The URL can be used to link to this page

2003-02-25PLEASE TURN OFF Al,T, CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2003 - 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. 1. OPEN MEETING o 'PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE MINUTES: FEB 11, 2003 REGULAR MEETING *B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS *C. APPROVE PARTIAL PAYMENT REQUEST NO. 1 TO WICKENHAUSER EXCAVATING FOR OLD POST OFFICE DEMOLITION *D. APPROVE AGREEMENT FOR DISPOSAL BETWEEN NRG PROCESSING SOLUTION, LLC, AND THE CITY OF MOUND *E. APPROVE GARBAGE COLLECTORS' LICENSES *F. APPROVE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CONTINUATION OF CDBG FUNDING OF WESTONKA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK (WeCAN) *G. APPROVE PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR NEW SIGN LOCATION, AS SUBMITTED BY VILLAGE BY THE BAY, LLC COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.) ACTION ON MOUND HARBOR RENAISSANCE, LLC, REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 785-788 789-807 808-811 812-816 817 818-829 830-844 PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. o o ACTION ON CASE # 03-01' BILL STODDARD MINNETONKA ENTERPRISES 5331/5341/5351/5361, THREE POINTS BLVD VARIANCE - FRONT SETBACK & LOT AREA ACTION ON PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 845-897 898-899 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. LMC Friday Fax 900-907 B. Correspondence: LMCD 908-923 C. Maxfax 924 D. Report: Finance Department through Jan 2003 925-927 E. Legal comment to Council Members 928 F. Correspondence: LMCC 929-932 G. Newsletter: Hennepin County Sheriffs Report 933-936 H. Correspondence: Volunteers of America 937-938 I. Report: Public Safety building 939-948 J. Minutes: POSAC- Feb 13, 2003 949-953 K. Minutes: DCAC - Jan 16, 2003 954-956 10. ADJOURN This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. More current meeting agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: www. cityofinound, com. COUNCIL BRIEFING February 25' 2003 Upcoming Events Schedule: Don't Forget!! Feb 24 - 3:30 - Personnel Committee (Pat and Bob only) Feb 25 - 6:30 - HRA regular meeting Feb 25 - 7:30 - CC regular meeting Feb 26 - 9:00 - Police Chief interviews (Pat only) Feb 26 - 6:30 - Meet the Candidates forum Feb 28 - 2:25 - meeting at LMC on LGA losses Mar 1 - 11:00 - Public Safety facility groundbreaking Mar 1 - 6:00 - Chamber of Commerce Mid-Winter Ball Mar 4 - 3:30 - Fire District meeting - at Minnetrista (Pat and Bob) Mar 4 - 7:00 - CC workshop on service districts and 2003 bonding needs Mar 15 - 10:00 - Mound Visions Update - Gillespie Center Mar 18 - 6:30 - Annual Reports Apr 1 - 7:00 - CC special meeting on appointing commissioners Apr 1 - 6:30 - CC/Docks joint workshop Upcoming Absences Mar 8-26 - Pat Meisel - personal time off Mar 26-30 - Kandis Hanson - personal time off The work and analysis regarding the costs and add-alternates on the public safety building is still not complete. You may expect the report and recommendation at the Mar 11 meeting. After a split in the ownership of VIP Properties, unbeknownst to us, Indian Knoll became the customer of the half of VIP Properties that was lacking in experience in dealing with HUD reporting. Their inexperience has the Mound public housing facility repeatedly out of compliance with reporting deadlines. I recently terminated VIP so the HRA is advised to authorize staff to interview firms and make an agreement with a firm that has extensive experience working with and responding to HUD, in order for us to restore our relationship with them. I want to thank council members for their very adept responses to those present at the public hearing for the annual street improvement project. Some of the residents presented some compelling arguments, but your responses were responsible and rational and made good common sense. Any delay in this project due to public testimony presented would likely have resulted in the demise of a badly needed annual program. I am very pleased with your performance. Thanks! Have a great weekend! MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 1'1, 2003 The City Council of the City Of!Moundl H~'nhePin c°unty; Minnes'bta, met in` regular. session on Tuesday, February 11,20031 at 7:30 p.m. in the cOuncil chambers Of City Hall. Members PreSent: Mayor Pat MeiSel: OoUncilmembbrs Bob BrbWn, Mark Hanus, David Osmek and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Bonnie Ritter, City Engineer John Cameron, Elaine Gavin, Jil'l & Jeff Kloetzke, Doug Berdi Carl Anderson, Archie & Helen Hanus, Denise Malarkeyi john & Helen Quam, Tom Sandy Orinstien, Joe & Bonnie Konrardy, Mary Randa, L Consent'Agenda: All iteMS listed Under the'i routine in nature by the Council and will be separate discussion on these items unless a which evenf the item will be removed frOn normal seq~'~e. " Art Hefte; Matt & e Palmer, Phil Klein. to be a mil,Ca :There Will be no so requests, in and c°nsidered in 1. oPEN MEETING .... Mayor Meisel called the meeting to orde 2. PLEDGE OF ALLE 3. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Motion carried. Meyer requested tt to approve the agenda. All voted in favor. item 4C for discussion. MOTION by Hanus, ed by Osmek to appr0ve the C0nsehl~ age'hda as amended. Upon roll call vote taken, all voted in favor. Motion carried. A: Approve Minutes of:the: January 27, 2003 regular meeting and the January 28',' 2005' ~P~Ciai mee'tir~:.' ' :'' ~- B.' Ap"'~roVepaymeht ofciaims in the'amount of $~42,557.93: C. (rembv~d):'~':*: ~,: · '.".~:. ' . D. RESOLUTION NO, 03-20: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF 2003'G~NT 'AppLICATiON FOR REoyCLING.'AND EX;E.CUT'i;~N OF GRANT AGRE:EMENT.~ , : :;~ , .: ..,:,~,,,..~ .., 1 -785- MOUnd city C0un{~!! Minutes - February 11, 2003 4C. RELEASE .OF A PQRTION O,F ~A TAX,FORFEIT PARCEl Meyer is Oppos,,ed to the, passing of the resolutiOn so wanted this item, pulled from the consent agenda, He feels that it's not in the public interest to release this property because of its 80 lineal feet of lakeshore that benefits the dock program, and also the · Parks Commission recommended denial of the re!ease,, He, feels, the city could do a better job of controlling the property by making it a passive park and doesn't feel ita benefit to the whole community when one property owner gets to take advantage of the land.~ Brown and,OSmekdisputed.the issues brought up by. MOTION by Brown'i seconded by OSmek to adopt the following, voted in.favor: ,,Brown, Hanus, Meis.el and. against: ,Meyer, -Motioa carried. ,:., RESOLUTION.: NO. 0'3.21: RESOLUTI~ BEGIN PROCESS TO RELEASE A PORTION resolution. The following voted HENNEPIN c0uNTY TO EIT PARCEL, 5. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS NOT ONTHEAGENDA. Carl Anderson of 1754 city could do regarding the the city's water meets the provide city-wide soft 6. PuBLic City Engineer J~ Reconstruction ;ct, inclui costs and prelimir :il if there was something the water. The:.City~Man:ager expJ;ai~.ed that a"rid:'ther~' a'i~ no plan§ to ~dividual home owner. ~ -'ET I~'CONSTRUCTION P~bJECT overview of the propbsed 2003 Street work to be done along;,~ith pr. opQsed project Mayor Meisel opened ,t )lic hearing at 7:56.p.m. .. Elaine Gavin, 5000 Enchanted Road, asked if anything would be done with the storm sewers that. drain into the lake.and if are,a,s dug up would be restomd,tQ their~odginal. state l Ca~er°n'sta(edtj~a{'th=ey w°uldn t do any~h:ing differen[~ith.,,~.he d~aina~'into the lake, and areas would be restored that are disrupted, She also. asked ,about ,how the driveway aprons would be' ConSt~ct~d and asSeSsed and"camer°n a~'~were(ji;'·' ., ~' ":'"": '":~-"~:"~;'~:~' '"~"':'~' ~"' .... '"" ""'~ '~" ~ ..... '!:.i .~.~-,~'! '~,.i~,'~ - ~'~:''~ '": JiltiK!~tzke.;'di~:8, i0,.:.H'~mp La .n,e~,, stated, pmped;y-.neg.,to ,. e,, i~,. th,,e:, s~ree.~ .e~e,nsiO. r~, and asked how that fits into the assessment. Cameron stated he will look at that;situation more closely, because the area she's speaking of is platted street right of' way and only a small portion of her lot actually abuts the street. -786- Mound City Counc I Minutes - February 11, 2003 Joe Konrardy, 1700 Shorewood Lane, asked what the costs might be for his.ParCel and Cameron reviewed the project assessment costs. Konrardy also asked if there was a city-wide plan for street improvements. Hanus answered that the council intention is to move through the' entire city and the reason this area was selected was because of the condition of the streets and the age and condition of the infrastructure. Mary Randa, 1733 Shorewood Lane; asked how the assessment is to. be paid and the process was explained to her. She expressed concern over the state cuts and their impact on the City of Mound, along with the economic times and the threat of war. She doesn't feel that this is a good time to start a street project th~ ~dditional .: . burdens on'the taxpayers. It was explained toher that this be bonded'for, and the Council feels that this~ is the time to start th~)roject because of not only the need, but the good bond interest rates and .construction. bidS. Doug Berdie, 5028 Enchanted Road;'ex and asked why it needs to be done now. His economy. He asked if his arborvitae would be their location. He also asked if the electl wirin project and was told that it's not th. of the project taxes going up and the and was told it depends on be put underground with this Sandy Orinstien, 4925 Glen Ely~ condition of the streets in the project becauSe of the Tom Aune, 5611 handled and was told that, ti' tax forfeit lot in the project;.wou dbe up the assessment like a privateOwher. After no further Meisel closed the hearing at 9:04 p.m. The Council only the streets but best interest of the of the project because of the need of repair to not infrastructure in that area, and doing it now is in the MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO, 03-22: RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS FOR 2003 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 3 -787- Mound City COUncil MinUtes -' February 11, 2003 7. SET SPECIAL MEETINGS MOTION biYBmWn, sec0hd6.d bY Osm'el4 to set the following special'meetings. voted in 'faVOr. MOtion carried. . A. B. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. All Annual Department'Reports- Tuesday, March 18i 6:30 p:m .workshop.on C-onSidera~ion of :Poi'icy on Appointing;Commissioners - Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. EmergeriCy Management Services ReviewFFraining - APril 2.9, 2003, at 6:'3'0 p;m. · ~ . INFORMATIONIMISC'ELLANEOUS Mihbte'~ ~:Plannihg OO~mission~-Jan 6, 2003' Memo:` LaW~ Governing Utility Facility Relocation Re NeWsletter:, Riley; Dettmann & Kel'sey Letter: Gillespie Center Report: ca'~h/Ihv~stm'ent Balances - Nov LMO Friday FAX" ; update~ Fire commission Mindte~: POSC- jan 9,2003 Brimeyer Group Governance Model LMCC Calendar- Feb 2003 Bep6it: POliCe Department LMCD Information i.bi.lities.. 9. ADJOURN MOTION :by BrbWn Motion carried. journ at' 9:2.3 p;m,. All voted, in favor, Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 4 -788- FEBRUARY 25~ 2003 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 020803SUE $2,000.00 FEB 021203SU E $4,984.11 FEB 021903SUF: $3,489.00 FEB 022503S U E$254,482.41FEB 122702S U E$7,846.12 DEC TOTAL $272,801.64 -789- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/19/03 11:22 AM Page I Current Period: February 2003 Batch Name 020803SUE Payment Computer DollarAmt $2,000.00 Posted Refer 20803 CASH Ck# 010279 2/7/2003 Cash Payment G 609-16420 Fixed Asset-Office Equipmen NEW LIQUOR STORE FURNITURES $2,000.00 Invoice 020803 Transaction Date 2/7/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,000.00 Fund Summary BATCH Total $2,000.00 10100 Wells Fargo 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $2,OOO.OO $o.oo $2,000.00 -790- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02119/03 11:24- AM Page I Current Period: February 2003 Batch Name 021203SUE Payment Computer Dollar Amt $4,984.11 Posted Refer 21203 SCHWALBE, SUE Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical Invoice 021203 Transaction Date 2/10/2003 Refer 21203 KESTNER, AL Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical Invoice 021203 Ck# 010361 2/12/2003 REIMBUSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $995.41 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $995.41 Ck# 010358 2/12/2003 REIMBURSE MEDICAL $452.59 Transaction Date 2/10/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $452.59 Refer 21203 FRONTIER/CITIZENS COMMUNICA Ck# 010356 2/12/2003 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells 01-03 952-472-0635 $354.40 Invoice 013003 Cash Payment 01-03 952-482-0635 $354.39 Invoice 013003 Cash Payment 01-03 952-472-3093 $297.96 Invoice 013003 Cash Payment 01-03 952-472-0621 $837.70 invoice 013003 ash Payment 01-03 952-472-0635 $354.40 Invoice 013003 Transaction Date 2/10/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,198.85 Refer 21203 NELSON, JOYCE Ck# 010360 2/12/2003 Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $321.11 Invoice 021103 Transaction Date 2/11/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $321.11 Reie~ 2i2°3 MINNESOTA ~L~TiO'~O~TRO Ck#-0i03~ 2;i~;2003 Cash Payment E 670-49500-434 Conference & Training REGISTRATION 02-27-03 $210.00 Invoice 021203 PO 17725 Transaction Date 2/11/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $210.00 Refer 21203 HANSON, KANDIS E 602-49450-321 Telephone & Cells E 609-49750-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-42110-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells Ck# 010357 2/12/2003 REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $345.95 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $345.95 Ck# 010362 2/12/2003 Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical Invoice 011203 Transaction Date 2/12/2003 Refer 21203 SHOWCASE PLACE Cash Payment G 609-16400 Fixed Asset-Equip/Machinery SHOPPING CARTS $460.20 Invoice 021203 Transaction Date 2/12/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $460.20 -791 - CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/19/03 11:24 AM Page 2 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 670 RECYCLING FUND Current Period: February 2003 10100 Wells Fargo $3,307.16 $354.4O $354,39 $758.16 $210.00 $4,984.11 BATCH Total $4,984. t 1 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $4,984.11 $o.oo $4,984.11 -792- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/19/03 11:39 AM Page Current Period: February 2003 Batch Name 022503SUE User Dollar Amt $254,462.41 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $254,482.41 $0.00 In Balance Refer 22503 ADVANCED GRAPHIX, INCORPOR Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery SQUAD GRAPHICS $224.57 Invoice 5605 PO 17540 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $224.57 Refer 22503 BELLBOY CORPORATION Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2,919.53 Invoice 25662600 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,919.53 Refer 22503 BFI OF MINNESOTA, INC. Cash Payment E 222-42260-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos Invoice 1-0200-130732-0 Cash Payment E 101-43100-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos invoice 1-0200-130732-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos Invoice 1-0200-130732-0 ash Payment E 602-49450-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos ~nvoice 1-0200-130732-0 Cash Payment E 101-43100-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos Invoice 1-0200-130732-0 Cash Payment E 609-49750-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos Invoice 1-0200-130732-0 01-03 GARBAGE SERVICE FIRE DEPARTMENT 01-03 GARBAGE SERVICE P/W BLDG 01-03 GARBAGE SERVICE P/W BLDG 01-03 GARBAGE SERVICE P/W BLDG 01-03 ONE MAIN STREET 01-03 GARBAGE SERVICE LIQUOR STORE $67.01 $45.69 $45,69 $45.69 $2O.39 $17.76 Transaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $242.23 Refer 22503 CARGIL SAL T DIVISION Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials BULK ICE $974.54 Invoice 671591 Cash Payment BULK ICE $1,968.51 Invoice 674984 Cash Payment BULK ICE $1,166.97 Invoice 670267 Cash Payment BULK ICE $504.18 Invoice 669196 Cash Payment BULK ICE $380.57 Invoice 670092 Transaction Date 2/13/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,994.77 Refer 22503 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (MINNEG Cash Payment E 402-43120-300 Professional Srvs 01-06-03 THRU 01-10-03 $28.04 E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials Invoice 022503 Cash Payment E 101-45200-383 Gas Utilities 01-06-03 THRU 0%10,03 #543-000-053-000 $296.91 Invoice 022503 '~ash Payment E 101-45200-383 Gas Utilities 01-06-03 THRU 01-10-03 #543-001-095-800 $774.56 ,voice 022503 Payment E 609-49750-383 Gas Utilities 01-06-03 THRU 01-10-03 #543-001-833-500 $353.25 Invoice 022503 -793- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/19/03 11:39 AM Page 2 Current Period: February 2003 Cash Payment E 222-42260-383 Gas Utilities 01-06-03 THRU 01-10-03 #543-001-852-100 $1,035.86 Invoice 022503 Cash Payment E 101-41910-383 Gas Utilities $1,433.27 Invoice 022503 Cash Payment E 101-43100-383 Gas Utilities $605.69 Invoice 022503 Cash Payment E 601-49400-383 Gas Utilities $330.37 Invoice 022503 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities $440.50 Invoice 022503 Transaction Date 2/11/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,298.45 Cash Payment E 101-41500-300 Professional Srvs 01-31-03 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $6,681.60 Invoice 013103 Transaction Date 2/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 22503 CHIEFS OF POLICE INTERNATION Cash Payment E 101-42110-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2003 MEMBERSHIP DUES $30.00 Invoice 022803 PO 17579 Transaction Date 2/11/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $30.00 'efer 22503 CLASSIFIEDS, ROUNDUP, LAKER, ..;ash Payment E 101-42110-328 Employment Adver[ising 01-25-03 POLICE CHIEF $58.80 Invoice 21527 Transaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $58.80 01-06-03 THRU 01-10-03 #543-001-853-000 01-06-03 THRU 01-10-03 #543-001-972-603 01-06-03 TH RU 01-10-03 #543-001-972-603 01-06-03 THRU 01-10-03 #543-001-972-603 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $197.20 Invoice 61371212 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $197.20 Refer 22503 COLOTTI, JOHN A. Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies REIMBURSE SPEAKER PHONE $138.44 Invoice 022503 PO 17724 Transaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $138.44 Refer 22503 CONCO, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 455-46381-600 Debt Srv Principal 03-03 PRINCIPLE TRUE VALUE $538.22 Invoice 022503 Cash Payment E 455-46381-611 Bond Interest 03-03 INTEREST TRUE VALUE $423.62 Invoice 022503 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $961.84 Refer 22503 CONSTRUCTION BOOK EXPRESS Cash Payment E 101-42400-435 Books and Pamphlets PUBLICATION CONSTRUCTION MATH $28.65 Invoice 17461 PO 17461 Transaction Date 2/13/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $28.65 Refer 22503 COPPIN, LANCE ~sh Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic 2560 AVON DRIVE HOOKUP $3,100.00 ,nvoice 022703 Transaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,100.00 Refer 22503 COPY IMAGES, INCORPORATED -794- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/19/03 11:39 AM Page 3 Current Period: February 2003 Cash Payment E 101-41910-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 0%03 COPIER MAINTENANCE $340.80 Invoice 32051 Transaction Date 2/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $340.80 Refer 22503 DIAL A RIDE Cash Payment E 101-42110-328 Employment Adver[ising POLICE CHIEF DRIVER $50.00 Invoice 022503 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $50.00 Refer 22503 E-Z RECYCLING Cash Payment E 670-49500-440 Qther Contractual Servic 02-03 CURBSIDE RECYCLING $8,075.25 Invoice 4776 Transaction Date 2/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 22503 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $118.50 Invoice 360093 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,093.90 Invoice 358560 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $622.00 Invoice 357902 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $13.15 lvoice 355816 .;ash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $t,423.65 Invoice 355815 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,457.50 Invoice 355307 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,728 70 ~efe; 22503 E~R~~/AT~E& I~C. ¢' Cash Payment G 455-20200 Accounts Payable 01-03 PROJECT MANAGEMENT $712.50 Invoice 02477 Cash Payment E 496-46580-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG $112.50 Invoice 20478 ' Transaction Date 2/13/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $825.00 Refer 22503 FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC HENNEPIN Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training 2003 MEMBERSHIP DUES $10,00 Invoice 022503 Transaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10 00 Refer 22503 FIRE INSTRUCTORS'ASSOC MINN Cash Payment E 222-42260-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2003 MEMBERSHIP DUES $10.00 invoice 022503 Transaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10.00 Refer 22503 G & K SERVICES Cash Payment E 222-42260-216 Cleaning Supplies 02-18-03 MATS Invoice 489147 '~ash Payment ~voice 475071 Payment Invoice 475073 E 101-45200-223 Building Repair Supplies 02-04-03 MATS E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services 02-04-03 MATS $45.36 $52.80 $105.17 -795- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/19/03 11:39 AM Page 4 Current Period: February 2003 Cash Payment E 609-49750-460 Janitorial Services 02-04-03 MATS $27.67 Invoice 475070 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $231.00 Refer 22503 GA TEWA Y COMPANIES, INC. Cash Payment E 281-45210-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA COMPUTER $1,191.74 Invoice 87309679 PO 17650 Transaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,191.74 Refer 22503 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD Cash Payment E 101-43100-210 Operating Supplies 01-03 WATER #51595-2 $6.60 invoice 01-31-03 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies 01-03 WATER #5158502 $6.60 Invoice 01-31-03 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies 01-03 WATER #5158502 $6.60 Invoice 01-31-03 Cash Payment E 101-41910-210 Operating Supplies 01-03 WATER #5158501 $43.20 Invoice 01-31-03 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies 01-03 WATER #32345800 $14.99 Invoice 01-31-03 Transaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $77.99 'efer 22503 GRIGGS COOPER AND COMPANY .;ash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $480.08 Invoice 671600 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $404.88 Invoice 671599 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $7,024.87 Invoice 671504 Cash Payment E 609~49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $5,540.96 Invoice 669006 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,895.23 Invoice 668476 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,253.39 Invoice 668475 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $55.48 Invoice 668158 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $121.35 Invoice 668142 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $16,776.24 Refer 22503 HAWKINS, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 601-49400-227 Chemicals CONTAINER CHARGERS $35.00 Invoice DM85050 Transaction Date 2/13/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $35.00 Refer 22503 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMA TIO Cash Payment E 101-41910-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 01-03 NETWORK SUPPORT $35.79 ~qvoice 23017037 ansaction Date 2/13/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $35.79 Refer 22503 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP, I -796- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02119103 11:39 AM Page 5 Current Period: February 2003 Cash Payment E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 CR 15 STREETSCAPE $3,840.34 Invoice 020603-A Cash Payment E 101-45200-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 PARK SIGNAGE $500.00 Invoice 020603-B Cash Payment E 401-46540-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 LOST LAKE GREENWAY $7,948.00 Invoice 026030-C Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 PLANNING MISCELLANEOUS $1,023.76 Invoice 020603-D1 Cash Payment G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 01-03 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT $120.00 Invoice 020603-D2 Cash Payment G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 01-03 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT $40.00 Invoice 020603-E1 Cash Payment G 101-22916 1975 Lakeside Lane sub-#03 01-03 1975 LAKESIDE SUB-DIV $40.00 invoice 020603-E2 Cash Payment G 101-22918 42XX Lynwood, Coddon, #02 01-03 5240 LYNWOOD $160.00 Invoice 020603-E3 Cash Payment E 455-46379-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 MOUND VISIONS $1,570.00 Invoice 020603-F Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 TIF RELATED WORK $738.00 Invoice 020603-G Transaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $15,980.10 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MERCHANDISE $121.26 Invoice 078843 Transaction Date 2/1912003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $121.26 Refer 22503 IKON OFFICE MACHINES Cash Payment E 101-41910-210 Operating Supplies TONER FOR FAX $96.22 Invoice 2366671A Transaction Date 2/11/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $96.22 Refer 22503 ISLAND PARK SKELLY Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair REPAIR AUTO $67.26 Invoice 12441 Transaction Date 211912003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $67.26 Refer 22503 JEFFERSON FIRE AND SAFETY, IN Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies BUNKER BOOT $231,06 Invoice 096660 Transaction Date 211812003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair REPAIR RESCUE UNIT $228.48 Invoice 18018 Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair REPAIR LADDER TRUCK $421.76 Invoice 18002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair REPAIR LADDER TRUCK $997.35 ~nvoice 18074 ansaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,647.59 Refer 22503 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR -797- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/19/03 11:39 AM Page 6 Current Period: February 2003 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $365.55 Invoice 1521358 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $66.00 Invoice 1518603 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $79.00 Invoice 1518602 Cash Payment E 609.49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $149,00 Invoice 1518601 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resate WINE $440.20 Invoice 1518600 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $636.11 Invoice 1518599 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,303.11 invoice 1518128 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WiNE $547.00 Invoice 1517427 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $330.80 Invoice 1516733 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,916.77 Refer 22503 JOHNSON, PHYLLIS ash Payment E 455-46381-600 Debt Srv Principal 03-03 PRINCIPLE TRUE VALUE $281.36 invoice 022503 Cash Payment E 455-46381-611 Bond Interest 03-03 INTEREST TRUE VALUE $387.75 Invoice 022503 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $669.11 Refer 22503 JUBILEE FOODS Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies FIRE COMMISSION MEETING $187.74 invoice 013102 Transaction Date 2/18~2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $187.74 Refer 22503 KENNEDYAND GRAVEN Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 MISCELLANEOUS BILLABLE $7.06 Invoice 54897-A Cash Payment E 455.46380-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 REDEV PROJECT AREA #1 $143.00 invoice 54897-B Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 POST OFFICE RELOCATION $368.19 Invoice 54897-C Cash Payment G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 01-03 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT $38,50 Invoice 54897-D Cash Payment G 101-22908 Landform Development 01-03 LANDFORM DEVELOPMENT $29.30 Invoice 54897-E Transaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $586.05 Refer 22503 KRAKE, JAN Cash Payment E 101-45200-533 Tree Removal TREE REMOVAL $133.13 Invoice 021103 ansaction Date 2/11/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $133.13 Refer 22503 LAKE MANAGEMENT, INC. Cash Payment E 101-45200-400 Repairs & Maint Contract DNR PERMIT FEE $160,00 Invoice 020703 PO 17668 -798- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/19/03 11:39 AM Page 7 Current Period: February 2003 Transaction Date 2/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $160.00 Cash Payment E 401-43105-300 Professional Srvs 02-08-03 STREET PROJECT $61.87 Invoice 502 Transaction Date 2/11/2003 Fargo 10100 Total $61 .87Wells Refer 22503 LINDA'S PH'O~°G~A~Y Cash Payment E 101-41110-430 Miscellaneous COUNCIL PORTRAIT $133.80 Invoice 24526 Transaction Date 2/13/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $133.80 R~;er 2~;~ MAD3~ FRAN~D A~;C;AT Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional S~s 01-03 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $261.40 Invoice 013103 Transaction Date 2/11/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $261.40 Refer 22503 MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale LIQUOR $1,757.35 Invoice 505240 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,757.35 Refer 22503 MARLIN'S TRUCKING DELIVERY ash Payment E 609~9750-265 Freight 01-16-03 DELIVERY CHARGE $120.40 invoice 12369 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 01-20-03 DELIVERY CHARGE $16.00 Invoice 12379 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 01-23-03 DELIVERY CHARGE $113.90 Invoice 12400 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 01-27-03 DELIVERY CHARGE $19.20 Invoice 12409 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 01-30-03 DELIVERY CHARGE $89.30 Invoice 12430 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 01-31-03 DELIVERY CHARGE $17.60 Invoice 12438 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $376 40 Cash Payment E 280-45250-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 CEMETARY UPDATE MAP $546.00 Invoice 42558 Project 07446 Cash Payment E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 WESTEDGE MISC ENGINEERING $290.50 Invoice 42559 Project 07827 Cash Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 WESTEDGE WATERMAIN EXTENSION $84.50 Invoice 42560 Project 07953 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 PLANNING MISC ENGINEERING $618.00 Invoice 42561 Project 08901 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 ZONING MISC ENGINEERING $412.00 Invoice 42562 Project 08902 Cash Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 STREETS MISC ENGINEERING $84.50 ,voice 42563 Project 08903 Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 MCES LOAN/GRANT PROGRAM $103.00 Invoice 42564 Project 11357 -799- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/19/03 11:39 AM Page 8 Cash