Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2003-06-24
PLEASE TURN OFF Al,l, CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 7:30 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD *Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. In that event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE MINUTES: JUNE 10, 2003 REGULAR MEETING *B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS *C. APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS *D. *E. 1. CASE #03-25: ROBERT HOWELL 4955 DONALD DRIVE VARIANCE 2. CASE #03-18: CHAMBERLAIN-GOUDY VFW POST 5113 2590 COMMERCE BLVD VARIAnCE(S) 3. CASE #03-22: SKIP & HEIDI LA JOY 1872 SHOREWOOD LANE VARIANCES APPROVE PAYMENT REQUEST NO. 4 TO DAVE PERKINS CONTRACTING, INC FOR 2002 STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS APPROVE SETTING BID DATE FOR LOST LAKE GREENWAY PROJECT 2471-2472 2473-2498 2499-2517 2518-2531 2532-2544 2545-2549 PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. o COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER) ACTION ON PUBLIC HEARING CASES A. CASE #02-20: REZONING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(s) CONSISTENCY WITH M. S. S. B. CASE #03-24: BRUCE RENO 2851 TUXEDO BOULEVARD CLIP AMENDMENT DON GEIGER OF AMCON WITH PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY UPDATE, INCLUDING ANY NECESSARY ACTION ACTION ON REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF MOUND HARBOR RENAISANCE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2550-2572 2573-2583 2584-2596 10. 11. 12, 13. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS A. CASE #03-23: KRISTINE LOVAAS 2305 NORWOOD LANE VARIANCE ACTION ON RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION FACILTIES WITHIN THE CSAH 15/110 AND DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS BE RELOCATED OR PLACED UNDERGROUND ON PUBLIC PROPERTY POLICE DEPARTMENT A. CONSIDERATION/ACTION ON PROPOSED POLICY PROHIBITING FIREARMS AT WORK B. - CONSIDERATION/ACTION ON REQUEST FOR POLICE VEHICLE CONSIDERATION/ACTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR SAFE AND SOBER COMMUNITIES PROGRAM ACTION ON CITY MANAGER'S PERFoRMANcE EVALUATION, INCLUDING SALARY INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Correspondence: LMCD B. Memo: 2003 AMM Policy Committees C. Newsletter: Mediacom D. Report: Mound Police Dept - May 2003 · E. Letter: Ridgeview Medical Center F. Correspondence: Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative G. FYI: Punchlist for Mound Marketplace/Village by the Bay 2597-2607 2608-2611 2612-2615 2616-2619 2620-2621 2622-2627 2628-2654 2655-2657 2658 2659-2682 2683 2684-2687 2688-2692 PLEASE TURN OFF A1,L CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Article: Chaska Council adopts gas franchise fees LMCC calendar - July 2003 Newsletter: Lake Minnetonka Association Article: Spending isn't the Problem 14. ADJOURN This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site. 2693-2694 2695-2700 2701-2702 2703-2704 More current meeting COUNCIL BRIEFING June 24, 2003 Events Schedule: Don't Forget!! June 23 - rescheduled Ice-Out Open (Chamber of Commerce) June 24 - HRA regular meeting June 24 - CC regular meeting July 8 - HRA regular meeting July 8 - CC regular meeting July 31 - Luau employee appreciation event Upcoming Absences July 3-13 June 25-July 1 Kandis Hanson Bob Brown Vacation Personal time off Ci.ty Hall Closed July 4 Sept 1 Independence Day Labor Day HRA Longpre Building The adoption of this resolution is a housekeeping matter. The explanation is long and complicated and should be done by the Attorney, but it will be removed and then restored to the district at the time we recertify the These proceedings will in no way harm the availability of TIF for the developer. John Dean will explain in detail. Mound Harbor Renaissance It is the recommendation of Jim Prosser, John Dean and me that the discussion with Mound Harbor Renaissance be limited to five minutes or less, allowing simply for the two week extension. Jim will be present at the July 8 meeting and will fully discuss the financial matters associated with the project. That would be the suitable time for MHR to make their pitch for a longer extension. CITY COUNCIL #10. Under grounding Utilities It is the recommendation of attorneys at Kennedy and Graven, and specifically Jim Strommen, that the City pass a resolution that will kick off proceedings with the Public Utilities Commission and force Xcel Energy to be the responsible party for the under grounding of utilities located in publicly owned property, as is the case in both Minneapolis and St Paul. If we are successful in that effort, it will result in considerable savings to the City as we redevelop. Human Resources Ron Gust of Delano has said yes to the Senior Liquor Clerk position at Harbor Wine and Spirits. He will act as night shift supervisor, when so assigned. If back grounding comes in favorable, he will begin on July 1. Applications close for the Public Works Director/Engineering Coordinator at noon on Monday, June 23. Interviews will be day-long and will hopefully take place within the next three weeks. Other shop lifters have been arrested at Harbor Wine and Spirits since our new security system was installed two weeks ago. There is a group of volunteers that are trying to restore our summer celebration. If it happens, it will take place the weekend of Aug 23. More later. The cruise scheduled for July 9 has been cancelled, due to lack of interest. 