special density license application, and one half of the new multiple dock license application, $278. McMillan and Skramstad withdrew their motion. MOTION: Babcock moved, Skramstad seconded to refund $878.00 for the City of Deephaven variance, special density license, and new multiple dock license applications for temporary storage for the 2002'§eason for residents S%th of:the bddge onCarsons Bay dUring, its reconstruction, due to its temporary nature. VOTE: Motion'carried unanimously, D. Additional Business. Them was no add. itional busin,ess. FINANCIAL, A. A~ditof,youchers (7!1/02: 7/15102) and (7!16/02- 7/31/02). Skramstad reviewed the audit of vouchers as submitted. MOTION: Skramstad moved, Suerth. seconded t0.approve theaudit of vouchem for the periods of 7/1102- 7/15/02 and 7/16/02-7/31/02 as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously C. Additional Business. There was no additiOnal business. LAKE USE & RECREATION A, Discussion of Tom Casey letter, dated 7115102, Foster stated that when the ordinance was recently adopted that allowed watercraft in Six Mile Creek upstream past the Updla,nd. Fa~s .d~vebpment,:.he ~Jieved that the Board concluded that they believed .they had jUdsdj'ction:~in th!s. are,.~, Because oflthi~, ,he believed that,a;multiple~dOck:license would be required .....by the,"Dist~'~!'~)~i~e ?Pl.a'~n~'~:r.m. ~. proJ~bt, whe~i ~fiye-0r m.o,r, ewat~rcraff aie stored at this Site Babcock stated that he wanted to cladfY that j~dSdi~ti0~ of.the. DistriCt was resblved when it was created by state enabling legislation in 1967, not when the District extended the electdc motor ordinance upstream to Highway 7. Even if the Board did notadopt the recently adopted electdc motor ordinance, he believed that the Distdct would, have had jurisdiction in this. ama. 4176 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 24, 21)02 Page 7 The Board discussed potential boat storage activity at the Upland Farms development and what would trigger the need for a new multiple dock license application or any other permit under the jurisdiction of the District. B. Review and discussion of recent Lake Minnetonka lake level readings. Foster asked for background on this agenda item. Nybeck made the following comments: · A "High Wafer Declaration" was made on Tuesday, 7/16/02, consistent with Code Section 3.021. The Code requires the Executive Director to make this declaration when the Lake elevation is at or above 930.01~NG? for a ~ed.0d of eight consecu~jv, e days, or has reached 930.25, NGVD. The lake level · ....... on Lake Mii~tonk§-had b~en"at Or above''9~010' NGVD since Sunday, 7/6/02. · The "High Water Declaration" was terminated on Tuesday, 7/23/02, consistent with Code Section 3.021. The Code requires the Executive Director to terminate the declaration when the Lake elevation has fallen and remained below 930.9' NGVD for a period of three consecutive days. The lake level on Lake Minnetonka had remained below 930.0' NGVD since Wednesday, 7/17/02. · He reviewed the process used by staff to inform the public when the "High Water Declaration" was declared and terminated, noting that it involved signage at the public accesses and the preparation of a press release to the local television and radio stations, as well as coordinating with the other governmental agencies. Skramstad stated that he would like the Board to review Code Section 3.021 at a future Board meeting, adding that he believed there might be better ways to deal with dudng high water situations. Babcock and Foster stated that they did not want to discuss Code Section 3.021 at a future Board meeting. Skramstad provided the Board an update on how lake level readings are taken on Lake Minnetonka by MCWD staff. He made the following comments: · In the period from around 7/3/02 to 7/11/02, there were three heavy days of rain that accumulated about 5.5". The official lake level readings taken by the MCWD during this same period only rose .02', or 1/4 of an inch. Because of this, he had recently further investigated how lake level readings are taken by the MCWD. · He reviewed an overhead that provided a schematic of the Grays Bay Dam and the spillway. At this site, there is an official survey at a specific elevation. Near this site, there is an official measuring marker that is in the lake approximately 10' from shore, which has vadable measurements on it. The two measurements added together is the official lake level reading taken by the MCWD staff, noting that it is more accurate in calm conditions versus windy conditions. · There is an automated way for the MCWD to take lake level readings on Lake Minnetonka that is currently, not working properly, because the MCWD office cannot receive this information. The MCWD has stated that'they would transfer an automated measuring device from another lake in the watershed distdct to Lake Minnetonka to allow automated readings on Lake Uinnetonka in the future. · He provided an overview of the 200' long spillway that is north of the dam site, noting that water is supposed to run over it when the lake level reaches an elevation of 930.00' NGVD. · He stated that he would keep the Boardinformed on the progress of this. C. Additional Business. 4177 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July24, 2002 Page8 There was no additional business. ADMINISTRATION A. Discussion on status of Administrative Secretary position. Foster asked Nybeck for an update on this agenda item. Nybeck stated about four months ago, Gona Olson was hired as the full-time Administrative Secretary for the District. She resigned from this position, effective 7/12/02, and there was a need to hire a' replacement. After consulting with LeFevere on legal requirements for the re,hiring of this p~3siti0n, staff contacted the ,second candidate becauseof,the,shor~,timespan since the'hiringof Olson; This.candidate, Karen S. 'Anderson, has' agreed to assume the' position on a pad-time basis and ~ie¢ fits't day W~th the District was 7117/02. She has agreed to aCceptthe position at an hourly rate of $13.25, With the District participating in a P.E.R.A. pension plan. Because this position is' pad-time, she does not qualify for other benefits that other full-time Distdct employees receive. He asked the Board to ratify the hidng of Karen Anderson as part-time Administrative Secretary for the District; effective 7/17/02, at a' rate of $13.25 per hour and P.E.R.A. benefits, with no other benefits consistent with the Distdct personnel policy for part-time employees. Skramstad informed ,the Board that Ms, Anderson Was hiS daughter and that he was totally out of the hiring process. MOTiON:Babcock moved, Knudsen seconded to ratify the hiring of Karen S. Anderson as part4ime Administrative.Secretary for, the District, effective ~-7./1~7102, at an hOudy rateOf $13',25 and P.E.R.A. pension plan benefits, with no other benefits consistent with the District personnel policy for part- time employees. VOTE: Ayes (8), Abstained (1, Skramstad); motion carried, B., Additional Business. There was no additional.business. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A, Update of "Let's Keep Zebra Mussels Out of Lake Minnetonka project. Foster asked for an update onthis agenda item. Nybeck stated that inspection of wa, tercraft~entering bake Minnetonka at Maxwell Bay, North Arm, and Spring Park public a~sses.have .re~.n. tly begun~ A schedu e for this 2002 pilot project was ~included in the handout folders and. a, rupert wi!! be, finalized after the 2002 pilot Project. ~ ~ Staff update on 2002 EWM' HarVesting.Program. Foster stated that staff has included,a 2002 EWM Mid,Season Summary Report in the handout folders for informational purposes on keystatistiCs. C. Additional Business. 4178 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 24, 2002' Page9 There was no additional business. 6. SAVE THE LAKE There was no discussion. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NYbeck stated that there were copies of the quarterly Executive Director Newsletter and other District related new articles included in the packet and handout folders for informational purposes. There also was a copy of a letter from Mound Board Member Orv, Burma and LeEevere, tl}at pertain tothe electric, motor, o, rdinance4or.wetland areas On'Lake Minnetonka that'was recently adopted. 8. OLD BUSINESS LMCD Ordinance 178 Knudsen asked Foster if he was comfortable with whether the Robert's Rules of Order parliamentary procedures were followed-When the Boai;d.reCentlyadOpted this o[din, ance. Foster stated that he was comfortable. Knudse'n stated that he considered raising this question the evening that the vote took place; however, he be!ievedthat there still would have been the same outcome if a revote had occurred.; He referred to the Mary Tietjen'memo,' dated 7i23/02, noting that she was a ~LWorker of LeFevere at Kennedy and Graven. He asked LeFevere if he agreed With her opinion. LeFevere stated that he agreed With her opinion. Knudsen stated that ,he !~cently attended a Minnetrista City Council meeting to give them an update on this ordinance. The Mir{i-ietnsta CiiY C°Un(~il exPresSed conce~n that the three or fOur proPer~ owners that have documented historical use were not grandfathered, However, the Minnetrista City CoUncil did not have a desire for either gas or electric motors fOr other properties on Six Mile Creek. Lega. I counsel for the City of Minnetdsta haS been directed to cheCk into what Minnetrista can do to address the situation of the three or four property owners. Ambrose stated, that he had received some interesting.!gformation since the Board adopted the ordinance and Knudsen asked Ambrose if he was comfortable wit~':{l~e voting'Pr°cedur% wh'en the ~rdin'ance waS adopted. Ambrose stated· that he believed'that the vote WES'confusing'however, .he could not recall whether a vote had been announced thatit failed. F°ste¢ ~tated~t~at i~ r%ali~d that a tallied vO{~ wa~ taken and being discussed, noting· that'he believed BOard members'Were entitled to change their voteS. The Distdct has adoPted Robert's Rules· of Order, adding that he believed it allows for an informal process. Based on his review of the of the Mary Tietzen memo, he believed that 4179 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July24, 2002 Page 10 parliamentary procedures were not violated the evening the vote was taken, He asked for comments from the Board or the public. · , '!. . . .'~" . :".: . ,,.~ ::,' .; McMillan expressed concern about the parliamentary proCedures followed by the Board the evening that the ordinance was adopted, She stated that she had listened to the tape of that meeting and '~he 13~li~v~d~ tl~t the Chair announced that the motion to adopt the ordinance failed. Based on her review of Robert's Rule o~ Order, she believed that a vote cannot be changed except with a motion to reconsider after the Chair annOun~s the motion failed, She stated that she would like an inquiry into the procedure followed that eyening and thatshe would like a transcript of the minutes for the discussion at the next Board meeting. She sUggested that the BOard might not want to publish adopted ordinance amendments in the future until the minutes for that meeting are approved by the Board. Van. Hercke statedthat woUld tiket° further eXPlore-this~ She asked if there was any reconsideration time frame that the Board was not aware of for reconsideration purPOses. Babcock stated that Board members can make a motion to change an ordinance at any time. In addition to a motion to reconsider, other motions could include an amendment or repeal. He questioned why Board members were so concerned about a motion to reconsider. MCMillan' outlined What she believed woUld be cor~t pm~dums that need to be:complied with in order for Board member Gilman to change his vote. Sl~e'b6ii'eV~ ~t ~il~a'~ ~'~'Jdh~'9~ needed to m'Akb ~ motion to reconsider the vote with a proper second, and then the revote could have occurred. Foster asked LeF~vere to review the Mary Tietjen LeFever'e st~ied tt~at ROb&~'s' RLileOf order' arb~ir{te~.dea'"to P~vide'.O'rdel:iy ProCedure foi~d~te~ini~ the will of the majoritY. The District"has adopted Robert~s'RLile~ Of b~dei; hoWever;'th~y are SUbj~i'iO i~te~.~{ati? and are somewhat flexible. There is nothing referenced in Robert's Rules:Oi' b~r Pertaihi'hg't° frien(Ji'Y :?mehdments and there is not supposed to be discussion by the Board unless there is amo, tion on_the floor. There are. violations of strict application of Roberts Rule of Order generallY at each meeting and there has"bebn a process set UP by Robert's Rule of Order that allows members to Poi. ice these, vio!ation, s If a Board member believes that a violation· has OccP..tr~d and rileY ha~e 'a :~r~m,, they'~an :raise.this asa p6int, o~:.ord,t.,:nd alibW the ~hair to and the adopted 0~jnancewaS adOpted:. f a ~oard ~embet had technical qUeStons Pedainin ' to"~obe~,s Rules of Order when Gilman change~ his vote Eom nay to=aye, the objeC~on Should have been: raised'at:that time. McMiiian stated that She believed the question pertaining tO;!his o.~i~,ance ~as'~.ethei".proper p~Cedures were followed rather than whether it is a valid ordinance. Sh~'b~ii~e~d:t6ai thei'~i~ ~need· for a {ia~w0·iE for procedures for the Board in its decision making process, · "!:" · ~:"i "',~.'~; ' ,' ~;': ' ' ,"' ~ :::~' r'i': ~ ';" ~' ' : '. "' ' , :'=, ~'' ' Babcock st.at~d that whe .n. he.was Chair, he ,attempted .to ensure that the motif.ns being consider, ed.,by .~.e,,Board of Direct~;~'' ~ cibail f.h"a~ {h'~ wtes ~i~ ~i~d" w~re ~:6~i~'~, a'n'd {o, all~"~'di~nt inpb{ ~m' 6~th~'~:~ Board and the public. Although some of the activities may have been confusing t6 some Board members' and the public, he believed, that,the end .result was a clear ~irection with eno,ggh votes in the. affi~ative to. adopt the ordinance. It would be'~i~ ifBbard 'members disciplined themsei~;e~'to comply With R0bert~;s Aules of Order; 418O Lake Minnetonka Conservation District July 24, 2002 Page 11 however, he believed that the outcome of the votes made by the Board on this ordinance were clear and Were published in accordance with state law, McMill~n expressed concern about the changing of the vote wheh She believed that the vote had failed. LeFevere stated that Robert's Rules of Order has a certain amount of flexibility built into it. Because Board membere, have the ability to object or appeal, the Chair on many occasionS might try a Short cut. If a Board member has an objection and believes that point of order needs to be raised regarding parliamentary procedures, there is an obligation for that Board member, to raise the point of order when the breach occurs. If that does not occur~ Robert's Rules of Order does not allow it tube invalidated after, the fact. If Board members do not speak on parliamentary procedures at a meeting, it is interpreted based on Robert's Rules of Order as a consent to:it;. . Babcock stated that it appeared that the right to object or appeal parliamentary procedures is the responsibility each Board member. Knudsen asked if it was too late for a Board member to raise a concem relating parliamentary procedures at the next Board meeting. LeFevere stated that he be eved it would be toO, late because, a final decision was made~ other business,'. Was conducted atthe Board meeting in,question, and the OrdinanCe was publi§hed in the°fficial'newspapei for the District ...... , : ' Suerth stated that although he was notin attendance at the Board'meeting in question, he has had experience with Robed!s Rules of Orde~ over his.business career, He believed that Robert's Rule of Order are guidelines used to help maintain order and are not absolute. Although the change in vote may not have been appropriate, any ~.~bjection .by a Board member shouldhave raised at that meeting and the issue is over and done, He recognized, the concem raised by UcUillan;-however, he did not have a problem with the outcome because of the flexibility,:allowed in Robert's Rules of Order. Knudsen stated that although there might have been some procedural issues when Gilman changed his vote, he believed that it was quit~ possible.ti]at the same outcome wou d have occurred at, the meetin' Based On th ~6rmat~on prov~i~ ~y,E~FE~e~, fie ~t~te~:-tflal he respected h~s Op]h'!0n'on"Rbt3e'tt's Rules 6f Order. " Babcock stated that when Foster a lowed Gilman to change his vote and no Board member objected to it, Robert's Rules of Order were followed based on the interpretation of LeFevere. LeFevere stated that Robert's Rules of Order are not intended to be inflexible so that laws, ordinances, or c.-entracts are undone~. He fey ewed the tape of the Board meeting :in question and a roll call vote wa~ taken, the Chair stated that the motion failed and a Board member questioned that, the roll call vote was being reviewed, and the change in vote occurred while it was under review before the Chair made a final determination. Even if the Chair made a final determination by announcing the vote on themot on;. a Board member haS the right to change ~th~i~',~°{e b~'pei-mission 0f'[i~e a~%mbl'y and.` n:?~ req~irihg a'mOtion' to"recons der ihe ~(~te' Foster asked for comments from Greg Smith on this, 'noting'that discussion should be limited and that further extensive discussion of it should be scheduled for [he 8114/02 Regular Board Meeting. 4181 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 24, 2002 Page12 · M!~. ChrisDie~en~ legal counsel.from..Larkin,~.Hoffman,, Daly;~and Lindgren; stated that he represented foUr property owners on Six Mile Creek. They include Greg and Katherine smith; RalPh and.Beana Hatch~'Jerry and Michelle LeMire, and Jim and Lynda Kay Kutcher. He expressed concern about the procedure by which the ordinance was adopted by the Board because he believed that the Ohair declared that the motion failed With seven affirmative votes and five nay votes. There was a request to review the votes, the Executive Director read the votes back, and. then; Board member Gilman changed'his vote without a motionto reconsider'or any discussion. The Chair .then declared that the motion passed and he objected to this because it was contrary to Robert's.Rules of Order. He believed that there was a need for Gilman to explain why he changed his Vote. He has discussed with LeFevere. the idea of a motion to reconsider this vote at this meeting, citing a recent Minnesota State Supreme Court case that allowed a motion to reconsider at the next meeting,, noting that it was deemed proper. He believed that the question raised by Van Hemke on whether there is a time frame for the Board to reconsider a motion was~,skillfully~not addressed. He stated that he believed the Board has stated that they adhere to Robert's Rules of Order on an informal basis; however, there is strict adheren(~,e to when an objection or point of ordercan be raised. Babcock stated that he did not believe the Board had reached any of the conclusions raised by Dietzen. Any Board member could make a motion to reconsider or any other motion at this'meeting. LeFevere stated that he did mean to avoid the time frame question raised by Van Hercke and he addressed it. Earlier when the issue was raised whether the.failure to act prejudices this body, he clarified that an oi'dlnance could be adopted .at any ~Jme with-no: deadlines. A motion to reconsider is on'ly appropriate'in the session::in which the motion is made, noting that he believed a session for:this organization is a meeting. He. ~tatbtl~that he and Dietzen had a disagreement on the definition of a session. In Robert's Rules of Order, it states that a motion to. reconsiderneeds to be taken:' in ~thesame..session ortho next calendar.day.: He,belieVed :.that,.a~n,othet,: ~otion would, be more appropriate and would not have to be'made bya Board mem'be'r~onthe ptevailii~g~i~le. .