Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2003-05-27
PLEASE TURN OFF Al J, CEI,L PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 6:40 PM OR UPON ADJOURNMENT OF THE HRA MEETING, WHICH EVER IS LATER MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA *Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. In that event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE MINUTES: MAY 13, 2003 REGULAR MEETING *B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS *C. APPROVE PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT *D. APPROVE ONE-DAY CONSUMPTION & DISPLAY PERMIT *E. APPROVE TEMPORARY ON-SALE 3.2 BEER LICENSE *F. APPROVE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT GRANT THROUGH THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM *G. APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS CASE NO. 03-09: CASE NO. 03-03: CASE NO. 03-16: STEPHAN MADSEN 2586 AVON DRIVE VARIANCE STEVE AND PAM JOHNSON 6041 RIDGEWOOD ROAD VARIANCE CRANE BODINE 5025 WREN ROAD MINOR SUBDIVISION 2109-2114 2115-2142 2143 2143 2143 2144-2152 2153-2201 2202-2231 2232-2254 PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. o CASE NO. 03-20: GORDON ENGSTRAND 1754 JONES LANE VARIANCES o ORDINANCE NO. 02-2003: AMENDING SECTION 330 OF THE CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS o ORDINANCE NO. 03-2003: AMENDING SECTION 319 - HOUSING MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS FOR RENTAL PROPERTIES RESOLUTION 03- DENYING MINOR SUBDIVISION/ VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6380 BAY RIDGE ROAD (MARK STONE) o RESOLUTION 03- APPROVING FRONT SETBACK(S) FOR DETACHED GARAGE AT 4701 ABERDEEN ROAD (JIM AND MARY ALBRECHT) COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER) 2002 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT PRESENTED BY STEVE McDONALD OF ABDO, EICK-& MEYERS, LLP INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS mo B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. LMC Friday Fax Report: Public Safety facility Minutes: POSAC - May 8, 2003 Correspondence: LMCD Newsletter: Met Council Report: Harbor Wine and Spirits Newsletter: Brimeyer Group Article: The Case for Multi-Family Housing Acknowledgement of charitable gambling donation 2255-2307 2308-2317 2318-2320 2321-2322 2323-2325 2326-2337 2338-2343 2344-2345 2346-2365 2366-2369 2370 2371-2372 2373-2375 2376 8. ADJOURN This is a preliminary agenda.and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: www. citvofinound, com. More current meeting COUNCIL BRIEFING May 27, 2003 ~l~pcoming Events Schedule: Don't Forget!! May 27 - 6:30 - HRA regular meeting May 27 - 6:40 - CC regular meeting May 27 - 7:00 - CC special meeting May 29 - 6:30 - CC special meeting June 2 - DARE Open June 7 - Fire Dept Fishless Fish Fry June 10 - 6:30 - HRA regular meeting June 10 - 7:30 - CC regular meeting June 16 - 6:00 - Frank Weiland Park dedication June 18 - Golf & Bowling employee appreciation events July 9 - Cruise employee appreciation event July 31 - Luau employee appreciation event Upcoming Absences July 3-13 Kandis Hanson Vacation Ci~. Hall Closed May 26 Memorial Day July 4 Independence Day em_an Resources u--~ex~ ~ost a full-time employee at the Liquor Store. Ads will begin this weekend to replace that person. HAVE A VERY PLEASANT AND SAFE HOLIDAY ~]EEKEND ! MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 13, 2OO3 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers of city hall. Members Present: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, David Osmek and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk ' · munit Development Director Sarah Smith,?;~Building Official Matt Bonme Rltt~,.Com Y ks Director Jim E~;~ler, Ryan MasicaLHenry Simoneau, uky Planner Loren Gordon, Par I Charlotte Reynolds, Pete Dean, Bob,;~B~[e, Marty Sarempa, Ann & Donna Sandova, . . . ___~., o .... ,~ .~nhn.~on=~ii~!~:~[~,Johnson, Guy Johnson, Eberha~, Amy DougheRy, J~m Albruum, ~,~ .... Carl Johnson, Jack Cook : All items listed under the Co~nt A~~)hda are c~'~sidered to be Consent Agenda _ ' ' e ena:~::~:fi~::~: roll call vote. There will be ~o routine in nature by the ~ounc~ and will b _ ::~?.~::~?~?~ h~ or citizen so requests, ~n · · · unle a Coun~ilmem--r . se arate discussion on mese i~ems P · · d ,onsen~::Agend which event the ~tem will be remove normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING_ May-or Meisel called the :)p.m. Hanson MOTION by Hanus in favor. Motion ¢ Awarding Bid for Well, be deleted. Osmek to approve the agenda as amended. All voted 4. CONSENT AGENDA_ Me~sel requested removing 4G and Hanus requested removing 4F from the consent agenda. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to approve the consent agenda as amended. Upon roll call vote taken, all voted in favor. Motion carried. A. Approve minutes of April 22, 2003 regular meeting and May 6, 2003 special meeting. B. Approve Payment if Claims in the amount of $409,575.25. C. Approve waiver of fees for free standing sign for Gillespie Center 1 -2109- Mound City Council Minutes - May 13, 2003 D. RESOLUTION NO. 03-41: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REQUEST FROM BETHEL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING - APPROVAL TO COMBINE AND SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2116 COMMERCE BLVD AND 2117 FERM LANE INTO TWO (2) LOTS E. Approve appointment to Planning Commission of Jon Schwingler F. (removed) G. (removed) H. Approve tree removal license for Tall Timber Tree Experts, Inc. I. RESOLUTION NO. 03-42: RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING THE AUTHORIZATION OF CITY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS J. Approve one-day permit to allow 3.2 beer/wine in Mou Bay Park for City Employee Appreciation Day on July 31. 4F. APP, Hanus offered suggestions for changes in the MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adc All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 03-43: RESOLUTli VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTIO WARNER ROAD - p & Z 4G. AP Mayor Meisel asked that abstain from voting 2004. MOTION by Program until Meyer. The folk Motion carried. resoh RD,~ ICE resolution as amended. FRONT SETBACK ADDITION AT 3301 t-21-0166. RAM Consent Agenda because she will ~er ownership of property within the CBD. to approve the extension of the CBD Parking ~e fOllowing voted in favor: Brown, Hanus, Osmek and None. Mayor Meisel abstained from voting. 5. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT .ON THE AGENDA None were offered. 6. REVIEW/ACTION OF PROPOSED NEW HOUSING CODE BY BUILDING OFFICIAL Simoneau informed the Council that the new State Building Code became effective March 31, 2003, and that the new code includes International Model Codes. One of the documents contained in this new suite of codes is the International Property maintenance Code which is not included as part of the State Building Code. 2 -2110- Mound City Council Minutes - May 13, 2003 MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to approve replacing the current City Code Section 319 Housing Maintenance Regulations for Rental Properties with the Z000 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC), as requested by City Staff. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 7. ACTION ON ALLOCATION OF DOCK TO MOUND FIRE AND RESCUE Jim Fackler reviewed the request of the Mound Fire Department for a slip sito within the MOTION by Brown, dock to be placed at Warranty Deed restriction is fou~ carried. dock program. Carls°n Park has multiple docks and one of the ten sites became available this year. Discussion followed as to who should pay for this slip. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to approve a dock.,,~ii~ at Carlso_n Park for the Mound Fire Department Rescue boat, with the dock fe,e thiB?~i~,~'ear coming trom the City Council conference budget, and the subsequent years ~i~ing budgeted for by the Fire Department. All voted in favor. Motion carried.,~:!~,ii~?~~::'~ ........ ':~!?:ilili!ii~ii~:,~. 8. ACTION ON DOCK APPLICATION REQUE~=iii~Y MARTIN ~i~REMPA- 5446 BARTLETT BLVD. =:~ ~=:~=ii:~iiiii?~i?;ii ,~ . th §arah Smith reviewed the request, stating that th~:i~:~be was raised at the Aplri 8 council meeting as to if there are covena~,~r rest~ii~i~ns noted on the deed that would limit a dock structure. The Certificate of:~i~i=~i;~:~esn t ~=:~t~: any restrictions, but the Warranty Deed has not yet been reviewe:~?h~:i:;?~i~ii':~nt stated that if there are . restrictions discovered he will cease ~using"~i~Ock, '~:'nd also that the dock will be used by the renter of the residen~:~i~i~'?;?:.:.i!iiii !!!i!iii~ pt the following resolution that allows a c%tingent that nothing comes back from the cate a restriction for dock placement, and if such · emove said dock. All voted in favor. Motion RESOLUTION NO. SAREMPA FOR A D(: ;OLUTION TO APPROVE A REQUEST BY MARTIN 5446 BARTLETT BOULEVARD, MOUND, MN 9. REVIEW/ACTION ON REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF PORTION OF TAX FORFEIT PARCEL - HANUSlCOOK/JOHNSON - 4400 BLOCK OF DENBIGH ROAD Mark Hanus stepped down as Councilmember for discussion and action on tills item. Sarah Smith reviewed the request to consider release of a portion of a Hennepin County tax-forfeit parcel (Lot 29) that lies between the applicants' extended side lot lines and the 929.4 Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). The Planning Commission voted 5- 2 to approve the release and the Docks and Parks Commissions voted unanimously to approve release. 3 -2111- Mound City Council Minutes - May 13, 2003 Osmek pointed out that this parcel was never owned by the City, never included in the City's parks system and usable by abutters only. Meisel stated that losing this parcel won't hurt the dock program and only abutters can use it - that's why she's OK with the release. Meyer stated that he's concerned with the perception to the public that the Council is releasing public commons to a group that includes a City Councilmember. was noted that this group followed all of the procedures and went through the various advisory commissions, just like any other applicant. It MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to adopt the following resolution as amended. The following voted in favor: Brown, Meisel and Osmek. The following voted against: Meyer. Motion carried. (Hanus did not vote on this item as stepped down from the Council for discussion and action on this item) RESOLUTION NO. 03-45: RESOLUTION AUTHOI BEGIN PROCESS TO RELEASE PORTION OF 117-23-24-0047. COUNTY TO [FEIt PID #19. Hanus returned to his seat on the Council. 10. PLANNING COMMISSION REC( 10A. Case No. 03-12: Jim and Ma Loren Gordon reviewed the setback from Roanoke Commission recommend. hardcover and the orientati~ feasibility of having this variance re( and the City En ,~er will MOTION by Me the variance with con~ the May 27th meeting. zen Rd. - Variance': II detached garage with a 10 foot would face Roanoke. The Planning with their main concerns being Discussion followed regarding the ~ge. It was noted that staff recommends approval of not be a net increase in hardcover on the site drainage issues to Roanoke. Meisel to direct staff to prepare a resolution granting. noted by staff, with said resolution to be considered at d in favor. Motion carried. 10B..Case No. 03-11/03-17: Mark Stone - 6380 Bay Ridge Road - Minor Subdivisio,, and Variance ' Loren Gordon gave an overview of his Executive Summary and stated that this case involves a lot split that would create an additional conforming parCel with the exception of improved roadway frontage. The Planning Commission recommended denial of these requests. Charlotte Reynolds, 6385 Bay Ridge Road, voiced her opposition to the subdivision, as did Henry Sandaval of 6370 Bay Ridge Road and Carl Johnson of 6347 Bay Ridge Road. 4 -2112- Mound City Council Minutes -May 13, 200;3 MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to direct staff to draft a resolution for adoption at their next meeting, denying the request for a minor subdivision and variance. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 14. MOTION by for the 2003 carried. 11. (removed) 12. ACTION AMENDING FEE RESOLUTION ADOPTING STREET LIGHTING FEE There was lengthy discussion regarding the implementation of a street lighting fee to offset the cost of the street lights. Meisel stated that she would like to see the fee implemented now because we know there are going to be cuts this year, followed by even more next year. Some councilmembers want to see more budget cuts before they're willing to adopt more fees, and have it come to them~~?a package deal. have City Staff p. J, ' - ' ........ ~'---~i~7-r and ~i~"'lting Engineer The me for the overlap OT a TUll Time L.l~y ~.U.~,~~ '::,,:':~::-:~¥ the timefra ......... .., ..... ..,.~ c~sm~ The~following?.~bted against: Ilowin voted in favor' DrowH, ~uo ~ ....:::¥¥,: · ,:~?~ ~eisel ~,d Meyer. Motion carried. 13. ACTION DIRECTING STAFF TO PROPOSE :~NTRACTS FOR GAS AND C F~NCHISE AGREEMEN~::~?~:?~,:~;~;~:'~ '::~:'~: ::~: th · ELECTRI _ , .. :?; "::?~?,~ :~:~:i:::'~item until May 27 , and bnng ~O ON by OsmeK, seconded by Hanus .~::::t~ t~:'~:.~ ......... ._~ :~ ~ ..... . , TI ~_ ~...~, ~,,+./. fe~bKage the ~OIIOWiQg vu[~u ~H ,~v~,. Brown, Hanus and Osmek. ,g vOt~.d against: Metsel and Meyer. Motion carried. ~::~:~:~' CTS us to set a special meeting for awarding of bonds for 29, at 6:30 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion 'lNG SALARY 15. FOR CITY MANAGER · The City Council wen~into executive session at 10:11 p.m. and resumed to open session at 10:55 p.m. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Hanus to table any action on this item until the May 27th meeting. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 16. iNFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS. A. LMC Friday Fax B. FYh LMCIT Insurance Renewal C. Letter: Metropolitan Council D. Correspondence: LMCD E. Letter: Hennepin County Sheriff's Office 5 -2113- Mound City Council Minutes -May 13, 2003 F. Report; Harbor Wine & Spirits - April 2003 G. Newsletter: Gillespie Center H. Report: Finance Department- March 2003 I. Memo: Minnesota Institute of Public Finance, Inc. J. Report: LMCD Update by Mound Rep Orv Burma K. Report: Public Safety Facility L. FYI: Charitable gift- American Legion M. LMCC Calendar- May 2003 N. Minutes: DCAC- April 17, 2003 (2) O. Newsletter: Lake Minnetonka Association P. Memo on Senator Coleman event Q. Paint-A-Thon Update R. Financial Reports- April 2003 17. ADJOURN MOTION by Br~wn, seconded by Osmek to Motion carried. p,m, voted in favor. Attest: Bonnie Ritter Pat Meisel 6 -2114- MAY 27 2003 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CREDIT CARD $543.85 MAY 051403SU E $11,075.42 MAY 052103SUE $7,057.22 MAY 052703SUE $486,628.56MAY TOTAL $505,305.05 -2115- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05/15/03 10:30 AM Page 1 ~;~,~,~.~,,~.~.?~ ~.,~,~ ,,~ Current Period: May 2003 Batch Name 051403SUE User Dollar Amt $11,075.42 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $11,075.42 $0.00 In Balance Refer 51403 FRONT/ER/CITIZENS COMMUNICA Cash Payment E 101-41910-321 Telephone & Cells 05-03 952-472-0600 Invoice 051403 $1,044.73 Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells 04-03 952-472-0635 Invoice 051403 $359.87 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Ceils 04-03 952-472-0635 Invoice 051403 $359.67 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone & Cells 04-03 952-472-0635 Invoice 051403 $359.66 Cash Payment E 101-42110-321 Telephone & Cells 04-03 952-472-0621 Invoice 051403 $847.10 Cash Payment E 609-49750-321 Telephone & Cells 04-03 952-482-0648 Invoice 051403 $312.24 Transaction Date 5/8/2003 ............................ We s Faroo 1 .................. ~.~.~. ................... ~ 10 00 Total 3 Refer 51403 GRADY, DANIEL ............................ .~, .~ .$ ,283.67 Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE 'q, voice 051403 $365.11 ,ransaction Date 5/14/2003 ~.,-~.. ............. Wel s Fargo 1010'~ - - · Refer ~n~ , ~ ............. · ...... ~,~ ....... ~ -~. ..... ~ ~c M~NN> TON~ CHAMBER CO ....................... Cash Payment R 101-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues TREE LIGHTING HAYRIDES Invoice 051403 $300.00 Transaction Date 5/13/2003 ........... ........................................... ~ ~ Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 51403 NELSON, JOYCE ................................. ~ ..... , ~O0.0u Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical Invoice' 051403 Transaction Date 5/8/2003 Refer 51403 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (PA/v) Cash Payment invoice 051403 Cash Payment Invoice 051403 Cash Payment Invoice 051403 Cash Payment Invoice 051403 Cash Payment Invoice 051403 Cash Payment Invoice 051403 ,ash Payment Invoice 051403 E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-45200-321 Telephone & Ceils E 101-45200-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-45200-321 Telephone & Cells REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE Wells Fargo 10100 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 ¢Y23 KESTNER, AL 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 #20 GRADY, DAN 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 #22 HEITZ, DON 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 #16 JOHNSON, TIM 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 612-221-6740 BERENT, BRIAN 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 612-221-6974 TAFFE, JOHN 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 612-221-6812 #15 FACKLER, JIM $213.68 Total $213.68 $34.34 $34.34 $34.34 $34.34 $17.20 $14,96 $81.42 -2116- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05115103 10:30 AI~ Page 2 Current Period: May 2003 Cash Payment E 281-45210-321 Telephone & Ceils 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 612-221-6813 HOFF, $40.23 Invoice 051403 $0.11 Cash Payment E 101-41310-321 Telephone & Ceils Invoice 051403 $11.44 Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells invoice 051403 $11.44 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Ceils invoice 051403 $11.44 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone & Celts Invoice 051403 $34.32 Cash Payment E 101-45200-321 Telephone & Cells Invoice 051403 $71.44 Cash Payment E 101-42400-321 Telephone & Cells Invoice 051403 Cash Payment t ,~voice 051403 Cash Payment E 101-42400-321 Telephone & Cells E 281-45210-321 Telephone & Celts invoice 051403 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells Invoice 051403 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone & Cells invoice 051403 Transaction Date 5/8/2003 KATIE 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 612-221-6814 #03 RAHN, JODI 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 612-221-6822 #02 NELSON, JOYCE 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 612-221-6822 #02 NELSON, JOYCE 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 612-221-6822 #02 NELSON,JOYCE 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 612-221-8385 SWARTZER, BRIAN 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 612-282-6889 SiMONEAU, MATT 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 612-363-5883 NORLANDER, JILL 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 952-292-1375 WIDMER, DENICE 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 #952-292-1375 WIDMER, DENICE 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 952-292-1375 WIDMER, DENICE Wells Fargo 10100 $29.48 $6.86 $13.73 $13.73 Total $495.16 Refer 51403 PETTY CASH Cash Payment invoice 051403 Cash Payment Invoice 051403 Cash Payment Invoice 051403 Cash Payment Invoice 051403 Cash Payment invoice 051403 Cash Payment Invoice 051403 Cash Payment 051403 Payment invoice 051403 E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies PO 17700 E 101-42110-322 Postage R 281-34705 LMCD Fees E 101-42110-331 Use of personal auto E 101-42400-331 Use of personal auto E 609-49750-331 Use of personal auto E 101-41110-300 Professional Srvs E 601-49400-331 Use of personal auto REPLENISH PETTY CASH POSTAGE SHORT AT USPS DOCK REFUND PARKING PARKING PARKING OPEN HOUSE PARKING $29.15 $0.45 $5.00 $5.00 $15.00 $2.50 $7.20 $0.83 -2117- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05/15/03 10:30 ,a,M Page 3 Current Period: May 2003 Cash Payment E 602-49450-331 Use of personal auto PARKING Invoice 051403 Cash Payment E 670-49500-33t Use of personal auto Invoice 051403 Transaction Date 5/8/2003 Refer 51403 QUICKIE AUCTION SERViCE $0.83 PARKING $0.84 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $66.80 Cash Payment G 101-22805 POlice Forfeiture Program 05-08-03 AUCTION Invoice 051403 $600.00 Transaction Date 5/12/2003 We s Far o ~ g 10100 T .............. · ....... ~ ..... ~ otal Refer 51403 XCEL ENERGY .............. ~ ........................................ ~ ......... $600.00 . Cash Payment E 101-41910-381 Electric Utilities 04-03 ~Y2245-301-939 Invoice 051303 $1,021.18 Cash Payment E 101-42115-381 Electric Utilities 04-03 #0466-607-223 Invoice 051303 $6.28 Cash Payment E 601-49400-381 Electric Utilities 04-03 #0217-606-329 Invoice 051303 $2,090.68 Cash Payment E 101-45200.381 Electric Utilities 04-03 ffO047-005-229 Invoice 051303 $34.75 Cash Payment E 101-43100-381 Electric Utilities 04-03 ~0864-508-832 mnvoice 051303 $87.57 ash Payment E 601-49400-381 Electric Utilities 04-03 #0864-508-832 Invoice 051303 $87.57 Cash Payment E 602-49450-381 Electric Utilities 04-03 #0884-508-832 Invoice 051303 $87.56 Cash Payment E 602-49450-381 Electric Utilities 04-03 #0018-802-634 Invoice 051303 $2,233.95 Cash Payment E 101-43100-381 Electric Utilities 04-03~)009-604.835 Invoice 051303 $101.46 Transaction Date 5/12/2003 We s Far ................................................ ~,,, ............. g 10100 o ............................. -~. -~,.~ __. T tal $5,751.00 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 670 RECYCLING FUND 10100 Wells Fargo $5,372.77 $52.09 $2,598.46 $2,707.37 $343.89 $0.84 $11,075.42 Pre-Wdtten Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $11,075.42 $11,075.42 -2118- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05~20~03 11:17 ~,M Page 1 Current Period: May 2003 Batch Name Refer 52103 Cash Paymen[ invoice 052103 Cash Payment invoice 052103 Cash Payment invoice 052103 Cash Payment Invoice 052103 Cash Payment invoice 052103 Cash Payment 052103SUE User Dollar Amt $7,057.22 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $7,057.22 $197.O5 $245.37 $670.81 $211.32 $120.07 $148.89 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (MINNEG $1,593.51 E t01-45200-383 Gas Utilities E 101-45200-383 Gas Utilities E 101-41910-383 Gas Utilities E 101-43100-383 Gas Utilities E 601-49400-383 Gas Utilities E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities $0.00 In Balance 03-20-03 THRU 04-17-03 #543-000-053-000 03-20-03 THRU 04-17-03 #543-001-095-800 03-20-03 THRU 04-17-03 #543-001-853-000 03-20-03 THRU 04-17-03 #543-001-972-603 03-20-03 THRU 04-17-03 #543-001-972-603 03-20-03 THRU 04-17-03 #543-001-972-603 Invoice Transaction Date 5/8/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 52103 MARKIE PRODUCTIONS Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells CELL PHONES 2556 Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells CELL PHONES invoice 2556 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone & Cells CELL PHONES invoice 2556 Cash Payment G 101-22816 Personal Cell Phone CELL PHONES Invoice 2556 $142.03 $62.14 $88.76 $620.84 Transaction Date 5/20/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $913.77 Refer 52103 MOUND POST OFFICE _ Cash Payment E 601-49400-322 Postage UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE $131.53 Invoice 052103 Cash Payment E 602-49450-322 Postage UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE $131.52 Invoice 052103 Transaction Date 5/20/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $263.05 Refer 52103 PEDERSON, GREG _ Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $732.07 Invoice 052103 Transaction Date 5/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $732.07 Refer 52103 PETTY CASH Cash Payment E 101-42110-210 Operating Supplies REPLENISH PETTY CASH $173.36 Invoice 17802 PO 17802 Transaction Date 5/20/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $173.36 Refer 52103 PINE CITY COURTHOUSE .3ash Payment G 101-22801 Deposits/Escrow WARRANT #030000275 $83,00 lice 6933 Transaction Date 5/20/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $83.00 Refer 52103 SCHWALBE, SUE -2119- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05/20/03 11:17 ,AM Page 2 Current Period: May 2003 Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE Invoice 0521023 $261.67 Transaction Date 5/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total ............................. $261.67 Refer 52103 VERIZON WIRELESS (FIRE~FIN) Cash Payment Invoice 052103 Cash Payment Invoice 052103 Cash Payment Invoice 052103 Cash Payment Invoice 052103 Cash Payment Invoice 052103 Cash Payment Invoice 052103 Cash Payment Invoice 052103 Cash Payment Invoice 052103 Transaction Date Refer E 101-41500-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells E 602-49450-321 Telephone & Cells E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Ceils E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells 5/19/2003 52103 VERIZON WIRELESS (P/W) 05-03 612-296-9058 FINANCE 05-03 612-590-4351 P/W SKINNER 05-03 612-590-4351 PNV SKINNER 05-03 612-590-4351 P/W SKINNER 05-03 612-723-7560 MOUND FIRE 05-03 612-751-3572 ENGINE #18 05-03 612-751-3573 MOUND FIRE 05-03 612-875-4502 RESCUE TRUCK Wells Fargo 10100 $7,99 $37.53 $37.53 $37.53 $0.48 $0.48 $1.46 $7,99 Total $130.99 Cash Payment Invoice 052103 Cash Payment Invoice 052103 Cash Payment Invoice 052103 Cash Payment Invoice 052103 Transaction Date Refer E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells E 602-49450-321 Telephone & Cells G 101-22816 Personal Cell Phone 5/20/2003 52103 XCEL ENERGY 05-03 CELL PHONES 05-03 CELL PHONES 05-03 CELL PHONES 05-03 CELL PHONES Wells Fargo 10100 Total $108,33 $108.33 $58,34 $364.06 $639.06 Cash Payment Invoice 052103 Cash Payment Invoice 052103 Transaction Date E 609-49750-381 Electdc Utilities E 609-49750-381 Electdc Utilities 5/15/2003 02-26-03 THRU 03-27-03 03-28-03 THRU 04-28-03 Wells' Fargo 10100 Total $1,037.62 $1,229.12 $2,266.74 -2120- CITY OF MOUND Payments ~1:17 AM Page 3 Current Period: May 2003 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 10100 Wells Fargo $3,855.43 $10.41 $459.60 $465.04 $2,266.74 $7,057.22 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $7,O57.22 $7,057.22 -2121 - CITY OF MOUND Payments 05/22/03 7:58 AM Page 1 Current Period: May 2003 Batch Name 502703SUE Payments User Dollar Amt $486,628.56 Computer Dollar Amt $486,628.56 Refer 52703 AAA NURSERY AND LANDSCAPIN $0.00 In Balance Cash Payment E 280-45250-229 Street Repairs BLACK DIRT Invoice 042803 $450.00 Cash Payment E 101-43100.224 Street Maint Materials BLACK DIRT Invoice 042803 $225.00 Transaction Date 5/16/2003 ......... ~ Wells Fargo 10100 Total $675.00 Refer 52703 ADvANcE~ GRApHixI iNc~R~OR Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery SQUAD GRAPHICS Invoice 6027 $245.87 Transaction Date 5/12/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total .~24-~ ~7 Refer 52703 AIR CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION Cash Payment R 101-32235 Heating Permits REFUND PERMIT #5898 Invoice 5989 $80.00 Cash Payment G 101-20800 Due to Other Governments REFUND PERMIT #5898 Invoice 5989 $4.00 Transaction Date 5/12/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total I~i ~ ............................ ....... · $84.00 efer 52703 AMERICAN TEST CENTER, INCOR Cash Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic BUCKET TRUCK #27 SKYJACKER Invoice 2031128-1N $400.00 Transaction Date 5~20/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $400.00 Refer 52703 ARCTIC GLACIER PREMIUM ICE Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice 387313914 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice 463313610 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Wells Fargo Refer 52703 BALBOA CENTER LIMITED PARTN 10100 Total $163.80 $139.80 $303.60 Cash Payment E 496-46580-412 Building Rentals 06-03 FIRE STATION TEMP SPACE Invoice 052703 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 52703 BECK, KENNETH ............. Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training Invoice 052703 Cash Payment E 101-42110-331 Use of personal auto Invoice 052703 Transaction Date 5/20/2003 Refer 52703 BELLBOY CORPORA TION REIMBURSE MEETING EXPENSE REIMBURSE MEETING EXPENSE Wells Fargo 10100 $4,357.75 Total $4,357.75 $27.86 $16.50 Total $44.36 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MISCELLANEOUS Invoice 37027400 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 26422100 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 26372000 $151.00 $4,910.70 $89.95 -2122- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05122103 7:58 AM Page 2 Current Period: May 2003 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,175.45 Invoice 26371200 $76.15 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 24002300-B Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT--LIQUOR -$113.62 Invoice 26422800 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $6,289.63 Refer 52703 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUP Cash Payment E 101-41910-220 Repair/Maint Supply FLOURESCENT BULBS $76.68 Invoice 93014050 Transact on Date 5/20/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $76.68 Refer 52703 BRAND NETWORKING Cash Payment E 101-42110-400 Repairs & Maint Contract COLOR LASER SETUP $593.11 invoice 15637 Transaction Date 5/16/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $593.11 Refer 52703 BROWN, JIM CULTURED SOD FAR Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply SOD ROLLS $72.85 Invoice 7906 Transaction Date 5/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $72.85 52703 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREN T Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training $40.00 Invoice 052703 Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training $40.00 Invoice 052703 INTOXILYZER CLASS MCKINLEY INTOXILYZER CLASS TRAUX 10100 Total $80.00 Refer 52703 CHAMPION AUTO Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts GREASE, ETC $30.32 Invoice D193858 Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair BLADE $32.55 Invoice D189270 Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair OIL $20.32 Invoice D191251 Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair OIL FILTER $11.69 invoice D192671 Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair OIL $30.32 Invoice D192671-B Tr~n~.~C.f t3n Date 5/12/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $125.20 Refer 52703 CLIN-NET SOLUTIONS LLC _ Cash Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic DRUG TESTS $19.00 Invoice 713464 Cash Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic DRUG TESTS $19.00 Invoice 713464 Cash Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic DRUG TESTS $38.00 713464 Refer 52703 CONCO, INCORPORATED -2123- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05/22/03 7:58 AM Page 3 Current Period: May 2003 Cash Payment E 455-46381-600 Debt Srv Principal 06-03 PRINCIPLE TRUE VALUE Invoice 052703 $546.32 Cash Payment E 455-46381-611 Bond Interest 06-03 INTEREST TRUE VALUE Invoice 052703 $415.52 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $961.84 Refer 52703 coN~ET~ ~b~'i~N'G ~ND ~O~;~ Cash Payment E 602-49450-220 Repair/Maint Supply DIAPHRAM Invoice 40227 PO 17757 $122.78 Transaction Date 511512003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $122.78 Refer 52703 COPY IMAGES, INCQRPORATED Cash Payment E 101-41910-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 04-03 COPIER MAINTENANCE Invoice 34988 $340.80 Transaction Date 51812003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $340.80 Refer 52703 DA Y DISTRIBUTING COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 218945 $721.05 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 215431 $1,244.65 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Cash Payment Invoice MN-014 Transaction Date E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs 5~20~2003 ASIST MSF SOFTWARE Cash Payment Invoice 200405 Cash Payment Invoice 200405 Transaction Date E 281-45210-220 Repair/Maint Supply INSTALL DOCK SECTIONS E 281-45210-440 Other Contractual Servic INSTALL DOCK SECTIONS 5/12/2003 $3,495.00 Total $3,495.00 $202.56 $3,122.00 Cash Payment Invoice 399272 Cash Payment Invoice 397432 Cash Payment Invoice 396074 Cash Payment Invoice 396073 Cash Payment Invoice 399806 Transaction Date E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750~252 Beer For Resale BEER 5/21/2003 $8,763.35 $226.00 $20.80 $1,596.35 $192.00 Cash Payment Invoice 20823 Transaction Date E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 5~20~2003 04-03 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $375.00 -2124- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05~22~03 7:58 AM Page 4 Current Period: May 2003 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $32.00 Invoice 121587 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $32.00 Invoice 117334 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $64.00 Refer 52703 FLAIG, KEVIN M. Cash Payment E 222.42260-434 Conference & Training REIMBURSE FiRE CLASS 04-04-03 $279.58 Invoice 052703 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training REIMBURSE FIRE CLASS 03-14-03 $282.82 Invoice 052703 Transaction Date 5/16/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $562.40 Refer 52703 FRONTIER/CITIZENS COMMUNICA Cash Payment E 101-45200-321 Telephone & Cells 04-03 952-472-0646 $19.41 Invoice 052703 Transaction Date 5/20/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $19.41 R%r 52703 K sERv/c s Cash Payment E 101-43100-218 Clothing and Uniforms 05-60-03 UNIFORMS invoice 565591 Cash Payment Invoice 565591 Payment Invoice 565591 Cash Payment Invoice 565591 Cash Payment Invoice 565591 Cash Payment Invoice 565591 Cash Payment Invoice 572456 Cash Payment Invoice 572455 Cash Payment Invoice 572457 Cash Payment Invoice 572454 Cash Payment Invoice 572458 Cash Payment Invoice 572458 Cash Payment Invoice 572458 Cash Payment Invoice 572458 Cash Payment hnvoice 572458 Cash Payment Invoice 572458 E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms E 602-49450-218 Clothing and Uniforms E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials E 222-42260-216 Cleaning Supplies 05-06-03 UNIFORMS 05-06-03 UNIFORMS 05-06-03 MATS 05-06-03 MATS 05-06-03 MATS 05-13-03 MATS E 101-45200-223 Building Repair Supplies 05-13-03 MATS E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services E 609-49750-460 Janitorial Services E 101-43100-218 Clothing and Uniforms E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms E 602-49450-218 Clothing and Uniforms E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials 05-13-03 MATS 05-13-03 MATS 05-13-03 UNIFORMS 05-13-03 UNIFORMS 05-13-03 UNIFORMS 05-13-03 MATS 05-13-03 MATS 05-13-03 MATS $30.15 $3o.15 $3o.16 $21.57 $21.57 $21.57 $51.42 $16.21 $57.18 $45.95 $3o.16 $3o.16 $3o.15 $25.oo $25.oo $25.oo - 2125- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05/22/03 7:58 AM Page 5 Current Period: May 2003 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $492.40 Refer 52703 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD Cash Payment E 101-42110-210 Operating Supplies 01-03 #158500 WATER Invoice 158500 $67.60 Transaction Date 5/20/2003 , Wells Fargo 10100 Total $67 60 Cash Payment E 101-42110-210 Operating Supplies VOICE RECORDER $358.00 Invoice 1043 PO 17801 Transaction Date 5/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3§8.00 Refe~r 52703 GRAPE BEGINNINGS, INCORPOR Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 55190 $327.00 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $327 00 Refer 52703 ~G~R'~D~p~A~~ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale CREDIT--WINE Invoice 612946 -$31.92 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 714376 $329.26 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 714375 $1,957.63 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 714014 $0.00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 714009 $0.00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 711578 $51.25 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 711036 $4,159.34 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 711035 $609.70 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 711034 $29.90 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 710911 $144.50 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $7 249.66 Reie; 52~03 GUS~-A~N, ~E ~ ~ . Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training REIMBURSE FIRE CLASS 04-04-03 $279.58 Invoice 052703 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training REIMBURSE FIREFIGHTER 03-14-03 $316.30 Invoice 052703 Transaction Date 5/16/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $595 $8 Cash Payment E 601-49400-227 Chemicals -- CONTAINERS Invoice DM 88372 $30.00 Transaction Date 5/12/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 52703 HECKSEL MACHINE SHOP -2126- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05/22~03 7:58 AM Page 6 Current Period: May 2003 Cash Payment E 101.43100-400 Repairs & Maint Contract ANGLE AND TUBE $23.96 tnvoice 45162 Cash Payment E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery NUTS $15.98 invoice 45171 Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials HOOKWiTH LATCH $32.26 Invoice 45172 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials HOOK WITH LATCH $32.26 Invoice 45172 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials HOOK WITH LATCH $32.25 Invoice 45172 Cash Payment E 601.49400-230 Shop Materials HOSE WITH ENDS $28.54 Invoice 45620 Cash Payment E 602-49450-220 Repair/Maint Supply ROLLER CHAIN $47.34 Invoice 45682 Transaction Date 5/16/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $212.59 Refer 52703 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMA TIO Cash Payment E 101-41910-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 04-03 NETWORK SUPPORT $33.00 Invoice 23047036 Cash Payment E 101-42110-418 Other Rentals 04-03 RADIO LEASE $1,173.34 Invoice 23048015 ~action Date 5/12/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,206.34 Refer 52703 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S A Cash Payment E 101-41600-450 Board of Prisoners 03-03 BOOKING FEE $1,067.90 Invoice 033003 Cash Payment E 101.41600-450 Board of Prisoners 04-03 BOOKING FEE $1,162.49 Invoice 051203 Transaction Date 5/16/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,230.39 Refer 52703 HENTGES, MATTHEW Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training REIMBURSE FIRE CLASS 04-04-03 $279.58 Invoice 052703 Transaction Date 5/16/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $279.58 Refer 52703 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP, I Cash Payment E 401-46540-300 Professional Srvs 04-03 LOST LAKE GREENWAY Invoice 050803-A Cash Payment E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs 04-03 CTY RD 15 STREETSCAPE Invoice 050803-B Cash Payment G Invoice 050803-C1 Cash Payment G Invoice 050803-C2 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 050803-C3 Cash Payment G 101-22923 4701 Aberdeen Road Varian Invoice 050803-D1 ~'ash Payment G 101-22925 6041 ridgewood, 03-13 John nvoice 050803-D2 Cash Payment G Invoice 050803-D3 101-22854 Langdon Bay Major Sub-Divi 04-03 LANGDON BAY DEVELOPMENT 101-22908 Landform Development 04-03 MOUND HARBOR RENASAINCE 04-03 PLANNING MISCELLANEOUS 04-03 4701 ABERDEEN RD,ALBRECHT 04-03 6041 RIDGEWOOD RD,JOHNSON 101-22924 6380 Bayridge Rd Stone 03- 04-03 6380 BAYRIDGE, STONE $100.00 $8,399.23 $100.00 $4O.OO $1,153.28 $80.00 $120.00 $200.00 -2127- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05/22/03 7:58 AM Page 7 Current Period: May 2003 Cash Payment G 101-22927 5025 Wren Road,Bodine #03 04-03 5025 WREN RD, BODINE Invoice 050803-D4 Cash Payment E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs 04-03 MOUND VISIONS Invoice 050803-E Cash Payment G 101-22908 Landform Development 04-03 MOUND HARBOR RENASIANCE Invoice 050803-F Transaction Date 5/20/2003 $80.00 $180.00 $1,543.70 Cash Payment E 101-43100-434 Conference & Training 03-04-03 RESERVATION $77.25 Invoice 052703 Cash Payment E 601-49400-434 Conference & Training 03-04-03 RESERVATION $77.25 Invoice 052703 Transaction Date 5/8/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total ...... - $154.50 Refer 52703 HOP INDUSTRIES CORPORATION ~ Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MISCELLANEOUS $49.89 Invoice 081727 Transaction Date 5/2112003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total · $49.89 Refer 52703 INFRATECH Cash Payment E 601-49400-220 RepaidMaint Supply PAINT, CASE $95.94 Invoice 030667 PO 17764 Transaction Date 5/20/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total 95 9 Refer 52703 ISLAND PARK SKELL Y ~ Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Re;air AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS Invoice 13029 Cash Payment Invoice 12996 Cash Payment Invoice 13006 Cash Payment Invoice 13119 Cash Payment Invoice 13218 Cash Payment Invoice 13053 Cash Payment Invoice 13193 Cash Payment Invoice 13193 Cash Payment Invoice 13193 Cash Payment Invoice 13133 Cash Payment Invoice 13126 Cash Payment Invoice 13121 Cash Payment Invoice 13045 E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery OiL CHANGE E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery OIL CHANGE E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery SLAVE CYLINDER E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery TRANSMISSION FLUID E 601-49400-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery TRANSMISSION FLUID E 602-49450-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery TRANSMISSION FLUID E 601-49400-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery TRANSMISSION FLUID E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery GASKET KIT, ETC E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery TRANSMISSION FLUID E 601-49400-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery RADIATOR $752.07 $121.93 $170.19 $25.86 $25.86 $137.00 $46.26 $46.26 $46.27 $92.95 $1,410.24 $92.95 $170.76 -2128- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05/22/03 7:58 AM Page 8 Current Period: May 2003 Cash Payment E 602-49450-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery RADIATOR $170.75 invoice 13045 Transaction Date 5/20/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 ~0ta . ~3:~9.35 Refer 52703 JAKUBIK, MATTHEW Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training REIMBURSE FDIC CONFERENCE $404.04 Invoice 052703 Transaction Data 5/8/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $404.04 Refer 52703 JERRY'S TRANSMISSION SERVIC Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair REPAIR PICKUP TRUCKE $867.25 Invoice 0000632-1 Transaction Data 5/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $867.25 Refer 52703 JESSEN PRESS INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 101-41110-350 Printing SPRING 2003 NEWSLETTER $2,094.94 Invoice 47026 Cash Payment E 101-41110-350 Printing BRICK INSERT $2,200.29 Invoice 47027 Transaction Date 5/12/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,295.23 Refer 52703 JOHNS VARIETY AND PETS _ Cash Payment G 101-22808 Adopt A Green Space GREEN SPACE PLANTS $39.55 'Invoice 875563 Transaction Date 5/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $39.55 Refer 52703 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$t97.73 Invoice 222660 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale CREDIT-WINE -$74.40 Invoice 222527 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale CREDIT-WINE -$7.33 Invoice 221356 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale CREDIT-WINE -$20~96 Invoice 221355 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $454.85 Invoice 1558783 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $279.05 Invoice 1558782 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $157.00 Invoice 1558781 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $871.65 Invoice 1556720 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2,434.50 Invoice 1556719 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $514.15 Invoice 1556071 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $173.70 Invoice 1556070 Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,645.05 Invoice 1556069 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $6,229.53 -2129- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05/22/03 7:58 AM Page 9 Current Period: May 2003 Refer 52703 JOHNSON, PHYLLIS Cash Payment E 455-46381-600 Debt Srv Principal Invoice 052703 Cash Payment E 455-46381-611 Bond Interest Invoice 052703 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 52703 JuBiLEE Cash Payment E 101-41110-430 Miscellaneous Invoice 050103 Cash Payment Invoice 050103 Cash Payment Invoice 050103 Cash Payment Invoice 050103 Cash Payment Invoice 050103 Cash Payment Invoice 050103 06-03 PRINCIPLE TRUE VALUE 06~03 INTEREST TRUE VALUE E 101-41110-430 Miscellaneous E 101-41110-430 Miscellaneous E 670.49500-460 Janitorial Services E 670-49500-460 Janitorial Services E 670-49500-460 Janitorial Services 04-08-03 COUNCIL COOKIES 04-11-03 COUNCIL COOKIES 05-13-03 COUNCIL COOKIES 05-16-03 RECYCLE DAY 05-17-03 RECYCLE DAY 05-17-03 RECYCLE DAY Transaction Date 5/12/2003 $287.73 $381.38 Total $669.11 $54.29 $37.13 $43.96 $44.20 $24.84 $10.36 Cash Payment E 496-46580~300 Professional Srvs CARPENTRY, INSTALL CASEWORK, ARCH $988.00 Invoice 052703 Transaction Date 5/13/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $988 00 R;ier 52703 L~KER/~io~E~ ~wsPA~ER ....... Cash Payment E 609-49750-340 Advertising ADVERTISING Invoice 052703 $74.54 Cash Payment E 609-49750-340 Advertising ADVERTISING Invoice 052703 $331.50 Cash Payment E 609.49750-340Advertising ADVERTISING Invoice 052703 $273,00 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Cash Payment E 455.46380-300 Professional Srvs COLOR COPY Invoice 13774 $2.65 Transaction Date 5/8/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2.65 Refer 52703 MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 537866 $2,057.30 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2 057 30 Cash Payment E 609.49750-265 Freight DELIVERY Invoice 052703 $300.00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 04-17-03 DELIVERY Invoice 12548 $186.30 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 04-21-03 DELIVERY Invoice 12557 $9.90 -2130- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05~22~03 7:58 AM Page 10 