Payment G 101-22857 Three Points, Backer Propert 01-03 BECKER BRADING PERMIT $272.60 Invoice 42565 Project 12162 Cash Payment G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 01-03 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT $206.00 Invoice 42566 Project 12252 Cash Payment E 455-46379-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 POST OFFICE DEMOLITION $2,174.50 Invoice 42567 Project 12379 Cash Payment E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 CTY RD 15 RELOCATION $6,463.30 Invoice 12533 Project 12533 Cash Payment E 455-46379-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 NEW POST OFFICE $51.50 Invoice 42569 Project 12879 Cash Payment E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 MCES LIFT STATION $154.50 Invoice 42570 Project 13132 Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 XCEL SUB-STATION $51.50 Invoice 42571 Project 13190 Cash Payment E 401-43110-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT $235.40 Invoice 42572 Project 13215 Cash Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 2003 STREET RECONSTRUCTION $764.20 Invoice 42573 Project 13276 Cash Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 WELL/PUMPHOUSE $875.50 Invoice 42574 Project 13313 Cash Payment G 101-22860 2642 Commerce, Bristol Clas 01-03 MAHOGONY BAY CUP $333.00 1voice 42575 Project 13495 Cash Payment E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 SKAALERUD LOT SURVEY $309.00 Invoice 42576 Project 13501 Cash Payment E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 CSAH 15 STREETSCAPE $515.00 Invoice 42577 Project 13565 Cash Payment E 401-46540-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 LOST LAKE/AUDITORS ROAD $791.70 Invoice 42578 Project 13566 Cash Payment G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 01-03 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT $142.00 Invoice 42579 Project 13646 Cash Payment E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT $188.20 Invoice 42580 Project 13677 Cash Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT $4,330.00 Invoice 42581 Project 13681 Cash Payment G 101-22899 Pastuck Natural Homes #02- 01-03 PASTUCK SUB-DIVISION $103.00 Invoice 42582 Project 13770 Cash Payment G 101-22908 Landform Development 01-03 LANDFORM DEVELOPMENT $309.00 Invoice 42583 Project 13832 Cash Payment G 101-22906 Waiver of Platting #02-22 01-03 STEIN WAIVER PLATTING $51.50 Invoice 42584 Project 13898 Cash Payment E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 PETERSON DRAINAGE ISSUE $51.50 Invoice 42585 Project 13939 Cash Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 UTILITY MAP UPDATE $842.15 Invoice 42586-A Project 14103 Cash Payment E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 UTILITY MAP UPDATE $842.15 Invoice 42586-B Project 14103 ash Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 2003 STREET RECONSTRUCTION $3,602.80 ,~voice 42587 Project 14121 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 NPDES PHASE II MS4 $463.00 Invoice 42588 Project 14137 -800- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/19/03 11:39 AM Page 9 Cash Payment G 101-22906 Waiver of Platting #02-22 01-03 BRENSHELL/LEE SUB-DIVISION $450.40 Invoice 42589 Project 14146 Cash Payment E 402-43120-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 2003 MSA ADMINISTRATION $309.00 Invoice 42590 Project 14171 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 6382 MAPLE ROAD VARIANCE $271.90 Invoice 42591 Project 14189 Transaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $27,292.80 Refer 22503 METRO WEST INSPECTIONS Cash Payment E 222-42260-170 Fire Chief-Officer Pay 01-03 FIRE INSPECTIONS $332.50 Invoice 013103 Transaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $332.50 Refer 22503 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIR Cash Payment E 602-49450-388 Waste Disposal-MCIS 03-03 WASTEWATER $54,370.33 Invoice 0000751018 Transaction Date 2/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $54,370.33 Refer 22503 MINNCOMMPAGING Cash Payment E 601-49400-418 Other Rentals 02-01-03 THRU 01-31-04 ON CALL PAGER $103.52 Invoice 67200002037 Cash Payment E 602-49450-218 Clothing and Uniforms 02-01-03 THRU 01-31-04 ON CALL PAGER $103.51 ~voice 67200002037 .,ash Payment E 222-42260-325 Pagers-Fire Dept. 02-03 PAGERS $207.20 Invoice 20233302031 Transaction Date 2/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $414.23 Refer 22503 MINNEHAHA CREEK WA TERSHED ....... Cash Payment E 496-46580-300 Professional Srvs MAILING COSTS $19.00 Invoice 022503 Transaction Date 2/11/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $19.00 Refer 22503 MINNESOTA COUNTIES INSURAN Cash Payment E 101-41310-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2003 MEMBERSHIP DUES $250,00 Invoice 002526 Transaction Date 2/11/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $250 00 Rei~r 22503 ~ouND ~iRE DEPA~TM~N~ Cash Payment E 222-42260-180 Fire-Drill Pay 01-03 DRILLS $710.00 Invoice 013103 Cash Payment E 222-42260-190 Fire-Monthly Salaries 01-03 SALARIES $6,586.75 Invoice 013103 Cash Payment E 222-42260-390 General Maint-Fire 01-03 MAINTENANCE $1,770.00 Invoice 013103 Transaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $9,066.75 Refer 22503 PA USTIS AND SONS WINE COMPA Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $9,640.72 Invoice 0210053-1N '.ansaction Date 2/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $9,640.72 t~efer 22503 pHiLLiPS WINEAND spiRiTsI/NC Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale LIQUOR $117.55 Invoice 921066 -801 - CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/19/03 11:39 AM Page 10 Current Period: February 2003 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $204.95 Invoice 921065 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $220.35 Invoice 918992 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $380.80 Invoice 918991 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $751.55 Invoice 918485 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,675.20 Refer 22503 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CIGARETTES $422.49 Invoice 9599 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $422.49 Refer 22503 PLUNKETT'S, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 609-49750-440 Other Contractual Servic 01-03 PEST CONTROL $14.02 Invoice 693901-B Transaction Date 2/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $14.02 Refer 22503 QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT--LIQUOR -$29.30 3voice 223035-00 ..;ash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $271.36 Invoice 226595-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $252.85 Invoice 226586-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,264.27 Invoice 226555-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2,611.94 Invoice 225942-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $137.49 Invoice 225941-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $242.08 Invoice 223942-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $163.80 Invoice 223761-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,501.42 Invoice 223545-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $67.60 Invoice 223536-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $498.51 Invoice 222553-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $2,015.24 Invoice 222550-00 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $8,997.26 Refer 22503 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO ~sh Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies AIR AND OXYGEN $22.79 ,nvoice R01031023 Transaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $22,79 Refer 22503 RIDGEVIEW BUSINESS HEALTH -802- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/19/03 11:39 AM Page 11 Current Period: February 2003 Cash Payment E 222-42260-305 Medical and Dental Fees VACCINATION FORSMAN $77.00 Invoice 011503 Transaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $77.00 Refer 22503 SALDEN, PAT Cash Payment E 101-45200-533 Tree Removal TREE REMOVAL $133.13 invoice 021103 Transaction Date 2/11/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $133.13 Refer 22503 SCHWAAB, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies PRE-INKED STAMPS $31.65 Invoice M68452 Cash Payment PRE-INKED STAMPS $31.65 Invoice M68452 Cash Payment PRE-INKED STAMPS $31.65 Invoice M68452 Cash Payment PRE-INKED STAMPS $31 Invoice M68452 Cash Payment PRE-INKED STAMPS HRA $31.65 Invoice M68452 Cash Payment PRE-INKED STAMPS $31.65 Invoice M68452 ash Payment HAND STAMPS $73.95 Invoice M68046 Transaction Date 2/11/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $263.85 Refer 22503 SHOREWOOD TREE SERVICE Cash Payment E 101-45200-533 Tree Removal 1645 EAGLE TRIMMED TREE $213.00 Invoice 4410 Transaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $213.00 Refer 22503 SIGN AGE, THE Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies BANNER $159.75 Invoice 11820 Transaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $159 75 Re;~r 22503 sP~RsTA~io~ Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery 0%03 SQUAD WASHES $211.47 Invoice 013103 Transaction Date 2/13/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $211.47 Refe~ 22503 STARTRiBSN~N~WSPA~ Cash Payment E 101-42110-328 Employment Advertising 02-03-03 CLASSIFIED $361.30 Invoice 193031002 PO 17576 E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies E 101-41500-210 Operating Supplies E 101-41500-210 Operating Supplies E 101-41110-210 Operating Supplies E 281-45210-210 Operating Supplies E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Wells Fargo 10100 Total $361.30 $194.26 $5.33 $1,153.15 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 Refer 22503 STREICHER'S Cash Payment G 101-22803 Police Reserves TASER CARTRIDGES Invoice 347678.1 PO 17580 Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery MAP LIGHT .voice 348112.1 PO 17577 Payment E 101-42110-219 Safety supplies SQUAD INSTALLATION Invoice 347967.1 -803- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/19/03 11:39 AM Page 12 Cash Payment E 101-42110-219 Safety supplies BATON, HOLDER, ETC $362.47 Invoice 348327.1 PO 17581 Transaction Date 2/13/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,715.21 Refer 22503 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $0.20 Invoice 283614-B Cash Payment E 609~49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,546.40 Invoice 288213 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $2,033.90 Invoice 287589 Transaction Date 2/1912003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,580.50 Refer 22503 TMB CONSULTING Cash Payment E 101.41920-400 Repairs & Maint Contract COMPUTER SERVICE $427.50 Invoice 05-335 Transaction Date 2/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $427.50 Refer 22503 TWIN CITY OFFICE SUPPLY Cash Payment E 101.41310-200 Office Supplies Invoice 373770-0 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies ~voice 373770-0 ..;ash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Invoice 373770-0 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 373770-0 Cash Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies Invoice 373770-0 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies Invoice 373770-0 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice 373770-0 Cash Payment E 601~49400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 373770-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies Invoice 373770-0 Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies Invoice 373770-0 Cash Payment E 281-45210-200 Office Supplies Invoice 374052-0 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 374214-0 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Invoice 374962-0 PO 17578 Cash Payment E 281-45210-200 Office Supplies Invoice 374623-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies ~voice 374623-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies Invoice 374623-0 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES INK JET CARTRIDGE BANKERS BOXES FILE STORAGE INK JET CARTRIDGE BADGE,CERTIFICATE,ETC BADGE, CERTIFICATE,ETC BADGE,CARTIFICATES, ETC $47.77 $47.77 $47.77 $47.77 $47.77 $15.92 $15.92 $23.88 $23.87 $105.42 $193.17 $35.55 $147,36 $10.55 $21.10 $21.11 -804- CiTY OF MOUND Payments 02/19/03 11:39 AM Page 13 Current Period: February 2003 Oaah Payment F 2§1-45210-200 Office Supplies Invoice 374909-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 374909-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies Invoice 374090-0 Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies Invoice 374909-0 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 Refer 22503 UNIFORMS LIMITED Cash Payment G 101-22803 Police Reserves Invoice 161268 PO 17557 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 INK JET CARTRIDGE $,6.99 INK JET CARTRIDGE $12.78 INK JET CARTRIDGE $12.77 INK JET CARTRIDGE $80.93 Wells Fargo 10100. Total $965.57 UNIFORMS $541.69 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $541.69 Cash Payment E 101-41110-430 Miscellaneous VOLUNTEER APPROCIATION GIFTS $93.40 Invoice 012903 Transaction Date 2/11/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $93.40 Refer 22503 VETSCH PLUMBING SERVICES Cash Payment R 101-32230 Plumbing Connection Permit REFUND PERMIT $30.00 ~voice 5746 ..;ash Payment G 101~20800 Due to Other Governments REFUND PERMIT $0.50 Invoice 5746 Transaction Date 2/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total ~. · $30.50 Refer 22 03 Cash Payment E 402-43120-300 Professional Srvs PAYMENT REQUEST ¢1 $33,325.86 Invoice REQUEST ¢1 Transaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $33,325.86 Refer 22503 WlDMER, INCORPORA TED Cash Payment E 601-49400-229 Street Repairs 01-22-03 REPAIR BREAK $530.00 Invoice 58~ Cash Payment $575.00 Invoice 5835 Cash Payment $968.00 Invoice 5836 Cash Payment $1,559.00 Invoice 5834 Cash Payment $1,936.00 Invoice 5833 Cash Payment $847.00 Invoice 5838 Transaction Date 2/13/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $6,415.00 Refer 22503 WINE COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $4,679.80 ~voice 094657 ~, ransaction Date 2/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,679.80 E 601-49400-229 Street Repairs E 601-49400-229 Street Repairs E 601-49400-229 Street Repairs E 601-49400-229 Street Repairs E 601-49400-229 Street Repairs 01-15-03 BARTLETT REPAIR 01-15-03 CTY RD 110 REPAIR 01-30-03 WATERMAIN REPAIR 01-14-03 3 PTS WATERMAIN 01-29-03 WATERMAIN REPAIR -805- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/19/03 11:39 AM Page 14 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $900.95 Invoice 68727 Transaction Date 2/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $900.95 Refer 22503 WINKLER, BOB Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials SAND FOR SALT MIX $1,838.31 Invoice 022503 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 02-07-03 CONCRETE SAND $1,174.70 Invoice 020703 Transaction Date 2/13/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,013.01 Refer 22503 XCEL ENERGY Cash Payment E 609-49750-381 Electric Utilities 01-02-03 THRU 01-28-03 SERVICE $732.39 Invoice 022503 Cash Payment E 609-49750-381 Electric Utilities 01-28-03 THRU 02-01-03 SERVICE $77.25 Invoice 022503 Cash Payment E 101-43100-381 Electric Utilities 01-03 STREET LIGHTS $341.23 Invoice 022503 Transaction Date 2/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,150.87 Refer 22503 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY Cash Payment E 222-42260-216 Cleaning Supplies MOP HEAD $54.26 3voice 57996210 , ransaction Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $54.26 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 101 GENERAL FUND $34,883.70 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES $13,077.37 280 CEMETERY FUND $546.00 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND $1,433.50 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS $9,636.47 402 MUNICIPAL ST AID ST CQNSTUCT $33,662.90 455 TIF 1-2 $18,258.78 496 HRA PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG $131.50 601 WATER FUND $16,257.74 602 SEWER FUND $56,052.68 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $62,226.82 670 RECYCLING FUND $8,075.25 675 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND $239.70 $254,482.41 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $254,482,41 $254,482.41 -806- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/1g/03 11:19 AM Page 1 Current Period: February 2003 'ame 021903SUE User Dollar Amt $3,489.00 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $3,489.00 R~'r 21903 C h;' ~yment Ir:' :~i~- 021903 C '~yment Ill 021903 C~ vment In ,021903 C ~:yment In, 021903 C~: 'ayment Ir', e 021903 C h Tr h~ C I T~ FRONTIER/CITIZENS COMMUNICA E 101-45200-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-45200-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-41910-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-41910-321 Telephone & Cells E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells $0.00 In Balance 01-03 952-472-0646 $19.50 01-03 952-4-72-0646 $0.35 01-03 952-472-0600 $1,810.66 02-03 952-472-0600 $1,064.42 01-03 952-472-3555 $205.90 -~ion Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3 100.83 21903 GRAND, DEB ,yment E 609-49750-305 Medical and Dental Fees REIMBURSE EYE EXAM $50.00 321903 t;q~ Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $50.00 vment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $321.15 031903 ~:[ion Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $321.15 .3_2503 THRIFTY WHITE DRUG STORE ,ment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies 01-27-03 PHOTO PROCESSING $17.02 1O0895 ;on Date 2/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $17.02 , J Summary 10100 Wells Fargo ,i GENERAL FUND $3.216.08 · ;! AREA FIRE SERVICES $222.92 ;~ MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $50.00 w ~ilten Check cks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $3,489.00 $3,489.00 $3,489.00 -807- Engineering ° Planning ° Surveying February 17, 2003 Ms. Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1627 SUBJECT: City of Mound Post Office Demolition SAP 145-108-05 Partial Payment MFRA #12379 Dear Kandis: Enclosed is Wickenhauser Excavating's Payment Request No. 1 for work completed through February 10, 2003 on the subject project. The amount of this payment request is $33,325.86. This payment request also includes payment for the extra asbestos removal covered in Change Order No. 1, previously approved by the City Council. We have reviewed this request, find it in order, and recommend payment in the above amount to the Contractor. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, MFRA John Cameron, City Engineer JC:rth cc: Gino Businaro, Finance Director Enclosure s:Xmain:Xmou 12379~correspondence\part-pay2-14 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476~6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra@mfra.com -808- m c~ ITl --4 ~ 8~m 'n oo ;I Z '11 (~ I11 · .-t C: ZZ~ .o ~00 0 r" ----- -'n m -q m m ITl "n -809- _"n -810- m Z 'n cz ° ~ .o m ...n -< zz~ ~m 9 ~o~ ~'-rl Ill -811- AGREEMENT FOR DISPOSAL BETWEEN NRG PROCESSING SOLUTIONS, LLC. AND THE CITY OF MOUND This agreement is made and entered into by the City of Mound and, hereinto referred to as the City, and NRG Processing Solutions, LLC., hereinto referred to as NRG PS. Section 1. TERM OF AGREEMENT This agreement will commence April 1, 2003 or when site is opened for the season, and shall expire December 1, 2003 or when the site is closed for the season. Section 2. AREA TO BE SERVED NRG PS will accept delivered, compostable yard waste material, without charge, from the private (i.e., non-commercial) residents of the City of Mound provided the material is prepared and delivered to the facility in a manner reasonably acceptable to NRG PS. The residents of the City will be required to show proper identification to show that they live in the City of Mound. Section 3. COMPOSTABLE MATERIALS The following are examples of the materials that will be accepted at the yard waste composting facility at no charge to residents of the City of Mound: Grass/Lawn Clippings Garden Waste Leaves Weeds Mil Foil Items may be added to or deleted from this list as agreed between the parties or required by law. Section 4. PAYMENT For the operation of accepting material from the residents of the City of Mound, the City will pay $12,500.00 up front to cover the material brought in by the residents of the City of Mound. NRG PS shall keep records of all yardage that is brought into the facility by the residents of the City. The $12,500.00 will cover 2500 cubic yards. If the total for the year is less than 2500 cubic yards NRG PS will refund to the City the difference at $5.00 per cubic yard for every cubic yard under 2500. If the total for the year is more than 2500 cubic yards the City will pay NRG PS $5.00 per a cubic yard for every cubic yard over 2500. -812- Section 5. CANCELLATION AND TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement for a material breach of the Agreement by the other party after giving written notice of breach and allowing the other party thirty (30) days to correct the breach to the satisfaction of the complaining party. Except as provided in the paragraph above, this Agreement may be canceled by either party only after thirty (30) days negotiation period and ninety (90) days notice to the other party. Section 6. APPLICABLE LAW This agreement is entered into, and governed by, laws of the State of Minnesota. Section 7. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This agreement shall constitute the entire Agreement between the parties and any prior understanding or representation of any kind preceding the date of this Agreement shall not be binding upon either party except to the extent incorporated in this Agreement In witness thereof, the parties hereto executed this agreement on the __ ., 2003 day of CITY OF MOUND NRG PS Kandis Hanson City Manager Gary White NRG Processing Solutions -813- AGREEMENT FOR DISPOSAL BETWEEN NRG PROCESSING SOLUTIONS, LLC. AND THE CITY OF MOUND This agreement is made and entered into by the City of Mound and, hereinto referred to as the City, and NRG Processing Solutions, LLC., hereinto referred to as NRG PS. Section 1. TERM OF AGREEMENT This agreement will commence April 1, 2003 or when site is opened for the season, and shall expire December 1, 2003 or when the site is closed for the season. Section 2. AREA TO BE SERVED NRG PS will accept delivered, compostable yard waste material, without charge, from the private (i.e., non-commercial) residents of the City of Mound provided the material is prepared and delivered to the facility in a manner reasonably acceptable to NRG PS. The residents of the City will be required to show proper identification to show that they live in the City of Mound. Section 3. COMPOSTABLE MATERIALS The following are examples of the materials that will be accepted at the yard waste composting facility at no charge to residents of the City of Mound: Grass/Lawn Clippings Garden Waste Leaves Weeds Mil Foil Items may be added to or deleted from this list as agreed between the parties or required by law. Section 4. PAYMENT For the operation of accepting material from the residents of the City of Mound, the City will pay $12,500.00 up front to cover the material brought in by the residents of the City of Mound. NRG PS shall keep records of all yardage that is brought into the facility by the residents of the City. The $12,500.00 will cover 2500 cubic yards. If the total for the year is less than 2500 cubic yards NRG PS will refund to the City the difference at $5.00 per cubic yard for every cubic yard under 2500. If the total for the year is more than 2500 cubic yards the City will pay NRG PS $5.00 per a cubic yard for every cubic yard over 2500. -814- Section 5. CANCELLATION AND TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement for a material breach of the Agreement by the other party after giving written notice of breach and allowing the other party thirty (30) days to correct the breach to the satisfaction of the complaining party. Except as provided in the paragraph above, this Agreement may be canceled by either party only after thirty (30) days negotiation period and ninety (90) days notice to the other party. Section 6. APPLICABLE LAW This agreement is entered into, and governed by, laws of the State of Minnesota. Section 7. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This agreement shall constitute the entire Agreement between the parties and any prior understanding or representation of any kind preceding the date of this Agreement shall not be binding upon either party except to the extent incorporated in this Agreement In witness thereof, the parties hereto executed this agreement on the __ day of ,2003 CITY OF MOUND NRG PS Kandis Hanson City Manager Gary White NRG Processing Solutions -815- TO; Gino FROM; Joyce Nelson Recycling Coordinator SUBJECT: 2002 Compost Site. L~aves collected at the NRG site was 3,259.7? cubic yards, we paid $16,298.85. The contract was $12,500.00 would cover 2500 cubic yards and $5.00 per cubic yard for anything over thc 2500. This is a reduced rate, they usually charge $7.00 per cubic yard. -816- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com TO: FROM: RE: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BONNIE RITTER GARBAGE COLLECTORS' LICENSES FEBRUARY 19, 2003 The following garbage collectors' licenses expire February 28, 2003. Approval of renewal is subject to all application forms, fees and certificates of insurance being received. Randy's Sanitation PO Box 169 Delano, MN 55328 Waste Management of MN PO Box 609 Winsted, MN 55395-0609 B.F.I. Waste Systems 9813 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 03- RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CONTINUATION OF CDBG FUNDING OF WESTONKA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK (WeCAN) WHEREAS, the City of Mound has supported services for its residents via WeCAN as a community-based human service organization dedicated to helping people achieve greater self-sufficiency and family stability; and WHEREAS, these services include emergency housing and utility assistance, job counseling, food and nutrition education, family support services, public assistance intake services, and family mental health counseling; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound recommends to the Consolidated Pool Selection Committee that Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding of Westonka Community Action Network (WeCAN) be continued. Adopted by the City Council this 28th day of February, 200. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -818- Western Communities Action Network · Family Support Services · Meals on Wheels · Human Services · Job Development & Placement 1155 County Road 19 Minnetrista, MN 55364 (952) 472-0742 (952) 472~5589 (FAX) SERVICE AREA Greenfield Mound Independence Rockford Loretto St. Bonifacius Maple Plain Spring Park Minnetonka Beach Tonka Bay Minnetrista Westem Orono OFFICERS Mark Winter President VP Crow River Bank David Sutton Vice President Community Volunteer Liz Jensen Secretary Assocociate Pastor, Fairview Covenant Church Marvin Johnson Treasurer Mayor of Independence OF DIRECTORS Anderson Police Chief Vern Brandenburg CommuniO/ Volunteer Sharon Cook Community Volunteer Mary DeVinney Westonka Food Shelf Dave Garwick Pastor, Christ Lutheran Church Len Harrell Mound Police Cheil Helmar Heckel Pastor, Baywind Christian Church Ray McCoy Director, West Hennepin Public Safety Dorothy McQneen Community Volunteer Susan Meyers Community Volunteer Marlys Nelson Persona/Banker Charles Pugh Community Volunteer Bob Tomalka Communily Volunteer Sue Williams Community Volunteer Uni V¢,¥ February 3, 2003 Mayor Pat Meisel and City Council Members City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Meisel and Council Members: On behalf of the WeCAN Board of Directors, I am again asking the City of Mound to support our request for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. As a community-based human service organization dedicated to helping people achieve greater self-sufficiency and family stability we appreciate your continued support. WeCAN provides a variety of services to low- income residents in western Hennepin County. In most cases WeCAN is the only provider of these services in our communities. Our programs include; Emergency housing and utility assistance, Job Counseling, Meals on Wheels, Family Support services, public assistance intake services, and access to family mental health counseling. In 2002, we served 969 families in our service area. Of those served, 304 were Mound residents. Enclosed for your review is detailed information of the services provided in our 12 city service area. During these turbulent economic times, WeCAN has witnessed the increased burden on families in financial and emotional crisis. Many of our clients are the working poor who barely earn enough income to get by. Any f'mancial setback can be devastating for the entire family. The requests for our services continues to grow every year. As you know, your city's CDBG allocation is now part of a pool of funds from communities receiving less than $75,000 annually in CDBG funding. This year WeCAN is again requesting $15,000 from CDBG funds. Mound has a long history of supporting WeCAN operations, and your continued support is essential to us. We take pride in our community and wish to continue serving those in need. -819- We would appreciate a letter of support or resolution from the City of Mound which affirms your support of WeCAN by March 3, 2003. We will then submit your letter along with our application for the CDBG funds to Hennepin County by the March 7th deadline. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please give me a call. I would be happy to provide whatever you might need. Thank you for your continued support! Respectfully; Gi Executive Director Enclosure -820- -821 - -822- -823- -824- -825- -826- -827- -828- -829- TO: FROM: DATE: S~CT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: PUBLIC LANDS ~PORT Pafl~ and Open Space Commissiop., City Cotmc'il and Staff Jim Faclder, Parks Director February 19, 2003 Public Lands Permit Application - New Sign Location The Village by the Bay LLC 5710-5740 V~fllage Trail, Mound Visions 2~a Addition REQUEST The applicant, The Village by the Bay LLC, is requesting installation of the permanent project sign for The Village by the Bay and on the new park land surrounding the site. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 5, Mound Visions 2"a Addition CITY CODE 320 - PRIVATE STRUCTURES AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON PUBLIC LAND City Code 320.01 regulates private structures and private construction activities on public land in the City of Mound. Specifically, Subd. 1 regulates new construction activities on public lands. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all applicable City departments for review and comment. All written comments received to date have been summarized below: City Engineer Cameron: Advised that sign shall be of maintenance free materials. Public Works Director Skinner: No commem. Building Supervisor Simonoau: No comment. -830- Parks Director Fackler: Recommends sign be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Additionally, the City should not be held responsible if sign is accidentally hit by maintenance equipment. Also noted that this area was taken as part of the park. Community Development Coordinator Smith: Proposed sign materials are acceptable. Suggest checking with G. Skinner and/or John Cameron regarding any site distance issues. Applicant is advised that a sign permit is required including the submittal with all necessary information. Based on preliminary review of public land application materials, it appears the size and location of the area identification sign meets the requirements as set forth in City Code Section 365:20 Subd. 4 including sign area not to exceed (24) square feet, placement no closer than (10) feet from any ROW and height not exceeding six (6) feet. Applicant will be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of the sign including any proposed landscaping elements. PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW Copies of the proposal were forwarded to all involved public agencies. All written comments received to date have been included in the packet as separate attachments. SITE INSPECTION City Officials and Board Members are encouraged to visit the site prior to the meeting. NOTIFICATION None required RECOMMENDATION The Park and Open Spaces Advisory Commission unanimously recommended granting this Public Lands Permit subject to stipulations of staff. Staff.recommended better determinations of the electrical height and location, the type and size of construction of border around the sign, and Homeowner Association maintenance of the sign. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Forwarded to the City Council for review at its Tuesday, February 25, 2003 meeting. -831 - ATTACHMENTS: · Public Lands Permit Application dated December 12, 2002 · Site Plan · Final Plat · Scaled version of site sign · Photographs of area with sign reflected · Copy ofdrat~ of portion of minutes from Park and Open Space Advisory Commission meeting on February 13, 2003 relating to this issue. -832- 4. Discuss: Public Lands Permit, The Village by the Bay Fackler gave a breakdown of info included in packet. ~chelle Kaiser, from Metro Plains, presented a background as to why this permit application for a sign is being presented. Due to a miscommunication at the Metro Plains office as to sign placement, the sign has already manufactured. Michelle displayed an overhead of the sign. The sign is made of steel and mesh so it is maintenance free and does not obstruct the view of traffic in any way. The sign is set at an angle, 20' back from the street and sidewalk. There will be a border set 3' off.the face of the sign with edging, mulch and plantings. The and homeowner association maintained. Fackler stated he has no objection as maintains and also reinstalls the si for any reason. Fackler also location of electrical, a better, and a clear definition responsibility in the packet presented Council. association do remove it include sign, Motion by Village by the Bay sign Hentz. Motion carded. Permit for the Seconded by This February 25,2003. -833- De~ber 18, 2002 "h'o' a ~ i n g Jim Faekler Park Director City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55374 ETROPLAINS METROPLAINS PROPERTIES NC ~ METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT.. ~LLC · t h e h e a r t I a n d',, . = RE: The Village by the Bay New Sign location Dear Mr. Fackler, Please accept the enclosed public land application for the installation of the permanent project sign :for The Village by the Bay on the new park land surrounding the site..The existing' "- easement is not adequate for the installation of the site sign. I have enclosed copies of the ske plan, plat, and photographs of the location with an image of the sign in this location. There are ' presently stakes in the proposed location as well as electrical lines if you would like to go takea · lookflrst hand., . We would expect this to be in front o~your commission on Jan. 16, 2003 and in front of the'CitY Council on Jan. 28, 2003 per the dates provided to me. Please let me know if you have any comments or would like to discuss further. ~ Eno. -834- SPRUCE TREE CENTRE · 1600 UNIVERSITY AVE. · SUITE 212 SE. PAUL MINNESOTA 55104-3825 651 646 7848 · FAX 651 646 8947 · www. metroplains.corn PUBLIC LAND APPLICATION ATTACHEMENTS - THE VILLAGE BY THE BAY December 1 g, 2002 1. Site plan 2. Final plat 3. sealed version of site sign 4. photographs of area with sign reflected -835- ._.. 11/14/2002 08:44 FAX 9524720620 City of Mound 9524720620 CITY OF MOUND OO6 PUBLIC LANDS APPLICATION Date Received Dock commission Date DISTRIBUTION City Council Date Building Official DNR Parks Director MCWD Check One Public Works Other CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT- new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF. BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing encroachment to remain in an "as is~ condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4). The, structure or work you are request, lng is an actlvlty on publicly owned lands. Structures.like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc, are ail NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance, which means that those structures will at some time In the future have to be removed from the public lands, All permits are granted for a limited ttme and are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new permit Is applied for due to a change in dock site holder, Please type or print legibly ApPLiCANT Name The Village by the Bay LLC - attn: Mfchelle Kal, set Address 1600 University Ave. Suite 212 ' Phone (H) (W) 651-523-1238 .(M) ABUTTING Address 5710-5740 V:[lla~e Tra~.'l ... . PROPERTY LEGAL Lot one Block five DESC. Subdivision Mound Visions 2nd Addition .... ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1" B-2 B-3 ~bubllc Lands Permit Application Page I of 2 Revised 03/20/02 -836- ll/14/2002 08:44 FA.~. B~24720§20 CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC Name T~D - PROPERTY Dock Site # Shoreline Type CONTRACTOR Name ,St~;nsations Address 2140 Energy Park Drive Phone (H) ,ON) 651-917-7024 (M) , ,PP~OPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS) $8000 DESCRIBE REQUEST&PURPOSE At the time of 'execution of the .development agreement between the .city and MetroPlains Development LLC the design of t~e permnaent ,,site s~n. r.-w~s Undeterm.~ned. ~ After design and construction of the sign, it was determined that the i'$~gn no longer.fit into lhe orginal easement and would be better oriented to the street ~he d~uetopment is planning for furfiher landscaping surrounding'the sign in the form of an edged area with low bushes, annuals and mulch to further enhance the ~ign. ~e are willing to work with the city to define, the landscaping for ease of maintenance L_to the.remaining park area. The landscaping within the edging surrounding the sign will be maintained by the association. ~>'~.'.... Public Lands permit Application Page 2 of 2 Revised 03/20/02 -837- -838- -839- -840- Q ! Z 0 Commerce Bellaire The Village at Cook's Bay Mound, Minnesota Developers: Metroplains Development Inc. PB K Investments 62850-002 ,~ I · , . %- ObN'!y BON) NO. ! 10 I OU TLOT OF .I I 100 A 8.41 Remove fence 17.0' 104 128.1" 'i NEW SIGN LOCA' LANDSCAPE CIR 5' OFF SIGN FA s~gn curb ¢ut -SR @ s" 2R ~ 8R Bidg:. 14 -Ramp 100.7' Bldg.13, · cut. wall -Ramp -844- · 25.2" " ... 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: February 18, 2003 SUBJECT: Variance(s)Request - Front Setback'and Lot Area ~ · APPLICANT: William Stoddard (on behalf of Minnetonka Enterprises) OWNER: Tim Becker Dale and Lorell Becker PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 03-01 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) SUMMARY At its February 3, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance request(s) from William Stoddard of Minnetonka Enterprises front yard setback reduction of (10) feet for Lots 5-8 and lot area size variances for Lot 5-7. As set forth in the R-1 District regulations, a front setback of 30-feet and minimum lot size of 10,000 SF are required. The purpose for the variance(s) request is to allow development of the subject lots for single- family residential use. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted 7 to 1 to recommend denial of the variance(s) application. Details regarding the Planning Commission's review are contained in the February 3, 2003 meeting minute excerpts that have been included as an attachment. -845- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A letter from the MCWD was received February 18, 2003 regarding the proposed application and has been included as an attachment. Effective August 2002, all permitting issues associated with floodplain fill and surface water management are the responsibility of the City of Mound following approval of the City's Water Management Plan by the MCWD. The applicant presented an architectural rendering and proposed floor plan at the February 3, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Copies have been included in the packet. 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 January 2, 2003. The 60- day timeline expires on or around March 1, 2003. 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. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW A resolution has not been prepared in advance of the City Council meeting. Therefore, in making its decision on the variance(s) application, the City Council should direct City staff to prepare a resolution based on the record of the City's review including all findings of fact and request that it be brought back to the next meeting of the City Council to be held on March 11, 2003. 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. -~846- MINUTE EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3, 2003 -DRAFT- CASE 03-01 FRONT SETBACK AND LOT AREA SIZE VARIANCE LOTS 5-8, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES WILLIAM STODDARD / MENNETONKA ENTERPRISES 5331/5341/5351/5361 THREE POINTS BOULEVARD Overview - Community Development Director Smith The applicant is requesting a reduction from the R-1 setback standard of 30 feet to allow a 20 foot front setback for the property and lot area variances. The R-1 minimum lot size is 10,000 SF. Three lots do not meet this requirement. Notice of the variance request was sent to those individuals that live within 350 feet of the site a courtesy following City Council directive. Land use in the area is residential (single family on the west, south and east; condominiums on the north.) The property includes four parcels that were platted in 1962 and are entitled to lot of record provisions. There are utilities available to the lots. Staff commented on the variance requests and indicated that the minimum front setback of 20 feet is reasonable as it reduces the amount of fill to be placed in the flood plain which is consistent with our obligation to enforce the rules from the watershed district. Impacts to the existing wetland are also minimized. Regarding the requested lot area variances, staff indicated that 3 of the 4 lots met the code when they were platted and further commented that special or unique conditions exist that may warrant relief of the ordinance restrictions. Smith commented that 3 lots are within 80-90% of the minimum size for the district and that front setback variance's were granted previously. Staff recommended approval 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 action in the event the variances are approved. 3. Applicant shall be required to submit all required information upon submittal of the building permit applications, when appropriate. 4. The lowest floor (including basement and/or crawl space) shall be at or above the RFPE. '5. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits. The applicant, Bill Stoddard, stated that there is a lot of history on this site. Variances were -847- Plmming C0m~nissi0n Minutes Jmuary 6, 2002 given to these lots in the past, as well as to neighboring properties. He stated he is willing to work with city staff. Mueller stated that he is opposed to the variance for the from setbacks and inquired what the City Attorney has to say about reasonable use of the property? Smith stated that the undue hardship must be demonstrated with a variance and that you need to allow the property owner reasonable use of property. If the Planning Commission wants a legal opinion on this matter, staff suggested that City Attorney Dean be consulted. Mueller stated that when you look at the lots, it wouldn't make any difference whether we allow 4 houses or 1 house as it still would not decrease the setback. Smith stated that because the northern portion of the property is high and the southern portion is lower and includes a lakeshore setback requirement, a designated wetland and the 100-year flood plain, the application of the 30-foot setback standard to this property creates environmental issues in the rear of the property. It will require the placement of more fill and additional excavation in the area which could impact the wetland. It also pushes the houses closer to the 50 foot lakeshore setback. Relief on the setback in this case is appropriate because you are minimizing the impacts in the rear of the property. The applicant is meeting all the codes with regards to the lakeshore setback and is staying away from the wetland and appears to be doing what he can to minimize the impact to the flood plain. These lots were platted for residential use and have utililities available but are smaller than they were originally perhaps due to code changes or interpretation. The majority of the discussion in recent years involved the existing wetland and whether or not one existed. This item can now be removed from discussion as it ha:s been resolved. Meuller stated that in the past the Planning Commission has had an informal 10% rule for lot size and if you were to look at it that Way, 3 lots would be allowed but this wouldn't address the 20 foot front setback issue. City Engineer Cameron stated that Three Points Blvd is wider than necessary and that the boulevard is ~6 feet wider than state aid requires so the boulevard on this side is already 3 feet wider than what is absolutely necessary. He commented that in reality, there is 17 feet from the curb line to the property line. Meuller stated that it occurred to him that it would be incumbent upon the City to work out an arrangement for this property because reasonable use of land will become a discussion issue. He commented that he has a little trouble with setbacks that but feels he can resolve that issue in his own mind but that he can't come to terms with 4 lots but indicated that it was workable. He commented that it's the density issue that bother him. He stated that if the proposal includes 3 lots instead of 4, the only variance needed will be for the front setbacks. Mueller stated that as a citizen, he doesn't want to have to buy a lakeshore lot because we don't want to give them a 20-foot variance. There are condos across the street with garages 20 feet from the road. He commented that he doesn't like going closer to the street. He stated that he feels the City will end up buying the 4m lot to keep the density down. Mueller commented that there is a boulevard and a sidewalk. It's private ownership. -848- Plmming Commission Mfl~utes January 6, 2002 Courts have told us before that we can't be so restrictive to prohibit development. Mueller asked if all the properties except to the north are zoned RI? Smith stated they were. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Osmek, to move denial of the application. MOTION carried. Voting in favor: Clapsaddle, Hasse, Ayaz, Michael, Glister, Osmek and Mueller. Voting against: Raines. Staff suggested that the Planning Commission make findings based on its recommendation. Mueller made the following findings of fact to support the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial: 1. The front yard setback negatively affects all adjacent property. 2. A 20-foot setback would not be conducive to the balance of properties in the area. 3. Lots 5-7 do not meet the 10,000 SF minimum lot area requirement. 4. Ordinances change for a reason. 5. The impact of traffic in the neighborhood would be negative and could affect safety if four (4) dwellings were built that close to a fairly major roadway. Michael offered Raines a chance to comment. He declined. -849- Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life Escablished in 19~7 Mail: 18202 Minnetonka Blvd., Deephaven, MN 55391 Phone: (952) 471-0590 Fax: (952) 471-0682 Email: admin @ minnehahacreek.org Web Site: www. minnehahacreek.org Board of Managers ~la G. Blixt Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Scott Thomas Richard Miller Robert Schroeder February 13, 2003 Sarah Smith City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Residential Subdivision, 5331-5361 Three Points Boulevard, Mound Dear Ms Smith: After reviewing the site plans for the project cited above, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District would like to take the opportunity to express concern regarding the proposed project cited above within your City. While no additional permits will be required by MCWD due to the City's approved Water Resources Management Plan, MCWD encourages the City of Mound to thoughtfully consider the concerns of the Watershed District during its review and approval process. The applicant has proposed to construct four new single family homes on a residential lot adjacent to Lake Minnetonka. It is the opinion of the MCWD staff that the project has the potential for adverse affects on area water resources including wetlands, floodplains and Lake Minnetonka. 'General Comments: · The proposal appears to have significant impacts to riparian wetlands from proposed filling activities. MCWD encourages the City as the Local Government Unit in charge of enforcing and implementing the Wetland Conservation Act to closely examine the sequencing argument presented by the applicant in accordance with Rule 8420.0540. This requires that applicants of proposed projects avoid and minimize wetland impacts to the greatest extent possible. This may include reducing the number of homes on the parcel and/or reconfiguring the design of the project. Protection and preservation of existing water resources should be of primary concern. · Encourage the applicant to reduce and minimize the total amount of impervious area on the site. Reductions in the number of lots or the size of the homes may be appropriate in efforts to minimize the increased volume and rates of runoff leaving the site. Retention, detention and/or pre-treatment of stormwater runoff may also be appropriate for the site. This may be accomplished through the utilization of integrated management practices to minimize the negative hydrologic effects of development. These may include: bioretention of storm water, dry wells, infiltration basins, filter strips and multifunctional landscapes, rain barrels, cisterns, and swales. · The proposed project appears to have a significant encroachment into the 100-year floodplain of Lake Minnetonka. In accordance with MCWD Rule C, the proposed project should not result in a net loss of floodplain volume for the waterbody. The floodplain is defined as the area between the elevations of the Ordinary High Water level (929.4' NGVD 1929) and the 100-year floodplain (931.5' NGVD 1929). The volume of encroachment and subsequent impact should be quantified and mitigated at a minimum of a one-to-one ratio based on volume. Mitigation will likewise occur between the OHW and 100-year floodplain elevation. Pdnted on recycled paper contalnin, at least 30% post consumer waste. -850- Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Established in 1967 Mail: 18202 Minnetonka Blvd., Deephaven, MN 55391 Phone: (952) 471-0590 Fax: (952) 471-0682 Email: admin @ minnehahacreek.org Web Site: www. minnehahacreek.org Board of Managers Pamela G. Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Scott Thomas Richard Miller Robert Schroeder The proposed project appears to have impacts to existing wetland buffers on the site. While the City ordinance regarding wetland buffers does not apply in this situation, it should be noted that MCWD would, under normal circumstances, apply the wetland buffer requirements of Rule D towards this project under its regulatory program. The City is encouraged to seek to preserve the maximum amount of wetland buffer as possible. Wetland buffers serve an important purpose in the maintenance and improvement of water quality within the wetland, the lake as well as the habitat currently existing on the site. if you have any questions piease call (952) 471-0590. Sincerely, Michael D. Wyatt District Technician C: Lynda Peterson, Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources Ellen Sones, Hennepin Conservation District Julie Ekman, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Joe Yanta, United States Army Corp of Engineers Wayne Barstad, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2 Pdnt~l o~ recycled paper containing at least 30% pest consumer waste. -851 - -853- ~sen fs Hart i Son'S. hores,, t ne:an! 'ST E :COi ~NTY ~no b~ me e~ch duly s~or~:?~did ~nd s~er~f~ry o{ H~rrl~ going ~f~ument, that the ~orpo, a~e s~al of ~e~d c°~ it.i~n and seelad:~[i~ behalf.of sald. ~ratio~ on .t h :".:.1,1o t .r~ii'i Pub Ii c, /~y.' co~!.ssi, on ex d~nt Secref'ar'y ~OC I AT t ON -( ~ON 5341 Maywood Road Mou~d, ~ 55364 PLANNING REPORT TO:' Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: January 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Variance(s) Request- Front Setback and Lot Area ~PLIC.ANT: William Stoddard (On behalf of Minnetonka Enterprises) OWNER: Tim Becker Dale and Lorell, Becket PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 03-01 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 B!vd / 5361 Three Points Blvd ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential (1-6 units/acre) REQUEST The applicant; William Stoddard of Minnetonka EnterpriSes, has signed a purchase a~eement for the property owned by Tim Becker and Date and Lorell Becket which is described as' Lots 5-8, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores and is requesting a l~ont yard setback reduction of (10) feet for Lots 5-8 and lot area size varianceg for Lot 5,7. As set 'fOrth in ~eR~i DiStrict regulgti°iiS',~a front setback of 30-feet and minimum lot size of 10,000 SF are:t~uired. The p~6se for the variance(s) request is to allow development of the subject lots for single-family residential use. RENEW PROCEDURE ~ City Code Section 350:530 Subd. 1 outlines the criteria for granting variances in the City of Mound and generally states that a variance to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance may be issued to provide relief to the landowner in those areas where the ordinance imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of his or her land. A copy of City Code Section 350.530 has been included as an attachment. -856- PROCESS" ........... The variance application was received and deemed to be complete on January 3~ ··2003. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the city of MOUnd has sixty (60) days to approve or deny a land use request. NOTIFICATION City policy requires that abutting property owners are notified of variance requests by mailed notice. As there was considerable neighborhood interest during 'the City's review of tfi~ 2002 rezoning application, the City Council requested tMtmaited notice be provided to all property owners within (350) feet of the subject site as well as to those individuals who attended the August 5, 2002 Planning Commission meeting based on the sign-in sheet on file. This activity was completed on January 30, 20'03. ISSUES ANALYSIS ComprehensiVe Plan Existing Land Uses. West East North South Residential (10,000 SF lot. size) Residential (6000 - 10,000 lot size) High Density Residential Residential (10,000 SF lot size) Draft Land Use Plan.. The subject property is guided for future low-density residential use (1-6 urfits / acre.5 Zoning(~.. The folio.wing table includes the lot. area, width and setback requirements for the K-1 ' Single-Family Residential District. · Lot Area Width Depth .... Front, Side · Rear Lake Setback Setback , ~Setbac$,,: Setback R-1 10,000 SF 60 FT 80 Fl' 30 FT 10 FT 15 FT 50 FT 2 -857- Lot of Record Provisions ini~R-! District,. The fo!}oxving special provisions agply~ ~for,~Lots of Record in the. R, 1 Single-,F~17 Residential District:: SiZe Yard Setb ack Requirements Lot Width Minimum Side Yard Setback- One (1) Side 40-50feet 6feet 80'lOOfeet 8feet ] 01 feet or over 10 feet Front Yard Setback J~ ecluirements . Lot Depth Minim'urn Front Yard SetbaCk' 60feet or'less 20feet " 61-80feet 24feet SI, feet or more 30feet Hardcover,: ,..~e hardcover allowance for a property with:'qot~ofrec0rd" status is (40) percent. Residential Minimum Flo°i' ~Reqairements. ~:City'COd~ stCtith 35014:5, Subd. 1' staes that a minimum dwelling size of (840) square feet is required for all new residential construction. · Ordinary High Water Elevation. The Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation for Lake Minnetonka is 929:4 ..... ,: · .:. '~ Floodplain. Required Elevation. The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) for the City of Mound is, 933:00.~ FlOodplain re~lations require that the tOwe~t flt0r of ali structures including basements and crawl spaces must be constructed at or above the RFPE. Fill / Compensation. City Code Chapter 300.13, Subd 4 (b) states that the placement of fill in the flood fringe shall result in a no-net decrease in 100-year fl6°d St°r~ge. In the event the floodplain compensation cannot be accommodated on-site, it must be accomplished on the sathe Waterbody and in an appropriate location approved by the city. -8 8- Wetland :B0unda~, The wefl~d boundary as det~ed bY'the Teehni6al 'EvOcation' P~el (TEP) was approved by the City Council at if§ SUly 9, 2002'meeting md is referenced on th~ new survey dated January 2, 2003 which was prepared by Coffin & Gronberg. A wetlaxad buffer is not required as the subject lots are deemed to be "lots ofr~¢~riT"~l t~ p~'ope~i~ ri~i Proposed to be subdivided. SITE INFORMATION - PROPOSED The following table summaxizes the lot area; lot width and setback req~ements for the subject site as proposed by the applicant: Lot Width** Front Side ~R~P'.'~:::' ''~ '"'~al~shbr~ .... ~P:~ious Area* Setback Setback S'etback Setback Coverage Lot5 8730S~ 1:'93 ' ". 20'FT 10FT N/A 50FT ~ ~' 23% Lot 6 8970 SF 91 20 FT 10 FT N/A 50 FT 28 % Lot 7 9380 SF 89 20 FT: ,10 I~'T N/A 57 FT ' 27% Lot 8 10010 SF 110 20 F~'' 10 FT N/A 52 FT ~ 24% *Note: Effective October 2001, lot area is measured from the 929.4 (OHW) elevation. PreviouslY~.4t was ,measured from.the 93L0'(lO0-year floodplain ) elevation,'~ **~ote: As.measured from minimum 30,foot. fro~set~ack line,~. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIETM ' ' 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 Ffi'eChief Pederson Police ChiefMqKinley See memorandum dated January 28, 2003. Refer to. memorandum from John Cameron. 'No 6omment. No. 0omment,,, . NO comment.. Building Official Simoneau Due to. proximity of 931.0 elevation (100-year floodplain) it is strongly recommended that any proposed structure(s) be constructed to exclude basements and/or crawl spaces. -859- DISCUSSION The subject property includes four (4) parcels located on the south side of Three Points Boulevard 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 wetland / lagoon. Lots 5-8, Block 4, Harrison Shores Replat are considered to be lots of record. At its September 24, 2002 meeting, the City Council denied a request to rezone the subject property from R-1 to R-lA. Details regarding the rezoning application are contained in the following documents: Planning Report No. 02-26, the August 5, 2002 Planning Commission meeting minutes, the September 24, 2002 City Council . meeting minutes and Resolution No. 02-96. At its July 9, 2002 meeting the City Council adopted a resolution that approved the wetland boundary as determined by the TEP and denied the applicant's request for a no-net loss wetland exemption and determination. Details are contained in Resolution No. 02-73. The following land use actions were approved previously for the subject property: Resolution 86-82 Lot size and setback variance for Lot 8, Block 4 Resolution 86-97 Vacation of certain utility and drainage easements for Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 Resolution 86-98 Front yard setback variance for Lots 5, 6, and 7 Block 4 to allow (20) foot front setback Resolution 86-99~ Final subdivision: Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 4 A proposed building pad has been demonstrated on the subject lot(s) based on a 20- foot front yard setback. All proposed building pads are located outside of the 100- year floodplain (931.0 elevation). It is City staff's understanding that house plans for the l°ts have not yet been developed. Strict application of the 30-foot front setback standard increases the impact to the' 100-year floodplain and wetland area(s.) i0. 11. Approval of the variance(s) application does not constitute or guarantee approval of any future permit(s) (ie. building permit, etc.) by the City of MoUnd ~i"'~Y~t~er public agency. Applicant will be responsible for procurement of all required permits. A VarianCe was ~ted to Lot 4, BlOck. 4, R~lat of H~s0ii~Sti6reg in 1992 to · approve a six (6) foot lakeshore variance from the required:50:f0ot setback at 1701 Baywood Lane for a deck. All other setbacks and lot area requirements are confo~g inctu~g the 'i0,000 ~um lot: Size', the 30~foot setback to Baywood Lane and the 20-foot front setback to Three Points Boulevard. Details are contained in ResOlution N0::'92,88 which has been included. A cOpy"°f the su~ey for::the prof~e~ loeateff~'immediatety west 6f the subject prop~ '(Lot '9;'~Bloek' 4, RePlat of H~s6ns Shorej :has been included. 'N'o variances are on file for Lot 9. ~. : ~' RECOMMENDATION, ~ Staff:recommends that the Planning C0~ssi0n reco~end City council appr6¥al 'of a ten (10) foot front setback variance for Lots 5-8 to allow a 20-foot front yard, :s'etback and lot area variances for Lots 5~7 Block 3, Replat of Harrison Shores sUbject to the following list of minim~: c0ndition.~:. - ..... 1. ApPlie~t shall be responsible for payment of all costS' asSociaied V~ihh the land use requests. 2. No future approval of any development, plans and/or building permits is included as' part of this action in the event the variance(s) application is approved. 3. Applicant: shall be required to submit ali required information upon submittal of the building pennit applications, when appropriate. 4. The lowest floor (including basement and/or crawl space) shall be at or above the RF?E 5. Applicant shall be resPomible for procurement: of any and/Of'all permit~. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW In the event a recommendation is received from the Planning Commission at its February 3, 2003 meeting, it is anticipated that the application will be forwarded to the City Council for review at its February 25, 2003 meeting. The applicant is advised that this date ~s tentatiVe at this time. -861 - Minnctonka E' terprises January 2, 2002 City of Mound Sarah J. Smith, Community Development Director 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: Yarian¢~ Request for Four Lots ofRec0rd ~eluding 5331, 5341, 5351and 5361 Three points Blvd, MoUnd, MN Dear Ms. Smith: We have indluded the ul~i~l/~ted survey~ cut/fill caibul~tions, p~0posed building pad loc~?m.