~ Dietzen stated that his interpretation of Robert's Rules of Order Was that a motion toteConsider bnly on the same ,day the original vote was taken or the next succeeding .day within the session'that a business'~eetlhg is .scheduled, He believed that the motion to reconsider the vote needed to'either take place atthe'lastBoard meeting or this Board meeting. Nelson stated, that, he hadnot had an opportunity to review the material received from Dietzen. because he had received it only a .'day.'. in ad~ance~of,'this meeting .~: :AdditiOnallY,.. the comp0sition of this Board at this meefihg was greatly different than the Board meeting being discussed. He recommended that this matter be taken up at the 8/14/02 Regular Board Meeting.to allow members'to be ins~Cted:as to, whatwas going on so thatit Couidbe dealt with in order. The need for a mOtion to reconsider the vote at this or other meetings: has been ovemtated because any Board member could make a motion at a future meeting to repeal this ordinance. MOTION: Babcock moved, Nelson seconded.to close discussion, on padiamet~taq procedures and Robert,s Rules .of Order. Dietzen stated 'that.he wanted the.~record'.to',refleot.that he.was:utiablb to: COmplete hi~ pteser~tati.oh:'~'' :' .... ~:~ .~ ~ -. i",:' :,~.": ~,',:"'~ :~ '.,i':: ,!',;'" !' ~:~'~.~:. ':' :~,".i~ ~ :'~:'~: ':" ~,~ ;~.' ':' "~ ~ :' :: VOTE: Ayes (5), Nayes (4; Ambrose, Knudsen, McMi'llan, and Van Hercke); motion carried. Foster stated that he would not be opposed to further comments from members of the pUbliC and alloWilig them opportunity for further comments at the 8/14/02 Regular Board Meeting. 4182 Lake Mint~etonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 2002 page l3 Babcockstated that he would not be opposedltofurtherc0mmentsas :.lOng aS,there. Was not,exten~ive comments on the,.~infom~at On:provided by'Dietze.n .~hat .he had no( had OppOrtunity ,to property .revibW,. nbtih§ tl-iat'~thiS, ~disc. Uss on would be:more,~aPpropd'ate fOr.the.81,14/02: Regular BoaCd Meeting.'. ,~ ~ ,. ::,::~. ~,-,,~.~:'.': ~ Foster stated that he wanted Dietzen to have the opportunity to wrap up his comments and to allow more extensive at the next Board meeting. MOTION: Ambrose moved, Van Hercke seconded to reconsider the vote relating to adoption of the wetland ordinance amendment adopted at the previous Board Meeting and to table further discussion of it to the 8/14/02 Regular Board Meeting. Babcock raised a point,of order: because the motion to reconsider the vote was eut.~erder based or~ the~legal advice of LeFevere. -, Foster asked LeFevere for assistance on the point of order. LeFevere stated that he believed the motion to reconsider was not the proper motion. Foster declared the motion to reconsider out of order. He asked if there were any Board members that objected to this., Van Hercke stated that she objected to the ruling of Foster. Ambrose explained that the purposeof his motion was to preserve the undefined'right to'reconsider the passage of the wetland ordinance at the previous meeting. Foster asked what the will of the Board was regarding his ruling that the motion made to reconsider the vote relating to adoption of the wetland ordinance amendment was out of order because it should have been made at the previous meeting. Five Board members agreed with the ruling of Foster. They included Babcock, Foster, Nelson, Skramstad, and Suerth. Four Board members disagreed with the ruling of Foster. They included Ambrose, Knudsen, McMillan, and Van Hercke. Foster announced that the motion to reconsider the vote Was out of order., Dietzen highlig'l~ted the key points of the 7~23~02 letter he forwarded to Board members.' The position of his clients was that the ordinance adopted by the Board was null and void because of improper procedures. His clients have hired him to sue the District and he wanted to make an attempt to resolve it and make it clear on the record. His clients have laid out six reasons in this letter why they believed that the ordinance is improper. He questioned the scientific data used by the Board and noted that his clients are currently dpadan owners that area currently using Lake Minnetonka. He questioned how phosphorous loading into Lake Minnetonka from Six Mile Creek would increase if his clients are already conducting the activity. He expressed concern about how the Board exempted specific property owners on Painter's Creek and had not exempted his clients, noting that he believed that Painter's Creek loads sigr)i§cantly more phosphorous, nto. Lake Minnetonka than Six Mile Creek. He requested tha{ hi's clients be exempted from the ordinance, similar to the residents of Painter's Creek, and this is the conversation he would like to have with the Board. Other Old Business Items 4183 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 24, 2002 Page14 Skramstad updated the Board on three other "Old Business" items. They included: 1) he' and McMillan recently presented the resolution to Shorewood Mayor commending his public service on the phosphorous free' fertilizer legislation adopted this past session, 2) if anyone was follOwing up with the City of Victoria on theirvacant District Board position, and 3) the status of second version of the District newsletter coordinated by Van Hercke this past spring. Van Hercke stated that she had Board approval for only one District newsletter; however, she envisioned a second one possibly this fall 9, NEW BUSINESS There was .no:.discuss:ion. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjoumed at 9:41 p.m. Albert O, Foster, Chairman Lili McMillan, Secretary 41 84 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, August 14, 2002 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster READING OF MINUTES- 6/26/02 LMCD Regular Board Meeting 7/24/02 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. 1. LAKE USE & RECREATION A) Discussion of LMCD Ordinance 178; B) (*) Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Water Patrol Significant Activity Report; C) Additional Business; 2. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A) (*) Minutes from the 7/12/02 EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting; B) Additional Business; 3. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers (8/1/02 - 8/15/02); B) Additional Business; WATER STRUCTURES ADMINISTRATION SAVE THE LAKE 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 4185 8. OLD BusINEss 9. NEW BUSINESS 10.ADJOURNMENT 4186 DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, June 26, 2002 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Foster called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Bert Fo~ter, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spdng Park; Lili McMillan, Orono; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Debug Babcock.,. Tonka Bay; Orv Burma, Mound; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Paul Knudsen, Minnetrista; Tom Seuntjens, Uinnetonka Beach; Katy Van Hercke, Minnetonka; Sheldon Wart, Greenwood. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, EXecutive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Herb Suerth, Woodland. Victoria has no appointed Board member. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster Foster announced that the annual Board Lake Inspection Tour was.panned for Wednesday, July 10t~. He added that the boat was scheduled to depad the Wayzata Depot dOck at around 5 p.m. and arrive back at around 9 p.m. READING OF MINUTES. 6/12/02 LMCD Regular Board Meeting MOTION: Nelson moved, McMillan seconded to approve the minutes from the 6/12/02 Regular Board Meeting as submitted, · .. VOTE: Ayes (8), Abstained (2; Van Hercke and Wed); motion carried PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda. There were no comments from public on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items w th a (,) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests d sc8sSion of any item fl w~'i'Ch 'b'ase'.the item will be ~-~'°ved fromthe consent agenda. Babcock moved Nelson seconded to approve the consent agenda as Submitted. Motion carried unanimous y Items so, apprOVed ir~dlb'd'e:' lB, HennePin CoUntY she'riff'~ Office v~ater pa(re'i. Si§ni~carit Activity'Re,oft, 2A, Robert S~i'~i~, 'Staff re~°~mendS~'~ar~l app~d(,'~l'Of $i:88 (Jf'$2~0 app}¢[i'~n d~0sj~t'¥oi: a'Ppro~ed clbck ehrh variance, and 3B, May fin~nclai §-ur~ mary and balance sheet. PUBLIC HEARINGS · Laf~yett~' CjU~ii' ~ew mUitiple dock iicedse applica'tion to expahd a conforming multiple dock 'f~cility from 23 to 24 B°atSt°rage Uhits (BSU's). ' FOSter opened the public hearing at 7:05 p,m., noting that it was continUed from the 6/i2/02 Regular Board Meeting. He asked for background on the proposed application from staff. 4187 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Ueeting June 26, 2002 Page 2 Nybeck made the following comments: · The public hearing for the I:irOposed new,multiple dock'licenSe application was continued from the 6/12J02 Regular Board Meeting because there were questions on whether a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) needed to be conducted to increase BSU's from 23 to 24. A representative for the applicant was not present at that meeting and staff recommended that it be continued to a future meeting to allow staff to discuss the issue with the applicant. · Staff has subsequently discussed this issue with Scott Bremer, General Manager for the Lafayette Club, and they have amended the proposed application to avoid the need to conduct a mandatory EAW. The applicant has proposed to reduce the length of BSU's 1 and 2, and 20 and 21 from 48' to 40' by remoVilng one dock section of the fingers between these BSU's. This' amendment would reduce mandatory EAU calculations from 28,064 sq~Jare feet for the. approved site plan,to 27,744 for the Proposed site plan. :: · He recommended ~at tlie B0ard..apprOve the new multiple dOCk license appliCation,'as amended'; ~6i:the 2002 seasoft. He entertained comments or questiOns from the Board. There being no further comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. MOTION: Seuntjens moved, Wert seconded to approve the amended Lafayette Club new multiple dock license application for the 2002 season. Babcock recommended a fdendly amendment to the motion to restrict BSU storage to one for each caretaker dock at a size not to exceed 12'x 32'. Seuntjens and Wert agreed to this. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. John and Kathy AqUilina, V"~ariance application from LMCD Code for side setback and'dock length requirements. Foster opened the public headng at 7:10' p.m. and asked for background on the proposed application from Nybeck. Nybeck made the following comments: · The applicant has submitted an applicati0n'for variance from Code fo~ the residence at 3030 lsiandview Drive in the City of Mound on Spring Pa .rk., Bay., The applicant,has proposed a, vadance..fro, m Cede for side setback and dock length require~enis; h0we'v,¢r, tit~.~pPiica~ii h~s inform~ staff t~at theY.WoUid..~ke to withdraW the Side se{baCk variance req~iest for ~e proPOSed ca6Opy. The PhYsical hardshiP"i~enti~d for the dock length variance was shallow water · The:' pro. P~sed.dock Wo~jd~i~'~te.f~°m a~P~bximatejY 4~,of. conti'nuoU.~.9~9.4!.,NG'~D sho.re!ille,' After,, shaped d'0Ck ~.i~as.~er{:'P?bp~e~ that would e~en'd'::~l.~'.;,iht°'the'. i~,.a, ke;~r°~:~the 929;~' NG'VD si~Omlinei. Wi(h: two Bsu'"s. 'ih:ese''tw(~:'~U'''s WbU:id incidd~: 'i) a'i?.x 32'i.si{~'~ th°u~ a C~0Py, and front of the 12' x 32' slip for the storage of a personal watercraft. · Code Section 2.01 that requires docking and watercraft storage to be contained with..ig an. a, uthodzed dock use..area, and Section 1.07 that all0~s the Board to consider applications for, vadeii~e;ffo~..~.~e reViewedl He s{ated that the tyPicai'~ardShip for a d~bk length (,adance is Shai!o~ Waie~ noting that the' applicant had documented a lake floor elevation of 925.8' NGVD at the end'of the proposed~d0ck, or approximately 3'8". A similar dock length vadance was: granted.for the abutting property to the south, Gregory Fall. 4188 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 26, 2002 page 3 · The City of Mound has expressed no objections to the proposed application and no feedback was received from the MN DNR.. · He believed that the Board could direct the District attorney to prepare Findings of FaCt and Order for approval of a dock length variance, with a physical hardship of shalloW water. He believed the number and size of watercraft proposed by the applicant was reasonable. · He entertained comments or questiOns from the Board. Foster' asked if there were comments from the Board or the public on the proposed application. There being no further comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Ambrose and Gilman arrived at 7:15 p.m, Foster stated that the second watercraft to be stored at the proposed dock could be problematic because of the limited navigational.space between this dock and the one ~to the south. He believed that the 'second watercraft should possibly be limited to a personal watercraft and that any approval by the Board should be clear that canopies would be prohibited at this site. Babcock stated that he would like a definition of the beam width for the personal watercraft to be made as part of any motion. Mr. John Aquilina, 3030 Islandview Ddve, stated that the personal watercraft currently stored at the dock was double seat personal watercraft with a beam width of approximately three and one half feet. He asked if he had a small fishing boat if that would be a problem. Foster stated that he would not be opposed to a beam width of five feet for the inward BSU, Whether it is a personal watercraft or a small fishing boat. MOTION: Babcock moved Nelson seconded to direct attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the.Aquilina variance application, subject to no oanopies allowed at the dock and to limit the beam of the boat stored at the inward BSU to a maximum of five feet. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. · Fredrick and Michelle Packovsky, vadance application from LMCD Code for side setback and dock length requirements, plus an adjusted dock use area. Foster opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. and asked for background on the proposed application from staff. Nybeck made. the follQwing comments · The applicant has submitted an application for variance fromCode for the residence at 3186 North .Shore Drive in the City of Orono on Maxwell Bay. The applicant has proposed a variance from Code for side setback and .dock length requirements,pluS an adjusted dock use area. Physical hardships identified for the dock length vadance are converging lot lines and shallow water. · The proposed dock would originate from approximately 27' of continuous 929.4' NGVD'shoreline. The applicant has proposed two site plans, both withan "H" shaped doCk that would extend approximately 11 O' into the Lake from the 929.4' NGVD shorelinei with three BSU's. These three BSU's would inClude: 1) a 1.6' x 36.5'. slip without a canopy, and 2) two tie-ons in front of the 16' x 36.5' slip for the storageof two personal watercraft~ '.. 41 89 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 26, 2002 Page 4 · Code Section 2,01 that requires docking and watercraft storage to be contained within an authorized dock use area, and Section 1.07 that allows the Board to consider applications for variance from Code, were reviewed. A typical hardship for a dock length variance is shallow water, while a typical hardship for a side setback andadjusteddock use area variance is converging lot lines. The applicant documented water depths of approximately 28"-31", 60' from the 929.4' NGVD shoreline, and approximately 35.5"-38", 110' from the 929.4' NGVD shoreline. He believed that a physical hardship existed for the proposed dock length variance. · In addition to the dock length variance, the applicantwould need some combination of adjustment of lot line extensions, reducing the area available to the neighbors on one or both side, and setback reductions. The impact on the storage rights of the neighbors could be reduced by granting side setback or dock length variances to the neighbors, or by changing the configuration of the applicant's dock, or both. An, alternative dock design, possible a straight dock with watercraft stored on one-side of the dock, might be more appropriate for this site. · The City of Orono stated that they believed a physical hardship existed for the applicant; however, an alternative dock.design that is agreeable to the applicant and the abutting property owners was recommended. No comments were received from the MN DNR, · He believed that a physical hardship existed for the dock length and adjusted dock use area variance requests; however, he recommended that the Board should take into consideration how it would impact the abutting property owners. The abutting property owners have expressed concern about the proposed site plans and the Board might want to consider an amended site plan that would have less impact on them. The Board mightwant to consider holding the public headng and continuing itto a future Regular Meeting and Send it back to staff level, withinterested Board member participation, to investigate whether an amended site plan could be agreed to by the applicant or other interested parties. · He entertained comments or questions from the Board. Foster stated that he had been involved in other adjusted dock use area variance requests in the past. He raised a concern that one of the proposed site plans would primarily adjust the side site line extension from the east neighbor rather than equallY between the east and west neighbOrS, He added that he would Ilke to Seb~farther information on the proposed site plans that documents 929.4'. 