Cash Payment Invoice 12579 Cash Payment invoice 12590 Cash Payment invoice 12610 Cash Payment invoice 12622 Cash Payment Invoice 12643 Cash Payment Invoice 12654 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight E 609-49750-265 Freight E 609-49750-265 Freight E 609-49750-265 Freight E 609-49750-265 Freight E 609-49750-265 Freight E 609-49750-265 Freight Current Period: May 2003 $235.80 04-24-03 DELIVERY $11.70 04-28-03 DELIVERY 05-01-03 DELlVERY $191.70 $19,80 05-05-03 DELIVERY $105.30 05-08-03 DELIVERY $10,80 05-12-03 DELIVERY 05-15-03 DELIVERY $108.00 Invoice 12675 10100 Total $1,179.30 Refer 52703 MCCOMBS FRANK RO°S ASsOcI Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Wells Fargo Cash Payment E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs 04-03 WESTEDGE STREET iMPROVEMENT $255.10 Invoice 43488 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs invoice 43489 Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs nvoice 43490 Cash Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs invoice 43491 Cash Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 43492-A Cash Payment E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs invoice 43492-B Cash Payment invoice 43493 Cash Payment Invoice 43494 Cash Payment invoice 43495 Cash Payment Invoice 43496 Cash Payment invoice 43497 Cash Payment Invoice 43498 Cash Payment Invoice 43499 Cash Payment invoice 43500 Cash Payment Invoice 43501 ~,ash Payment Invoice 43502 Cash Payment Invoice 43503 E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 E 402-43120-300 Professional Srvs E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs Project 07827 04-03 PLANNING MISC ENGINEERING Project 08901 04-03 ZONING MISC ENGINEERING Project 08902 04-03 STREETS MISC ENGINEERING Project 08903 04-03 WATER MISC ENGINEERING Project 08904 04-03 SEWER MISC ENGiNEERiNG Project 08904 04-03 STORM SEWER PROJECT Project 10293 04-03 METRO pLAINS DEVELOPMENT Project 12252 04-03 POST OFFICE DEMO Project 12379 04-03 CTY RD 15 REALIGNMENT Project 12533 04-03 DOWNTOWN TIF DISTRICT Project 12534 E 455-43255-300 Professional Srvs 04-03 MCES LIFT STATION Project 13132 E 101-45200-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA 04-03 SKATE PARK ENGINEERING Project 13207 E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs 04-03 RETAINING WALL REPLACE Project 13215 E 281-45210-300 Professional Srvs 04-03 SHORELINE FOOTAGE Project 13223 G 601-16300 Improvements Other Than Bi 04-03 WELL/PUMP HOUSE Project 13313 E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 04-02 LONGPRE DEMO BLDG Project 13314 $927.00 $641.30 $51.50 $25.75 $25.75 $573.0O $309.00 $224.70 $723.50 $103.00 $515.00 $831.00 $824.00 $781.00 $1,465.80 $2,025.20 -2131 - CITY OF MOUND Payments 05/22/03 7:58 AM Page 11 Current Period: May 2003 Cash Payment G 101-22891 Kells Lane Vacation, j. Paul 04-03 KELLS ROAD VACATION Invoice 43504-A Project 13327 Cash Payment G 101-22895 Kells Lane Vacation Jeff Paul 04-03 KELLS ROAD VACATION Invoice 43504-B Cash Payment Invoice 43505 Cash Payment Invoice 43506 Cash Payment Invoice 43507 Cash Payment Invoice 43508 Cash Payment Invoice 43509 Cash Payment Invoice 43510 Cash Payment Invoice 43511 Cash Payment Invoice 43512 Cash Payment Invoice 43513-A Cash Payment Invoice 43513-B Cash Payment Invoice 43514 Cash Payment Invoice 43515 Cash Payment Invoice 43516 Cash Payment Invoice 43517 Cash Payment Invoice 43518 Cash Payment Invoice 43519 Cash Payment Invoice 43520 Cash Payment Invoice 43521 Cash Payment Invoice 43522 Cash Payment Invoice 43523 Cash Payment Invoice 43524 Project 13327 G 101-22890 2957 Cambridge Retain Wall 04-03 SKAALERUD LOT SURVEY Project 13501 E 401-46540-300 Professional Srvs 04-03 LOST LAKE/AUDITORS GREENWAY Project 13566 E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs 04-03 STORM WATER IMPROVE Project 13677 E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 04-03 WATERMAIN REPLACE Project 13681 E 496-46580-300 Professional Srvs 04-03 PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG Project 13747 G 101-22899 Pastuck Natural Homes #02- 04-03 PASTUCK #02-12 SUB-DIV Project 13770 G 101-22908 Landform Development 04-03 LANDFORM DEVELOPMENT Project 13832 G 101-22906 Waiver of Platting #02-22 04-03 STEIN WAIVER OF PLA'FI'lNG Project 13898 E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 04-03 UTILITY MAP UPDATE Project 14103 E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs 04-03 UTILITY MAP UPDATE Project 14103 E 101-41500.300 Professional Srvs 04-03 INFRASTRUCTURE GASB Project 14120 E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs 04-03 2003 STREET RECONSTRUCTION Project 14121 E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 04-03 NPDES PHASE II PERMITTING Project 14137 G 101-22931 2241 Southview Ln,03-10 W 04-03 2241 SOUTHVIEW #03-10 Project 14275 G 101-22917 Three Points Var Becke #03- 04-03 THREE PTS #03-13 BECKER Project 14277 G 101-22924 6380 Bayridge Rd Stone 03- 04-03 6380 BAYRIDGE RD #03-11 · Project 14280 G 101-22923 4701 Aberdeen Road Varian 04-03 4701 ABERDEEN #30-12 Project 14296 G 101-22925 6041 ddgewood, 03-13 John 04-03 6041 RIDGEWOOD #03-13 VAR Project 14297 G 101-22927 5025 Wren Road,Bodine #03 04-03 5025 WREN RD #03-16 SUB-DIV Project 14304 G 101-22928 4738 Kildare, Haug, #03-19 04-03 2544 COMMERCE #03-18 Project 14307 E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 04-03 1861 COMMERCE WETLAND $130.75 $130.75 $206.00 $379.41 $621.80 $138.50 $3O5.OO $103.00 $206.00 $51.50 $92.40 $92.40 $558.20 $13,305.01 $1,634.80 $51.50 $303.50 $347.40 $51.50 $51.50 $321.00 $257.50 $354.00 Cash Payment E 101-42110_305 Medical and Dental Fees DRUG TEST Invoice 04200315956 $30.00 -2132- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05~22~03 7:58 AM Page 12 Current Period: May 2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $30.00 Transaction Date 5/16/2003 Refer 52703 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENViR Cash Payment E 602-49450-388 Waste DisposaI-MCIS 06-03 WASTE WATER $42,328.00 Invoice 0000756121 10100 Total $42,328.00 Transaction Date 5/8/2003 Wells Fargo . Refer 52703 MINNEAPOLis DE~RTMENT REA - $58.00 Cash Payment E 101-42110-305 Medical and Dental Fees 04-03 ANALYSES SUBSTANCE invoice 052703 Total $58.00 Transaction Date 5/12/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 52703 MINNEHAHA BUILDING MAINTENA $37.28 Cash Payment E 609-49750-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings WINDOW WASH Invoice 5114466 Total $37.28 Wells Fargo 10100 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Refer 52703 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTRO Cash Payment E 602-49450-434 Conference & Training RENEWAL SB LICENSE KIVISTO $23.00 invoice 17771 PO 17771 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $23.00 Transaction Date 5/19/2003 Refer 52703 MINNETRISTA, CITY OF $69.35 Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery TRAILER BATTERIES,PARTS ice 1127 Total $69.35 Transact on Date 5/16/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Cash Payment E 222-42260-190 Fire-Monthly Salaries 03-03 SALARIES invoice 052703 $860.00 Cash Payment E 222-42260-180 Fire-Drill Pay 03-03 DRILLS Invoice 052703 $840.00 Cash Payment E 222-42260-390 General Maint-Fire 03-03 MAINTENANCE Invoice 052703 $5~271.25 Cash Payment E 222-42260-390 General Maint-Fire 04-03 MAINTENANCE Invoice 052703 - $725.00 Cash Payment E 222-42260-180 Fire-Drill Pay 04-03 SALARY Invoice 052703 $1,377.00 Cash Payment E 222-42260-190 Fire-Monthly Salaries 04-03 DRILLS Invoice 052703 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $16,410.00 Refer 52703 MOUND, CITY OF $18.35 Cash Payment E 609-49750-382 Water Utilities 04-03 WATER/SEWER Invoice 052703 10100 Total $18.35 Refer 52703 MUELLER, WILLIAM AND SONS $75.63 Cash Payment E 601-49400-224 Street Maint Materials 04-15-03 BLACKTOP Invoice 77040 10100 Total $75.63 Refer 52703 MYERS, TONY REIMBURSE FIRE SCHOOL 03-28-03 $347.36 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training invoice 052703 - 2133- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05/22/03 7:58 AM Page 13 Transaction Date 5/16/2003 Refer 52703 NA' L, Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies · Invoice 0501301HWZP PO 17797 Transaction Date 5/16/2003 Current Period: May 2003 Ils Fargo BOOKING FILM 10100 $347.36 $177.06 Cash Payment E 101-41910-400 Repairs & Maint Contract POSTAGE METER SUPPLIES Invoice 10691847 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 $166.10 Cash Payment E 101-42110.321 Telephone & Cells Invoice 052703 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 52703 NICCUM DOCKS, INCORPORA TED Cash Payment E 281-45210-440 Other Contractual Se~vic INSTALLATION OF DOCKS Invoice 2178 Transaction Date 5/20/2003 Wells Fargo Refer 52703 NORTHERN TOOL AND EQUIPMEN Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Repairs/MaJnt Machinery ELECTRIC BRAKE Invoice 822342199 PO 17761 Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply TRIM LINE Invoice 822342199 PO 17761 Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts WITH KNOBBY THREAD Invoice 08127051 Transaction Date 5/16/2003 03-19-03 THRU 04-18-03 PHONES $437.21 Total ..... $437.21 $2,644.40 10100 Total ~ $2 644 40 $63.89 $27.64 $21.28 Cash Payment E 670-49500-460 Janitorial Services 04-03 LEAF SERVICE Invoice 28664 Transaction Date 5/12/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 52703 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, INCORPO Cash Payment E 601-49400-395 Gopher One-Call Invoice 3040535 Cash Payment E 602-49450-395 GopherOne. Call Invoice 3040535 Transaction Date 5/12/2003 Refer 52703 PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMPA Total $30.00 $30.0O 04-03 LOCATES $136.40 04-03 LOCATES $136.40 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $272.80 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 8005704 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 8005288 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 8005287 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 8004681 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 8004680 WINE $865.00 BEER $19.95 WINE $444.62 BEER $19.95 WINE $722.35 -2134- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05~22~03 7:58 AM Page 14 Current Period: May 2003 Total $2,071.87 Wells Fargo 10100 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Refer 52703 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 46076515 Wells Fargo 10100 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Refer 52703 pHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale CREDIT--WINE invoice 3279249 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale CREDiT--WiNE Invoice 3278646 Cash Payment Invoice 948980 Cash Payment invoice 948979 Cash Payment Invoice 948978 Cash Payment Invoice 946863 Cash Payment Invoice 946862 E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WiNE E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale WINE $332.64 Total $332.64 -$732.95 -$5.51 $211.75 $233.05 $246.84 $1,173.45 $756.75 10100 Total $1,883.38 'ransaction Date 5/21/2003 Wells Fargo Refer 52703 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING $369.40 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CIGARETTES invoice 16182 $389.12 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CIGARETTES .vo,ce 1696_ ........ 03 We,s Fargo 10100 . TO! ! Transact on L)ate o/~u~u Refer 52703 ~LyM~bTRi ~i~ OF $24 oo Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training 06-17-03 PLEM 8U~UER TRAINING Invoice 17804 PO 17804 Total $24.00 Cash Payment E 609~9750-253 Wine For Resale CREDIT--WINE Invoice 259631-00 -$3.73 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale CREDIT-WINE Invoice 259228-00 -$129.06 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LiQUOR Invoice 255644-00 $189,75 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR invoice 260611-00 $76.95 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 259631-00 $1,566.48 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 260527-00 $2,594,75 ;ash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR 260161-00 $124.90 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 260160-00 -2135- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05/22/03 7:58 AM Page 15 Current Period: May 2003 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 257804-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 257559-00 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Refer 52703 REED BuSiNES~ /NFORMA TION Cash Payment E 401-43105-300 Professional Srvs invoice 2313964 Cash Payment G 601-16200 Fixed Asset-Buildings Invoice 2313964 Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 2327298 Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 2319353 Transaction Date 5/12/2003 E~,, ~E~TTM~Ni KELSE~ Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 52703 R/L ~ID Total Cash Payment - E 101-49999-300 Professional Srvs WINE LIQUOR Wells Fargo 10100 04-18-03 2003 STREET RECONSTRUCTION 04-18-03 WELL NO 8 05-02-03 LONGPRE DEMO 04-25-03 LONGPRE DEMO Total Invoice 1301-10 Transaction Date 5/12/2003 Cash Payment E 101-41310-331 Use of personal auto Invoice 052703 Transaction Date 5/20/2003 RO, Cas[ ~yment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training Invoice 052703 04-03 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $912.60 $2,058,81 $7,381.96 $120.12 $107.38 $123.76 $123.76 $475.02 Wells Fargo REIMBURSE MILEAGE 10100 REIMBURSE FIRE CLASS 03-14-03 $562.50 $105.84 $105.84 $297.66 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice N24317 Transaction Date 5/15/2003 Refer 52703 SHOREWOOD TREE SERVICE PRE-INK STAMPS Wells Fargo 10100 Total $69.76 $69.76 Cash Payment E 101-45200-533 Tree Removal invoice 4529 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Refer 52703 SHORT ELLIO'rT HENDRiCKSON, I SHERVEN PARK REMOVE TREES Wells Fargo 10100 Total $649.65 $649.65 Cash Payment E 496-46580-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0100474 Transaction Date 5/20/2003 Refer 52703 SOS PR/NTING 04-03 PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10,922.68 $10,922.68 Cash Payment invoice 64612 Cash Payment Invoice 64612 Cash Payment invoice 64612 E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies LETTERHEAD LETTERHEAD LETTERHEAD $58.93 $58.93 $58.93 -2136- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05~22~03 7:58 AM Page 16 Current Period: May 2003 Cash Payment Invoice 64612 Cash Payment Invoice 64612 Cash Payment Invoice 64612 Cash Payment Invoice 64612 Cash Payment Invoice 64612 Cash Payment Invoice 64612 E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies LETTERHEAD $58.93 LETTERHEAD $58.93 LETTERHEAD $19.64 LETTERHEAD $19.64 LETTERHEAD $29.47 LETTERHEAD $29.48 10100 Total $392.88 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Wells Fargo Refer 52703 STANTON GROUP $342.90 Cash Payment E 101-41500-300 Professional Srvs HIPPA CONSULTING invoice 335283 Total $342.90 Transaction Date 5/20/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 52703 STREICHER'S - $926.76 Cash Payment E 101-42110-219 Safety supplies CARBINE MAGS invoice 334085.2 $4,236.05 Payment E 101-42110-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA SQUAD BUILDUP ~voice 363857.1 PO 17571 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,162.81 Transaction Date 5/12/2003 Refer 52703 SWEEPER SERVICES $646.66 Cash Payment E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery TILT ON SWEEPER Invoice 3191 Total $646.66 Transaction Date 5/12/2003 ~ !~ ~?~ !0!~0 Refer 52703 THoRPEDISTRiBUTi~ COM~A~ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,042.25 Invoice 296983 $7,856.20 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER invoice 296982 $177.00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 296981 $7,623.05 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 296338 $162.70 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 296337 $282.00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 256250 $51.00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 255743 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $17,194.20 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Refer 52703 THURK BROTHERS CHEVROLET $19.57 ~ash Payment E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 49790 Total $19.57 Transaction Date 5/12/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 -2137- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05/22/03 7:58 AM Page 17 Current Period: May 2003 Refer 52703 THURNBECK STELEL FABRICATIO Cash Payment E 496-46580-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 003142 Transaction Date 5/13/2003 Refer 52703 TRUE VALUE, MOUND Cash Payment E 281-45210-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 043003 Cash Payment Invoice 043003 Cash Payment Invoice 043003 Cash Payment Invoice 043003 Cash Payment Invoice 043003 Cash Payment Invoice 043003 Cash Payment Invoice 043003 Cash Payment Invoice 043003 Cash Payment Invoice 043003 Cash Payment Invoice 043003 Cash Payment Invoice 043003 Cash Payment invoice 043003 Cash Payment Invoice 043003 Transaction Date E 101-45200.220 Repair/Maint Supply E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings E 101-41500-210 Operating Supplies E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials E 601-49400_230 Shop Materials E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials E 602-49450-221 Equipment Parts E 602-49450-220 Repair/Maint Supply E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies 5/16/2003 STEEL JOISTS,DECK,MISC METAL $35,854.00 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $35,854.00 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $8,70 $120.33 $10.22 $4.05 $42.30 $60.69 $59.90 $74.52 $27.21 $31.84 $7.82 $32.23 $143.44 Cash Payment G 609-16200 Fixed Asset-Buildings Invoice 21 Transaction Date 5/20/2003 Refer 57203 Y Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383089-0 Cash Payment E 101~41500-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383089-0 Cash Payment E 101-42110.200 Office Supplies Invoice 383089-0 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383089-0 Cash Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383089-0 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383089-0 04-30-03 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Ils Fargo 10100 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $33.42 $33.42 $3.27 $3.27 $3.27 $3.27 $3.27 $1.09 -2138- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05122/03 7:5~, AH Page 18 Current Period: May 2003 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383089-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies invoice 383089-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies invoice 383089-0 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 348981-0 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 384987-0 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 384981-1 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies invoice 385340-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies Invoice 384340-0 Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383635-0 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383635-0 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383635-0 _~ash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies invoice 383635-0 Cash Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383635-0 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies invoice 383635-0 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383635-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383635-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383635-0 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 384981-1 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 385588-0 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Invoice 386850-0 PO 17798 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies invoice 386616-0 PO 17803 Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383697-0 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383697-0 ~ash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies nvoice 383697-0 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies invoice 383697-0 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES HIGHLIGHTERS LAMINATOR HIGHLIGHTERS INK JET CARTRIDGE INK JET CARTRIDGE 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 CREDIT-HIGHLIGHTERS LAMINATE INK JET CARTRIDGE BATTERIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $1.09 $1.64 $1.65 $24.50 $121.42 $24.50 $137.38 $137.37 $2.97 $2.97 $2.97 $2.97 $2.97 $0.99 $0.99 $1.48 $1.47 -$24.50 $21.96 $59.62 $97.27 $1.63 $1.63 $1.63 $1.63 - 2139- CITY OF MOUND Payments 05/22/03 7:58 AM Page 19 Cash Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383697-0 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383697-0 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383697-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies invoice 383697-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies Invoice 383697.0 Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies Invoice 386648-0 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies Invoice 386648-0 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Invoice 386648-0 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 386648-0 Cash Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies Invoice 683348-0 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies Invoice 683348-0 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice 683348-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 386648-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies invoice 386648-0 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Cash Payment E 101-42110-430 Miscellaneous Invoice 766976 Transaction Date 5/19/2003 Refer 52703 VEIT AND COMPANY, INCORPORA Cash Payment E 496-46580-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0527003 Transaction Date 5/13/2003 Refer 52703 VILLAGE CHEVROLET Current Period: May 2003 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES ENGRAVE PLAQUE Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1.63 $0.54 $0,54 $0.81 $0.81 $47.77 $47.77 $47.77 $47.77 $47.77 $15.92 $15.92 $23.88 $23,87 $7,00 $7.00 SITE CLEANING,GRADING,EXCAVATOR Wells Fargo 10100 Total $218,729.00 $218,729.00 Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repa/rs/Maint Machinery SQUAD REPAIR Invoice CVC318550 Transaction Date 5/16/2003 Wells Fargo Refer 52703 WESTONKA PSYCHOLOGICAL 10100 Total $292.99 $292.99 Cash Payment E 101-42110.300 Professional Srvs Invoice 2110 Transaction Date 5/12/2003 Refer 52703 WIDMER, INCORPORATED REVISE PERSONNEL SYSTEM Wells Fargo 10100 Total $902.50 $9O2.5O Cash Payment Invoice 6064 E 601-49400-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 05-06-03 WATERMAIN BREAK $1,760.00 -2140- CITY OF MOUND Payments 7:5§ AM Page 20 Cash Payment E 601-49400-400 Repairs & Maint Contract CREDIT-6064 -$283.75 Invoice 6064 Transaction Date 5/20/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,476.25 Refer 52703 WINE COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale CREDIT-WINE -$24.00 Invoice 3857-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,096.55 Invoice 096288 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $545.39 Invoice 3639-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,209.57 Invoice 2953-00 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,827.51 Refer 52703 WORLD CLASS WINES, INCORPO Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $565.00 Invoice 132664 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $72.00 Invoice 134769 Transaction Date 5/21/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $637.00 52703 ZEE MEDICAL SERWCE E 101-45200-210 Operating Supplies EYE DROPS,OINTMENT $13.21 Invoice 54082975 Transaction Date 5/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $13.21 -2141 - CITY OF MOUND Payments 05/22/03 7:58 AM Page 21 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 101 GENERAL FUND $34,722.28 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES $20,805.98 280 CEMETERY FUND $450.00 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND $6,758.66 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS $14,983.64 402 MUNICIPAL ST AID ST CONSTUCT $224.70 455 TIF 1-2 $14,202.05 496 HRA PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG $271,156.43 601 WATER FUND $4,481.12 602 SEWER FUND $43,488.10 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $70,556.40 670 RECYCLING FUND $109.40 675 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND $4,689.80 $486,628.56 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $486,628.56 $486,628.56 -2142- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com May 19, 2003 TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BONNIE RITTER PERMITS FOR FISH FRY The Fire Department Relief Association is requesting the following permits for the Fish Fry to be held on June 7, 2003, and that permit fees be waived. Public Dance Permit One-day Consumption and Display Permit (Set-ups) Temporary On-sale 3.2 Beer License printed on recycled paper -2143- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 03- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT GRANT THROUGH THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Mound is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 2003 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to make application for funds under the Livable Communities Demonstration Account; and WHEREAS, the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the Demonstration Account's purposes and criteria; and WHEREAS, the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS, the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of Mound, Minnesota, agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the development grant application submitted on ,2003; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to apply to the Metropolitan Council for this funding on behalf of the City of Mound and to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Adopted by the City Council this 27th day of May, 2003. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -2144- 5431 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 MEMORANDUM To~ From: Date: Re: Honorable Mayor and City Council Sarah Smith, Community Development Director May 21, 2003 Resolution Authorizing Submittal of Development Grant Application - Mound Harbor Renaissance Summary For your review and consideration, a draft resolution authorizing the submittal of a Metropolitan Council Development Grant application to the Metropolitan Council for the MHR downtown redevelopment project has been prepared. City staff and MHR representatives met with Robin Caufman of the Metropolitan Council the week of May 12th to review and discuss the grant process. Presently, MHR, in cooperation with the City of Mound, is in the process of preparing the grant application which must be submitted by June 30t~. If the City Council recalls, similar application(s) were prepared previously for the Mound Visions project but were not funded. It is anticipated that the grant request will be approximately $800,000. Upon completion of the grant application, it is anticipated that a final copy will be provided to the Council for final review. Recommendation City staff recommends approval of the draft resolution. · Draft resolution · Met Council Opportunity / Development Grant Information -2145- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 03- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT GRANT THROUGH THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Mound is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 2003 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to make application for funds under the Livable Communities Demonstration Account; and WHEREAS, the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the Demonstration Account's purposes and criteria; and WHEREAS, the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS, the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of Mound, Minnesota, agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the development grant application submitted on ,2003; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to apply to the Metropolitan Council for this funding on behalf of the City of Mound and to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Adopted by the City Council this 27th day of May, 2003. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -2146- etropolitan Council LIVABLE coM IuNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT of{he Livable Communities Fund Funding Avail'able in' 2003' $8.2 Million _ ~ ....... i~~es wi~develop~ nfs are ava.au,,= -,, ,, ' ' ' t'urpose: ~ra ......... =-~-,~-~ followinn as ~~ject 10ca~10n: all portions of the region as an incentive to accut,p-=,~ ,,,= =, ~.~ .. O Create connected places that support auto, pedestrian, and bike travel and are I n~.ed to transit where available, or build capacity for future transit. ~,, O Balance residential, commercial, workplace, and public/green spaces within and adjacent to the site. ~) Maximize the development potential of existing infrastructure, buildings, facilities and development centers, particularly along existing transportation corridors. '~ ~) Expand housing choices to increase life-cycle and affordable housing options, especially close to jobs. ~ Foster distinctive community places, including respecting local cultural and natural features, and promoting community identity. ~ Consider the natural environment, including restoring natural features and managing stormwater. orie$: Applicants will choose one of two categories in which to apply for each project, depending on the stage of project's development. of eligible uses are listed here for each category; attached is more information on eligible uses, selection criteria and review process). ~. Cateclor¥ 1: Opportunity Grants - up to $300,000 in grants of $30,000 to $75,000 ~ Goal: Assist communities in developing project-specific and site-specific land use plans for projects that show for evolving to the development category. Eligible uses include preparing master plans; conducting design workshops; developing design standards; market studies; developing zoning and land use implementation tools, such as overlay zones, special zoning districts. ~ Application Deadline: June 2 ~ Award Date: August 27 ~ Cateclor¥ 2: Development Grants. - $7.9 million plus any dollars not awarded in Category 1 ~ Goal: Assist communities with projects that are ready or will be ready within a year for construction. Eligible uses include hard costs such as site assembly, acquisition, demolition and removal of obsolete buildings; new streets and sidewalks, structured parking. ~ Application deadline: June 30 ~1~ Award date: December 10 Eligible Applicants: Application for opportunity and development grants is open to cities participating in the Local Housing Incentives Program of the Livable Communities Act, on behalf of proposals in their communities; or metropolitan counties on behalf of Pr~llects located in LCA participant commun!t!es. Applications Per City: Cities submitting more than six applications~for opportunity and development grants combined--.must prioritize them. C \TEMP\Icda criteria final a-?-03 page I ,ed~afl doc · -2147- Livable Communities Demonstration Account %: of the Livable COmmunities Fund AppliCation InformatiOn and Funding Criteria for Category 2: Development Grants Eligible Uses of Funds: Grant funds may be used for project and site costs, infrastructure a't~d construction costs-- hard costs such as site assembly, acquisition, demolition and removal of obsolete buildings'; new streets and sidewalks, structured parking. Funded project components must directly contribute to completion of a built or finished project, and reflect the goals and principles of the demonstration program. Funded components will be evaluated in the context of individual projects. Ineligible Uses of Funds: City's administrative overhead, project coordination, activities prior to the start of the grant project; travel expenses; legal fees; local permits, licenses or authorization fees; costs associated with preparing other grant proposals; operating expenses; comprehensive planning costs; and prorated lease and salary costs. Also ineligible: All eligible uses for Category 1, OpPortunity Grants. Amount of Awards: No minimum or maximum award levels for projects has been established. The Metropolitan Council reserves the right to award less than the available funding in the grant cycle. Targeting of Funds: At least 30 percent of available funds will be targeted to cities located in the developing 3ortion of the region. This is intended to encourage projects in the developing cities of the region, which have been underrepresented among LCDA-funded projects in previous years. Application Process: Submit 30 copies of the application and required attachments to: Linda Milashius Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN. 55101 ...and send one email copy of the application to linda.milashiust?Onetc.slate.mn.us Staff will send confirmation of application's receipt. The application is available online at www.metro¢oun¢il.orq/qrants/lcda/demoapp.doc Questions? Please direct questions related to the application and review process to Linda Milashius at linda.milashius(bT~m¢~¢.smt¢.rnn.us or 651.602.1541. For other questions, please contact your city's sector representative (see list attached). Eligibility Criteria C:\TEMP\Icda The proposal involves new development, redevelopment or infill development addressing the program ' purposes. Proposals may contain mixed-use or residential uses. Proposed project is located within the Council-identified developed area, developing area or a rural growth center. ~ The Metropolitah Council has under review, or has reviewed and accepted applicant Co'rnmunity,s':. ' comprehensive plan. The community's comprehensive plan amendments for the submitted proposal, if necessary, are completed or under review by the Metropolitan Council. Proposed project helps achieve one or more of the affordable and life-cycle housing goals adopted by the applicant city (or the city in which the project is located if the applicant is a county) under the Local Housin, Incentive program of the Livable Communities Act. ~ Application is complete. criteria final 4-?-03 page I redraft doc 4 -2148- Step One: staff Evaluation Process A staff team will evaluate eligible proposals using the Step One evaluation criteria and guidelines below. Step One Evaluation Criteria - 30 possible points The extent to which the proposal will accomplish the following L CDA program goals, as applicable to the site location, geographic location and community: · Deliver reinvestment and revitalization through connected patterns of redevelopment, adaptive reuse, or infill develop~ent; OR deliver more"connected development patterns in developing areas o¢ rural growth centers. · Balance residential, commercial, workplace, and public/green spaces within and adjacent to the site using connected development patterns. · Consider existing infrastructure, buildings, facilities and development centers, particularly along existing transportation corridors. · Expand housing choices in the site area or adjacent to it. · Consider the natural environment, including restoration of natural features, reduction in ~mpermous surfaces, management of stormwater. · Include processes to ensure successful outcomes, such as community participation and support, appropriate and effective regulatory tools, e.g. zoning codes, design standards, development standards. These guidelines will be applied to proposals following evaluation and scoring on the selection criteria, and provided as information for the Step 2 selection process. · Has applicant community responded or is responding to recommendations cited in the Council's review of the comprehensive plan? · If a proposal or related project has been previously funded through a Livable Communities Demonstration Account development or opportunity grant, have grant funds been expended or progress made? Step Two: Livable Communities Advisory Committee Evaluation, and Selection Process The Livable Communities Advisory Committee will evaluate and score proposals according to the selection criteria and make funding recommendations to the Metropolitan Council through its Community Development Committee. The advisory committee includes 17 members with expertise in government, development, finance, transportation, planning and design, and housing. To be recommended by the advisory committee for funding, proposals must score 70 or more points (of 100) on the selection criteria (not including housing incentive points as described below in "housing performance scoring"), or be supported by a two-thirds vote of the committee. Proposals will be evaluated in the 'context of the site, geographic area and community. This will recognize the unique and diverse characteristics of projects' location and geographic location in the region. Step Two Selectiqn Criteria -- 100 possible points, including up to 30 points carried over from Step 1 staff evaluation process. Whether and how the project applies the following principles, in the context of its geographic location and current development pattern - 30 possible points, plus up to 30 points carried over from Step 1 evaluation process , Creates a connected place. For example: Provides options for walking, using transit, biking and driving; Interconnected streets, some safe to cross on foot; Services and daily needs near housing, jobs, transit; Relates buildings to the street, creating street frontage inviting to pedestrians; Physical layout that makes walking, biking and using transit safe and pleasant alternatives to driving; Connects walkways, parking lots, greenways and developments with shod direct routes; Provides safe and convenient connections to regional and local trails; Provides convenient parking behind or to the side of buildings or underground. C XTI-;MP\Icda cdlm'ia final 4-7-03 page I redraft doc -2149- Mixes land uses. For example: Results in multipurpose destinations that locate a mix of uses appropriate to the sito housing, workplaces, shopping, schools, civic centers, parks and public facilities; Clusters diverse, complementary uses together; Includes side-by-side or vertically integrated mixed uses - i.e. housing on upper floors with retail/services/small businesses below, or offices above retail; Connects rather than isolates uses to allow functional relationships between them; Retrofits single-use commercial and retail developments into walkable, mixed-use places; Creates diverse mixed-use areas by adding housing to job-rich areas, or locating jobs in places within walking distance or an easy bike or transit commute of residential areas. Provides housing choices. For example: Includes housing optionsmsingle-family homes, townhouses, condominiums and apadments in a variety of styles and prices--to meet the needs of people of different ages, incomes and life stages; ,:> Mixes different housing pdces and styles in the same block, or integrated in the samg'development, rather than separated by type--ideally to include 20 percent affordable housing (rental at 50 percent of median income or less, ownership at 80 percent of median income or less) in market-rate housing on a site. ~ Ensures ready access to open space in compactly-developed places and creates a sense of pi'ivaey in homes and yards by providing private spaces (e.g. patios or balconies) or semi-private spaces (e.g. courtyards, gardens); ~ Focuses affordable housing near or easily accessible to jobs. Fosters distinctive community place{s). For example: Optimizes connectivity rather than building in isolation from surrounding buildings and neighborhoods; Includes public gathering places and focal points, e.g parks, plazas, public buildings; Respects local natural cultural and natural environmental features; Fits buildings to the neighborhood context through use of design details that echo other buildings in the area or link to the history or cultural identity of the community; ~ Uses gateways and key locations to promote community identity and sense of place. Protects and enhances natural resources, For example: Incorporates ecologically sensitive stormwater management including draining, filtering and retaining storm water in innovative ways that maximize use of natural systems; ,:> Preserves or restores existing trees and other natural vegetation including trees and wildflowers; Taps natural resources to create community amenities, e.g. restoration of buried creeks and wetlands; Provides green spaces for recreation and scenic value. Includes processes to ensure successful outcomes: Local vision and leadership; Partnerships among government, private for-profit and nonprofit sectors. Community participation and support; Plans appropriate to the market or demonstrated market support; Appropriate and effective regulatory tools, e.g. zoning codes, design standards, development standards. Is replicable: ~ Potential for the project or its key component(s) to be replicated in other locations in the same community or other communities. 2. Developability and Readiness- 20 points · Grounded in market realities with developer interest or commitment. · Implementation tools in placb. · Funding commitments in place to ensure construction within a year or two. 3. Appropriateness of funding request- 20 points · Components(s) for which funding are requested reflects LCDA program goals and principles, · AND contribute(s) directly to implementing the project. -2150- Other Evaluation Factors (no points assigned) · The But- For Test- LCDA funds are needed as a catalyst to make the project happen, or to provide a key element of the project. · Maximum benefit- proposal addresses the criteria under (1), Step Two selection criteria, in ways that maximize the site or location potential. · Geographic distribution of projects- throughout region · Location type - developed, developing, and rural growth center communities Housing Performance Scoring Following evaluation, scoring and preliminary ranking of applications by the Livable Communities Advisory Committee, staff will assign up to ten additional housing incentives points to each applicant's preliminary score, The housing incentives points are determined by converting a community's housing performance score from a 100-point scale to a ten-point scale. Project rankings may change as a result of adding the housing incentives points. However, the advisory committee's funding recommendations do not necessarily directly correspond to the numerical rankings. A proposal will be 'held harmless' in the ranking process (the proposal will either improve its ranking or will not be lowered in the rankings) if the proposal includes or proposes new affordable housing, or affordable housing is located within the project site/area. The definition of affordable housing used is consistent with how the Council defines affordable ownership and rental housing in implementation of the Livable Communities Act. C:\TEMP~Icda criteria final 4-7-03 page I redrafi doc 7 -2151 - This Page Is Left Intentionally Blank. I/ 5341 May~wood Road M0u~nd, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: May 20, 2003 SUBJECT: Variance Request - front setback to Avon Drive (unimproved) OWNER: Steffan Madsen CASE NUMBER: 03-09 LOCATION: 2586 Avon Drive ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND Original Plan. At its April 7, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance application from StetTan Madsen to construct a second addition to the house located at 2856 Avon Drive which included construction of a 12' x 14' screen porch and t4'x 18' deck to be located on the south side of the house and a 34'x14' addition on the east and/or lakeside of the existing structure. A variance is needed as the existing house has a non-conforming 14 ft. front setback on the south side abutting Avon Drive (unimproved). The application was subsequently tabled by the Planning Commission and remanded back to the applicant in favor of a new and/or modified plan. Member(s) of the Planning Commission indicated that that the project could be reconfigured to meet the (20) foot setback but in the event a variance was needed, a setback of no less than (14) feet as previously approved could be considered. Modified Plan. At its May 19, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a modified plan which includes a proposed "new" setback of (15) feet to unimproved Avon Drive. So as to follow the Planning Commission's directive to minimize the setback encroachment, the applicant reversed the locations of the 3-season porch and deck and angled the southwest corner. PROJECT DETAILS Details regarding the original project are included in Planning Report No. 03-05 and Planning Report Addendum which have been included as attachments. Additionally, the April 21 and May 19 Planning Commission meeting minute excerpts have also been included. -2153- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Based on its review, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the variance application as requested subject to conditions. A draft resolution based on the Planning Commission's recommendation has been included as an attachment. 2 -2154- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 03- A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SCREEN PORCH AND DECK FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2586 AVON DRIVE CASE # 03-09 WHEREAS, the applicant, Stephan Madsen, has requested the following variance to construct a screen porch and deck to be located at 2586 Avon Drive: Proposed Required Variance Front Yard Setback (Avon Drive - Unimproved) 15ff. 20ff. 5ft. and; WHEREAS, the applicant was granted a variance(s) in 2002 to rebuild the existing 1-story rambler and construction of an addition to allow a front setback of (26) feet along improved Avon Drive and a (14) foot setback along unimproved Avon Drive for the proposed project; WHEREAS, the applicant now proposes to construct a second addition to the house which includes construction of a screen porch and deck to be located on the south side of the house along unimproved Avon Drive and addition on the east/lakeside of the property; and WHEREAS, the proposed construction would push a small portion of the southwest corner of the deck within (5) feet of the required setback of (20) feet for unimproved Avon right-of-way which provides access to Seton Lake; and -2155- WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R-1 Zoning District and subject to the requirements in City Code Section 350:620; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance as recommended by Staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant the variance as requested subject to the following condition: a. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land use requests. 