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: June 17, 2003 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER/APPLICANT: Robert Howell PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 03-25 LOCATION: 4955 Donald Drive PID: 24-117-24-44-0145 ZONING: R-1A Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND At its June 2, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a request from Robert Howell to allow construction of a new 2-story home to be located at 4955 Donald Drive. The requested variance is outlined as follows: Proposed Required Variance Front yard setback (15.7) feet (20) feet (4.3) feet SITE CONDITIONS The subject site includes a single-family dwelling that is to be demolished so as to allow construction of the new home on the site. The existing house is non-conforming due to a deficient front setback of (15.7) feet along Donald Drive and a non-conforming side setback of (5.1) feet along the south property line. The new proposal, as submitted, requi~es variance approval to maintain the existing (15.7) foot front setback. However, the setback on the south side will be increased to (6) feet and will therefore conform to the City Code. -2499- PROJECT DETAILS A copy Planning Report No. 03-25 (excluding attachments) has been included for review and information. A full copy of the report is on file in the Planning and Building Inspections Department and will be provided to members of the City Council upon request. 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 copy of the June 2, 2003 Planning Commission meeting minutes excerpts has been included as an attachment. Additionally, a draft resolution based on the Planning Commission's recommendation has also been provided. -2500- The house will front Donald Drive and will be accessed via a curb cut and new driveway located in the southeast corner of the lot. The proposed new dwelling includes a side- loaded garage on the east side. 4. The lot is irregularly shaped and includes varied topography. Elevation data is included on the survey from Coffin & Gronberg dated May 19, 2003. 5. The proposal, as submitted, meets the (40) percent hardcover allowance for "lots of record." The original application included a request for a (16.5) foot. front setback but was modified to the current variance request of(l 5.7) feet as recornmended by the applicant's structural engineer due to slope conditions. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the proposed variance to allow construction of a new single-family dwelling at 4955 Donald Drive 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 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 June 2, 2003 meeting, it is anticipated that the application will be fbrwarded to the City Council for review at its June 24, 2003 meeting. -2501 - CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 03- A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE OF 4.3 FEET FOR A NEW HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 4955 DONALD DRIVE P & Z CASE # 03-25 WHEREAS, the applicant, Robert Howell, has requested the following variarice to allow construction of a new house at 4955 Donald Drive: Proposed Required Variance Front yard setback (15.7) feet (20) feet (4.3) feet ; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R-IA Zoning District and subject to the requirements in City Code Section 350:425 which requires a 20-foot front setback, a 6-foot side setback, a 15-foot rear yard setback and 40 percent hardcover allowance for lots of record; and WHEREAS, the subject site includes a single-family dwelling that is to be demolished so as to allow construction of the new home on the site; and WHEREAS, the existing house is non-conforming due to a deficient front setback of (15.7) feet along Donald Drive and a non-conforming side setback of(5.1) feet along the south property line; and WHEREAS, the proposal, as submitted, requires variance approval to maintain the existing (15.7) foot front setback however the setback on the south side will be increased to (6) feet and will therefore conform to the current zoning regulations; and -2502- WHEREAS, the lot is irregularly shaped and includes varied topography; and WHEREAS, the property is fronted on two (2) sides by public streets and is therefore subject to double front setback requirements; and WHEREAS, the proposed front setback of (15.7) for the new house is no closer than the present setback for the existing house; and WHEREAS, hardcover will not exceed (40) percent; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at its June 2, 2003 meeting 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 requested variances subject to the following conditions: 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 application. d. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits. A building permit will be required including the submittal of all appropriate information. Applicant is advised that structural engineering data may be required for foundation and retaining walls. The applicant will need to provide additional information regarding proposed grading activities at the time of building permit application. The private retaining wall along Donald Drive will need to be repaired and/or replaced. -2503- 2. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: Lots 17 and 18 and the westerly 65 feet of Lot 16, Block 12, Arden, Hennepin County, Minnesota 3. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to MS.S. 462.36, Subd. 1. This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. 4. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying for all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has. been filed with the City Clerk. 5. The variance is valid for one (1) year following its approval unless an extension is approved by the City Council pursuant to the City Code 350:530, Subd 2 (E). The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Counciimembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted June 24, 2003 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -2504- MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION June 2, 2003 CASE #03-25 VARIANCE - NEW HOUSE 5944 DONALD DRIVE - ROBERT HOWELL The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow construction of a new home. The site includes a single-family dwelling that is to be demolished so as to allow construction of the new home on the site. The existing house is non-conforming due to a deficient front setback of 15.7 feet along Donald Drive and a non-conforming side setback of 5.1 feet along the south property line. The new proposal, as submitted, requires variance approval to maintain the existing 15.7- foot front setback. However, the setback on the south side will be increased to 6 feet and will therefore conform to the City Code. Staff recommends approval of the proposed 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 application. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits. 5. Any other conditions from City staffand City Engineer. Discussion Mueller asked where on the survey were the structural engineering concerns? Smith indicated they were on the slopes to the west and the retaining wall in the southeast. Michael asked if there were any way to move the house west. Smith said the owner had originally placed it a foot west. The house could be narrowed somewhat but it's not really wide to begin with. Osmek was comfortable with the variance as there was no development across street to cause a "tight" situation. MOTION by Ayaz, seconded by Osmek, to approve staff recommendation with conditions. Findings of fact: This is a lot of extreme topography; moving the structure to west into a conforming location becomes an engineering nightmare and cost prohibitive; current existing condition will not get worse. MOTION carried unanimously. -2505- 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 28, 2003 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER/APPLICANT: Robert Howell PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 03-25 LOCATION: 4955 DOnald Drive PID: 24-117-24-44-0145 ZONING: R- 1A Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential SUMMARY The applicant, Robert Howell, has submitted a variance request to allow construction.of a new 2- story home to be located at 4955 Donald Drive. The requested variance is outlined as follows: Proposed Required Variance Front yard setback (15.7) feet (20) feet (4.3) feet SITE CONDITIONS The subject site includes a single-family dwelling that is to be demolished so as to allow construction of the new home on the site. The existing house is non-conforming due to a deficient front setback of (15.7) feet along Donald Drive and a non-conforming side setback of (5.1) feet along the south property line. The new proposal, as submitted, requires variance approval to maintain the existing (15.7) foot front setback. However, the setback on the south side will be increased to (6) feet and will therefore conform to the City Code. LEGAL DESCRIPTION A copy of an updated survey for the property from Coffin & Gronberg dated May 19, 2003 includes the legal description of the subject property. -2506- 60-DAY PROCESS The application was received and deemed to be complete on April 30, 2003. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City of Mound has sixty (60) days to approve or deny a land use request. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION All property owners abutting the subject site were mailed a copy of the Planning Commission agenda on or around May 29, 2003 to inform them of the variance request. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all applicable City departments for review and comment. All written comments received to date have been summarized below: City Engineer John Cameron The applicant will need to provide additional information regarding proposed grading activities at the time of building permit application. The existing retaining wall(s) along the street collapsed and the City has rebuilt its portion however the private retaining wall is in a state is disrepair. Parks Director Jim Fackler No comment. Public Works Director No comment. Police Chief Kurtz No comment. Building Official Matt Simoneau A building permit wilt be required including the submittal of all appropriate information. Applicant is advised that structural engineering data may be required for foundation and retaining walls. Fire ChiefPederson No comments. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The subject property includes a single-family dwelling and currently lacks a garage. 2. The subject site is bordered by Churchill Road to the west and Donald Drive to the north. Churchill Road is currently unirnproved. -2507- The house will front Donald Drive and will be accessed via a curb cut and new driveway located in the southeast corner of the lot. The proposed new dwelling includes a side- loaded garage on the east side. 4. The lot is irregularly shaped and includes varied topography. Elevation data is included on the survey from Coffin & Gronberg dated May 19, 2003. 5. The proposal, as submitted, meets the (40) percent hardcover allowance for "lots of record." The original application included a request for a (16.5) foot front setback but was modified to the current variance request of(l 5.7) feet as recommended by the applicant's structural engineer due to slope conditions. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the proposed variance to allow construction of a new single-family dwelling at 4955 Donald Drive 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 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 June 2, 2003 meeting, it is anticipated that the application will be forwarded to the City Council for review at its June 24, 2003 meeting. -2508- MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 10, 2003 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, June 10, 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 Manager Kandis Hanson Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent A routine in nature by the Council and will be enacted b separate discussion on these items unless a which event the item will be removed from the normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order at considered to be There will be no so requests, in 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Brown, Motion carried. All voted in favor. 4. CONSENT MOTION by Upon roll call vote tal )ve the consent agenda as presented. carried. Ao and ) rove C. bid $8 .00. D.A Retainir E. Approve tr receipt of ce F. ay 27, 2003 regular meeting, the May 27, 2003 special 03 special meeting. the amount of $369,061.50. )al Well No. 8, to Mark J. Traut Wells in amount of uest No. 4 in the amount of $54,510.04, for the 2002 cement, to Sunram Construction. license for Gullickson Tree Trimming, contingent upon ate of insurance. Approve Planning Commission Recommendation - RESOLUTION NO. 03-57: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REQUEST FROM JIM AND JAN ROBEP, GE FOR SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1680 BLUEBIRD LAND - PID #13-117-24-12-0092. G. Approve authorization to hire Follstad & Barrett Associates, Inc., as electrical engineer for the CSAH15 Streetscape Project, for $4,900.00. This was Iow bid and the recommendation of Hoisington Koegler Group. -2471 - Mound City Council Minutes - June 10, 2003 5, COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ONTHEAGENDA None were offered. 6. TOUR OF PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY LOCATED AT 5468 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD Mayor Meisel recessed at 7:37 p.m. to the Public Works Facility ~or the scheduled tour. 7. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. LMC Friday Fax B. Correspondence: LMCD C. Report: Harbor Wine & Spirits D. Report: Hennepin County Open Book Meetin E. Newsletter: Gillespie Center F. LMCC Calendar G. Hennepin County CSAH 15 Project H. LMC memo on Board vacancies I. FYI: Letterto Spring Park from Amer 8. ADJOURN MOTION by Brown, seconded by Motion carried. All voted in favor. Attest: Kan Mayor Pat Meisel -2472- JUNE 24, 2003 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 061103SUE $7,375.61 JUNE 061703SUE $251.11 JUNE 061803SUE $6,523.61 JUNE 062403SUE $376,887.32JUNE TOTAL $391,037.65 -2473- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/11/03 8:01 AM Page 1 Current Period: June 2003 Batch Name 061103SUE User Dollar Amt $7,375.61 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $7,375.61 $0.00 In Balance Refer 61103 DEBORD, JEANNE M. Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENE $1,000.00 Invoice 060403 Transaction Date 6/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,000.00 Refer 61103 FRONTIER/CITIZENS COMMUNICA Cash Payment E 101-41910-321 Telephone & Cells 06-03 952-472-0600 $1,108.23 Invoice 061103 Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells 05-03 952-472-0635 $359.96 Invoice 061103 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells 05-03 952-472-0635 $359.96 Invoice 061103 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone & Cells 05-03 952-472-0635 $359.96 Invoice 061103 Cash Payment E 101-42110-321 Telephone & Cells 05-03 952-472-0621 $847.14 Invoice 061103 Cash Payment E 609-49750-321 Telephone & Cells 05-03 952-472~0648 $312.24 Invoice 061103 Transaction Date 6/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,347.49 Refer 61103 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Cash Payment E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs 13-117-24-33-0093 PROP TAX BALBOA $2,040.13 Invoice 061103 Transaction Date 6/9/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,040.13 Refer 61103 LUEDKE, JULIE M. Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $207.67 Invoice 061103 Transaction Date 6/9/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $207.67 Refer 61103 MILLER, JOHSON Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENESE $88.24 Invoice 061103 Transaction Date 6/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $88.24 Refer 61103 MINNCOMM PAGING Cash Payment E 222-42260-325 Pagers-Fire Dept. 05-03 PAGERS $122.46 Invoice 20233306032 ' Transaction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $122.46 Refer 61103 NELSON, JOYCE Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $144.06 Invoice 060403 Transaction Date 6/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $144.06 Refer 61103 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (POLl Cash Payment E 101-42110-321 Telephone & Cells 04-19-03 THRU 05-18-03 CELL PHONES $425.56 Invoice 061103 Transaction Date 6/9/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $425.56 -2474- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/11/03 8:01 AM Page 2 Current Period: June 2003 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 675 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND 10100 Wells Fargo $4,180.86 $122.46 $359.96 $359.96 $312.24 $2 ,O4O. 13 $7,375.61 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $7,375.61 $7,375.61 -2475- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/17103 1:04 PM Page 1 Current Period: June 2003 Batch Name 061703SUE User Dollar Amt $251.11 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $251.11 $0.00 In Balance Refer 61703 MOUND POST OFFICE Cash Payment E 601-49400-322 Postage Invoice 061703 Cash Payment E 602-49450-322 pOStage Invoice 061703 Transaction Date 6/17/2003 Fund Summary 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE Wells Fargo 10100 10100 Wells Fargo $125.56 $125.55 $251.11 $125.56 $125.55 Total $251.11 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $251.11 $251.11 -2476- ClTY OF MOUND Payments 06/18103 7:35 AM Page 1 Current Period: June 2003 Batch Name 06t8035UE User Dollar Amt $6,523.6t Payments CompUter Dollar Amt $6,523.61 $0.00 In Balance Refer 61803 HANSON, KANDIS G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical 6/12/2003 Cash Payment Invoice 061203 Transaction Date REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $410.00 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $410.00 Refer 61803 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Cash Payment G 101-22831 2300 Chateau, L. Coppin MAILING UNITS $62.50 Invoice 061003 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $62.50 Refer 61803 PETTY CASH Cash Payment G 101-22803 Police Reserves REPLENISH PETTY CASH $89.75 Invoice 061803 PO 17814 Transaction Date 6/16/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $89.75 Refer 61803 VERIZON WIRELESS (FIRE/FIN) Cash Payment Invoice 061803 Payment 061803 Cash Payment Invoice 061803 Cash Payment Invoice 061803 Cash Payment Invoice 061803 Cash Payment Invoice 061803 Cash Payment Invoice 061803 Cash Payment Invoice 061803 Cash Payment Invoice 061803 Transaction Date Refer 61803 Cash Payment invoice 061803 Cash Payment Invoice 061803 Cash Payment Invoice 061803 Cash Payment nvoice 061803 ransaction Date 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 & Cells E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-41310-321 Telephone & Cells 06-03 296-9058 FINANCE 06-03 590-4351 P/W SKINNER 06-03 590-4351 P/W SKINNER 06-03 590-4351 P/W SKINNER 06-03 723-7560 MOUND FIRE 06-03 751-3573 ENGINE #18 06-03 751-3573 MOUND FIRE 06-03 875-4502 RESCUE TRUCK 06-03 240-5244 HANSON $7.99 $35.43 $35.43 $35.43 $0.48 $0,48 $5.37 $7.99 $67.51 6/16/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $196.11 Total $304.20 $142.03 $62.14 $88.74 $597.11 VERIZON WIRELESS (PA4/) G 101-22816 Personal Cell Phone E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells E 602-49450-321 Telephone & Cells 6/13/2003 06-03 CELL PHONES 06-03 CELL PHONES 06-03 CELL PHONES 06-03 CELL