~pther '.~. ormatm y0u req~st~ fro~ your letter, please discard the pr~Ous sUr~ey, and .inSe~ ~his latest inf6mfion..' Insummary, we are:req~ing a ten- foot variance for the fi.ont (street) yard setback fi.om thirty m twenty feet forall four parcels, and lOt)~ea v~Ces ~of three of.t~ four, parcels,, ~ . · The lots have received a number'0~;ivari.ances ~ !.,he:.p ~ast..} and the subje{t Proper~y..was recemly denied a re-zoning requiem: fro mlits existing ~ application as the onlx.~way we know of to permit construction on these...four lots. .:. We~la4ve enclosed your Variance Application forms, survey, and fees.per your direction. , Fee[i~ee.~t0.mmact me ~70~ n~d:, ~aaT~further~,'mfomtion for this Appli~g~ti0m.. We are reqUes/t~ t?be' placed 2.09?Pl gAgend C" :''i'~''~ L: "::'"."'' ..:'~ s~'~C · Sincerely~ ,. · ', 10201 Wayzata Bouleva?d · Suite A · Minnetonka, MN 55305 · Phone 9~52159'1.0606 · Fa'x 9~2,591.0603 City of Mound ,VARIANCE APPLICATION Planning Commission Date City Council Date City Planner City Engineer Public Works App!ication Fee: $200.00 Case NO. (~ 5--'~[ _ D.N.R. DEC ~ 20#~ ~PL,4$ ""~ Other /l(//l/g ~.~ Please type or print le! ]ibly ZONING DISTRICT R-1A ..... R-2 R-3 8-1 B-2 B-3 THAN . an ap[ ever. made for zomng, vanance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedun for this property? Yes ~ No (). If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution r~u'mber(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Be'~alled description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of Varianoe APplica~i°n ' Page I of $ Re~ed 03/20/02 -863- c se _ 0 :b-O I Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for rims zoning district in which iris lecated? Yes (.) No (). If rlo,:specify each non-conforming use (ci-eScdbe reason for variance request, I.e. setback, lot area~ etc.): ~: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE~ (or existing) Side Yard: ( N S ~. ~. ft. Rear Yard: Lakeside: (~E W) ~O ~. ~O ~. ~ ff. ' (NSEW) Street Frontage: LOt Size: sq 4. Does the present use cf'the prope~ con'tm to all regulations for the zoning district in Which it is located? Yes(~ ), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming'use: 5. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow .¢~ topography too small ( ) drainage too, shallow ( ) PleaSe desCiibe: soil exist ng situation other'; specify Variance Application Page 2 of 3 Revised 03/20/02 -8i~4- Case No.'_ 6. Was the hardship described above created' by the action of a,n, yo~e having property interests in.the after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No,,~ If yes, explain: land 7. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~, If yes, explain: 8. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (~. If no, list some other pr.operties which are similarly affected? 9. COmments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I acknowledge that I have read all of the variance information provided. I consent to the entry In or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. · APplicant's Signature, _ ~/ ~ . , Variance Application Page 3 of 3 Revised 03~0/02 - 865- . .. . ',;: .':.:' ; · .. ,..:.. :.. .'. -866- ~ ' Page $ of 3 .... Revtaed02~:~2 · : '. '. . :'. :' ., -867- This information sheet only summarizeR'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 ZO' ing DistriCt,- Si',ngle Family ReSid..enti'al PRINCIPAL .BUILDINGS. Lot Are'a,. LiS't"Width.;' an~! Setback Reo.'ulr. em~n~'~' Mi?,imum Lot Area !measured above the flood elevation)..; .................... !0,00Q ~quare feet t Ya[d' Se~tb~bk: : ' ,,'"30 feet Fron .......... , ." '. · ' S~de. Yard Setbask ......... ;, ........................................................................ , ......... 10feet Rear Yard Setback ........................................................................................ 1,5 feet Minimum Lot Depth ........................................................................................... 80 fee~ Lakeshore / Ordinary High Water Setback ........ .... ; ............................................... 50 feet Minimum Floor Area Requirement: .................................................. ~.~ ..... 840 ~quare feet ~Minimum-lot~frontage on an improved public'street Shall be 60 feet~ except th'at lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be 60.feet at the fr:ent building setback line. Building Height: Maximum 2~/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, t~ l~l~e Cornice of a fiat roof, te,~tlie'deck line:..of,a mansard.~roof, to a point onthe roof. directly above the highest:V~a'll of a Shed roof, to the .uppermost poinl;,on a round,or other arch type' roof, to'the mean distance of the 15ighest. gable, on a pit, ched or hip roof." LOTS O.F RECORD. Special Provisiorts. Corner Lots: ..~,. Io'~ ~/idt~"' mr~irfi~im sid~'ya'i'd: Setb~bk 40.., 50 feet lQ feet · 51 - 80 feet 20..feet '81.., feet ~r. more , :. 30 ~ee~. ~., Side ~ard R~a'~m~-R~-s:~;:~he~,¢~aired :.~ide ~ard"~etbabE ~h~tF 5~: a ~i~mu~.. 5f: 10 lot width minimum setback on 1 side 40- 79 feet : ~ = ' 6feet ' ...', 80 - 100 feet 8 feet ..,.~' !Q1 ,,feet-,er mo[~ 10 feet Front Yard: Except as regulated in Section 350:440, Subd. 6 of the City Code, the front yard setbac, k shall b~ ~a,.s,e_d ,q,Q.t,b~ !~t ~.¢.p,tb .~s ~ol!~o.,.w.,,I,S,: ..... ~,, ;:;'i .... ~' :,,, ' :" "'i '"~','~I ;'~,"~",.",-7:,:'!;.' ........ ................ . .... ., ....... ... , , .... , .... ~.:.;: .:. .:; : ., . . Ibt depth · minimum front yard setback 60 feet or less '. 20 feet 61 -; 80 feet,'.,' ' 24 feet. '~i feet or more 30 feet Rev. 3/97 R- 1 Zoning. District General Z-'~ning Information HARDCOVER REQ~!REMENTR: !i.m.. pervious surfa~e coverage.Of Iol;~ ~hall.n? @x~eed. ~GO percent of the lot area, On existing le~s::oi< too'Oral% l~p~io~s i~p~vi~'~§ge may be P'e~tted ~3y a rhaX'lt'~,,~m of ~ percent providing that techniques are utilized as identified in Section 350'i1225, Subd, 6.B.1. 'ln'~pervious cover is any surface impervious or res'istant to the free flow of water'or surface moisture, inclu ding all buildings, driveways and. parking areas Wheth,e~,p~,~.~ .o~: no~ te,nnis ,c~.~s~.~s,id~k~.~ P.~..fios,~d :iS.Wimmi c'.' .. Open decks (1/4" minimum openi.ng between boa~c~'~ Shall nOt 5e counted in il~pervlous ~°ver'c;'l;u[~al~io°~;; DETAc. HE~..~CCES~0R¥ BUILDING$.IGAR/~,GES?SHEDS) ',~ . ... . : . . . - Lot Ceveraoe and,.Set'_hack,l~enuir, em,n~._, accesso~ building Shall be Considered tO be an integral` part .~ . , ...... . .... ..-~,,~. An of the principal struct,u:r~,~nl~,~.~ it is five'. (5) feet or more {i;°m the principal structure or Use and' providing'that the structure exceeds 1 ~ s~are feet. 1, · A~ea and Size Re0uirements {see hardcove~ reoulrements od Dace ~}.' A, . AccessorY buildings shall not exceed a total grOSS floor.area of 3,000 squa tO. ~t or 15 % of the. :t. etal lot area whichever is less. · : ' B, Each individual accessory building shall not exceed 1,200 square feet of gross floor area, C, · The total number~of accessory bafldings for Iotsmeasuring 10,00~. square f~et. o?'.leSs shall' be two (2}. On lots exceeding 10,000 square feet~ accessory buildings:shall b~ ii~ited to a total of th'rea (3), 2, F~.°nt Yard @etbaok, Ali accessory buildings shaft meet:ithe same f~ront, ylar~l s'etbac.k re~.ui~em.entS, as the principal bui'lding,, ex~el=l;.for iakeshore and through, lots., For,detached garages: on~' .lek;ceph'ore or th.~oug, h. lots, a..milnimum twe~y-(20) foot front"yard Se~baek is requi~e=l i.f the~garage,.=dO5i:(a)open the street; an eight (8) foot front yard setback is required if the garage door{s) olden to the sid~ 10t line, · ;, .. . ;.! ; ;~.: . .~ ,: · 3. 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~.thrbugh and lake~hore "l~tS'; a~ d~tep.h'ed,accb~s. Ory-bui ding may be iocal~ed within..~'0ur ('~i {eot of. the si~'e lot line in the front yard. Whenever a garage is designed with'the doors facihg a side lot line, the rn~nimum distance between the .d~o'rs and the'side lot line shall be twenty (20) feelS' ~ J~. A-detached accessory b~ilding may. be located W~tHirl.'f~Bi~. (4). feet of the rear lot line. Lakesl~.~re.Set~ack,: D,e,t~ched. ao. cessery b~ild.ings m!J~t-,majr~tain., a '5C) ~.e~,t. se.~a.c,k' from 'th~ Ordinary high wat.~'r',' " ' .. - See separate deck handout for more information. Front and Sides., ..... .,~.,.,.,.;, ...................................... Same as~ ACcesSOry Building Setbacks. ...................... ' ............... " 10 feet . ordina~/'r~'i~h Water . F!00d Elevation i ~''~ "' Lowest Floor Elevation LAr, E MINNETONKA " 9~9.4 931 (CITY) 933 931.5 (MCW,.,D). .. DUTCH' LAKE 939.2 940 '" 942 LAKE LANGDON 932,1 ' ' 9'35 937 .~. 3/97 .-869- LOT AREA SCL FT. X 30%. =flor. alliot~i;. .............. LOTAREA · ~:$0 SO. FT. X 40% = (forLots(JiRecoti::!~). -.. LOT AREA ...... i~.,..i', iiii' SCL FT'...X !5% = .({or datac,H~d'buil'dings 0nly) .. + ~Xisting Lots .qr. Record..~msy :have. ¢0 pe.rcem:~.coverage p... vided :t~at.'techniques:ars utiii=ed; as ou~ined in Zon{ng~.~rdinan~. :Section 350t1~225., Subd::;8.8. iL (see 5ack)',. A plan must be suE~i~e~' and approved by ~e Building Official.· , HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) LENGTH WIDTH 2~ x 2..~ ~s x _.Z~ TOTAL HOUSE SQ'FT DRIVEWAY; PARKING ETC. DECKS Open decks {l/&" min. between boerds} with a pervious surface under ars not coun~ec[ as hardcaver OTHER TOTAL DETACHED BLDG$ !{i: x z.~ '1 '= ,...' ~.Z~:''~ TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X X TOTAL DECK ......... ., TOTAL OTHER HAB~GQVER--:" /IMPERVIOUS SURFACE:::.: TOTAL UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) i ,' -870-': CITY OF MOUND ,H,A R DCOVER. CAL,~ULA~o'N.~i:~: ~...... . OWNER S NAME' ~ ' ' LOT AREA SQ. ~. 'X 30% = (for;ali lot~ .... LOT ~ ~ ? ~ ~ s~ ~. x ~ = (~ Lo~ LOT AR~ SQ. ~. X '15%' = (for detached buildings'only) .. *~isting Lots of Record may have ~0 percent coverage· p~o~ded eutfined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1~25,$ubd,. 6; B. ~, (see ~ac~). A plan must and approved by ~e Building O~cia[. ~ ' ' HOUSE ",i DETACHED BLDG$ (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY; PARKING ARF_AS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. LENGTH WIDTH i :i. TOTAL HOUSE ........... X X TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS . . /¢ x X X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ET¢ . . X X X TOTAL DECK X X TOTAL OTHER DECKS Open decks (1/~" min. opening bet'ween boards) with a · pervious surface under are not counted ae hardccver OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ................ ~ ............... -871 -~ HARDCOVER LOT AREA LOT AREA ..... SQ. FT, X 30,% = (for :all lots) ........ ; ..... SQ. FT. X 44.,% = {for. Lots ofi Record*) ....... ,SQ. FT.. X 1.5% = (f0rdetach~.d buildings only) . 'Existing Lots, o,f~Re¢ord, may have 40 percent coverage, pri3vided ~at techniques ars utilized, es ou~ined in zo~i'if~-i'0r~'~r3C~..$-~c~i0n 35.0'i!~225, s~bd; ~.;-"~i.'~iL {See 5~),;:. A nlan mU~ h'-. ~h'~,--=~ and approved by' ~ca'Qii~g o~ciaj. . '" ~" - .... T'-~" -~ ....... ~ ......... HO. USE LENGTH DETACHED BLDGS (;GARAGE/SHED) TOTAL HOUSE DRIVEWAY; PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Op,n :fecke (174" m~n. open~ng between boards} with a pervious surface under are n~t counted as hardcover OTHER WIDTH ;~ SQFT x ~ ~ , = ,8o,ff~ X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................. /;*/v¢ ,/£ x 2,¢ = X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X X X TOTAL DECK . .. ......... X TOTAL OTHER .i TOTAL HARDCioV~'R./ IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.,:· UNDER / OVEF{ cndica~:,e- difference) ¢ -872- PREPARED BY ._.~.~,'){,?~fr~ _¢._,'i.~: ,~/'r,~ ¢'/~ ~ ¢' DATE OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA : SQ. FT. X 30% = (for ell' 10t~l LOT AREA :~:: SO, FT, X 40~",."='":{f0t Lots f RecoraA: -'.- · LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 1.5%= (fOr detach d buiid~ng~s 0nly) ~?!n.g. L_ets of Record,:may have ~0 percent .cOverage-pt~ided tfi~l: tec~:iiiques are u~Jlized; as'. ouz]mea m/_oning Ordinance SeCtion 35Q~1225,'Subd., 8. l!t:';~lL (~ee:~'b~:~ki: 'A ~,i'~:~: and approved by ~e Building Official, .' , J ....... 5 HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY~ PARKING AF{EAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC, DECKS Open decke (114' mln, opening between boards) with a pervioue eurface under' are nat counted as hardcbver - OTHER LEN.GT~ TOTAL HOUSE wIDTH SQFT TOTAL DETACHED :: ...... x TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETc. . . X · . TOTAL DECK .......... TOTAL OTHER ......... ~ ............... 5'20 TOTAL HARDCO:~ER/: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (indiCate 'difference) UNDER / OVER ' -873-i 0 ~0 rq // o O --4 cz. 0 Z co L-"z'J m O~o~ Engineering ~' Planning · Surveying FRA ME M 0 RA ND.UM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 28, 2003 Sarah Smith, Community Development Director John Cameron, City Engineer Kelly J. Bopray, Soil Scientist City of Mound Variance Request, Becker Property 5331, 5341, 5351, and 5361 Three Points Boulevard MFRA #12162 As requested, we have reviewed the variance request for the subject property and have the following comments and recommendations: Wetland boundary as shown on the surgey matches the line as approved by the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) in February 2001. The plan submitted for the setback variance request also shows flood plain impacts and compensating excavation. A separgte flood plain alteration permit will be required for this activity. Because the excavation (in the wetland) will not convert the area to another land use, the excavation is not a WCA regulated activity. 3. It appears that the 34 foot depth shown for the east end of the house footprint on Lot 6, will make the task of avoiding the wetland nearly impossible. Consideration should be given to decreasing the depth of the proposed structure on the east end. A WCA permit or exemption will be required if Wetland impacts cannot be avoided. s:kmain:kMoul2162:\Correspondence~smithl.2~/ . ' -875- 15050 23rd Avenue North · ' Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-ma#: mfra@mfra, com A RESOLUTION TO DENY TWE REQUEST FROM TIM BE~.~i~i~E AND LORELL BECKER TO REZONE LOTS'5-8, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, N'ENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILy RESIDENTIAL TO R-lA SINGLE I~AMILy RESIDENTIAL W~AS, the applicam, Tim Becket ~d Dale ~d ~rell Becket, has requested that Lots 5-8, ~1ook 4, Replat of~0n ~res~H~m ~unty, ~eso~ be rezoned ~om R-1 5ingle-F~ly Residemial to R-lA Single Fa~ly Residenti~ ~nd W~AS, the prope~ is c~ently zoned R-1 Si~l~Fa~!y Re~idemialDistri~ and subje~ to the provisions of Cky Code Chapter 350:620 5ubd. 2; ~d ~AS, the Plan~ng Co~ission revi~ed: ~e t~u~st:~f' ~:,p~bliC he~g held on Au~st 5, 2002 ~d unanimously reeO~eh~:~ thl C~uneil.de~y the rez~g application; ~d : ~'; ; ~:'; / WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the request at a public heating held on August 271 2002 ~fl" U~a~m~usly f%b~end~d de~l 6f~he~zo~ng applicati/~~ ~d requested that City staff a prepare a resolution denying the application considera.tion at the September 9, 2002 meeting and also directed City staffto execute a 60':da'~ e~enSion on/he rezoni~: }eqU~g!i~uriiiafit to Mi~esota statutes Se~ofi: ~ 5.99. ': ~ ";'.'i ' '" .".~?; · ',i~i:; ".:~r~ ' ' : · ~i~',' '.: NOW, Tll~FO~ BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council,of the City of Mound, '~' :'i.,' '- ~>~ ':~'; , ~.,,' ' ' ~ "'"} ' ,'~i :r~ :~ ~,, ~ .: :: , ' · . '' 'i.'; '~"Ci~ :dbms :hereby ddiiy~thO::~-e~6riiag req/iest, based ofithe ~ollOwing · a: :.The SUbje~ pr6P~? s~6~ded~ 6~the~' east side;:~est Side ~d south ",sid6~b~:gZ~i' 5ii~le:F//~flyRe¢~,~n~al?. '.~ " ~;" ":':~ '~" " ' ';~;.~i., ' ~.' ',,' ? ":' ' ,~"' ""; ::.'~: ~'~ .' b. The minimum lot s~e r~qu~ement of the R, IA Single,Family Resdentaal Distfia is inconsiment wkh the neighborhood. -876- Resolution No. 02-~§ c. There. w~ .,nO mistake in the original zoning of the property. Additionally, no evidence was prOVided bythe applicant that indicated that a mistake Was made in the original zoning. ~ d. There is no change in the community or neighborhood that necessitate the need fOr rezoning:of the prope~. e. The purpose for the R-lA District is for areas that have been hi~t6ficaily plat/ed ~t~: Sm//ll: 10ts. 'AT the~time the subject property was.platted, the lots were much larger than the minimums of the R-1A District and moro C!0~eiy resembledtheminimums of the R-1 District. Three (3) of the four (4j'lots ex~efi' ~i:R, 1Distfic% !0,000s,.qu~i foot, minimum as platted, ~he four*da is,.withir~'(5~)...squarefeet oftl~e ~nifi~um. '~ ,~.~ .- : f. The i~a~.o~ contain~d..!i~ ~he rezoningapPliCati~fi;il~t'~d.~uly $i 2Q02 expresse'~tl~t th~ reas0h: 'fOr ~:hpplic~ti°n' w~s becatts~ o'fthe erosion:that had occurred on the subject property thereby reducing the lot area, Re, zoning the property to R-lA would provide benefits~to the property beyond the.. detriments suffered by erosion and would allow greater flexibility with setbacks and would also create the risk of additional infill development due to the substantially reduced lot size requirements. This additional development 'creates the potential for negative impacts to wetland and floodplain areas on the property. Keeping current R-1 District zoning provides a greater opportunity to reduce the environmental impacts that result from development of the property. 2. This rezoning appliCation is denied for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: Lots 5-8, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and seconded by Councilmember Brown. _ The following voted in the affirmative: Brown, Hanus, Mdsel, Osmek and Meyer, The following voted in the negative: None. Adopted by the City Council this 24t~ day of September, 2002. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -877- EXGEKpTs FROM THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 The City Council of the.~ City of Mound, Hennepip CountY~ Minnesota, .met ~n r gular ..session on Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 7:30 Pi'~i in the' ~ou'~cil' chambers of City Hall. t0. REQUEST FROM TIM BECKER AND DALEANDLORI=_LLBECKER TO RFTONE ~0~S 5-8, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES'FROM R-1 TO 4- MdTION'bY R~hU~s:; ser~nded'by Brown'to adopt the f°liowing ~:~lution. All voted in R.~'~,, i~,n. ~,,n...... "~="~3Lll ON T°. D~NY THE'~E~uES~'~ROM TIM BECKER AND DALE AND LORELL. BECKER T-O R~o~.E LM~ ~ fi"u,' =~ , REPOT OF HARRISON SHORES, HEN`~'~Pi~ ~00~N'~;:'~i~ES~TA FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R.1A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. P~ CASE ~02-16, PID ~13,~7-2~-0~6 - 00'50- 005'j'* ANCO052. -878- Excerpts from the MO D AD¥I'SO, RY PLANNING Co MISSI0N, AUGUST 57 2002.. CASE #02-26 - Public Hearing Request to rez0n~ l~ts 5-8, Block 4 Harrison Shores Replat from R-1 to R-lA Tim Becker etlii, 5331/5341/5351/53.6i Three POints B~tilevard smith indicate~:that the reqUeSt is to allow future development of the 4]0ts located on the souih side of Three P61hf~ B°ale~,ard for:~ingie:family r~sidentiai use. 'The prOposed 20foot front setback will maintain a similar building line with that of adjacent structures and the use of pilings for futu~ foUndati'°ns Will :b~ u'~ed {o a~oid onstructmn activities wRhm the floodplain areas and wetland boundaries will be maintained. Consistent witli ~he Co~P Plail, thi.~ area would be maintained as low-density residential use. s~ifh reViewed the iSSues outlined On the Planning Report as well as the individOal ~hOuse footprints for each lot: Lots 557 WOuld c6nform in every way. Lot 8'had some iSsUes` with the wetland'bou~d~'2 .. Brown questioned the rezoning to smaller squa. re footage whe. n the neighborhood around is 10;000:squa~e i~eet. Heremin"ded the CornmiSsfon about the history of fill being' b~ough( in. There are test wells for hydrology on this prOPerty. He questioned the b~ildabiiity of the'the property given that data. Smith indicated ~hat the fill history is an issue that has been resolved. The 92~.~ is the Current ordltiary high Wa~r and is fa{flY consistent in 'this area. The test well question must be referred to Kelly Bopray, the consultant hydrologist for the City. . Ciapsaddle has a great deal of difficultY listening to the rationale for thi~ cliange, because, in effect, the only reason for the change is the need'for the .qetbacks available ih RIA. :' :~ Chaii~ opened th~.'!P~blic H~arihg. '" ' 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 are~!~ He:feei§:th~e ~ity would be rewarding the filler of the wetlands. It is currently zoned for I0,000 square feet; why change to 6,000? By granting such a variance it encourages other ar'ea.q :tO do th6 same.:. Larry Overstreet, 1700 Jones' Lane ~ Lives on the Lagoon. 1) Submitted pictures of Mr2 B%ke~ and his crew.filling the Lagoon. 2) Submitted petition of Harrison Shores residents in oppositio~~ of. the rezoning. -,~ -879- Planning Commission Minutes A. ugust $, 2002 Michael Fitzg~ald, 5321 Baywood,Shorts Drive ~ PurchaSed their lot as it was zoned in a 10,000 SF area. As you proceed east on~hme Points..Boulevard turning traffic is a big issue with the condominiurm along that stret~l~i'~ He doe~~:t oppose the development of the property, however, four new residences will advirSely 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 pg..unds..qf, potatoes in a 6 pound bag. paul Larson, 3865 Shoreline Drive - represents Tim Becker- These are plattet~']°is o~recordll They have stubbed water and sewer and are taxed as building sites. Thi pOtential builder will uild a nice product. There is a clear hardship for these lots. If the water ever comes 3i.5 it Will be a first, The contractor who added fill took.out more. than"~e~PUt]n, up to tho Larry Jolms0n,;. 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 p.urchase 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 filI 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 squ~e foot lots. RiChard Ambrose, 1717 .lones Lane - Becker's neighbors to the s0~!th are:R1. Keep Becker's- lots P,.1. Al .lassim, 53.0t 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 ~'ones Lane - The houses adjacent didn't ask for a chugs,from R1 to R1A to get their houses bhilt. ' ' Closed.p~h!ic hearing, Brown feels that,the 10,000 square foot RI zoning should stay. MOTION by Bro.~ .,~,.seconded by Hasse, to deny staff recommendation. Clapsaddle doesn't see Where that judgement hurts the project at ali, He'i'i buiidthe same product with a variance. It's wise to leave at R1. -880- Planning Commission M/nutes Au~:rust 5, 2002 Weiland felt a variance request would bc thc correct way t0go. Glister felt lots of 6,000 sqUare.feet would be:out nfplace ...... FIasse added "in any neighborhood". MOat ON amied un~ously Smith clarified that there was no variance on lot 9. Lot 4 variances,were issued in 1994~ -881 - CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 02-73 RESOLUTION DENYING REQUESTS OF TIMOTHY BECKER AND DALE ~ND LORELL DECKER FOR NO-LOSS DETERMINATION AND'EXE~PTION'~iJ~'DER THE WE:TLAND.CONSERVATION ACT ON FOUR LOTS JN THE CI~OF MOUND AND ACCEPTING A~i'D ADOPTING THE ACTIoNS 0F Cl~ STA'F'F'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 ('~/VCA") in order to proceed with development of the property. 3. The City Staff was concerned that a Wetland was located on the property covered by the requested no-loss determination or exemption. 4. City Staff convened the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), consisting of Doug Snyder of the Board of Water and Soil Resources ("BWSR"), Dave Thill of the Hennepin Conservation District, and Jon Sutherland of the City Staff. 5. The TEP panel has visited the property several times in 1998, 1999, and 2000 and is familiar with the property. 6. The TEP panel met with Ronald Peterson and James Arndt, 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' Barsted of MnDNR, and other staff members of BWSR. 8. On or about October 7, 2000, the City Staff notified the Beckers of the need to extend any applicable 60-day period for an additional 60 days, up to and including December 6, 2000. JML-t 93457v2 MU200-86 -882- ResOlution No. 02-73 · . 9. - After del:iberations;, the Technical E~.a uation ~Panet~,cc~ncluded ir~ a written recommendation dated OctOber 10,-2000,.~.~th.at .the Beckers .had ,not met. the requirements for a no-loss determination on the property. They also recommended that the exemption request bedenied~. .. ,. ... 10. After Peterson asked the TEP panel to reconsider its October 10, 2000 report,.the TEP on. October 23', 2000, issued a o!arificatien .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 consider, ed by theCou.ncil~ 13. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Council on.,,danuary 23, 2001, and was rescheduled to the February 13 2001 meeting, by agreement with the Beckers. 14, The parties further expressly agreed to further applicable 60-day period, up to and including February 27,2001. extensions of any 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 Arndt of Peterson Environmental, and the City's consultant, Kelly Bopfay, respondedTbY explaig:ing the basis for the TEP reports. 16. After consideration of the evidence and hearing the presentations on February 13, 2.001, the matter, was continued tothe::COun¢i meeting,'on' ~eb~arY:27, 2001, for submission of findings by City Staff.and by the Beckem¢,:if ~hey:,so desired. 1,7,. At,theFe .27, 2001;,Council meetingthe matter'wa ' r. continued to May:22¢ 2001 to .allow ~he. aPplicant.:and staff to,further re~iaw a modified Propgsal of,the TER,Rane!,thates/:ablishe~, a new delineation linefor the.~etland; an~ to: allow the pa~ties. additional oppofcJnity to review possible, concepts,for the development;of the site,:.. -. 18. The City received a letter from~the Beckers dated May .r16~, 2001 requesting an extension to the agreed May 22, 2001 review deadline. .19, .At,the May 22, ,200t Council meeting an;exten:sion 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 t° the August 24, 2001 review deadline. JML-157790 MU200-77 -883- Resolution Ne. 02-73 to Continue .the review 'period'throd~h January 24, 2002. "' 22. The City received a letter from the Beckets dated January 1'5, ·2002 requesting an extension to the January 24, 2002 review deadline. 23. The CounCil, at:thef~ January 24,"2002 meeting, granted:a:third e×tension:to continue the review period through July 23, 2002. ~ 24.~' Oh July 1, 2002~ CommU"tiity .D(~velopmen't:Director. Sarah, smith and Consulting City Planner Loren Gordon contacted the Beckets :regarding the status. Of a modified proposa! and possible concepts for the development of the site. 25. During that:"conver~atiod, ~:the.,Beckers;,shared deV~l~prfient'bptionS' for each of the parcels. The Beckers stated that a number of interrelated development issues will be' explored thrOugh"futUre land ~se 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 Resolutib:n W~ich detiies their requests for noqoss det6rmination and exemption under the Wetland Conservatiod. Act and the:referenced' TEP recommendation rega~dirig :the wetland delineation.. The 'O0uncil~, at their'August 24, :2001 meeting~ 'granted' a. second extension !1. C'ONCLUSIONS NOW, THEREFOREi'BE IT' RESOLVED¢, 'by the City C~un'cil 'of the City of Moan'd, Minneso'ta that. in ac~rdance.:with th~ Wetland Conservation ACt ('~VCA")7'Minn. Stat. Ch. 103G, the City Council hereby determines that no new information was presented at the Febn~.ary', 1;3;"2OO1.~'.or otJ-4er su.bsequent rneeting~ that "WOuld, cause reconsideration of previous-~,atti~ns;",a'~'ept~s and' ~ ad~,¢s,;.the :action~'.~.by 'the! City ' sta~, :'as: contain.~d- in the November 7; 2800' tiotice',.of 'decisioni 5ased on,the TEP' rec0rfimend~tionS~of: OctSber' i 0 and October 23; '2000;' to'doily 'tlie',Beckers~, -requests for a exemption under the WCA; and the Council further directs City Staff to give any appropriate notices ~to'tli'e Be'Cker~"of this deCi¢ion". The following resolution" was moVed by'Councilmember Hanu's ahd"secon.ded by Councilmember Brown. ".' JML-157790 ~ MU200-77 -884- ': ~esol~tioh N0! 02~73 The following'vbtedil.i~ 'the affim3ative: BrOWn, HanU~_s;~MeiSel, Osmek and :Me~e't~. The following voted in the nevative; None. Adopted by the City Council this 9th day of JuJy, 2002. 'Bonn'ie Ritter, ACting C,i't'Y Clerk Mayor Pat Mbisel JML-157790 MU200-77 4 -885- 130 July 8, 1986 P.C. CASK #86-518 · WHEREAS, St, even Coddon, owner 'of the vacant parcel of land Hescribed as Lot 8, Block 4,' Replat- of Harrison Shores, rID #13-117-2# 22 0046, has applied for variances...in.,lot size and setback'to the no~h Three PoLn~s BLvd. p~oper~7 /Lne ~o oonstruction..0.~"a single family dwelling with conforming side yard and lakeshqre se~ba'cks; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a ]0]000 squ~re foot in the R-~ Zoning Distric~ with a fron~ yard s~e~baek o~'~0 feet; and WHEREAS' the property described' has a"Iot area of 9,6~0 square feet above the 929.50HW 'elevaton, requiring..a setback variance to allow a structure within 20 feet of the north property line abutting Three Points Boulevard; and t~HEREAS, the Planning Commission has 'reviewed the request and does recommend the lot size and setback variances be ap. prdved, to afford the .owner reasonabl:e use of the property. NOW, THEREFORE;~ BE. IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the lot size variance 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, rID #13- 117-2~ 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'Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Paulsen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith. Attest: City Clerk The following Councilme'~bers voted in the negative: Hayor -886- August 26, 1986 RESOLUTION NO. B6-97 ¢ RESOLUTION VACATING CERTAIN UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMEN1- 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 ut~llty easement over t~e 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 Harrison Shores~ WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 26, 1986 as require~ 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 purposes 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 utili, ty easements along t'he 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. S. 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, Potston and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted none. Attest: City C'lerk ' ' Mayor in the negative:. -887- AugUSt RESOLUTION NO. 86-98 ' RE'SOLUTI'ON TO concuR. W[:TH:' f~E KL:ANNI~G!~,OMHI~:~ION TO AppROvE. FRONT YARD ~EfBACK vARi%N'cE'~0~EOTs' ~.5, 6 AND 7, BL0~K 4,.R?LAT OF ,HARRISON SHORES Pig NO. 13-i17-24 22 ~050/O05~/~0'~2 (53XX Three Points Boulevard) R/r'&~.Z Case~No. 86-53l WHEREAS, M~. Steven Coddon, as owner of'the pKqpe.rty descri6~ as Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block, 4:,'Replat of Harrison Shores~;.,PID,#,:!:~ll 7-24 22 0050/ 0051/0052, has applied for'fron~ yard setbac~ varlance..tO ~l~'~w' constructl6n of a new dwelling; and WHEREAS Exhibit A has also been submltted'{o.'ihd~Cate the requested ' setba~k::~o'f plus 5~' fee.t to lakeshore~, plu~ ID feet to s~de yard and 20 'f~et to north (Three Points Boulevard) setback; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires 30 foot to the n'o'F'th front yard,set- back abutting street right-of-ways in the R-l Single Family ReslB~ht'ial Dlstrlct and a' lO ~oo-~ sid~ yard and a 50 foot lakeshore setback; and .WHEREAS, the Planning Commissloo, has 'Kevlewe~ ~he'.