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. c. Applicant shall be required to submit all required information upon submittal of the building permit applications, when appropriate. d. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits. 2. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 469, Hennepin County, Minnesota The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted May 27, 2003 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -2156~ MINUTE EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2003. BOARD OF APPEALS DR Al:; CASE #03-09 VARIANCE - FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR HOUSE ADDITION 2586 AVON DRIVE - STEPHAN MADSEN The Planning Commission reviewed this variance application at its April 7, 2003 meeting. The application was tabled and remanded back to the applicant in favor of a new and/or modified plan. The applicant submitted a modified plan that includes a proposed "new" setback of 15 feet to unimproved Avon Drive. Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land use request. 2. ]No future approval of any development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this action in the event the variance application is approved. 3. Applicant shall be required to submit all required information upon submittal of the building permit applications, when appropriate. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits. Discussion Glister asked about hardship. Smith reviewed that it was fronted on 2 sides by streets, one improved, one unimproved. Because the unimproved street is not an alley or a fire lane it gets a double frontage setback. Property to the south was issued a variance that was significantly greater. Glister asked why the unimproved Avon wasn't vacated. Smith said it was a public access to the lake that provided access to a city dock. There are also utilities in that area. MOTION by Ayaz, seconded by Raines, to approve the variance as recommended. MOTION carried. Voting for: Clapsaddle, Ayaz, Schwingler, Michael, Glister, Raines, Osmek. Voting against: Hasse. -2157- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT ADDENDUM TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: April 301 2003 SUBJECT: Variance Request - front setback to Avon Drive (unimproved) OWNER: Steffan Madsen CASE NUMBER: 03-09 LOCATION: 2586 Avon Drive ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND At its April 7, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance application from Steffan Madsen to construct a second addition to the house located at 2856 Avon Drive which included construction of a 12' x 14' screen porch and 14'x 18' deck to be located on the south side of the house and a 34'x14' addition on the east and/or lakeside of the existing structure. A variance is needed as the existing house has a non-conforming 14 ft. front setback on the south side abutting Avon Drive (unimproved). The application was subsequently tabled by the Planning Commission and remanded back to the applicant in favor of a new and/or modified plan. Member(s) of the Planning Commission indicated that that the project could be reconfigured to meet the (20) foot setback but in the event a variance was needed, a setback of no less than (14) feet as previously approved could be considered. A copy of the April 7, 2003 Planning Commission meeting minutes has been included as an attachment. PROJECT DETAILS Details regarding the original project are included in Planning Report No. 03-05 which has been included as an attachment. -2158- STAFF COMMENTS / NEW INFORMATION The applicant has submitted a modified plan which includes a proposed "new" setback of (15) feet to unimproved Avon Drive. In essence, the 3-season porch and deck have switched location and the southwest corner of the deck has been angled. 2. Steps are allowable encroachments within a designated setback as long as they are no closer than (2) feet from any lot line as set forth in City Code Section 350.440. 60-DAY PROCESS Pursuant to M.S.S. 15.99, the deadline for City action on the application is on or around May 29, 2003. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of a front setback variance of (15) feet to unimproved Avon Drive subject for the new addition subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land use request. 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 all required information upon submittal of the building permit applications, when appropriate. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits. The recommendation for approval, subject to conditions, is based on the following findings: The current proposal has been modified to allow a (15) foot setback to unimproved Avon Drive therefore the addition will not encroach further in to the setback area than the 2002 project. 2. No other deviations (ie. hardcover, etc.) are being created as a result of the project. 2 -2159- 3. The addition will improve livability. It is unlikely that the east/west extension of Avon Drive will be improved in this area. Therefore, the setback to unimproved Avon Drive functions similar to that of a side setback and/or a "fire lane." CITY COUNCIL REVIEW In the event a recommendation is received from the Planning Commission at its May 5, 2003 meeting, it is anticipated that the application will be forwarded to the City Council for review at its May 13, 2003 meeting. 3 -2160- MINUTE EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION CASE #03-09 Variance - Front yard setback for house addition 2586 Avon Drive Stephan Madsen Smith indicated that a previous variance had been granted in 2002. This variance is to construct a second addition to the house. The proposal includes construction of a 12' x 14' screen porch, a 14' x 18' deck to be located on the south side of the house and a 34' x 14' addition on the east or lakeside of the existing structure. A variance is needed as the existing house has a non- conforming 14' front setback on the south side abutting unimproved Avon Drive and the applicant is proposing to construct the screened porch approximately 10 feet from the property line. Staff recommends approval of the variance 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 variance application is approved. 3. Applicant shall be required to submit all required information upon submittal of the building permit applications, when appropriate. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits. Discussion Clapsaddle feels that the lot is over built. He sited the need for the driveway to cross adjacent property as an example. Mueller wanted to know if the survey was as built. Smith confirmed that it is proposed. Mueller felt we didn't have enough information. Madsen indicated that he never intended to apply for 2 variances because he didn't know it was necessary. The house is built on the old foundation so the survey location on the easterly side should be correct. Mueller asked and Smith indicated that the variance granted in 2002 was for only the proposed project at that time. He was uncomfortable granting a setback less than 20 feet. There is plenty of room on the lot to build conforming. Osmek felt the true issue is Avon Drive. It is really remote that it should be developed? The Commission could take the position that it should be a side setback, not a front setback. He agrees with Mueller that there are other options. Madsen said that before he bought the property he contacted the City for the requirements. The hardship is financial as well as the ruin of a beautiful plan. -2161 - Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2003 Osmek reminded the applicant that financial issues couldn't be considered as hardship. He requested that the applicant redesign the addition to conform to the 14' variance already granted. Mueller asked what the setback would be if it were a fire lane. Smith indicated that it were considered a side it would be either 6 or 10 feet. Michael asked the applicant if he would be amiable to moving the addition. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Clapsaddle, to table the application. An additional requirement was added by Mueller and accepted by Osmek and Clapsaddle to require the application come back by the May 5th Commission meeting. MOTION carried unanimously 2 -2162- -2163- This Page Is Left Intentionally Blank -2164- 2586 Avon Dr, Mound SCale: 1/8" = 1'-0" West / Street Side -1 South Side 7'4x 1~11 7'8 ~ 11'6x 15'8 11'6x9'6 11 '9 ~ BEDROOM 10'8 x 13'1 BEDROOM_#1 11'6x 15'10 t.~ldmr Cablr~t ligh~ng ?,, ENTRY 6'8X9'10 HALL 4'2 x 1~6 '; S~ml flush CLOSET LIVING 19'1 x 15'2 20'8 x 19'8 21'9 ' .STUDY 13'10 x 15'2 ,,t MASTER BDRM ', , 5'7 ...... 6'11 -- 4- ,12'6 , CLOSET 7~10 x 10'8 LAUNDRY DOuble Shower 6'2 x4' 7J8 LIVING AREA 2784 sq ft scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" East/Lake Side A~Vo~ 5341 Mayxvood R. oad Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: March 31, 2003 SUBJECT: Variance Request - front setback to Avon Drive (unimproved) OWNER: Steffan Madsen CASE NUMBER: 03-09 LOCATION: 2586 Avon Drive ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND Steffan Madson has submitted a variance application to construct a second addition to the house located at 2856 Avon Drive. The proposal, as submitted, includes construction of a 12' x 14' screen porch and 14'x 18' deck to be located on the south side of the house and a 34'x14' addition on the east and/or lakeside of the existing structure. A variance is needed as the existing house has a non-conforming 14 fi. front setback on the south side abutting Avon Drive (unimproved) and the applicant is proposing to construct the screened porch approximately (10) feet from the property line. As the Planning Commission may recall, a variance was approved in September 2002 for the subject site in 2002 to rebuild the existing 1-story rambler. The approved variances for the original project are descibed as follows: Requested Required Variance Frontyard setback 26 ft. (Avon improved) Frontyard setback 14 ft. (Avon unimproved) 30ft. 4ft. 30ft. 16fl. REVIEW 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. -2168- 60-DAY PROCESS Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, local government agencies are required to approve or deny land use requests within 60 days. The variance application was received and deemed to be complete on January 31, 2003 and the 60-day timeline expired on or around March 29, 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. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that the City executed a 60-day extension on March 13, 2003. NOTIFICATION City policy requires that abutting property owners are notified of variance requests by mailed notice. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that this activity was completed on April 4, 2003. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Copies of the variance application were forwarded to all City departments for review. All written comments which were received are outlined below: Parks Department The City controls Avon Drive (unimproved) as it extends to the lake. There is a dock site on the property which participates in the City dock program. Access to the lake and dock site is provided via unimproved Avon Drive. Engineering Department Refer to 2003 memorandum from City Engineer John Cameron which has been included as an attachment: Proposed addition on south side towards unimproved Avon Drive will reduce the amount of parking on subject property which will likely push parking into the unimproved ROW and/or driveway area. There is an existing retaining wall which encroaches into the Avon Drive (unimproved) ROW. Public Works Director Skinner The unimproved portion Avon Drive is not likely to be constructed nor maintained as a public street. Utilities are located in the existing unimproved ROW. Fire ChiefPederson No concerns from Fire Department. Acting Police Chi&McKinley No police issues. 2 -2169- Building Official Simoneau DISCUSSION A building permit will be required including the submittal of all required information. The survey and project plans reviewed as part of the 2002 variance application did not reference a "phased project." It is City staff's understanding that while the applicant may have been aware there was a public ROW to the south, it was likely assumed that a typical side setback of(10) feet would be applied as opposed to a "second" front setback. 2. The subject property is bordered by Avon Drive (improved) to the west, Lake Minnetonka to the east and Avon Drive (unimproved) to the south. During the City's review of the 2003 variance application, it was determined that the required corner setback to unimproved Avon Drive should be (20) feet as opposed to (30) feet as allowed for parcels with "lot of record" status. The Avon (improved) Street right-of-way line does not parallel the street as might typically be platted. Rather, the right-of-way provides a much larger boulevard prior to connecting with the unimproved segment that extends to the lake. This unimproved section is also wider than most "fire lanes" or other public access ways at 40 feet. The City Code requires that an appropriate side or rear setback shall be applied to properties abutting "fire lanes" less than 15 feet in width. Even though Avon Drive (unimproved) is larger than 15 feet it is basically functioning as a fire lane. City staff has researched the possible option of vacating unimproved Avon Drive or a portion thereofi While several City Departments felt that vacation of the ROW be a viable option as it would alleviate the need for a variance on the south side and would also address the shared driveway issue, it was subsequently abandoned due to concerns regarding the public dock site located in the ROW and public access to the lake from Parks Director Fackler and the LMCD. It is also likely that the DNR may have had some concerns with regard to possible abandonment of the ROW. A variance was approved (Resolution No. 94-104) for the property located at 5001 Avon Drive to recognize the non-conforming front setback of 3.3 feet from unimproved Avon Drive for the existing house and to allow a proposed addition to be located 8.6 feet from unimproved Avon Drive. 8. As set forth in Resolution No. 02-91, the small shed located in the southeast corner is to be removed or relocated to a conforming location prior to the certificate of occupancy. 3 -2170- While City staff believes that conditions exist which warrant a variance, it would seem reasonable to maintain the existing setback of (14) feet for the new improvements so as to not further expand the non-conformity, i'f possible. However, if the proposed porch were reduced to meet current (14) foot setback, it would be 8 feet by 14 feet in size which hinders its functionality. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of a from setback variance of (20) feet to unimproved Avon Drive subject for the new addition 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 variance(s) application is approved. 3. Applicant shall be required to submit all required information upon submittal of the building permit applications, when appropriate. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW In the event a recommendation is received from the Planning Commission at its April 7, 2003 meeting, it is anticipated that the application will be forwarded to the City Council for review at its April 22, 2003. 4 -2171 - GrT'Y OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 5364 ihone ~2-472-0600 FAX 952-472-0620 VARIANCE APPLICATION 2003 Application Fee: $200.00 Planning Commission Date ~-~r'~ '- City Council Date f ----"--" Escrow Deposit:Case $500.00 No. ~~ ~ Please type or print legibly SUBJECT Address PROPERTY DESC. ' Subdivision PID¢ II N//Oo Platff ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B.2 B-3 'PROPERTY Name %~¢ ~ ~WNER Address APPLICANT Name ~ ~P~ ~~ , (IF OTHER Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure If yes, list date(s) of apPlication, action taken, reSOlu[ion nUmber(s) for this property? Yes (',/,,) No (). and provide copies ;of r~'S~olUtions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Vadance App, lication (12/30/02) Page 1 of 3 -2172- 11 Case No. 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for Variance request, i.e. setback, lot areai:etC.): SE?BACKS: Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: Fco,, -r Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: (N S E~) ~, EW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (N S~W ) (I~EW) REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) .'"~ ~-) ft. ~b ft. ~ _ ft. ft. ft. ft.' ft. 4. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ¢). If no, specify each non-conforming use: 5. Which unique ph~si~81 oh~r~eris~ios of ~he sub]e~ prope~ preven~ i~s re~son~ble use for ~ny of ~he uses permi~ed in ~h~t zoning diB~rio~2 'tOo narrow .. ( )tOpogf~'phY ( ).soil too small ( ) drainage ' ( ) existing sitUation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ,, (X)'other: ~pecify' Please describe: Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~, if yes, explain: /' 7. Was thehardsh, ip created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?. Yes (), No (3' If yes, explain: 8. Are the conditions o~f hardship~forwhich you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes {~i No (~). If no, list some other Properties which are similarly affected? ~. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or 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. Owner's Signature _ ~./ Variance Application (12130/02) Page 3 of 3 -2174- 13¸ t -2175- This information sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zonir~g Ordinance, For further, information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at ¢72-0600, General Zoning Information Sheet R, 1 Z0.,.fii~ig' Di st,riOt'. ,i'.., sitn gi'e,'.. 'Family. ~,.. ~ '.'~ .: = ;, , , : ,.:. .. ?RINCIP..AL::BUIL'DINGS- ~'~L. Ot Area, Lot WidthS,· and Setba'c:l(.Re~tJiiremerit,~! ·" : .:-~ · '..~. .~ ,~ .... , .( !!~,' . ,.. Minimum Lot Area (measured above the flood elevation) ...... , ............... 10,000 square feet - Minimum Eoi~ Width ,.,.,.,,,,,,,,.,¢,,.,,,,~.,~,,,, ..... ~;. ....... ";.~--' ~* ...~'!. ,.,,",L"... ,:¢;-60 f;e~..;, ~ .... '~ Ffont, Yard,$e, tb~bk , ..,. .... . ......... : .... ;.;'..; ......... · . .... ,:. . .......... :.. 30':'feet S~de Y~;~I' setback;':. :' ":"" ~. ' "': · ' .............,...................i0 feet Rear Yard Setback .................................................. ,,.., .... , .... ;.., ......... , ...... , ...... ~-... 1.5 feet MinimUm Lot Depth ................. " ' ". .................... ' ~b feet Lake~hore / O[dinaryHigh Water Setba¢.k .. ........ ,,.,.: ............. · ....... ..,.,, .... ;,i ..... .,~. ..... ~,,.50 feet. Minimum Floor Area Requirement: ...................... ..... , ..... ,.,. ............. .,~.,.840 square feet i' ', .': ' ' · ~ ~ ,::~ · Minimum .tot fro. n~age, o,nan imProved public street, shall be' 60 feet, except that,lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be 60 feet at..~he front building setback line. "" '-. Building Height: Maximum 2V~ stories or thirty-five (35) feet in height. Building Height is defined as "the vertical distalnceto be:measured .from the a~e~age grade of .a building line to ~he tep.¢, to:ithe corriice, of a flat. roof~ to.,.t,h.e;.deck line of ,a mansard,roof, to a point, on the'roof"dire~tly abo~e the .highest wall.of a Shed roof, to the .uppermost. point on a round, or other arch type~',~oof, to trio mean distance of the highes~ geble on a )itched cf.:hip roof~" .... , , ,,~ ' .... ,,' ,, LOTS OF RECORD, S_Decial Provisions~ C:p. me~ Lots.,.,:,,:, .,.,:,, ,:., .~ .". minimum side yard , ..... ~" ,:'"~",' i' .,i. 20 fe;t' · Side Y'ar'd ReqUi:~entS; 'The:: re"~laired sid,e yardselJb'ack:s:hali',~be ,a ~iiii~um,'otf;.: 1~ lot width ·minimum setback on 1 side yaFd:I':: '.:. 1 ' / 40- 79 feet ,, .... ~. ,6:fo, et.= 80 - 100 feet 8 feet ~.'. . ,.:~ ,,.,.~ .1.0:,! fe.~et or,,m.o[~. .... 10 feet Front Yard: .Except as regulated in Section 350:440, Subd. 6 of the City Code, the front setback, sha.!l .be ,~se,~.0n, the Iqt ,.depth as follows: . J.= ,,, ,,,.~ ,..'..,.."'.:'".'" '""i~t"d~p~i~i.',iiii':".".:i'"'.; . ...................... "' ........ "" 60 feet or less 20 feet 61 80 feet' 24 feet~ 8'~ feet or mo~e.:,~ . 30 feet Rev. 3/97 -2176- R-1 Zoning District General Zoning Informa tion HARDCOVER REQUIREMENTS:' Impervious 'surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 30 percent of the I°t area. On e×i~ti~g lots of: r~=Cord*~ impervious cOverage may be permitted bya maXimum of 40 percent providing that techniques are utilized as identified in Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.1. Impervious cover is any surface impervious or resistant to the free flow of water'or'surface moisture, including all buildings, driveways and partking areas whether paya~ 0t not,~ tennis, courts, sidewalks:, patios and swimming 'pools.. Open decks (1/4" minimum opening between boards shall not be counted in impervious cover calculations. DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (GARAGES/SHEDS)- Lot Coverape and Setback Reouirement8: An accessory building shall be considered to be an integral par~ of the principal structure unless it. is five (5) feet or more from the principal structure or use and providing that the structure exCeeds 120 square feet. 1. Area and Size Reouirements (see hardcover reauirements on oaae 11: Accessory buildings shall not exceed a total gr0s~ floor area of: 3,000 SqUare feet or 15% of the total lot area whichever is less. Each individual accessory building shall not exceed 1,200 square feet of gross floor area. . The total number of accessory buildings for lots measuring '1.0~000 square feet or less shall be two (2). On lots exceeding 10,000 square.feet, accessory' buildings shall be limited tO a total of three (3). I~ront Yard Setback. All accessory buildings shall meet the same front yard setback requirements as the,princi~pal bu,ilding~ except for. lakeshore and through lots. For detached garages on a lakeshore or through lotsi a minimum twenty (20) foot front yard .setback is required:ff the garage door(s)open to the street; an eight (8) foot front yard setback is required if the garage door(s) open to the ,side 'lot line. Side Yard' Setback. A detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of the side lot line in the rear yard.with .a.minimum of a six (6) foot setback in side yard location; on through and lakbShore lots, a detached aCCessoW building may be located within four (4) feet of. the side lot line in the front-yard. Whenever'a garage is designed with the doors facing a side lot line, the minimum distance between the d0Ors and the side lot line shall be twenty (20) feet; J~ear Setback. A detached accessory building may be loCated within foui'.(4) feet of the rear lot line. L~k'eshore Setback. Detached accessory buildings must maintain a 50 foot. setback from' the ordinary high water'. See separate deck handout for more information. Front and Sides ......... ~'. .......................................... Same as Accessory Building Setbacks Rear .................................................................. . ........................... 10 feet 5LEVATIONS ' ordinary High Water Flood Elevation Lowest Floor Elevation LAKE MINNETONKA 929,4 931 (CITY) "' 933. 931.5 (MCWD) DUTCH LAKE 939.2 940 942 LAKE LANGDON 932.1 935 937 R~, 3/97 16 -2177- Foundation Plan 'West / Street Side Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 24' i 7' x 12' Door 6" Curb Heated 2 car Tuck-Under, Garage 7'x g' Door --. GARAGE , lit: .......... , Existing Basement II 28~28'-3/4" x 53-3/4" 72" x 82" 11 12'6 8' 6" Walls GARAGE 46'4 x 15'4 Floor Drains Existing Mechanical Room 46" X 36" LIVING AREA 1353 sq ft ~h Side SCREEN PORCH 11'3x13'8 DECK 13'8x178 14' 2586 Avqn Dr, Mound South Side Scale: 118" = 1'-0" PORCH BEDROOM 6'8 x 6'3 10'8 x 13'1 ENTRY ~,;,~ 6'8x9'10 West / Street Side BEDROOM fll 11'6 x 15'1~' CLOSET Dining ::::::::::::::::::::::: LIVING 1~1 x .15'2 FAMILY 20'8 x ! 7'6 STUDY 13'1o x 1~2 MASTER BDRM !2' ~ 13'6 CLOSET 7'10 x 10'8 21'8 LAUNDRY ~':: *11 ' Make-u LIVING AREA 2724 sq It Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" East/Lake Side Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page .1 of 2 Property Information Search Result Th, ttanna?~n Coun~,Proparty Tax w¢& databc~¢ ls updatad daily (Monday, Friday) at approximately 9:15 p.m. (CST) Search By: HOUSE or BUILDING #: STREET NAME: (at least first 3 characters) Avon Drive. UNIT # (if applicable) Property. ID: Address: Municipality: School Dist: Watershed: Sewer Dist: Owner Name: Taxpayer Name & Address: ,: ....... ...,~'~ records perPage Sale Price: TransactiOn Type: Parcel' Data for TaXes Payable 2003 ciick He~e for State Copy of Payable 2003 Tax Statement .... 24-117-24-11-0005 2586 AVON DR MOUND 277 3 Construction year: 1950 Parcel Size: IRREGUI S M MADSEN & M A MADSEN STEFFAN M MADSEN 25~6.AVON DR MOUND MN 55364 Most Current Sales Information Sales prices are reported as listed on the certificate of Real Estate Value a~ warranted to represent arms-length transactions. sale.Date: Octoberl 2002 $399,000 Sale Excluded from Assessment Analysis Addition Name: Lot: Block: Metes & Bounds: Tax Parcel Description REG. LAND SURVEY NO. 0469 TRACT A Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 2003 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 200; Estimated Mari~et Value: Limited Market Value: Taxable Market Value: Total Improvement Amount: Total Net Tax: Total Special Assessments: $298,000 $219,5O0 $219,50O $2,678.98 http ://www2. co.hennepin, mn.us/pins/addrresult ;o,, 3/12/2003 -2182- Property Information Search by Street Address ReSult page Page 2 of 2 Solid Waste Fee: Total Tax: $41.68 $2,720.66 Property Information Detail for Values Established by Assessor Values= Land Market Building Market Machinery ~Market Total Market: Land Limited BUilding Limited Total Limited: QualifYing Improvements Classifications: Property Type Homestead Status Relative Homestead Agricultural EXempt Status $198,000 $100,000 $298,000 $145,800 $73,700 ~2'i~,500 RESIDENTIAL' LAKE SHORE HOMESTEAD 0o; Hennepin Qounty is providing this nformation as a public service. Have a tax re ated ouestion'> Send e-ma to tax nfo@co.hennepin mn us Experience a problem searching database, ha'Ve a techn~ical quest on or wish to ( Hennepin county Tax web site? Send e,mail t0 Don.Kopel@co.hennepin.mn.us Have a comment on any of Hennepin County's web sites or E-Commerce applic~ Send e-mail to.Henn.Net@co.hennepin.mn.us Copyright © 1998 - 2001 Hennepin County http ://www2.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/addrresutt- 2183- 3/12/2003 Hennepin County Map Server Page I of 2 Click tax info 0.289 24-117-24-11-0005 500 ft. -'--- -""" acres Property Address Market Value Total Tax (2003) 2586 AVON DR $ 298,000 $ 2,720,66 MOUND, MN 55364 Click on Property Information Button beloTM to view main tax information page for the property you have selected ~...,:.. ". :.i !..'::': ~':'.': ! :':"':'; 'i :~:i'.': :'!:':":'i:':':'5: "i"':':': ~!: ~ ':~i':'~j':~:~:'!:::::.:i~. The data contained on this page is derived from a compilation of records and maps and may contain discrepancies that can only be disclosed by an accurate survey performed by a licensed land surveyor. The perimeter and area (square footage and acres) are approximates and may contain discrepancies. The information on this page should be used for reference purposes only. Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or its derivatives. Please report any map discrepancies to Bob Moulder (Hennepin County Survey. DMsion) at.(lst'2) 348-26i8 or via e-mail at Bob. Moulder(D,,co.hennepin.mn.us The quality of the display may be influenced by your screen size and resolution setting and is best viewed at 800x600 screen resolution. This application requires Internet Explorer 3.02 or Netscape 2.01 or later version for proper operation. http://www~9~c~henne..~/esrimap~d~?name=H~-~§;~-~cmd=Find&VALUE=24~72411000 3/12/2003 -2185- -2186- -2187- I -=-.Ill' -2189- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD · MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FA,X: (952). 472-0620 WEB; www. cltyofm0und.corr March 13, 2003 Steffan Madsen ...: 3830 Leslie Curve ExcelSi0ri MN':~55331 ~i: Pr°posed variance(s)-libuse2~dditi0n This letter is in regard to the variance application that was sUbmitted and deemed to be complete on January 31, 2003..As ~i~ussed, tl~e'application is to be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review at P~,s~ai~i: !:0 ~ne. S0ta s~atut.~s S.eCt~io cit~ 6fMo~d ~at ~e review additional si~y (60)'~ay~': A~. ~oh~::~;~ov~ ~ ~d~'~.e ~f~:'Past few weeks, City st~ has been ev~uating whe~e~'°:):h°t i~ ~pd~nity e~sts to vacate the unimproved pomion of Avon Drive which also '; d i ed:i t ffo the Lake Come ation Dis~iot. Therefore, addition~ t~e is n~cess~y to advanco the application fo~d as it aPPe~s that a¢a~ti0h 0fthe ~ you Mve ~y questions reg~ding tbs letter or would hke any addkional i~ormatioa pl~;~e feel ff~; t6 cbntae/~e~t Community Developmetit Director CERTIFICATE City of Mound STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) !, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and the Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that'. 1. As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached and forgoing extract was transcribed. oo 2. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record. ' 3. I find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held of the date indicted in said.extract, including any resolution adopted at such meeting, insofar as they relate to: CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION 'No. 02-91 A RESOLUTION TO APPROVED FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO REBUILD THE EXISTING '~-STORY RAMABLER WITH TUCK UNDER GARAGE FOR,THE PROPERTY'LOCATED AT 2586 AVON,DRIVE P S'z CAsE #02,31 Said meeting was duly held, .pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on the 24th day of September, 2002. WITNESS my hand officially as suCh Clerk, and the seal of Said City, this 25th .: "'dayof September, 2002. ' . .:.,,. !,'~ -~i:..~ ~..:i · ........ ;.;. -.~- -~ . ?.; '.. ~,,. ~'i '~;.: .:.~' ''" Bonnie Rifler, City Clerk. CITY OFMOUND RESOLUTION # 02-91 A REsoLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO REBUILD THE EXISTING I-STORY RAMBLER WITH TUCK UNDER GARAGE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2586 AVON. DRIVE P & Z CASE # 02-31 WHEREAS, the applicant, Steffan Madsen, has requested the following variances to rebuild the existing 1-story rambler located at 2586 Avon Drive: Proposed Reczuired Variance Front yard Setback (Avon Drive - Improved) 26 ft. 30ft. 4 ft. Front Yard Setback (Avon Drive - Unimproved) 14 ft. 30 ft. 16 ft. and; WHEREAS, the applicant has signed a Purchase Agreement to buy the home located at 2586 Avon Drive and proposes to rebuild the current rambler and tuck under garage with similar design features but on a larger footprint and i'mproved functionality; and WHEREAS, the proposed new design would push a small portion of the southwest comer of the home within the (30) foot front setback from the improved portion of the Avon fight-of-way as well as the unimproved Avon right-of-way which provides access to Seton Lake; and .WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R-I Zoning District and subject to the requirements in City Code Section 350:620; and -2193- WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance as re~ommendefl by Staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City does'hereby gr~t the variances as requested subject to the following condition: a) The existing shed located in the southeast comer be removed or relocated to a conforming location. 2. This variance is approved for the f°llowing'legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property lnf0rmation System: Tract A, Registered Land Survey NO. 469, He~. epin Coutity, 'Minnesota The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Brown and seconded by Councilmember Osmek. The following voted in the affirmative: Brown, Hanus, Meisel~ Osmek and Meyer. The following Voted .in the negative: None. Adopted by the City Council this 24~ day of September, 2002. ss~onnieRitter Atte~tl Bomie~tter, City: Clerk ? SS/Pat Meisel Mayor Pat Meisel -2194- MINUTE EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2002 CASE #02- 31 Variance. Stephan Madsen/Florence Worner 2586 Avon Drive Stephan Madsen has signed a Purchase Agreement to buy the home owned by Florence Womer and submitted a request for front yard setback variances as follows: Proposed Required Variane~e Frontyard setback (Avon improved) 26 ft. Frontyard setback (Avon unimproved) 14 ft. 30ff. '4ft. 30 ft. 16 The applicant desires to replace the current 1 story rambler with a new home with similar design features but on a larger footprint and with better functionality..The design would push a small portion of the southwest comer of the home wi~ the 30 feet frontyard setback improvement Avon right of way as well as the unimproved Avon fight of way which provides access to Seton Lake. currently, the home meets the setback from the improved portion of Avon but has a non- conforming setback of 17.81 feet from the unimproved portion of A,~on..All 'oth~ side md:lake setbacks would exceed code requirements. MoTioN by Brown~ seconded by Mueller, to accept staff recommendation and require ' removal/relocation of the shed before a certificate of occupancy is issued. Madsen (applicant) was hoping to redo the: water and sewer lines going, straight into the house from the street rather th~as they are. Mueller is opposed to variances. Being it's an unimproved public right of way and.we've been pretty relaxed when it comes to variances as long as the impact to the neighborhood is mai. Weiland wanted to see the shed on the lot line by the lake moved to a conforming location or removed. MOTION Carried unmously -2195- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: September 12, 2002 SUBJECT: VarianCe Kequest OWNER: Stephen Madsen (buyer) / Florence Womer (property owner) CASE NUMBER:~ 02-31 ]tKG FILE NU1VEBER: 02-05 LOCATION: 2586 Avon Drive ZONING: Residenti'al District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Stephen Madsen has signed a Purchase Agreement to buy the home owned by Florence Womer which is located at 2586 Avon Drive and has submitted a request for frontyard setback variances. The variance request is as follows: Proposed ' ' Required Variance · Frontyard setback 26 ff. (A voh improved) ' ' Frontyard se~b'~k i4 ~ von unimproved) 30ff. 4ff. 30ff. i6ff. The applicant desires to rebuild the current 1 story rambler with a tuck under garage with a new home with similar design features but on a larger footprint and with b~er functionality. The proposed design would push a small portion of the southwest comer of the home v~'thin the 30 feet frontyard setback improved Avon right-of-way as well as the unimproved Avon right-of-way which provides access to Seton Lake. Currently, the home meets the setback from the improved portion of Avon but has a nonconforming setback of 17.81 feet from the unimproved portion oi Avon. All other side and lake setbacks would exceed code requirements. Property hardcover would be under maximum the maximum allowable and the lowest floor elevation of 941.36 feet would exceed the minimum flood elevation standard of 933.0 feet. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -2196- # 02~$~ M~daen / WoOer Variance Septern'ber 1,2, 2002 The improved Avon street right-of:Way line does nOt parallel the street as it' ~ght typic~y be platted. Rather, the right-of-way provides a much larger boulevard prior to connecting with the segment that extends to Seton Lake. This unimproved section is also wider than most -fire l~es' or other public access ways at 40 feet. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Copies of the variance application were forwarded to all City departments for review. Ail Written comments which were received are outlined below: Parks Department: Engineering Department: The City controls Avon Drive as it extends to the lake. There is a dock Site on the property which participates in the City Dock Program. Refer to memorandum from City Engineer John Cameron which has been included as an attachment. ' RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the front yard variances as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, MinneapbliS, Mimesota 5540i ((._'5~l~_^800 'Fax (612) 33S-6838 EMORANDUM DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 TO: SARAIt SMITI:I', COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: JOItN CAMERON, CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: MADSEN VARIANCE 2586 AVON DRIVE CASE NO. 02-31 MYRA File No. 13972 As requested, we review~ed the subject variance request and have the following comments and recommendations: 1.' The portion of Avon Drive adjacent to the south property line is unimproved, xcept for a combination driveway, that serves both this property and 5001 Avon Dr., the property to the southwest. This right of way also contains a City storm sewer line that discharges at the lake. 2. It appears that most of the run off from the south end of the existing structure and the new addition will drain towards the lake by way of the Avon R/W. Some runoff may drain down the driveway and reach a catch basin located in the blacktop driveway. Drainage should not be an issue; however it should be reviewed further when the building permit is requested 3. Other issues, such as the utility services, can be addressed by Public Works at the time a building permit is requested. 15050 23aD AVENUE NORTH PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 -2198- JCAMERON~MFRA.COM (763)47676010 FAX (763) 476-8532 -2199- , '.. ¢ Z -2200- .I -2201 - 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith DATE: May 20, 2003 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Steve and Pam Johnson CASE NUMBER: 03-13 LOCATION: 6041 Ridgewood Road ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND At its April 21, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the variance request from Steve and Pam Johnson for a variance to allow construction of a garage addition at 6041 Ridgewood Road. The Planning Commission subsequently tabled the variance request to allow the applicant adequate time to consider an alternate configuration of the proposal to include a side loaded garage. At its May 19, 2003 r~eeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a modified configuration to include a side loaded garage. At the meeting, the applicant noted that the new survey dated May 8, 2003 was incorrect as the garage was to have been expanded to the north by 4 (+/-) feet as discussed as part of the 4/21 Planning Commission meeting. An updated survey which shows the correct dimension has been requested and should be available at the meeting. PROJECT DETAILS Details regarding the original project are contained in Planning RePort No. 03-13 and Planning Report Addendum which have been included as attachments. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Based on its review, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the variance application as requested subject to conditions. A draft resolution based on the Planning Commission's recommendation has been included as an attachment. -2202- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 03- A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT 6041 RIDGEWOOD ROAD P & Z CASE # 03-13 WHEREAS, the applicants, Steve and Pam Johnson, have requested the following variance to allow construction of a 22'x 24' garage addition to be located at 6041 Ridgewood Road: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard Setback 12.3 feet / 8.3 feet 30 21.7 and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R-1 Zoning District and subject to the requirements in City Code Section 350:620; and WHEREAS, the applicant was previously granted a variance in 1998 which recognized the existing setback of 12.3 feet for the detached garage in order to construct a second story addition; WHEREAS, the applicants now propose to demolish the existing garage and construct a new two-stall attached garage and dining room in the same location; and WHEREAS, the applicant originally presented a proposal to include a front loaded garage but modified the plan to include a side loaded garage which will correct a long-standing entry problem that his prevalent along Ridgewood Road as suggested by Staff.and the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the modified plan will be within the (40) percent hardcover allowance for parcels with "lots of record" status; and -2203- WHEREAS, the proposed front setback of (8.3) feet for the attached garage is greater than the (8) foot front setback which is allowed for detached garages on lakeside lots which are side-loaded; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance as recommended by Staff including conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: The City does hereby grant the requested variance as recommended by the Planning Commission. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: Lot 21, Block 6, The Highlands The foregoing resolution was moved and seconded by Councilmember by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted May 27, 2003 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -2204- MINUTE EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 2003 BOARD OF APPEALS DRAFT CASE #03-13 VARIANCE - FRONT SETBACK FOR GARAGE ADDITION 6041 RIDGEWOOD ROAD - STEVE AND PAM JOHNSON The Planning Commission reviewed this variance at its April 21, 2003 meeting. The variance was tabled to allow the applicant adequate time to consider an alternate configuration of the proposal to include a side loaded garage. A revised survey and new project plans have been submitted by the applicant with a revised request of a 21.7-foot variance. Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the conditions outlined in the April 21, 2003 minutes. MOTION by Raines, seconded by Glister, to approve as recommended with conditions (including the 8'3" setback.) MOTION carded unanimously. -2205- 5341 May,,vood Road Mound, MN ~364 (952) 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT ADDENDUM TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith DATE: April 17, 2003 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Steve and Pam Johnson CASE NUMBER: 03-13 LOCATION: 6041 Ridgewood Road ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREEIENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND At its April 21, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the variance request from Steve and Pam Johnson for a variance(s) to allow for construction of a garage addition at 6041 Ridgewood Road. The Planning Commission subsequently tabled the variance request to allow the applicant adequate time to consider an alternate configuration of the proposal to include a side loaded garage. Details regarding the Planning Commission's review of the application are contained in the April 21, 2003 meeting minutes excerpts. PROJECT DETAILS Details regarding the original project are contained in Planning Report No. 03-13 which has been included as an attachment. NEW PLANS A revised survey and new project plans have been submitted by the applicant. The requested variance based on the "new" plan is described below: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front yard 12.3 feet 30 feet 17.7 feet -2206- ADDITIONAL COMMENTS City staff, including the City Engineer, City Planner, and Community Development Director conducted a site visit of the property following the April 21, 2003 and requested that the applicant submit a revised survey and' building plans so as to evaluate the drainage impacts on the site. The revised survey and project plans have been reviewed by the City Engineer and has been favorably received. Please refer to the enclosed memorandum dated May 15, 2003. An updated hardcover sheet has been requested but has not yet been received. It is anticipated that it should be available for review at the 5/19 Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION Refer to Planning Report No. 03-13 for previous recommendation for approval from Staff and proposed conditions. -2207- .,3:41 E~OLDEN URLLEY F'D 6125938D98 f'. 02,,~2 ,.<OPERTY AbDE$'S-.'- ~, ¢ ,.// OWNER'S NAME: LOTAREA '~ ~/'7. -SQ, FT, CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALGULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVE[RIAGI~) X 30% = (for all lots) ....................................... ! LOT AREA '~ ~/7 SQ, FT. X 40% - (for Lots of Record) ! LOT AREA ~7 ,~/"/ SQ, FT, X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .................. - ' Existing LOt~ ef Record may have 40 pemant ¢avel'~ge ltmvicled b3at teehnlquea are utilized, ae outlined In Zoning O~llnance Se~on 350:1225, Sul: SQ FT 6.B,1 (see book), A plan mu~t be submllt~d and approved by Ih~ Building LENGTH WIDTH HOUSE ~4~, ~ 'r": X DETACHED BUILDINGS (GARAGE/SHED) TOTAL HOUSE .................................................... ~ X . t~ .,. =- ~ - X TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ............................... DRIVEWAY, PARKING' ,'D,.', AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. '~; DECKS Open decks ('J/4" min. Opening between bomda) wf~ a pan4=us surfac:a under am not ~un~ as TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ........................................ ./,~' __ X ..... '~t "_ ~1. (_._ X = TOTAL DECK ....................................................... X ., X ~ TOTAL OTHER .................................................... TOTAL HARE)COVER I IMPERVIOUS SURFACI~ ................................................... J L UNDER / OVER (Indicate difference) .................................................................... I--- / PREPARED BY ,'"~,~.~ c~ o ~v ~ DATE Reviaed 04~11/Q2 -2208- This Page. Is Left Intentionally Blank -2209- C Z ::::0 Ill 0 r,..,n 0 0'! g, 0510812003 09:56:13 AM, GeorgeS, 1:2.0135 20 0 '~F~ ~, 20,0 ~:nx ~l~!illllltllmllllJI Engineering ° Planning "Surveying MEMORANDUM DATE: May 15, 2003 TO: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Johnson Variance Case #03-13 MFRA #14297 As requested, we have reviewed the revised survey, dated May 8, 2003, which shows the side entry garage, and have the following comments and recommendations: 1. The revised grades show a proposed curb on the southerly and westerly sides of the proposed driveway, which will direct the runoff from this area towards the street. 2. The building plan indicates gutters will be installed on the new garage and proposed addition. The downspout for this gutter should outlet towards the street. 