'NGVD shoreline at the two abUtting properties. He supported the dock length variance requests' but he questioned whether a dock as proposed should be allowed at a site with 27' of shoreline. He supported the concept of allowing staff to work out the details on the possibility of an amended site plan for the proposed variance request. He asked the applicant how much fetch iS inthe area for the creation of waves. Mr. Fred Pacovsky stated that the property faces north and there is an occasional northwest wind in the area. He cladfied that the proposed "H" dock measurements are 16' x 40' on the outside. Nelson stated that he believed review of the letters received and the proposed site plans would result in an unfair impact on the abutting property owners. He supported the neighbors :in"the area sharin§ adock(s), or aii amended proposed sire'plan, that,would have less impact on ~the:abutting propertyowners.~ · Seuntjens stated that he would like to know how much shoreline the abutting property owners'have. Mr. Paul Blomberg, 31.80 North Shore Ddve,, stated that he owned the abutting property to the east and he purchased it in 1986 with 100' of shoreline. He hashad a-permanent dock with the abutting property to his east that has. 100' of shoreline. His dock: is currently approximately 135' in length and was granted a temporary Iow- water variance in 1987~ In 1986 when he purchased,the property, there alsO was a common dock for the applicant's property and the abutting property to the west, 3200 North Shore' Ddve,. that existed for a number of 419O Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting june 26, 2002 Page5 years until arOund 1998. This dock was abandoned at that time and the situation changed from a common dock to tWO separate doCks. He stated that his primary interest is to ensure that the variance request being conSidered by the Board for the Pacovsky's does not greatly impact his rights to docking in the future in case his common dock goes away. Ms. Shirley Hendrickson, 3200 North Shore Drive, stated that she and Rick Windenburg owned the abutting property to the west, She made. the follOwing comments: · A letter was circulated that summarized their' ~mments on the prOposed application; suggested factors when considering a variance, and two alternative proposed site plans, She clarified that their site had 57' of shoreline and .she reviewed their current dock configuration, noting' that it extendS approximately 90' intO the lake, · The applicant's property is currently for sale and she expressed concern about the Correlation between large dock site plans and how they would increase the resale value of the property. She believed that a revised site plan that would be scaled back might more appropriate than the two prOposed site plans. · The installation of the North Shore Marina multiple dock squeezes the abutting property owners to the east. She reVieWed the two altematives they prOpOsed for the PaCOvsky site, noting that they would involve a shorter straight dock rather than an "H" dock. The appliCant does not currently live in the residence and she believed that theprimary purpose for the proposed variance apPlication is to increase value to the property that is currently for sale, · She concurred with the recommendation of staff to get the applicant together with the neighbors to see if an amended site plan could be agreed to by the applicant and the abusing property owners. Babcock asked the aPplicant whether they currently resided at 3186 North Shore DriVe. PacOVsky stated that they moved from this residence last fall and that they were in the process of selling it. The purpose of the proposed vai-iance application was to define the dock and boat storage allowed at this site, noting that the size of the lot was 3/4 of an acre. Nybeck stated that staff advised the applicant last summer that the variance application process was the only way to get long-term clarification of the riparian rights for this site rather than utilizing the mutual consent option, Pacovsky stated that they had always had an "H" dock extending from Site in the past to store a 26' long bbat. The intent of the proposed applications is to illustrate that they have lakeshore rights and not to increase the value of the property through the variance process. The dOck currently installed at:3200 NOrth Shore Drivb does not comply with Code requirements and they might also need a variance from Code. BabcoCk Stated'that the Distdct genera I.y does not get invoIVedwith the dOcking at the neighbOrhOOd level when there iS'mutual consent be~aUse He issues generallY Wbrk themselves outl In this situation', whether a'd°ck with a certain configuration has been done in the past is not a relevant issue because it appeared as though it did not conform tOCOde and was illegak · Ms, Michelle Pacosky expressed concern about the Code and how side site line extensions extend into the Lake the same direction th'at they are platted on land. She suggested that Minnesota law would eXtend these Side site lines into the Lake from the shoreline at righ't angles. ShebelieVedthat the Shoreline at the site Was 34" rather than the 27' that has been documented by the surveyor, because they pay taxes on 34'. Babcock clarified that the jurisdiction for the District is at the 929.4' NGVD, the ordinary high watei mark established' for Lake Minnetonka. Above the ordinary high water mark is pdvate property and below it is joint 4191 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 26, 2002 Page 6 space for the pub ic and the abutting property owner, noting that it is subject to reasonable regulations of the District, The 27' of shoreline documented at the 929.4' NGVD by the surveyor is the correct figure to use when evaluating the amount of shoreline at this site. The ordinances for the District extended the platted side site lines in the water the same direction from where they intersect the 929.4' NGVD shoreline at this site, noting that this sometimes creates a physical hardship and needs a variance from Code. Foster stated that he believed a physical hardship exists for this site; however, the pdmary question was how the side site lines should be adjusted on the abutting properties. Mr. Rick. Windenburg:, 3200 North Shore Drive, stated that the dock installation used by the applicant in the past made it difficult for him to get a boat out from his dock when the applicant parked a boat on the west side of their dock, noting that their dock was installed from the center of their property. There being no further comments, FOster closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Wert stated that the concept that there was mutua consent for dock in this area in the past and it does not currently exist was not new for the District. He suggested that it would be appropriate to send the proposed vadance applicatlon back to staff to See if all ~parties involved could agree on a revised site plan. Foster agreed that he believed the proposed application could not be resolved this evening at the Board level and that it should be sent back to staff level. McMillan stated that she believed physical hardships of converging lot lines and shallow water existed for the applicant's site. The site itself is very narrow and the applicant deserves a dock extending from it; however, the applicant needs to compromise on the type of dock and the number of watercraft to be stored at it. She believed that a shared dock wi~ one of the abutting property owners seems to make sense; however, a compromised individual dock needs to be COnSidered if that is what they desire. Foster and Van Hercke concurred with McMillan. Foster stated that he would like to have a more comprehensive survey that highlights the side site lines and docking ofthe couple of sites in both directions from the applicants site because the adjustment of dock use areas might include m.ultip!e neighbors in the area. He believed that the app!icant would need to revise their proposed site plan a much smaller dock, withOut an "H", if a permanent vadance is granted for the site. Babcock stated that when the District grants variances from Code, it takes into consideration physical hardships created, by the property and not a. boat to be stored at the dock. He concurred with Foster.that the.survey proposed by the applicant should broader in scope, and' should inCl~ude other affected property properties. Seuntjens stated that he would' also ilke the North Shore Madna dock included in the survey proposed, by the applicant. wed stated that the Board should net take whether the applicant lives in the residential property at the site into consideration when reviewing the requestfor variance from Code. Pacovsky asked if he coUld put a Rock out in the interim while the Board was considering the proposed variance application. 4192 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ~'" Regular Board Meeting June 26, 2002 . " Page 7 Babcock stated that a dock from the applicant's site shOuld not be installed unless there is mutual consent from the abutting property owner(s). The Board directed staff to facilitate a meeting with the applicant and the affected property owners in the near future to investigate whether a revised site plan could be agreed to by all parties involved, documented by updated survey, and brought back for review by the Board a future Regular Meeting. The meeting was recessed at 8:14 p.m, and reconvened at 8:20 p.m. 1. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Discussion of Lake Minnetonka Wetland Protection Ordinance Amendment. Foster asked Wert for background on the agenda item. Wert stated that the Board at the 5/22/02 Regular Meeting conducted a hierarchy of votes on alternative regulations ranging from the most restrictive to the least restrictive. He reminded the Board that eight votes in the affirmative would be required to adopt any new ordinance amendment. The draft ordinance amendment.included in the packet re. ceived enough affir!~ative votes atthe 5/22/02 Regula!; Meeting for the Board to possibly adopt it. He reviewed the draft ordinance amendment, noting that it would prohibit motorized watercraft in the areas ide,ntified on Lake Uinnetonka; however, it would allow watercraft that are propelled with electric trolling motom consistent with the ordinance amendment to travel in these areas. MOTION: Wert moved, Nelson seconded to approve first reading of the draft ordinance amendment as submitted, to waive second and third readings, and to adopt it, Babcock suggested that new language.shou d be added n Subd, 3. He recommended that the word "an" should be deleted and the words "a single" should beadded in its place,~ He recommended this as a friendly amendment to the motion. Wert and Nelson agreed to this, LeFevere stated that the area that would be covered by the draft ordinance amendment had been changed for Six Mite Creek. In past reviews by the Board, the draft ordinance amendment was to effective upstream in Six Mile Creek to the contour line at elevation 929.4 NGVD. New language was added to the proposed ordinance amendment so that it would be effective upstream to the dght of way of State Highway 7. McMillan stated that if the Board adopted the draft.ordinance .amendment, it would require residents who have historical boat usage in Six Mile and Long Lake Creeks to purchase electric tm ling motors to be in compliance with it. Van. He.rcke .stated that Greg :~mith and hisne ghbo,rs on Six Mile .Creek have proposed moving the point of delineation that would prohibit motorized watercraft 200' upstream from the Ralph Hatch property. She asked for feedback from other Board members on this proposal. Babcock stated that Greg Smith raised this concept after the straw poll votes were taken at. the 5/22/02 Regular Meeting and the Board briefly discussed it. He believed that wetlands are wetlands and that they all deserve the same level of protectior!~ noting that there would a gray area on protecting wetlands if the concept proposed by Smith was adopted by the Board. He stated that his goal was to protect the wetlands equally, not to place restrictions in wetland areas that would apply to some residents and not other residents. 4193 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 26, 2002 Page8 Foster reminded the Board that there was discussion at the last Board meeting that it could be perceived as arbitrary and capricious if the Board decided on a specified point up Six Mile Creek that the electric trolling motor restriction would begin because there are wetlands doWnstream in Six Mile Creek. Babcock stated that when the Board recently visited the Six Mile Creek area in question, he believed' that the protection level by the Distdct should be equal all the way upstream because the characteristics were generally consistent, especially the width and depth of the. creek. Van Hercke stated .that she would like to protect the four property owners who have claimed historiCal use of Six Mile Creek because she believed that the proposed ordinance amendment would impact their property values. Based on the information she had reviewed, she believed that the compromise proposed by Smith would be agreeable to the Halsteds Area Wetland Preservation GrOup (HAWPG), although it might not the first choice of the HAWPG. Mr. Jim Blakeway, representing the HAWPG, stated that he did not agree to the compromise proposed by Smith. He did not believe that any wate~raff should be traversing a mile up Six Mile creek from Lake Minnetonka. If the District needed to grandfather the three or four property owners WhO have Claimed hiStoriCal use to get an ordinan~ amendment adopted, he believed that the District might want to consider this compromise~ He expressed con~m about the PosSibility of'unlimited use of Six Mile Creek and the large amount of undeveloped sli0reline that could: be developed in the future. Knudsen stated that he had 'recently attended a Minnetdsta City Council meeting to update them on this agenda item.. The City of Minnestrista has a desire t0 allow the three residents who have recent historical usage of access to Lake Uinnetonka to maintain that use. The City of Uinnetrista has a concem about develoPmenfupstream from these property'o~ers that would 'be a relativelY large size and wOUld involve acceSS t0 Lake uinnet0nka. The City of Uinnetdsta has also expressed environmental Concerns for these sites from the use of a propeller, whether it is ah electric orany othei:motOr, and Whether the use of an electric trolling motor is practical. Seuntjens stated that in SUbd.. lC), he believed that language shoUld be added so that it Would State "railroad trestle or trail bridge" rather than just "railroad trestle". He recommended this as a friendly amendment. FOSter stated that.he believed ateohnical change COuld be done to the ordinanc~ amendment in the future if there is a Change to"the railroad:trestle'. LeFevere stated that GPS coordinates for the railroad trestle are detailed in the draft ordinance amendment. If the railroad trestle was eliminated' in the'futur~i the Bba~ COuld prepare a' sim~le Code amendment for adoptiohi Babcock stated that there is a defined dght of way for the railroad trestle and maybe language could be added to addreS9 the comments Of se~intjens. Seuntjens withdrew his friendly amendment, noting that the language could be changed in the fUture if the railroad trestle was eliminated. 4194 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ,* Regular Board Meeting June 26, 2002 Page g Skramstad expressed concem about the proposed ordinance amendment because he believed it would take away the rights from property owners who have had established historical use, especially on 9ix Mile Creek. This would impact the value of their properties'and he encouraged the Board to consider grandfathering them or moving the point of demarcation up SiX Mile Creek so that they are not affected by the proposed ordinance amendment. Knudsen clarified comments in the letter from Greg Smith, dated 6/18/02. Based on the Greg Smith letter, it appears as though the MinneStdsta City Council unanimouSly supported the continued use of the property owners who had historical use and the change they have recOmmended to the PropoSed Ordinance. He stated that he was atthe same city council meeting and Minnetrista Supported Continued usage by the three property owners; and possibly a couple of other property owners who have had' historical use. However, the Minnetrista City Council did not comment on the proposed ordinance amendment change recommended by Smith and his neighbors. McMillan expressed concern about the proposed ordinance amendment because she believed it Would be enforced on good faith rather than bY the Sheriffs Water Patrol. She questioned whether the proposed ordinanCe amendment is the correct sOlution to protect these areas as desired by the Board, eSpecially since electric trOlling motors might disturb the bottomS of these Creeks. Babcock stated that he had some of the same concerns as McMillan; however, he believed the proposed ordinance amendment was a step in the right direction to protect wetlands on Lake Minnetonka: If the electric trolling motor situation does not work, the Board could amend it in the future to the desired outcome if enforcement becomes a problem in the future. He stated that he believed it is the storage of boats that causes problems in these areas, not the motorsize, MCMillan stated that she believed that there are significant phYSical differences between Six Mile and Long Lake Creeks, primarily there is a PhYsical harder leading into Long Lake Creek and Six Mile creek is generally wide open at the mouth. Six Mile Creek is generally not developed and she questions whether the environmental cOncerns of the Board would be addressed' with a'n~umber of watercraft being prOpelled by electric trolling motors. Foster stated that he would support totally eliminating watercraft traffic in these areas; however; he believed that limiting traffic to electdc mOtorS wOUld address the majority of environmental concerns raiSed by the Board. Gilman concurred with McMillan that he believed the .propOsed ordinance amendment WOuld be unenforceable and problematic in the future as pressure in these areas increases. Babcock stated that he agreed with Gilman that the Sheriffs Water Patrol will not spend a lot of time enforcing the proposed ordinance arnendment; hOWever, he'h0ped'the residents in the area WOUld assist. He believed that the majority Of the'PreSsure in the cre~kswould be added through mUltiPle dock ~acilities and the Concept Of more restrictive Shoreline gUidelines ~hoUld be c0nsidemd by the Board in the future, tying the annual license to compliance with the proposed ordinance amendment. Non-complianbe with the proposed ordinance amendment might require the Board to consider these areas as entirely non-motorized in the future. McMillan stated that she believed that no-wake zones in these areas would make more sense than the proposed ordinance amendment. 