~i~quest ~nd does recommend approval of the setback variance due to shallowness' of the lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Clt.¥ council of the City of M Minnesota, does hereby approve the l0 foot front yard se~ba6k variance shown'on Exhlb:it.'A'fo'r Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block q, Re~,lat,..of Harr?qn..Shores, PID No. 13-117- 24 22 0'050/0051/0052, upon the condition °.~ the subdjvilSllo6 under Case No. 86-532. The foregoing resolution was moved~by Counc:i-¥me~5er Paulsen and seconded by Councilmember Peterson; The foil.owing Cou.nci)~embers voted in the affirmative: Jessen,. Paulsen, Peterson,' Po)$ton and smith'. The following Councitmembers voted-i~ th~ nega'tr,~e:' none. 'AtteSt: City Cle'Pk' .-888- ! I f Z 0 0 ED 1'58 August 26, 1986 RESOLUTION NO. 86- 99 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 ?.olnts 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 speCi, al. ci rcumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of th~ ordinance w~uld deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his ia'nd; and that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a Substantial property right; and that grant!ng 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 o~ Section 22.O0of ~he City Code and the' request to subdivide pr0p~rty 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-i]7-24 22 OO50/OO51/O052 A. It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision in the following manner, as per Exhibit A: Parcel A: Lot 7 and the wester}y 12 feet of' Lot 6', as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the west 1. ine of saic~ Lot 6; ail in Block 4, Rep]at. of Harrison Shores; according to the' re-. corded plat thereof' with a lot area equal to ,l O ,O73 '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 th~ westerly 12.O0 feet of said Lot 6 as measured at a right angle to and parallel with i~he west line of'said Lot'6 with a l'ot area of 15,O90 square feet above the 929.4NGVD cont.our line of ,Lake Minn~t~nka B. Upon the further following conditions: 1. .Utility and drainage easements are t.o be rededicated along the new lot lines and shall meet the City Engineer'ts r;equirements. 2. No fill of materials shall be a]lowe'd below the elevation of 931.5 NGVD without the proper Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distric~ permits or. any o~her S~a~e agency applic, ab]e, 3~ The side. yard, setbacks and Shbre..)Jne setbacks shall conform to the' City Zoning Codes. 4. Minimum. floor elevation of the h~bitable space for the dwelling shall be 933.5 or a_.~.b,?Ve to meet mtninium flood plain requirements. -890- August 5. New c0rb cuts w~11 be required from Three Points Boulevard right-of-way. 6I. Utilltles for sewer and.water shall be .brought to the proPerty line'from Three Points Boulevard as a Condition far subdivision. 7. Submit soil reports for the newly created parcels. C. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will ~onstitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with the adjacent properties. , D' The City Clerk .is authorized to deliver a c~F~fi~d copy of this .Peso)ution to"~he applicant for filing In the...offlce of the Register of Deeds or the ~egtstrar of Titles of Hennepin-Count¥ to show ,comPliance with the subdivision regulations of' this City. E. This lot subd'l.~lIsion iS to be fi'led and recorded within 180'd~ys of · the adoption date of thls resolution. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Paulsen anJ .... ' seconded by Councilmember Paterson. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Paterson, Polston and Smith. The follOwing Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor City C1 ert~ - ' -891 - .7 RESOLUTION 0 0 LLI ½- A/VD RE$OLuT'ION #86-99 /---,::, 7' u'/5/,p/,--/ EXHIBIT "A" ~XIST'ING L_,FGAf- DEFCRLPTLON Lots 5, 6. and 7, Block 4, REPLAT .OF HARRISON SHORES, according. to the recorded plat thereof. Lot 7, and the westerly 12.00 feet of Lot 6, as measured a right angle to and parallel with the west line of said 6; all £n BLock 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, ~ccording ~o recorded plat thereof. Lot the Lots g and 6, Block 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHOKES, according to the recorded plat thereof, EXCEPT the westerly [2,00 feet of said Lot 6 as measured at a right angle to and parallel wil th~ west ii'ne of said Lot 6. DEMARS - dABRIEL LAh'D SUR~EYORS, INC. 3030 H-rmor L~ne No. PlymOulh .MN 55~,1 Phone.' (512} 55.~-C~CB -893- 152 July 28, 1992 RESOLUTION %92-88 RESOLUTION TO APPRO~;E X LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT LOT 4v BLOCK 4v REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES (1701 BAYWOOD PID %13-117-24 21 0087 PaS CABB NUMBER 92-019 WHEREAS, the applicants, George and Cheryl Fougeron, have applied for a 6 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow an expansion to the existing non-conforming deck; and WHEREAS, the sUbject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback to Baywood Lane, a 20 foot front yard setback to Three Points Blvd., and a 50 foot setback to the Ordinary High "Water elevation; and WHEREAS, Ail other setbacks and lot area are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Pianning Commission reviewed the requested variance and recommended approval with 6 in favor and 3 opposed. Approval was recommended based on the fact that the request is minimal in nature, that the deck addition is a reasonable use of the property, and there exists a practical difficulty in the fact that there is no other reasonable location for a deck expansion to serve the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve a 6 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow an extension t° an existing nonconforming deck at 1701 BaywoodLane, upon the condition that an as-built survey be sUbmitted prior to building permit issuance. 2. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, SUbdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, .nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. 3. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to · afford the owners reasonable use of their land: 152 -894- July 28, 1992 Construction of 6' x 24' deck extension onto an existing 6' x 47'8" deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores. PID #13-117- 24 21 0087. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section '462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. e The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing. this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not'be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith. and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Johnson and Smith. Attest: City Clerk The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Jensen & Jessen. '~a~°r 4~ 153 o x ooo.o ( ooo.o ) FOR: f CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ~'~;~,~ . ~~f' 7-/-/~'~/-q-' THREE .5 POINTS / / \ Denotes Iron monument Denotes off~t ~'~ake Denotes exl~ing olev, Denote~ Proposed elev. Denote~ ~Jrface drainage Proposed garage floor elev.- ~4], ? DEMARS - GABII.IEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 3030 H&Foor L,,ne No, Plymouth MN 65441 Phone: (.~I ~) 559-0908 BLVD t N I hereby certify that this is a true end correct representation of a survey of' the boundaries of the above de~cribed.lend and of the location of ell buildings, If any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, If any, from or on said land. Proposed lowest floor elev. = '034.o£ :).~8'. o Proposed top of foundation elev. BENCH MARK: File No, B~k - Pa~ PHONE: PHONE: q..sA - clcLg - ~,17& PAGES: Inclu~g cover NOTE: L I r ~ OF MOONo -897- ' CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Pat Meisel and City Council FROM: Jim Fackler, Parks Director DATE: February 19, 2003 Park District Mailing One of the Mound Park and Open Space Advisory Commission's (POSAC) goals for 2002-2003 was to invite all residents of the 6 Park Districts in the City of Mound to attend a POSAC meeting in order to share information on what the residents would like to see in their parks, what problems they are experiencing and to promote volunteerism. While the mailings to the 1842 residents of Park Districts 1, 2 and 3 cost $681.54, POSAC believes the meetings and feedback that followed were quite successful in determining present concerns, future needs and compiling volunteer lists. The Mound Park and Open Space Advisory Commission is requesting your approval to conduct a March mailing to the 1675 residents of Park Districts 4, 5 & 6. The cost of this mailing, which would come out of the Parks Budget, would be $619.75. POSAC hopes that you will support them in achieving their goal. enclosure printed on recycled paper -898- Kristin Vandenheuvel pointed out that this is an historical area, as it was the site of the first automated sugar mill. Kristin asked ifa sign could be put up honoring that. Beise stated that he is not in favor of any wooden structures in the park, but any of the other configurations displayed would be fine. Fackler stated that everything has to be handicapped accessible also. He then asked for direction from the homeowners as to what they wanted in the space. Tina Nutter stated that she felt a pergola would work as well as a gazebo. Fackler stated he would contact both Flanagan and Gametime and present a better definition of what is wanted in the space for them to design. Beise asked Fackler to consider a shelter, play structure, water fountain, benches, and the shrubs, trees and other plantings in their designs. Beise also asked Fackler when this item should go on the agenda again, and Fackler stated that it should go on every month. Kassie Ricke asked what the homeowner's next step should be. Fackler told them to continue to attend the meetings and that they should put together a donation list for trees, shrubs and plantings as well as a consensus of what type of structures they want in the park. This issue will be brought back at the March 13, 2003 meeting. Discuss: Site Plans for Highland Park Fackler presented site plans for the play structure at Highland Park. He stated that he would try to purchase the Rottlund and Highland play- structures at the same time. Removal of Highland' s play structure is slated for spring, with installation in the fall. Fackler stated he may attempt to contract at least one of these structures out to speed in installation. ( He has used a company in the past that does the installation free of charge.) Fackler asked if there have been any comments from the public regarding color. None known of. He also requested this be added as an agenda item. He stated that it either need to be included in when we invite Park District 5 residents to a meeting, or we need to notify residents living within a 350 degree radius of the park. Fackler also suggested that the equipment could be purchased in 2003 and installed in 2004. Discuss: Park Naminp Tabled until April -899- Feb 87 Z889 16:11:87 Via Fax -> 95Z~?286ZO ~dministrator Page 881 Of 88Z -FridayFax- A weelcly legislaIiw ujJda~frorn ~h~ L~agu~ of Minnesota Cities Phase One becomes Unallotment Last evening's legislative negotiations failed to result in an acceptable compromise and, as promised, Governor Pawlenty announced his budget-balancing unallotments this morning at a 10 a.m. news conference. In a memo to legislative leadership, Commissioner Dan McElroy explained how the cuts would be implemented. The governor's unallotment plan does not require any action by the legislature at this point. He met the statutory requirements by consulting with the Legislative Advisory Commission on February 5th. General city aid programs including LGA and the rnarket value homestead credit reirnbursement were not affected by the unallotments. Funding for these programs was distributed in late December. The 2003 distributions for LGA and MVHC are funded in the state's 2004 fiscal year. This funding will most likely be impacted in the Phase Two budget plan that will be the subject of discussions beginning next week when the Governor begins to unveil his proposed budget. One of the shortcomings of the unallotment solution is that none of the spending reductions are structural cuts. In other words, they are one- time cuts that will not result in permanent savings into the next biennium. The proposal initially offered by Governor Pawlenty would have enacted $171 million in permanent savings that would have begun to address the $4.2 billion long-term budget deficit. In addition, this unallotment plan does not set aside any resources in the event that deficit for the remaining 4 ~/5 months increases when the February state budget forecast is released later this month. If that forecast shows an additional deficit, the governor could be forced to unallot again before the end of the fiscal year. The plan uses the $23.9 million of existing state budget reserves, makes $281.64 million in state spending reductions and delays $50 million February 7, 2003 capital equipment sales tax refunds that are currently due to be paid before the end of the fiscal year on June 30. These adjustments produce a total savings of $355.54 million. Among the cuts in programs that most affect cities are: (dollars in millions) Dept. of Transportation Reduce Transportation Projects $20.0 Non Metro Transit Assr $0.2 Dept. of Public Safety Criminal Gang Strike Force $0.04 CriMNet Local Planning $2.5 Body Armor Reimbursement $0.5 Anti-Terrorism Equip Grant $1.0 Anti-Terrorism Training Grant $2.2 Property Tax Aids & Credits TIF Grants $1.6 Dept. of Trade and Economic Development Contaminated Site Cleanup $1.3 Blue Earth Rural Advanced Business Facilities 50.04 MN Investment Fund $2.3 MN Investment (Flood) $2.73 West Central Growth Alliance $0.08 Cuyana Range Tech Center $0.15 Pollution Control Agency Cleanwater Partnership Grants $1.0 Septic System Upgrades $0.2 Furthermore, most state agencies, boards and councils had cuts to their operating budgets. For a full listing of the cuts, click on the link to the Department of Finance's website. ]!tt?:#www. fins nce.sta te.a~,.r~.u.~/ The inability of legislators to reach compromise on the short-term budget means an additional loss for cities. Provisions were added to both the House and the Senate versions of the bill (HF For mo~e information on city legislalive issues, conlact any member of lhe League of Minn¢~ola C[lies Intergovernmental R¢lalion~ learn. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -900- Feb fl7 Z083 16:11:48 ~ia Fax -> 95Z47Z8628 Rdainistrator Page 882 Of 88Z -FridayFax- A wee/4y legislative update.from the League o. fMirmesota Cities 74/SF 79) to provide $300,000 to reimburse cities for continuing health benefits to public safety officers injured in the line of duty and for families of officers killed in the line of duty. This year, the fund used to compensate cities for these costs fell far short of the needed resources. The DPS, citing a fund deficiency, denied claims totaling $300,000. Over 20 cities were impacted. The League and public safety stakeholder groups will have to seek alternative ways to pursue the funding. Hearings of interest TUESDA'Y, February 11 2:00 PM Governor releases preliminary budget 2:30 PM House Civil Law Room 5, State Office Building Chair: Rep. Mary Liz Holberg Agenda: HF261 (Boudreau) Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003 adopted recognizing the right of law-abiding citizens to self-protection, authorizing pistol permits, providing criminal penalties, and appropriating money. 3:30 PM Senate Transportation Policy and Budget Division Room 123, Capitol Chair: Sen. Dean E. Johnson Agenda: Municipal street construction and maintenance overview - League of Minnesota Cities Next Week: How deep and how bad? Next week, Governor Pawlenty will begin unveiling his 2004-05 budget proposal. The question on city official's minds is how bad will the proposal be for city finances? February 7, 2003 Late this week, we have continued to hear rumors about a smaller, across-the-board 2003 aid cut and a substantially larger 2004 aid reduction. The rumors suggest that the governor will propose a 2003 cut based on a flat percentage of each city's "revenue base" which is certified levy plus LGA. The cut would be applied first to LGA and then to the extent necessary, the market value homestead credit. To make the cut relatively equal among almost all cities, the percentage could be set at approximately 4% or 5%. However, a cut at that level would only save approximately $60 million in state cost and this cut could certainly be larger. While a cut of that size/night sound large, the longer-term 2004 aid cut n-my be the surprising piece of the Pawlenty proposal. We have heard rumors that the cut will be huge--perhaps more than $180 million for the 2004 distribution. At that level, the cut could represent a 20 to 25 percent reduction in the annual LGA and market value homestead credit distribution. To reduce state aids by that anaount will require a more complicated aid reduction mechanism. A part of the reduction could be tied to a "reform" of the LGA system. The icing on the cake could be severe levy limits or a reverse referendum proposal. We have heard rumors that the final Pawlenty proposal could severely clamp down on municipal levy authority~perhaps to the point that cities might not be able to replace lost state aids. Fortunately, the Pawlenty proposal is just that--a proposal. The House and Senate will ultimately have to negotiate a compromise with the governor before a proposal becomes law. But the circumstances don't look good ....... League IGR and communications staff are preparing to coordinate a response to the governor's proposal. For more [nfmmalion on oily legislative isaues, conlacl any rncmb¢~ of the League of Minnesota Cilie$ Intergovernmental Relalton~ learn. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -901 - Feb 14 2883 15:15:87 Via Fax -> 95247ZOGZ0 adainiatvator ?a§e 001 Of 884 · -FrldayFax- A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities How Bad? We don't want to be alarmist but rumors about Governor Pawlenty's budget proposal sound bad and could be getting worse. Late this week, we have been hearing rumors that cuts in city aids--including LGA and the market value homestead credit--are one of the "plug" figures in the proposed budget. In other words, as other state budget items are protected from state aid reductions, the city aid cuts are becoming a larger piece of Pawlenty's proposal. Other smaller city aid distributions such as the PERA employer contribution aid that was established in 1997 could also be reduced or elirninated. The key question is 'how large will the cuts be?' We have no hard and fast figures but in yesterday's Senate Tax Committee meeting where the State Auditor's LGA study was being considered, Senator Belanger from Bloomington suggested that he has been briefed by the administration and that the cut would approach 40 percent. With LGA and the market value homestead credit totaling $1.4 billion over the two-year budget period, a 40 percent cut would translate into a $560 million reduction. We continue to believe that the cut will be "backloaded," meaning the cut will be smaller in 2003 and much larger in calendar year 2004. We are hearing that 25 percent of the total cut, or approximately $140 million will be made in 2003 and 75 percent of the cut, or $420 million will be made in 2004. Although "backloading" will allow cities some additional time to cope with the cuts, these are truly massive reductions and even the short-term cuts will create extreme challenges for cities. The cuts could be partially based on a flat percentage of each city's "revenue base," February 14, 2003 which is defined as certified levy plus aid. The aid reductions would likely come first from LGA and then, to the extent necessary, from the market value homestead credit. We are hearing rumors that an additional component of the cut will use the three-year average increase in each city's "revenue base." Presurnably, cities that have enacted larger increases in certified levy plus aid over the past three years would have larger aid reductions. Details on this piece are sketchy at this time. We have also heard rurnors that there will be recommendations for a few LGA formula changes for the 2004 distribution, possibly changes to the formula's 1993 grandfather. However, that there will be a strong "incentive" to cities to participate in reform of the LGA system for the 2005 distribution. We do not know what this incentive will be but it most likely will be a financial incentive. Obviously, these guesses are subject to change on Tuesday and the governor's proposal will undoubtedly be modified by the legislature. In any event, the news will not be good. Tell us about your cooperative arrangements Cooperative agreements between cities and other units of local government are receiving a lot of attention from state officials as a way for cities to increase efficiency, and react to possible cuts in LGA. Cooperation is not a new idea, and cities around Minnesota have been using these agreements for many years. We are gathering inforrnation on the kinds of cooperative agreements in which our member cities are already participating. Please take a moment to give us the following information: For more infmmatton on city legislaliv¢ issues, conlact any member of the League of Minnesota Ciliea Intergovernmental Relations learn, 651,281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -902- Yeb 14 Z003 15:19:49 ~a Fax -> 95Z4?ZOGZO ~&~ini~%~a~o~ P~ 00Z 0£ 884 -FridayFax- A weelcly legislative upclatefrorn the League of Minnesota Cities Briefly describe the service or program, including whether it creates a new separate joint powers entity A full list of participants (cities, counties, townships, school districts, other organizations) Which participant acts as the fiscal ad rnin istrato r o f the service An est[mated budget for the agreement How the costs are allocated among the participants Please send your responses to Rachel Walker by email at .rwalker~:'lmnc.org or fax them to 651-215-4117 by Friday, March 7, 2003. Your input is greatly appreciated. Press conferences opportunity to respond to Governor's budget proposal Cities throughout Minnesota this week have received a lot of attention related to the Minnesota State Auditor's report that recommends heavy cuts to Local Government Aid. Newspapers frorn Albert Lea to Bemidji, from Crookston to Duluth, and from Virginia to W[llmar, and ail the points in between, have talked with local officials about the role LGA plays in their cornmunities. Members are encouraged to build upon this media attention by holding local press conferences Thursday, Feb. 20, in response to the Governor's budget proposal, to be released Tuesday, Feb. 18. A press conference is another opportunity to educate your residents about the important services your city provides, as well as to demonstrate to local legislators and the media February 14, 2003 the diversity of needs faced by Minnesota cities. To support members' press conference efforts, the League will provide information for members to use at their events. Just visit the League's web site, located at www. lmnc.org, after noon on Wednesday, Feb. 19, to download an analysis and other, related in formation. In addition, the League would like to know which cities are holding press conferences. Please tell Stephanie Lake, LMC communications coordinator, by 1 p.m., Wednesday, if your city will host a press conference. Please provide her with the date, time and location of your city's event. Send in fo rrnat ion to Stephanie at .s."!~.~...k.;_e..~J,l:!:~.I!..c_'.,.~.'!!¥ o r by fax to 651.215.4141. She will include your city's information in a press release that will be distributed statewide and that will demonstrate the response of Minnesota cities to the Governor's budget proposal. Senate Transportation Committee briefed on city street study The city street study sponsored by the LMC in partnership with the City Engineers Association of Minnesota (CEAM) and the Minnesota Public Works Association (MPWA) was well received at a hearing of the Senate Transportation Policy and Budget Division this week. At the request of the League, Division Chair Sen. Dean Johnson (DFI-Willmar) scheduled a presentation of the recently published report. Testirnony provided by report's author, Matt Shands of the Transportation Policy Institute, as well as For more informal[on on city legislative [$~ue~, contact any member of Ihe League of Minnesota C[lie~ Intergovernmental RelaIion~ team. 652.283..1200 or 800.925.1~22 -903- Feb 14 Z883 1S:ZS:Z8 Uia Fax -> 95Z47ZSBZ8 adainistrator Page 883 Of 804 -FridayFax- A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities representatives of MPWA and CEAM, focused on city streets that are not eligible for municipal state aid (MSA). Witnesses quantified the non-MSA city street mileage and described the funding challenges relating to the maintenance and construction of this system. They went on to explain the report's seven recommendations. Of the recomrnendations, the one that drew the most interest fi'om rnernbers of the committee was the transportation utility concept. This would allow cities to impose utility fees to support road and bridge maintenance and construction. Encouraged by the hearing, the League will work with representatives of CEAM and MPWA to seek broader support for the transportation utility proposal and other report recommendations that would increase cities' abilities to construct and maintain municipal streets. To view the report, go to w ww. lmnc,.o r [~./ad vocac y/~.t..reetstud.y.cfm. State Auditor's Report On Thursday, the Senate Tax Cornmittee considered the State Auditor's report on whether I_GA stimulates spending. The report also suggests significant cuts in LGA funding for large cities. Since the report's release on Monday, the LMC has received rnany calls and letters frorn member cities about inconsistencies and errors in the data used in the report. This information has been extrernely helpful in our efforts to dissect the study and to identify flaws in the report. February 14, 2003 Presenting testimony on behalf of the LMC were Jim Miller, Executive Director, Gary Dory, Mayor of Duluth and Karen Anderson, Mayor of Minnetonka. Jim Miller outlined some of the methodological shortcomings of the report while Mayor Dory focused on the severe implications of the proposed cuts on Duluth. Mayor Anderson highlighted some of problerns with the auditor's data, including the fact that cooperative service arrangernents between units of government can result in distorted reporting of expenditures for the entity acting as fiscal agent. Although the LMC testifiers challenged the validity of the report's findings, the League did not rule out a review of the formula in light of concerns expressed by legislators and others. At this time, it does not appear likely that the report's recommendations will find their way into the governor's proposal, the criticisms of state aid to cities will likely continue to be a part of the legislature's discussions as the session progresses. BANI proposes a bill to shift liability for home damages The Builders Association of Minnesota (BAM) introduced a bill (SF 289-Betzold) last week that would remove builders' 1/ability for any installation required by the state building code or local ordinances, and possibly shift liability for residential damages caused by defects in design, installation or materials to state and local government. BAM says that state and local requirements~ including certain building code provisions and aesthetic effects such as exterior materials and roof design, can cause potential damage to homes. They believe that state and local code officials should be held For more [nfo~rnation on city legislative issues, c0nta¢l any rnembet of lh¢ League of Minnesota Ciliea Intergovernmenlal R¢lati0na learn, 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -904- Feb lq Z003 15:Z1:89 Via Fax -> 9524?ZSGZ8 fl&ministrator Page 884 0£ 884 -FridayFax- A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities liable for problems that result from these requirements. State and local government are currently immune from such lawsuits, and many local building inspectors and state code officials are concerned about these changes to the statutory home warranty exclusions. One concern is that the bill does not differentiate between code compliance and quality. In some cases damages could be caused by the quality of a builder's work rather than any defects in the design or materials required by the state or municipality. Under this bill, builders would not be liable for any installation required by code regardless of the quality of installation. The bill would also atternpt to rein in lawsuits against builders by giving them an opportunity to fix defects before going to court, and it would change the statute of limitations for filing negligence claims for condominiums and townhornes from six years down to two-- aligning with the limit for homeowners. SF 289 was referred to the Senate Commerce and Utilities committee. A House companion is likely to be introduced next week. If you have questions or concerns about this legislation, please contact Laura Offerdahl at (651) 281-1260 or _lofferda h I¢,)lmn c.o rg. February 14, 2003 carry handguns in public only to individuals who demonstrate an occupational or personal safety hazard. The bill requires county sheriffs to grant permits to anyone meeting statutory requirements without the need to show reason. Permit qualifications include gun safety training, no felony conviction, no domestic abuse conviction in the past three years, no listing on gang strike force registry, and no adjudication for mental illness. Mayor Gary Dory (Duluth) represented LMC at the first public hearing to advocate for preserving local control over the concealed carry permitting process. The mayor was joined by Olmstead County Sheriff Steve Borchardt and Bill Gillespie, executive director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, who argued that requirements for quick background checks and the change in discretion would be problematic for law enforcement officials. HF 261 passed the House Civil Law Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 11 on a 7-4 vote and is now on its way to the House Judiciary Policy & Finance Cornmittee. The Senate companion has not yet been scheduled for a hearing. Concealed carry bill moves to next stop in the House Supporters of looser gun laws are renewing their efforts this session to pass a bill that would reduce the authority of local law enforcement to issue firearm permits. The Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act of 2003 (HF 261/SF 222), also known as the concealed carry bill, would remove law enforcement's discretion to issue permits to For more informalion on city legislalive issues, contact any member of the League of Minnesola Ciliea Inlergovernmenlal Relali0na learn. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -905- February 18, 2003 D(eficit)-Day Today, Governor Tim Pawlenty unveiled a proposed 2004-2005 state biennial budget that brings expenditures in line with revenues to address the projected state budget deficit. Cities are a huge share of the solution--comprising more than 10 percent of the entire state budget deficit of $4.2 billion. Thc impact of the proposal on cities is ugly. All told~ cities across the state face a cut in state aids over the next two-year period of $435 million, or approximately 29% of the total state appropriation for LGA and the market value homestead credit. The cut for the calendar year 2003 aid distribution is $141 million, or 19 percent of the aids that were scheduled for payment. The cut of 2004 aids is $294 million or 39 percent of that state aids that were scheduled to be paid. The 2003 cut is equal to the lesser of 9.3 percent of revenue base (certified levy plus general state aids) or 5 percent of total city revenues (total governmental fund revenues except for debt service and charges for services provided to other units of government) for most cities over 1,000 population and 3.5 percent for cities under 1,000 population. Cities over 1~000 population whose three-year average levy plus aid increase is under 2 percent also qualify for the 3.5 percent cut. The 2004 aid cut is computed as 9.5 percent of total revenues for cities over 1,000 population and 8 percent for smaller cities and and larger cities meeting the 2 percent levy plus aid threshold. We do not yet have city-by-city estimates of the aid cuts. Check our web site regularly over the next several days for a posting of any city- specific information we receive. In addition, this week's Cities Bulletin will contain a more complete analysis of the Governor's proposal. The budget documents state "the Ad ministration believes that these reductio ns can and should be absorbed by the cities through spending restraint rather than raising property taxes." The $294 million cut for 2004 may not be the end of the cuts. Cities will be encouraged to participate in an LGA reform effort. If an "acceptable formula" is not enacted, another substantial reduction in state aid would occur. At this time, we do not know what might constitute reform and we do not know how large the penalty might be. Levy limits~ referendum and reverse referendum Making the budget proposal even worse, severe levy limits will be imposed. Although we do not yet have detailed information on the specific structure of levy limits, they are described as "strict" in the governor's budget documentation. Apparently, cities will be allowed to ask their voters to exceed the state- imposed levy limits through a referendum process. However, elsewhere in the governor's budget, he is also proposing a "reverse referendum" process that would allow voters to reverse a levy increase decision of the city council. This process appears to allow voters to appeal not only normal budget-driven tax increases but also tax increases to replace state aid cuts. It is unclear if voters could approve a 'levy increase through the referendum process and then later reverse that decision with the reverse referendum process. For more information on c[ly legialat/ve issue~, contacl any member of the League of Minne~01a Cil/es Intergovernmental Relation~ team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -906- Feb 18 Zflfl3 ZO:32:5q ~ia F~x -~ 95Zq?ZO62fl ~dninis~r~or Page -FridayFax- Tuesday Edition A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities Salary Freeze The governor is also recommending a salary freeze for all state and local government employees. The details of the freeze, including how it would affect existing employee contracts are sparse at this time but we suspect that the salary freeze will be considered by state officials to be tool to help local governments address the impact of state aid reductions and to avoid employee layoffs. Points for city officials to consider -State aid to cities is only 5 percent of the state budget but the cuts represent 10 percent of the governor's proposed budget solution. -The governor indicated that the total state budget will still increase by more than $1 billion under his plan. In contrast, the aid cuts and levy restrictions placed on cities will force some communities to actually cut their total budgets. -The governor stated that cities were not affected by last year's budget balancing plan. In reality, the TIF grant prograrn that would have provided up to $200 million in assistance for TIF district deficits caused by the 2001 tax reforms was used last year to balance the state deficit. In addition, the LGA reform account, that would have provide $14 million per year to implement reforrn was repealed. -The governor's budget proposal is just that--a recommendation to the legislature. The legislature will begin the process of considering the bill tomorrow (Wednesday) when the House Tax Committee hears the state aid pieces of the bill. Hearings Tomora-ow The Legislature's work now begins in earnest. Beginning tomorrow morning, a number of February 18, 2003 House and Senate Committees have scheduled hearings on portions of the Pawlenty 2004-05 budget plan. 8:15 AM Committee: House Transportation Finance Room: 200 State Office Building Chair: Rep. William Kuisle Agenda: Budget presentation by the Department of Public Safety. 8:15 AM Committee: House Jobs and Economic Development Finance Room: Basement Hearing Room, State Office Building Chair: Rep. Bob Gunther Agenda: Department of Finance, Review of Governor's 2004 Budget 10:15 AM Committee: House Taxes Roorn: 200 State Office Building Chair: Rep. Ron Abrams Age nda: Presentation of 2004--2005 Budget by Dept. of Revenue 10:15 AM Committee: House Judiciary Policy and Finance Room: Basement Hearing Room, State Office Building Chair: Rep. Steve Smith Agenda: Overview of Governor's Budget Recommendations for the Criminal Justice System for FY '04~'05 9:00 AM Committee: Senate State Government Budget Division Chair: Sen. Jane Ranum Room 107 Capitol Agenda: Overview of governor's 2004-05 budget. For more informal[on on city legi~lalive issues, conts¢l any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Retal[on~ team, 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -@07- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, February 19, 2003 TOnka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster READING OF MINUTES- !/22/03 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS '- Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests discussion of any item, in which CaSe the' item will be removed from the consent agenda, LAKE USE & RECREATION A) Intoxicating Liquor Licenses, conduct, lottery for the one available Intoxicating Liquor License for the 2003 season; B) Additional Business; WATER 'STRUCTURES A) Tonka Bay Sales, new multiple dock (minor change) license application to install new walkway from tunnel on the land near BSU's 13 and 14; B) Wayzata Yacht Club (Site1, Site 2, and DMA Facility), consideration of renewal, without change, multiple dock license and DMA applications for the 2003 season; C) Howards Point Marina, consideration of renewal, without change, multiPle dock license application for the 2003 season; D) (*) 2003 Multiple Dock Licenses, staff recommends approval of 2003 renewal without change applications as outlined in 2/12/03 staff memo; E) Additional Business; PUBLIC HEARING · 5th Street Ventures, LLC (Marina Center site), new multiple dock license application to expand a conforming multiple dock facility from 10 to 15 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 3,120 of continuous shoreline (PreviOusly discussed at 12/18/02 and 1/22/03 Regular Board Meetings). 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration -908- 3. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers (2/1/03 - 2/15/03); B) Additional Business; 4. ADMINISTRATION A) Staff recommends motion to accept resignation letter for Jan Briner, effective 2/6/03; B) Consideration of staff recommendation for compensation adjustment for part-time Administrative Secretary, Karen Anderson. C) Staff update on appointment of Board members whose terms expired in January 2003 (handout); D) Additional Business; EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A) Consideration of possible request to MCWD for funding of the EWM Harvesting Program; B) Additional Business; SAVE THE LAKE A) (*) Staff recommends the Board award a refund of $40 to Tom Skramstad for the 2/13/03 "STL" Recognition Banquet Dinner; B) Additional Business; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 10.ADJOURNMENT -909- DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, January 22, 2003 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Foster called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Bert Foster, DeePhaven; Lili McUillan, Orono; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; DOUg Babcock, Tonka Bay; Orr BUrma, MOund; Paul Knudsen, Minnetrista; Tom Seuntjens, Minnetonka Beach; Katy Van Hercke, Uinnetonka. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood; Victoda has no appointed member. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster · Foster announced that the 36th Annual "Save the Lake: Recognition Banquet Dinner was scheduled for ThUrsday.2/13/03, at Lord Fletchers Old Lake Lodge. · Nybeck striated tha~iit...appeared that there might not be a quorum at the 2/12/03 Regular Board Meeting. He encourage8~the Board to verify whether a quorum WOUld be present at this meeting or to consider canceling it. MOTION: ~CoCk ~ved, Van Hercke seconded to cancel the February 12, 2002 Regular LMOD Board Meeting. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. READING OF MINUTES, 1/8/03 Regular Board Meeting MOTION: Babcock moved, Seuntjens seconded to approve the minutes from the 1/8/03 Regular Board Meeting as submitted.. VOTE: Ayes (7), Abstained (2, Ambrose and Skramstad); motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda. There were no comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA. Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motiOn Unless a Board requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. Foster stated that Babcock has requested that agenda item 4A be removed from the consent agenda. Additionally, staff has requested that "Tonka Bay Sales" be removed from the consent agenda in agenda item 1C becauSe a pending new multiple dock license, with minor change, application will be received in the near future for consideration by the Board. -910- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting . '~ ..~ January 22, 2003 Page 2 Knudsen moved, Skramstad seconded to approve the consent agenda with the changes recommended by Foster. Motion carried unanimously. Items so approved include: lC, 2003 Multipie Dock Licenses~ staff recommends approval of 2003 renewal without change applications as outlined in !/16/03 staff memo; and 3B, December financial summary and balanCe sheet. WATER STRUCTURES A. Terry Nagel, consideration of draft Findings of Fact and Order for approval of variance application from Code for side setback requirements plus an adjusted dock use area. Foster · introduced the agenda item and made the following comments: There have been additional conversations at a meeting with the applicant and the abutting neighbor since the last Regular Meeting when the Board discussed this agenda item. In addition to himself, Board member Babcock, newly appointed Greenwood Board member Miles Canning, and Nybeck attended this meeting. Mr. Nagel has indicated that he would withdraw his application unless the Board allowed for some vadance to the side setback for the canopy at his proposed dock. Foster stated that he and Babcock believe that there is a need to settle the proposed dock dispute rather than have Nagel withdraw the application. A compromise has been discussed and agreed to that would allow Nagel to maintain his canopy 15' from the adjusted Nagel/Boedecker extended side site line. This compromise would allow for the dock at the Boedecker site to maintain a five foot side setback from the extended side site line and would require a minimal amount of removal of structure to comply with this side setback requirement, A drawing has been included in the handout folders that depicts the adjusted dock use areas based on this potential compromise. He recommended three changes to the draft Findings. First under condition 2b, he suggested that the northerly lot line be deflected "to bisect the shoreline evenly at the point it crosses the 929.4' lake elevation". Second under 2c, he recommended an exception that would state "canopies may be 15' from the adjusted southem side site line extension". Third under condition 3a, the southern extended lot line be deflected "to bisect the shoreline evenly at the point it crosses the 929,4' lake elevation". He believed that including these three changes in the draft Findings would result in Nagel not withdrawing the pending vadance application. One of the justifications for the five foot vadance of the Nagel canopy is that the 23 degree deflection of the adjusted dock use area to the north reduces the available dock use area for the Nagel site. In these types of cases in the past, the Board has considered the granting of a side setback vadance for properties that lose available dock use area through adjusted dock use area variances. He entertained questions or comments from the Board. Nybeck stated that he was unclear on whether Mr. Nagel wanted to adjust the side site line extension between his two properties. Babcock stated that it might make sense to either bisect the angle or have a fixed degree adjustment of the side site line between the two Nagel properties in the Findings if that is the desire of the Board. Another alternative for the Board to consider might be to have a provision in the Findings that an adjustment would not be necessary if the two properties in question were under common ownership. He stated that he would be comfortable with either of these options. Seuntjens stated that he believed that it might make sense to have the adjustment of the common extended side site line between the two Nagel properties included in the Findings. -911- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 22, 2003 Page 3 Babcock stated that Nagel has previously communicated that he would be comfortable not adjusting the side site line extension between his two properties because the Code would allow him to waive side setback requirements from this side site line extension. He suggested he would be comfortable with this as long as a provision was included in the Findings that required the two properties to be under common ownership, Nagel stated that he had no intentions of selling either of the properties he owns in the near future. NybeCk stated that if the Board had a desire to establish an adjusted dock use area between the two Nagel properties, he believed it would make more sense to establish, a fixed deflection rather than bisecting the angles equally because of the physical features of the shoreline at these two sites. A 33 degree deflection might make sense because that was approved in the 1991 vadance order and the odginal site plan proposed with the pending vadance application, Seuntjens recommended that it would be beneficial to include language in the Findings that clarifies minimum side setback requirements for the dock structure with and without a canopy. Van Hercke asked if the'approved dock use areas for these three sites would have dock Structures located within them on the approved site plan. Foster stated that Babcock had convinced him that it would make more sense for the Distdct to define the dock use areas for these sites and to allow the affected residences to place their dock structures and boat storage within them,. Babcock stated that he would prefer the District not get involved in the dock designing business unless the lots in question are very narrow. McMillan questioned whether approving the proposed compromise would set an undesired precedent for side setback variances for canopies. Foster stated that he believed that it would not because the adjustment of the dock use area for the Boedecker site results in a reduction of potential dock use area for the Nagel site. He stated that he believed that these types of variances should be considered on a case by case basis. Babcock stated that if a site had does not have enough lakeshore frontage to support a canopy without variance, approximately 60'., he questioned whether, it should be allowed one through a request for variance from Code. Relief for. canopy side setback at the Nagel site appears to make sense because the 23 degree deflection of the Nagel/Boedecker side site line will provide him some relief from the 20' side setback required by Code for 'canopies. Foster asked for further comments or questions from the Board. Babcock stated that the current dock at the Boedecker site does not appear to meet the five foot side setback from the side site line that was adjusted in the 1991 variance order and has been proposed to be maintained in the draft Findings. He believed that the two affected parties have agreed to alloW the dock to remain as long as maintenance only occurred to it. If expansion or major reconstruction occurred to the dock. in the future,.it should then be required to comply with the five foot setback from the adjusted side site line. This could be considered by the Board as a form of a temporary variance. -912- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 22, 2003 Page4 LeFevere stated that the Board might want to consider a drop-dead date for the possible temporary variance outlined by Babcock .at the Boedecker site. Van Hercke stated that she believed it would helpful for the current and future Boards to have the Boedecker dock identified on the proposed survey because it is a permanent dock. Nybeck addressed the permanent nature of the current Boedecker dock, noting that he believed the pilings are approximately 4" x 4". He distinguished the Code definitions between seasonal and permanent docks, noting that the Code defines a seasonal dock as one that can be removed with hand tools on a seasonal basis, even though some seasonal docks are left in the lake on a permanent basis. The Board discussed the current Boedecker dock and whether it was a permanent or seasonal dock that could be removed on a seasonal basis. Van Hercke asked for feedback from the affected parties on allowing the Boedeckers to maintain their current permanent dock as long as simple maintenance is allowed. Mr. Terry Nagel, 21895 Byron Circle, stated that he believed the Boedecker dock was not in compliance with the 1991 variance order and that he would like the Distdct to treat them in the same manner that he was treated this past summer when he was informed that his seasonal dock was not in compliance with the 1991 vadance order. Van Hercke stated that although the Boedecker was only in non-compliance by a couple foot' encroachment into the side setback area, she agreed with Nagel that the District needed to be consistent on the enforcement of Code. Knudsen stated that because the Board was considering giving the Nagel site a five foot side setback variance for the canopy proposed, he believed that allowing a two Year temporary variance for the existing Boedecker dock might also make sense, Babcock stated that although placement of the Boedecker dock on the surVey indicate that is non- compliance with Code, he was somewhat sympathetic because the Distdct approved their dock in 1991 through the vadance order. MOTION: Babcock moved, Knudsen seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the Terry Nagel variance application with the following Changes: 1) add 23 degrees to la in the' Order, 2) delete 1,c in the Order and insert.language that alloWS the present dock structure to continue until no later than 3/1/05 as long as there are no major modifiCations to the dock, 3) add 23 degrees to 2a in the Order, 4) add 33 degrees to 2b in the Order, 5) add an exception to 2c in the Order that states that setback for the canopy has been reduced to 15' from the adjusted side site line, 6) add 33 degrees to 3a ih the Order, and'7) to add language to the Order that allows setbacks to be adjusted by mutual consent between the two Nagel properties. VOTE: Ayes (8), Nayes (1, Van Hercke); motion carried. B. 5th Street Ventures, LLC (Marina Center site), new multiple dock license application to expand a conforming multiple dock facility from 10 to 13 BOat Storage Units (BSU's) on 1,320' of continuous -913- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 22, 2003 shoreline' (Public Hearing conducted at 12/18/03 Regular Board Meeting), · Foster introduced the agenda item and asked for background from staff. Nybeck made the following comments: Page 5 · A public hearing was conducted at the 12/18/02 Regular Board meeting for a ne~v multiple dock licen,~e application SUbmitted by the applicant for 13 BSU's on Seton Lake near Seton Channel. The Board discussed and considered the proposed application; however, no action was taken at this meeting. There were four general·topiCs discussed by the Board at the 12/18/02 Regular BOard Meeting. They included: 1) the proposed dock layout and the size of the BSU's, 32' long,'2) the location of the wetlands in the area and whether there is enough room to maneuver around the island that has wetlands, 3) water depths in the area and whether they are adequate for 32' long boats, and 4) bvemight storage versus transient slips. The consensus of the Board was for staff to further investigate the proposed plan to verify whether it would fit in the area, whether it would impact wetlands in the area, and to identify wate. r depths inthe area. · It appears that there is sufficient space in the area for the dock structure and maneuvering space for the proposed site plan considered at the !..2/18/02 Regular Board Meeting. The applicant has documented a distance of approximately 48' between the nearest dock fingers and the edge of the cattails around the islan&' There also appears to be enough room between the dock structure and the cattails near BSU #1 and at BSU #13 so that it would not interfere with navigation in Seton channel. · In general, the depiction of the wetlands in the area is pretty accurate. However, staff questioned whether the 32' long BSU's would have an impact on wetlands. One option for the Board to consider is to reduce the length of the BSU's on the proposed site plan if there is a C°ncern that it would impact wetlands in the area. · · A number of water depth measurements have been taken in the immediate area, In general, water depth measurements appear to be adequate with a.few possible exceptions. Water depth measurements are relatively shallow in the vicinity of BSU #1, which has been proposed to store a 40' long boat, and along the north side of the island with wetlands. · At the 12/18/02 Regular Board Meeting, staff recommended approval of the new multiple dock license application because it met the objective cdteda SPelled· out in Code Section 2.01 and 2.02. However, there are a number of subjective cdteria for the Board to consider when·granting or denying a' multiple dock license application. He reviewed possible subjective cdteda that could be considered by the Board in the proposed application. · He entertained questions or comments from the Board. ' Foster asked if the proposed dock would be permanent or seasonal in nature. Mr. Phil Johnson, representing the applicant, stated that he envisioned that docks would be permanent. Foster stated that he was troubled with the 32~ long BSU's on the proposed site plan, with the exception of the BSU for the charter boat. He preferred 24' to 26' long BSU's because of the confined area and its proximity to'the Seton Channel, He was troubled with the possibility of boats larger than 32' being stored in these BSU's and the potential disturbance of the bottom of the lake near the wetlands in the immediate area. Babcock shared the concerns raised by Foster. He stated that he would like the boats being stored at this proposed dock to be able to self-navigate without impeding the traffic nearby in Seton Channel. He expressed concem that the charter boat being stored in BSU #13, which would be 20' x 50', could -914- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ..' Regular BOard Meeting * ' JanuarY 22, 2003 Page 6 potentially impede traffic in Seton Channel while it traverses in and out of the slip because it is a main channel on the lake. Foster stated that he believed a boat length limitation could be imposed on BSU #13 by placing a perpendicular structure from the main walkway. Van Hercke stated that she also had concem about the size of boats proposed, the wetlands in the area, and the impact thedoCk could have on Seton Channel. In the 1973 Boat Density Policy Statement, it referenCes that the Board should be mindful of these situations when a multiple dock is in the near viCinity of a busy channel on the lake. She believed that this could also apply to boat storage in the Libbs Lake channel area. McMillan echoed some of the same concems raised by other Board members. She expressed concern about the proposed location of BSU #1 adjacent to the wetlands on the east end of the facility. Babcock stated that one option the applicant could consider that might allow'32' long BSU's at this facility would be to move the main' walkway to the north closer to shore. He concurred with the concern raised by MdMillan on water depths and the location of BSu #i near the wetlands, adding that he believed that this BSU cOUld be moved to another lOcation that has better water depth measurements Foster Stated that he would like further inPut from the applicant on the proposed site plan Johnson stated that he had conducted further research since the 12/18/02 Regular Board Meeting on the average boat lengths on Lake Uinnetonka and the average drafts ~uired for these boats. He expressed concem about moving the main walkway in closer to shore to accommodate 32' long BSU's. He reviewed the angled design of the proposed slips and the concept that the boats would exit towards the Black Lake Channel rather than the Seton Channel, noting that depth measUrements have documented that there are sufficient water depths to achieve this. He stated that there is apProx rnately 45~ from the edge of the docks to the edge of the Channel that sh'°uld al'i°w for Self-maneuvering for the watercraft in this area. Babcock summariZed the concerns he had about the Seton Channel area near the facility. They include that the channel is very narrow, that it is difficUlt for two boats to meet in the channel, and that the sight lines are problematic. This results in traffic backing uP in Seton Channel and sometimes stopping completely to alloW for bigger boats to navigate through Seton Channel. Foster expressed concern that adding additional 32' long boats at this site Could further complicate the situation in Seton Channel. He asked the applicant if it would be a problem to install 24' long BSU'~ at this site rather than 32' long BSU's. Johnson stated that if the Board desired to restrict length of the BSU's to 24' rather than 32', he believed that his client would want to install more BSU's than what is currently proposed, 13. Nybeok stated that if the applicant desired to increase BSU"s above 13, it could .trigger in the need to republish for public hearing because it WOuld' exceed what was originally pUblished. Foster stated that he would be more comfortable having a couple of additional BSU's at the site rather than a facility with 32' long BSU's. One alternative to consider would be to store the charter boat at BSU #1. -915- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ,,. Regular Board Meeting. **' January 22, 2003 Page 7 Babcock stated that he believed this site had problems when the lake elevation some years ago dropped below the 928.0' elevation. The Code allows for temporary dock extensions when that occurs; however, there are no viable options to consider at this site during Iow water years. Johnson stated that his client understands that his facility might not be able to be used when Iow water conditions are declared on Lake Minnetonka. Babcock stated that he would prefer the storage location of the charter boat to be on the site plan where BSU #'s 2 and 3 are proposed. Foster stated that he would prefer the installation of 24' long BSU's at this site because he believed that is a standard for average boat sizes on Lake Uinnetonka. He noted that he would not be troubled with fingers that are perpendicular to the main walkway rather than angled. Ms. Myrna Toivanen, owner of Fantasia Charters, stated that maneuvering the charter boat in and out of the location of BSU # 13 is not problematic because the boat has twin engines. Johnson questioned whether there would be an overhang restriction if his client was agreeable to reduce slip lengths to 24'. Babcock stated that the 4' overhang restriction would not apply directly to this facility because it applies to legal, non-conforming facilities. Van Hercke stated that the Board might want to consider an overhang restriction as part of any approval by the Board. She asked for feedback from other Board members on re-publishing a public headng notice if the applicant decides to amend the application by increasing the number of BSU's. The cOnsensus of the Board was that there would be no harm to re-publish another public hearing notice for the 2/26/03 Regular Board Meeting if the applicant decides to increase the number of BSU's beyond what has been proposed, 13. Johnson stated that there appears to be some consensus on the Board to reduce the size of the BSU's to approximately !0' x 24'; however, to allow his client to increase the number of BSU's at the facility. He questioned whether the Board would be agreeable to voting on this at this meeting to allow construction plans to continue. BabcOck stated 'that he would' be more comfortable to see a new site plan before the Board'approves a site plan. LeFevere stated that he did not recall the Board approving a new multiple dock license application without an accurate proposed site plan. J Foster stated that he believed it would be appropriate for the Board to take a straw poll vote on concept approval of the facility for the applicant. McMillan stated that if the applicant decides to continue with angled slips, she would like to see slip #12 fully contained within the end of the walkway because of its proximity to the channel. She added that she would prefer to see the charter boat stored at BSU #1 rather than BSU #13. -916- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 22, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Joel Buettenhoff, Officer for 5th Street Ventures LLC, stated that the proposed site plan was designed by Tim Latterner from Dock and Lift, Inc. He believed that Lattemer designed the proposed dock because 32' long boats are consistent in size for Lake Minnetonka and it would provide him the necessary flexibility for the market demands. He understood the concerns of the Board relating to the proposed site plan; however, they have time constraints for construction of the docks by the end of February. He proposed a compromise to restrict the length of BSU's 1-12 to 28' and to allow the charter boat to be stored at the BSU #13. Babcock stated that he believed the storage of charter boat at this facility is a business decision that the applicant needs to make; however, it should be stored on the east end of the facility where BSU's 2 and 3 have been proposed. Johnson reminded the Board that this charter boat has been operating at the proposed location at this facility for at least three years. Foster stated that he was troubled with 28' long BSU's. Van Hercke stated that she might be able to support 26' long BSU's because the City of Minnetonka has recently constructed a new permanent dock, at this size, after concluding it is the average size of boats after research with numerous commercial madnas. McMillan stated that she believed boat size restrictions on this facility makes sense because of its proximity to Seton Channel. Buettenhoff stated that he would like to have more flexibility with some of the BSU's if it is the intent of the Board to restrict sizes of the BSU's. Seuntjens stated that it might be appropriate to allow 28' long slips at BSU #'s 2-5. Babcock stated that he believed it would be more appropriate to restrict boat sizes at this site based on the site itself rather than basing it on average boat sizes around the lake. Johnson clarified that the 45' measurement from the channel is to the edge of Seton Channel rather than the middle of Seton Channel. The Board further discussed what is the proper s.torage location for the charter boat and whether using this facility as a port of call should be re-evaluated in the future. There was also discussion on overnight storage versus transient storage and the amount of traffic they could possibly contribute to boat density on'the lake. Buttenhoff stated that he believed that the proposed change in slips from transient to overnight storage would have less impact on the traffic in the Seton Channel area. McMillan stated that she could support a revised Site plan that would consists of BSU's 1-6 that are 12' x 28' (With no overhang), BSU's 7-11 that are at width to be determined x 24' (with no overhang), BSU #12 that is 10' x 20' (with no overhang), and maintaining BSU #13 as proposed. She suggested that the applicant might want to consider reducing the length of the main walkway. -917- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District *" .. Regular Board Meeting January 22, 2003 Page 9 Nybeck stated that it did not appear then was consensus of the Board on ,potential n visio,ns to the proposed site plan. Chair Foster has offend in his assistance on nviewing potential nvis~ons to the proposed site plan based on the discussion of the Board at this meeting. He recommended that the Board continue further discussion to the next Regular Board Meeting and to n Schedule it from 2/26/03 to 2/19/03 to allow the applicant to construct the proposed permanent dock through the ice if it is approved at the 2/19/03 Regular Board Meeting.. MOTION: Van Hercke moved, Ambrose seconded to moved the next n gular Board Meeting frOm February 26, 2003 to February 19, 2003. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. D. Additional Business. Then was no additional business. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Discussion of density policies on Lake Minnetonka: · 1973 Boat Density Policy Statement · 1991 Management Plan for Lake Uinnetonka Foster stated that because of the time and the complexity of the 1973 Boat Density Policy Statement and the chapter in the 1991 Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka relating to boat density, he recommended that this agenda item be scheduled for a future Regular Board Meeting. Nybeck stated that he believed then was a nsident in the audience who was pnsent to comment on this agenda item. Ms, Pat McGoldrick, a Deephaven resident, stated that she was not in attendance to participate in the discussion; however, she was in attendance to listen to Board discussion, Nybeck stated that he I~ad discussed this agenda item with LeFevere and it was their n commendation to establish a sub-committee to discuss this agenda item in detail and to make recommendations to the Board based on these discussions. Van Hercke stated that she would be willing to serve on this sub-committee. Other Board members who. expressed interest in serving on this sub-committee included Babcock and Foster, With Foster serving as the Chair. McGoldrick encouraged the Board to not nlax the existing policies relating to boat density on Lake Minnetonka. She noted that she' believed then is'added pnssure currently and in the futun to relax these policies to allow additional boat storage on Lake Minnetonka. B. Additional BUsiness. Then was no additional business. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers (1/16/03 - 1t31/03). -918- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 22, 2003 Page 10 Skramstad reviewed the audit of vouchers as submitted. MOTION: Skramstad moved, Ambrose seconded to approve the audit of Vouchers as submitted, VOTE: Motion carried unanimously, C. Additional BusineSs. There was no additional business. 4. ADMINISTRATION A. Staff recommends approval of the 2002 Pay Equity Re,pod as submitted. Foster asked for clarification from Babcock on why he requested this agenda item to be removed from the consent agenda. Babcock stated that he had it removed from the consent agenda because it was included in the handout folders rather than the packet sent Out in the mail. He stated that he understood the State of Minnesota required this Report every few years. MOTION: Babcock moved, Skramstad seconded to approve the 2002 Pay Equity Implementation Report for the District as submitted. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously, B. Additional Business. There was no additional business, S. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE There was nodiscussion.. 6. SAVE THE LAKE There was no discuss on 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck provided an updaie on deicing activities at seasonal dock that are not removed in the winter. This appears to be on the dse because some dock installers are selling bubbling equipment to their clients and they are not secudng the proper permit from the District. He stated that he believed the original intent of the Code was that deicing was to be used for docks that are permanent rather than seasonal in nature, The Water Patrol has expressed concern that if too many deicing installations occur around the lake, it could result in some public safety issues in the future. The Board discussed the recent incident on the Lower Lake where the two teenagers drove in the open water in their vehicle. The Board also discussed the viability of upcoming special events for the Chilly Open Golf -919- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting ,i,"' .. January 22, 2003 Page 11 Tournament and the Red Bull Kite Freeze, both scheduled to occur on Wayzata Bay. Board member Babcock discussed a past moratorium on new deiCing licenses and the need for the Board to possibly revisit the policy relating to this because he believed that it could become a public safety issue in the future. 8. OLD BUSINESS Wayzata Yacht Club/Jib Crane Skramstad asked for an update on the Wayzata Yacht Club jib crane discussions with the City of Wayzata. Ambrose stated that he believed there has been communication between the attorneys for the respective parties and that he believed it is on hold at this time. Upland Farms Project Skramstad asked for a further update on the UPland Farms project. Foster stated that he' believed the City of Minnetdsta had recently denied the PuD permit relating to the marina aspect of the development. The Board discussed how this decision might have impacted the wetland ordinance adopted by the District that requires electric motors in three tributaries that lead into Lake Minnetonka. There was discussion that allowing greater densities in other areas of the lake for harboring or other purposes, such as Excelsior Bay, might result in mitigating boat density on other areas of the lake', such as these tributaries. There was discussion on the four property owners who have claimed historical use on Six Mile Creek and the status of potential conservation easements. Shorewood Yacht Club Discussion Skramstad stated that he had recently met with the Shorewood city council and there was discussion on the yacht club storing more powerboats at that facility than what is allowed by their conditional use permit. The City of Shorewood has asked for advice on Distdct Code from LeFevere; however, they were informed by LeFevere that the District did not want to get involved in these types of matters after it was discussed at a previous Regular Board Meeting. The City of Shorewood does not understand this direction from the Board and he believed that LeFevere Should be alloWed to edUcate the city on Distdct Code and not take positions. Babcock asked Skramstad if LeFevere should provide the same assistance if requested by the yacht club. Skramstad stated that he believed that LeFevere should provide them the same assistance. Babcock stated that ii the parties ask for a clarification of the District Code that is n~utral to both parties, it might make sense. If it involves the opinion of LeFevere that might benefit one of the parties, he believed that the District should stay out of that situation. Ambrose stated that he believed LeFevere should be allowed to give out factual information pertaining to District ordinances. Skramstad asked LeFevere what he understood was the direction from the Board relating to this discussion. LeFevere stated that in this particular dispute, there was discussion on disputing positions of the Distdct ordinances. The affidavit was an attempt on his part to cladfy the District ordinances. -920- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District .. Regular Board Meeting '." January 22, 2003 Page 12 BabcoCk stated that although the affidavit was generally factually correct, he was concemed that it was forwarded to the City of Shorewood prior to review by the Board of Directors to clarify the position of the District. McMillan and Burma left at 10:28 p.m. The Board discussed the lawsuit on White Bear Lake and the implications it could have on the District and its member Cities. There was no consensus of the Board on this discussion and the Board informed LeFevere to keep them up to date on the Shorewood Yacht Club issue. 9. NEW BUSINESS Van Hercke stated thaHhe City of Minnetonka hai~'info'rrned her that they had 'been approached regarding the concept of the city petitioning the MCWD to have them fund the Distdct harvesting program. There was Report prepared this past winter by the MCWD that evaluated the Distdct harvesting program and its benefits. The Report concluded that the harvesting program was the most cost effective means in the removal of milfoil and phosphorous from the lake. The City of Minnetonka has suggested that it would be more appropriate for the District to take the lead on this request rather than an individual city. Foster stated that he had talked to LeFevere and there was question regarding whether the Distdct could petition the MCWD for this type of project or if it needed to come from the member cities. He believed that the member cities would greatly benefit from having this program either fully or partially funded by the MCWD, noting that this also could possibly be used for the zebra mussel program. Babcock clarified that he believed the state enabling legislation allows the District to petition the MCWD. He believed that this might make sense because Lake Minnetonka is a regional resource, not a local resoume. Van Hercke stated that she believed there might be a need for some meetings to investigate long-term funding for this project. Foster stated that LeFevere would further research the viability of the Distdct petitioning the MCWD for Ibis project and bring back his opinion a future Regular Board Meeting. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m. Albert O. Foster, Chairman Lili McMillan, Secretary -921 - LAKE MIN NE3~.QN .~A OQN SER~ATt~QN ~DtSTR lOT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEWSLE~E~ Grego~ ~, NY~e~k 2002.were o~et.by funds ;re~Ved in' 2001 ,frOm a n.umb~t'of:~ake ~'inneto ka area busineSses~ The L.MC curren~Y..p~mu,i~g a Iong4erm ~,ndi~.~mmit'm'~nt ~om Hen~epin cobn~ for 2003 and beyond for.t~is project wit~ , ,,,.. ~ ; : ~ ~ -~., i · ~:,. p rig, LMOD. authonzed ~e purchase of solar'hgbts wth Save pla~ned'fot an uP%mi'~;g' ~eg'ai.&r B~'atd"'Meeting ~nd we wifl keep Ye, in'fo~8d 0n LaEe Minnet°nka ExotiOs..S~OieS.Mana~e~ent..Pro~rams; T~is Pact fa!l, aRFP was sent out'b five e~dOm for the.:~;~hase ef a'new'Aq~tiS: ~ian't H~st~?.'a'fid the'(~ade;in of ~o of.the' i'9.8'~" U,iiOd Marine Aquatic Plant ha~es~ers Owned by the LBO~ br'th¢'20b3'~eas0n: In Debember, the'LMOD' BOard ~ DirectOm a~a~d'ed the cofitB~t~ fora net total bid Of $9~,300 excluding federal and State t~es, to Aqaa~.us Syoems, The payment, of this Aquatic Plant Ha~ester Will come frOm the EWM Equipment Resole Fund, which ale donated ~nds a~d are dedved fBm. non4eviedt~.dO!lam Lake 'Om mid 3are '.'~ities 1'iCe Sis in 2002, Be LMOD worked With;.the Lake. M. nnet0~ka, ASSOCiat On (LMA)on a pi'lot inspection program at selected Pa.b!c:ac~essestokeepzebta.~usselsOutofLake'Minneton.'ka This;program' common.al, on 'JU'!y 17th and coltitinaed ~'mu:~b Septi~mber 7th, w th.'428,25;'tibUB;ef. MN DNR' inspection hOUrs at Ba~e!l BAY,' NOrth; A~, and d -922- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEWSLETTER, 2/18103, PAGE 2 "Save the Lake" RecoRnition Banquet Dinner: The 36th anniversary "Save the Lake" Recognition Banquet Dinner was held on Thursday, 2/13/03, at Lord Fletcher's Old Lake Lodge on Lake Minnetonka. The keynote speaker for this Banquet Dinner was Todd Warner, with a program titled "Vintage Boats- Now and Then". The program provided a brief history of vintage boating on Lake Minnetonka. The program also included recognition of Special Deputy 'rracy Hogan and a salute to retiring Board members Tom Gilman, representing the City of Excelsior, and Sheldon Wed, representing the City of Greenwood. On-going Licenses/Permits: LMCD staff is currently conducting inspections of all licensed deicing installations on Lake Minnetonka. Results of these inspections, with related correspondence, will be forwarded to the licensee and affected member city after inspections have been completed. Staff is currently processing all new and renewal without change applications for licensed multiple dock facilities on Lake Minnetonka for the 2003 season. Additionally, staff has sent out new and renewal applications for charter boats on Lake Minnetonka, and is currently processing intoxicating liquor, wine, and non-intoxicating malt liquor applications for these boats. For the 2003 season, the demand for intoxicating liquor licenses will exceed the number the LMCD is allowed to issue by State law. LMCD Code requires all liquor licensees on Lake Minnetonka, whether new or renewal, to attend mandatory training annually. LMCD and Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Water Patrol staff will facilitate these training sessions, which will be held sometime in late March and early April. The focus of these training sessions will be on charter boat rules, related liquor regulations, general discussion on feedback received from the public, and other State of Minnesota and Hennepin County regulations pertaining to watercraft for hire. Web Page: The LMCD's WebPage address is: http://www.lmcd.org. -923- FR~M: Maxf~ld 112-18-03 12:17@m p. I of I REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CASE STUDIES February, 2003 H. ome Own. ership Increases as S ngle Family Rentals Declines Traditionally, new rental projects are needed to accommodate new renters generated from household growth. However, many communities across Minnesota are experiencing a reduction of non- traditional rental housing. Therefore new rental units may be needed to replace lost rental units as well. A comparison of 1990 and 2000 Census data reveals that, overall Minnesota is experiencing a transition from rented single-family homes and duplexes to owner occupied homes. The number of renter households living in single- family homes and multifamily buildings with less than five units Maxfield Research's Insight Maxfield Research has over 20 years of experience in market research, The expedlse we have gained throughout the years enables us to offer solutions to the many issues cities & developers face, The relationship we develop with our clients Is a critical component to the success of our approach to housing research and allows us to serve as a source of direction and Information during development and planning. If you cio not wish to receive future newsletters, or if they should be sent to others in your organization, please contact Pt~yllla Auatln et 6~ 2,904, 7967, Maxffe[d Research Inc. · 615 First Avenue NE declined by approximately 7,500 households during the 1990s. Except for 1,100 new rented mobile homes, all of the renter household growth occured in buildings with five or more units. Many factors during the last decade contributed to this phenomenon, Renters: including Iow mortgage interest rates, rising home values, and the demolition of functionally or physically obsolete rental housing. Many younger households discovered that due to Iow mortgage rates, homeownership was more Source: affordable than renting. This created high demand for single-family homes during the decade. As owner demand increased, so did home values. Many landlords of single-family homes and duplexes were able to reap greater financial rewards by selling their rented homes. Also, some communities are improving the quality of their housing stock by demolishing homes that are either functionally and/or physically obsolete - homes that more often than not are rented. While the trend toward increased homeownership has somewhat reduced overall rental demand, the loss of non-traditional rental housing may be creating a Owner & Renter Households by Building Type Minnesota 1990 & 2 000 1990 2000 Change O~tter~: Igingle-Family 1,072,915 1,291,970 219,055 24 unit bid.ga. 22,584 25,392 2,808 5+ unit bldga. 23, [ 94 30,246 7,052 Mobile Homes 59,174 64,695 5,52 i Total 1,177,867 1,412,303 234,436 glngle-Fmnily 98,628 96,140 -2,488. 2-4 unit bldgs. 81,984 76,934 .5,050l $+ unit bldga. 268,861 299,782 30,9: Mobile Homes 8,322 9,437 i, l 1> Total 457, 795 482,293 24498 ~Io~e: Figures exclude Other dwelling types, such as boats, campers, and vans. US Census Bureau: 1990 & 2000 shortage of rental housing in some communities. Since many of the rented single-family homes being lost are rented by families, communities may want to explore the potential need for adding rental units with more than two bedrooms. Since 1983, Maxfield has been helping cities and municipafities throughout the upper midwest plan to meet their housing needs. If you would like information on how Maxfield can help you make your planning decisions, or ff you would like to be excluded from future editions of Maxfax, contact Jay Thompson at 612. 904.7973. · Suite 400 , Minneapolis, MN · 55413 · phone 612.338.0012 · fax 61.2.gO4.Tg7g -924- General Fund $1,707,188 CDBG 1,114 Area Fire Protection Services 289,809 Grant Revolving 0 Cemetery (4,885) Dock 160,994 PW Facility 146,581 G.O. Improvement Bonds (36,752) Commerce Place TIF (167,064) TIF 1-2 Notes 25,578 G.O. Bonds 2001 - A 15,017 G.O. Bonds 2001 - C 19,420 HRA Lease Rev Bonds (950) Capital Improvement 1,625,448 MSA 18,094 Sealcoat 67,259 CDB 3,796 Downtown TIF 1-2 (2,045,291) HRA Public Safety Bldg 5,316,816 Water 1,237,058 Sewer ................................ 1__, !_!_7,_8__8_3_ Liquor Store ......................... ._3!_5_.,470 .. Recycling .......................................... 7.3__,_0.7__3_. Storm Water 376,081 Fire Relief (9,362) HRA 0 Note: The above schedule shows the combined cash and investment ~3alances by fund for the months indicated as recorded in the General Ledger. The balances do not reflect receivable, payables, authorized transfers, encumbered funds, or dedicated/reserved resources, etc. Only some accrued transactions are reflected. Investment income will be distributed to the funds at the end of the year and is not included. A long and complete process is followed to record all transactions, before we close the books, at the end of the year. In addition, the audit from the independent auditor is performed and an official Comprehensive Report will be presented to the City Council and made available to interested parties. In no way this schedule is intended to represent balances of funds available for spending. 02114~2003 Cash ReportCouncil Gino -925- CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT Jan. 2003 8.33% GENERALFUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments Jan. 2003 YTD BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE 2,290,070 0 '0 6,930 0 0 263,150 19,018 19,018 502,930 47,466 47,466 97,800 11,915 11,915 117,000 0 0 215,290 39,377 39,377 0 0 0 14.000 322 322 PERCENT VARIANCE R_~__C__~IVED (2,290,070) 0.00% (6,930) 0.00% (244,132) 7.23% (455,464) 9.44% (85,885) 12.18% (117,000) 0.00% (175,913) 18.29% 0 ERR (13.678) 2.30% TOTAL REVENUE 3,507,170 118.098 118.098 (3.389.072) 3,37% FIRE FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCK FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND LIQUOR FUND RECYCLING FUND STORM WATER UTILITY 550,410 97,428 5,000 25 103,400 26,841 625,000 6,052 1,100,000 2,903 2,110,000 126,715 129,000 61 115,000 52 97,428 (452,982) 17.70% 25 (4,975) 0.50% 26,841 (76,559) 25.96% 6,052 (618,948) 0.97% 2,903 (1,097,097) 0.26%' 126,715 (1,983,285) 6.01% 61 (128,939) 0.05% 52 (114,948) 0.05% 0211412003 rev01 Gino -926- GENERAL FUND Council Promotions City Manager/Clerk Elections Finance Assessing Legal City Hall Building & Srvcs Computer Police Emergency Prepardeness Planning/Inspections Streets Parks Transfers Cable TV Contingencies CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT Jan. 2003 8.33% Jan. 2003 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED 75,990 2,400 2,400 73,590 3,750 0 0 3,750 257,150 16,522 16,522 240,628 1,080 0 0 1,080 215,100 11,525 11,525 203,575 79,630 8 8 79,622 135,550 0 0 135,550 172,650 3,650 3,650 169,000 28,640 2,276 2,276 26,364 1,260,850 71,264 71,264 1,189,586 7,130 594 594 6,536 270,010 24,017 24,017 245,993 671,450 20,673 20,673 650,777 361,130 8,440 8,440 352,690 203,350 16,946 16,946 186,404 50,000 0 0 50,000 44,290 0 0 44,290 3.16% 0.00% 6.43% 0.00% 5.36% 0.01% 0.00% 2.11% 7.95% 5.65% 8.33% 8.89% 3.08% 2.34% 8.33% 0.00% .0.00% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 3,837,750 178,315 178,315 3.659.435 4.65% Area Fire Service Fund 510,410 Cemetery Fund 9,140 Dock Fund 141,230 TIF 1-2 0 Water Fund 679,880 Sewer Fund 1,121,210 Liquor Fund 495,850 Recycling Fund 163,310 Storm Water Utility 92,910 5,580 5,580 504,830 62 62 9,078 887 887 140,343 3,262 3,262 (3,262) 14,572 14,572 665,308 123,116 123,116 998,094 19,154 19,154 476,696 8,645 8,645 154,665 0 0 92,910 1.09% 0.68% 0.63% 2.14% 10.98% 3.86% 5.29% 0.00% Exp-02 02/14~2003 Gino -927- Page 1 of 1 Kandis Hanson From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dean, John B." <jdean@Kennedy-Graven.com> <kandishanson~cityofmound.com>; <mglick(~ci.robbinsdale. m n. us> Tuesday, February 18, 2003 1:48 PM Open Meeting Law Decision Recently, a court in the state of Virginia ruled that email communications between council members can violate the provisions of that state's open meeting law. The court held that if the purpose of the email exchanges was to develop consensus or to decide policy, then the exchanges constituted a meeting. Because of the nature of such a meeting (public not included), Virginia's open meeting law was violated. Although the Virginia statute is different than the Minnesota statute, the differences may not necessarily result in a different outcome. You may want to pass this information to your councils. -928- 2/18/2003 L LAKE MINNETONKA'COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 4071 SUNSET DRIVE . P.O. BOX 385 · SPRING PARK, MN 55384-0385 · 952.471-7125 · FAX 952.471-9151 February 5, 2003 DEEPHAVEN EXCELSIOR GREENWOOD INDEPENDENCE LONG LAKE LORETrO MEDINA MINNETONKA BEACH MINNETRISTA ORONO ST. BONIFACIUS SHOREWOOD SPRING PARK TONKA BAY VICTORIA WOODLAND City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor, City Council and City Administrator: The LMCC continues to m~ke efforts to improve the production of citv council meetings. Studio manager Jim Lundberg and I have implemented a number of ongoing strategies to correct any problems with the meetings. In the past we have been able to identify a number of factors that can cause problems with portable remote productions. Some of these are low lighting, electrical inter£erence with other electrical systems in council chambers, operator error, poor camera placement and camera angles. Here is what we have implemented to resolve these problems. The LMCC studio manager has discussed these issues with some of the cities who have experienced problems. It had been reported that audio has been an intermittent problem. The LMCC purchased some microphones for some cities and Jim visited some of the chambers to determine any problems with their sound systems' compatibility. The LMCC has also purchased filters to get rid of any hums or buzzes due to electrical interference. Jim has discussed with operators correct placement of microphones (including podiums) and correct set up of audio with the portable equipment. Our studio manager has done one-on-one training with the contracted employees to achieve the maximum lighting and optimal sound quality from the portable equipment. He has also told camera operators to raise the cameras up high enough so they are not filming the backs of visitor's heads and to zoom in to get better shots and not stay on wide angles tOo long. -929- I have asked Jim to emphasize to our playback technicians the importance of monitoring council meetings during playback for titles, good video and audio quality and to note any problems to him. The LMCC wants to have the best possible production of all city council meetings. We would ask that you call the studio with your suggestions or concerns so we can work with your city to make any eorreetions~. We-t~-to detect problems internally but would appreciate input especially from city mayors and council members. Thank you for working with us to achieve higher levels of quality in the production of city council meetings. Sincerely, Sally Koenecke Administrator -930- 02-20-2003 ll:54AM FROM LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICA TO 4?20620 P.02 -931 - 02-20-2003 ll:SSAM FROM LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICA TO 4920620 P.03 ___1 IIII Ell IIIII I IIII III lllL I .... j IJlll I I -932- TOTAL P.~3 A'publication of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Sheriff Patrick D. McGowan '- Winter 2003 McGowan Takes Oath With Other'Count¥ Officials, Sheriff Patrick McGowan officially began his third term as Hennepin County Sheriff, January 7, when he was sworn into office (photo on right) along with seven county commissioners and County Attorney Amy Klobuchar. The Sheriff's wife, Ellen, held the Bible while Judge Harvey Ginsberg administered the oath. Present asthe Sheriff's special guests were FBI Special Agent in Charge Deborah Piercei Minneapolis Police Chief Robert Ols0n, Minnetonka Poi ice Chief Joy Rikala and HCSO Chief Deputy Michele Smolley. In brief remarks after the swearing in, the Sheriff thanked his parents for the values that have shaped his life. They were unable to attend the health reasons. " All the new elected officials were honored at a brief reception following the ceremony. (Photo by Lisa Fleming) Frankly, lhese Deputies Are 'All Wet' When you work on the water, it isn't unheard of to find yourself in the wated But the real problem emerges if you find yourself in the water with an uncooperative suspect, lhat's why Water Patrol deputies and special deputies took a swim in the North Hennepin Commun}ty College pool early this winter ..... with all their clothes on! Also wear- ing weights to simulate a duty belt and some with Kevlar vests, they learned techniques and strate- gies to subdue a suspect underwater. -fhe train- ing sessions, taught by Sgt. Steve Anderson and Employee Development staff, are designed to pro- mote deputy safety by masted ng self defense tac~ 933-ics in the water. Page 2 Sheriff's Report Here are just a few "good news' clips from the mailbag: -"On November 18, at apProximately noon, several Hennepin County deputies, along with Inspector William Wilen re- sponded to a very serious patient incident at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center. All of the deputies acted in a highly professional manner and they helped to successfully conclude a very serious situation with the best possible outcome. This Medical Center has been fortunate to be assisted by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office in the past and in each in- stance, they are rapidly on the scene and help out in so many ways. We'are fortunate to have such a fine relationship with your deputies. Many thanks to all the deputies who responded on Novem~ ber 18 and for what they do in their routine duties on a daily basis." Steven P. Kleinglass' Medical Center Director "1 want to take this opportunity to personally thank you for the assistance you provided during the Wellstone Memorial Sar- vice at Williams Arena. The presence of ~120 members Of Congress, a former Presi- dent and Vice Presid ant of the United States req Uired'a level of security significantly beyond any previous events on cam- pus. Those requirements were met and the assistance your agency provided.was vital to our success. tt is a tribute to the professionalism of your agency that sup- port and assistance were made available immediately and wit, bout reservation. The presence of your deputies added sig- nific~ntly to the sense of security experienced by everyone attending the event. On behalf of the University of Minnesota, I want to thank you for your help and I would like to add a personal 'job well done' to your people who were at the event." Chief George.R, Aylward U of M Police Dept. "1 would like to thank you for the outstanding training assis- tance your Office provided to the DNR Division of Enforce- ment. Sgt. Steve Anderson provided training to our Use of Force instructors on 'ground fighting.' Sgt. Anderson's back- ground and experience as an instructor was evident to our officers. Our instructors reported' that Anderson projected a very professional image. His instruction was to the point. Sgt. Anderson accurately tailored his training to the somewhat different mission served by the DNR. He also strongly ach- -934- oed your Office's sentiments that any excessive force is ir erable within a professional law enforcement organization. Col. William C. Bernhjelm DNR Division of Enforcement "Dear Lt. Schilling: Thank you for your assistance to my Special Detail Unit dur- ing my recent, visit to Minneapolis. I am grateful for your ef- forts on my behalf." John Ashcroft The Attorney General Washington, D.C. "We have been trying to find the name of the deputy (Ecl. Note: We learned that it was Deputy Pat Harding) who came to our aid the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. I hope he will see this and recognize our words are for him. Our nine-month-old baby was choki n § on a grape. The deputy was on duty in Medicine Lake. We cannot find the words to thank you for saving our baby. Your quick, confident and intelligent response