3. These revisions should reduce the amount of runoff previously directed around the westerly end of the existing house and provides a more favorable plan, which I can support. cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. s:'anain:hMou 14297:\Correspondence~smith5-15 -2215- 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra.com MINUTES EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANN G COMMISSION APRIL 21, 2003 CASE//03-13 Variance - Front setback for attached garage/addition 6041 Ridgewood Road - Steve and Pam Johnson The applicant has submitted a request to add an attached garage and living addition. A 17.7-foot variance for a front yard setback is needed. The proposal is to demolish the existing garage and build a new two-stall attached garage and dining room in the same location. The garage would have street facing doors. A basement would be built under the garage/dining room to connect to the existing home. The property is deficient in lot area with 8589 square feet. Hardcover is conforming as proposed and other home setbacks are conforming. A variance was approved in February 1998 for a front yard setback variance for a non-conforming garage in order to construct a second story addition Staff recommends approval of the variance with the following conditions: 1. The garage doors open to the west (not facing adjacent Ridgewood Road). 2. A revised and more detailed survey showing existing and proposed elevations at the time of building permit. 3. A revised survey and hardcover sheet including a revised driveway location be provided prior to City Council approval. Discussion The applicant Steve Johnson felt that a side entry garage was not feasible. Elevation on Ridgewood Road would require a wall at about eye level in front of the main entry. The City Engineer told him previously that the garage could only be dropped 18 inches. Mueller suggested pushing the garage 4 feet closer to the street. Gordon thought the City Engineer said 18 inches if it were front-loaded. The garage could possibly be lowered to the level of the house if it were side loaded. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Mueller, to table consideration to the next meeting to allow more analysis of the situation by the City Engineer. MOTION carried unanimously. -2216- Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2003 Michael will vote no because of timing. MOTION carried. Voting for: Clapsaddle, Glister, Hasse, Mueller and Osmek. Voting against: Ayaz and Michael. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to postpone the remainder of the agenda. MOTION carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Mueller, to adjourn the meeting at 10:42 PM. MOTION carried unanimously. Chair Geoff Michael Attest, Planning Secretary -2217- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: April 17, 2003 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Steve and Pam Johnson CASE NUMBER: 03-13 I:IKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 6041 Ridgewood Road ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to add an attached garage and living addition. A variance for a front yard setback is needed as indicated below: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front yard 12.3 feet 30 feet 17.7 feet The proposal is demolish the existing garage and build a new two stall attached garage and dining room in the same location. The garage would have street facing doors. A basement would be built under the garage/dining room to connect to the existing home. As indicated above, the garage would change from a 20 feet setback as a detached structure to 30 feet. The property is deficient in lot area with 8589 square feet. Hardcover is conforming as proposed and other home setbacks are conforming. A variance was approved in February 1998 (Resolution No. 98-20) for a front yard setback variance for a non-conforming garage in order to construct a second story addition. Although the plans do not substantially change the way the function and appearance of the property, there is an opportunity to correct the garage entry issue that is a problem along Ridgewood. A side entry garage would be a preferable alternative to provide better parking in the property and enhance the safety and appearance of the street corridor. It appears that a side entry could push the hardcover slightly over the maximum allowed for lots of record. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -2218- p. 2 ~03-13 Variance Request- 6041 Ridgewood Road April 16, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the variance with the following conditions: 1. The garage doors open to the west (not facing adjacent Ridgewood Road). 2. A revised and more detailed survey showing existing and proposed elevations at the time of building permit. 3. A revised survey and hardcover sheet including a revised driveway location be provided prior to City Council approval. 4. Any associated variances for hardcover overages be approved based on a revised plan and hardcover calculations. Staff recommends the Planning Commission variance for the following reasons: 1. 2. recommend Council approve the request for a A side entry garage is an improvement to public safety along Ridgewood Road. There is virtually no opportunity to construct an attached garage on the property with the current conditions and house location. The variance will improve the livability of the property and character of the adjacent neighborhood. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 '-221 9->800 Fax(612) 338-6838 PAID CITY OF MOUND NtAR 2 1003 534i Maywood Road, Mound, MN 5364 Phone 952-472-0'600 FAX 952-472-0620 O[T¥ OF MOUND 2003 Application Fee: ~200)00 Planning CommiSsion Date VARIANCE APPLICATION RECEIVED MAR 3 '2003 /~-'"""~OUNO PLANNING &INSR Escrow Deposit: $500 0 c s, No. City Council Date Please type or print legibly SUBJECT Address [6~O/¢1 mO;~~ ~I~ PROPERTY LEGAL Lotc, 7_1Block,.z~[~2~ DESC, Subdivision ~E j. P.ID~ 2~ -II~-z~O00~ Plat~ ZONING DISTRICT R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 'PROPER~ Name ~U~ OWNER Address.~O~/ ~ - Phone (H}~- ~Z- APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN OWNER) Phone (H) (W) (M), Has an application ever been made for zomng, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this?~operty? Yes 00 No (). and prOVide copies of resolutions. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) ~e~o~u-+~'~n'~8-'ZO 5~g ~ r~ov~,L'¢~,~I on J ~/ rd Variance Application (12/30/02) Page 1 of 3 Detailed descriPtion of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): -2220- 3. Do the existing structures comply with all ar.ea, height, bulk, and setback regulat ons for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No ¢). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCI~ (or existing) Front Yard: ((~S E W ) 30 ft. I~ I Z, ~ ff. i ?, '7 ff. Side Yard: ( N S E ~ I (2 ft. E '7 ft. ,~ ff. Side Yard: ( N ~ ) (,¢ ft. (~. 6 ft. O ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N~;~ W ) -~'O ft. ~'7 ft. O ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: Lot Size: 5'), 32 Ge ft. ft. CfR ft. to: ooo sqft ~87 sqft i~'ll .31~ZO sqft ZC~'OZ-.,~' sqff ':~,¢ Hardcover: _sq ff 4.. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (/~.), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: 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 ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ¢~0 existing situation ( ) too shallow '( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: ~'C(i51~;n~ ,-,~'ru~4'~¢- ~5 ¢10~C~'~c~Jre~,C~t~,~: on ~ ~.o+ ~~n~ Variance Application (12/30/02) Page 2 of 3 -2221 - MAR 3 2003 MOUND ?LANNING & iNSP. Case 6. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: 7. Was the hardsh, ip created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ¢). If yes, explain: ' 8. Are the. conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (/~). if no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Tgux Seo eCo \ Owner's Signa Applicant's S~g~ Variance Application (12/30102) Page 3 of 3 -2222- 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 ~inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. 1,3:17 FAX 95Z¢TZ0620 ¢IT~' OF ~(0frND ~004/012 RESOLUTION P98-20 IIF~qOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NONCONFORMING GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 6041 RIDGEWOOD ROAD, LOT 21, BLOCK 6, Tile HIGHLkND:, PID 23~i17-24 34 0002, P & Z CASE ~ WHEREA~, the applicants, Steve and Para Johnson, have applied for a front yard setback variance for a non conforming-garage to build a conforming __~cond story addition on thc propcrty located at 6041 Ridgewood Road, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-I Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square fcet, and 60 fret of lot fromage, and; WI-II:.REAS, thc existing garage has a 12 foot s~tback and 20 feet is required for a variance of 8 feet. and; WKEREAS, the proposed building is conforming to the R-I setback and; WREREAS, the existing wood shed would eithen' be moved wholly onto the applicant's property or obtain an casem~*~t suitable to the City Attorney to allow its present location, and; WB. ERF. AS, the Planning Commi~on has reviewed the request and recommend~ approval of thc variance recommend by staff, and; NOW, TItEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of t~e City of Mound, Mtrme, sota, as follows: The City does hcrcby grants a 8 fca front yard setback variance with the following con(fitions: The existing shed either be moved wholly onto the applicants property or obtain an cascrncm suitable to the City Attorney to allow its present location prior to issuance of Building Permit issuance. An additional scrccning plaa approved by staff prior to Building Permit The painting of the shed be a neatral color as approved by staff. ~' -2223- RECEIVED HAR 3 ; 003 MOUND HLAt NIr,Jt & tNSP. -2224- -2225- -2226 3 2003 d ~AR 3 L 02/28/2003 13:22 FA.t,. 952~720620 CiTY OF ,~OUN]') [&luJ. z/uJ z C.,I'I'-Y OF MOUND HARpCOVER CALCULATIONS [IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA SQ. FT. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots1 .............. X 40% = (for Lol;sofRecord*) ....... X 15% = {for detached buildings only) 'Existing Lots of Record may have 4~ percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as oudined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DR I VEWAY, PAR KING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (114' min. opmning between bo.rd.1 whh · OTHER ¢~rc~ LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT ¢~,~/ , x ~.q = 1090. X I ~ 0 ' A X ~= & x lc, = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. 5'3~. y ~o,2 x i~.~/ = ,,~9o.ff ~,?, ~ x ..~ = ~5 o TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. 9~ ~. ~ . X ~ 4,,o TOTAL DECK .......................... _ ii.~ x_ to, = _1 ~o x ~ = _ H(,,c~ / TOTAL OTHER [ ......................... VER (indicate difference) PREPARED BY TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DATE RECEIVED MAR 3 2003 -2229- This Page Is Left .Intentionally Blank ~. -2230- ! ! ! I I I L -59. 85 20.0 mQ? 0 20.0 I I I I I ,/ ! fg~O9 09 I I I ! ! I I I I 5341 May-,voocI Road Mound~ MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith DATE: May 20, 2003 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision APPLICANT: Crane Bodine CASE NUMBERS: 03-16 LOCATION: 5025 Wren Road ZONING: R- 1A Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential At its May 19, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a request from Crane Bodine for a minor subdivision to divide the property located at 5025 Wren Road to create 3 buildable lots. The property is located at the intersection of Wren Road and Hillside Lane and is legally described as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Linden Heights Addition PROJECT DETAILS Details regarding the original project are included in Planning Report No. 03-16 and May 19 Planning Commission meeting minute excerpts have been included as attachments. MEETING SUMMARY No persons attended the May 19th meeting to support or object to the proposed minor subdivision. As noted in the Planning Report, the proposal currently meets the provisions of the City Code Chapter 330 (subdivision regulations) and the R-lA District requirements and no variance(s) are necessary. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Details regarding the Planning Commission's review are contained in the May 19, 2003 meeting minute excerpts which have been included as an attachment. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Based on its review, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the variance application as requested subject to conditions. A draft resolution based on the Planning Commission's recommendation has been included as an attachment. -2232- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 03- A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FROM CRANE BODINE FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5025 WREN ROAD TO CREATE (3) LOTS P & Z CASE # 03-16 WHEREAS, the applicant, Crane Bodine, has requested approval of a minor subdivision of the property located at 5025 Wren Road to create three (3) new lots; and WHEREAS, the property is currently zoned R-1A Single-Family Residential District and subject to the provisions of City Code Chapter 350:630; and WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed the following development standards to meet the R-lA Zoning District regulations for Parcels A, B and C: Parcel A Proposed Required Lot Area 10,060 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. Lot Width 52 feet 40 feet Sideyards 10 feet 10 feet Front yard 30 feet 20 feet Lakeside 70 feet 50 feet Hardcover 2542 sq. ft. 3018 sq. ft. (max) Parcel B Proposed Required Lot Area 12,390 sq. ft.6,000 sq. ft. Lot Width 48 feet 40 feet Lakeside Lot Width 41 feet 40 feet Sideyards 10 feet 10 feet Front yard 30 feet 20 feet Lakeside 52 feet 50 feet Hardcover 3668 sq. ft. 3717 sq.ft. (max) -2233- Proposed Required Parcel C Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Lot Width Sideyards Front yard Lakeside Hardcover 10,060 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 50 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 10 feet 10 feet 35 feet 20 feet 52 feet 50 feet 2542 sq. ft. 3018 sq.ff. (max) WHEREAS, the minor subdivision, as proposed, meets the standards of the R-IA District and requires no variances; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the application on Ma3, 19, 2003 and unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council approve the minor subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. Final grading and drainage plans must be approved by the City Engineer at time of building permit application. Provide drainage m~d utility easements in document form to allow for recording at Hennepin County along all lot lines, five (5) feet wide on the sides and ten (10) feet in width along the front and rear lot lines. Installation of new water services for parcels A and C and a new sanitary sewer service for parcel A, must either be completed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow, letter of credit, or performance bond. 4. Two (2) deficient street unit charges in the amount of $1,170.90 each, for a total of $2,341.80 shall be paid. 5. Smfitary Sewer mad Watermain Area Trunk charges in the amount of $1,500 each, for a total of $3,000 shall be paid at the time of building permit application for parcel A and C. 6. Park dedication fees in the an~ount of $2200.00 for (2) additional parcels be paid prior to release of the resolution. 7. Securities in the form of easements and/or financial guarantees be provided prior to recording of the resolution for the removal of the existing residence. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision for the legally described property as identified on Exhibit A subject to the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. -2234- The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted Pat Meisel, Mayor and Attest: City Clerk -2235- MINUTE EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 2003 BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #03-16 MINOR SUBDMSION (3 LOTS) 5025 WREN ROAD - CRANE BODINE DRAFT The applicant has submitted a request to subdivide the property located at the intersection of Wren Road and Hillside Lane. The property has 81 feet of lakeshore frontage on Harrison's Bay. It has 32,120 square feet of land and current use includes a 2-story house. There are no variances requested for any of the proposed lots. Utility services are located in Hillside Lane and available for connection by each of the proposed lots. Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision with the following conditions: 1. The City Engineer must approve final grading and drainage plans at the time of building permit application. 2. Drainage and utility easements must be provided, in recordable document form, along all lot lines, five feet wide on the sides and ten feet in width along the front and rear lot lines. 3. Installation of new water services for parcels A and C and a new sanitary sewer service for parcel A, must either be completed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow, letter of credit, or performance bond. 4. Two deficient street unit charges in the amount of $1,170.90 each, for a total of $2,341.80 shall be paid. 5. Sanitary sewer and watermain area trunk charges in the amount of $1,500 each, for a total $3,000 shall be paid at the time of building permit application for parcel A and C. 6. Park dedication fees for 2 additional parcels shall be paid prior to release of the resolution. 7. Securities in the form of easements and/or financial guarantees shall be provided prior to recording of the resolution for the removal of the existing residence, if necessary. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Glister, to recommend approval of the variance with staff recommendations. MOTION carried unanimously -2236- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: May 1, 2003 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision APPLICANT: Crane Bodine CASE NUMBERS: 03-16 ItKG FILE NUMBER: 03-05 LOCATION: 5025 Wren Road ZONING: R-1A Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND The applicant has submitted an application for a minor subdivision to divide an existing parcel to create 3 buildable lots. The property is located at the intersection of Wren Road and Hillside Lane. The property address is 5025 Wren Road and is legally described as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Linden Heights Addition. The property has 81 feet of lakeshore frontage on Harrison's Bay. Crescent Road (unimproved 30 feet in width) and adjacent Crescent Park are east of the property in the low wetland area. An undeveloped unnamed platted right-of-way (30 feet in width) forms the north border of the property. The property has a southeast view of Harrison's Bay. Topography slopes generally from northwest from southeast with the exception of a steep slope along the south property line. A small ravine cuts through the unnamed road and north portion of the property. There is about 24 feet of rise over the property from Harrison's Bay to the street. There are no bluff' areas on the property. Tree cover is scattered over the northern half of the property and along the low land areas of Crescent Road. It would be anticipated that most of the trees would need to be removed to accommodate the development of the 3 parcels. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Mirmeapolis, Mimaesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -2237- p. 2 #03-16- 5025 Wren Road ~ldinor Subdivision May 1, 2003 Current use includes a 2 story home. As currently held the property includes app~ximately 32,120 square feet. The applicant proposes the following development standards as shown on the submitted subdivision application to meet R-lA Zoning District regulations for Parcels A, B and C: Proposed Required Variance Parcel A Lot Area 10,060 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. - Lot Width 52 feet 40 feet - Sideyards 10 feet 10 feet - Front yard 30 feet 20 feet - Lakeside 70 feet 50 feet - Hardcover 2542 sq. ft. 3018 sq. ft. (max) - Proposed Required Variance Parcel B Lot Area 12,390 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. - Lot Width 48 feet 40 feet Lakeside Lot Width 41 feet 40 feet - Sideyards 10 feet 10 feet - Front yard 30 feet 20 feet - Lakeside 52 feet 50 feet Hardcover 3668 sq. ft. 3717 sq.ft. (max) Proposed Required Variance Parcel C Lot Area 10,060 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. Lot Width 50 feet 40 feet Lakeside Lot Width 40 feet 40 feet Sideyards 10 feet 10 feet Front yard 35 feet 20 feet Lakeside 52 feet 50 feet Hardcover 2542 sq. ft. 3018 sq.ft. (max) The proposed subdivision creates 3 parcels, 2 of which (parcels B and C) have lakeshore frontage. The boundaries of parcel A along Crescent Road don't reach the 929.4 feet ordinary high water (OHW) level of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed homes show walkout designs with front loaded attached garages. Parcels A and C show 2 stall garages, parcel B has enough lot width to accommodate a 3 stall garage. Individual driveways are shown accessing Wren Road and Hillside Lane. The building pads shown are 123 No~xh Third Street, Suite 100, Mirmeapolis, Minnesota 55401 1~2~^_3800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 #03-16- 5025 Wren Road Minor Subdivision May 1, 2003 speculative as no detailed building plans are provided. A 4 feet retaining wall is shown on parcel B to accommodate an anticipated design. Utility services (water and sanitary sewer) are located in Hillside Lane and available for connection by each of the proposed lots. DISCUSSION ITEMS · The proposed minor subdivision meets all Subdivision (Section 330) and Zoning (Section 350) requirements. The current property owner appears to be using south end of Crescent Road as storage area for a boat and dock sections. This part of Crescent Road is difficult to access from the north. The property owner has indicated the desire to live in the existing residence for some period of time until parcel B sells. The existing house would not conform to sideyard setback as proposed. The City has reviewed these requests on a case by case basis in other similar instances. If the City Council were to approve the subdivision and allow the home to remain for some period of time, provisions to require its removal have been required as condition of approval. Securities to the City in the form of easements and/or financial guarantees have been used in the past to achieve compliance if enforcement is needed. Typical conformance timeframes have been a year from approval or recording. · Any dock issues for parcels B and C would be subject to Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) location requirements. Parcel A does not have lake frontage and would be subject to Dock and Commons rules for any property owner. The current owner is working with a real estate agent to sell the parcels. In recent conversations with the agent, a speculative buyer may have other thoughts on the arrangement of the parcel lines. At this time however, the agent has indicated that the application should proceed as submitted. The agent will likely be present at the Planning Commission meeting to represent the seller. ENGINEERS COMMENTS See April 29, 2003 MFRA Memorandum STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the minor subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Final grading and drainage plans must be approved by the City Engineer at time of building permit application. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -2239-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 4 (403-16 - 5025 Wren Road Minor Subdivision May 1, 2003 2. Provide drainage and utility easements along all lot lines, five (5) feet wide on the sides and ten (1 O) feet in width along the front and rear lot lines. 3. Installation of new water services for parcels A and C and a new sanitary sewer service for parcel A, must either be completed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow, letter of credit, or performance bond. 4. Two (2) deficient street unit charges in the amount of $1,170.90 each, for a total of $2,341.80 shall be paid. 5. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Area Trunk charges in the amount of $1,500 each, for a total of $3,000 shall be paid at the time of building permit application for parcel A and C. 6. Park dedication fees for 2 additional parcels be paid prior to release of the plat. 7. Securities in the form of easements and/or financial guarantees be provided prior to recording of the plat for the removal of the existing residence if necessary. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Mi~meapolis, Minnesota 55401 ,-2240-3800 Fax (612) 338-6838 03/21./03 FRI 1.3:48 FAX 952 47~ a932 CB BURNET ~007 MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND ' Maywoog Rcnad, Mound, MN 952~72-0600 F~ Ci~ Engineer Ex]s'r[,e &$ - PROP~ ' ' ZONING C~e: R-I R~A R-2 E-3 B-1 a~ ~3 D~T~CT ~LICANT OWNER ~a ..... (E other ~an .... appll~,t) ~dre~ ...... P~a (H) ......... ~ [M) Has an: application eve." been made for zoning, varia~os0 conditional uss pen-~tt, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) ye~, {~ no, If yes, Ji~t date(s) of appJlcatio_,n, action taken, resolution number(s} and provld~ copies of resolutions. Application must be signed by all ownert of the .ubje;t preperty, or explanation given why ~ls Is not ~e case, I certl~/~t all of the statemen~ above and statemen~ c~ined ~ a~ req~red p~rs or plans to ~ submitt~ he~wi~ am true a~ a~urate. ! acknowledge that I have read all of the ~aflon p'r~vided and ~at I am ~e=~onslble for all cosa incu'~ bY ~e C~ reload ~ the proe~sing of this appll~Uon. ] ~nsent to the en~ in or upon ~e premises descHb~ In ~$ appl~tion ~ any eu~dzed offi¢l~ ~ the CI~ of ~und for the pur~e of [nap~ang, or of posting, maintaining and re--lng such no~ as may be r~uired by law Date Date CiTY OF '~ ri CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVF, R CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) OWNER'S NAME' IlOWN R'SNAM . _ :,~. · LOT. AREA ...:/..2/~??o SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) I. ~77 7 l"' LOW AREA SQ: FT:"X ,-I0'%'- ~: "(for L6ts Of'Ri~,'C'oid*) ........ LOT AREA SO. F'T. ': I ,', 5% = (fordetache,J buildings only) . . · Existing Lots of Record may have 40 perce, nt coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350: 1225,o . . . .. c, ubd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. " HOUSE .:TACH ED BLDGS ARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decke (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervioue surface under are not counted as herdcovor OTHER TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = TOTAL DET'.A C' TOTAL ~~_',,) E'FC .................. X X = TOTAL DEC!( TOTALOTHER X I.Yo o TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OVER '(indicate difference.)..:.,-,,.....:.. ,..,, , .. ,.., .......,~,,,., . :....,,,._., .... I DATE 3cc8 I - -2242- CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) 1 OWNER'S NAME: ,) LO.T. AREA ./0~¢~*0 SQ. FT. X 30% = LOT AREA SO: FT "'X" 40%'-'= (for all lots) .............. I (for Lots O'f RB'd'o'rd*) ....... I .?0/,8 'l'' LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT d',,',~X~¢' 2_ Y X ZY = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" rain, opening between boards) with pervioue surface under are not counted es hardcover OTHER TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = X = TOTAL(~IYEWA_.¥~ ETC .................. X = X = X ~ TOTAL DSCK ......................... X = TOTAL OTHER ............. ~ ........... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE -2243- CtTV OF MOUND' HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACF COVERAGE) I[ OWNER'S NAME: .LOTAREA ~/3(2 SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all 'lots) LOT AREA SQ: FT:""X" 40'%'"" ='"'(for L6'tS 0'f'Ri~'¢'o'rd*) ........ I I' LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . , I I ' *Existing Lots of 'Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined.in Z.Onjng Ordioaqce Section 350. ~J. 225,Subd:.6. B:.I. (see back)'. A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE ETACHED BLDGS .~ARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, .ETC. DECKS Open deck8 (1/4" mm. opening between boards) with porviou~ surface under are not counted as hardcover LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT d'z,,,,~ ¢.¢ 2.'/' x ,'"/~ ~£~ X = /.S' 6- O X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = ~V E W-~-~ ETC .................. TOTAL X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... ~"o o OTHER X TOTAL OTHER ............. ,, ........... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OVER '(indicate differenoe).-.: ..-.-,..-,:..: ,...~ . ....... :..., ....~.., ,, · ~ ...,..,-.., · , · PREPARED BY ~,,¢,~',4~z¢ ¢'/--¢: I¢ ,,¢'J'J'~ ¢ / 4 'r (-" Pi / ,~, c. DATE -2244- '-- ~ This Page Is Left Intentionally Blank ... -2245- / / / / /' / / / / / / / / / x_.< o :=rD coz 2. ,\ - RE VISIONS DESIGNED kEREBY CERTIFY lNA! lNiS PLAN, SP[CI[~A~N OR REPORI 1~20/0~ ~AS PREPAID BY ~ OR ~[R UY D~C] SU~Rm~, AND ~ 1~ I A~ A ~Y L~E~D ~ESS~AL ENGI~ER A~ LA~ ' ' : B~ REMARKS DRAWN S~YOR ~ER THE L ~LL 1.. c. Ec~E~ .... ~ ' DATE ~/~'~ ~NN LICENSE ~8ER/~ 7 ~s ~ GRONI3ERG & ASSOCIATe, S, INC. ;---.i-CrflL I~NGINI~I~RS, LAND 8UR~-'YORS, LA_ND PLiI~P, RS 445 N. WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN 65366 PHONE: 952-473-4141 FAX: 962-473-4436 Engineering ° Planning ° Surveying MEMORANDUM DATE: April 29, 2003 TO: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Bodine Minor Subdivision 5025 Wren Road Case g03-16 MFRA #14304 As requested, we have reviewed the Bodine Minor Subdivision request and have the following comments and recommendations: Comments General This parcel is comprised of three (3) platted lots; Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 3, Linden Heights Addition. As was the case with most of the older plats, there were no drainage and utility easements along the original lot lines. Therefore, easements must be provided along all new lot lines. Grading and Drainage The proposed grading shown on the survey dated April 14, 2003, appears to adequately address the grading issues. A complete grading, drainage, and erosion control plan will need to be submitted for each new parcel when application is made for a building permit. The plan needs to address erosion control measures to be employed during construction. -2247- 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-maih mfra@mfra.com Sarah Smith, Community Development Director April 29, 2003 Page 2 Utilities The City's record plans indicate that this property is served with two existing sanitary sewer services, as shown on the survey. The existing home is served with the only existing water service to the property. The applicant would be responsible for installing the sewer service required for Parcel A 'and the water services for Parcel A and C. Miscellaneous The combination of these three (3) lots was assessed only one (1) unit charge when the streets in this area were reconstructed in 1978. It has been City Policy to collect deferred unit charges when properties are re-divided and additional building sits are created; therefore this property should be charged for two (2) additional units at $1,170.90 per unit, for a total of $2,341.80. Recent revisions to the City Code requires that Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Area Trunk charges in addition to the connection fee must be paid on all new building sites. The present area trunk charges are $1,500 each for sewer and water and a connection fee of $240 each for sewer and water per new parcel created by the minor subdivision. Recommendations 1. Provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines, five (5) feet wide on the side lot lines and ten (10) feet in width along the front and rear. 2. Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plan to be approved by the City Engineer at time of building permit application. o The installation of new water services for Parcels A and C and a new sewer service for Parcel A, must either be completed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow, letter of credit, or performance bond. 4. Two (2) deficient street unit charges in the amount of $1,170.90 each, for a total of $2,341.80 shall be paid. 5. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Area Trunk Charges of $1,500 each shall be paid when building permit applications are made for Parcels A and C. cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. s:h-nain:hMou 14304:\Correspondence~smith4-29 -2248- Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page 1 of 2 Search By: HOUSE or BUILDING #: STREET NAME: ren Road UNIT # (if applicable) .. j20 ii~ii~ ............ <~:~ records per page Property ID.' Address: Municipality: School Dist: Watershed: Sewer Dist: Owner Name: Taxpayer Name & Address: Property Information Search Result The Hennepin County Property Tax web database is updated daily (2ffonday - Friday) at approximately 9:15 p.m. (CST) Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 2003 Click Here for State Copy of Payable 2003 Tax Statement · ,~':..,. :~,, . 15-117-24.13.0022 $025 WREN RD MOUND 277 3 Construction year: 1916 Parcel Size: IRREGUI C J BODINE & E S BODINE CRANE & ELIZABETH BODINE 5025 WREN RD MOUND MN 55364 Most Current Sales Information Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estate Value a~ warranted to represent arms-length transactions. NO SALE INFORMATION ON FILE FOR THIS PROPERTY. Tax Parcel Description Addition Name: LINDEN HEIGHTS ADDN Lot: Block: 001 Metes & Bounds: LOTS 1 2 AND 3 Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 2003 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 200; Estimated Market Value: $447,000 Limited Market Value: Taxable Market Value: Total Improvement Amount: Total Net Tax: Total Special Assessments: Solid Waste Fee: $292,100 $292,100 $3,687.96 $55.46 http://www2.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/addrresult,jsp -2249- 4/22/2003 Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page 2 of 2 Total Tax: $3,743.42 Property Information Detail for Taxes Payable 2003 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 200; Values: Land Market Building Market Machinery Market Total Market: Land Limited Building Limited Total Limited: Qualifying Improvements Classifications: Property Type Homestead Status Relative Homestead Agricultural Exempt Status $445,500 $1,500 $447,000 $291,100 $1,000 $292,100 RESIDENTIAL LAKE SHORE HOMESTEAD 5948 Hennepin County is providing this information as a public service. Have a tax related question? Send e-mail to taxinfo@co.hennepin.mn.us Experience a problem searching database, have a technical question or wish to ( Hennepin County Tax web site? Send e-mail to Don. Kopel@co.hennepin.mn.us Have a comment on any of Hennepin County's web sites or E-Commerce applic~ Send e-mail to Henn. Net@co.hennepin.mn.us Copyright © 1998 - 2001 Hennepin County http ://www2. co. hennepin, mn. us/pins/addrresult.j -Z2250 - 4/22/2003 Hennepin County Map Server Page 1 of 1 Click on map to view information on adjoining properties Scroll down to see property address, value & tax info Last update: 4/03/2003 at 1:00:00 PM READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW Click on Property Information Button below to view main tax information page for the property you have selected ..~.~?)................?..........`.....~.....:.}~::~.:.:~:~:.:.:.:.:.:.:::.:.::;:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~.:.:.:.:`:.:.:.:.:: :':':':':':':': :':':'-": ......... ~.~:~...~.,..:~~!: :: :~-:"'."q~~ :i~~!::::'-:::::::s::::::::~::~i .... i: ..~.:...~:.~...~...:.:.:...~..:~:...3..~.:.::::.~..:...:.....~.~...~::::::::::::::::.:.:..;i~:~ The data contained on this page is derived from a compilation of records and maps and may contain discrepancies that can only be disclosed by an accurate survey performed by a licensed land surveyor. The perimeter and area (square footage and acres) are approximates and may contain discrepancies. The information on this page should be used for reference purposes only. Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or its derivatives. Please report any map discrepancies to Bob Moulder (Hennepin County Survey Division) at (612) 348-2618 or via e-mail at Bob. Moulder@co.hennepin.mn.us The quality of the display may be influenced by yOur screen size and resolution setting and is best viewed at 800x600 screen resolution. This application requires Internet Explorer 3.02 or Netscape 2.01 or later version for proper operation. Copyright © 2003 Hennepin County http://wwwl9'c°'henne--'/esrimap.dll?name=Hen'-~'~5~- 2'nd=Find&VALUE=131172413002 4/22/2003 This information sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. General Zoning Information Sheet R-lA Zoning District- Single Family Residential PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS - Lot Area, Lot Width, and Setback Requirements: Minimum Lot Area ..................................... 6,000 square feet Minimum Lot Width ............................................ 40 feet Front Yard Setback ............................................ 20 feet Side Yard Setback ............................................ 10 feet* Rear Yard Setback ............................................ 1 5 feet* Minimum Lot Depth ............................................ 80 feet Lakeshore / Ordinary High Water Setback ............................. 50 feet Minimum Fioor Area Requirement: ........................... 840 square feet Minimum lot frontaqe on an improved public street shall be 40 feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be 40 feet at the front building setback line (i.e, 20 feet back from front property line). *Applicable side or rear yard setbacks apply to lot lines abutting fire lanes or alleys not exceeding 15 feet in width, Building Height: Maximum 2Y2 stories or thirty-fi~'""('~3~'i 'f~et in height. Building Height is defined as "the vertical distance to be measured from the average grade of a building line to the top, to the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof." ~,. LOTS OF RECORD - Special Provisions: Corner Lots: lot w. idth minimum side yard setback 40- 50 feet 10 feet 51 - 80 feet 20 feet 81..feet or more 30 feet .~..,~.. Side Yard Setback Require.ments: Side yard setbacks for I~iS of record shall be six (6) feet unless the structure or site does not contain a garage in whiich case, one side yard setback is required to be ten (1 0) feet to accommodate a driveway access. HARDCOVER REQUIREMENTS: Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. On existing lots of record*, impervious coverage may be permitted by a maximum of 40 percent providing that techniques are utilized as identified in Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.1. Impervious cover is any surface impervious or resistant to the free flow of water or surface moisture, including all buildings., driveways and parking areas whether paved or not, tennis courts, sidewalks, patios and swimming pools. Open decks (1/4" minimum opening between boards shall not be counted in impervious cover calculations. Rev. 3/97 -2252- : : R-lA Zonin9 District '. General Zoning Information DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS {GARAGES/SHEDS) - Lot Coveraqe and Setback Requirements: An ;cessory building shall be considered to be an integral part of the principal structure unless it is five (5) feet more from the principal structure or use and providing that the structure exceeds 1 20 square feet. 1. Area and Size Requirements (see hardcover requirements on pa,qe 1)~ Accessory'buildings shall not exceed a total gross floor area of S,O00 square feet or 15% of the total lot area whichever is less. Each individual accessory building shall not exceed 1,200 square feet of gross floor area. The total number of accessory buildings for lots measuring 10,000 square feet or less shall be two (2). On lots exceeding 10,000 square feet, accessory buildings shall be limited 'to a total of three (3). Front Yard Setback. All accessory buildings shall meet the same front yard setback requirements as the principal building, except for lakeshore and through lots. For detached garages on a lakeshore or through lots, a minimum twenty (20) foot front yard setback is required if the garage door(s) open to the street; an eight (8) foot front yard setback is required if the garage door(s) open to the side lot line. Side Yard Setback. A detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of the side lot line in the rear yard with a minimum of a six (6) foot setback in side yard location. On through and lakeshore lots, a detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of. the side lot line in the front yard. Whenever a garage is designed with the doors facing a side lot line, the minimum distance between the doors and the side lot line shall be twenty (20) feet. Rear Setback. A detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of the rear lot line. Lakeshore Setback. Detached accessory buildings must maintain a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water. DECKS: See separate deck handout for more information. Front and Sides .......................... Same as Accessory Building Setbacks Rear .............................................. ~ ........ 10 feet ELEVATIONS Ordinary High Water Flood Elevation Lowest Floor Elevation LAKE MINN'ETONKA 929.4 ' 931 (CITY) 933 931.5 (MCWD) DUTCH LAKE 939.2 940 942 LAKE LANGDON 932.1 935 937 Rev. 3/97 -2253- This Page. Is Left Intentionally Blank -2254- .5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 5,5364 (952) 45'2 3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and gtaff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: May 20, 2003 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Gordon Engstrand CASE NUMBER: 03-20 LOCATION: 1754 Jones Lane ZONING: R-1 Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND At its May 19, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a variance(s) request from Gordon Engstrand to allow for a comprehensive remodel of the existing home located at 1754 Jones Lane including upper / main floor improvements and construction of an attached garage on the west side. The requested variances are described as follows: Required Requested Variance Front setback Side setback (lakeside/east) 30 feet 12 feet 18 feet 50 feet 25 feet 25 feet PROJECT DETAILS Details regarding the original project are contained in Planning Report No. 03-20 and May 19, 2003 meeting minute excerpts which have been included as attachments. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Based on its review, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the variance application as requested subject to conditions. A draft resolution based on the Planning Commission's recommendation has been included as an attachment. -2255- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 03- A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT AND SIDE/LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW A COMPREHENSIVE REMODEL AND CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT 1754 JONES LANE P & Z CASE # 03-20 WHEREAS, the applicant, Gordon Engstrand has requested the following variances to allow for a comprehensive remodel of the existing home located at 1754 Jones Lane including upper and main floor improvements and construction of an attached garage addition to be located on the west side: Required Requested Variance From Setback 30 feet 12 feet 18 feet Side/Lakeside Setback 50 feet 25 feet 25 feet (channel) and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R-1 Zoning District and subject to the requirements in City Code Section 350:620; and WHEREAS, the existing split-entry house was constructed in 1972 and includes an upper floor lakeside deck and lower level patio; and WHEREAS, the existing house and detached garage are non-conforming due to a deficient side / lakeside setback(s); and WHEREAS, the applicants propose to demolish the detached garage structure and relocate it to the west side and remodel the existing home to improve livability and enhance its architectural appeal; and -2256- WHEREAS, the proposed upper/main stow modifications have been programmed so as to maintain a minimum lakeside setback of (25) feet which is the minimum preferred setback by the DNR; and WHEREAS, the lot is irregularly shaped; and WHEREAS, the proposed front setback of (12) for the garage addition is no closer than the current location of the existing detached garage; and WHEREAS, hardcover will not exceed (40) percent; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at its May 19, 2003 meeting and recommended approval of the variances as recommended by Staff NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant the requested variances subject to the following conditions: a. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land use request. b. No future approval of any development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this action in the event the variance(s) is approved. c. Applicant shall be required to submit all required information upon submittal of the building permit application. d. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits e. All conditions from the City Engineer included in the memorandum dated May 15, 2003. 2. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: Lot 1, Block 2, Replat of Harrisons Shores The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: -2257- Adopted May 27, 2003 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -2258- MINUTE EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 2003 BOARD OF APPEALS DRAFT CASE #03-20 VARIANCE - FRONT/LAKE SETBACK FOR GARAGE ADDITION 1754 JONES LANE- GORDON ENGSTRAND The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow for a comprehensive remodel and addition of the existing home. The requested variances are described as follows: Required Requested Variance Front setback Side setback (lakeside/east) 30 feet 12 feet 18 feet 50 feet 25 feet 25 feet The existing split-entry home includes an upper floor lakeside deck and lower level patio area. Presently, the home is non-conforming due to a deficient side/lake setback of 17.5 feet. The subject property also includes a detached 22' x 24' side loaded garage that is also in a non- conforming location due to a deficient lakeside setback. Staff recommends approval of the variance 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 variance application is approved. 3. Applicant shall be required to submit all required information upon submittal of the building permit application. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits. Discussion Osmek observed that the current and the proposed garage have the same front setback. Ayaz felt that the relocation of the garage was a huge improvement. Tim Nelson, 732 Saddlewood Dr, Eagan, described the project and indicated they were trying to achieve higher ceilings with all the bedrooms on the upper floor. Ayaz was concerned about how close it is to the channel and how high, but moving the garage opens up the channel area. -2259- Osmek observed that the view from the neighbors behind improves because of the removal of the garage. Smith stated that the DNR would like no less than a 25-foot setback from the lake. MOTION by Ayaz, seconded by Schwingler, recommend approval of the variance with staff conditions. MOTION carried unanimously -2260- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: May 13, 2003 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Gordon Engstrand CASE NUMBER: 03-20 LOCATION: 1754 Jones Lane ZONING: R-1 Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND Gordon Enstrand is requesting variance(s) approval to allow for a comprehensive remodel of the existing home located at 1754 Jones Lane including upper / main floor improvements and construction of an attached garage on the west side. The requested variances are described as follows: Front setback Side setback (lakeside/east) Required Requested Variance 30 feet 12 feet l $ feet 50 feet 25 feet 25 feet Specific details regarding the project are outlined in the submitted plans (ie. floor, elevation drawings, etc.) that have been included as attachments as well as the applicant's supplemental narrative. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing split-entry home was constructed in 1972 and includes an upper floor lakeside deck and lower level patio area. Presently, the home is non-conforming due to a deficient side/lake setback of 17.5 feet. The subject property also includes a detached 22' x 24' side loaded garage which is also in a non-conforming location due to a deficient lakeside setback. -2261 - REVIEW 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. 60-DAY PROCESS Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, local government agencies are required to approve or deny land use requests within 60 days. The variance application was received and deemed to be complete on April 17, 2003. NOTIFICATION City policy requires that abutting property owners are notified of variance requests by mailed notice. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that this activity was completed on or about May 15, 2003. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Copies of the variance application were forwarded to all City departments for review. All written comments which were received are outlined below: Parks Department No comment. Engineering Department Application is complete. Additional details including, but not limited to, proposed elevations will be required as part of the building permit process. Public Works The existing water line needs to be located. Engineering Refer to memorandum dated May 15, 2003. Police Department No police issues. Fire Department No concerns from Fire Department. Building Inspections No objections. 2 -2262- PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS A copy of' the variance application was forwarded to the DNR Area Hydrologist for review. of May 14, 2003, no comments have been received. DISCUSSION As The property fronts Jones Lane on the street side and is therefore subject to a 30-foot front setback. The parcel is bordered on two sides by Lake Minnetonka and is therefore subject to double front lakeside setback requirements of (50) feet from the OHW on each side. 2. The subject property is irregularly shaped. The applicant has provided a sketch that demonstrates the building footprint for the property based on the applicable setbacks. 3. The upper story improvements have been situated so as to main a (25) foot lakeside setback to the channel which is the minimum lakeside setback preferred by the DNR. 4. Hardcover is within (40) percent restriction for lots of record. 5. Relocation of the detached garage further away from the lake is generally viewed as positive. 6. If the lot was not bordered on the east side by water, the existing house would have a conforming side setback. 7. Based upon review of the original building permit file(s), it appears that the structure(s) were constructed in conforming location(s) in 1972. 8. The building improvements will improve livability. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the proposed variance(s) to allow construction of a remodel/addition at 1754 Jones Lane 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 variance(s) application is approved. 3 -2263- 3. Applicant shall be required to submit all required information upon submittal of the building permit application. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW In the event a recommendation is received from the Planning Commission at its May 19, 2003 meeting, it is anticipated that the application will be forwarded to the City Council for review at its May 27, 2003 meeting. 4 -2264- 04/01/03 09:30 FAX 9524720679 CITY OF MOUND ~003 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 5364 Phone 952-472-0600 FAX 952-472-0620 HE(,EIVE &PR t 2003 2003 Application Fee: $200.00 Escrow Deposit: $500.00 lv~0:UN~i~t~~sion Date jM A'( ~¥k. ,--' ~.~ Case No. City Council Date I~,~.-¢ ?~-t 4~ ~ O3 Please type or print le~libly PROPERTY LEGAL Lot I Block ~-. DESC. Subdivision HAF-~I~o,',J ~.Ho~-~ ~, ~ pLAT) PID #/ \~ Plat # ZONING DISTRICT( R~J R-lA R-2 R-3 B-I B-2 B-3 ~PROPERTY Name ~ o,,-ol c~ ~r4 ~ 5>~c~p OWNER Phone (H) q~'Z-~nZ- $2.~.4- (W) ~ff~- ~ ~4~ (M),, APPLICANT Name ~ ~EC~ (IF OTHER OWNER) PI ever I mac for this property? Yes ( ) No (/~0. and provide copies of resolutions. for zomng, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stodes, type of use, etc.): Variance APplication (17J30/02) Page 1 of 3 -2265- 04/01/03 09:31 F.~ 9524720679 CITY OF ffOUND ~004 Case No. 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No (X,). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance SETBACKS: request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) ! I /, ft. ft. ft. ft. OK. ft. .. Front Yard: ~)S E W ) ,,~O ft. Side Yard: ( N ~ ) ~ w Side Yard: ( N S ~ ~- ~' Rear Yard: (NSEW) .~ '- rp~ ff. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ;~) ft. ~o Lo ff. ' (NSEW) ff. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ff. ft. ff. Lot Size: 5~-~' f~'"( sq ff sq ff _sq ff Hardcover: ~. o */~ ~.~' c/~' sq ff ~2~ ~/'7 sq ff o sq ff 4. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? YesV), 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 ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ~) existing situation ( ) too shallow (~ shape ~ other: specify Pleasedescdbe: "~'B~ ~l',h~. ~tl~,~.' Hi~ ~~ ~~ Vadanca Application (12/30/02) Page 2 of 3 -2266- 04/01/03 09:31 FAX 9524720679 CITY OF MOUND ~005 Case No. 6. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No J~. If yes, explain: 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 vadance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes,,~), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 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 vadance 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 la~_/ Owner's Signature -~'~,~. ~ Applicant's Signature Variance Application (12/30/02) Page 3 of 3 Date Date -2267- -2268- This Page Is Left Intentionally Blank .~ -2270- CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GORDON D. ENGSTRAND OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES HENNEPIN .COUNTY, MINNESOTA , EXISTING HOUSE '"'.. BLACKTOP "-.. DRIVEWAY EXISTING GARAGE EXISTING HOUSE t1754 1 ! SURVEY~ LINE "" "'.'929.4 COi',iTGUR LBi[. LAKE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 1, Block 2, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES MINNETONKA o : denotes iron marker (9O8.3): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datu-n ..... 910----; denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datu-n Bearings shown are based upon an asstrned datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of an existing house and garage, and the location of all visible "hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encor'ocPments, --la HARRISO.N BAY i ~REBY Ct~TI~' THAT ~ WAS ~ BY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~CT ~ ~ 1"~ THAT I ~ A ~Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DA~ ~y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~A~ ~ ~ 03-27-03 DATE ~ 03-108 OE~T~ON GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 445 N. WlU.OW DR, LONG LAKE, MN. 55356 952-473-4 ! 41 RECEIVE[' APR 003 MOUND I~L/~I~)~ & CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GORDON D. ENCSTRAND OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA \ \ EXISTING HOUSE PROPOSED GARAGE PROPOSED \ EXISTING HOUSE PROPOSED 1 % % % 1 ! I SURVE~ LINE ' .... ! , ~. LAKE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 1, Block 2, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES o : denotes iron marker (g08.3): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level dottzn ..... 910----: denotes existing contour line, mean sea level dot um Bearings shown ore based upon on osstrr~d dot Lrn. This survey intends to show the boundories of the obove described property, the location of on existing house, and the proposed Iocotion of several proposed odditions thereon. It does not purport to show any other irrprovernents or encorocl-rnents. I G-108 '""929.4 CONTOUR LJNE MINNETONKA HARRISON BAY ~:~FC~i Vk MAY 0 6 200:3 rv~OUND PL~i~i~!,NG & tNSP. 03-108 t,~ ~'~ P.A~N BY: J~~'" ~I GORDY & LAURA ENGSTRAND 1~RI-SON-~V~4MOO~o,JONESMiNNESoTALANE 732EAGAN,612_220_ 81B68SA°°L~'w°°°INCORPORATED][MN ~3°R' ~o ~ o o~ 732 SADDLEWOOD DR. EAGAN, MN 55123 612-220-8868 BY: J lTE: GORDY & LAURA ENGSTRAND 1754 JONES LANE MOUND, MINNESOTA DRAGON BY: 732 SADDLEWOOD DR. EAGAN, MN 55123 612-220-8868 ~0}~DY & LAU]~A ENG~T]~ANDMoUND,I?54 JONESMiNNE LANE3oTA -2278- -2279- -2280- -2281 - -2282- Engineering · Planning · Surveying MEMORANDUM DATE: May 15, 2003 TO: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Engstrum Variance Case #03-20 MFRA #14369 As requested, I have reviewed the information submitted with the application for setback variances and have the following comments and recommendations: The survey'submitted with the application does not show a proposed garage flOor elevation or proposed grading around the garage or in the driveway. A more complete grading plan, that meets the City's survey requirements, will be required with a building permit application. With the relocation of the driveway, the curb at the present driveway opening may need to be replaced and an opening constructed for the new driveway. A field inspection will need to be performed by Public Works and myself to determine what will be required when a building permit is issued. 3. Public Works will need to review the location of sewer and water services when the building permit application is made. s:~ain:'uMou14369:\Correspondence~smith5-15 -2283- 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-ma#: mfra@mfra, com APR ,'t 2003 C~ HARDCOVER CALCULATION,~ } PROPERTY ADDRES~' 1-'') ~ /_~'~., ,-.: OWNER'S NAME: ~0~ ~ld:; ';T~'~},~ ~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA I I/~r'~'"7 S Q: FT:"" X' ' 40'%"- = '" (for E6'ts 0f Ri~'c'o'rd ° ) ....... I '~'~ I' LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined.in Zon!ng Ord!nance Sect. ion 350~~ 225,Su.bd:.6. B:.I. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE X = 1300 X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) x zz. 7 = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. DRIVE'WAY, PARKING X = I I~ AREAS, SIDEWALKS, X = ETC. "X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. .......x x TOTAL HOUSE 130o TOTAL DECK X x = .19' DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL OTHER ............. : ........... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I UNDER / OVER (indicate difference.).-: ..~..,. PREPARED BY /"~$5',.'"---;/ '[ ;:,' ,~ , DATE -2285- - ?->"',:? .I CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'g NAME.' ~o~00~ ~.-'].~ ¢..: "r'c,,:,~.~ ~ LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. SQ:'FT:"'X'40%"-="'(f°r r6'ts 0f'Ri~'C'°'rd°) ........ I z¥~'~' I' SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildi,ngs only) . . *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined.in Z.on!ng Ord!r)a0ce Section 350;_1 225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. ' .... HOUSE DETA'~.E~LDGS DRIVE'WAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DEcKs Open deck= (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT x = 30 x TOTAL HOUSE ......................... = . X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC x : q Iq- _ D~v ~wAy X TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER -REA~, Pz~TI 0 Z. O0 TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate differenc?.)..; ..-. ,.,...=; .,.,..; . .. :... ;, ..,.,., . ~ ......,_...... PREPARED BY ~r~o~,~ ,E'/.t~{~2~.~,z;-Tr:-~. DATE -2286- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com April 28, 2003 Gordon Engstrand 1754 Jones Lane Mound, MN 55364 RE: Variance Application This letter is in regard to the land use application you submitted on or about April 17, 2003 for a variance(s) to allow remodel of the existing home and construction of an attached garage. Based on review by City ~t~ff, the application has been deemed to be complete and will be forwarded to the planning Commission for review at its May 19, 1002 meeting. If you have any questions regarding any of this information, please contact me at 952- 472-3190 Community Development Director C: Tim Nelson -2287-'¢ p,por Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page 1 of 2 Search By: HOUSE or BUILDING #: 11754 !: STREET NAME: (at least first 3 characters) i~Jones Lane UNIT # (if applicable) :. records per page Property ID: Address: Municipality: School Dist: Watershed: Sewer Dist: Owner Name: Taxpayer Name & Address: Property Information Search Result The Hennepin County Proper.~ Tax web database is updated daily (Monday- Friday) at approximately 9.'15 p.m. (CSD Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 2003 Click Here for State Copy of Payable 2003 Tax Statement 13-117-24-22-0033 1754 JONES LA MOUND 277 3 Construction year: 1973 Parcel Size: IRREGUI DALE C ENGSTRAND ETAL GORDON D & LAURA L ENGSTRAND 1754 JONES LA MOUND MN 55364 Most Current Sales Information Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estate Value a~ warranted to represent arms-length transactions. NO SALE INFORMATION ON FILE FOR THIS PROPERTY. Addition Name: Lot: Block: Metes & Bounds: Tax Parcel Description REPLAT HARRISON SHORES 001 OO2 Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 2003 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 200; Estimated Market Value: Limited Market Value: Taxable Market Value: Total Improvement Amount: Total Net Tax: Total Special Assessments: Solid Waste Fee: Total Tax: $482,000 $359,000 $359,000 $4,618.81 http ://www2. co. hennepin, mn. u s/pin s/ad drresult - 2288 - 5/14/2003 Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page 2 of 2 Property Information Detail for Taxes Payable 2003 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 200; Values: Land Market Building Market Machinery Market Total Market: Land Limited Building Limited Total Limited: Qualifying Improvements Classifications: Property Type Homestead Status Relative Homestead Agricultural Exempt Status $329,000 $153,000 $482,000 $245,000 $114,000 $359,000 RESIDENTIAL LAKE SHORE HOMESTEAD 8939 Hennepin County is providing this information as a public service. Have a tax related question? Send e-mail to taxinfo@co.hennepin.mn.us Experience a problem searching database, have a technical question or wish to ( Hennepin County Tax web site? Send e-mail to Don.Kopel@co.hennepin.mn.us Have a comment on any of Hennepin County's web sites or E-Commerce applic~ Send e-mail to Henn. Net@co.hennepin.mn.us Copyright © 1998 ' 2001 Hennepin County -2289- Hennepin County Map Server Page 1 of 2 Click on map to view information on adjoining properties Scroll down to see property address, value & tax info Lastupdate:5/06/2003atl:00:00PM READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW Approximate PropertyApproximate Property ID Perimeter 13-117-24-22-0033 538 ft. Property Address Market Value 1754 JONES LA $ 482,000 MOUND, MN 55364 Click on Property Information Button below to view main tax information page for the property you have selected Property Area 15,712 sq.ft.= 0.361 acres Total Tax (2003) $ 4,686.98 The data contained on this page is derived from a compilation of records and maps and may contain discrepancies that can only be disclosed by an accurate survey performed by a licensed land surveyor. The perimeter and area (square footage and acres) are approximates and may contain discrepancies. The information on this page should be used for reference purposes only. Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or its derivatives. Please report any map discrepancies to Bob Moulder (Hennepin County Survey Division) at (612) 348-2618 or via e-mail at Bob. Moulder@co.hennepin.mn.us The quality of the display may be influenced by your screen size and resolution setting and is best viewed at 800x600 screen resolution. This application requires Internet Explorer 3.02 or Netscape 2.01 or later version for proper operation. http://www19.co.henne.../esrimap.dll?name=He_22O0L:md=Find&VALUE=l 31172422003 5/14/2003 BUILDING ':F~ERMIT APPLI'~ATI ON Yes ~~seWer Units O.K:' '~' OCATiON.~,OF?,pROpoS'EDI IMPROVEMENT .:' - .. ' DATE PHONE ST,'FURNISH ~,THE :FO ng).~ ma iscretion aris': 'specific~tio~ fi: sufficient :tent:!: bf',~work, prop'os ed";; ',~ Show i ',-"i. and wall and. rOof:}! ;Cti°ff lng NO same. i' 'the ont:and any ..new I.ding' on IREEZEWAY~: se APPROVED~, BUILDING INSPECTOR accordi -2291 - DATE e IRON. PIN CITY OF MA I,OT OF RECORI)? YES / NO YARD '' I I)IIIEIYrlON llOUSE ......... FRONT N S E W iNING INFOI(MATION SIll;MT ZONING DISYRICT, LOT S1ZE/WIDTtI: EXISTING LOT $1ZF-: al :LO,O00/60 m. ?.sOO/O LDT WID'rll: ~]~, ~, ooo/4o n2 2o,ooo/oo R2 G, 000/40 B3 10,000/60 LOT DEPI'tI: R2 14, 000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 R F'QUIIHr'I) I EXISTING/IqtOi'OSED VARIANCE FRONT N S F. W N s E w N S F. W P, EAR N S E W 15' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GAItAGE, SIIED ..... I)L:TACIIF. I) BUII.I)IN(;$ FRONT FRONI' SIDE ;IDE REAR LAKE TOP OF IIIAIFF I IARDCOV F,R N s E w N S F. W N S E W N S F. W N S F. W N S E W 30% OR 4O% 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' 10' OR 3o' C(INFOItMIN(;? YES I bi() ? This l, onillg Inh}Itllatiot$ SI:cci Ol._~d~Llnll__~tiz.~c-s a portion of thc tetluirenlelltS outlined hi the t:ily of Mountl ~oning OrdJuance. For furflmr illformation, COlleCt the City of Mound , 0 (246) ~ ...... lO! ?8 a-4'lO'~. ,~'l Immr-- i- ~Tttlt~hL I 130 - ~ (47) OUTLOT (~') : ,-2293- NOIE, DETAIL OF ~OCKS 3 & 5 HARR I SON S[IORE S. SEE RECORD:: PLAI. (6/ 2295- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound,com April 28, 2003 Gordon Engstrand 1754 Jones Lane Mound, MN 55364 RE: Variance Application This letter is in regard to the land use application yOu submitted on or about April 17, 2003 for a variance(s) to allow remodel of t~¢ existing home and construction of an attached garage. Based on review by City. '~t~ff, the application has been deemed to be complete and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review at its May 19, 1002 meeting. If you have any questions regarding any of this information, please contact me at 952- 472-3190 Sincerely, ~.:. Community Development Director 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 Memorandum To: Date: Re: Planning Commission Sarah Smith May 13, 2003 Planning Commission Projects Update Public Safety Building Construction. Construction on the new facility is underway Greenway Construction. It is anticipated that bidding on the Greenway Trail will take place in May/June with construction to begin shortly thereafter. The project was delayed slightly due to some additional review time requested by Mn/Dot. Status of Development Applications - Under Review and/or Pending. · Minor subdivision/variance (lack of access on improved street) at 6380 Bay Ridge Road - denied by CC at its May 13, 2003 meeting. · Variance - house addition at 3301 Warner Road (Chitko) - approved by CC at its May 13, 2003 meeting. · Variance - detached garage at 4701 Aberdeen Road - approved by CC at its May 13, 2003 meeting. · CUP for (1) foot setback for attached twinhome at 2851 Tuxedo Blvd - to be reviewed by PC at its 6/2 meeting, · Variance for (6) foot fence at 2305 Norwood Lane - to be reviewed by PC at its 6/2 meeting. · Variance for setback reduction for construction of new home at 4955 Donald Drive - to be reviewed by PC at its 6/2 meeting. · Variance for residential/lakeshore setback reduction to accommodate proposed VFW expansion - new survey submitted on 5/7 but is currently incomplete. Zero Gravity Skate Park. The City Council approved the Erosion Control and Stormwater Permit(s) for the skate park at its April 22, 2003 meeting. Construction on the new park is underway. Upcoming PC Projects · City Code Section 350:440 - yard encroachments -2298- · Adult-use ordinance · PC appointment / selection / voting process · Sign regulations Downtown Development Districts - MHR · The City Council will hold a work session with MHR on 5/20. · MHR will present sketch plans for informal review to be PC at its 6/16 meeting. · Survey and wetland delineation work was recently completed in the Langdon and CSAH 110 areas. · Preliminary environmental work is underway in the CSAH 110 District by STS on behalf of MHR. City staff, in cooperation with MHR and Hennepin County, is reviewing the possibility of applying for grant funds to assist with some aspects of the environmental work for the Langdon District (Phase II.) The preliminary meeting with Andy Leith ofH. C. was held in April. · Representatives of the Met Council met with City Staff and MHR on 5/15 to discuss possible submittal of a Development Grant. Longpre Building. The Mound HRA is currently accepting bids for demolition of the Longpre building. Bids are due May 21~. Summer Hours for City Hall. Summer hours for City Hall begin on May 19, 2003 as follows: Monday - Thursday 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM Friday 7:30 AM to 11:30 AM Upcoming Schedule - Comm. Dev. Smith. I will be on jury duty in Wright County for one month beginning June 1. Therefore, my work schedule and availability will be tentative during this time. Additionally, I will be out of the office on vacation from July 14 - July 18. · Page 2 -2299- MOUND crrY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 13, 2003 The City Council of the City. of Mound, Hennepin County, MinnesOta, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers of city hall. Members Present: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, David Osmek and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Attorney jOhn Dean, City Manager Kandi Bonnie P, itter, Community Development Director Sarah Simoneau, City Planner Loren Gordon, Parks Director Jir & Donna Sandoval, Charlotte Reynolds, Pete Dean, Bo Eberhart, Amy Dougherty~ Jim Albrecht, Bruce Joh Carl-Johnson, 'JaCk COok att Ryan Masica,. Henry Marry Sarempa, Ann Johnson,. Consent Agenda: All items listed under the routine in nature by the Council and will be separate discussion on these items which event the item will be removed normal sequence. are considered to be roll call vote. There. will be no ember or citizen so requests, in and-considered in 1. OPEN MEETING Mayor Meisel called the m, 2. PL, EDGE DF .ALLE( m HansOni. MOTION by HanUs in favor. Motion ~at item' Action AWarding Bid fOr Well, be deleted. Osmek to approve the agenda as amended. All Voted 4. CONSENT AGENDA ' ~. Meisel requested removing 4G and Hanus requested removing 4F from the agenda. MOTION b~Bro~n,'sec~nded bY ~s~b~ io a'~ibVe (he ~'~sent age:nda as Upon rail call vote taken, all voted in favor, Motion carried. . A. Approve minutes °{ ~Prii 22,'2003 regular meeting and'May 6, 200.3 special meeting,, ~ B. Approve Payment if ciai~s in the amount of $409,575.25. C. Approve waiver of fees for free standing sign for Gillespie Center 1 -2300- Mound City Council Minutes - May 13, 2003 D. RESOLUTION NO. 03-41: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REQUEST FROM BETHEL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING - APPROVAL TO COMBINE AND SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2116 COMMERCE BLVD AND 2117 FERM LANE INTO TWO (2) LOTS E. Approve appointment to.Planning Commission of Jon Schwingler F.' (removed) G. (removed) 'H. Approve tree removal license for Tall Timber Tree Experts, Inc. I. RESOLUTION NO. 03-42: RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING THE AUTHORIZATION OF CITY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT.IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS J. Approve one-day permit to allow 3.2 beer/wine in Mol Bay Park for City Employee Appreciation Day on July 31. 4F. APPROVE PC CASE #03-21: MIKE CHITKO Hanus offered suggestions for changes in the MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to All voted in favor. Motion carried. :R RD. - VARIANCE resolution as amended. RESOLUTION NO. 03-43: VARIANCE FOR THE WARNER ROAD - P & Z CASI FRONT SETBACK AT 3301 ~166. 4G. APPROVE EXTEl Mayor Meisel asked that abstain from voting ¢ IG 'PROGRAM the Consent Agenda because she will ownership of property within the CBD. MOTION by Program until JL Meyer. The fol: Motion carried. to approve the extension of the CBD Parking follOwing voted in favor: Brown, Hanus, Osmek and None. Mayor Meisel abstained from voting. 5. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ONTHEAGENDA None were offered. 6. REVIEW/ACTION OF PROPOSED NEW HOUSING CODE BY BUILDING OFFICIAL Simoneau informed the Council that the new State Building Code became effective March 31,2003, and that the new code includes International Model Codes. One of the documents contained in this new suite of codes is the International Property maintenance Code which is not included as part of the State Building Code. ' 2 -2301 - Mound City Council Minutes - May 13, 2003 MOTION ,by Osmek, seconded ..by Brown to approve replacing the current City Code Section 319 Housinq Maintenance Re.qulations for Rental Properties with the 2000 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC), as requested by City Staff. AIl voted in favor, Motion carried. 7. ACTION ON ALLOCATION:OF DOCK TO :MOUND;FIRE AND RESCUE Jim Fackler reviewed the request of the Mound Fire Department. for a slip site within the dock program. Carlson Park has multiple docks and one of the ten sites became available this year. Discussion followed as to who Should pay for this slip. MOTION by Brown, seconded by osmek to a Mound Fire Department RescUe boat.;' With thedock fee Councilconference budget, and the SubSequent Fire Department. All voted in favor, .Motion carried 8. ACTION O:N DOCI BARTLETT BLVD; ' ~. Sarah Smith, reviewed the req council meeting as to ifthere are covem limit a dock structure. The Certificate Warranty Deed has not yet been restrictions,discovered he will by the renter of the 're~ ,Park.for 'the g from the City g budgeted for. bY the ~5446 was raised at the Apirl 8th s noted..on the deed that would any restrictions, but the stated that if there; are ock,-and also that the dock will be used MOTION by Brown; secon( a dock t0 be plaCed.at 5~:6 Bartlett Blvd., contingent tha~9~isg dS~gs back from the Warranty Deed search tha~. would indicate a restrict~¢i~"~'~::8'~:~iiEla~gnt, and if sUch restriction is found the applicant: must remove.s~8ock, All ¢~gd ~n~avor. Mobon camed; 9. REVIEW/ACTId~eN RE'bEST FOR RELEASE OF PORTION OF T~ FORFeiT Mark Hanus Stepped dow :'~as OounCilmember-:fordiscUsSion and action on this item, Sarah Smith reviewed the request to consider release of a potion of a Hennepin Coun~ tax-forfeit parcel (Lot 29) that lies be~een the applicants' e~ended side lot lines and the 929.40rdinaw High WaterMark (OHWM); The Planning CommisSion voted 2 to approve therelease and the Docks and Parks Commissions.voted unanimously to approve release. Osmek pointed out that this parcel was never owned by the City., never included inthe City's parks system and usable by abutters only. Meisel stated that losing this parcel won't hurt the dock program and only abutters can use it- that's why she's OK with the release. Meyer stated that he's concerned with the perception to the public that the 3 -2302- Mound City CouncllNlinutes - May 13, 2003 Council is releasing public commons to a group that includes a City Councilmernber. It was noted that this'group followed,all of the procedure's andwent through the various advisory commis~;ions, just like ariy other applicant,: MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to adopt the following resolution as amended, The following voted in favor: Brown, Meisel and Osmek. The following voted against: Meyer. Uotibn ~rried.~.~ (Han~'~ di~l not. v~te0n~,'~hiS 'item as :'he had steppe;d,, doW~i fi"om the Council for, discussion and action on this ,item) Hanus returned tO his seat on the Council, 10.' PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 10A, Case No'~~ 03~:.t2: .:.Jim and?Ma~ Albrecht Lomn-Gord0n.mviewed the'reqaestto':bUild a two~stal setback from Roanoke Lane. The Commission recommended denial of this re( hardc0ve¢ and the orientati~ri-~:Of the ga~g feasibility of having a side-load garage. It was this variance,request because there;Will n~otbe a and ~the City Engineer will address;any MOTION .by Meyeri. seconded' by Meisel t the May 27th meeting. All carried. Rd.~..'Variance [ garage'with a. ~.t 0 foot The. Planning their, mawr ~cerns being re'g~r~di;rigi t.he staff recommends!ai~proVal,.of ~crease ir~ hardcover~'on'the site rRoanoke. prepare a resolution granting to be conSidered at 10B; case.No. 03-1'1/03~1 and Variance Lore'n G(~rdon involves a lot s of improved ro~ the~e, reqaests; at woul( MinorSubdivision Summary and stated that this case conforming parcel~With the, e~(ception Planning Commission recommended denial of Charlotte Reynolds, 6~8,~ lay RidgeRo~d~. voiced her opPosition to the sul~division, as did Henry Sandaval of 6370 Bay Ridge Road and Cad Johnson of 6347 Bay Ridge Road. -'. ' .. "" .... ':: ' ~" ' :.i~ ', "-" ~,' MOTIO.N by Brown, seconded by Osmei~',tO directstaffto drafta resoit~ti0n.for adoption at their, next meeting, denying.the requestfor a ,minor subdivision and variance. Ail voted in favor. Motion carried. "~. · · '(remove:d) ~ . 4 -2303- Mound Olty Council Minutes- May 13, 2003 12. ACTION AMENDING FEE RESOLUTION ADOPTING STREET LIGHTIN:G FEE There was lengthy discussion regarding the implementation of a street'lighting -fee to Offset the cost of the street lights. Meisel stated that She Would like to see the fee implemented now because we know there are going to be cuts.this year, followed by even more next year. Some counciimembers want to see more :budget cuts before they're willing to adopt more fees, and have it come to them as a package deal. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to table action on this item until May 27th and have City Staff report on justification of replacing Police Officers, weed spraying, and the timeframe for the overlap of a full time,City Engineer and Oonsulting Engineer. The following voted in favor: Brown, Hanus and Osmek. The following voted against: Meisel and Meyer. Motion' carried. ~'?~' 13. ACTION DIRECTING sTAFF TO PROPOSE CON~i~S' FOR GAS AND ELECTRIC FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS .~!~li?' '~'~'~?~iliiiiiil~: ' ~~to ~:':~:~:~*:" item until '~,~7th, and bring back with the budget cuts/street lighting fee followin'~;'~oted in favor: Brown, Hanus and Osmek. Thefollowing and Meyer. Motion carried. '14. SET SPECIAL MEETING TO MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus for the 2003 projects for Thurs( carried. PROJECTS meeting for awarding of bonds ;:30 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion '15. ACTION ON RESOLI FOR CITY The City Council session at CONTRACT AND SETTING SALARY at 10:11 p.m. and resumed to open MOTION by 27th meeting. All HanUs to table any action on this item until the May '. Motion carried. '16. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. LMC Friday Fax B. FYI: LMCIT Insurance Renewal C. Letter: Metropolitan Council D. Correspondence: LMCD E. Letter: Hennepin County Sheriff's Office F. Report; Harbor Wine & Spirits-April 2003 G. Newsletter: Gillespie Center H. Report: Finance Department- March 2003 I. Memo: Minnesota Institute of Public Finance, Inc. J. Report: LMCD Update by Mound Rep Orv Burma K. Report: Public Safety Facility 5 -2304- Mound City Council Minutes - May 13, 2003 L. FYI: Charitable gift-American Legion M. LMCC Calendar- May 2003 N. Minutes: DCAC- April 17, 2003 (2) O. Newsletter: Lake Minnetonka Association P. Memo on Senator Coleman event Q. Paint-A-Thon Update R. Financial Reports- April 2003 17. ADJOURN MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to adjourn at 11:05 p.m. Motion carried. All voted in favor. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mal 6 -2305- May 15 May 20 May 21 May 21 Wk of May 25 June 16 June 24 July 1 August 4 Mound Harbor Renaissance Schedule to Sketch Plat Submittal Provide Work Session Agenda to City Work Session with City Council Submittal to City for Informal Planning Commission Review of Sketch Plan Project Team Meeting - Sources and Uses - Phasing and Timing Meeting with Ehlers re: Sources and Uses Informal Planning Commission Review of Sketch Plan City Council - I-IRA Meeting · Approve of the general concept plan - works from a planning perspective · Approve in general - public participation - works from a financial perspective Submit Sketch Plan (Phase 1 PDA Concept Plan) - for: Lost Lake East - Langdon Lake & South 110 as one Sketch Plan Review for: Lost Lake East - Langdon Lake & South 110 -2306- This Page. Is Left Intentionally Blat k ... -2307- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 MEMORANDUM To: From Date: Re: Honorable Mayor and City Council Sarah Smith, Community Development Director 5/21/2003 Proposed Amendments - City Code Chapter 330 (subdivision regulations) Background At its May 19, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments to City Code Chapter 330 to allow administrative approval of boundary adjustments and a provision to include a subdivision exemption clause that would require City Council approval. Recommendation Based upon its review, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendments. -2308- MINUTE EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 2003 DRAFT b. Review and discussion - boundary adjustments / subdivision exemptions Smith explained the intent of the item(s). The new provisions would apply to minor swapping of property and also would include a provision to offer a "subdivision exemption." Ayaz was concerned about the ability of someone shifting their lot lines and changing the view or value of someone else's property by a simple procedure. A couple of feet would be okay whereas 10-15 feet could have significant impact on a neighborhood. Smith indicated that this is a very common provision in other cities' subdivision ordinances. While it may not be used a lot, it will be a valuable tool in certain cases and is considered to be another streamlining measure. Raines said a "based upon neighborhood approval" clause could be useful. Smith felt that while neighborhood input is valuable, land use decisions are made by the Planning Commission and City Council. MOTION by Ayaz, seconded by Hasse, to recommend Council approval of the proposed amendments to the subdivision ordinance. MOTION carried unanimously -2309- 5341 Maywood Road Mom~td, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 MEMORANDUM To: C: From Date: Re: Planning Commission Honorable Mayor and City Council Sarah Smith, Community Development Director 4/17/03 (revised May 20, 2003) Proposed City Code Chapter 330 Amendment - Administrative Approval of Boundary Adjustments / Subdivision Exemptions Background City staff has prepared a preliminary draft of a proposed revision to City Code 330 (Subdivision Ordinance) to allow for administrative approval of minor boundary adjustments and City Council approval of a subdivision exemption under certain conditions. As the Planning Commission and City Council may be aware, this type of provision(s) is usual and customary in most local codes. If the Planning Commission and City Council recall, the possible inclusion ora minor boundary adjustment provision was previously discussed in the 2001 and 2002 Planning and Building Inspections Annual Report. Existing Subdivision Regulations Currently, the City Code classifies a "minor boundary adjustment" as a minor subdivision which subsequently requires review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. The current schedule for development application usually takes 2 months to allow for processing of such requests. Administrative Boundary Adjustment Amendment - Proposed In the event that an applicant(s) is requesting relocation of a lot line and a new lot is not being created nor are any "nonconforming conditions being created, City staff is proposing that the request be reviewed and approved administratively so as to allow for prompter and less costly processing time. Members of the Planning Commission and City Council are advised that an updated survey may need to be submitted as well as a detailed legal description(s) so as to allow for recording at Hennepin County and this information can be requested at the discretion of the City staff. Additionally, it is likely that the request would be routed in the same manner as other development applications. -2310- Subdivision Exemption - Proposed A proposed clause has also been added to allow for Council approval of subdivisions under certain conditions. Refer to City Code Chapter 330:10 Sub& C. Page 2 -2311- CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. 02-2003 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 330 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO PLATTING AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The City of Mound does ordain: Section 330.05 is amended to read as follows: 330.05 Definitions. Subd. 2- 1. Block. - A track of land bounded ~)y streets, or by a combination of streets and public parks, railroad rights-of-way, shoreline of waterways, or boundary lines of municipalities. Subd. ,3 2. Boulevard - That portion of the street right-of-way between the curb line and the property line. Subd. 4 3. Buildinq - Any structure built for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels or movable property of any kind. Subd. ,~ 4. Building Setback Line-A line parallel to the street right-of-way line at any story level of a building and representing the minimum distance that all or any part of the building is set back from said right-of-way line. The minimum horizontal distance between the building foundation wall and a lot line. Subd. 6 5. Butt Lot - Any lot or lots at the end of a block, located between two corner lots. Subd. 7- 6. Comprehensive Plan - A compilation of policy statements, goals, text, standards and maps for guiding the physical, social and economic development, both public and private, of the m unicipality and its environs, a s defined in the Minnesota Metropolitan Land Planning Act, and includes any unit or part of such plan separately adopted and any amendment to such plan or parts thereof. Subd. 8 7. Easement - A grant by an owner of land for the specific use of said land for a public or quasi-public purpose. Subd. 9 8. Final Plat- The final map, drawing or chart on which the subdivider's plan of a subdivision is presented to the City Council for approval and which, if approved, will be submitted to the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. -2312- Subd.-~0 9. Lot - A parcel or portion of land in a subdivision or plat of land separated from other parcels or portions by description, as on a subdivision or record of survey map, for the purpose of sale or lease or separate use thereof. Subd. -1-1- 10. Owner - Any individual, firm, association, syndicate, co-partnership, corporation, trust or any other legal entity having proprietary interest in the land subdivided under this ordinance. Subd.-1-2 11. Planning Commission - The Planning Commission of the City of Mound. Subd.-13 12. Pedestrian Way or Walkway - A public right-of-way across or within a block to provide access for pedestrians. Subd.-14 13. Prelimina~ Plat - A tentative map, drawing or chart of a proposed subdivision meeting requirements herein enumerated. Subd.-1-,5 14. Reverse Frontage Lot (Double Frontage Lot) - A lot extending between two streets with vehicular access potentially limited to one street. Subd.-1-6 15. Streets and Alleys: Street - A public way for vehicular traffic whether designated as a street, highway, thoroughfare, collector, collector parkway, minor collector and minor collector parkway, throughway, road, arterial, minor arterial, avenue, lane, place, or however otherwise designated. The width of a street is measured between right-of-lines. (2) Collector Street - A street which carries through traffic from subdivision street to arterial streets. It includes the principal access streets to a residential development and streets for circulation within such a development. (3) Cul-de-sac - A short, minor street having only one outlet and a vehicular turnabout. (4) Frontage Road - A minor street which is somewhat parallel and adjacent to a minor arterial o r higher functional classification a nd which provides access to abutting properties and protection from through traffic. (5) Subdivision Street - A street of limited continuity used primarily for access to the abutting properties and the local needs of the neighborhood. -2313- (6) Private Street - A street serving as vehicular access to two or more parcels of land which is not dedicated to the public but is owned by one or more private parties. (7) Alley - A minor way providing secondary vehicular access to the side or rear of two or more propertie~ abutting on a 9treet. (8) Minor Arterial and Collectors - Streets designated on the Comprehensive Plan and used primarily by fast moving traffic at heavy volumes as traffic arteries for intercommunication between and amount neighborhoods and other large areas. These streets are so designated for the purpose of applying the subdivision design standards found in Subsection 330.95 of this Code. (9) Commercial/Industrial Street - A street designed for the primary purpose of serving industrial or commercial property. Subd.-1-7- 16. Subdivider - Any person commencing proceedings under this ordinance to effect a subdivision of land for himself/herself or for others. Subd.-l-8 17. Subdivision - The separation of an area, parcel or tract of land into two or more parcels, tracts, lots or long-term leasehold interests where the creation of the leasehold interests necessitate the creation of streets, roads or alleys for the residential, commercial, industrial or other use or any combination thereof, except those separations when a new street is involved, any division of a parcel of land. The term includes re-subdivision and, when appropriate to the context, shall relate to the process of subdividing or to the land subdivided. "'- '-'~, ,o+'""-"* '-~ ~, .... ,~'~,-, Sections 330.10 and 330.12 are amended to read as follows: 330.10 Procedural Requirements. Before dividing any tract of land into two or more lots or parcels, or adjusting any boundaries not covered by M.S.A. 462.352, Subd. 12, the procedures set forth in Subsection.......'~'~n ~, ..~ ...'~* ~-.-~.°"" ..,°h~",~.., ~..~'" ~..,,..,,.......~ ."'~ 330.11 et seq. shall be followed with the exception of those subdivisions as set forth below: Aa Minor Boundary Adjustments. The relocation of a boundary line between two abuttinq, existing parcels of property; such relocation not causinq the creation of a new parcel or parcels and such relocation not violatinq the Zoning Ordinance may be approved by the Director of Community Development and shall be submitted in a form so as to allow for recordinq at Hennepin County. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, a survey may be required. Should the Director of Community Development determine that the relocation of a property boundary may have an adverse effect on either property or may circumvent applicable zoninq requirements the Director of Community Development may require the boundary adjustment to be processed as a Minor Subdivision. -2314- Waiver of Plattin.q. Any parcel of land, either platted or un-platted, that has been combined for tax purposes or for other reasons, cannot be re- separated or divided without an approved subdivision or a waiver of the platting requirements of this code. The City has many old subdivisions with small platted lots which standing alone do not meet current zoning requirements. Many of these lots have been combined for tax purposes and for various other reasons, i.e., to create a building site, to indicate a desire to combine to avoid or reduce special assessments for improvements, etc. A waiver of the platting requirement may be granted by the City Council after receipt of background information provided by City staff. A request for waiver of the platting requirements shall be signed by the property owner on forms prepared for and approved by the City Council, which shall include a provision to reimburse the City for all of its costs. This request or application for a waiver shall be referred to City Staff for review. The review by staff shall be conducted to determine if the division or release of the tax combination and the creating of new Property Identification parcels for tax and building purposes is in compliance with City Codes and all planning and zoning standards and objectives. The staff shall prepare written findings and recommendations for the Council's consideration. The waiver of platting and the release of the tax combination may be approved if it is determined to be in compliance with all City codes. The Council may impose conditions to the waiver and shall require the payment of any deferred or forgiven special assessments that have been avoided by a tax combination. The waiver may be granted without public hearings or without referral to the Planning Commission. Nothing herein shall preclude the staff or Council from referring the matter to the Planning Commission if it is determined that their advise will be helpful in determining if the request meets the City's planning and zoning objectives. If the application for a waiver of platting requests or requires any variances from any City Code requirement, the waiver application shall be processed in accordance with Subsection 330.170 of the City Code and the request shall be referred to the Planning Commission and processed as any other variance request under this subdivision code. (ORD. 79-1996 - 8-27-96) Subdivision Exemption. In any case in which compliance with Subparagraph A and B above will result in an unnecessary hardship to the property owner and the request is not contrary to the platting regulations, the City Council may waive such compliance by adoption of a resolution to that effect and the conveyance may then be recorded. The Council may, at its option, refer such questions to the Planning Commission for recommendation before action. -2315- Section 330,15 is amended to read as follows: 330?.5 330.11 General Procedure, Whenever any subdivision of land is proposed, before any contract is made for the sale of any part thereof and before any permit for the erection of a structure on such proposed subdivision shall be granted, the subdividing owner, or his authorized agent, shall apply for and secure approval from the City of Mound of such proposed subdivision in accordance with the following procedure which includes two steps for a minor subdivision and three steps for a major subdivision. A. Minor Subdivision 1. Sketch plan 2. Final subdivision plat B. Major Subdivision 1. Sketch Plan 2. Preliminary plat 3. Final Subdivision plat Section 330,20 is amended to read as follows: 330.20 330.12 Classification of Subdivisions. Any division or land that is subject to th~sc mGul3t!c,-,s the regulations in Subsection 330.15 above shall be considered to be either a major subdivision or a minor subdivision. The classification shall be determined under the following criteria: Subd. 1. Minor Subdivisions. The following shall be considered minor subdivisions: Ao Residential. Any subdivision of land creating not more than three residential lots. Such lots must conform to all of the following: 1. Have frontage on an existing public road. Not require the construction of any new public facilities or public improvements. 