4195 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 26, 2002 Page 10 Ambrose stated that in the memo prepared by Knudsen, the original approval by the City of Minnetdsta for Upland Farms did not inc!ude boat access to Lake MJn.netonka, He expressed concern about how much other development could be in that area of Minnestrista in the future. He asked what the City of Minnetrista was doing on the land to put controls in place for this. Knudsen stated tha! he believed theCity of Minnetdsta had not addressed this yet because of jurisdictional questions. When:final plat approval was approved for the Upland Farms development, the city council asked the developer whether they had intentions of gaining access to Lake Uinnetonka. The developer at that point responded:that the development was an equestrian community,, not a lakeshore community, and that was not part, of the development.. There are a few other properties on the west side of Highway 7 that might be developed in the future on Six Mile Creek. Nelson stated that he was one of the three or four Board members who would like to shut down motorized watercraft in these creeks; however, he questioned whether the Board would agree to that. He believed that the proposed ordinance amendment was a compromise thatwould address a number of the issues the Distdct was concemed about. The proposed ordinance amendment is a good first step in dealing with environmental damage in these.areas, :noting that limiting watercraft in theseareas to electric trolling motors would limit the number of watercraft. He stated that he would be opposed to grandfathedng. Gilman asked if there was previous consideration on limiting boat. sizes in the proposed ordinance amendment.. Babcock stated that he would like to set limits on boat sizes and expectations in the creeks within the proposed ordinance amendment. He stated that he would tike language added that would restdct boat storage in the areas described in the proposed ordinance amendment to 24' or less length overall at normal operating .position, with language consistent with other references in the Code, MOTION: Babcock moved,Giiman seconded to amend the odginal motion to. restdct watercraft Stored in the TO creeks described in the proposed ordinance amendment to 24' length overall (LOA) at normal AMEND operating position. McMillan expressed concem, about, the amendment because the original motion included waiving second and third readings and adopting the proposed ordinance amendment. Skramstad stated that. he recalled the maximum boat length that would be allowed in the Upland :Farms project would be 20'. He asked if the proposed amendment wou d allow them to expand maximum boat length to 24'. Babcock stated that the developer does not currently hav,e a mult pie dock Icense submitted to the District and the boa!. ength restrictions w0,q!d generally ~ tied.within the covenants.for the development; Any current restdctionson boat sizes at the Upland Farms projecthave been placed by them rather.than the District. Van Hercke questioned whether it would practical to use an electronic trolling motor with a 24' long boat. 4196 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District · Regular Board Meeting June 26, 2002 Page Babcock stated that in addition to the 24' LOA overall restriction, there is a 60 pound thrust restriction in the proposed ordinance amendment. He believed that the length restriction would place a reasonable expectation on the maximum size and type of boat that should be pumhased'for these areas. Foster stated that he believed placing a restriction on boat length in the proposed ordinance amendment should make it more manageable in the future. Wed stated that it would take a significant amount of time for a boat stored at the Upland Farms development to travel Six Mile Creek to Halsteds Bay using an electdc trolling motor. Mr. Ralph Hatch, 4000 King Point Road, stated that he had a property on Six Mile Creek and that he had a relatively heavy 19' fishing boat. He recently traveled Six Mile Creek to his dock with a 48 pound thrust electdc trolling motor in a 20 m.p.h, wind and it took him 35 minutes to get to his dock, adding that he lived approximately one-third of a mile upstream from Halsteds Bay. Skramstad that although he was in favor of the amendment, he was not in favor of the proposed oidinance amendment. LeFevere clarified the language that would be added to the proposed ordinance amendment if the amendment to restdct boat sizes to 24' LOA were adopted by the Board. The language would read "The prohibition in Subd. 1 shall not apply to any watercraft that is 24 feet in length or less that is being propelled by a single electric motor that has only a single propeller and is not capable of generating more than 60 pounds of thrust at it maximum operating voltage. Length overall means the horizontal measurement from the foremost to the aftermost points of the watercraft, including all equipment and attachments in their normal operating positions". VOTE ON: Ayes (10), Abstained (2; Knudsen and McMillan); vote on motion to amend original motion AMENDMENT carried. Babcock asked for comments or suggestions from Board members who did not intend to vote in favor of the proposed ordinance amendment, as amended. Skramstad stated that he had concerns about the taking away of rights that were developed a number of years ago and have documented historical usage. He believed that these property owners should be grandfathered or the point of demarcation should .be moved upstream from these properties on Six Mile Creek. He expressed concern about the ordinance amendment-and how he believed that it would decrease the value of these properties. Babcock stated that he: migh[ be supportive: to grandfather a.boat for these, property owners in the-short-term; however, he .would like these properties to come into compliance with the ordinance in the long-term. He asked Skramstad whether.this would interest him or whether he was more focused on the property dght issue rather than the usage issue. Skramstad stated that he was interested in an ordinance, in which the dghts would not expire once a property is sold in, the future. Foster stated that he believed the implicat OhS of the proposed ordinance amendment on existing property owners would be minimal because of the limited historical use of these property owners. He believed that 4197 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting' June 26, 2002 Page 12 the economic values of these properties are more tied to the various water levels of these tributaries, noting that the proposed ordinance amendment would allow them to continue historical use and enjoy their riparian rights. Knudsen stated that the Minetrista City Council would like to have the properties on Six Mile Creek that currently have documented historical usage be maintained. He believed that the Uinnestdsta City Council does not have a desire to see motorized usage of Six Mile Creek be expanded beyond what is currently being done for environmental and precedent purposes. He had been in contact with a number of residents from both Uinnetdsta and Mound on Halsteds Bay who have expressed concern about usage of Six Mile Creek with motorized watercraft. McMillan stated that if watercraft are allowed in the creeks, whether it be with motors or electric trolling motors, she believed that both the wetlands and wildlife would be disturbed. It might make more sense not to take the whole creek in these areas because of historical uses by neighbors. She believed, for example, that watercraft should be totally prohibited from part of Six Mile Creek. Babcock stated that he believed that the Distdct was going down the dght path with the proposed ordinance amendment because there are still wetlands on Lake Minnetonka to protect. He believed that adopting an ordinance was the dght thing to do and that the Board could amend it in the future. Hatch. questioned why the District was considering the proposed ordinance amendment. There have been comments from the Board relating to density; however, he questioned why the MN DNR continues to increase access to. Lake Minnetonka through new public accesses. Other BOard members have commented on pollution, noting that'there are several areas of HalstedS Bay that are shallow that contribute to:the loading of phosphorous in the bay. He believed that the Board might want to take some preventative measurements on Halsteds Bay to deal with the issues, including the possibility of establishing no-wake zones. He questioned why the proposed ordinance amendmentdoes not, apply to other area~: of Lake Minnetonka that have some similarities, including Lost Lake Channel. He concluded that~tlie','a{lOption of the ordinance amendment would result in a large financial loss for his property and he encouraged the Board to allow him. to continue his historical dght to traveree Six Mile Creek in the future.' Mr. Fred Green, 3427 Kings Point Road, asked if the proposed ordinance amendment would allow the property owners on Six Mile Creek. who,have documented historical use continued usage with a gas motor. Foster stated that if the'Board adopted the ordinance amendment, it would require these property owners to traverse Six Mile Oreek from their properties to the mouth with electric'motors, Green stated that he would prefer non-motorized watercraft in Six Mile Creek entirely. He expressed concern about moving the point of demarcafioh'.up-Six,~Mile Creek as proposed by"the'affected residents and he recommended .leaving it at the mouth:of,Six,Mile Creek...Heexpressed con,ri1 about the water quality of Halsteds Bay, noting thatthe wetlands inthe Six Mile C-reek area sewe as an important buffer, Blakeway stated that although the three or four residents have not directly caused the water quality problems of Halsteds. Bay, the' HAWPG would'.like to protect, the. water quality of' the bayand eventually: improve it. Based on testimony received at previous meetings from Wenck and Associates and Other experts, allowing unrestricted boat usage on Six Mile Creek would set back the efforts to improve the water quality of Halsteds Bay by probably millions,of dollars and several yea:rs. The Use of"electric'tr{~lling motor,on Six Mile Creek could still re-suspend nutrients from the base of Six Mile creek and he would persorially I~tefe~'tt~at no 41 98 Lake l~nnetonka Consewat%on D%$tfict Regular Board Meeting June26, 2002 Page '13 watercraft were stored on Six Mile Creek, noting that it might make sense to grandfather the three properties that have historical use. McMillan stated that she would like to see the District petition the MCWD to initiate a water quality improvement project on Halsteds Bay. Babcock questioned whether it would make sense to petition the MCWD to initiate a water quality improvement project on Halsteds Bay until the source of problems upstream in Six Mile Creek area has been addressed. The MCWD would be the appropriate agency to address these problems. An unidentified resident on Kings Point Road stated that he had lived on Halsteds Bay since around 1975 and that he was opposed to any additional traffic, whether it be gas or electric trolling motors, on Six Mile Creek. Ms. Joanne Watson, 1925 Fox Street, stated that she had resided on Long Lake Creek for approximately 25 years. For a number of these years, she reported that they had a dock and boat with a motor. She currently does not have a watercraft with a motor and utilizes a canoe to preserve and enjoY' the wetland area. However, she questioned the impact of the proposed ordinance amendment and how it impacts her property values. If the three or four residents on Six Mile Creek were grandfathered from the proposed ordinance amendment, she stated that she would like the same consideration. Mr. Tim Hassett, legal counsel for Upland Farms, stated that the matter being considered by the BOard has been discussed for a significant period of time with a vadety of alternatives. He urged the Board to act on the proposed ordinance amendment at this meeting to allow his client to properly market his property. Mr. Greg Smith, 3804 Farmhil/Ddve, stated that the adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment would result in a significant reduction in the value of his property. He added that the adoption of the(~rdinance would also infdnge on his current boating rights. There has been evidence on the record that the loading of phosphorous in Halsteds Bay is caused two-thirds by the internal loading of the bay itself. He concluded that he had a 23' long boat and he believed that it would take a 1 t0 pound thrust electdc motor to pr0Pedy move his watercraft and the proposed ordinance amendment would be environmentally ineffective. Babcock questioned whether creeks identified in the proposed ordinance amendment are already designated a minimum-wake, no matter the outcome of propulsion. Nybeck stated that he believed that there are several areas of the creeks that are further than 150' from the 929.4 NGVD shoreline and are not covered by the minimum wake for shorezones. Babcock stated that he did not believe this needed to resolve this evening; ~hoWever, it shOuld be resolved in the near future. Foster asked Harper for a roll call vote on the original motion, as amended. VOTE ON: OEIGINAL MOTION (AS AMENDED) Ayes (7), Nayes (5; Gilman, Knudsen, McMillan, Skramstad, and Van Hercke). 4199 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June'26, 2002 ' Page 14 Foster stated that since eight votes were required to adopt the ordinance amendment, it appeared that the motion would fail. Babcock stated that he counted eight votes in the affirmative and that he would like Harper to summarize the roll call vote taken. Dudng the summary of the roll call vote being conducted by Harper, Gilman changed his voted from a nay to an aye, Foster stated that with the change invote by Gilman, the ordinance amendment, as amended, would be adopted with a vote of eight in the affirmative and four nay votes. The meeting was recessed at 9:41 p.m. and reconvened at 9:49 p.m. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 2. WATER STRUCTURES B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 3. FINANCIAL A, Audit of vouchers (6/16/02 - 6/30/02). Skramstad reviewed the audit of vouchers as submi{ted. MOTION: Skramstad moved, Gilman seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for the pedod of 6/16/02 - 6/30/02 as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Review of draft 2003 LMCD Budget. MOTION: Babcock moved, Skramstad seconded to' approve and certify the draft 2003 LMCD Budget, and to '~ direct staff to forward a copy of the approved budget before the 7/1/02 deadline. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4. EVVl~EXOTICS TASKFORCE "- A. Update of"Let's Keep Zebra Mussels Out of Lake Minnetonka" project. Foster asked for an update on this agenda item. Nybeck made the fOllowing comments: · At the 6/12/02 Regular Board Meeting, Board member Suerth raised the issue whether the District was willing to proceed with the $8,000 of funds to allow the District to work with the, MN DNR on the staffing of a limited number of public accesses for the 2002 season, as a pilot projebt, to inspect watercraft before they entered Lake Minnetonka. 4200 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 26, 2002 Page · Suerth reported at the 6/12/02 Regular Meeting that the LMA was having problems with their matching fundraising for the project; however, he recommended that the District proceed with the 2002 pilot project. At this meeting, the Board approved conceptual approval to allow staff to approach the MN DNR regarding the possibility of hiring and training one MN DNR Employee for the 2002 season, 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. · A meeting will be held in the near future with officials of the MN DNR regarding implementation of a plan and the finalizing of a State of Minnesota Income Contract. · He entertained comments or questions from the Board. Foster stated under Section 3 of the proposed contract, he would like the words "a maximum of" inserted between the words "is" and "$8,000". Babcock stated under Section 2 of the proposed contract, he would like language added that this pilot project is not intended to offset inspection hours already planned for Lake Minnetonka. Foster asked Osgood for an update on the status of the matching funds from the LMA. Mr. Dick Osgood, Executive Director for the LMA, stated that the LMA was strongly in support of the District moving forward with the pilot project in 2002. To date, approximately $3,000 to $4,000 had been raised by the LMA in its fundraising efforts. A number of corporate sponsors have been contacted; however, none of thee'have made a financial commitment for these purposes. Foster stated that he believed the District proceeding With the pilot project in 2002 could provide the leverage for the LMA in its fundraising efforts to allow this program to be much larger in 2003. Gilman stated that he would prefer the MN DNR to play a much larger role in this project, especially in leadership and financial commitments. MOTION: Seuntjens moved, Ambrose the 2002 zebra mussel pilot Board. seconded to accept the draft State of Minnesota Income Contract for project, subject to implementing the changes recommended by the VOTE: Ayes (10), Nayes (1, Gilman), Abstained (1, Nelson); motion carded. B. Additional Business. Nybeck stated that one, or possibly two of the District harvesters purchased in the late 1980's, would be advertised for sale in the near future. In order to finalize the advertisement, staff would like direction from the Board on the minimum asking price the Board would agreeable to for sale of these harvesters. LeFevere had recommended the Board authorize a minimum sale price for the Executive Director to work with the Chair on the sale of this equipment. The brokers who make and sell this type of equipment have stated that the sale of this equipment could range up to around $25,000. MOTION: Babcock moved, Skramstad seconded to authorize a minimum sale price of $25,000 for each of the two District EWM har,~esters, authoring the Executive Director to work with Chair Foster on their sale. 4201 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 26, 2002 VDTE: Motion carried unanimously. Page16 5. SAVE THE LAKE There was no discussion. 6. ADMINISTRATION There was no discussion. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Nybeck stated that a copy of the monthly Executive Director Newsletter was included in the handout folders. He provided an overview of lake levels for the week of 6/24 - 6/26. The lake level on 6/24 was 929.84', with a lake level of 929.98' on 6/25 and 930,02' on 6/26/02. The discharge from the dam was 75 c.f.s on 6/24/and 6/25, with a discharge of 125 c.f.s, on 6/26. The Board discussed Code pertaining to Executive Director declaring a "High-Water Declaration". 