PHONES Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 61803 XCEL ENERGY -2477- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/18/03 7:35 AM Page ~2 Current Period: June 2003 Cash Payment E 101-43100-381 Electric Utilities 05-03 STREET LIGHTING $5,168.14 Invoice 0542-505-000-15 Transaction Date 6/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,168.14 10100 Wells Fargo Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND $6,287.55 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES $14.32 601 WATER FUND $97.57 602 SEWER FUND $124.17 $6,523.61 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $6,523.61 $6,523.61 -2478- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06120103 7:31 AM Page 1 Current Period: June 2003 Batch Name 062403SUE User Dollar Amt Payments Computer Dollar Amt Refer 62403 A+ CLEANING CONTRACTORS, IN Cash Payment invoice 9186 Transaction Date E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services 6/5/2003 $376,887.32 $376,887.32 $0.00 In Balance 06-03 CLEANING SERVICE $1,260.96 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,260.96 Refer 62403 AMCON Cash Payment E 496-46580-300 Professional Srvs 05-03 PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Invoice 2466 Transaction Date 6/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 62403 AMERICAN LEGION POST #398 Cash Payment G 101-22887 Legion Post 01-44, 01-45 CLOSE ESCROW ACCOUNT Invoice 061103 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Cash Payment E 222-42260-300 Professional Srvs TEST TRUCK #L-17 Invoice 2011551-1N Date 6/17/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 $24,287.11 Total $24,287.1 t $532.15 Total $532.15 $1,070.00 Total $1,070.00 Refer 62403 ARCTIC GLACIER PREMIUM ICE Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $229.68 invoice 387316510 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $48,72 Invoice 387316409 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $49.80 Invoice 387316011 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $48.48 Invoice 387316805 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $54.16 Invoice 387315709 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $430.84 Refer 62403 A WD COOLERS OF MINNESOTA Cash Payment E 101-41110-210 Operating Supplies 05-03 EQUIPMENT RENTAL $60.55 Invoice 053103 Transaction Date 6/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $60,55 Refer 62403 BELLBOY CORPORATION Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise Fo~ R Invoice 37140700 Cash Payment E Invoice 26642400 Cash Payment E Invoice 26641800 .~ash Payment E ~ice 26635400 Cash Payment E invoice 26584400 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale MISCELLANEOUS $215.42 LIQUOR $1,595.75 CREDIT-LIQUOR -$79.00 LIQUOR $1,008.75 LIQUOR $1,796.40 -2479- cITy OF MOUND Payments 06/20/03 7:31 AM Page 2 Current Period: June 2003 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 37140700 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Refer 62403 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY Cash Payment E 101-41110-431 Meeting Expense Invoice 353019 Cash Payment E 101-42400-431 Meeting Expense Invoice 353019 Cash Payment E 281-45210-430 Miscellaneous Invoice 353019 Transaction Date 6/18/2003 iNc. Cash Payment E 101-43100-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos Invoice 0429-8003972 Cash Payment E 222-42260-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos Invoice 0200-1307032 Cash Payment E 609-49750-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos invoice 0429-8003980 Cash Payment E 101-43100-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos Invoice 0200-1307131 LIQUOR $619.00 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,156.32 COFFEE SERVICE $21.25 COFFEE SERVICE $8.50 COFFEE SERVICE $4.25 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $34.00 05-03 MAIN STREET $20.39 05-03 GARBAGE PICKUP $67.01 05-03 GARBAGE PICKUP $17.76 05-03 GARBAGE PICKUP $66.73 $66.73 05-03 GARBAGE PICKUP $66.73 05-03 GARBAGE PICKUKP,ROLLOFFS $150.30 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $455.65 Cash Payment E 601-49400-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos 05-03 GARBAGE PICKUP Invoice 0200-1307131 Cash Payment E 602-49450-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos Invoice 0200-1307131 Cash Payment E 101-45200-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos Invoice 0200-1307149 Transaction Date 6/5/2003 Refer 62403 BIFFS,/NC PORTABLE RESTRO0 Cash Payment E 101-45200-410 Rentals (GENERAL) Invoice W192107 Cash Payment E 101-45200-410 Rentals (GENERAL) Invoice W192106 Transaction Date 6/16/2003 05-14-03 THRU 06-10-03 PORTABLE RESTROOMS MOUND BAY PARK 05-14-03 THRU 06-10-03 PORTABLE RESTROOMS CENTERVEIW BEACH $248.42 $41.83 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $290.25 Refer 62403 CENTERPOINTENERGY(MINNEG Cash Payment Invoice 062403 Cash Payment invoice 062403 Cash Payment invoice 062403 Cash Payment Invoice 062403 E 101-45200-383 Gas Utilities E 101-45200-383 Gas Utilities E 101-41910-383 Gas