3. There will be no adverse effect on remaining or adjoining property. There is no conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance or Official Map. 5 -2316- 7/16/00 Subd. 2. Major Subdivision. Any division of land regulated by this Ordinance shall be considered a major subdivision unless specifically defined as a minor subdivision in Subd. 1. Passed by the City Council this Published in The Laker the Effective the __ day of ,2003. day of 2003. day of ,2003. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 6 -2317- 7/16/00 $341 Maywood Road Mound, MN S5364 (~) 47~.~ ~o MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Matt Simoneau, Building Official Date: May 22, 2003 Re: Adoption of the 2000 International Property Maintenance Code As approved at the May 13th City Council meeting, the following is the ordinance required to finalize adoption of the 2000 International Property Maintenance Code. -2318- CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. 03-2003 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 319 - HOUSING MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS FOR RENTAL PROPERTIES The City of Mound does ordain: Section 319 is hereby amended to read as follows: 319.05 Purpose. That a certain document, one (1) copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Mound, being marked and designated as the International Property Maintenance Code as published by the International Code Council, Inc., be and is hereby adopted as the Property Maintenance Code of the City of Mound, in the State of Minnesota; for the control of buildings and structures as herein provided; and each and all of the regulations, provisions, penalties, conditions and terms of said Property Maintenance Code are hereby referred to, adopted, and made a part hereof, as if fully set out in this ordinance, with the additions, insertions, deletions and changes, if any, prescribed as follows: Subd. 1. The following sections are hereby revised: Section 101.1 - Insert: City of Mound Section 103.6 -Insert: Not applicable Section 303.14 -Insert: May 1st to September 1st Section 602.3 - Insert: October 1st to May 1st Section 602.4- Insert: October 1st to May 1st Subd. 2. The following sections of the International Property Maintenance Code are hereby deleted in their entirely: Section 302.4. Weeds Section 302.8. Motor Vehicles 319.10 Removal of Snow and Ice. The owner/occupant of any rental dwelling shall be responsible for the removal of snow and ice from parking lots and/or driveways, steps and walkways on the premise. Individual snowfalls of three (3) inches or more or successive snowfalls accumulating to a depth of three (3) inches shall be removed from walkways and steps within 48 hours after cessation of the snowfall. 319.15 Egress Requirements. Every sleeping room below the fourth story shall have at least one (1) operable window or exterior door approved for emergency escape or rescue. The units shall be operable from the inside to provide a full clear opening without the use of separate tools. 1. All egress or rescue windows from sleeping rooms shall have.a total glazed area of at least five (5) square feet. The smallest net clear opening for each 1 -2319- such window shall be twenty (20) inches in width by twenty-four (24) inches in height. Where windows are provided as a means of escape or rescue, they shall have a finished sill height not more than forty-eight (48) inches above the floor. Any such window replaced or newly installed shall be done in accordance with Section 300 of the Mound Ordinance Code and in the Codes adopted therein. Passed by the City Council this ~ day of__ Published in The Laker the __ day of Effective the ~ day of __, 2003. ,2003. ,2003. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 2 -2320- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 03- A RESOLUTION TO DENY THE REQUEST FROM MARK STONE FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6380 BAY RIDGE ROAD TO CREATE TWO (2) LOTS AND A VARIANCE FOR LACK OF STREET FRONTAGE ON AN IMPROVED PUBLIC ROAD P & Z CASE # 03-11 and 03-17 PID NO. 23-117-24-33-0031 WHEREAS, the applicant, Mark Stone, has submitted an application for minor subdivision to divide the property at 6380 Bay Ridge Road to create a new buildable lot; and WHEREAS, proposed Parcel A includes the existing house and Parcel B would include the new buildable lot; and WHEREAS, as part of the minor subdivision, a variance is required for proposed Parcel B as it lacks access on an improved public road; mad WHEREAS, the subject property currently includes an existing single-family home and the applicant is proposing to provide access to the proposed new lot (Parcel B) via a shared driveway easement across proposed Parcel A; and WHEREAS, the property is currently zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential District and subject to the provisions of City Code Chapter 350:620 Subd. 2 which requires a 30-foot front, 1 O-foot side setback(s), a rear setback of (15) feet and minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet; and WHEREAS, while the proposed subdivision meets the lot area, lot depth, and setback stm~dards of the R-1 District, proposed Parcel B lacks access on to an improved public road as the dedicated cul-de-sac on Bay Ridge Road has not been built; and WHEREAS, the application(s) was recommended for approval by Staff subject to conditions; and -2321 - WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request at its April 21, 2003 meeting and unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council deny the minor subdivision and variance application(s) based on the following findings of fact: 1. No frontage on an improved roadway. 2. The need to secure cross access easements for Parcel A through Parcel B. 3. Difficulty due to topography for driveway access. 4. Questionable legal ability to bind future owners with m~ agreement to not contest future roadway improvements. WHEREAS, at its May 13, 2003 meeting, the City Council considered the application(s) m~d unanimously voted to deny the minor subdivision and variance request(s) as recommended by the Planning Commission based on the findings of fact as contained in the record. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. This minor subdivision m~d variance application is hereby denied for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County' Property Infom~ation System: - to be inserted- The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember m~d The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councihnembers voted in the negative: Adopted May 13, 2003 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk -2322- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 03- A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AT 4701 ABERDEEN ROAD P & Z CASE # 03-12 WHEREAS, the applicants, Jim and Mary Albrecht has requested the following variances to allow construction ora detached garage at 4701 Aberdeen Road: Required Requested Variance 20 feet 10 feet 10 feet From Yard and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R-2 Zoning District and subject to the requirements in City Code Chapter 350:630; and WHEREAS, the proposed 24' x 24' front loaded garage been designed to include 2- stalls and include Upper level work space; and WHEREAS, the subject property currently lacks a garage; and WHEREAS, a variance (Resolution No. 91-113) was approved previously for the subject site which allowed construction of a detached garage in the proposed location; and WHEREAS, hardcover is over on the subject site but predates the approval of the Shoreland Ordinance, however, the property owner removed a significant amount of hardcover in Fall 2002 to bring the property closer into compliance with the (40) percent hardcover restriction which is viewed as favorable; and -2323- WHEREAS, the opportunity to store vehicles and other items inside is viewed as positive; and WHEREAS, the adjacent roads are not heavily used; and WHEREAS, the request was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its April 7, 2003 and April 21, 2003 meetings as required by the City Code but did not receive a favorable recommendation due to concerns with hardcover and orientation of the garage doors; and WltEREAS, the request received a recommendation from Staff for approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and approved the request at its May 13, 2003 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant the requested variance subject to the following conditions: A. There be no net increase in hardcover on the site. B. The City Engineer review drainage issues related to the garage and curb cut at Roanoke Lane. C. The previous foundation and retaining wall is subject to review by the Building Official. D. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all costs associated with the variance request. E. The applicant shall be responsible for all necessary building permits. 2. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: Lot 1 and 20, Block 5, Devon The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: -2324- Adopted May 27, 2003 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -2325- X~g 89 ~883 14:5Z:18 ~ia Fax -> 95Zq?ZBGZO ~&ninis~ra~or Page 801 0£ 884 - Frid ay Fax- A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities We apologize events at the Capitol went late into the evening on Friday. Therefore, we are sending a Monday edition of the Friday Fax. Legislative activity cranks-up Legislators have just over two weeks in the regular legislative session to finalize the House and Senate tax proposals, close a $1 billion gap between House and Senate budget-balancing proposals, iron-out differences in several omnibus spending bills and debate hundreds of other issues. The focus this week will be action on the omnibus tax bills and the likely appointment of conference committee members. After a marathon Thursday floor session that adjourned early Friday morning, the House passed the last of eight omnibus spending bills. The Senate finished up their floor session work for the week wrapping up the transportation and health/human services bills late Friday night. The highlights in each spending area are provided below. Criminal Justice Finance The House spends over $1.4 billion on public safety, judiciary, and corrections programs; about $51 rnillion more than Gov. Pawlenty recornmended. The bill cuts the State Fire Marshal's budget by $1.5 million, but allows the division to recover these cuts in fee increases for hotel, resort, and school inspections. It also reduces state funding for CriMNet by $3.5 million. However, state officials plan to use additional federal funds to continue implementation of this statewide criminal justice information system. The proposal raises about $60 million in fees--mostly corning from court fee increases, public defense co- pays, and a $5 surcharge on criminal and traffic offenses. The Senate passed a $650 million criminal justice package (total does not include corrections spending) as part of the state government budget May 5, 2003 Page 1 bill. The Senate bill restores funding for anti- terrorism equipment and training grants to local units of government. It reinstates $4 million for CriMNet projects and protects funding for law enforcement grants. The Senate proposal spends almost $16 million more on 911 programs and dedicates at least 20 cents a month of 911 fees for distribution to public safety answering points. The bill also authorizes additional revenue bonds to fund the build-out of the public safety radio communications system (800 MHz). Omnibus Transportation Finance Earlier this week, the full House passed a $1.2 billion transportation funding bill. The bill closely resembles the governor's recommendation to pay for road projects by borrowing money and leveraging federal funds, not by raising the gas tax. The bill provides no new money for local roads. The Senate transportation package provides $2.1 billion. It increases the gasoline tax from 20 cents to 25 cents per gallon in order to "pay as you go" in funding new projects. In addition, a license tab fee schedule change will generate about $90 million in the first year and $105 million in the second year of the biennium. The Senate bill provides $1.3 billion for trunk highways, $395 million for local and county highways, and $445 million for transit. The measure also allows the commissioner to spend up to $250 million on trunk highway improvements approved by the federal government and designated as adva ncc construction funds. A League-sponsored provision that would allow cities to impose transportation utility fees to pay for street reconstruction and maintenance was removed in the Senate Tax Committee. Omnibus Jobs & Economic Development Finance The House proposal spends $389 million ($334 million general fund) on jobs and economic development programs. The bill takes many of the governor's recommended cuts and includes the governor's recommendation to provide $2 million Fo? moi'e informalion on oily legislalive issues, contacl any member of Ihe League of Minnesota Cities lnlergovernmental Relations team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -2326- ~a~ 89 ~083 14:52:54 ~ia F~x -> 952q?28628 ~&ni~is~ra~or Pag~ 882 -FridayFax- for a University of Minnesota/Mayo Clinic partnership grant. It also pumps additional resources into Roseau for flood recovery and extends the Petrofund program through 2007. A weeMy legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities May 5, 2003 Page 2 to the Office of the State Auditor (OSA), and a proposal transferring best practice reviews from the legislative auditor to the state auditor. The Senate appropriates over $426 million for economic development purposes, $356 million from the general fund. The Senate bill cuts more from contaminated site clean-up grants and the Minnesota Investment fund, and converts the investment fund to a revolving loan program. However, the bill includes additional funds for grants to various workforce development organizations and creates a new job training grant program. The Senate proposal does not merge the departments of Trade & Economic Development (DTED) and Economic Security. The House and Senate both provide more funding for housing programs than the governor recommended. Both proposals also increase the amount that can be spent from the petroleum tank release fund to administer the contamination clean-up program; change the operation of the rural challenge grant program; and add job enhancement as a goal for various DTED programs. The House bill also includes a couple of miscellaneous provisions that would cap fees cities could impose on vendors selling consumer fireworks, and pre-empt cities' ability to set fines and penalties for businesses that sell tobacco to minors. Omnibus State Government Finance The House passed a $474 million omnibus state government finance bill after over ten hours of debate on Thursday, while the Senate spends $557 million on these programs. The House bill contains many policy provisions, including language transferring compensation limit waiver requests and local government pay equity compliance from the Dept. of Employee Relations The proposal would allow the state auditor to charge fees to cover the costs associated with evaluating compensation limit waiver requests from local units of government and administering pay equity compliance. It includes a hiatus from pay equity reporting requirements in 2003 and 2004, and changes the length of the pay equity reporting cycle from every three years to every five years beginning in 2005. Under the House bill, responsibility for conducting best practices reviews is transferred to the OSA beginning in 2004. The bill requires the state auditor to consult with various organizations representing local governments, but it does not appear to continue the Best Practices Advisory Council. These provisions are also traveling in a separate bill--HF 1082 (Samuelson)/SF 919 (Robling)--proposed by the OSA. The Senate did not transfer responsibility for pay equity compliance and compensation limit waivers in its version of the omnibus state government budget bill. However, the Senate State Government Budget Division did pass SF 919 (Robling, R- Jordan), which includes the provisions transferring the best practice review program to the state auditor. Environment, NataraI Resources and Agrlealtare The House bill provides $411 million for natural resources and agriculture programs, while the Senate version appropriates $451 million for these purposes. The House plan increases state park fees and cuts a third of the funding for state ethanol subsidies, paying producers 13 cents a gallon until 2008 when the payments would increase back to the 20-cent level. The Senate proposal raises additional revenue by increasing some recreation fees and cuts For more informalion on city legislative issues, contacl any member of lhe League of Minnesota Cilies Intergovernmanlal Relations team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -2327- ethanol producers to a lesser degree than the House and the Governor, paying producers 16 cents a gallon. Both bills increase water appropriation fees to fund DNR Waters division programs. The bills also contain several policy provisions, including a provision directing the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) to modify its water quality assessment rules. This language is the result of negotiations between the League of Minnesota Cities, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, the Farm Bureau, and the PeA. Conceal and carry law to take effect May 28 -FridayFax- A weekly legislative upclatefrom the League of Minnesota Cities May 5, 2003 Page 3 decide for themselves whether they need to carry a concealed weapon. Three groups supported the legislation - the National Rifle Association, Concealed Carry Reform Now and the Republican Party of Minnesota. Governor Pawlenty this week signed into law a bill that reduces local authority over issuance of concealed handgun permits and is expected to significantly increase the number of permit-holders. The law gives private entities the right to prohibit guns on private property, but preserves the longstanding law that prohibits local units of government from restricting permit holders from bringing concealed weapons to local public places. Guns are allowed in city halls, recreation centers, state a nd county fairgrounds, convention centers and public sports arenas. The Minnesota Personal Protection Act, passed in the Senate on a 37-30 vote and signed into law by Coy. Tim Pawlenty on April 28, removes all authority from police chiefs to issue conceal and carry permits and mandates that sheriffs issue permits to all applicants except those convicted of serious crimes. More than 300 organizations including city councils, statewide police associations, churches and health and education groups opposed the legislation, arguing that the new law would put an est i ma ted 90,000 a ddit ional concea led weapons onto the streets. Currently, fewer than12,000 individuals have permits to carry concealed weapons. Proponents of the bill argued sheriffs had too much discretionary authority and that applicants should An amendment offered in the House on behalf of the League of Minnesota Cities would have allowed public facilities such as city halls, parks, and recreation centers to prohibit concealed weapons on the premises. The amendment failed on a vote of 48 to 84. League staff is in the proce~ of drafting information about what the new law will mean for cities. The document will be available next week and will contain information relating to legal implications and human resource issues as well as details about what rights property-owners--such as cities, schools and private businesses-have to prohibit guns on property. Watch the League's web site and the Cities Bulletin for updates on the availability of the information. House Tax Committee completes tax bill Late Friday, the House Tax Committee completed work on its version of the omnibus tax bill. The bill contains numerous provisions that will impact city budgets in 2003 and beyond. The Senate will likely compile their version of an omnibus tax bill sometime this week, setting up a conference committee with less than two weeks remaining in the regular legislative session. The House bill contains deep cuts in LGA and market value homestead credit for 2003 and 2004-- although the cuts are nearly $75 million lower than the cuts contained in the governor's original budget proposal. The House tax bill has nearly $100 million in additional revenue when compared to the governor's plan due to new revenues generated by a casino operated at the Canterbury Downs racetrack. With this higher tax committee revenue target, the House has reduced the cuts to city LGA and market For more information on city legislative issues, contacl any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Inlergovernmenlal Relations team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -2328- Ma~ 89 2883 14:54:20 Via Fax -> 95247Z8620 ~dni~is~ra~or P~ge 084 0£ 884 'd -Frl ayFax- A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities value homestead credit. Estimates of the cuts will be posted later today on the LMC web site (www.lmnc.or~). Perhaps one of the least understood components of the House tax bill is the revised levy limits for cities and counties. The bill includes severe levy limits that will be in place for the next two year and these limits will impact ALL cities. The new levy limits are severe for two reasonsm they will not allow cities to increase their property tax for current state aid cuts and the computation would no longer include an inflation adjustment. In previous years, each city's levy limit has been directly tied to LGA. If the city's LGA increased, the city's levy limit would be decreased by the same amount. Similarly, reductions in LGA would result in a dollar-for-dollar increase in a city's levy authority. Under the House plan, each city's levy limit for taxes payable in 2004 would no__t increase by the amount of the 2003 reduction in LGA. However, any increased cut in state aids in 2004 beyond the cut in 2003 would result in increased levy authority. May 5, 2003 Page 4 developed so that levy limits would not create an incentive for cities to automatically levy to their maximum. Under the House bill, these same cities would lose all but 30 percent of their unused levy limit. In contrast to the Governor's levy limit proposal, the House plan would use the current law definition of "special levies" which are outside of levy limits--including levies for debt service. The governor's proposal would not have classified all debt levies as "special levies" which would have potentially restricted the ability of a city to increase property taxes to cover debt service for some new debt issues. The House Tax Committee's bill will be introduced today as HF 1597. The bill will be sent to the Ways & Means Committee later today and will likely be on the House floor for final consideration early this week. There is still time to contact your representative to express your concerns about the aid cuts and levy limits contained in the House Tax bill. The levy limit calculation also eliminates the inflationary adjustment based on the implicit price deflator--which is now estimated to be slightly more than 3 percent. The only growth in the levy limit would be based on household growth and one- half of the growth in commercial-industrial market vatue. These two adjustments would only provide very modest levy increases in rapidly growing cities while fully developed cities would receive little, if any increased levy authority. The calculation of levy limits under the House bill also eliminates most of any unused levy authority for cities that did not levy to their limit for 2003. Under current law, cities that are covered by levy limits but who chose to levy at a level less than the limit would preserve any unused levy authority for future years. This feature of levy limits was For mote information on city letl;islaliv¢ issues, conla,"t any member of lhe League of Minnesota C[ties Inler~;overnmental Relations team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -2329- ~ap 89 2883 15:13:89 Via Fax -> 9524?28628 ~8~inis~ra~or Page 881 Of 884 - Frid ay Fax - A weekly legislative update/rom the League of Minnesota Cities Local officials urge the legislature to amend the conceal and carry law May 9, 2003 Page 1 Governor and House propose LGA formula reform Several local officials gathered at the capitol today for a news conference to express concerns with a new law that restricts local authority over the issuance and regulation of handgun permits. The Minnesota Personal Protection Act, which goes into effect on May 28, removes all authority from police chiefs to issue concealed handgun permits and mandates that sheriffs issue permits to all applicants over age 21 that have not been convicted of a serious crime. Under the new law, the number of permit holders is expected to grow from the current 12,000 to 90,000 in the next two years. The new conceal-and-carry law gives schools and private entities the right to prohibit guns, but preserves the longstanding law prohibiting local units of governments from restricting permit holders from bringing concealed weapons to local public places. That means guns are allowed in city halls, municipal recreation centers, libraries, convention centers, and sports arenas. Local officials pointed out these inconsistencies in the application of the law and talked about the considerable confusion surrounding multi-use facilities, such as municipal ice arenas used by schools. Members of the law enforcement community also expressed concerns about their ability to protect citizens on city-owned property under this new law. The League of Minnesota Cities is working with mernbers of the legislature to amend the law to allow cities to choose whether to post signs prohibiting concealed handguns on city property. With a little over a week to go in the legislative session, the League is encouraging city officials to contact their legislators and urge them to pass a bill providing local authority to regulate handguns on city property. The governor and House tax committee have proposed revisions to the formula used to distribute LGA to cities. Both proposals use a formula structure similar to the current law formula, although they measure cities' need and ability to pay somewhat differently. The Senate tax chair is expected to release a LGA reform proposal today that is rumored to be based, in part, on the governor's reform proposal. The proposals eliminate all or most of the grandfathered aid base, which appears to have at least as significant of an impact on the change in distributions as do the new formulae. Importantly, both proposals are coupled with significant decreases in the total appropriation for the program, which has a larger impact on most cities' aid distribution than either the elimination of the grandfather or the changing of the formula. Defining need The governor's LGA proposal would put the entire LGA appropriation through a new needs-based formula. The proposal eliminates the grandfather provision that includes special aid increases for some cities and guarantees that all cities receive at least as much aid as they did in 1993. The governor proposes that the new formula be fully phased-in in 2005, although the commission of revenue has indicated that the governor would consider transition mechanisms to help cities adjust more gradually to the new distribution. In both the governor and House proposals, cities over 2,500 population would have a new need formula, while cities under 2,500 population would continue to use the need definition in the existing formula. Details on these need formulae are available on the LMC website. Defining ability to pay The governor's proposal would continue to use adjusted net tax capacity per capita (ANTC) as the For more information on city legislative issues, conlacl any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relalions learn. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -2330- X~y 89 Z889 15:14:81 Via Fax -> 95Z47ZOGZO ~dninis~ra~or Page 80Z Of 884 -FridayFax- measure of ability to pay, but would also include taconite aids. This change makes taconite area cities appear to have much higher ability to pay that the current formula. The House proposal also uses ANTC and taconite aids, and also includes half of the proceeds from local sales taxes for cities that have such a tax. A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities May 9, 2003 Page 2 The biggest policy issue is whether the amount of dollars in the program will be adequate to fund the needs of cities that exceed their ability to pay. The governor's plan permanently reduces LGA by 40 percent to $352 million. The House plan reduces LGA by 33 percent to $406 million. The House proposal also preserves the portions of the grandfather that have been added since 1993 for specific cities and the special increase granted to Greater Minnesota cities over 10,000 population as part of the 2001 tax reform bill. The House proposal also includes a transition mechanism that phases in the new formula over several years for cities that experience significant changes from their 2004 post-cuts LGA amount to the new formula amount. Policy issues Both proposals redefine need for cities over 2,500 population using the same statistical technique, regression analysis, that was used to create the current LGA formula. The proposals raise many policy issues that should be considered, although the timeframe for legislative consideration is very short. The changes to the ability-to-pay measure - including taconite aids and part of local sales tax revenues - are a significant deviation from current law and have a profound impact on the aid distribution of a narrow group of cities - 27 iron range cities and 9 cities with local sales tax revenues. One of the new need variables, automobile accidents per capita, may be more volatile than other variables typically used in LGA formulae. The proposals use a 3-year average, and the variable is only used for cities over 2,500 population. But for some cities this measure can fluctuate dramatically from year to year, so even a 3-year average may change considerably from year to year. This may cause some cities' LGA to change with some regularity. We will provide more detail on these proposals and on any senate proposal in next week's Cities Bulletin. Watch the LMC website for updates as well. Levy limits remain severe The bill passed by the House on Wednesday will, to a degree, moderate the cuts and levy limits proposed in the original governor's budget. Cities under 2,500 population would, under the House plan, no longer be covered by levy limits. For larger cities, debt levies are exempted and the loss of levy authority for cities that did not "levy to the limit" for 2003 is reduced to 65 percent of unused levy authority. Nonetheless, the levy limits are contained in the House plan are severe and cities over 2,500 population should pay close attention to the structure of the House plan and the final tax developments between now and the end of the session on Monday May 19. Impacts this year For 2003 budgets, new levy limit restrictions do not directly apply. However, the House plan will indirectly impact the current year property tax levy for some cities. The market value homestead credit replaces a portion of the property tax levy that would have otherwise been paid by nearly all homeowners with a state paid credit reimbursement. In other words, the state effectively pays property taxes to each city due to the state-funded credit. The level of aid cuts in the House plan is deep and as a result, not all cities receive sufficient LGA to cover their computed reduction. For these cities, the balance of the cut is deducted from the MVHC reimbursement that the state is scheduled to pay in October and December of this year. As a result, For more information on city lellislative issues, contacl any rn~mbct of the Lea~;ue of Minnesota Cities lnlerl;overnrnental Relations learn. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -2331 - X~y 09 Z003 15:14:44 ~ia Fax -> 95Z4?ZOGZO A~ini~ra~o~ Pa~e 883 0£ 084 -FridayFax- A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities these cities lose a portion of their expected property tax receipts for 2003. May 9, 2003 Page 3 certificates of indebtedness as well aa levies t-or natural disaster response. Of course, any lose of LGA will also have an immediate budgetary impact in 2003 as well. Impact in 2004 The t-Iouse bill extends levy limits for cities over 2,500 population for two more years. The levy limit calculation for each city for 2004 property taxes begins with the 2003 city adjusted levy limit base-- not the actual property tax levy. The adjusted levy limit base is line 8 on last year's levy limit notification form. The previous year's adjusted levy limit base is reduced by three amounts--l) the amount of the 2003 LGA cut for each city, 2) 65 percent of the difference between the city's 2002 (payable 2003) levy limit and its 2002 (payable 2003) actual levy subject to levy limits, and 3) the certified transit property tax replacement aid. The city's 2004 cut is not subtracted because cities are allowed to replace the amount by which the 2004 cut exceeds the 2003 cut with increased property taxes. Cuts in MVI-IC are not subtracted because the MVHC is an "after- levy" adjustment. The new levy limit base is increased by 1) the percentage growth in households as measured by the state demographer and metropolitan council frorn 2001 to 2002, and 2) one-half of the new construction market value of commercial and industrial market value for taxes payable in 2003 divided by the total market value in the city for taxes payable in 2002. The House bill eliminates the inflation adjustment based on the implicit price deflator, which is currently estimated to be slightly more than 3 percent. The House does not change the definitions of "special levies," which continue to be outside the levy limitation. There are 16 categories or' special levies including levies for such expenditures as debt service for bonded indebtedness and most Cities can exceed the levy limits in 2004 with the approval of the voters in a referendum that must be held on or before the first Tuesday in November. Impact in 2005 The levy limit calculation for each city for 2005 property taxes begins with the 2004 city adjusted levy limit base as computed above. This new levy limit base is increased by 1) the percentage growth in households as measured by the state demographer and metropolitan council from 2002 to 2003, and 2) one-half of the new construction market value of commercial and industrial market value for taxes payable in 2004 divided by the total market value in the city for taxes payable in 2003. Cities can exceed the levy limits in 2005 with the approval of the voters in a referendum that must be held on or before the first Tuesday in November. Impacts in 2006 and beyond Under the I-touse bill, levy limits would sunset after taxes payable in 2005 and would be replaced by a reverse referendum process for cities over 2,500 population. Under reverse referendum, a number of voters equal to at least five percent of those voting within the city in the last general state election could force the city to hold a referendum to approve a levy increase proposed by the city council. The petition would have to be filed within 21 days of the public hearing adopting the property tax levy and the election would be held on the second Tuesday in January. If the majority of voters do not vote affirmatively to increase the property tax, the property tax would revert to the previous year's level. The Senate has no/yet announced its position on levy limits. However, during yesterday's Senate tax committee hearing, tax committee chairman, Larry Pogemiller, suggested that a property tax For more infozmation on city leg/slalive issues, conla,"l any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -2332- ~a~ 09 2889 15:15:Z8 ~i~ Fax -> 9524720628 ~&ni~ix~ra~or Pag~ 88q O~ 884 -FridayFax- freeze might be considered by the committee as early as today. More next week. Liquor bills update A weeMylegislative updatefrom theLeagueofMinnesota Cities May 9,2003 Page 4 Conference committees kick off This week the Senate passed their omnibus liquor bill, SF 143/I-IF 719. In Senate debate there was discussion and some action on a number of substantive policy issues relating to liquor business in Minnesota. Senator Mark Ourada (R-Buffalo) amended the bill to authorize 10 pm off-sale closings in Minneapolis, St. Paul and those sale operations within 15 miles of these cities that are within the same county. Currently, Monday through Thursday, these operations must close by 8 pm. There was not much debate on this provision. Senator Linda Higgins (DFL-Minneapolis) and Senator Ourada (R-Buffalo) passed an amendment to allow for 2 a.m. bar closing. Cities could be more restrictive if they chose so. An amendment to the Higgins/Ourada amendment that would have sunset the 2 a.m. law in two years failed. On Thursday Governor Pawlenty indicated his support for the 2 a.m. bar close as long as a portion of the new sales tax revenues generated would go towards putting more law enforcement officers on the road. It is unclear at this point how revenues raised would be calculated and dispersed. The governor is suggesting allocating 40 percent toward hiring new troopers, 40 percent to the general fund, and 20 percent for a grant program for affected police forces. Unless the House adopts the Senate's c~nges to I-IF 719, a conference committee will be appointed soon and the differences worked out. Chief authors of the bill are Senator Sandy Pappas (DFL-St. Paul) and Representative Michael Beard (R-Shakopee). Conferees have not yet been appointed. More on these bills in next week's LMC Bulletin. The Senate and House have taken floor debate and votes on their major spending bills with the exception of the Senate's major tax bill. Most of the conference committees will have started their work by the end of the day Friday. The first work of conference committees is always a walk-through by staff of the two bills pointing out where the differences are. The next ten days of session will be filled with long meetings to iron out the compromises. For questions on specific provisions in these bills, contact IGR staff. Conferees for the various bills relating to municipalities are: State Government Omnibus Bill (SF 1524/HF 749) Senate:. Ranum; Kubly; Vlckerman; Saxhaug; Metzen House: Haas; Rhodes; Krinkie; Erickson; Gerlach Economic Deployment/Agriculture/Environment Omnibus Bill (HF 779'/HF 1523) Senate:. Sams; Marry; Scheid; Frederickson; Dille House: Ozment; Harder; Hackbarth; Gunther; Dill *HF 748 is the economic development bill and I-IF 752 is the agriculture omnibus bills. All three of these House bills line up with Senator Sam's large budget committee; all three bills will be conferenced by this group. Transportation Omnibus Bill (I-IF 627/SF 1534) Senate:. Johnson, Dean; Marko, Dibble; Rest; Langseth House: Kuisle; Holberg; Westerberg; Anderson, Bruce; Ruth Conferees for K-12 education, higher education, and health/human services omnibus bills have been appointed as well, Those conferees can be found on the legislative websites at http://www.senat e,leg.state, mn.us/under conference committee activity. For more information on city legislative [,~suea, contact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations learn, 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -2333- X~y 1G Z889 14:44:8G ~ia Fax -> 95Z4?ZSGZ8 Adninis~r~or Page 881 Of 884 Budget agreement? The governor, House and Senate worked into the early morning hours on the outlines of an agreement to end the 2003 legislative session. As of this morning, the plan would abandon the Senate's $1.3 billion increase in income, cigarette and state property tax increases and would also abandon the House "Racino" plan that would have generated approximately $100 million per year in revenues. Both plans would have used some of the increased revenues to reduce cuts in city aid programs. - Frid ay Fax - A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities May 16, 2003 Page 1 Senate version of the tax bill and therefore, a conference committee has not yet been appointed. Nonetheless, there appears to be some optimism in the capitol hails today. However, by abandoning new tax revenue sources in the House and Senate bills, the biennial cuts to cities still might not revert to the $435 million originally proposed by the governor. There is apparently some agreement to tap proposed House and Senate fee increases to provide roughly $200 million in additional state revenues that would be used in part to reduce city aid cuts. The agreement apparently also includes a small $150 million to $200 million bonding bill, however, the contents of that bill have not been made public. According to several key officials, the legislature will not be able to complete its work before the Monday midnight deadline. However, the current goal is to have conference committees complete their negotiations by midnight on Monday and to use the agreements as the basis for new bills that would be introduced in a short special session. Of course, this tentative agreement outline will probably change throughout the day, the weekend and before the legislature adjourns on Monday. The House has not yet received the Session on conceal-and-carry added to LMC Annual Conference City officials can learn about the new conceal- and-carry law during a session at the League's 90th Annual Conference, June 18~20 in St. Cloud. The Minnesota Personal Protection Act, signed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, restricts the ability of city officials to govern the communities they were elected to serve. In addition, it removes the authority of municipal police chiefs to issue concealed weapons permits and requires sheriffs to issue permits to any applicant over age 21 who has not been convicted of a serious crime. The law also prevents cities from prohibiting guns in publicly-owned facilities, such as city halls, parks, and community centers. This special session will include: · General overview of the law · Discussion of liability issues: How to manage the exposures and risks. · Practical ways to address the safety concerns of the public and city employee. · Question and answer session. · Session materials and handouts to share with your colleagues. Register online for the Annual Conference today by visiting the Conferences section of the LMC web site at: www.lmnc.org. For more information on city legislalive issues, ¢0nlact any m~mber of Ihe l..