8. OLD BUSINESS Skramstad stated that he would be attending a Shorewood City Council meeting on 7/22/02 to update them on District activities and to present LMCD Resolution 103 to Mayor Love. He also provided an update on long-term funding for the Water Patrol funding with Hennepin County. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjoumed at 10:18 p.m. Albert O. Foster, Chairman Lili McMillan, Secretary 42O2 DR FT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE: MINUTES 8:30 a.m., Friday, July 12, 2002 LMCD Office, 18338 Mtka Blvd., Deephaven, MN Present: Chip Welling, MN DNR; MN DNR; Dick Osgood, Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA); Grog Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director. Minutes. The Task Force accepted the minutes from the 5/10/02 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting as submitted. Update of 2002 LMCD Eurasian Watermilfoil (EWM) Harvesting Program. Nybeck made the following comments on the 2002 EWM Harvesting Program: · The harvesting program has been interesting due to the higher lake levels in 2002, noting that the lake level on Lake Minnetonka had been around 930.00 NGVD since late June. ° A Mid-Season Report was being prepared by staff that would summarize key statistical information for the program. Key statistical information included harvester loads, truck loads, and acres harvested, noting that he believed that these statistics were slightly down when compared to recent years. · He estimated that seven to eight loads were being harvested daily by the four harvesters that were being operated. Daily truck loads appeared to be slightly down; however, this was anticipated due to the 25% increase the cubic yard capacity of the truck specifications in 2002 from 20 to 25 cubic yards. o The Lower Lake North Option was implemented in 2002 and he reviewed what bays and areas of Lake Minnetonka had been harvested to date. · He entertained comments or feedback from Task Force members; Osgood asked if the cooler spdng contributed to a later growth of milfoil this year. Welling stated that the MN DNR does not have an organized monitoring effort to address whether milfoil was grower later this year compared to other years. Nybeck asked Welling to comment on his recent communications with Brian Jacobson from Missouri. Welling stated that there has been a 2-4 D herbicide re-registration Task Force since the late 1980%. One of the things being conducted by this Task Force is the repeating or conducting of new studies mgardi.ng dissipation of the product for re-registration. Bdan Jacobson, from the consulting firm Waterborne Environmental, is attempting to coordinate a study this year on Lake Minnetonka. He believed that the study in 2002 appears to be premature and they propose to use a liquid product that is labeled'for use~n!y on milfoil in waters in the Tennessee Valley Administration, add that it is not legal foruSe inthe State of" Minnesota. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed and he stated that he would keep the Task Force informed on this potential project. Nybeck stated that he advised Mr. Jacobson that he needed to address and resolve any issues that the MN DNR would have with the potential project. If the study is proposed for Lake Minnetonka, Jacobson was informed that an overview of the project should be presented to the Distdct Board of Directors. He concurred with Welling that the timing for the 2002 season did not appear to be practical. 4203 'EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE, 7112/02, PAGE 2 Update of "Let's Keep Zebra MusSels Out of Lake Minnetonka" Proiect. Nybeck stated that the 2002 pilot project to coh~Uct watercraft inspections of boats before they enter Lake Minnetonka appears to be moving forward in the near future. Details between the MN DNR and the District are currently being finalized. Staffing of the project will include re-allocation 'of already hired MN DNR · inspectors in the west-metro area and possibly newly hired MN DNR employees. Welling asked Osgood for an update on the LMA fundraising for this project. Osgood stated that a limited amount of funds, approximately $3,000, had been raised to date. A number of corporate sponsors had expressed interest in the project; however, none of them had donated funds to date. The LMA will be re-evaluating the fundraising effort in the near future. Nybeck stated that Distdct wanted to implement a pilot project in 2002 to get exposure and to learn from it. A State of Minnesota Income Contract has been finalized with the MN DNR for this project in 2002 and the District has committed a maximum of $8,000 of funds for inspections at SPring Park Bay, Maxwell Bay, and North Arm public accesses, He informed the Task Force that they would get an update on' this project in the next few months through a final report~ Osgood stated that samples for eight of the nine included in the zebra mussel veliger testing program were recently completed and he was awaiting the results from the lab. The samples for round two will be conducted in the near future. Agency Reports. Welling stated that the feedback from Nybeck that early season growth of milfoil on Lake Minnetonka was Iow compared to other.years, was consistent with feedback from around the State of Minnesota, with a few isolated exceptions. The flufidone applications have been applied and survey work is being conducted by the MN DNR on three lakes selected for the study. Milfoil was recently discovered in Lake Ossawinnamake near the Whitefish Chain of Lake near Brainerd. Area wide lake association reports. Osgood updated the Task Force on Minnesota Lakes Association (MIA) activities and he encouraged the Distdct to become a member of the MIA. Old business. There was no old business. New business., There was no new business. Adiournment. There.being ,no further business, the meeting was adjoumed at 9'.45 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Nybeck Executive Director 4204 I I r~llll~l.Klllil IIIIIIIllm Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative Agenda -AUgust 28, 2002 12:30,2:00 PM NEW LOCATION: Gillespie Center 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 is 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. Recognition of out going Collaborative Chairperson Craig Anderson (10 min.) Many thanks to Craig Anderson for chairing the Collaborative meetings from May 2001 to May 2002. 6. Student "Welcome BaCk to School" Sept. 3rd. We need volunteers to greet students at seven school entrances. The more smiling faces to show the students, the better. It is really a fun event! Sign up to coordinate one of the schools. 7. Question and Answers on the Levy Referendum Gene Zulk, Superintendent for Westonka School District (45 min.) Gene will give information and answer any questions about the September 10th SchoOl Levy Referendum. "If you can dream it, you can do it." -- Walt Disney Any comments or questions, call Leah Weycker, Collaborative Coordinator, at 952-491-8058 or WeyckerL @ westonka.kl 2.mn.us 4205 Westonka Health Community Collaborative Minutes - June 26, 2002 Present: Bill Anderson, Craig Anderson, Cathy Bailey, Mary Hughes, Patsy Kiesow, Carol Olson, Sandy Olstad, Deb Truesdell, and Leah Weycker. Guests: Gene Hostetler, Kristy Wibbon, Denise Eng and her son. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda or Minutes: There were no changes. Mary Hughes made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Bill Anderson, motion passed. 2. Announcements: The health group is working on a two part depression awareness series called Blue Skies, Blue Summers that will take place on July 24th a nd July 31 at the Gillespie Center. There will be a booklet of poetry that will be distributed at the event. All ages are encouraged to send in poetry or short writings about "feelings". Leah passed around Kids Count data using the new census data, divided out by state. If anyone needs this type of information it wil/beat the COllaborative office. Carol passed out our annual reports for people to distribute. We have many extras. 3. Skate Park Update: Gene Hostetler showed the design and how it lays out on the land. He showed drawings of the shelter and an observation area. Kristy Wibbon, a student intern from the City of Mound, talked about some of the fundraising and informational events that are being planned. There will be a hot dog sale in front of Jubilee towards the end of July. There will also be a booth at the Dog Days event in Navarre on August 10. Kristy has planned a demonstration, a raffle, and skate park trivia on a spinning wheel. She has arranged for pdzes from several vendors ranging from big to small items. The event will give adults and kids a better awareness of what the skating culture is all about. We talked about a possible donation 'of $150,000 from Brenshell Homes and Wara Real estate. The word is out about this possible donation and we are having a hard time getting others to donate. Until we see the check, we need to continue to raise funds. We should know more on Friday. 4. Sojourner Project, Denise Eng: Denise is the manager of community programs for Sojourner project, baSed out of Hopkins. Sojourner serves our area by working with battered women and their children. Denise is new to the domestic abuse project we helped fund in our community and has made some changes and improvements to the project. It had been set up as a 10 week program and women were having a hard time committing to the whole ten weeks. The program is now an ongoing weekly program where Women can drop in when ever they can. This change has increased participation. About three families attend eaCh week, although the summer has slowed down a bit. A dinner is served and has been a highlight for some of the women. All the money that was donated to the program for the first year has been spent and they are looking for additional funding to continue the project. With the help of our community, a letter was sent to apply for a grant for federal dollars called Violence Against Women Act, and a $100,000 grant was received to work in the western suburbs. An emphasis of the grant is to improve policies that are in place dealing with arrest and conviction of perpetrators of domestic violence. The grant also includes funds for a Sojourn staff person to come to the area once a week for additional out reach. Sandy Olstad made a motion to adjourn, Craig Anderson seconded the motion. Motion passed. 4206 2415 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Kandis Hanson - City Manager Greg Pederson - Mound Fire Chief WAFTA Executive Committee Meeting August 16, 2002 On Wednesday August 7, 2002 a WAFTA Membership Meeting was held at Mound City Hall. A meeting summary and WAFTA balance sheet is enclosed. Thank you to those that attended! Regards, Greg Pederson Mound Fire Chief enclosure 4207 WESTERN AREA FIRE TRAINING ACADEMY MEETING SUMMARY FROM AUGUST 7, 2002 Agenda Item Board of Directors Report: WAFTA Director, Chief Greg Pederson reported on recent activities and discussions had at the WAFTA Board Meeting on July 31,2002. The main topic of discussion was the WAFTA clean up strategy. The City of Eden Prairie also has hired an environmental consultant (Paul Book) to assist with the clean up project. Don Uram, Eden Prairie Director of Community Development and Financial Services and Paul Book reported on their findings. WAFTA By-Law Review: Don Uram of Eden Prairie was nominated to fill the opening on the WAFTA Executive Board, the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. The exiting joint powers agreement calls for four members on the Board of Directors. Discussion at this meeting and the Board of Directors recommended a change to an odd number of Board Members. Michelle Morse of Long Lake made a motion to amend the JPA to increase WAFTA Board to five. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. Soren Mattick to amend JPA and email to each city for council approval. Financial Status Update: Bruce DeJong of Chanhassen 0NAFTA Finance Director) was unable to attend this meeting, but was able to provide an overview of WAFTA balance sheet. A copy of the balance sheet is enclosed. WAFTA Environmental Consultant Christopher Thompson provided an estimate to remove the numerous barrels of black tar substance at the site. The estimate to remove the material is $2,500, a motion was made to authorize payment and proceed with removal. A brief report on the WAFTA Grant request by Greg Pederson (Mound) indicated that the Minnesota Trade and Economic Development Grant request was denied. WAFTA will likely reapply. WAFTA Attorney Soren Mattick reported on the Army Corp of Engineers financial agreement. There was also a discussion about Excel and Reliant and their level of financial - commitment to the clean up of site, at this point unknown. The Executive Committee recommended that each city budget $7,500 for 2003. These funds will be used to proceed with WAFTA clean up work plan. Estimated cost to complete next phase or work plan is $125,000- $150,000. 4. WAFTA Site Issues: A lengthy discussion regarding WAFTA options for how to proceed with clean up of site. Three options were discussed. 4208 a. Remain in voluntary clean up program (VIC). b. Withdraw from voluntary clean up program (VIC) and do nothing. c. Withdraw from voluntary clean up program (VIC) and focus on clean up of petroleum based contaminants but not chlorinated compounds. It was agreed that the Executive Board will discuss the clean up strategy and make a recommendation to the Executive Committee Members. Sale or Lease Proposal of WAFTA Site: Mr. Jim Salter addressed the Executive Committee regarding the potential sale or lease of WAFTA site. Mr. Salter is still very interested in acquiring the site. No decision was made, the Executive Board will discuss. Open Discussion: No major issues. The Executive Board will meet in September 2003. Michelle Morse requested that copies of WAFTA By- Laws and Joint Powers Agreement be sent to all member cities, Soren Mattick to follow up and send. G. Pederson Attachment Membership Attendance Chaska 0 Excelsior 0 Mound 3 St. Boni 0 Maple Plain 1 Chanhassen 1 Eden Prairie Long Lake Mayer Victoria Watertown 2 2 1 0 2 42O9 WAFTA Balance Sheet 07131/02 Assets Cash Interest Receivable Total Assets Beg Fund Balance Change In Fund Bal Ending Fund Balance (17,229.68) 81.35 (17,148,33) 9,785.16 (26,g33.49) (17,148.33) Revenue~ and Exl3enditums Anticipated Revenues Dues Corp of Engr Total Rev Projection 13,851.00 7,807.50 21,458.50 Expenditures Geomatrix Campbell Knutaon Total Expenditures 22,678.18 4,266.33 26,933.49 4210 08-16-2002 09:54AM FROM LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICA TO 4?20620 P.O1 4071 Sunset Drive Box 385 Spring Park, MN 55384-0385 Phone- 952-471-7125 Fax- 952-471-9151 E-mail- Irncc~uswe~.net CC: · comment~ If you do not receive all of the pages, please eon,act our office as soon es possible et 962-471.712{; 4211 08-16-2002 09:$4AM FROM LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICA TO 4?20620 P.02 B 4212 08-16-2002 09:55AM FROM LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICA TO 4?20620 P.03 4213 'tOTaL P, This page left blank intentionally. 4214 145 University Avenue West, St. paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 281-1200. (800) 925-1122 TDD (651) 281-1290 LMC Fax: (651) 281-1299 LMCIT Fax: (651) 281-1298 Web Site: http://www.lmnc.org To: From: Re: Date: MEMORANDUM Mayors, City Managers, Administrators, and Clerks 3im Miller, Executive Director 2003 City Budgets Friday, August 16, 2002 Volatility in the state's budget over the past year is now translating into uncertainty for local budgets. Although the magnitude of the state budget deficit will not be officially revised until late November or early December, the Commissioner of Finance has recently suggested that the deficit could be as high as $2.7 billion for the 2004-2005 biennium. With the additional pessimistic economic news that has been released over the past several weeks, this fall's budget forecast could even exceed the Commissioner's gloomy figures. In recent weeks, the League has received numerous inquiries from member cities seeking advice on how to prepare for the uncertain state budget situation and the potential for state aid reductions. The situation for larger cities is further complicated by levy limits, which will be significantly more stringent due to a remarkably low inflation adjustment (0.76%) for 2003 levies. For many cities, levy limits will trim the list of policy alternatives available to address possible 2003 state aid cuts. To make matters more difficult, your city is undoubtedly facing other budget pressures such as rising employee health insurance costs, potential volunteer relief association contribution increases, lower investment earnings, and possible additional security costs in light of the September terrorist attacks. The purpose of this memo is to provide you with insights into this uncertainty based upon conversations we have had with key state decision-makers and information available to us at this time. The state budget situation is fluid and will undoubtedly change before the Legislature convenes in January. Although the League will be working with legislators to reduce the size of any proposed state aid or credit reimbursement reductions, it is important for your city to begin preparing now for the possible effects of a cut in state aids. 4215 State Deficit: How we got here Last fall, the state announced a $2 billion budget deficit for the remainder of the 2002-2003 biennium. In February, the deficit estimate was increased to nearly $2.5 billion. The 2002 legislative actions to address this deficit arguably tapped most of the easy solutions, including the use of state reserves and the elimination of automatic inflation assumptions for many state programs. The budget solution also included the elimination of the TIF grant pool, delays in school aid payments, and some cuts in state agency budgets. Now, the state is facing an additional deficit for the 2004-2005 biennium. Given that many of the easy solutions have been employed, the problem confronting the 2003 Legislature will almost certainly be more difficult to address. State agencies are already being asked to prepare preliminary budget proposals at a 90 percent funding level. This 10 percent planning reduction reflects the approximate across-the-board cut necessary in state spending to address a deficit in the $2.7 billion range. If a 10 percent cut is extended to general city aid programs, cities would collectively lose approximately $59 million of local government aid (LGA) and approximately $10 to $15 million of market value homestead credit (MVHC) reimbursement. Remember, even if your city does not receive LGA, the state effectively pays a portion of your property tax levy through the MVHC reimbursement. The State could reduce this payment to the city, thereby reducing the amount of property tax levy you expected when the levy was originally certified. If the Legislature ultimately decides to make cuts in state aid and credit programs, it will have to decide how to distribute the impact to cities and counties. If potential future cuts are computed in a manner similar to past state aid reductions, every city would likely lose a similar percentage of their revenue base (defined as the city's certified levy plus its certified LGA). A cut on this basis could be between 4 percent and 5 percent of each city's revenue base. Again, that cut could conceivably come from LGA, the MVHC, or both. There are other state aid and revenue sharing programs that could potentially be cut, such as police and fire aids, certain transportation aid programs including the Municipal State Aid (MSA) program, and police training reimbursement aid. Likewise, further cuts in state agency budgets could have a trickle-down impact on city budgets either through higher agency fees and assessments or through reduced services that must be picked up in local budgets. Of course, there is no way to determine the size of the state deficit before the forecast is updated in November, nor is there any way to predict how the Legislature might implement appropriation reductions. Given that city aid programs were largely spared from the 2002-2003 budget cuts, we suspect there may be political pressure to "share" the state's 2004-2005 budget woes with cities. This uncertainty clearly makes financial planning for 2003 extremely difficult. We should know more in late November or early December when the next state budget forecast is released. However, you are already preparing your 2003 budget and you must set your preliminary property tax levies long before the state budget forecast will be announced. 