to our cris~s resulted in our baby being safe and healthy. There is no way to adequately thank you for that. I know that you sa' people everyday with your presence and the work that y~ do, but your work was a huge blessing to us i.n our life and we will never ~orget your help. Thank you so very much." Kera, Jason and Kalam "On the morning of 1.0-11-02, I responded to a fire alarm at the Wayzata Medical Building at about 12:30 a.m. Upon my return and sometime later, I discovered my two-year-old daughter had left the house. You can imagine the horror that brings. We are one of the fortunate families to say she was found and returned home at about 3:20 a.m. All she had to show for her adventure was cold feet and a runny nose. I want to thank Deputies Bogenreif and Kohls for their assistance as I didn't get the opportunity that morning. Thanks for all you dofor us." Kurt, Stephanie, Kyle & Shelby Klapprich is a publication of the Hennepin County Shedff's Public Information Office Room 6, Courthouse 350 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 Public Information Officer - Roseann Campagnoli (612) 348-71.59 Sheriff's Report Page 3 . tyO Trains Area LE at RoCkford School 'three dePuties and officers arrived at Rockford Elementary School, January 18, t° deal with an armed 'suspect intent on harming students in the building. Fortunately, this was not a real event, but another in a series of "Active Shooter" training sessions, designed and deliv- ered by the Sheriff's Office Employee Development Unit. The training has been recognized by the National Asso¢ia- tion of Counties for an innovative approach to training a cooperative response to a serious threat at a community site. Participants follow their training w. ith realistic scenarios on site. Since the course was designed, nearly 350 law enforcement personnel in Hennepin County have been trained. Meyer Honored'as Programmer.of the Year The Minnesota Sheriffs' Associati~on has chosen Adult Detention Division Recreational Therapist Connie Meyer as Programmer of the Year. Hail to the Chief When the President last visited Minnesota in the waning days of the 2002 campaign, he sought out a volunteer in our community who had contributed significantly. It turned out to be none other than Special Deputy John Erntsen who is a Iongtime volunteer for Water Patrol. John was the President's guest for a limo ride and received special recog- nition during the President's speech. By the way, John is on the right. The fellow on the left is George W. Bush. Connie was congratulated by Detention Captain Michael Wresh after the MSA award. Connie came to the ADC five years ago when programming was very minimal. She began organizing and mobilizing volunteers, all while serving as a member of the PSF Transition Team. She recruited more than 125 volunteers who have donated over 1,530 hours of programming for 11,106 inmates. Connie recruits, trains, schedules and supervises the volunteers who serve at the jail. She was also the driving force for the re-designed Tree House for children visiting at the PSF. Connie was featured segment recently. As a result of that many new volunteers signed up to read to chil- dren and numerous books and toys were donated to the Tree House. Congratulations to Connie for all her fine work! February 6 April 3 May 15 May 15 -935- Watch for Sheriff McGowan on "MPD LiVe" on the Minneapolis Cable Channel HCSO Recognit, ion Ceremony. Call 612-348-7159 for more information. Law Enforcement Memorial Day Noon Ceremony on Public Service Level 'of GovernmentCenter HCSO Open House 11 a.m. to 5 p;m. Patrol Division, Brooklyn Park Two events continue to dominate the American news scene. We all cOntinue to watch the grow- ing conflict in Iraq and at home,.we will all be touched to'some degree by the"fiscal crisis in'the State of Minnesota. That impact is already being felt by county and local governments. We cer- tainly don't have all of the answers right now, but we do know that'all Hennepin CoUnty Offices and departments will experience-cuts. At the Sheriff's Office,' we have al ready tasked our diwision and unit. commanders to seek any and all possible innovations to reduce costs. That is no sim pie assignment:for an organizatiOn like the. Sheriff's Office, already touched by lean budgets for the past two' years. Just when we believed that we had located all reasonable reductions that could be 'made, we are asked for even' more. Planning the fiscal requirements of adequate public'safety is a difficult job because we must be . ready for day~to-day operations as well as the Sheriff's Report "what if" scenari0~. In law enforcement, you never know what tomorrOw Will bring. On September 10, 2001', we could never have imagined what tomorrow would bring or the changes it would make in the fabric'of our lives. From major disasters to high profile crimes, tomorro~ is never a, g~.ven. ~ So, our challenge is to budget conservatively.for the resources and .equipment needed to keep our citizens safe and trust that the readiness we have Planned will be enough. For law enforce- ment~ budget cutbacks do not mean a few less co'mputers or cutting back on paper. Budget cutbacks mean fewer, personnel in uniform to do the job. It can mean less equipment and support staff to help them do their job. Our job is mak~ lng your county safe. We have a tough assignment] ffgg9s NI/~ 'punolN p~ol:t poo~e~l punol~l ~o uosu~H slpu~N g2.~g 'ON N~ "S'ld~ Gird ::l~)¥/SOd -936- ff/Volunteers ofAmerica® Minnesota EXPRESS NOTES January 2003 - Issue No. 211 Senior Services 2021 E. Hennepin Ave., Suite 130 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 Tel: 612-331-4063 Fax: 612-331-6772 A Conversation about Community-Based Transportation With the announcement last year of a four billion deficit what will the future of community-transportation look like? To get an idea, I spoke with Mark Hoisser, Vice President and Executive Director of DARTS. Our conversation follows: Rachelle Baker: How do you think the budget deficit will affect transportation in the metro area? Mark Hoisser: "As all agencies that receive any type of funding assistance from the state are stating, no one will escape the impact of the current deficit crisis. In transit this is no exception. Virtually all public services will either be reducing, eliminating or redesigning service in some fashion and there will be fewer rides provided. This will affect the transit dependent populations the most with either more limited service hours, areas of coverage or outright elimination of services that may be more expensive due to the type of riders served." RB: How do you think community-based programs will be affected? MH: "Community-based providers that receive public funding, city, county or state will see reduced funding. I am convinced they will also see an increased demand from riders once carried by others providers that are also being cut. For example, Metro Mobility is preparing for a' cut in the general fund appropriation for the mandated ADA regional service. Should that occur, riders with disabilities and seniors will be left to see their much needed service from others in the community that have provided the safety net to Metro Mobility to this point. In addition, if regular route service in a community is cut then the complimentary ADA service will also be affected under a more strict interpretation of the ADA law. Providers will see ADA and regular riders seeking alternatives." RB: Is there anything you think transportation programs, small and large, can do to keep themselves going? MH: "Hopefully the community and donors will respond with added support of some kind. Every effort to encourage this support as well as find new sources of funds will be essential. However, more effort may need to be focused on working with other providers in the community, including funders, to creatively look at options for sharing and maximizing their current, albeit limited, resources. Creative partnerships and joint ventures may be necessary to weather this crisis and position agencies for the future. Sharing of drivers and dispatchers in addition to buses may be required. Also needed is the mobilization of the riders to first understand the issues and how they can help and second, to make the case to the larger community and state funders that transportation means access to needed services and without it, more expensive alternatives will be -937- required. Contacting funders and working with organizations in your communities to get the message out that transportation is essential will be more critical than ever. Calls to elected officials and legislators may not save cuts but may help to reduce cuts so total elimination of services can be avoided. It will also set the tone for future discussions and funding needs." RB: How does community'based transportation look to you in the future? MH: "As mentioned, new forms of partnerships will need to be developed and these new ways of operating will be creating a new look to community services in the future if we are to survive the current crisis. This means agencies may eliminate their direct provision of transportation, giving it to others to do or partner in some other way. Therefore, we should see fewer providers, but more focused and established on stronger bases of operations. More sharing of rides, coordinated without the geographica! or political boundaries that have restricted travel and partnerships will be evident. This will require funding that will be less categorized and more focused on the outcome of the ride to be _Successful." ~r~ '-~ · RB: Any further.. ,.,~'prov~ders and people who use their services. MH: "Involve the"~., ~'~:~and keep seeking volunteers to assist in finding new solutions. Some services will need to be better coordinated with family members that can shift their schedules to match service availability. More volunteer drivers will also be needed to provide the longer and more individualize trips while helping to maximize the use of buses for larger groups and others with specialized needs." Name and Address Corrections: If Express Notes is being mailed to an incorrect name or address, please call Rachelle Baker at 612.617.7815 to change the information. You can also contact Rachelle by email at: rbaker~voamn.org West Metro Coordinated Transportation publishes express Notes 6-12 times yearly. Editor & Writer: Rachelle Baker This project is funded under contract with the Metropolitan Area Agency on Aging, Inc. as part of the Older Americans Act Program and a grant from the United Way of the Minneapolis area. West Metro Coordinated Transportation Volunteers of America of Minnesota 2021 E. Hennepin Ave., Suite 130 Minneapolis, MN 55413 NON PROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE PAID MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA Permit No. 299 Kandis Hanson City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound MN 55364 -939- -941 - CITY OF MOUND Meeting Minutes Mound Public Safety Facility Meeting held on 2/3/03 Date printed 02/04/03 The meeting was convened at 4 PM Monday, February 3, 2003 at Mound Fire Station: Present: Kandis Hanson City KH Todd Christopherson Amcon TC John McKinley City JM Miles Britz SEH MB Greg Pederson City GP 1. Discussed the color for the outside of the building. We should have some pricing back from Matt on Spancrete based upon some of the other colors looked at last week. Reviewed the metal panels for the roof. MB brought some additional full size samples. We will get pricing from Specialty Systems for review. SEH to issue a PR for the proposed materials including the deletion of the metal roofing at the back, West wall. 3. The PR for pricing the roofing change will be available for pricing one week from today. About 10 days for pricing and tabulation of pricing. We should have the pdces for presentation about the 20th of February. 4. MB presented PR 1 for review. TC to send out for pdcing. The landscaping plan has been modified slightly in the area of the berm to move some of the other planned plantings to this area. TC to put together a schedule of values for the monument sign to include lights, flagpoles, signage, and monument itself. The bronze statues are out. All of the information shown on the colored sketch MB showed is included in construction documents already. MB presented the parking layout options for the south property line. We agreed that we need to get this to a point of resolution. Once Yeit comes out to start grading the site, they will need cuts and fills staked for the entire site. It is imperative that this be decided upon quickly. 7. Phone system - ABM is summarizing what has been worked out today and will forward to GP and JM. 8. Jeff Michael of the planning commission will be providing help with defining the needs for the computer network. 9. Larry Volkers is putting together the price estimate for where we are to date with furniture layouts. Discussed the pros and cons of bidding the furniture out as opposed to using the State contract pdcing. 10. TC to ask Veit to bring the Ground Zero dump truck and signage to explain it. It should be here by 10 AM that morning. Also, TC will see if they have a picture of it that could be place in the Laker for PR. 11. TC reviewed the status of contracts and shop drawings and other preparations for the construction. 12. Moving - GP will get a security fence installed, clean up the space, and get ready to move. The move will happen Saturdays and weekends. 13. The FD will be out of the building for the asbestos removal by 2/23/03. 14. TC to get a portable toilet lined up for the ceremony-it should be Handicap style. C:\WINDOWS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content. lE5\5J2LV56GWIPS 02 03 03.doc -942- Page 1 of 2 CITY OF MOUND 15. The ceremony will start at 11 AM and go to noon. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Meeting held on 223/03 Date ptfnted 02/04/03 Budget - we will update the budget once we have the furniture refined. Reduce the SEH Scope Change Contingency to $25,000. Next meeting will be Wednesday, Feb. 19th at 2:30 PM. We will go to Council and HRA meetings on February 25 to present options for budget adjustment and contingency recommendations. Meeting adjourned at 6:20 PM. Minutes by TC. Call if any missing items or discrepancy. C:\WINDOWS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content. lE5~5J2LV56GlMPS 02 03 03.doc -943- Page 2 of 2 CITY OF MOUND Meeting Minutes Mound Public Safety Facility Meeting held on 2/20/03 Date pdnted 02/20/03 The meeting was convened at 4 PM Monday, February 20, 2003 at Mound Fire Station: Present: Kandis Hanson City KH Todd Christopherson Amcon TC John McKinley City JM Miles Britz SEH MB Greg Pederson City GP 1. Skinner was asking about the utilities. Steininger will do the disconnect and coordinate with Skinner. 2. The gas and power will not be shut off until after the ceremony. 3. TCAT will need access code to get into the building. The code is 42. 4. Phones- being moved next week. Discussed the trailer location. There is a problem with putting it on the site as the entire site is getting torn up. The street to the North is problematic in that the apartment entrance is on to that street. JM suggested that we consider across the street. Gene Zalk is the Superintendent- TC to talk with. 6. The roofing prices and samples were reviewed: 7. The prices for the shingles and steel supports, misc carpentry are not yet in. The complete pricing will be assembled by Amcon. 8. Reviewed the Veit proposal for moving the excess dirt off site. We should be able to save about $8 to 12,000 depending on quantities and locations. Also, the road restrictions will need to be addressed. We will take the updated budget, the proposed alternates, and samples of the proposed roof and wall panel colors to the Council and HRA on March 11. We will not go next week as planned previously as we do not yet have all of the prices back from contractors for PR 003. 10. TC handed out and reviewed several project reports. These were PR Report, Contract Summaries, and Contract Changes. These will be kept up and tracked by Amcon and distributed on a regular basis. 11. Discussed the precast color samples that were delivered by Hanson Spancrete. There is one additional sample that is to be delivered on Tuesday. 12. MS - even though permit fees are waived, all contractors need to get appropriate permits and schedule inspections. 13. If demo contractor needs a hydrant connection, they should contact Greg Skinner. 14. Sprinkler plan will need to be reviewed by Mike Palm. We will do a simultaneous submittal to SEH/EP and Mike Palm when we receive them 15. Reviewed Budget Work Sheet and updated cost estimates for several line items. C:\WINDOWS\Local Seffings\Temporary Internet Files\Content. lE5\5J2LV56GWIPS 02 20 03.doc -944- Page 1 of 2 CITY OF MOUND 16. Max Steininger needs to get a permit prior to demo. 17. Next meeting is Monday, March 3 at 4 PM at Temporary Fire Station. 18. Meeting adjourned at 1 1:15 AM. Minutes by TC. Call if any missing items or discrepancy. Meeting held on 2/20/03 Date printed 02_/20/03 C:\WINDOWS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content. lE5\5J2LV56GWIPS 02 20 03.doc -945- Page 2 of 2 Contract Summaries Mound Public Safety Facility Signed Insurance Original Change Current Contractor Contract Expires Bond Contract Orders Contract Mound Contractor C-01 Max Steininger x 1/1/04 37,200 37,200 C-02 Veit and Company, Inc. 587,800 567,800 C-03 Nova Frost Inc. x 56,400 56,400 C-04 Northwest Asphalt, Inc x 12/1/03 x 82.900 82 qoo C-05 Re-Bid C-06 Midwest Landscaping C-07 Midwest Landscaping C-08 Kelleher Construction, Inc. x 9/30/03 x 466~872 466,872 C-09 Hanson Spancrete Midwest, Inc. x 10/1/03 x 723,334 723,334 C-10 Axel H. Ohman, Inc. x 1/1/04 IS0,000 160,00~ C-11 Thurnbeck Steel FabricaUon, Inc. x x 105,084 108.054 C-12 Western Steel Erection, Inc. x 1/13/04 77,969 77,969 C-13 Kellington Construction, Inc. 8/1/03 93,250 93.250 C-14 Dalco Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc. x 139,775 13p775 C-15 Specialty Systems - Hold for revisions C-16 Straughan Hardware, Inc. x 6130/03 47,233 47,23R C-17 Twin City Garage Door Company 88.880 68.880 C-18 Empirehouse, Inc. 123,268 123,268 C-19 Hold C-20 Ceilings & Floors, Inc. x 5/1/03 53,313 53.313 C-21 Combined with C-20 C-22 Royal Floor Covedng Co., Inc. 67,932 67,932 C-23 Hold C-24 Steinbrecher Painting Inc. x 49,800 49,800 C-25 Mid-America Business Systems x 9,294 9,294 C-26 Hold C-27A TBD C-27B TBD C-27C TBD C-27D TBD C-27E TBD C-27F TBD C-27G TBD C-27H TBD C-271 TBD C-27J TBD C-27K TBD C-27L TBD C-28 St. Cloud Restaurant Supply 16,995 15,995 C-29 Hold C-30 Offisource, Inc. x 3,240 3,240 C-31 Schindler Elevator Corporation 4o,90o 40,900 C-32 Allied Mechanical Systems of Hutchinson, Inc. x 9/1/03 813,650 613,850 C-33 Ridgedale Electric, Inc. 382,ooo 362,000 3,969,039 3,969,039 AMCON Printed On: 2/20/2003 1 -946- Z -947- 0 Z -948- MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION February 13, 2003 Present: Also Present: Absent and Excused: Citizens Present: Acting Chair, Derrick 1. Commissioners Derrick Hentz, Gene Hostetler, Ron Motyka, Norman Domholt and John Beise Parks Director Jim Fackler, Recording Secretary Denice Widmer Susan Taylor and Bob Brown Kassie Ricke 6125 Su Tina Nutter 6126 Kristin Vandenheuvel 6165 Jerry Wahl 6189 Colleen Furhman 6! Michelle Kaiser Lane Hentz, called the meeting to 7:32pm. Approval of the Janu, meetin Motion by Beise to sentence noted to to his by minutes, striking the last discussion, it was also be l needed to be changed from 2 include the corrected number of parks carried. #6, Dis( #6 the for Rottlund Homes, was moved to Item #5. for Highland Park, was moved to Item # 5a. was moved to Item # 6. from citizens _present on any item not on to three minutes per speaker.) None present Discuss: Public Lands Permit, The Village by the Bay Fackler gave a breakdown of info included in packet. Michelle Kaiser, from Metro Plains, presented a background as to why this permit application for a sign is being presented. Due to a miscommunication at the Metro Plains office as to sign placement, the sign has already manufactured. Michelle displayed an overhead of the sign. The sign is made of steel and mesh so it is maintenance free and does not obstruct the -949- view of traffic in any way. The sign is set at an angle, 20' back from the street and sidewalk. There will be a border set 3' to 5' offthe face of the sign with edging, mulch and plantings. The sign will be ground-lit and homeowner association maintained. Fackler stated he has no objection as long as the homeowner's association maintains and also reinstalls the sign should the city have to do remove it for any reason. Fackler also stated that Michelle would have to include location of electrical, a better determination of the border around the sign, and a clear definition of homeowner responsibility in the packet presented to the Motion by Beise to recommend granting Village by the Bay sign subject to Hentz. Motion carried. ands Permit for the econded by This permit will go before the sday, Discuss: Rottlund Home Site Plan~ Fackler informed also presented large col, Gametime. Handouts of Kassie play B( budget. had igned by from were compl. sodded. Fackler of play designed by .gns were also presented. a large colored display of an Fackler stated that he is Sales next week to go over the site. an understanding of the project ~rity of the sites in Mound have been has a good reputation and in the end, final cost. Kassie Ricke stated that Flanagan Sales to oversee installation by the Fackler stated that the City does the not charge for labor. .126 Sugar Mill Lane, asked what the exact amount of lved was. She stated that the Fackler had stated $30,000.00, but been told by the developer that he was contributing $35,000.00. Fackler did some checking and stated the figure he was given was $30,000.00. Kristin Vandenheuvel, 6165 Sugar Mill Lane, presented a theme idea of a wooden Noah's Ark and a wooden castle. She also included handouts of gazebo and pergolas and benches. Regarding the benches, Hentz asked Fackler if the City wanted to have them all the same style. Fackler stated they use what looks nicest for the space and has durability. -950- Jerry Wahl, 6189 Sugar Mill Lane, stated that he hopes that whatever is done, that the he did not want to see the area become just a patch of grass. Jerry stated that he would like to see some trees, shrubs and plantings added. He also requested that whatever is done, that attention be paid to the different ages of the adults and children in the neighborhood. Jerry also stated that he hoped there would be a balance. He stated that while there was a need for a play area, that it be kept in scale. Jerry suggested adding a bike rack, shade trees, and some type of lighting in the park for safety. Jerry also asked if a determination had been made regarding parking. Requested that it be limited to one side o: stated that he anticipates mainly foot traffic anticipated that parking would be restrictin Jerry also suggested adding edging to finding structures that would fit the street only. Beise area, but side of the street only. the area, and Kassie Ricke, 6125 Sugar Mill L have the structures fit the if shrubs and plantings would be developer or City would pick up the plantings were the $30,000. plans can be made for until late stakes can be pounded Rottlund does not own bringing grade like the start in with Jerry uest to asked fthe stated that shrubs and also stated that no final summer when Beise stated that per agreement, will be asked for a timeframe. June so he can take delivery by in the fall. Domholt lantings asked if the homeowners can count on stated that they could put it in the l that the City would most likely deny the and the fact that other parks are more in need. homeowners can add things like shrubs and own as time goes by. Beise added that the homeowners present additional park ideas to the Council during the and their present may have a greater impact than the alone bringing it to the Council. Jerry Wahl asked if the homeowners brought plans to the Commission for approval, would the City help with the planting. Fackler stated the City would do that. Wahl asked who maintains then parks. Fackler stated the City does. Domholt stated that one of the Commission's goals is to promote and applaud volunteerism. Fackler suggested they bring complete final plans for approval. Wahl also asked what the typical life span of a play structure is. Fackler stated 10 years, but since repairs and maintenance are constantly being completed by his staff, some structures in City parks are 15 to 20 years old. -951 - Kristin Vandenheuvel pointed out that this is an historical area, as it was the site of the first automated sugar mill. Kristin asked if a sign could be put up honoring that. Beise stated that he is not in favor of any wooden structures in the park, but any of the other configurations displayed would be fmc. Fackler stated that everything has to be handicapped accessible also. He then asked for direction from the homeowners as to what they wanted in the space. Tina Nutter stated that she felt a pergola would work Fackler stated he would contact both Flanagan a better definition of what is wanted in the asked Fackler to consider a shelter, play benches, and the shrubs, trees and also asked Fackler when this item Fackler stated that it should go llasa and present design. Beise fountain, : designs. Beise and Kassie Ricke asked what the told them to continue to attend the together a donation ii: consensus of what be brought back at the Fackler and that they should put as well as a This issue will Discuss: e de play structure at Highland Park. He Rottlund and Highland play- of Highland's play structure is slated fall. Fackler stated he may attempt to of these structures out to speed in installation. ( He past that does the installation free of charge.) been any comments from the public regarding .f. He also requested this be added as an agenda item. either need to be inclUded in when we invite Park District a meeting, or we need to notify residents living within a 350 of the park. Fackler also suggested that the equipment could in 2003 and installed in 2004. Motion by Beise to ask the City Council to approve a mailing in March for Park Districts 4,5 and 6 to discuss the parks in those districts and address the Highland Park playstructure. Second by Hostetler. Motion Carried. Discuss: Park Naming Tabled until April -952- 7. Discuss: Sketches for Metro Plains Sign gm 10. This was more of an FYI. Sign Concept #1 has already been approved and ordered. June 24, 2003 is tentative dedication date. Discuss: Crystal-Pierz Marine Lake Clean-up Event Fackler stated that this item came from the Council to the City Manager with the request asking the various commissions to back the event. The event will take place in some of the area bays at cost to the City. Motion by Hostetler to Lake Clean-up. Second by Domholt. ~stal-Pierz Marine Discuss: 2004 POSAC uests Fackler stated that this item was thinking about what they want for June. Beise asked Park Dedication Fund. stated he get the budget process will begin in was approved out of the on this. Discuss: March the wheels Commiss: about a the meetin like to meet with before the meeting to present some so they aren't spinning their to meet at 7:00 pm on March 13, City C, is working the remodeling project at City Hall and the trailer and repairing machinery. Skate Park Hostetler stated they should find out on February 15 if half of the $150,000 is coming. $75,000.00 will follow at a later date. Motion by Domholt to dismiss the meeting. Seconded by Motyka. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:00pm. -953- MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION January 16, 2003 Present: Also Present: Commissioners Mark Goldberg, Jim Funk, Greg Eurich, Gerald Jones, Council Representative Mark Hanus Parks Director Jim Fackler, Docks Administrator Katie Hoff, Secretary Denice Widmer Absent and Excused: Frank Ahrens Meeting called to order at 7:30 by Chair, Jim Funk. 1. Approval of November 21, 2002 DCAC MOTION by Jones to approve the carried. Agenda Changes Item tt 5 moved to February MOTION by Funk to approve Goldberg. Moti( ied. Comn ns from None by request. SECOND by present. Vi( by Go .m Funk remain as Chair and Greg Eurich remain as by Jones. Motion carried. Discuss: for dock at 5446 Bartlett Blvd Moved to 20, 2003 Agenda per request from applicant. Discuss: Centerview Access Fackler gave overview of his discussion with the LMCD and staff recommendations. (Memos were included in packet.) Discussion followed regarding possibility of adding more than 17 slips to the multiple dock and what the ramifications would be from current dock holders, neighbors, LMCD, etc. There was discussion on inviting area residents to a public hearing on this issue. It was decided to get the costs together and invite the residents at a later date. -954- During this discussion, Hanus was asked if the Council had set up a meeting with the DCAC yet. He stated it is tentatively slated for February, and encouraged all the commissioners to attend. Fackler was asked to research the cost of the multiple slip dock and the in and out fees for the February 20, 2003 meeting. Goldberg also requested a spreadsheet which included rip-rap figures. 7. Discuss: 2003 Dock Location Map Changes Fackler stated that he met with John Cameron recently be completed soon, and he will hopefully bring them meeting. Goldberg asked him what the advantage stated they will show setbacks, shoreline, etc, wil the LMCD and the public. new maps should February maps will be. Fackler resource for MOTION by Funk to forward the 2003 Council with changes 1 through 4 meeting. Second by Goldberg. Location Map s to the ge #5 postp( next 8. Review: 2002 Season Il Report The two lakeshore property part of the docks program. There renter, not the owner, be she felt this new renter' s pay for a dock foll, had are no longer the ensuring that the the program. Katie stated ,ugh, .y the changes made on the also by that the boat registrations are in the was also discussion on people who a dock in. A discussion could end up taking up all the that the share issue had been addressed on the new fact that shares have to participate in the they are eligible. Hanus suggested that the ~ close eye on this issue and look at changing the in the future. )lication for twc Katie was watercraft It was decidi October. bring this issue back again, with the addition of personal and the number of docks with 1 boat, 2 boats, 3 boats, etc. to bring this issue back after the season is over in September or 9. Discuss: 2003 Budget Sheet/Expenditures/Income FYI only. 10. Review: Work Rules FYI only. -955- 11. Review: Agenda Calendar *Added to February: Bartlett Dock, Centerview Dock Costs, Spreadsheet, Joint Council meeting (penciled in) *Added to September: 2003 Share Count Review, 2003 Boat Count, 2003 Share Activity *Added to October: 2003 Season Final Report *Added to November: Review 2004 Approved Bud *December calendar cleared MOTION by Funk to approve the agenda cai, Motion carried. by Jones. 12. Reports: City Council Representative: Hanus just had a reminder about the the DCAC that the park at Metro Plains his dedicated service attend the dinner to nition for Hanus also informed Weiland in honor of Department. Urged all to Parks Director: No by Funk by Goldberg. Motion carried. Meeting at8:45 !. -956-