~ague of M[nnesola Cilies Intergovernmental Relations team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -2334- Ma9 16 2883 14:44:44 ~ia Pax -> 95247ZOGZO Odninis~ra~or Page 802 0£ 884 -FridayFax- Other resources related to conceal-and- carry League staff has analyzed the new conceal-and- carry law, and created a number of tools for members. Please visit the League web site to A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities May 16, 2003 Page 2 Conference committee chairs have stated they will meet once they receive budget targets stemming from an agreement on a tax package between the governor, the House and the Senate. access: Information memo explaining the implications of the law. · Talking points on the issue. · Sample letter to the editor that can be tailored for your local newspaper. · Resolution passed by the Shorewood City Council opposing concealed weapons on public property, and supporting a measure to allow cities to post signs to prohibit weapons on city property. · Overview ora satellite training session to be held May 20, 1-3 p.m. Colfference committee activity slows to crawl, hectic weekend may lie ahead Traditionally, the last week of the legislative session is filled with late nights and intense decision-making. Instead, virtually all conference committees cancelled meetings this week while House and Senate floor sessions have continued late into the evenings to process other remaining bills. If the agreement comes today (see related article), expect a flurry of conference committee activity over the weekend. The legislature must adjourn by 7:00 Tuesday morning (5/20) if they intend to avoid a special session. With the large volume of work remaining, committees will need to meet virtually around the clock over the weekend in order to submit conference reports for final consideration. Watch for a status report on omnibus bills in next week's Cities Bulletin. More deficits to come? As the legislature struggles to address the current projected $4.2 billion state budget deficit and bring a close this legislative session, recent economic news suggests that we might be in for additional future state budget deficits. In other words, our state financial struggles may be far from over. Quoting the Minnesota Department of Finance's most recent economic update: With the stalemate over the budget, omnibus bill conference committees have had little direction from legislative leaders. Most conference committees have been named, and many have held organizational meetings to review bill comparisons and adopt common provisions. But none have made significant decisions. "The reason for concern is that the U.S. economy is visibly struggling. The most noticeable signs have come in the labor market. U.S. payroll employment fell by more than 465,000jobs in February and March. There are now fewer jobs in the U.S. than at any time since December 1999, more than 15 months before the start of the recession." In today's Wall Street Journal, a story on the nation's economy included the following: For mote information on city legislalive issues, contact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities lnte~'~ove~'nmental Relations team, 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -2335- Xap 1G 2883 14:45:22 Via Fax -> 95Z4?ZflGZO Adminis~ra%or Page 883 Of 884 - Frid ay Fax - A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities May 16, 2003 Page 3 "Friday's CPI report could further fan concerns about a destabilizing fall in prices. The persistence of the economic downturn since 2001 has made Fed policy makers increasingly concerned about the possibility of a spiral of falling prices that might tip the economy back into recession." Instability in the nation's economy could very well trickle down to Minnesota and to the Minnesota state budget, which is highly reliant on income and sales tax revenues. These same revenues are generally very sensitive to economic downturns and if the nation's economy slips into a second recession, revenues could again turn sour. The next official state budget forecast will not be released until late November or early December. If that forecast shows an additional state deficit into the future, we may be back in St. Paul in 2004 again struggling to balance a continuing state deficit. A victory for cities! The League of Minnesota Cities joined forces with schools and business organizations this year to reform Minnesota's joint and several liability law. A bill amending this law passed both the House and Senate on Tuesday and is on its way to the governor for his approval. The bill reforms the starers joint and several liability law so that a defendant would have to be more than 50% at fault before it could be held responsible for 100% of a damage award. Current law provides that private defendants must be more than 15% at fault to be liable for the full award. For the state and municipalities the threshold is 35 percent. The House passed a bill early in the legislative session containing these changes, but the Senate did not take-up the issue on the floor. In an effort to force a Senate vote, the House Civil Law committee amended the House joint and several liability proposal on to an unrelated Senate bill, SF 872 (Scheid). On Tuesday, the full House debated the amended bill on the floor and passed it on an 80 to 51 vote. That same night, the Senate attempted to pass the joint and several liability bill, SF 1462 (Betzold), which had won approval from the Senate Judiciary committee a month ago. The Senate proposal included the 50% threshold for joint and several liability, but it also permitted aggregation of defendants' fault and created a new cause of action for bad faith claims against insurers. The League expressed concerns with these two additional provisions in the Senate bill. The bill failed on a 25-40 vote. Since the House sent their proposal over as an amended Senate bill, it forced the Senate to take an up-or-down vote on the measure. The Senate author moved to concur with the House changes, and the bill passed with 43 votes. The governor is expected to sign the bill next week. To track the governor's action on this legislation, visit his web site at: _h_t[p:#www.governor, s__ta_Le.m~!_.us, and click on the "Legislation" link. Senate bill on 911 multi-line phone system requirements gives cities a break S.F. 653 (Sams) as reported to the Senate floor last week contains changes to the previous version of the bill that will give cities more For more/nformalion on oily legislative/,~$ues, conlact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -2336- Hag 1G 2003 14:4G:03 ~ia Fax -> 9524720GZ0 ~ni~a~or ~a§e 004 O[ 004 -FridayFax- A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities flexibility in complying with proposed 911 call-back and emergency response location requirements for city owned or operated PBX or multi-line phone systems. The new language (not yet incorporated in H.F. 622 - Strachan) adds a provision to the proposed mu lti-line telephone system 911 requirements that would allow cities to comply when they purchase such systems after June 30, 2004. Local 911 dispatch operations officials who have supported the legislation are in agreement with the changes. This provision would permit cities to make changes to city phone systems to conform with propose 911 requirements when purchasing and installing new PBX or multi-station hardware and services after that date. After June 30, 2004, the systems cities purchase would be required to permit 911 dialing and ensure that 911 calls that originate from the system "clearly identify the emergency location." The bill defines such locational information as the location to which emergency responders are dispatched and mandates that the locational in formation provide "a reasonable opportunity" for the emergency response team to locate a person who placed the 911call anywhere within that location. May 16, 2003 Page 4 after June 30, 2004, cities and other operators of business, shared residential, hotel and motel multi-line phone systems must "demonstrate or otherwise inform" phone system users how to call for 911 emergency assistance from the phone they use. The Senate bill, SF 653, also contains language that provides liability protection that makes cities not liable for civil damages or penalties under acts and omissions other than for "willful or wanton misconduct" with respect to complying with the proposed requirements in the legislation. HF 622 does not currently contain liability protection provisions. There is no requirement in the current version of S.F. 653 requiring that cities (or other local units of government) to upgrade or replace current equipment. The change noted above means that if current city phone systems do not meet the 911 requirements proposed in the bill, cities will only be required to comply with the call-back and emergency response location requirements in the future (after June 30, 2004). Other features of the both the House and Senate versions of the bill do require that after that, F0t mote information on city legislative i'~suea, contact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relati0na team. 653..281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -23377 MOUND PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY MEETING Monday May 12, 2003 4:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Project schedule and progress update. 2. Discuss day / time for construction meetings. 3. Excel power lines contract. 4. Review final parking plan. 5. Miscellaneous items. a. Landscape work at Eischens property and construction easement. b. Decon shower. c. Commercial dishwasher - cost of modifications. d. Next team meeting. 6. Adjourn -2338- Meeting Minutes Mound Public Safety Facility Pm-Construction Meeting Meeting held on 05/08/03 Date printed 05/14/03 The meeting was convened at 1 PM Monday, May 8, 2003 at Mound Fire Station: Present: Greg Pederson City GP Matt Breunig Empirehouse MB Jeff Andersen City JA Darrin Grebinoski Midwest Land DA Jerry Wagoner Ridgedale Ele. JW Russ Engebretson St. Cloud Rest. RE Bob Anderson Kellington BA Rod Walters Axel Ohman RW Brad Jacobs Western Stl BJ Vince Zachman Hanson VZ Sue Struthers TC Garage Dr SS Jesse Roush Veit JR Galen Peterson Kelleher GA Todd Christopherson Amcon TC Mike Knorr Allied Mech MK Bob Gamades Amcon BG Ron Lauritsen Nova-Frost RL Don Geiger Amcon DG 1. Introductions 1.1. Project Manager: Don Geiger, 952-200-4390 1.2. Superintendent: Bob Gamades, 952-200-4272 1.3. All contractors to fax DG at job site, after May 16, with name, direct dial/extension number, cell phone and e-mail address of project manager 1.4. An updated contact list will be forwarded to all contractors once the above information is received. Direct coordination between contractors is anticipated on this project. 2. Site Information 2.1. Address: 2415 Wilshire Blvd., Mound, MN 55364 2.2. Site Phone: 952-472-0835 Site Fax: 952-472-0836. 3. Safety 3.1. Safety is the responsibility of all contractors. If an unsafe condition is seen in the field all workers should inform person doing the work or the superintendent. 3.2. MSDS and AWAIR submittals should be mailed to the Amcon offices or delivered to the site, there is no mail delivery to the site. All contractors should forward this information at their earliest convenience. 3.3. Hard hats and safety vests are required of all works. Hard hats will be required at all times until all overhead work is completed. Safety vests will be required while crane and heavy equipment operations are in progress and as determined by the superintendent. 3.4. Ensure workers use safety glasses at all times they are required. 3.5. Practice caution when crossing street between job trailer and site. 3.6. BG will conduct weekly foreman safety meetings. 4. When contractors are sending deliveries to the job site, ensure the delivery company has a contact name and phone number for the person receiving the delivery. The superintendent is not responsible for signing for deliveries or finding a person to accept the delivery. C:\WlNDOWS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content. lE5ffvlBO5CHI7ffvlPS 05 08 03 Precon.doc -2339- Page 1 of 3 Meeting held on 05/08/03 Date printed 05/14/03 5. If your company has not yet forwarded Bond, Insurance, Contracts, Sub List and other required submittals to our office, do so at your earliest convenience. Do not wait until a week before you are starting work at the site to send this information, if there are any errors in the information, we will require time to get corrected. 6. Parking will be permitted at the school parking lot June 10 to August 10. We intend on having parking on site after this date. Parking prior to June 10 will have to be on the surrounding streets. Please be respectful of parking restrictions and access to adjacent residences and businesses. 7. All contractors should have received two (2) sets of plans as required by specifications, if you have not please contact BG at the job site and arrange to pick up plans by May 23. If contractors require additional sets of plans please make arrangements to pick up with BG at the site on a first come first serve basis after May 23. 8. All contractors are responsible for their own survey. Henry Nelson at MFRA, the project Civil Engineers, is available for this service. His phone number is 763-476-6010. 9. If you are responsible for a permit, i.e. mechanical and electrical, please have copy of permit and original signature card forwarded to the job site at your earliest convenience. Permits must be on site prior to commencing work. 10. Please note the following information on Pay Applications, if you have any questions please call Don Geiger. 10.1. Due on 25th of month 10.2. Round everything to the nearest dollar 10.3. Mobilization and General Conditions should be billed in an amount equal to the percent of contract completed. 10.4. Change Orders can be billed on your Pay Application when you have received an Amcon Change Order form for your signature. Return Change Order forms with your Pay Application. 10.5. ALL contracts have a 5% retainage 10.6. Materials not on site need Owner approval prior to billing on Pay Application. Any request for approval should be forwarded through DG. 10.7. Include a line item for Clean Up of 2% of your total contract on your A702, Schedule of Values. This item can be billed out similar to your General Conditions and Mobilization. 11. Every Friday, after the project is enclosed, the building will be swept down. This will be accomplished using labor from the contractors on site. BG will determine the amount of manpower required and which contractors will supply that manpower on a rotating basis. BG will notify the foreman on site if you are required so supply manpower for that week. 12. Site Meetings will be every Tuesday at 10:00, the contractors project manager will be expected to attend all site meetings for the weeks you have manpower on site and one week prior to the start of your work. The first Site Meeting will be on Thursday, May 22 at 10:00 and the next meeting will be on Tuesday, May 27 at 10:00 and every following Tuesday. 13. Submittals 13.1. Forward all submittals to Amcon at your earliest convenience. 13.2. Allow two (2) weeks in your scheduling for processing of submittals by Architect and Engineer. 13.3. Please review submittal requirements in specifications and include all required information on submittals. C:\WlNDOWS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content. lE5~vlBO5CHI7~MPS 05 08 03 Precon.doc -2340- Page 2 of 3 GITY OF Meeting held on 05/08/03 Date pdnted 05/14/03 13.4. Submit 1 Reproducible and 4 prints 14. Testing and inspections 14.1 .Contractors are to call for inspections related to their work. 14.2.Contact BG for testing required, if possible 2 days in advance. 14.3.See Section 01210 for a partial summary of tests and inspections. 15. Forward Contract Closeout information to our office at your earliest convenience for review by Amcon, Architect and Engineer. See Section 01700 for closeout requirements. Forward copy of as- builts as early as possible to the job site for reference. 16. RL requested information on status of Right of Way permit for street work. Will require rerouting of traffic. l?. Schedule, see attached. Forward any questions or comments in writing to BG at the job site by May 23.. 18. Minutes by DG. Call if any missing items or discrepancy. C:\WINDOWS\Local SeEings\Temporary Internet Files\Content. lE5~lBO5CHI7~v~PS 05 08 03 Precon.doc -2341 - Page 3 of 3 CITY OF MOUHI~ Meeting Minutes Mound Public Safety Facility Meeting held on 4/21/03 Date printed 05/14/03 The meeting was convened at 4 PM Monday, May 12, 2003 at Mound Fire Station: Present: Kandis Hanson City KH Mile Britz Greg Pederson City GP Don Geiger John McKinley City JM SEH MB Amcon DG 10. 11. 12. Discussed StoneGuard floor coating. GP suggested using StoneShield in the kitchen. Will schedule meeting with sales rep from company to discuss. Material is approved by the State Health Department. MB to do alternate as a Proposal Request to see what the cost difference is from specified tile. DG discussed schedule. Geopiers are complete, % weed ahead of schedule. Currently placing footings on the lower level. Lost a day today due to dewatering of footing excavations. Thursday, May 8, held Pre-Construction meeting at site. Circulated schedule handed out at Pre-Construction meeting. Contractors not attending meeting will receive schedule with minutes. Giving contractors one week to respond to schedule. Next site meeting to be 10:00, May 22; following meetings will be on Tuesdays at 10:00. Xcel sent back the contractor for burying the power lines; need to include check when it is sent in. Will be sent in with check on Wednesday. Reviewed final parking scheme. MB will forward a proposal request, PR-6, on Wednesday for pricing by contractors. The Eischens, neighbors to the south, have requested that a high point on their property, running along the south property line, be lowered. They have agreed that for lowering this area that would agree to a 5'-0" construction easement on their land, John Cameron is writing the easement. DG suggested that any agreement include full description of landscaping of the area to be disturbed by construction, suggested seeding. This would also possibly allow the retaining wall height to be lowered. Discussion continued on the triangular section at Wilshire belonging to the City. It was decided that the neighbors bituminous drive would have to be saw cut and removed at the property line. KH wished to approve of the parking lot lighting; the City has changed their standard streetlight. KH requested pricing to replace the existing to remain parking lot lighting at City Hall to match the new lighting for the Public Safety Facility. MB to investigate including a decontamination shower in the design. The donated dishwasher should be at the temporary Fire Station in the next week or so. The cost of reworking the kitchen to incorporate the dishwasher is estimated at $6000, the kitchen designer supplied price. The cost of incorporating the dishwasher will be taken from the contingency. DG to notify KH when drive to City Hall parking lot is to be reworked. City is planning a lunch for the employees and wishes to hold at City Hall if construction of the ddve has not start by the last Wednesday of May. City will put the furniture out for bid. Will pay Volker for their design services. Future meetings will be held on the first Tuesday of the month at 8:30, prior to the contractor site meetings. Meeting adjourned at 5:30 PM~ Minutes by DG. Call if any missing items or discrepancy. C:\WINDOWS\Local Settings\Temporar7 Internet Files\Content. lE5~vlBO5CHI7WIPS 05 12 03.doc -2342- Page 1 of 1 PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES May 8, 2003 Present: Chair Susan Taylor, Co-Chair Derrick Hentz, Commissioners John Beise, Norman Domholt, Ron Motyka, and Council Representative Bob Brown Also Present: Parks Director Jim Fackler and Recording Secretary Denice Widmer Absent and Excused: Gene Hostetler Citizens Present: Tina Nutter 6126 Kathleen Tott 2374 Marshall & Teleen Saunders Kassie Ricke Don Landon Colleen Furhman Audrey Heinsch Jerry and Karen Kristin Vandenheuvel Barry 3t ~ane .11 Lane ar Mill Mill Mill Lane Mill Lane ighland Blvd Meeting called to order by Chair 7:35pm. APPROVAL OF APRIL 10. MOTION by B by Beise. Motion carded. e None e stated for those the proj Brown is not the play court in W/RESIDENTS: get input from the residents and displayed a Robbins, 3036 Highland Blvd, asked what the is and was told between $30,000.00 and $35,000.00. Bob this project is funded by the Park Dedication Fund, which city's budget. Robbins stated he was in favor of replacing but asked for pricing on tennis courts and/or a short basketball ~arts of the park. Fackler stated he would get figures together. DISCUSS: ROTTLUND PARK Those present met with Susan Taylor before the scheduled Parks meeting in an attempt to come to a general consensus on the plans for their park. Tina Nutter acting as spokesperson, presented the following request: To set $4,000 aside ($2,000.00 to cover any overage, and $2,000.00 for a future dock.) Out of the remaining $26,000.00; a gazebo, 4 one-sided benches, 1 picnic table, 1 garbage can, 1 drinking fountain, landscaping, retaining (boulder) wall, and playstructure. -2344- e e ge Nutter presented a detailed site sketch and asked that they be allowed to meet to discuss the 3 drawings requested from each of the two contractors before the next POSAC meeting. Nutter also stated they are willing to volunteer their time and efforts towards contacting nurseries, labor at the park, etc, as they are anxious to get the project going. Fackler stated that he would contact the contractors ASAP. DISCUSS: 2004 CAPITAL OUTLAY Brown stated that there will be no money for capital outlay in 2004. Fackler agreed. MOTION by Beise to submit the same requests as in 2003 exception of the Skate Park, for the 2004 budget. SECOND by carried. REVIEW: GOALS Taylor gave a brief update on her forfeited property was also discussed and B~ streets/unimproved roads, be added to John Cameron regarding the street discussed and Widmer was directed Manager. Tax check w/ Motyka relayed that he had b~ funding lifeguards on the Fackler will check w/ noted that the VFW does a lot fr contacted bl their interest in from through Labor Day. Servic~ this. Brown DISCUSS: LE Discuss: Highl wiZ to the next meeting. Plans Pul: 2004 VFW- Li Beise raised Rottlund. on the issue REPORTS: width of Outlot C due to the placement of the stones by ASAP. Brief discussion between Beise and Fackler followed of swings at Highland Park. City Council Representative: No report Parks Director: Hiring seasonal help. Skate Park moving ahead. MOTION by Hentz to adjourn the meeting. SECOND by Motyka. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:50pm. -2345- 2 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster READING OF MINUTES. 4/23/03 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. WATER STRUCTURES A) (*) 2003 Multiple Dock Licenses, staff recommends Board approval of 2003 renewal, without change, multiple dock license application for Big Island, Inc.; B) James Haug and Kelly Johnson, consideration of draft Findings of Fact and Order for approval of a dock length variance application; c) City of Deephaven, consideration of new launching ramp (minor change) application to move the existing make-ready dock from the south side of the launch ramp to the north side; D) Gideons Point HOA, new multiple dock license and variance applications for 51 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 2,553 of shoreline. The proposed vadance application is to amend a previously approved variance at Lots 1-5 (Public Hearing conducted at the 4/23/03 Regular Board Meeting); E) Additional Business; PUBLIC HEARINGS · Herzog Acres Association, non-conforming, multiple dock license application to reconfigure the non-conforming facility under LMCD Code Section 2.015. 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration Wayzata Marine, Inc., non-conforming, multiple dock license and variance applications for the non-conforming facility on Maxwell Bay. The proposed variance application is for variance from LMCD Code for side setback requirements. 1. Public Headng 2. Discussion and/or Consideration -2346- Howards Point Marina, new multiple dock license application to license 37 off-lake storage Boat Storage Units (BSU's) under LMCD.Code Section 2.045. 1. Public Headng 2. Discussion and/or Consideration 2. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A) 2003 EWM Harvesting Season, staff overview of project; B) (*) 2003 Truck Hauling Bids, staff recommends Board approval of trucking hauling bids for the 2003 EWM Harvesting Season as outlined in the 5/9/03 staff memo; C) Additional Business; 3. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers (4/15/03 - 4/30/03); B) (*) March financial summary and balance sheet; C) Review of timetable to consider draft 2004 LMCD Budget; D) Additional Business; 4. LAKE USE & RECREATION A) (*) 2003 Liquor Licenses, staff recommends Board approval of the following: · Renewal Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License applications for the charter boat, Holiday Fair; · Full refund of the $500 deposit for the preliminary investigation conducted for the charter boat, Sunstar. B) Goldwave Cruises, Inc., staff recommends Board approval of refund for withdrawn charter boat and Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License applications as outlined in 5/14/03 staff memo (handout); C) Additional Business; 5. ADMINISTRATION 6. SAVE THE LAKE 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10.ADJOURNMENT -2347- DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:1)0 PM, Wednesday, APril 23, 2003 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Foster called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Orv Burma, Mound; Miles Canning, Greenwood; Paul Knudsen, Minnetrista; Tom Seuntjens, Minnetonka Beach. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Lili McMillan, Orono; Herb SUerth, Woodland; Jose Valdesuso, Excelsior; Katy Van Hercke, Minnetonka; Victoria has no appointed member. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster There were no Chair announcements. READING OF MINUTES. 4/9/03 LMCD Regular Board Meeting MOTION: Skramstad moved, Seuntjens seconded to approve the minutes from the 4/9/03 Regular Board Meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes (5), Abstained (3, Burma, Canning, Foster); motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda. There were no comments from person in attendance on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA. Consent agenda items with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda, Nelson moved, Skramstad seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carded unanimously. Item so approved iocluded: lA, 2003 Multiple Dock Licenses, staff recommends approval of 2003 renewal, without change, multiple dock license applications for Chimo HOA and Seton Twin Homes; 2A, Minutes from the 3/11/03 "Save the Lake" Advisory Committee Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS · James Houg & Kelly Johnson, variance application from LMCD Code for dock length reqUirements. Foster opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m, and asked for background from staff. -2348- Lake' Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 23, 2003 Page 2 Harper made the following comments: · James Houg & Kelly Johnson, 4738 Kildare Road, have submitted a variance application for Board consideration on Black Lake in the City of Mound. The application has been submitted for vadance from LMCD Code for dock length requirements, with a physical hardship of emergent vegetation · Because of emergent vegetation, the applicant has submitted a variance application for a dock that would extend approximately 238' from the 929.4' NGVD shoreline to reach open, navigable water. The applicant has proposed to install two 14' X 27' three-sided slips on approximately 115' of 929.4' shoreline at the site. · Code Section 2.01, subd. 1 prohibits a person from using any area of the Lake outside an authorized dock use area for docking and storage of watercraft. These three sides are further defined by Code for dock length and minimum side setback requirements. The proposed dock does not comply with Code for dock length restrictions. Maximum dock length at this site, without a variance from Code, is 100' from the 929.4' shoreline. The applicant has proposed a dock that would extend approximately 238' from the 929.4' shoreline. Because the proposed dock would extend beyond 100' from the 929.4' shoreline, it would need to maintain a minimum of 20' side setbacks from the extended side site lines. The proposed dock would meet the 20' side setbacks. · Code Section 1.07 allows the Board to consider applications for variance from Code where practical difficulties or particular hardships exist, with whatever conditions are deemed necessary. To make a determination on whether the proposed practical difficulty and/or particular hardship are caused by the application of the Code, he recommended that the Board apply decision standards that ask five questions. They include: 1) Is the proposed use reasonable?, 2) Would it be unreasonable to require conformance to the ordinance?, 3) Is the difficulty of conforming to the ordinance due to circumstances unique to the property?, 4) Is the problem one created by the applicant?, and 5) Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? · In review of.the proposed variance application, staff believes the proposed use is reasonable for a 100'+ tot. It would be unreasonable for the applicant to come in conformance with the dock length limitation of 100' from the 929.4' shoreline due to cimumstances unique to the property, which include emergent vegetation. Staff believes the proposed dock would not alter the essential character of the area because there are several similar docks in the area that may require future dock length variances. Because of the proposed dock length, the Board in the past has periodically restricted the size and number of watercraft allowed in similar circumstances. · In compliance with MN DNR General Permit 97-6098, the MN DNR and the City of Mound were provided a copy of the proposed variance application on 4/10/03, with comments due in the Distdct office by 4/21/03. Staff had not received feedback from the MN DNR on the proposed variance application. Staff received a memo from Sarah Smith, Mound Community Development Director. The memo stated an application for minor subdivision of the property to create (2) lots was submitted around April 1, 2003 but was deemed to be incomplete, in the event a subdivision is approved, the property will no longer qualify as a "lot of Record" according to the City Code. She also stated that the City of Mound is the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) for enforcement of the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. Therefore, any wetland permitting issues associated with the dock placement may require review and approval by the City of Mound. · Staff believes the proposed dock length vadance application has a justified physical hardship of emergent vegetation and the Board could direct attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of it. The Board might want to consider restricting the size and number of watercraft allowed to be stored at the proposed dock. -2349- Lake' Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 23, 2003 Page 3 McMillan and Suerth ardved at 7:10 p.m. Foster questioned why the applicant would need two large slips and was concerned about the possible rental of one of the slips to a person who does not live at the site. Foster asked for comments from the applicant. James Houg, 4738 Kildare Road stated the reason why he had applied for two large slips was so the new potential buyer would not have to come in for a new variance if they wanted to add a boat in the future. He added that the potential buyer is looking for a slip for his cruiser and he may buy a ski boat in the future. Foster asked the Board if they had any questions for the applicant. Babcock asked the applicant if the City of Mound would allow the subdivision because of the minimum lot size requirements and the required setbacks to lake and road. Houg stated he is in the beginning stages of applying to the city of Mound for a minor subdivision. Babcock asked the applicant the dimensions and the lots that would be subdivided off the lot. Houg stated that lots 34 and 35 would be subdivided and are both 40'X 90', He further clarified that part of lot 33 would be taken for the minor subdivision. Babcock stated that the extended property line depicted on the proposed site plan would not be accurate if the lot is subdivided. He stated that if the shoreline being applied towards the application changes in the future, the variance becomes invalid and requires a new application. Houg clarified that if the variance is approved as proposed with the existing lot, it is fine as long as the lot isn't subdivided. If a minor subdivision is done, the variance will change and would not be continued, Babcock asked if the lot shown is the lot that is associated with the proposed variance including lots 33, 34, 35 and 36. Houg stated the variance would include lots 8, 9, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36. Foster asked if there was anyone from the public who would like to address the Board concerning this application. Linda Hubacher, 4731 Kildare Rd., asked for clarification on the location of the proposed dock. Foster stated the dock is proposed to be in the same location as the existing dock with proposed modifications at the end to construct two three sided slips. She was also given a proposed site plan. Ambrose arrived at 7:25 p.m. There being no further comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. -2350- Lake' Minnetonka Conservation District Regular' Board Meeting April 23, 2003 Page 4 MOTION: McMIIlan moved, Canning seconded to direct attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the James Houg & Kelly Johnson dock length vadance Subject to: 1) allowing a dock length not to exceed 238' originating at the point shown on the site plan 2) with two, three sided slips not to exceed 14' X 27' each for the storage of two watercraft. Babcock proposed a friendly amendment to the motion with the following conditions: 1) the two watercraft stored at the dock must be owned and registered to residents of the property associated with the variance, 2) the shoreline that would include lots 7, 8, 9, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 as platted are property associated with this variance application and if the underlying shoreline changes, the variance becomes null and void, 3) no temporary iow water variances will ever be issued for this site. McMillan and Canning agreed to this. Foster expressed his concem about approving two large BSU's at the site. He stated the applicant has indicated that the potential new owner has one large boat and will possibly buy a ski boat in the future. Foster explained that he does not feel comfortable granting a variance for potential rental use. AMENDED Babcock moved, Burma seconded to amend the original motion to only allow one, three MOTION: sided slip with a 14' X 27' BSU. VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION: Ayes (5), Nayes (6; Ambrose, Canning, Knudsen, McMillan, Skramstad, Suerth); amended motion failed. Houg requested that the proposed slip lengths be increased to 32' long, keeping the total length of the dock at 238' long. He stated when the surveyor had drawn the site plan, he did not consider standard dock section lengths. AMENDED MOTION: Knudsen moved, Skramstad seconded to amend the original motion to only allow one, three sided slip not to exceed 14' X 32'; 2) allowing two restricted watercraft at the site with only one over 22' Length Overall (LEA) with a maximum of 32' LeA. VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION: Amended motion carried unanimously. Foster recommended that agenda item lB be moved before the Gideons Point HOA Public Hearing. There were no objections by the Board members. 1. WATER STRUCTURES B. Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the Michael & Donna Wallace variance application. -2351 - Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 23, 2003 Page 5 MOTION: Nelson moved, Babcock seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Order for the Michael & Donna Wallace dock length and side setback variance application and Variance Order for Paul and Beverly Blomberg at 3180 North Shore Drive. Babcock proposed a friendly amendment to the motion with the following changes: adding the word 'stdct' under item number one and a restriction of one canopy per property beyond 100 in both the Wallace and Blomberg Findings of Fact and Orders. Items number one would read "The dock shall be constructed in strict accordance with the dock plan attached hereto as Attachment One and hereby made a part of this Order." Items number two would read "No more than four restricted watercraft as defined in the LMCD Code and no more than two canopies shall be stored beyond 100 feet from the shoreline at elevation 929,4 NGVD," VOTE: Motion carried unanimously, Donna Wallace and Paul Blomberg asked if they could comment on the Findings of Fact and Order because they did not agree with the entire wording. Foster stated this was not a public hearing. He asked the Board if they would like to allow comments from the applicant. Consensus of the Board was to listen to the applicant's comments and if there was a need for a motion to reconsider, a Board member could make one, Wallace made the following comments: · She and her husband did not like the portion of the Findings that stated: "The Board finds that the granting a variance beyond 130 feet is not in the public interest given the fact that the adjacent property has a variance to 130 feet, and extending the dock beyond that length would have an adverse visual impact for adjacent and nearby properties." · They were only asking for a dock length variance of 130' and would prefer that this statement be taken out of the Findings. · They did not feel that there was any evidence that was provided to the Board that would show a dock beyond 130' is not in the public interest. The dock to the East of their site is approximately 146' with large canopies. Babcock responded that the Board heard public testimony from residents to the west of their site that a dock longer than 130' may impair their visual sightlines. I LeFevere stated that the original application was for a dock use area of 150'. Wallace stated that at the end of the 4/9/03 public headng, they amended the application to 130'. She stated that at 130' they do not have 4' of water depth. She stated that the reason why they came in for the variance application was because they were notified that their dock was too long and they were stodng too many watercrafts. She stated they had removed one watercraft. She added that the Finding of Fact and Order has statements that she does not feel are necessary and it should only state that they have to abide to the existing rules. -2352- Lake'Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 23, 2003 Page 6 Babcock stated that as property owners change, the more detailed the variance order is, the restrictions are better communicated to the future owners. When there are details in the order, they do not have to know the whole LMCD Code Book to get the idea of why it was approved the way it was. Wallace asked if the rules became less restrictive, would the variance order restrictions stay the same or be null and void. · Foster stated LMCD rules and regulations are not likely to become less restrictive. Knudsen stated that the detailed variance order might be beneficial for the property owner in the case of selling the property because the dockage dghts would be spelled out for the new potential buyer. Foster stated that this is the way that all variance Findings of Fact and Order are written. Blomberg made the following comments: · He had spoken to Mike Wallace since he was not able to attend the meeting tonight. · He and Mike did not like the portion of the Findings that stated: "The Board finds that the granting a vadance beyond 130 feet is not in the public interest given the fact that the adjacent property has a variance to 130 feet, and extending the dock beyond that length would have an adverse visual impact for adjacent and nearby properties." · He encouraged the Wallaces to continue to request a 150' dock use area because there is not 4' of water depth at the end of the 130' dock, it actually has a water depth of 38.5" when the Lake is at 929.4' NGVD. · The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District lets water out of the dam in the fall every year to get the Lake level to 928.6 NGVD. At that time the water depth at the end of the 130' long dock is 28.25". · LMCD Code provides that, dudng periods when the lake level falls below elevation 928.0' NGVD, the Board may issue temporary Iow water variances. When the Lake is at 928.0, there is a water depth of 21.5" at the end of the 130' dock. · It is not in the public interest to require the Wallaces to come in for a dock length vadance and not allow them to reach 4' of water depth at the end of the dock when the Lake is at 929.4 NGVD. They may need to also obtain a temporary Iow water vadance if the Lake level drops below 928.0. · It would make more sense to grant them a dock length variance of 150', where they have a water depth of 4' when the Lake is at 929,4. They would probably not install a dock that long unless they would need to in a Iow water year. This would alleviate the need for them to apply for a temporary Iow water variance if the need arises. Babcock stated the Board was willing to consider a 150' long dock at the 4/9/03 meeting if the applicant. had provided a site plan for a 150' long dock but they did not provide one. The Wallaces then amended their application and requested a 130' long variance. He stated now the applicant is asking the Board to approve something that was not applied for. He stated that the Board and the applicant had achieved everything that they had agreed to achieve at the 4~9~04 meeting and is hesitant to re-open this issue. -2353- Lake.Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 23, 2003 Page 7 Foster stated that consensus of the Board is not to re-open this issue. He stated there has not been a motion to reconsider the original motion to approve the two Findings of Fact and Order. The Findings of Fact and Order remain as approved. Blomberg asked if his comments would be included in the meeting minutes. Foster stated his comments would be included in the minutes. Gideons Point HOA, new multiple dock license and variance aPplications for 51 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 2553' of continuous shoreline. The proposed variance application is to amend a previously approved variance for the docks on lots 1-5. Foster opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. and asked for background from staff. Harper made the following comments: · Gideons Point Homeowners Association has submitted new multiple dock license and variance applications for Board consideration. Currently, the facility is approved for 47 Boat Storage Units (BSU's), on approximately 2,553' of shoreline. This number of BSU's further breaks down to 12 approved BSU's on Outlot A, 24 BSU's allocated between lots 6-12, three BSU's at lot 5, and two BSU's each for lots 1-4. All of the 929.4' shoreline for lots 1-12 and Outlot A has been dedicated towards the Gideons Point HOA · multiple dock license. · The LMCD Board granted a dock length vadance for a 112' dock on Outlot A on 6/23/93. The Board also granted a dock length variance for docks on lots t-5 on 12/1/93. The length variances granted for 60 feet in the case of the dock shared by lots 1 and 2, 40 feet in the case of the dock at lot 3, and 28 feet in the case of docks on lots 4 and 5. Further conditions of this order were that the dock shared by lots 1 and 2 met an increased 60' setback for the outermost portion of the BSU to the eastedy line of Pearl Street; the dock was also limited to two 32' dock fingers with two 24' side ties for smaller boats; and lots 1 and 2 were limited to one canopy each which must be the same solid, dark color. The conditions further required that the docks constructed at this multiple dock facility shall be in accordance with the Board's Order of 10123185, as amended by the Board's Order of 6/23/93, and further modified by the 12/1/93 Order. The proposed vadance application does not increase the number of BSU's or increase the length of the docks into the lake for sites 1-5, but does reconfigure the docks and increases the size of some of the BSU's. In addition to the changes proposed at sites 1-5, a new multiple dock license application is also required for lots 6-12 because the applicant has proposed to reconfigure some of the docks and increase the number of BSU's allowed at these lots by 4 for a total of 51 .BSU's at the entire site. No changes are proposed for the dock on Outlot A. The variance Findings of Fact and Order require the docks to be constructed in strict accordance with the Board's Order and site plan. The multiple dock license also requires installation of docks and storage of boats consistent with the approved site plan on file with the LMCD. District staff had observed discrepancies between dock installation and the approved site plans during inspections in past years and the applicant has made application to correct these discrepancies. Babcock asked staff if the dock installation and boat storage discrepancies were significant and if they are installed today. -2354- Lake'Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 23, 2003 Page 8 Nybeck stated that staff has had conversations with representatives from Gideons Point HOA for approximately 12 to 18 months. They had initially met with staff to discuss possible changes with the Outlot A dock. It was recognized that some of the docks within the association were out of compliance. They had made the decision to survey the entire shoreline and the docks that were installed in 2002. Staff also noticed docks that were going beyond 100' without a variance. The association made some adjustments with these docks to meet the 100' limitation. There was also a need to cladfy on a dock-by-dock basis where the Boat Storage Units (BSU's) were located since the approved site plan did not specify that. Staff worked extensively with the applicant to submit applications and a site plan to bring the facility in to compliance. Babcock asked if there were significant changes to the docks requiring length variances. Nybeck stated no changes are proposed at the dock on Outlot A. He further stated there were some minor changes on the configuration of the docks on lots 1-5 with some increases in the size of boats stored at the docks. Babcock stated they would either need to amend their variance or bdng those docks back in to compliance by installing the docks as approved in 1993 and store the appropriate sized boats. Harper stated in 1993 when the dock length variance for lots 1 & 2 was approved, a side setback of 60' from the west extended lot line of lot one was approved for boat storage and the installation of a dock. He stated that the association proposes to only maintain a 40' setback to the west extended property line of lot 1. The application also proposes to increase the size of BSU's 1-4 at the dock shared by lots 1 and 2. Babcock stated that he was on the Board in 1993 and remembers that the neighbors to the west of the site had significant concerns with a 160' dock with boats and canopies interfering with their sight lines. He stated that the compromises struck with the neighbors on ~the outside edge of the development was to maintain a 60' setback rather than a 40' setback required by code, restricted the sizes of the boats and limited the number and color of the Canopies on the dock. Harper made the following comments: · Pursuant to LMCD Code, the attached public hearing notice was published in the 4/8/03 edition of the Lakeshore Weekly News. · Code Section 2.03 Subd. 7 requires a new multiple dock license application when there is any change in slip size, ownership, width, height or location of a structure under this section. Because the proposed application would change the size, location and number of BSU's, the Code requires a new multiple dock license application, with public hearing. Code Section 2.02, Subd. 1 states no new docks or moodng areas shall be constructed, established or maintained which provide space for or are used for moodng or docking a greater number of restricted watercraft than one for each 50 feet of continuous shoreline in existence on May 3, 1978. Staff questions the 2,553' of 929.4' shoreline documented on the' new multiple dock application. The 4-2-03 survey submitted by the applicant documents 2,526' of 929.4' shoreline. Staff questions whether the 2,526' of shoreline documented on the survey can be dedicated entirely to the multiple dock license. It does-not seem to be continuous since the west side of the lagoon 929.4' shoreline is not within the west property line of lot 1. This would decrease the continuous 929.4' shoreline to 2,398' and would require a reduction in the number of potential BSU's. -2355- Lake .Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 23, 2003 Page9 Code Section 2.01, Subd. 1 prohibits a person from using any area of the Lake outside an authorized dock use area for docking and storage of watercraft. Four of the proposed docks do not comply with Code for dock length restrictions. Because the proposed dock shared by lots 1 and 2 would extend beyond 100' from the 929.4' lake elevation, it would need to maintain a minimum of 40' side setback from the west extended side site line. The dock plan would meet the 40' side setback to the west. Section 2.01, subd. 2a allows a dock to extend into the lake the same distance equal to the shoreline at the site, with a maximum of 100'. With over 100' of continuou.s meandering shoreline, the maximum distance the dock could extend into the lake, without a variance, is 100'. LMCD Code allows the board to consider dock length variance applications where practical difficulties or physical hardships exist. Section 1.07 subd. 1 allows the Board to consider applications for variance from Code, including length requirements, provided the application of the Code cause practical difficulties or physical hardships. The Code further states that the Board may permit a variance from its requirements, with conditions deemed necessary, provided that such variance does not adversely affect the purposes of this ordinance, the public health, safety, and welfare, and reasonable access to or use of the Lake by the public or ripadan owners. Staff has reviewed the proposed variance application and believes tha. t a physical hardship of shallow water and emergent vegetation exist. However, the proposed variance application would increase the size of boats being stored at lots 1-5 if approved. It is common that the Board has restricted sizes of boats at docks that require dock length variances and should discuss whether it is comfortable with the proposed increases. Shallow water and emergent vegetation was documented in 1993 as physical hardships at these sites and staff believes these hardships continue to exist. Babcock clarified that this whole site has a single multiple dock license so the 2,500 odd feet is under common control and ownership of the Homeowners association and dedicated to the multiple dock license. He stated the internal lot lines do not have any merit under LMCD Code in regard to extended lot lines and setbacks except for the edges of lot 1 and Outlot A. It is considered one big piece of shoreline under the LMCD's perspective and where the docks are placed within this shoreline are a matter of the association and the approved site plan. The dock placement does not have to have a relationship with the individually platted lots. Babcock stated that in 1993 the applicant at that time had made a compromise and applied for 47 BSU's rather than 51 so the non-continuous shoreline issue would not have to be addressed. Foster clarified that without the non-continuous shoreline of the peninsula, the site would have approximately 2,398' of continuous shoreline. The applicant is currently approved for 47 BSU's and is applying for 51 BSU's. Harper stated that the homeowners association has been licensed for 47 BSU's in recent years but has only stored around 38 boats at the association docks. Nybeck'stated that previously Gideons Point HOA was approved for 51 BSU's in the 1980's. In 1993 when the association applied for the dock length variances, it was noticed that the shoreline was not continuous. The developer decided to bring the BSU numbers back to 47 to alleviate the issue of non-continuous shoreline. Babcock stated that he does not care where the boats are stored within the 2,500 odd feet of shoreline; it is up to the association to figure out where to locate the maximum of 47 boats. He stated that there were some compromises to get the length variances approved on lots 1-5. He stated that one of the compromises made to get the variances was boat storage density at the rest of the site by reducing the number of BSU's to 47. -2356- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular, Board Meeting April 23, 2003 Page 10 He stated the dock length variances were not necessary on lots 1-5 because then wen other locations on the estimated 2,500' of shoreline that did not have emergent vegetation and water depth pnblems. Dave Koentopf, 120 Gideons Point Rd, stated one of the issues that the association is dealing with is that the covenants for lots 6-12 wen amended in 1993. It states that each lot can ston up to four boats at their dock but the total number of boats between the seven lots cannot exceed 24. This would not allow all of the lots to store four boats at the same time. That is why the association has applied for 51 BSU's so they would not have to allocate which lots are allowed to ston four boats and which ones an only allowed to ston three. Babcock stated it does not matter what the association's covenants say, it does not put any pressure on the LMCD to change its rules to fit the association's covenants, Harper stated staff believes the Board has three issues to addnss when considering these applications. They include: How to address the non-continuous shoreline and its impact on available BSU's, how to deal with the increase in size of boats associated with the proposed variance at lots 1-5 and should there be continued restrictions on the number and color of canopies at the dock shand by lots 1 and 2. Foster stated he was on the Board in 1993 and a large issue at that time was that the high boat storage density was concentrated at both ends of the development. This affects the property owners that are not part of the homeowners association. The Board would encourage new developments to concentrate the boat storage density in the middle of the dedicated shoreline so it will only affect members of the association. Mike Flynn, Lot 1 of Gideons Point HOA, stated he had purchased his house in 2000 and his property abstract stated he was allowed two slips. He was not awan of the variance order or the approved site plan for his dock, which allowed his dock to have one slip and one tie-on. He added structure to his dock to allow two three sided slips. Babcock cladfied that Mr. Flynn does not have a dock with two slips; the association has the right to put a dock on the shoreline in front of lot one. He further stated that all of the lakeshore is tied up for the homeowners association multiple dock license to allow the boat storage density at Outlot A, He clarified that Mr. Flynn does not have normal dpadan rights, which includes the flexibility to change dock configuration without LMCD Board approval. He cladfied that in 1993 there was some public input concerning impacts on visual sightlines by the dock length variances for properties adjacent to the homeowners association on Pearl Street. That was why there was the compromise of the dock from lots 1 & 2 maintaining a 60' side setback, Lisa Spencer, 20 Pearl Stnet, stated that Gerry Holl, which is the adjacent neighbor to lot 1 of the Gideons Point HOA, was not able to attend this meeting. She stated that she is vigilant about changes in the aha and would have liked to attend the meeting. Babcock stated the City Council of Tonka Bay discussed the pending applications of Gideons Point HOA and nquested that he communicate their opinion that they are not in favor of any expansion of this multiple dock facility. He stated they felt that then was a compromise strUck in 1993 and it should nmain with no increase in boats, slip sizes, or variances. -2357- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 23, 2003 Page Greg Vennes, 25 Gideons Point Rd., stated that the expansion would only be 170 square feet of dock area. He stated that it was identified in 1993 that the shoreline is managed very well with a Iow-density residential look. There being no further comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 9:16 p.m. Canning stated that this request seems to be reasonable and the layout is preferred rather than having one dense common dock in the middle of the association shoreline. He explained that the non-continuous shoreline issue is unreasonable because the sliver of land that divides the main shoreline to the peninsula is city owned shoreline, which will probably never be used. Foster stated that his concern of counting the non-continuous shoreline is that the LMCD Board has never allowed non-continuous shoreline for density shifting except for the 14 member cities. He stated it would set a precedent and could possibly end up in future lawsuits if it is allowed in this situation and not in others. Babcock stated that the reason why the continuous shoreline rule is in place is to prevent density shifting from one area of a bay to another and disproportionately creating a dense property. The non-continuous shoreline rule really has a practical purpose within the District. Koentopf stated that the practical problem is that when they applied for the multiple dock license, staff requeSted that the homeowners association designate where the BSU's are located by lot. Foster corrected Koentopf and stated they must designate where the BSU's are located on the entire site. Koentopf asked where they are supposed to deduct the four BSU's so some of the lots are only allowed to store three boats rather than four. Babcock stated it was the responsibility of the homeowners association to figure that'out; Koentopf' stated it would be easier for the association if each lot was allowed four BSU~s or the locations did not have to be designated on the site plan. · ~ BabcOCk stated this problem iS the homeowners association's constraint, not the'LUCD's. He stated every mu !iple dock license is mquimdto designate where the BSU,s:are located and if they we~,e,' not on the past site Plans, they should have been. He added if the association would like to move the BSU:s from lot to lot every year, they could with the proper applications and possibly without an added fee or public hearing. He stated just because they have to designate the location o.fevery BSU, it doesn't mean that the locations are permanent. I Knudsen ~state~.that the app!i~ant should pqssibly meet with the city to attempt to get their support, He explained that the some board members are influenced by positions of the cities. LeFevere stated that The LMCD has,never granted a var ance for boat storage density and the applicant may want to amend their applications to meet the 1:50'.boat density rule. If they approach the city with an application not increasing the boat density, the city may look at it more favorably. -2358- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 23, 2003 page 12 Babcock stated that he carried forward the city's message. He stated he dOes weigh their opinion heavily but it is the LMCD Board's responsibility to review the applications within LMCD Ordinances. McMillan stated that communication with the cities is essential. Koentopf stated that the association would like to amend their new multiple dock license and variance applications to 48 Boat Storage Units (BSU's). MOTION: Canning moved, skramstad seconded to allow as a concept approval, Gideons Point HOA to amend their new multiple dock license and variance applications from 51 to 48 Boat Storage Units. Babcock stated that the reason why the association was approved for 47 BSU's in 1993 was because there was a compromise because of lack of hardships associated with the variances that were granted. He ~': explained that because of lack of easements on the shoreline, the board had to grant variances for dock length at Outlot A to give access to inland property owners. Babcock stated that if the association has room for extra boats, they should relocate boats from Outlot A so the dock length variance is not needed, then look at an increase in density. He stated the problem with this application is that it has 2,398' of continuous shoreline but only 170' is accessible to all 24 property owners so he could not support an increase in density. LeFevere stated that the measurement of the 929.4 shoreline is approximately 140%' of the straight line measurement. The LMCD Code alloWs the Board to adjust the length of Shoreline for which credit is given for purposes boat storage density. He explained that the possible shoreline length adjustment pertains to new facilities Existing facilities are grandfathered in at their density unless there is an expansion of BSU's. VOTE:" Ayes (1), Nays (10; Ambrose, Babcock, Burma, Canning, Foster, Knudsen, MCMilian, Nelson, Seuntjens, Suerth); motion failed Foster suggested thatthe applicant work with staff to amend their appliCations to include 47 BSU's and slight modifications to the dock structures with an updated site plan. He stated the applicants may want to communicate with the City of Tonka Bay conceming the amended applications. ' Koentopf asked if the docks for lots three through Outlot A can installed as proposed on the new site plan. Babcock stated that~the homeOwners association,is authorized'to ihstall': anything that Was on the'appr(~,ed 1993 site plan. ' .... Koentopf stated that there have been some modest ch'anges to the dOck~ over the years~ Babcock stated that they are not authorized today and are illegal under the terms of the ordinance. He stated'that the shoreline property owners lost the flexibility to make chahges to their dOCks' when the shoreline was dedicated toWards'the multiple dOCk license t0 gain density at Outlbt A. Foster stated that all of. the Gideons Point HOA docks must be installed consistently With the 1993 site plan until another configuration is approved bY the LMCD Board. MOTION: Canning moved, Knudsen seconded to table the new multiple dock license and variance -2359- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board l¥1eeting April 23, 2003 Paget3 applications for Gideons Point HOA to work with staff to amend the applications and site plan to bring to the 5/14/03 meeting. VOTE: Ayes (10), Nayes (1; Babcock); motion carried. 1. WATER STRUCTURES C. AdditiOnal Business. There was no additional business. 2. SAVE THE LAKE B. Discussion of Request from Perry's Towing. Foster asked for an overview of this agenda Item. McMillan made the following comments: There was discussion at the 3/26/03 Regular Board Meeting regarding a local towing company that pulled a pickup from Lake Uinnetonka near Robinsons Bay this past winter that was not compensated by the vehicle owner. · She had talked to the owner of the towing company, Mr. Rick Perry. She believed that there were extraordinary circumstances in this situation and that Mr. Perry did the lake a great service by towing the pick-up from the lake. There were six individuals involved in this tow, including two divers and four of his employees. None of them had been paid. · She believed that it would make sense for a donation from "Save the Lake" for this tow and made an appeal at the 4/9/03 Regular Board Meeting to get Board authorization to do this. She recommended that the Distdct award Perry's Towing $1,000 from the "Save the Lake" to be distributed amongst the six individuals that have not been compensated for this tow. · The Board was uncomfortable with this and wanted to get a detailed invoice of the expenses incurred by the towing company and it was included in the Board packet. · The Board questioned whether the District could give money away as proposed because it is a public agency. · She wanted the Board to look at the detailed invoice and make a decision if they should authorize some reimbursement from the "Save the Lake" fund to Perry's Towing for removing the vehicle from the Lake. Knudsen stated he had spoken with his insurance agent, who told him that typically the tow company would bill the owner of the vehicle and if they do not pay the fees, they would try to collect from the ins,urance company. McMillan stated she thought the towing company had tried to collect from the insurance company. Babcock stated he would like the owner of the truck to attend an LMCD Board Meeting to address this issue. -2360- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 23, 2003 Page 14 Ambrose stated that the issue is between the towing company and the owner of the vehicle. If the owner' chose not to have insurance that would cover him in this type of situation, it is still his responsibility to pay for the expenses of the removal of the vehicle from the Lake. Knudsen stated the towing company could possibly try to collect the expenses from the owner of the vehicle in conciliatory or small claims court. MOTION: Seuntjens moved, Skramstad seconded to take the discussion of request from Perry's Towing and motion to approve $1,000 of"Save the Lake" Funds to Perry's Towing to reimburse them for the tow recently conducted on Lake Uinnetonka near Robinsons Bay that was not paid for by the owner of the vehicle off the table. Foster stated that this item is off the table and asked for any Board discussion, Babcock asked whether the District could give money away as proposed because it is a public agency. He stated that the he had received advise from LeFevere that the LMCD is not legally obligated to make the payment. He asked if the LMCD is not legally obligated to make this payment and makes this payment with public money, what risk is the agency running by doing that. LeFevere stated that there is a common law doctrine called the Public Trust Doctrine, which states that public agencies cannot dispose of or expend any kind of public property improvidently. Among the things a public agency cannot do is give a gift or gratuity, which could include making a payment they are not legally obligated to make, There are a few limited exceptions to this rule and the Proposed payment to Perry's Towing would not fit within one of them. He stated no matter how much everyone believes that it would serve a good valid public purpose, it is not within the agency's authority to make those kinds of contributions. He stated the agency could have made the payment to the towing company if it had a contract prior to the removal of the vehicle. Without a pdor obligation or contract, a payment would be viewed as a gratuity and would be unlawful. McMillan stated that the "Save the Lake" funds are pdvate donations that are administered by a public agency. People will do positive things for Lake Uinnetonka and some of those projects are done with prior approval and are compensated. She stated that there may be times where projects are done without prior approval and if they are good for Lake Minnetonka, there should be flexibility to pay for them after-the- fact. Nelson asked LeFevere if the "Save the Lake" funds are public or pdvate money. LeF, evere stated although "Save the Lake" funds are derived from private donations, they are still public funds and the law would prehibit the District from making a gift to Perry's Towing. Babcock stated that the LMCD is a public entity not a private business and the rules are different. VOTE: Ayes (10), Nayes (1, Nelson); motion carried. Skremstad asked what the difference was between buying the Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol inflatable life preservere and this request. -2361 - Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 23, 2003 Page t5 B LeFevere stated that there is specific statutory authority to transfer property to another public entity for no consideration, nominal consideration or full consideration. If the specific statutory authority were not there, the LMCD would not be able to make contributions to the water patrol. Babcock stated that he was concerned with Board Members not acting within the constraints of the law as advised by the District Attomey. The "Save The Lake" funds must be administered responsibly because that is what the Board is obligated to do under state statute and under state laws. Ambrose stated with all due respect to the good-hearted actions of Perry's Towing, in recognition of advise from District Attorney, the Board is not able to reimburse Perry's towing for removing the vehicle from Lake Minnetonka. He further stated that if there are private parties that are concerned with the prevention of potential pollution of the lake from the removal of the vehicle. They are welcome to come forward and make a contribution to Perry's Towing. (Previously tabled motion from 419/03 LMCD Regular Meeting) MOTION: Skramstad moved, Suerth seconded to approve $1,000 of "Save the Lake" Funds to Perry's TOwing to reimburse them for the tow recently conducted on Lake Minnetonka near Robinson's Bay that was not paid for by the owner of the vehicle. VOTE: Ayes (2), Nayes (9, Ambrose, Babcock, Burma, Canning, Foster, Knudsen, Nelson, Seuntjens, Skramstad); motion failed. C. Additional Business. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers (4/15/03 - 4/30/03). 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. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A. Update from the Chair on requesting funding from the MCWD for potential funding of the LMCD EWM Harvesting Program. Foster stated there was no additional news on this agenda item. B. Minutes from the 4/11/03 EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting. -2362- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 23, 2003 page 16 Suerth stated that there were three primary items discussed at this meeting. These included solutions for Eurasianwatermilfoil (EWM) problems on Grays Bay and LibbS 'Lake, fieldWOrk in 2003 to fine tune details outlined in the 12/30/02 Wenck Associates memorandUm and the Aquatic Management Plan on Medicine Lake. He stated that there has been a request to mechanically harvest EWM in LibbS Lake; however the LMCD equipment does not fit under the Libbs Lake Bddge. A private harvesting.company would'have'to be hired to do this and there are some concerns about this because of the precedent it could set on other areas of the lake that are not acceSsible by the LMCD harvesters. The 'COst of hiring a private companyto ha~est EWM in these areas WOUld have to come out of an already tight EWM Harvesting Program budget. He stated that consensus of the Task Force was that the LMCD should monitor milfoil groWth in Libbs Lake in 2003 and make a deCision on whether pdvate harvesting is medted based on groWth. He stated Libbs Lake has only 17 acresOf surface water. Nybeck stated that there is no usable surface area on Libbs Lake, WhiCh is defined as the area'outside of the 150' shore zone. He stated that the LMCD Harvesting Program dOes not harvest EWM within docks or within the shorezone of 150' from shore. This area is the responsibility of the property owners.if they choose to chemically treat or mechanically harvest EWM by using private contractors. He stated that the DNR issues private property owners permits to chemically treat EWM uP to 150. from their shOreline. C. 2003 EWM Harvesting Season, staff overview of project. Foster stated that Staff had prepared a detailed overView'of the 2003 seaSOn. He asked the Board if they had any questions or comments. Nybeck stated he suggests that the Board continue the discussion of this agenda item to the 5/i4/03 Regular Board Meeting. He stated although, that at this meeting he was seeking approval fl:om .the Board to hire the seven full-time seasonal Employees for the EWM harvesting program as outlined in the staff memo. MOTION: Skramstad moved, Knudsen seconded tO aa'thorize staff:to hire 2003 EWM Harvesting Program employees at the houdy rates outlined in the staff memo. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. D. 2003 Zebra Mussel Project, consideration of State of Minnesota Income Contracil Nybeck stated he was seeking Board approval of the State of Mihne~ta Incom~ Contract for the 2003 zebra mussel watercraft inspection project. He added that the contract is the same as app~y~ in 2002. I '..~::"~:,' · · ...... ., , ,~ MOTION:' Suerth moved ,~Bab¢0ck seconded' to aPP~ve, the state of Minnesota ! ncome CohtraCt for the 2003 zebra mussel watercraft inspection project. VOTE: Motion carried unanimouSlyl E. Additional Business. -2363- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 23, 2003 Page 17 There was Board discussion on the possible purchase of a high-speed transporter for the 2003 EWM Harvesting Program, Nybeck stated that at the 4/g/03 Regular Meeting, the Board directed staff to enter into negotiations for the purchase of the used high-speed transporter being brokered by Aquarius Systems at a maximum price of $15,000 including transportation costs. He stated that he had offered $13,000 for the transporter and for transportation costs. Aquarius brought the offer to the township that owns the equipment and is awaiting a decision from them. Nybeck stated that Aquarius has a strict policy that they must have cash in hand before they would begin to ship the equipment to the buyer. He asked the Board if they were comfortable paying for the equipment upfront prior to the Distdct receiving it. Consensus of the Board was to allow the payment of the equipment prior to shipment as long as LMCD staff inspects the equipment prior to payment, 5. ADMINISTRATION A. Discussion of draft LMCD Data Practices Policy. Foster stated that this agenda item would be discussed at the 5/14/03 LMCD Board Meeting. B, Additional Business There was no additional business. 6. LAKE USE & RECREATION There was no discussion, 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Nybeck made the following comments: The Lake level as of 4/22/03 was 929.29'. The Grays Bay Public Access is open and there is a grand opening scheduled for Tuesday June 22® at 1:30 p.m. An article from the Lakeshore Weekly News concerning water quality grades of bays in Lake Minnetonka was included in the handout folder. 8. OLD BUSINESS. Ambrose stated that the City of Wayzata approved a conditional use permit for the Wayzata Yacht Club (Site 2) for the construction of a jib crane. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 10. ADJOURNMENT -2364- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 23, 2003 Page18 There being no further business, the meeting was adjoumed at 11:12 p.m. Albert O. Foster, Chairman Lili McMillan, Secretary -2365- -2368- DATE 5/1/2003 5/2/2O03 5/3/2003 5/4/2003 5/5/2003 5/6/2003 5/7/2003 5/8/2003 5/9/2003 5/10/2003 5/11/2003 5/12/2003 5/13/20O3 5/14/2003 5/15/2003 5/16/20O3 5/17/2003 ~ ~,~o/19/2003 5/20/2003 5/21/2003 512512003 512812003 5/27/2003 5/28/2003 5130/2003 5/3 ~/2003 Totals Harbor Wine & Spirits May 2003 2003 # Cust 2002 Difference +/- 5066.39 315 3606.61 Sunny ~ 615 3421.83 Sunny ~~~, ~ ,~,.,,._'~--666 Rain 3476.69 Cloudy 3482.76 260 3449.79 Sunny 4580.23 303 3359.75 Sunny 5320.75 340 3493.3 SUNNY ~' 484 4694.47 RAIN ~-'~--610 ~~ SUNNY 4132.48 284 CLOUDY 3463.08 232 3713.25 SUNNY 4692.62 287 4114.2 SUNNY 4981.44 303 3828.49 Sunny ~ 624 4742.43 CLOUDY ~11~"-',),,~L'---739 ~'~ Rain 3062.83 230 pkg lot 3573.34 3990.44 pkg lot wor 5362.58 4515.78 4422.35 5498.07 10470.58¥ ;';' 16337.54.) 123680.6 3369.26 4757.01 5245.52 11353.88 167310.4 1459.78 8352.17 4303.44 -11022.44 3476.69 32.97 1220.48 1827.45 4469.85 3213.99 -9191.39 4132.48 -250.17 578.42 1152.95 6319.72 5367.28 -11111.77 3062.83 -417.1 846.8 -4422.35 -5498.07 -10470.58 -16337.54 0 0 -3369.26 -4757.01 -5245.52 -11353.88 -43629.78 -2370- The Brimeyer Group, Inc. Fifty South Ninth Avenue Suite 101 Hopkins, MN 55343 voice: (952) 945-02,46 fax: (952) 945-0102 e-maihbrimgroup~aoLcotn web: www. brimgroup.com .© Spring Issue April 2003 Vol. 11, Issue 2 Is Your Org tion Achi' Oreatest by James Brimeyer For eleven years, The Brimeyer Group has been assisting local governments, semi-public, and non-profit organizations in the recruitment and selection of quality management staff. We have built our reputation on providing comprehensive search services because we believe an organization's most important resources are the Board and the staff. These are times of scarce economic resources. America is at war, investment portfolios have declined, non-profits are struggling, endowments are suffering, the airlines are laying off-- and government bodies are being asked to do more. In these times of reduced revenues and shrinking budgets, it makes a lot of sense for an organization to explore options to become more effective. This may be the time to assess your Board's strengths and weaknesses. Think about how your organization works and how you approach the way you do business. Ask how you can create an environment that assures the Board and staff are working well together. If your Board or staff could benefit from adop~g a new point of view, or if prOb- lems seem to arise from operating with different points of view, give us a call. Objective guidance from an outside source can bring big benefits. When the Board and staff are really working together, the efficiency and effectiveness of the organi- zation will increase. If you serve on a Board or Council, you may ask yourself, "What will our successors say about the decisions we make today?'' You know your organization has reached its greatest potential, when your succes. sors sa3~ '~Ve appreciate they had the courage to do the .right thing." Consulting Services GOVERNANCE Focused or Fractured Decisions? This model provides a process, even a discipline, for derision making to help a Board define the issues and focus on desired results and outcomes. It assists the CEO and staff by utilizing a method. to define the issues, consider the options, and develop recommendations that meet expectations. The model focuses on the outside world and moving toward desired ends or outcomes. Discussions include how a Board needs to generate a powerful Mission Statement that includes: · Results terminology · Succinct langUage · Recognition and acceptance both in the community and ~within the organization ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT Re,engineer or Re-trench? An evaluation designed to determine what changes Could be made to assist an organization to effidently provide services to the customer. The evaluation includes an assessment of the current systems, a determination of strengths and weak- nesses, and the identification of alterna- tives to organizational shnacture and resource sharing. EMPLOYEE EVALUATION Motivate or Threaten? Training in how to conduct an employee evaluation and how to evaluate job related continued.. -2371 - The Brlmeyer Group, Inc. Fifty South Ninth Avenue Suite 101 Hopkins, MN 55343 (952) 945-0246 Achieving Your Greatest Potential? Route: ,. COlleagues File in notebOol~ The Brimeyer Group Assignments Recent/Current: * East Central Solid Waste Commission, MN-- Executive Director . City of Newton, IA-- City Administrator . City of Faribault, MN-- ]~Comm. Development Dir. ~ty of Northfield, MN-- Comm. Development Dir. . City of Luverne, MN City Administrator . Swift and YellOw Medicine Counties, IvIN-- County Engineer Representative Searches: · City of Austin, MN-- City Administrator * City ofS. SL Paul, MN-- City Administrator · Steele Corm~ MN-- Assistattt.Financial Director, Detention Center · City of Mound, lvlN-- Chief of Police · Rice Coun~ MN-- County' Administrator · City of Moorhead, lvlN-- City Manager · City of Albert Lea, MN-- Housing AuthoritY Director Administrator ' Metro Fire District-- Fire Chief · City of Fergus Falls, MN-- Project 2000 Director Ms. Kandh Hamon, Mmmg~r City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 hM,h h,,'ih jt,,,h.,I,.l'h II',h,l,i,,,lhhdd, J,,dl EMPLOYEE E~cAL~ATION ~.~.~continuea performance as 03'p6~ed to behfi'vioral characteristics. Most importa~y, how conduct an employee evaluation and turn it into a positive experience that results in developin§ a work pro,ram for improved wor~ performance and how to rdate it to an appropriate compensation level TEAM BUILDING Productive or Protective? A process that involves employees, super- visors and managers in ways to foster a sense Of trust, cooperation, and loyalty to each other and to the organization's goals and objectives. It is designed to examine individual behavior and motivatiori to action, pa~cipants will develop insights into their own behavior and the reasons for-their, reaction to fellow employees, sTRATEGIC PLANNING/GOAL SFFIING Proactive or Reactive? Assists Boards responsible for policy development in assessing their constituents' needs,, examining organizational strengths' and weaknesses, establishing priorities and developing strategies and action plans to meet the expectations of their stakeholders. More importantly, it allows the organization to develop a vision and to verbalize a Mission Statement, which encourages a more logical and rational approach to decision making. -2372- Print and Podium The article "Elected?..~ N°w.: What?" by j~ Brime~er, Which ranin the January issue of The Brim Report, was re-printed in the February 2003 edition of theWyoming Association of Municipalities magazine WAM NEWS. Jim has accepted an invitation to speak at the Annual Summer Conference of the Economic Development Association of Minnesota in June. His topic will'be: How to Develop Effective Boards that Meet Expectations. He'also addressed the ~esOta MunidlSal U~ties W'mter Conference in Februa13~ spe~g on his experience using the Board Governance Model. Get to Know Us .-, We invite you to visit our web site at: www: brimgroup,com to review our current assignments or access copies of other recerlt' Brim Reports. If you know of someone else who would like to receive copies of The Brim Report neWsletter, please e-mail their name and address to us and we will add them to our mailing list. Contact us at: brimgroup@aol, com mt has been said that there are two things Americans hate about growth: sprawl and high density. Unfortunately, most Americans do not fully compre- hend the irony in this statement or the inverse relationship between the two concepts. Low~density housing development is the main component and driver of sprawl. In many communities, however, local opposition and regulator~ barriers have made it difficult to build the higher-density multifamily housing that many people need and want. Community fTustrations about the problems assodated with Low-densit~ sprawl, including traffic congestion, crowded schools, and air pollution, are often taken out--in a misguided way--on higher-density housing proposals. Some people also fear that multifamily housing will have negative effects on the property values of single-famiLy homes and are concerned about new residents moving to the community. ~luch of the opposition is based on a lack of understanding about the demand for such housing, a lack of experience with the multifami[y products produced by today's building community, and a lack of understanding of the relationship between sprawl and density. This publication addresses some of the common concerns about multifamily housing and discusses some of the advantages this type of housing can offer. Its purpose is to provide factual information to citizen groups, public offidaLs, members of the development community, and others. MuLtifamily housing is defined here as housing that is built for rent or for sale at market prices and densities ranging from ten to 100 or more units per acre. The types of dwe[Ung units included range from garden apartments and condomini- ums with surface or integral garage parking built at ten to 30 units per acre to mid-riseapartment and condominium structures of three to six stories built at 30 to more than 100 units per acre to high-rise apartment and condominium structures of more than six stories built at more than 100 units per acre. MuLtifamily Uving often is the best or preferred housing solution for many peo- ple at different stages in their Uves for a variety of reasons. It provides an important housing option for young people just starting out in a career or sav- ing to buy a home, as well as for senior citizens who no Longer care to maintain a single-family home yet want to remain near their children and grandchildren.' Indeed, many people, in general, wilt find that at some point in their Uves muLtifamily housing serves their needs. Ensuring that this important housing option remains available to those who. need it is the purpose of this publication. Richard M. Haughey Director o.~ kfu~b'.farni~y De~e~opmen~ -2373- Multifamily housing is a key component of smart growth. · WeLL-pLanned, higher-density housing in areas desig- nated for growth has always been an integral component of smart growth. · By housing more people on Less Land, muLtifamiLy housing developments make it possible to preserve more open space and natural features than do sing[e-famiLy housing developments. · MuLtifamity housing reduces development pressure on the remaining undeveloped Land in a region. · MuLtifamiLy housing usuaLLy requires Less public infra- structure, including roads, sewer and water pipes, and electricity and gas Lines. · Muttifamity housing makes it financiaLLy feasible to integrate commercial and retail uses into a neighborhood. · MuLtifamity housing has a smaLLer per-housing-unit fiscal impact on Local governments than singLe-famiLy homes because it has a smaLLer impact on Local schools. In many cases, apartment and condominium residents effectively subsidize the education of children from singLe-famiLy homes. Multifamily housing is needed and is preferred by many people today. · Married couples with children have been declining in number since 1970 and now account for just one-quarter of the American population. · NontraditionaL households have been growing in num- ber every decade and, taken as a whoLe, make up the new majority. · For the past five years, households making $50,000 per year or more have been the fastest-growing segment of the apartment market. · The population at the traditional age for renting (age 20 to 29)--the echo boomers--is expected to increase :11 percent between 2000 and 20:10. · some baby boomers wiLL choose to downsize to an apartment or condominium after their children Leave the "nest"; others wiLL purchase or Lease muttifamiLy homes as second homes. · MuLtifamiLy housing aLLows seniors to remain in their neighborhoods through the different stages of their Lives without the hassle of maintaining singLe-famiLy housing. · Over ~13 miLLion immigrants came to the United States in the 1990s: most new immigrants Lack the capital required for sustaining the demands of homeownership and wiLL remain renters for ten to :15 years before they can afford to become homeowners, n Multifamily development often is more environmentally friendly than mow-density development. · Multifamity development tends to be more compact than singLe-famiLy housing deveLopment, thereby creat- ing Less Land disturbance and fewer impervious surfaces. · MuLtifamiLy residents tend to drive fewer miLes per unit and also tend to use pubUc transportation more fre- quentLy than residents of singLe-famiLy housing. · SmaLLer muttifamity units use tess eLectricity and apartment residents in general use Less water per unit than singLe-famiLy homes. · MuLtifamiLy housing creates effidencies that make it easier and more affordable to pick up trash and recycLabLes, and to pick up and deUver maiL. Muitifamily housing choices are important to the economic vitality of the larger community. · Access to a Large and diverse tabor pool has become the most important factor in making corporate derisions on business Locations. · The number one problem faring the tabor pool today is housing affordabiUty. · FaiLing to provide a baLanced range of attractive housing options makes a region Less appeaUng to businesses while also driving up Land and housing prices, thus promoting de facto segregation based on household income and type. · Where alternatives to expensive singLe-famiLy homes are not avaiLabLe, many households are forced to move farther away from empLoyment centers to find affordable housing, creating traffic and poLLution problems as weLL as a Lower quality of Life and a decline in worker morale. · Tf the affordable housing situation is bad enough, businesses may be forced to relocate to areas with tess expensive housing markets. -2374- Multifamily housing can help minimize areawide traffic congestion. · While it may increase traffic at an individual site, multifamily housing can significantly relieve overall regional traffic congestion. · When affordable housing choices near job centers are in short supply, workers must Uve in distant locations where housing is more affordable, resulting in long, flus- trating, and expensive commutes and contributing to areawide traffic congestion. · Multifamity housing allows more people to Uve in housing they can afford that is near their work. · Multifamily housing developments that are clustered along transportation corridors make various kinds of mass transportation feasible. · MultifamiLy residents average one motor vehicle per household, while owner-occupied households average two vehicles. · Single-family housing is Ukely to generate an average of ten auto trips per weekday while apartments generate only seven; high-rise apartments generate even fewer trips, averaging only four trips per day. · The availability of recreational fadlities--including fitness centers, pools, and picnic areas--within the multifamily community reduces the need for auto trips as most residents can walk to these amenities. Multifamily housing enables communities to provide housing that is affordable to a wider range of incomes. · · In parts of the countny where economic growth typi- cally is strongest, the labor force critical to sustaining the economy cannot find reasonably priced housing or cannot locate within an appropriate commuting distance of jobs. · Households depending on a single salary such as that of a teacher or a police officer cannot afford to buy a median-priced home in two-thirds of the metropoUtan areas in America. · Working families with a critical housing need, defined as having to spend more than half their income on hous- ing or tying in substandard housing, increased by 60 percent to 4.8 milton households. Well-designed multifamily housing can be an attractive and compatible addition to the community. · MuLtifamiLy housing has come a long way from the plain brick boxes of the past; the design of today's apartments and condominiums is much more creative and sensitive to neighborhood context. · Multifamily structures allow greater ftexibiUty in sit- ing buildings, which makes it possible to preserve open space and distinctive natural features of the site such as hillsides, streams, or stands of trees. · ¥isua[ preference surveys have' demonstrated that consumers, when shown we[t-designed visual images of high-density communities and low-density communities, often prefer the high-density communities. · Under finanda[ pressures, househotds typicaLLy are forced to move farther out from their jobs, enduring Long commutes that aggravate existing traffic problems, or to double up and endure crowded housing conditions. · Apartments and condominiums play an important role in housing the workforce. They have been providing "workforce housing" for decades, Long before the term was coined. · Many multifamiLy housing communities were con- structed using prindp[es consistent with the new urban- ist movement. MuLtifami[y housing has an important role to play in new urbanist communities of the future. · There is no discernibte difference in price appredation of singLe-famiLy housing Located near multifami[y buiLd- ings and that of homes not Located dose to muLtifamiLy housing. -2375- 3 Minnesota Lawful Garnbfing LG555 - GoVernment Approval or Acknowledgment For Gambling Funas (previously LGS03 and LG265) Use of (11/Ol Organization Information (please print) ExpenditUre Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1. Amount of proposed lawfUl purpose expenditure I $- ~--~'J(~') '---- 2. Check the appropriate expenditure category: License Number ~"~Oc:':~ g& G t--'//Contrlbution to a unit of government - United States, state of Minnesota, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities. NOTE: A contribution may not be made directly to a law enforcement or prosecutorlal agency, such as a police depadment, county sheriff~ or county attorney. A wildlife management project that benefits the public at large with approval of the state agency that has authority over the project. Describe the proposed expenditure, including vendors. Grooming and maintaining snowm, obile or all-terrain vehicle trails with approval by DNR. All trails must be open to public use, ' Describe the proposed expenditure, including vendors. Oath · I affirm that the contribution or expenditure, in accordance with Minnes(~ta Rule 7861.0120, subpad 5D(10), does not result in any net monetary gain or other pecuniary, benefit to our organization. · I affirm that when lawful gambling funds are used for grooming and maintaining snowmobile or all-terrain vehicle trails or for any wildlife management project for which reimbursement is received from a unit of government, the reimburse- ment funds must be deposited in our lawful gambling account and recorded on the LG 1010 - Schedule C/D reporL / Chief executive officer's signature Phone number Date GoVernment Approval/Acknowledgment By signature below, the representative of the unit of government ; · approves the project as described above, and/or i · acknowledges the contribution, which will noi be used for a pension or retirement fund. UnitofGovemment Signature Title Phone number ~ ~ .-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~--- qT~ Statel'~ ~'~ Zip /-' __Date "/"--' / ~_..~__/~ Keep this completed form attached to the LG1010 - Schedule C/D in your organization's records. This form will be'made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, Braille) upon request. If you use a TTY, you can call us by using the Minnesota Relay Service at 1-800-627- 3529 and ask tO place a call to 651-639-4000. The information requested on this form will become public information, when requested by the Board, and will be used to determine your compliance with Minnesota slatutes and rules governing lawful gambling activities. For additional information, check our web site at ww. gcb.state.mn.us -2376-