4216 Other Factors Cuts yet this year? Although most of the current focus on the state budget is on the 2004-05 biennium, there is still an outside chance that the 2002 December distributions of LGA and the MVHC reimbursement could occur IF the November 2002 state budget forecast shows a state deficit by the end of the current biennium that exceeds the current $300 million state rainy day fund and IF the governor decides to address the deficit through unallotment. Through "unallotment," the governor effectively has the power to reduce legislative appropriations to address a state deficit that exceeds its reserves. Given that the state's biennium ends on June 30, 2003, the December 2002 LGA and MVHC payments would be the last distributions to cities this biennium. LGA reform Reform of the LGA system may be a topic of legislative focus during the upcoming session. The current formula uses statistical data from the decennial U.S. Census that has now been compiled and released. The Department of Revenue initially used one updated statistic from the 2000 Census to compute the 2003 LGA distribution. The use of that statistic produced large, unexpected variations in the distribution of state aids and, upon review, the Census data appeared to have unexplainable results. Essentially, the department will use the existing 1990 data for one more year. At a minimum, the Legislature will likely have to address this piece of the LGA formula during the 2003 legislative session. We also know that some legislators have indicated an interest in a total review of the formula and the funding level--especially given the State's current fiscal predicament. This could lead to an extensive effort to reform the system. However, unlike possible cuts to balance the state's budget, which could be implemented immediately, any reform of the system would not likely be effective until 2004. Other property tax pressures Many school districts across the state are straggling to address their own financial needs. The state takeover of the majority of school funding coupled with the state's financial troubles means that schools will not likely find sufficient new state resources. Many school districts have already announced they are "going to the voters" to approve new or expanded operating referendum levies. This will place pressure on taxpayers and may result in less acceptance of city tax increases. Likewise, the state could tap its property tax as a potential way to address its budget problem. Although the nearly $600 million state property tax levy is automatically indexed for inflation each year, the state could decide to raise its levy even further to balance the budget. Again, this could place pressure on commercial, industrial, and cabin taxpayers and make city tax increases more difficult. Additionally, the state could expand the base of the state property tax to include homesteads and other additional types of property. 4217 Strategies for Cities For city officials who remember previous state budget shortfalls and subsequent city aid cuts, much of this situation and the strategies that follow may sound familiar. Below are several considerations that may help you weigh the pros and cons of revenue enhancements, expenditure reductions, and use of reserves as you consider setting a budget for 2003. Ultimately, you will have to make decisions that best reflect the needs of your community. L Consider increasing your property tax levy to cover or at least partially offset potential state aid reductions. If aid reductions do not materialize, you can adjust your 2004 property tax levy accordingly. A.) For cities over 2,500 population, levy limits are in place for taxes payable in 2003. Due to an extremely low inflation adjustment for this year's levy limits, cities affected by levy limits might not have sufficient levy authority to covei even normal budgetary pressures. Levy limits are due to expire, but they could certainly be extended by the 2003 legislature. B.) Increasing your property tax levy could potentially result in a larger state aid reduction. Last January, the Governor unveiled a new proposal that based a portion of each city's aid reduction on the size of each city's increase in property tax levy plus state aids. In other words, the larger the city's revenue, the greater the reduction in state aids. Although the Governor's concept was not adopted by the Legislature, this proposal could always resurface in the 2003 legislative session. .C.) Although property tax increases could be implemented to offset potential budget cuts, the property tax increases of cities could be viewed as municipal preparation for state aid cuts and legislators could rationalize cuts because cities are financially "prepared" for the reduction. D.) Increasing property taxes to cover a speculative state aid cut could be criticized or misunderstood by your citizens and business owners. You may want to consider enhanced discussions with your citizens, businesses, and legislators about the difficulties facing the city and setting a 2003 budget. E.) Consider the implications of tax reform on any tax increment financing (TIF) districts within your city. Past tax reform efforts, including the major changes enacted in 2001, may have severely impacted the revenue stream of TIF districts and the city may already be committed to property tax increases to cover TIF obligations. F.) Given the magnitude of the state budget deficit, other local units of government may also be considering increases in their property tax. With the new state property tax, legislators might be considering their own property tax increase to address the shortfall. You might want to consider the combined impact of these potential increases for your taxpayers. 4218 II. Consider other revenue enhancements where appropriate. A.) Do you have fees that are set substantially lower than the cost of the service provided? Now may be a good time to adjust fees to more closely relate to the cost of the service, thereby reducing the current subsidy from other revenue sources. Also, there may be certain property tax supported services for which fees could instead be charged. B.) If your city makes significant capital or maintenance expenditures for storm water control, you may wish to consider creating a storm water utility and removing these costs from the general fund. III. Consider developing a plan to reduce appropriations or delay future financial obligations as a strategy to cover the potential loss of state aid payments. If aid reductions do not materialize~ you could make later adjustments in your budget. A.) Any state aid or credit cuts might not be enacted into law until the session ends, which will likely be in late May. The cuts would likely be applied to the July and December 2003 LGA distributions and to the October and December 2003 MVHC reimbursement payments. Cities will already be nearly five full months into the fiscal year, which means that spending reductions would have to be applied to the remaining seven months of expenditures. B.) You may want to consider budgeting for one-time expenditures that replace long-term ongoing costs, such as technology investments that might replace a staff position or consultant contract. C.) Consider delaying any hiring decisions until the Legislature crafts its budget during the 2003 session. D.) Consider delaying major purchases, as well as delaying new or expanded program initiatives. IV. Consider drawing down reserves to cover the loss of state aid. Carefully consider the periodic cash flow needs of the city before deciding to draw down reserves. City fund balances are generally measured on December 31 of each year. This is a "high water mark" for city budgets given the structure of state aid payments and property tax distributions. An analysis of necessary reserves on a daily or weekly basis would provide a more accurate picture of the city's cash flow needs. B.) State aid and credit cuts could be permanent and, ultimately, the city would have to increase taxes or reduce spending to avoid a long-term city deficit. C.) Drawing down reserves could potentially affect your city' s credit rating and possibly increase the cost of future borrowing for the city. 4219 For more information The 2003 budget year promises to be a wild ride. Keep your eye on the Cities Bulletin and visit the I_,MC web site (www.lmnc.org) for the latest information about developments with city aids and the state budget. If you have any questions, please contact Gary Carlson, Eric Willette or Jenn O'Rourke at (651) 281-1200. 422O CITY OF MOUND Police Chief Position Profile Announcement Police Chief, Mound, MN (pop. 10,000). Starting salary $69,000 to $77,000. Department Head position reporting to the City Manager. Responsible for managing a budget of $1 million and a total staff of 16 with 13 sworn officers. Qualified candidates must be eligible for EO.S.T. certification and have, at a minimum, a B.A. degree or successful completion of an advanced Police management program (e.g. FBI, SPI, Northwestern, etc.) with a minimum of ten years experience in law enforcement, five years of which should be at a senior command level. A graduate level degree is highly desirable. Preferred experience includes working knowledge of commu- nity policing principles and a variety of community outreach programs. Send resume by 9/30/02 to The Brimeyer Group Executive Search, 50 S. 9th Ave., Suite 101, Hopkins, MN 55343. Phone: (952) 945-0246, Fax: (952) 945-0102, e-mail: brimgroup@aol.com, web site: www. brimgroup.com Timetable 9/30/02 10/22/02 11/14/02 December 2002 Deadline for Application Present Candidates, Select Finalists Interviews/Selection Start Date The Brimeyer Group, Inc. EXECUTIVE SEARCH CONSULTING Fifty South Ninth Ave., Suite 101 Hopkins, MN 55343 o AGENDA MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AUGUST 27, 2002 7:20 P.M. OPEN MEETING ACTION APPROVING AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS ACTION APPROVING MINUTES: AUGUST 13, 2002 REGULAR MEETING VIP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR INDIAN KNOLLL MANOR, WITH ANY NECESSARY ACTION PAGE 1-3 4-47 t5. ADJOURN CITY OF MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AUGUST 13, 2002 The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of and for the City of Mound, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, August 13, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. in the council chambers of City Hall. Members Present: Acting Chairperson Mark Hanus, Commissioners Bob Brown, David Osmek and Peter Meyer. Members Absent: Chairperson Pat Meisel Others Present: City Attorney John Dean, Executive Director Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Bonnie Ritter, Community Development Director Sarah Smith. 1. OPEN MEETING Acting Chairperson Hanus opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. 2. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 3. APPROVE MINUTES MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to approve the minutes of the regular July 23, 2002 meeting. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4. POST OFFICE PROJECT A. Public Hearinq on Business Subsidy A.qreement with Rod Dietrich Acting Chairperson Hanus opened the public hearing at 6:31 p.m. Upon no comment being heard, the hearing was closed at 6:32 p.m. B. Action Approving Business Subsidy Agreement MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 02-09H: RESOLUTION APPROVING A BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MOUND, AND RODNEY R. DIETRICH AND DOREEN K. DIETRICH. 5. SET DEVELOPER WORKSHOP MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to set the Developer Workshop for September 3, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. This workshop will be a joint HRNCity Council meeting. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 1 1 CITY OF MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AUGUST 13, 2002 The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of and for the City of Mound, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, August 13, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. in the council chambers of City Hall. Members Present: Acting Chairperson Mark Hanus, Commissioners Bob Brown, David Osmek and Peter Meyer. Members Absent: Chairperson Pat Meisel Others Present: City Attorney John Dean, Executive Director Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Bonnie Ritter, Community Development Director Sarah Smith. '1. OPEN MEETING Acting Chairperson Hanus opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. 2. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 3. APPROVE MINUTES MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to approve the minutes of the regular July 23, 2002 meeting. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4. POST OFFICE PROJECT A. Public Hearinq on Business Subsidy Agreement with Rod Dietrich Acting Chairperson Hanus opened the public hearing at 6:31 p.m. Upon no comment being heard, the hearing was closed at 6:32 p.m, B. Action Approving Business Subsidy Agreement MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 02-09H: RESOLUTION APPROVING A BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MOUND, AND RODNEY R. DIETRICH AND DOREEN K. DIETRICH. 5. SET DEVELOPER WORKSHOP MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to set the Developer Workshop for September 3, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. This workshop will be a joint HRA/City Council meeting. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 1 2 HRA Minutes- August 13, 2002 6. ADJOURN MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to adjourn the meeting at 6:36 p.m. favor. Motion carried. All voted in Attest: Kandis Hanson, Executive Director Acting Chairperson Hanus 2 3 MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY INDIAN KNOLL MANOR August-02 1 CHECK NO VENDOR/MERCHANT AMOUNT 4908 AT & T WIRELESS $ 48.50 D_r=$CRIPTION 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 4909 AUS MASTER PLUMBING $ 49.00 4910 BFI $ 331,02 4911 BABCOCK LANGBEIN $ 650,00 4912 B SYLVESTER $ 1 ~5.00 4913 C NAB ER $ 190.00 4914 CITY OF MOUND $ 1,714.70 4915 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS $ 232.0:5 4916 lOS $ 99.37 4917 LIGHTYEAR $ 4918 MEI $ 132,60 4919 MOUND TRUE VALUE $ 28,46 4920 R KAREEN MILLER $ 100,00 4921 RELIANT ENERGY $ 915,99 4922 STA SAFE $ 573.23 4923 VIP PROPERTIES $ 4,110.15 4924 VIP PROPERTIES $ 2,173.51 4926 VIP PROPERTIES $ 1,650.00 4926 XCEL ENERGY $ 1,135,07 $ 14,251.24 SERVICE CALL AUG SERVICE 2001 AUDIT JUl/AUG CERTS JUL/AUG ACCT FEE LEGAL SERVICES AUG SERVICE AUG COPIER LONG DIST ELEVATOR SERVICE MISC SUPPLIES PETTY CASH JUN/JUL GAS LOCK CHANGES MAI NT/MANAG ERS PAYROLL TAXES/2ND Q JUL MGMT FEE 7-6 TO 7-26 4 A41 IIA Summary Statement July 2002 for information, call Mill& Client Services at (800)395-5505 Fax:. (800)765-7600 Mo,md Housing and Redevelopment Auth, Account Numbs: MN4}I~02!18,2001 Account Name: GENERAL FUND Begj~_-?.ng Contribulion~ Withdrawals ....Income Average Daily "Month F_~ ri'his Month $158,417.10 .... $0.00 $0.00 -- - $176.0fi .. $.1311,508.06 ' $138,59'9.25 Fiscal Y'rD _Ending 12/51/0: $99,413,22 $3g,000.00 $0.00 $1,180.03 $133,438.93 $13.8,5_93.25 Account Number: MN-01-0258-2002 Account Name: MOUND HIJD Begim~iat~ Contributions Withdrawals Inmm¢ Average Daily Mon~ End Barco F~m~d B~l~ce Bal~ ~i~ Moa.~ $1I,~6.03 " $0.~ $0.00 $14.26i $11,263.39 $11,270.29 F~ ~ TD ' '"' .E~$12/31/0~ $1L~70,~ ,.. $0.00 $0,9~' $9~.47 ~11,~1.20 $11,270,2~ Total of al! accounts Beginning Contriburiom Withdrawals' Income Average Daily Moath End Balanc~ ~med B~_l~ce B~.)~.ce This Month $149,673.23 $0.00 $0.00 $190.31 $149,771,45 $i49,8~3.54 Fiscal YTD '" " - ' Ending 12/51/0,' $110,584.04 __$38,000.00 $0.00 $1.279,Ii0 $144,660.13 ,$_149,863.54 July 2002 5 Page: 1 Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Mound Mound, Minnesota FINANCIAL STATEMENTs AND SUPPLEMENTAL DATA YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 See Notes to Financial Statements 6 AUG.22.2002 VIP PROPERTIES Housing and RedevetopmentAuthodtyofMound Mound, Minnesota FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DATA YFJ~R ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 20131 TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAl.. PUF~QSE FJ NA_NC_IAL_ST _AT_E ~E NTR. Independent Auditor's Report COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS COMBINED BALANCE SHEET COMBINED STATEMENT OF INCOME, EXPENSES AND EQUITY COMBINED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOW Notes to the Financial Statements COMBINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS COMBINING BALANCE SHEET COMBINING STATEMENT OF INCOME, EXPENSES AND EQUITY COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOW SUPPLEMENTARY DATA Schedule of Modernization Costs Report oll Compliance and on Internal Control over ~nallcial Reporting Based or~ an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance wfth Government Auditing Standards SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS Federal Data Schedule H0.068 Page 2 3 4 5 10 13 14 15 P.5745 j~xhibi_t A B C D See Notes to Financial Statements 7 AUG.~.2002 12:I?PM Hou=ing and Redevetapment Auther~7 of Mound Mound, Mlrlne~ota VIP PROPERTIES ~alacocl(. Langbein and Company 2a~ c,~M~'Ra,~d EWe~. ~-~1 ,~1.slrd- NO.OG8 P.G/45 ]~]:];~;~t's ReDort We have audited the nc'eornpan~irlg gell~ral p~ ~lnol~l ~men~ ~ Ho~ing A~=~ Thee ~emt p~ fln~nci. I ~M~n~ ~rn ~e ~p~ll~ ~e H~I~ ~M Retirement ~n~ b~ o~ o~ eud~ We ~ndu~ o~r aud~ jq ,~an~ with ~d~ng ~Mndlrd~eml~ ~ ~fl ~ Ufli~ ~ ~rds app[i~ble ~ ~(a~ ~d~ ~ In ~RHME~ AUDmNG ~ANDARDS, i~u~ ~ the C~I~ ~neml ~ Hq~ ~. ~ a~n~ ~lm ~ ~ p[~ and ~ t~ ~u~t to o~l~ f~So~b~ ~n~ a~ ~er ~e flnan~l ~teme~ ~m ~ae ~ ~flal mt~l. An aud~ ~d~ ~ing, on a ~ ~nag~e~ as ~ff ~ ~lu~ing the ~11 g~em] ~ ~n~l ~.me~ ~n, We bel~ that our au~ P~S a ~aMe ~s for our opinion. In our e~nion, the flnapcial ~e~ ~ffed ~ a~ pras~ ~irly, In all material re~ the financial posl~o~ ~ ~a Hous~ a~d R~el~m~ ~o~ ~ Mo~ as ~ 8ep~r ~, ~0t ~ an~ the ~ ~ ~ a~s a~d ~nges in r~lned ~n~ aM ~sh ~ ~ ~ t~n a~ in mn~ In ac~rdan~ ~h ~RNMENT AUDI~NG STANDARd, ~ ~ve also i~u~ our r~ d~ d~ne ~, ~ an our ~al~ ~ H~ng ane R~elo~nt ~ ~ M~ '~ i~al ~n~l ~r ~aneial m~pg a~ our ~ of ~ ~pl~n~ ~ ~ln p~o~ ~ ~, ~1~o~, ~ and am~. ~t mp~ ~ ~ m~ p~ ~ an ~d~ ~ ~h GO~RNME~ AUDI~NG STAN~RDS and should be mad In ~lon ~h fhb mpag in c~side~ ' msu~ ~ o~ audit. We h~a al~ ~d ~ f~eml d~ ~edUle su~l~ to the R~I B~ C~t~ REAC), o~ aud~ ~s ~ndu~ ~ the pu~e ~ fe~i~ an epln~n ~ ~ ~nemt p~e flna~l am p~ ~r p~ ~ ad~ e~ a~ ~lad ~ ~e U,S, ~ d Man~ni and Circler A-1~, Au~s ~, ~I ~.m~n~, end N~ O~g]~, ~ is n~ a m~md the genii pu~ E~nclal ~te~s ~ a June 25, 2~2 See Note; to Fhl~nc~l ~atament~ 8 Page I A~SETS oU RRE~,IT A~SET~ Cash A¢¢oqnts Receivable/~rttere~ Rece~ble Invastment~ Prepaid F. xpen~ea Inve/ltolies Intnl'program Due Frartl Total Currerlt Assets FIXED ASSET~ Land. structure and equipment Other A~' To~l A~r. eta $ ~,430 100,980 2,~-7 0 tO,OOO 222,710 52g,lt~7 gO,O00 842,385 EXHIBIT A Se~tamber. S0.2013n 72,856 114,S2e 222,324 938 0 0 HO.O68 P.7×45 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY CURRENT LIABILITIES Accoul~m Payabte <= gO Days A~m~ Wage / ~ Tax Pebble A~ou~ ~ble - HUD PHA P~ A~un~ Pebble - PHA A~ou~ Pebble Tenant 8~ Cu~a~ P~on ~ Lonoea~ ~her Current Acc~ed Uablil~e~ - I~erpr~mm Due To To~I Cu~ Lord-term Debt Total kiabflitl~ Fund E~uJ~J TOTAL LIABILITIE~ AND EQUITY $ 0 18,062 2,06~ 0 0 11,341 6,10~ 10,0~0 0 0 0 90,000 703,574 $ 0 10,835 0 2,522 0 11,197 17,738 0 5'7,05'7 O 0 104.9e0 0 104,900 ~,070,370 Pago 2 9 AUG.~.~00~ 12:18PM VIP PROPERTIES Ho~Clg mhd R~lopme~ A~a~ ~ Mound COMB~ED ~A~ ~ INCOME, ~S A~ Akg PRO~Y FU~ Y~R ENDED SE~EMBER 30. 2~1 H0.068 P.8/45 Oper~l;ing Inoel~lo Net Tane~ Rellt~t Revenue Tenant Ravenna - Other Total Ter~nt R~anue HUD PHA Opemfi~ ~r Ga~mme~ F~u~ Rec~e~ O~her R~e~ue Total R~Us 1,24S 77,821 0 4e,Ooo 8,8~7 3~9~9 (173) 0 263,076 0 ~t ,013 7,793 Tel:al Operating Expenaea 243,127 Exce~s Operating R~werme aver Operating c~har Ir, come (F-xparme) F..xtraordina~y Mainteranca C:sualty Losae~. Nerl-Capltal~ad Howsirlg Assis~lq~e PaYrrtente Depreciation F-~3allSe Fraud b~ms Total other Income (E,xr,enr, e) Other Flnandng Sovrces (Uses) operating Tmnsfem In Operat[Iqg Transfers Ou~ Total Other Finandng $oun:es (Ut, es) Excess (Deliclan~) of Operating Revenue Over (UndeT) Expertses Beginn}ng Equity Prior P-,rl~l Adj~'1:man~, F-qulty Transfam and Correction ef Err~ra Ending Equity (2s,289) o o 0 0 $ 110.852 11%711 24,500 12,~0 0 1,158 0 o 217.151 30,13~ 0 64, t84 21.402 81.589 0 0 0 0 17,2a2 7,sss) See Notes to Flrmn~al Statements Page 3 10 P m p r;e,ta.r&r, Funds Cash Fl=w From OPt~atiDrl~ Cash Racefvad ~'mr~ Federal F~ ~e~ ~sh R~v~ Cash ~ld to Cash paid ~ To~i C~h Cash FI~ From In.sting T~I C~sh ~ from ~nv~ng Acflv~e~ ~sh Pl~ ~ Fin~ng A~ivffl~ Tm~m ~om ~) other F~ds T~I Cash fl~ from T~I Incr~se ~ree=e) i~ Cash Cash ~lanee~ E~d of the Year ~onciliatl~n of Net In~e ~oss) ~ ~h~9e I~ G~sh Se.oteml~c~. 2oo,~ 237,99s 77,S21 67,801 918 0 0 0 o ., 2a5,18o E.x~sr~ c 2000 110,~52 ~7,702 25.658 (34,09C)} .... 12,080 3,025 O O 0 O Page 4 11 AUG,~,~00~ 12: 18PM VIP PROPERTIES Ho~ing al~d Rede~el~:~'nent A~horrw ~ M~nd 8o~m~r ~0, ~e fin~n~l s~mmn~ ~ H~sl~ find R~eI~ A~f ~e Hoqsi~ and R~opme~ ~h~ ~ M~d ~ ~ a I~l m ~ ~1 area. The go~mf~ ~ ~ ofa ~e mimer ~rd com~ ep~j~ by the ~yar ~ ~e fl~ y~r ao~m~m and ~nem un~ ~r ~ ~ ~ g~nt b ~e~ ~e; U~ m~n~ In ~ a~u~ and apo~ in ~e flq~ial ~e~. Bas~ ac~u~ng ml~es to ~e~i~ ~e ~remo~ ~de, raoa~ m~=u~a~ ~ ~11~. 8a~ ~ ~u~ng ~a~ln~ when a Mea~umm~ ~ d~in~ whit ~ ~d m~umL F~d~ ~ ~e H~ me~m ~d~ am ~ded ~ ~ I~ i~, Revenu~ are r~ A~ runda a~ enm~ f~qd~ ~[~ ra~ on the ~1 ~sl; ~ng. e~un~ng. Un~r~ a~l basW ~ing, ~nq~ Im mcooni~ when they am ~m~, ~~ mm re~ed ~en I~l~ am in~. ~.n~eme ~ tn~. ~ A~ a[~o ~ an a~l epPm~ ~ HUD, T~ Aut~ ~o~ an ~ r~e ~d e~lm~ ~u~ far ~ ~, ~eme~. Amendme~ b the odg~"l ~dg~ ~ b~ appro~L ~p~i~ la~ ~ ~ end. ~e Au~fl~ ~ not q~ ~mbm~ e~ting. N0.068 P.10/45 · ee Nora~ to F'n~no~l b~tateqlent~ 12 Page 5 AUGo22.2002 N0.068 P.11/45 A~nd ~p~/atlonl~g~ll~ m~Me~ ~ng ~a ~ight ~ne m~d ~ the var~us liv~ d ~a a~ Whbh tonga ~m thr~ to ~ All (~bil~ am re~ed ~ In~d I~ ~e ap~pSa~ e~e ~d, Re~d ~nd ~n=e ind~ ~ ~ ef~d ~q~ ~lch aa ~ lagaffy s~fl~ pqr~ea ~ Is not ap~able f~ s~n~, a~d, d~ig~a:~ a~u~t In~tos ~ po~b~ ~ fund equ~y ~M the ~t asld. ~r p~nn~ ~m bnra~, und~ig~t~ accou~ ~ the ~ion ~ ~nd ~lan=~ ~l~ Is a~abte ~r b~g~ and s~n~i~ in ~re ~n~b~d ~p~[ rep~ ought a~ pMor ~ib~o~ ~m HUD ~ primaria~ to pu~ase ~ ~ss~. ~ amoun~ ha~ b~n r~ by depraci~ion on ~d Under the A~hoH~s pe~nel polioi~r emp~ am ginned ~fion and s[~ I~ve ~Lg~.~n ~ombl~al~e S~ The tn~l column on ~o c~bjn~ ~tement ~ ~;nn~ "me~d~ on[~ ~ jn~ that ta It ~nted only ~ ~fl~ ff~l m~ ~ In ~ ~lu~n d~a n~ P~eM/ msu~ ~ o~eqs IR ~lW w~h gepeml~ a~pted Pdn~[~es. · ,~e Noteu to FIl~a~cial 13 AUG.22.200~ 12: ~,8.P.,~.g er~ ,VIP PROPERTIES Mo~d, ~"tate ~tue~ and HUD reg~l~on~ req~re UI~ all Au~Jl~ty del:~[t8 be covered by ir~umnca, ~rety bend, or ca3flalsral. Following f~ a summaw ortho depae~ c~'ered by ~nsta~l~ or e-.of~atetal at Year End: Covered Auther~y or ~ ~gent In the A'.~or/t~e Coll~aF~ ~ ~cu~l~ he~d ~ ~e Pl~ging .. T~ C~re~ only ~ve~e~ am ~ ~ f~~ ~e~, r~a repq~ ~men~, end ~m~l I~ank ,~100,0oo .$_l.0g:41__~.g otl~ HO.OG8 P.12/4S Gan Not~ ta Financial Page 7 14 RUG. 22. 2002 12: 18PM VIP PROPERTIES HoUemng and RedeveloPment Authorf~ of ~u~ No~ ~ ~e Fin~l ~t~ Ho~l~g ~nd Rede~la~ A~ ~ ~ound Mound~ ~e~m~ ~, ~Ol IlL ~~en~T ~d ~ MO. 068 P.1B×45 Liabllltle~ mit Y~qr end ~onsl~tad of the following: CURRENT LIABILITIES Bank Ovm'draff A~med C~pe~d Absen~. ~.n[ A~un~ Pe~e. HUD PHA ~mm~ Ac~un~ P~b~e - PHA AcaoU~ P~able - ~her Government Tenant Secur~ De~it~ ~hsr Cu~ Li~ir~ies A~ed LiabTllfl~ - ~her In~mg~ Due To To~l Cu~nt Liab~es Long-term Debt TOt~ll Liabilities lnterprc~;3ram Due To Interpraamm Oua From O~aretln@ T_r-~l ~fa rs operatlqg Tmrra-fem In DMmting Transfers $ 0 ~ O 18.062 10,835 4O0 0 2.0BB 2,522 {3 0 0 0 11,341 11,1a7 6.103 S,~41 8:3g 17,738 0 57.057 0 0 0 0 '~.~,,. ~0.ooo o $ ~.._.lj.~.3q,.~j_ $ i" S100,OOD G~eml This will be r~paid aver ,~IO0,0G0 Publb Ho~Ing yaam at $10,000 per in 2002, $¢J ,84.2 Pubtlc Housirig ($b'3.842) Capital Funding Fund affuity balances are classified as ~oll~,~ to rar~ec~ the IIm~flons arid restrictions of the respective fur~d~: $ 75S~0oo $ ,. ?o.~.s,7_.4~ Unreserved Retained Earnings Se~ Nol~s to RnaqOl~ll statements 15 AUG.~.~002 18PM VIP PROPERTIES and R~levaiapment ~utb~r~ o~ ~ No~ ~ the Hna~l ~;e~ Charlgms in Co~pen~tmd ,Rbmerl;es ~r ~he period encted SmpbembeT 30, 2001: ISalan~-,e ~mpfamber ~0, 21:100 Net ¢harlges in oompellsated absenees Balance september 30, 2001 vi. Jgisg. Milll~_erne~ $ 2,522 ~2,086 ~e d~u~ble pe~o~ ~e ~m, ~ a~u~ ~ ~ d~u~l~ are lmm~e~l ~ the gene~ ~se ~;1 VII. Ua;e of Estimates The pr~par~n ~ financial statements In ¢o~orrnity with genarally accepted acco~nthqg prlr/ciples reqqirea mal~algelTterlt to make estJmate~ ami amml.~pflolts that affmc~ and llahilifl~ and disclosUre ~ o~tfl~gmltt e~se~ ~ flab~l~ ~ ~ose ~11. ~mme~ Plen ~e HRA has ~o c~t a~e reflre~e~ pl~. P~or adjuncts / Equ~ ~em teton e~ and a~o~ to ~O,OOO to ~a c~ ~ Mound fro~ ~ ~n~l H0.068 P.14/45 16 A~£T$ Cash Inve~men~ Pm~ld I~vanto~es l~a~mm D~a From La~d. ~tructure and eqUfpment Other Asset~ LIABILTTrF~ AND EQUITY CURRENT LIABILITIES Bank Overdraft Ao¢ourr~ Payable A~med Wage I P~II T~ A~c~ad Compen~d A¢~U~ Payable - HUD PHA A~ou~ P~ble- PHA CuFe~ P~o~ of Lo~g-~r~ Debt ~r Cu~ I~mm Due To Long-term Debt Total LlabJrflias Fund Equity TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY PROPERTIES Comprehensk, Public a Hm~ing Low Rent Imprevamant Cap~l I~Jblic {3ertera! A~.si~anee Fund Heuslng Fu~ Pmg~m P~gmm H0.068 P.15/45 Saf~am~r 30, ~ 09,439 0 0 0 ~)%439 342 0 0 0 342 114,S2S 11,111 gO,aB9 O 0 1 [~,~)0 222,324 2,g57 0 0 0 2~b'? 938 0 0 0 0 0 o 1 o,~o 0 o ~ o.op.p_ o _,j.~3--~- ~os.s~- --o- -'.~ :.-~z~,T.7~.e. 4~o,e4~ 357,t7{~ 0 182,4~; 0 ~:~9,6S'/' 773,723 0 90,000 0 9O,00O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 18,0b"2 0 0 0 18,062 10,835 ~0 0 0 0 400 0 2,06e 0 0 0 2,0~i~ 2,522 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o 11,:341 0 0 0 11~341 11,1~7 6,103 0 0 0 0,103 5,641 839 0 0 o 83tt O, 000 17, 738 I0,000 0 o 0 0 0 0 57',067 0 0 o o o o ~0 0 o o 0 0 ftO,O00 0 O 0 go,ooo a "-~ o o o ..... ~.~ ~ 342~14 II)8,SSa ~ ~;~,4~1 O 703,574 1,079,379 Sea Notes t~ R~lanci~l' $(~tements Page 10 17 RUG.~2.200~ 12:19PM VIP PROPERTIES HouN~g and ReclevaloPment ALL PROPRIETARY' FUNDS YEAR ENDED SEI='I'EMI~ER ;30, 2001 Public Oompreflem~ive Houain Low Rent Improveme~ {3aFital ~fc ~n~ ~ Fund ~ng F~d Pr~ram ~ H0.068 OpQi"~ing Ne~ Tenaltt ~ental Revenue Tahara R~e- ~her 1.24e 0 T~I Tepa.[ Rev~ 1~ .... 0 HUD PHA ~g Gm~ 13R'~' -~' ~PI~I Gm~ O 0 lnv~ment I~¢~e - U~d ~r R~ue 3,g~ 0 In~ ~ - ~ o o O~in~ ~ml~i~tjon 3~,~ 0 Tenant ~ 0 U~I~ 51,013 0 Ordl~ ma~n~ and opemtlefl 1 ~ 0 General ~ 7.~ 0 ~ O~in9 R~ ~r Operating ~e~ ~T~ 56,~0 ~her In--me C~ual~ L~ - No~p~fi~ 0 0 0 Housing A~f~ca Pa~a~ O 0 0 Fm~d ~ o o 0 Ops~ing Tm~ ~ 0 O 0 Tom) ~er ~manc~g S~ (U~) ~,842' 0' 0 R~nue ~ (Unde0 ~ns~ (a2,81~ ~,~ ~7,~5~ Pdor p~ ~u~anm, Equ~ Tm~a~m and Carm~ Ending Equity ~2.~,4 ~~a 1~gl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6'3,1s42 o t7,1.~87) 0 1,07g~37g .... o. o _ 7o~s7_4 17,2~2 1,35g~64~ P.16/4S Pai~e 11 18 1~:19PM VIPPROPERTIES Comprehensiv Public Rent Improvement Capital PUblic Genera! Asslst'411ee FuNd Housin0 Fund Pre,ram Pro~Jram M0.068 P.17/45 oF,Y) Total Cash Flow From Operafior/s Cash Received from Tenan~ Federal Fu~s Ca,~h paid to Employ,es Cash pard to Suppliers Total Cash flow from operations Cash Flow From Inve~ting A~tlvi6e~ c~pi~l Expendl)ur~ Total Cash flow from 10vesfirlg Ac~ivfties Cash Flow from Financing Activities Proc,eels fFom Io~Jlls, IlOta~ ,l~d bond~ Transfers f~om (t~) other Furlds Principal paid ~ Lone-term Deb~ Total Cash fl~w from Ffrta~clng Acflv~tle~ Tatal Increase Ca[h Balance, Beglrt.'!.lpg of the year 13~979 0 0 237,~es 1 t 0,S52 77.821 67,702 6"7,801 0 0 (~,2~) (8O4 .~) (55 I 14.328 1.317 7,3~0 0 2~,B16 0 226,133 --, 7,340 ..(2_32,5b--5) 0 0 0 0 n 0 $n,842 0 0 0 (S3,842) 0 __0 918 24~,4 I~..~ 12,000 0 0 0 0 117,348 Page 12 19 RUG.~.~00~ 12: 19PM VIP PROPERTIES H'~-~lng ~r~ Rec[evnlop~en~,e,~lorl~ of Schemer ~, ~01 NO. 068 "P. 18/45 To~al Funds R,~ebed Total Funds Expended Funde. on Han~ Received d~li~ng Ct~rter~ Year 2000 Oap~tl To{al FUnding $~3,~42 e3,842 ~,~2 20 AUG.22.2002 12: 19PM VIP PROPERTIES Hm~ln~ and Radevebpql.l~t Aut~rity e~ Mound Moun~f, ~nne~ ~ =~d ~rthe ~=r end~ ~e~b~ ~, 2001, and ~e ~ed our m~¢ th~on d=ed ~u~e 2~, 2~2 Wa conduced our aud~ ip a~lnce wi~ gene~l~ a~pt~ au~ng ~nda~s and STANDAR D~, Issu~ ~ the con,roller Gane~l ~ the Unlt~ complian~ ~omplia~e ~th ~in pmvilion~ ~ I~, regul~ona, c~ and g~s, non~lianpe which could h~ a dir~ a~d ~a~rlal ~e~ o~ the dati~J~oq ~cJal s~emem obj~jve o[ o~r eqd{t and, a~i~gly~ ~ do ~ e~m~ ~ch a~ opini~, The msu/~ te~m discl~ed no I~ ~ no~p~ance th~ am r~ulr~ to ~ mpo~ under G~emment Aud~g S~ndards, Ipterrml Conh'o! over ~rrand~ Reparfing In piannirlg and poi'terming our al~dit, we cpnsfderafl the inter, al control over fl/larlolal rapor~ltlg It~ order to determine our audlthlg procedures for the pq~po~t of expressing our opirfion an the financial ~atem~mt~ arid flat to provide an the internal control ovsr flr~ancial reporting, Om-con61dera[Ion of the internal con~ro! war financial reporting wol,lld no: necl:~',~.arl¥ ~=lo~e all matt~m in the internal u-~ni'ml over reporting that might be tllatar~al Weakn~, A material weakness is a cond~en Ir~ v/hiGh the desig~ or operafloq o[ aria or nlore o~the irltam~l c~ntrol components does not: i'educe to a relatively ~ow ~ewl the risk the{ m~1.'aterrmnts In artlourrts that wor41d be material in relation to the financial ~tatemerlb being audited may oc¢;~ end not be detected Wf[hir) a t~rne[y period lay empbyeas iq the normal course qf perforrlqlng Their a~[grlad fuflct~rts. Wa noted I~O rlllttar~ involving the intam~ll corttml over finandal reporthg and its operation that we oonsider to be mat~.ri~l weekT~er~,~e~. a~rarding agencies and pasa-thr~ugh antitie~. However, this report is a matter of publio ra~ord an~f ~ts di~b~on i~ llot limited, H0.068 P.1~×45 Babcock, Larlgbeiq arid Corrlpon¥ Ju~e 25, 2002 Sea Notes [o F'mancfal ,.~latemen~ 21 ~UG.~.200~ 12:19PM VIP PROPERTIES Pregra~ FmUeml Anqual Contribution Non,Major 14.~5D OPerimfirlg Subs[dy Non-M~jer 14.850a Capital Funding NomMaj~r 14.872 Total Federal EXHIBIT H0.068 22 AUG.22.2002 1~:19PM VIP PROPERTIES O. Naber + Associates -M0.868 .... P.21745 -- Ju],~ 31, 2002 Eandis Hanson Execukive Director Mound HRA 2020 Co~m%erce Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 Dear Kandis: Public Housing Enclosed please find your cody of the computer printou~ and bank reco~ciliatlon for the period ended J~ne 30, 2002. There are no financial sta=ements ko be submitted to the ~ Office at th~s time for your HRA. If you have any questions on the enclosed items please feel free to contact this office. ' Sincerely, c. NABER + ASSOCIATES Dolores Burk Enclosure 23 AUG.22.2002 12:lgPM VIP PROPERTIES M0.068 P,22745 Mound, MN Public Housing 2020 Commer=e Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 As Of 6/313102 BALANCE SHEET ASSETS 1111.01 Cash General Fund 1117.00 Petty Cash 1122.00 AiR Tenants 1 t62.00 Gen Fund Investments 1211.00 Prepaid Irlsurance 1400,02 Development Cost 1400.03 Dev Cost Contra t400.05 Accum Depreoiation 14o0.07 Buildings 1400.08 Furn,Equip,Mach. Dwell 4400.0.9 Furn,Equip,Mach-Admin 1400,16 Land improvements 1400.17 Building Improvements 1400.55 Mod Cost Complete 1400,96 Mod Cost Uncomplete TOTAL ASSETS SURPLUS AND LIABILITIES 2114.00 Tenants Sec Deposits 2114.@9 Seo Dep Interes~ 2117.01 P/R Deduct Federal 2117.02 P/R Deduct FICA 2117.03 P/R Deduct State 2129.00 Notes Pay Levy Furld 2137.00 Payment in Lieu of Tax 2137,01 PILOT Current Year 2802.00 HUD PHA Contribution 2806,.~,0 Retained Earnings Current Year Net Activity TOTAL SURPLUS AND LIABILITIES I01,694.~4 50.00 1,686.55 11,241,76 1 ~99.84 1,50§,904.64 (2,042,76g.55) (1,539,620,10) 1,642,970.§3 29,663.24 16,477.02 8,680.00 373,679,86 536,85~,91 ~900.00 (8,818.oo) 893,46 (661.51) (746.20) (626.oo) (9o,o0o,0o) (7,638.37) (3,578.12) (529,657.31) 24,962, t4 24 AUG.22~2002 12:20~M PROPERTIES MO.OG8 P.23/45 Mound, MN Public Housing 2020 Commerce Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 For The Period Ended 6/30/02 STATgMENT OF OPERATIN(i RECEIPTS & EXPENDITURES REVENUES 3110.n0 Dwell, Rental 3120,00 Exoess Utilities 319o.oo Nol~dwall Rental Total Rental Inoome 3610,00 Invest. Interest 3690.00 Other Inoorne 8020.00 Operating Subsidy Other Operating Receipts TOTAL RECEIPTS EXPENSES 4110.00 Admin, Salary 4130,00 Legal Fees 4150.00 Travel 70.00 Accour~ting Fees 71.00 Auditing Fees 4190.00 Sundry-Admin. 4195.d0 Outside Management Total A. dmlnletrative Exp. YTD Over Current YTD Prorated (Under) ~ p~lance BudRet ~ (11,125,00) (100,061.14) (95,347.50) 4,713.64 0,00 0.00 (562.50) (562,50) O.oo_ (~OO.O0) (900.00) ($00.00) (14,125.00) (100,161,14) (96,810,00) 3,351.14 (8.3t) (398.29) (1,192,50) (794.21) (I 17,00) (1,035,60) (75.00) 960.60 (.~ (48,411.00) (48.413.25) ~ (5,505.3~) (49,844,89) (49,680.75) 164.t4 (I 6,630.31_ ) ~ (146~490.75) 3,515.28 0.00 15,394.77 t7,18%00 (1,792.23) 0.00 1,421.10 0.00 1,421,10 0.00 369,14 600.00 (230.86) 95,00 1,153.20 1,125,00 28.20 0.00 0,00 375.00 (375.00) 318.69 6,55t.81 3,262,50 3,289,31 1~50.oo 2,soo.o0 O~.OO ~ 1,663.69 27,390.02 22,549.50 4,840.52 4310.00 Water 4320.00 Electricity 4330.00 Gas 4390.00 Other Utility Exp. 4391.00 Garbage Disposal Total Utilities Exp. 4410.00 Maint. Labor 4420.00 Materials 4430.00 Contract Costs Ordinary Maint~ & Oper. Expense 2t0.80 2,033.99 1,875.00 158.99 868,07 8,427.8t 9,450.00 (1,022.19) 297.00 9,156,98 12,000.00 (2,843,02) 736.97 6,379.19 8,817.50 (2,23~.31) 331.02 2,640,83 2,02,5.00 6 2,443.86 28,638.80 33,967.$0 (5,328,70) 880,00 28,862.45 21,840.00 5,022.45 377.27 22,796.84 3,427.50 19,369.34 ,269.74 24,498.72 5,722.50 ~ 2,527.01 74,158.01 30,990.00 43,168.01 25 M0.068 P,Z4745 Mound, MN Public Housing STATEMENT OF OPERATING RECEIPTS & EXPENDITURES CONTINUED 4510.00 Insurance 4520.00 Pints In Lieu Of Tax 4540,00 Emp, Benef'r~ Contr Total General Exp. Total Routine Exp. 4610.03 Extra Maint Cont. 4620,03 Cas. Loss Contract 4620.04 Cas. Loss Pr'o~eeds Total Nonrout|l~e Exp. YTD Over Current YTD Prorated (Under) Activity Balance ~ ~ 585.00 $,388.33 3,352,50 2,035.83 434,06 3,575.12 3,142.50 433,62 0.0.~0 ~ 2~992.50 138.52 ,019.06 .12,095,47 ~ 2,607.97 142,282.30 ~6~994,50 0.00 668,00 0.00 0.00 127,548,99 o.oo (l_4o 64e.s a) ; 0.00 ('12.43t.601 0.00 TOTAL EXPENSES 668.00 sss.o _o, 7,653.62 129,l;150.70 969~ 45,955.80 26 AU~.22.2002 12:20~M VIP PROPERTIES M0.068'-- P,~5×45 REVENuEs 3110,00 Dwell. Rer~tal 3120.00 Excess Utilities 3190.00 Nondwell Rental Total Rental Incmme 3610,00 Invest, Ir~terest 3690.00 Other Income 8020.00 Operating Subsidy Other Operating Receipts TOTAL RECEIPTS EXPENSES 41 t0.00 Admin, Salary 4130.00 Legal Fees 4150.00 Travel 4170.00 Accounting Fees 4171.00 Auditing Fees 190.C0 Sundry-Admin. 95,00 Outside Management Administrative Exp, 4310.00 Water 4320.00 Electricity 4330.00 Gas 4390,00 Other Utility Exp, 4391.00 Garbage Removal Total Utilities Exp, 4410.00 Maint. Labor 4420.00 Matedals 4430.00 Contract Costs Tote! Maintenance Expense Mound, MN Public Housing 2020 Commerce Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 For The Period Ended 6/30102 BUDGET PROGRESS REPORT Y'rD (100,061.14) 0.00 (10o.o0) (lOO,161,1~,) (398;29) (1,035.60) (40,844.89) ~0,006.03) 15,394,77 1,421,10 369.14 1,153.20 0.00 6,651.81 2,500.00 27,390.02 2,033.99 8,427.81 9,156.@8 6,379.19 2,64o.83 28,638,80 26,862,45 22,7'96.84 74,158.0'I _Bud..e~ (127,130,O0) (750,00) (~,~oo.oo) (129,080.00) (1,590,00) (1oo,oo) (.s4,s l .o0) (86,241,00) (195,321.00) 22,916.00 O.OO 800.00 1 ,G00.00 500.00 4,350,00 0.00 30,066.00 2,500,00 12,600.00 16,000,00 11,490,00 2,700.00 45,290.00 29,120,00 4,570.00 7,630.00 41~20.00 per=ent of 79.o0 0.oo 8.00 78,00 25,00 1,o36.oo 75.00 75.00 77.00 67.00 0,00 46.00 7%00 0.0o 151,00 0.00 91.00 81,00 67.00 57.00 56.00 98,00 63.00 92.00 499.00 179.00 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 27 AUG.2~.2002 12:20PM VIP PROPERTIES M0.068 P.E6/45 4510.00 Insurance 4520.00 Pmts In Lieu Of Tax 4540.00 Emp. Benefit Contr Total General F. xp. Total Routine Exp. 4610.03 Extra Maint Cont. 46'20.03 Casualty Loss Contract 4620.04 Casualty Loss Proceeds Total Nonroutine Exp, TOTAL EXPENSES Mound, MN Public Housing BUDGET PROGRESS REPORT CONTINUED YI'D ~388.33 3,576,12 3,13~.02 668.00 127,548.99 (140.648.59) U~,431.SO) 129,850.70 Budaet 4,470.00 4,190.00 3,990.00 .1~,e5o.oo .1~9,326.00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 129,326.00 Percent Of 121.00 85,00 78,00 96,00 110.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 100,00 % % % % 28 AUG.22.2002 12:20PM VIP PROPERTIES M0.068 'P.27745 Mound, MN Public Housing 2020 Commerce Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 6131)11)2 COST STATEMENT FOR CAP FUND 20D1 01-~406.00 Operation 01-1460.00 Dwelling Structure TOTAL Advances Te Date Excess or (Deficiency) of Advances Cumulative Costs/ Advances 12,000.00 12,000.00 ~2,878.0q (Under) BudRe~ 0.00 (43,978.00) 29 AUG~.2002 VIP PROPERTIES M0.068 P.28/45 3110.00 Dwelling Rental 3190.00 Not, dwell Rental Total Rental Income Mound, MN Public Housing 2020 Commerce Boulevard Mound, MN ~364 6130102 Pilot Cal~,ulatlon (11,125.00) ~.0 (11,12~.oo) (100,061.14) (1oo.0o) (100,161,14) 4310.00 Water 4320,00 Electricity 4330.00 Gas 4390.00 Other Uffiity Expenses 4591.00 Garbage Disposal Total Utilities Total Pilot 210.80 868.07 297.00 736.97 2,44~8 (8,681.14) [434.o6) 2,033.99 8,427.8J g.156.98 8,379.19 2,640.63 28~638gq (71,$22.34) 3O AUG.2~.2002 12:20~M ¥I~ ~OPE~TIES M0.068 1111.01 Cash General Furld 1117.00 Petty Cash 1122.00 Tenants NR 1162,00 Gen Fund Investments 1211.00 Prepaid Insurance 1400.02 Development Cost 1400.03 Der Cost Contra 1400.05 Accurn Depreciation 1400.07 Buildings 1400.08 Furn,Equip,Mach-Dwell 1400.09 Fum,Equip,Mach-Admin 1400.16 Land Improvements 1400.17 Building Irnprovernertts 1400.'55 Mod Cost Complete 2114,00 Tenants Sec Deposits 2114.99 Sec Dep Interest 2117.01 P/R Deduct Federal 2117.02 P/R Deduct FICA 2117.03 P/R Deduct State H29,00 Notes Pay Levy Fund ~137.00 Payment in Lieu of Tax 7.01 PILOT Current Year 2802.00 HUD PHA Contribution 2806.00 Retained Earnings 3110.00 Dwelling Rental 3190,00 Nondwell Rental 3610.00 Invest, Interest 3690.00 Other Income 4110,00 Administrative Sala~ 4~30.00 Legal Expense 4150.00 Travel 4t70.0.0 Accounting Fees 4190.00 Sundry-Adrnlnlstrative 4195,00 Outside Management 4310,00 Water 4320.00 Electricity 4330,00 Gas 4390.00 Other Utility Expenses 4391.00 Garbage Removal 4410.00 Maintenance Labor 4420,00 Materials 4430.00 Contract Costs Mound, MN Public Housing 2020 Commerce Boulevard Mound, MN 55384 As Of 6/30/02 TRIAL BALANCE 101~694.54 50.00 1,686.55 11,241.76 1~499.84 1,5O5,9O4,64 (2,042,760.55) (1,539,620,10) 1,642,970.53 29,663.24 16,477.02 8,680.00 373,679.86 536,855,91 (8,818,oo) 893.46 (746,20) (526,00) (90,000.oo) (7,638.37) (3,576712) (529,667.31) 24~962. t4 (lOO,O61,14) (loo.oo) (398.29) (I ,o38.6o) 15,394.77 1,42~.10 369.14 1,153.20 6,551,8~ 2,500.00 2,033,99 8,427.81 9,156,g8 $.379.19 2,640.8;3 2G,862,4~ 22,796.84 24~498.72 Page 1 of 2 31 AUG.22.2002 12: EOPM VIP PROPERTIES 068 ..... P.BO×4$ Mound, MN Publi[c Houslrtg Page 2 of 2 45t0.00 Insumnce 4520.00 Pets In Lieu Of Taxes 4540.00 Employee Benefit Contr 4610.03 Extra Maint Contracts 4620.03 Casualty Loss Contract 4620.04 Casualty Loss Proceeds 8020.00 Operating Subsidy 8029.01 Cap Fund Advances 01-15q6.00 Operations Contra 01-1406.00 Operations 01-I 460.00 Dwelling Struo'ture TOTAL TRIAL BALANCE CONTINUED 5,388.33 3,57§.12 3,131.02 668.00 127,548,99 (140,648,59) (48,411,00) (21,000.00) (~2,ooo,oo) 12,ooo,oo 32 AUG,22.2002 1~:20P~ 3z, 2oo VIP PROPERTIES "n0. 068"' Bank Reconciliation Report Mound, M~ ?/H 9/30 (0273) Account - 111101 1111.01 Cash General Reconciliation Summary As of 6/30/02 Bank Statement--~-~o~mation: P. S1/45 Previous ~ank Statement Balance: Cleared Deposits and Credits Cleared Checks and Payments Bank Adjustments: Cleared Bank Statement Balance: Outstanding Deposits and Credits Outstanding Checks and Payments Bank Statement Reconciled Balance: 3 Items 20 Items 0 Items I Items 92,481.97 !5,931.31 -6,567.24 0.00 101,846.04 0,00 -151.50 10!,694.~4 Ledger Information: Balance Porward Prom Ledger: Total Receipbs From Ledger Other Receipts Total Disbursements F~om Ledger Other Disbursements Reconciled Balance For Ledge~: 3 Items 0 Items 21 Items 0 Items 92~330.47 15,931.31 0.00 -6,567.24 0.00 101,694.54 33 RUG,22.2002 12:21PM Jul 31, 2002 Date Chk $ VIP PROPERTIES N0.068-- Bank Reconciliation Report Mound, MN P/H 9/@0 (0273) Account - 111101 1111.01 Cash General Fund Uncleared Transaction Detail As of 6/30/02 Description Uncleared Checks and Payments: P. 32/45 Amount 10/08 4604 LEO UTEOJt"2 Total Uncleared Checks and Payments: 1 Ite~ls Total Uncleared Bank Adjustments (Checks and Payments): 0 Items -151.50 -151.50 0,00 Uncleared Deposits and Credits: Total Uncleared Deposits and Credits: 0 i~ems Total Uncleared Bank Adjustments (Deposits and Credits): 0 I~ems 0.00 0.00 Total U~cleared TraNsactions: Total Uncleared Bank Adjustments: 1 Items 0 Items -151.50 0.00 34 1 6/07 4868 111101 0.00 2 4869 443000 56.31 3 4870 443000 50.00 .4 4871 419000 57.50 5 4872 439100 331,02 S 4873 417000 95.00 4874 431000 210.80 4874 439000 736.97 *REF/TOT 947.77 4875 442000 214.08 !0 4876 4190OO !i 12 13 4877 443000 4878 419000 4879 419000 229.04 109.37 1.76 30.39 14 4880 443000 222.00 15 4881 442000 163.19 16 4882 433000 297.00 17 4883 443000 202,50 18 4884 419500 1,250.00 19 4885 443000 629.56 20 4886 432000 868.07 4887 44100O 4887 211702 4887 211702 *REF/TOT JUN02 111101 21 22 23 880.00 54.56- 12.76- 812.68 6,567.24 - JOURN~ CD TOTAL 24 TRANSACTIONS HASH TOTAL: 9315206 DEBITS: 0.00 6,634.~6 HO. 868 P. 33/45 PAGE ! DESCRIPTION CH~CK VOIDED ADAMS P~ST CONTROL DOUG ARNST B SYLVESTER C NABER & ASSOCIATES CITY OF MOUND CITY OF MOUND C & H BUSINESS FURNITURE FRONTIER COMF//~T CAT I OATS I OS LIGHTYP3%R MINN-EAPOLI S HOUS AUTHORITY MS I MOUND TRUE VALUE REL IA1CU ENERGY (1444 Tt{~RMS) ROOT 0 MATIC VIP PROPERTIES VIP MA I kFFE1Q-A/qCE XCEL ENERGY (1824 DONNALEY FA/{RIER DONNALEY ~ARRI ER DONNALEY PARRIER ~ O2 CASH DISBURSEMENTS CREDITS 6,634 . $6- 35 AU¢.~E.~00~ I~:~IPM VIP PROPERTIES M0.068 -P.34×45 CLIENT 0273 JODRNAL TRANSACTIONS Mound, MN Public ~ousin~ CR JOURNAL AS OF 6/30/02 LN# DATE REP # AOCOUNT# AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 6/10 38 112200 10,$03.00- RENT 38 211400 40.00- SECURITY DEPOSIT *RE~/TOT 10,543.00- JUN38 !lll01 10,$43.00 JUNE 02 CASH RECEIPT 6/03 39 802000 $,380.00- OPERATING SUBSIDY JUN39 111101 5,380.00 JUNE 02 CAS~ ~/30 40 361000 8.31- INTEREST JUN40 111101 8.31 JUNE 02 CASK ......... RECEIPT JOURN~ CR TOTAL 7 TRANSACTIONS t{ASH TOTAL: 1819903 PAGE 2 0.00 DEBITS; 1S,931.31 CREDITS: 15,931.31- 38 CLIENT 0273 JOURNAL TRANSACTIONS Mound, M~ Public HousinN GJ JOURN~ A~ OF 6/30/02 LN# DAT~ R~P # ACCOUNT# AMOUNT 1 6/3o 02~3 2 0233 3 0233 *REF/TOT 4 0234 112200 11,249..00 311000 11,125.00- 117,00- 451000 0234 121100 0235 452000 0235 213701 '7 *REF/TOT JOURNAL GJ TOTAL 7 TRANSACTIONS }tASH TOTAL: 2030001 TOT/NP ACTIVITY END REPORT. 3 PAGES. - NO. 068 P. B5/45. DESCRIPTION 0,00 585,0O 0,00 434.06 434.06- 0.00 TO RECORD JUNE 02 RENTAL REGISTER TO RECORD JUNE 02 RENTAL REGISTER TO RECORD JUN~ 02 RENTAL REGISTER TO WRITE OFF INSURANCE TO WRITE OFP INSURA/qCE TO RECORD Jl~ 02 PILOT TO RECORD JUNE 02 PILOT 0.00 DEBITS: 12,2~1.06 CREDITS: 12,261.06- 0.00 JUL ~1, 2002 14:56:29 37 AUG.22.E002 12:21PM VIP PROPERTIES .......... M0.068, CL~RT 0273 ~EN~RAL LEDGER Mouhd, MN Public Eousing PERIOD PlkTDING 6/30/02 6?07 4568 CD CI{ECK ~OZDED ~/30 JUN02 CD 6/10 JUN3@ eR 6/03 JUN~9 CR 6/30 JUN40 CR JUNE 02 CASM DISBURSEMENTS JURE 02 CASE RECEIPT JUNE 02 CASH RECEIPT J~ 02 CASH RECEIPT TOTALS N~T/ACT 111700 1117.o0 Petty Cash 112200 1122.00 Tenants A/R ~/lO 38 6/30 0233 o~/t~_~ CR RENT ~J TO RECORD JU~ 02 RENTAL REGISTER TOTALS NI~T/ACT 112201 1122.01 Allow/Doubtful A ..... BAL/PWD 116200 1162.00 Gen Fund Investm ..... BAL/FWD 117100 1171.00 Debt Service Fu/% ..... BAL/PWD 117600 1176.00 R73D Annual Contr ..... BAL/FWD 121100 1211.00 Prepaid Insurance OPN/BAL 6/30 0234 GJ TO WRITE O~P INSURANCE TOTALS NI~T/ACT ..... BAL/FWD 129000 1290.00 Deferred Char~es ..... RAL/FWD 140002 1400.02 Development Cost ..... RAL/FWD -P. B6/45 _. CREDIT 92,3'3~. 0.00 ~,567.24 10,543.00 5,380.00 8.31 15,931.31 6,567.2~ 9,364.0? 101,694.~%* , 50.00* 947.5~ 11,242.00 11,242.00 7S9.00 !,686,55' 10,503.00 10,S03.00 0.00' . 11,241.76' 0.00' , 0.00' 2,084.84 B85.00 0,00 SBs. OO 585.00 1,499.84' 0.00' . 1, SOS, 904.64* 38 ,'~'Z ur'73 GENERAL LEDGER Mo~hd, MN Public HoUsing PERIOD ENDING 6/30/02 ACCT# DATE REF jS DESCRIPTION 140003 1400.0~ Der c t tra .... 140004 1400.04 Land Structures ..... BAlL/FWD 140005 1400.05 Accum Depreciati ..... BAL/FWD .... HO. 068 '-P. 32/45 ..... PAGE 2 DEBIT CREDIT 2~042,760.55, 0.00' 1,S39,620.10' 140006 1400.06 Land 140007 1400.07 Buildings 140008 1400.08 140009 140016 140017 ..... BAL/FWD Furn,Equip,Mach ...... BAL/FWD 1400.09 Furn,Equip,Mach ...... BAL/FWD 1400.16 Land Improvement ..... BAL/FWD 1400.17 Building Improve ..... BAIL/FWD 140059 1400.~ Mod Cost Complet ..... BAL/FWD 211100 2111.00 Vendors & Contra ..... BAL/FWD 211400 211499 211701 211702 2114.00 Tenants Sec Deposits OPN/BAL 6/10 38 CR SECURITY DEPOSIT TOTALS NET/ACT ..... BALIF 2114.99 Sec Pep Interest ..... BAL/FWD 2117.0! P/R Deduct Feder ..... BAL/FWD 2117.02 ~/R Deduct FICA 6/07 4887 CD 4887 CD OP~/BAL DON~ALEY PARRIER DON~ALEY FARRIER TOTALS N~T/ACT ..... BAL/FWD 29,663.24* 1~,477.02' 8,680.00* 373,679.86* , 536,855.91' 0.00' , 0,00 8,778.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 8,818.00' 893.46' , 651.51 0,00 678.88 54,56 12.76 67.32 67.32 746.20* 39 CLTENT 0273 ACCT# DATE REP JS DESCRIPTION 211703 2117.03 P/R Deduct Sta~e ..... 212200 213101 213300 213400 213500 213700 213701 224000 229000 234100 234200 280200 280600 2122.00 Advance Notes HU ..... BAL/PWD 2129.00 Notes Pay Levy ~ ..... RAL/PWD 2131.01 Iht Pay ~okes HU ..... ~AL/~WD 2133.00 Ink Pay Note Non ..... BAL/FWD 2134.00 AccrUed U~ilitie-----BAL/FWD 2135.00 Accrued Payroll ..... RtL/FWD 2135.01 Accrued Absences ..... BAL/B~TD 2137.00 Payment in Lieu ..... RAL/FWD 2137.01 PILOT Current Year OPN/BAL 6/30 0235 GJ TO RECORD JU~ 02 PILOT TOTALS NET/ACT ..... ~AL/~wD 2240.00 PrePaid Rent ..... RAL/FWD 2290.00 Deferred Credit ..... BAL/FWD 2341.00 New H/A Bonds Is ..... BAL/FW'D 2342.00 New H/A Bonds Re ..... RAL/FWD 2802.00 HUD P~A Contribu ..... BAL/FWD 280~.00 Retained Earning ..... RAL/FWD ......... MO. 068. P. 38/45 DEBIT CREDIT $26, 0,00' , 90,000.00* 0.00' 0.00' 0.00' 0.00' , 0,00' , 7,638.3 3,142.06 434,06 0.00 434.06 434.06 3,576.12' 0.00, , 0,00. , 0.00' 0.00' , 24,962.14' S29,667.31' 40 AUG.22.2002 i2:2iPM VIP PROPERTIES ....... CLieNT 0273 GENE~ ~DGER Mound, MN Public Rousing PERIOD A~TDING 6/30/02 ACCT# DATE REF 2810oo 282000 284000 284500 28500O * 311000 312000 319000 369000 411000 411050 000 868 P. 39/45 PA~E 4 DESCRIPTION DEBIT CREDIT 2820.00 Operating Reserv ..... BA~/PWD 2840.00 Cumulative HUD C ..... BAL/FWD 2845,00 Cumulative PrUD G ..... BAL/PWD 2850.00 Cumulative Donat ..... BAL/FWD 3110,00 Dwelling Rental OPN/BA/4 6/30 0233 C~/ TO RECORD J~E 02 REN~2~4 REGISTER TOTALS NET/ACT ..... 3120.00 Excess Utilities ..... RAL/FWD 3190,00 Nondwell Rental ..... RAL/FWD 3610.00 Invest. Interest OPN/BAL 6/30 40 CR INTEREST TOTALS ET/ACT ..... Bm,/ w 3690,00 Other Income OPN/RAL 6/30 0233 GJ TO R~CORD JUNE o2 RENTAL REGISTER TOTALS NET/ACT ..... 4110.00 Administrative S ..... BAL/FWD 4110,S0 Accrued Absences ..... BAL/FWD 4130.00 Legal Expense ..... RA~/FWD 0.00- , 88,936,14 0,00' 0.00 11,125.00 11,12S.00 !1,125.00 100,06!.14' 0.00 100.00' 389.98 8.3! 8.31 8.3! 398.29* 0.00 918,50 15,394.77' 117.00 117.00 117.00 1,035.60, 0.00' lt421.!0' . 41 ~UGoaa.200E la:~PM VIP PROPERTIES '-- ' ...... N0.06@ P.40/45 CLIENT 0273 ~ENERALLEDGER Mo~rnd, N~ Public Housin9 P~RIOD ~/~DING 6/30/02 PAGE ACCT# DATE REp JS DESCRIPTION D E B 4~4000 4~ .00 Staff T~aini~ ........................ 0,00' 41SO00 4~S0,00 Travel ..... ~/~ 417000 4170.00 Accountin9 Fees OPN/BAL 6/07 4873 CD C NABER & ASSOCIATES 369.14' , 1,088.20 95,00 TOTALS 95.00 0.00 NET/ACT 95.00 ..... BAL/~vWD 1,153.20' , 417100 4171.00 Auditing Fees ..... RAL/FWD 419000 4190.00 Sundry-Administrativ O~N/BAL 6/07 4871 CD ~ SYLV~STER 4876 CD FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS 4878 CD LIGHTYEAR 4879 CD MINNEAPOLIS HOUSING AUTHORITY TOTALS NET/ACT ..... ~A~/FWD 419500 4!95.00 Outside Ma~agen~nt OPN/BAL 6/07 4884 CD VIP PROPERTIES TOTALS ~TET/AUT ..... * 421050 422000 4210.50 Accrued Absence ...... BAL/PWD 4220.00 Tenant Services ..... ~k%L/PWD OmNI,AL CiTY oP MOUND (161 TOTALS NET/ACT * 431000 4310.00 Water 6/07 4874 CD 432000 4320.00 Electricity OPN/BAL 6/07 4886 CD XC~r. ENERGY (18240 TOTALS 0.00' , 6,233.12 57.$0 229.04 1.76 30.39 318.69 318.69 6,551.81, O.OL 1,250.00 1,250.00 1,250.00 1¢250.00 2,500,00* 0.00 0.00' 1,823,19 210.80 210.~0 0.00 210.80 2,033.99* . 7,559.74 868.07 868.07 0.00 42 ~J.&UG. EE. E00~ 12: E~PM VIP PROPERTIES .... ,' ~..2,,1'T 0273 GENERAL LEDGER Mound, MN PUblic Housing P~.RIOD ENDING 6/30/02 ACCT~ DATE ~T/ACT ..... BAL/F~ 433000 4330.00 QaS 6/07 4882 CD OPN/BAL RELIANT ENERGY (1444 TEER/~S) TOTALS N~T/ACT 4390OO 4390.00 Other Utility Eaqpens OPN/RAL 6/07 4874 CD CITY OF MOUND TOTALS NET/ACT ..... 439100 4391.00 Garbage Removal 6/07 4872 CD ~FI OPNl TOTALS AT, T/ACT ..... BAL/FWD * 441000 441050 442000 443000 4410.00 Maintenance Labor OPN/RAL 6/0~ 4887 CD DONNALEY FARRIER TOTALS N~T/ACT ..... 4410.50 AcoruedAbsences ..... BAL/FWD 4420.00 Materials 6/07 4@7s CD 4881 CD O N/ AL c & H BUSINESS FURNITURE MOUND TRUE VALLTE TOTALS NET/ACT 4430.00 Contract Costs OPN/RAL 6/o7 4869 CD ADAMS PEST CONTROL 4870 CD DOUG ARNST 4877 CD I O S 48~0 CD M S I 4883 ~D ROOT O MATIC 4885 CD VIP MAINTENANCE --" NO. 068 · DEBIT 8~8.07 8,427.81' 8,859.98 2~7.00 297.00 297.00 9,156.98* PAG~ ~ CREDIT 0.00 5,642.22 736.97 736,97 0.00 736.97 6,379.19' , 2,309.81 331.02 331.02 0.00 331.02 2,6~0.83' 25,982.45 880.00 880.00 0.00 880.00 26,862.45* , 0.00 * 0,00. 22,419.$7 21~. 08 1~3.19 377.27 377 22,796.84' 23,228.98 56.31 ~0.00 109.37 222.00 202.50 629.56 43 ~q.~uG. 2~. ~008_ 12: ~PM VIP PROPERTIES GENERAL LEDGER ~o~d, ~ P~lie ~ousin~ PERIOD ~!N~ 6/30/02 ACCT~ ~TE ~F JS DESCRIPTION 443000 CO~I~D... ) TOT~S NET/ACT M0. 068 ' -P. 4E/45 PA~. 7 DEBIT CREDIT 1,269.74 1,269.74 24,498 . 72 451000 452000 454000 454041 454044 457000 461001 461002 461003 462001 462002 462003 4510.00 Insurance 6/30 0234 Gj OPN/BAL TO WRITE INSURANCE TOTALS NET/ACT ..... BAL/~WD 4520.00 Pmts In Lieu Of Taxe OPN/BAL 6/30 0235 C=T TO R~CORD JUN~ 02 PILOT TOTALS NET/ACT 4540.00 Employee Benefit ..... BAL/FWD 4540.41 Ah~p Ben Cont - A ..... BAL/PWD 4540.44 ~T~p Ben Cont - M ..... BAL/FWD 4570.00 Collection Loss ..... BAL/FWD 4610.01 Extra Maint Labo ..... BAL/FWD 4610.02 EX~ra Maint Mate ..... RAL/PWD 4610.03 Extra Maint Cont ..... BAL/PWD 4620.01 Casualty Loss La ..... RAL/FWD 4620,02 Casualty Loss Ma ..... RAL/FWD 4620,03 Casualty Loss Co ..... BAL/FWD 4,803.33 0.00 585.00 585,00 0.00 585.00 5,388.33* , 3,142.0g 434.06 434.06 0.00 434,06 3,576.12' , 3,131.02' , 0.00' 0.00' , 0.00' , 0,00' 668,00~ 0.00' , 127,548,99' 44 AUG.~.~008 18:~8PM CI.' ~T 0273 Mo=nd, ACCT# 462004 480000 561000 601000 602000 612000 7O1000 752000 753O00 VIP PROPERTIES GEhtE~L LEDGER MN Public Eousing PERIOD ENDING DATN REF JS DESCRIPTION 4800.00 $610.00 Depreciation Exp ..... PAL/FWD Iht on Notes/Pon ..... RAL/PWD 6010.00 Prior Year Adj-C ..... BAL/~D 6020.00 Prior Year AdJ -N ..... PAL/FWD 6~20.00 Gain/Loss Equip ..... PAL/FWD 70!0.00 Provision for Op ..... PAL/FWD 7520.00 Repl Nonexp Equi ..... BAL/FWD 7530.00 Receipt Nonrepl ..... PAL/FWD - P. 43/45_ PAGE 8 DEBIT CREDIT 140, g48.59* 0,00' 0.00' 0.00' 0.00' 0,00' 0.00' , 0.00' 0.00' , 754000 759000 802000 802900 802901 8029904 029905 7S40,00 Betterments & Ad ..... PAL/FWD 7590.00 ODer Exp Prop Co ..... PAL/FWD 8020.00 ~/os Operating Subsidy OPN/BAL 39 CR OPERATING SUBSIDY TOTALS NET/ACT ..... 802~.00 Cap 8029.01 Cap 8029.904 8029.905 Fund Advance ..... PAL/FWD Fund Advance ..... PAL/FWD Clap 904 Advanc ..... PAL/FWD CIAP 905 Advanc ..... PAL/FWD 0.o0~ 0.00, 0 .OD 43,031.00 5,380.00 5,380.00 5,380.00 48,411.00' 21,000.00' 0.00' 0.00' , 45 ~UG.22.2002 12:22PM VIP PROPERTIES CLIENT 02 7@ GENERAL LEDGER Mound, N~ Public Housing PERIOD ENDING ~/30/02 ACCT$ DATE REF JS DESCRIPTION 8029906 S029,906 Clap 906 Advanc ..... BAL/PWD 10146000 10-1460,00 10146~01 10-1465.01 10147~01 10-1475.01 10147S02 10-1475.02 10147S03 10-1475.03 70141000 906-1410.00 70141019 906-1410.19 70143000 906-1430.00 70146000 70146501 70147~03 70147509 72141000 72143000 906-14~0. O0 906-1465.01 906-1475.03 906-1475.09 904-1410.00 904-1430.00 904-1450,00 7214S000 Dwelling Stru ..... BAL/FWD Dwell Equip N ..... BAL/FWD Office Furn & ..... BAL/FWD Maintenance E ..... BAL/FWD Comm Spaue Eg- .... RAL/FWD Administrati ..... BAL/FWD SUndry Arch & Engin ..... BAL/FWD Dwelling Str ..... RAL/PWD Dwell Eq Non ..... BAL/FWD Community Sp ..... BAL/FWD Expendable ..... BAL/FWD Adminis=rati ..... BAL/FWD Arch & Engin ..... RAL/PWD Site I~prove ..... RAL/FWD RO. 068 · -P. 44/45 PAGE 9 DEBIT CREDIT 0.00- 0.00' , 0.00~ , 0.00' O. 00' , 0.00' 0.00' 0,00' --------------------------.--------___________ 0.00. 0.00' 0.00' , 0.00' , 0.00' , 0100* , 0.00' , 72146000 904-1460.00 Dwelling S=r ..... BAL/PWD 0.00. 46 AUG.22.2002 12:22PM ¥IP PROPERTIES ...... Mound, MN Public Housin~ PERIOD ENDING 6/30/09. ACCT# DATE R~ JS D~C~IPTION NO. 068 -'-R. 4s/45. .. PAGE 10 CREDIT 74140600 907-1406.00 Operation 0.00* , --------'----------------..--_____________ 76140600 0!-1406.00 Operations ..... BAL/PWD 12,000.00, , 76141000 01-1410.00 Ad~inistratio ..... HAL/FWD 0.00, , 76146000 01-1460.00 Dwelling Stru ..... BAL/FWD 76150600 01-1506,00 Operations Co ..... BAL/PWD ElqI) GL : B= 0 TOT/DEBITS: DATE: JUL 31, 2002 8,900.00* . 34,826.93 TIME: 0.00 TRANS: 38 TOT/CREDITS: 12,0O0.00* 14:56:32 ACCOUNTS: 187 34,826,93 47