Utilities E 101-43100-383 Gas Utilities 04-17-03 THRU 05-16-03 SERVICES #543-000- 053-000 04-17-03 THRU 05-16-03 SERVICES #543-001- 095-800 04-17-03 THRU 05-16-03 SERVICES #543-001- 853-000 04-17-03 THRU 05-16-03 SERVICES #543-001- ' 972-603 $87.94 $353.14 $342.65 $44.35 -2480- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/20/03 7:31 AM Pa~e 3 Current Period: June 2003 Cash Payment E 601-49400-383 Gas Utilities 04-17-03 THUR 05-16-03 SERVICES #543-001- $24.19 972-603 Invoice 062403 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 04-17-03 THRU 05-16-03 SERVICES #543-001- $32.26 972-603 Invoice 062403 Transaction Date 6/9/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $884.53 Refer 62403 CHADWlCK AND MER'I'Z Cash Payment E 101-41600-304 Legal Fees 05-03 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $5,298.30 Invoice 062403 Transaction Date 6118/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,298.30 Refer 62403 COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 63442177 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Wells Fargo $220.96 10100 Total $220.96 Refer 62403 COLORFULLY YOUR, INCORPOR Cash Payment E 222-42260-217 Fire Prevention Supples PLASTIC HELMETS $8t0.32 Invoice 03-10193 Cash Payment E 222-42260-217 Fire Prevention Supplies COLORING BOOKS $559.70 e nvoice 03-10192 ransaction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,370.02 Refer 62403 COMPUTER CHEQUE Cash Payment E 609-49750-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 05-03 CHECK VERIFICATION $54.50 Invoice 106850503 Transaction Date 6/16/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $54.50 Refer 62403 CONCRETE CUTTING AND CORIN Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply DIR BLADE $346.12 invoice 23660 Transaction Date 6/17/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $346..12 Refer 62403 COPY IMAGES, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 101-41910-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 05-03 COPY MAINTENANCE $346,80 Invoice 35961 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 Refer 62403 CRA WFORD, ROBERT Cash Payment Invoice 062403 Transaction Date Wells Fargo 10100 Total $346.80 E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training 6/17/2003 REIMBURSE FIRE FIGHTER CLASS $50.00 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $50.00 Refer 62403 DA Y DISTRIBUTING COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $16.90 Invoice 223344 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $2,058.38 Invoice 223331 Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,063.45 222324 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,138.73 Refer 62403 E-Z RECYCLING -2481 - CiTY OF MOUND Payments 06/20/03 7:31 AM Page 4 Current Period: June 2003 Cash Payment E 670-49500-440 Other Contractual Servic 06-03 CURBSIDE RECYCLING $8,075.25 Invoice 5229 Transaction Date 6/5~2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $8,075.25 Refer 62403 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $10.40 Invoice 411032 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $3,951.80 Invoice 411031 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $534.50 Invoice 409408 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $2,390.75 Invoice 408014 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $394.00 invoice 406710 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $7,281.45 Refer 62403 EMBEDDED SYSTEMS, INC. Cash Payment E 101-42115-329 Sirens/Phone Linesl Invoice 30538 Transaction Date 6/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For r MIX Invoice 148489 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 JULY THRU DEC SIREN MAINTENANCE $594.00 Total $594.00 $64.00 Total $64.00 Refer 62403 FIRE RESCUE SCHOOL, STATE M Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training Invoice 052703 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training invoice 052703 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 62403 FF~ONTIER/CITIZENS COMMUNICA Cash Payment E 101-45200-321 Telephone & Cells 05-03 472-0646 DEPOT Invoice 062403 Transaction Date 6/16/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 62403 Cash Payment Invoice 599716 Cash Payment Invoice 599716 Cash Payment Invoice 599716 Cash Payment Invoice 599716 Cash Payment Invoice 599716 Cash Payment Invoice 599716 G & K 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 $110.00 $110.00 MYERS,TONY FIRE RESCUE SCHOOL I-ARSON,JOHN FIRE RESCUE SCHOOL 06-10-03 UNIFORMS 06-10-03 UNIFORMS 06-10-03 UNIFORMS 06-10-03 MATS 06-10-03 MATS 06-10-03 MATS Total $220.00 $19.41 Total $19.41 $29.84 $29.84 $29.83 $31,08 $31,08 $31.08 -2482- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/20/03 7:31 AM Page 5 Current Period: June 2003 Cash Payment $51.42 invoice 599714 Cash Payment $16.21 Invoice 599713 Cash Payment $57.18 Invoice 599715 Cash Payment $45.78 Invoice 599712 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $353.34 Refer 62403 Gl. ASS PLUS, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery 2003 DODGE DURANGO $410.71 Invoice 8975 Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery 1997 CHEV ASTRO VAN $317.92 Invoice 8978 Transaction Date 6/9/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $728.63 E 222-42260-216 Cleaning Supplies 06-10-03 MATS E 101-45200-223 Building Repair Supplies 06-10-03 MATS E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services 06-10-03 MATS E 609-49750-460 Janitorial Services 06-10-03 MATS Refer 62403 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies 05-03 WATER #32345800 $46.23 Invoice 053103 Transaction Date 6/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $46.23 62403 GRAPE BEGINNINGS, INCORPOR E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $663.00 Invoice 55608 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $663.00 Refer 62403 GRIGGS COOPER AND COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$524.04 Invoice 614892 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $716.24 Invoice 727854 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $3,409,41 Invoice 727853 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $51.00 Invoice 727728 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $511.77 Invoice 724560 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $212.82 Invoice 724559 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,377.20 Refer 62403 GSR GROUP, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 101-41910-500 Capital Outlay (GENE~RA INTERIOR SIGNS $4,288.76 Invoice 1037 Transaction Date 6/13/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,288.76 Refer 62403 HANSON, KANDIS Cash Payment E 101-41310-305 Medical Services REIMBURSE EYE EXAM $50.00 060903 Payment E 101-41310-321 Telephone & Cells 05-10-30 DSL LINE $49.95 Invoice 060903 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $99~95 -2483- CiTY OF MOUND Payments 06/20/03 7:31 AM Page 6 Current Period: June 2003 Refer 62403 HAWK LABELING SYSTEMS Cash Payment E 222-42260-200 Office Supplies LABELING SUPPLIES $42.85 Invoice 130839 PO 17614 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $42.85 Refer 62403 HAWKINS, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 601-49400-227 Chemicals CONTAINER CHARGE $65.00 Invoice DM 89551 Transaction Date 6/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $65.00 Refer 62403 HECKSEL MACHINE SHOP Cash Payment G 222-22801 Deposits/Escrow Invoice 060503 Cash Payment G 222-22801 Deposits/Escrow Invoice 052103 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 BOAT SUPPLIES $1,125.00 BOAT SUPPLIES $38.00 . Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,163.00 Refer 62404 HENNEPIN COUNTY ELECTIONS Cash Payment E 101-41410-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 03-31-03 Transaction Date 6/13/2003 POSTAL VERIFICATION CARDS Wells Fargo 10100 $326.28 Total $326,28 Refer 62403 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMA TIO Cash Payment E 101-42110-418 Other Rentals 05-03 RADIO LEASE Invoice. 23058018 Cash Payment E 222-42260-418 Other Rentals 05-03 RADIO LEASE Invoice 23058017 Cash Payment E 101-41910-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 05-03 NETWORK SUPPORT Invoice 23057036 Transaction Date 6/9/2003 Refer 62403 HENNEPIN COUNTM TREAS ER Cash Payment G 101-22945 5234 Lynwood, #03-29 CUP invoice 062403 Transaction Date 6/13/2003 Refer 62403 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP, I . Cash Payment E 401-46540-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 060503-A Cash Payment E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 060503-B Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 060503-C Cash Payment E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 060503-D Cash Payment · G Invoice 060503-E 1 Cash Payment G 101-22942 2851 Tuxedo Blvd #03-24 C Invoice 060503-E2 Cash Payment G 101-22908 Landform Development Invoice 060503-F Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 MAILING UNITS Wells Fargo 05-03 LOST LAKE GREENVVAY CD'S 05-03 CTY RD 15 STREETSCAPE 05-03 MISC PLANNING 05-03 MOUND VISIONS $1,173.34 $503.42 $33.57 Total $11710.33 $37.50 10100 Total $37.50 $750.00 $9,120.77 $1,354.00 $60.00 101-22917 Three Points Var Becke #03- 05-03 BODINE MINOR SUBDIVISIONI $240.00 $80.00 $1,876.00 Total $13,480.77 05-03 RENO CUP 05-03 MOUND HARBOR RENAISSANCE Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 62403 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT -2484- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/20103 7:31 AM Page 7 Current Period: June 2003 Oash r3aymen{ ~ t0'1-{)~{~ WesJonka ~chooJ CUP ~02-0 CLOgE EgCROW ACCOUNT $462.19 Invoice 062403 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $462.19 Refer 62403 INFRATECH Cash Payment G 602-16325 Distribution System JOINT GROUTING $11,508.30 Invoice 030832 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $11,508.30 Refer 602403 ISLAND PARK SKELL Y Cash Payment E 601-49400-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery FUEL PUMP #30 $166.49 Invoice 12741 Cash Payment $467.40 invoice 12741 Cash Payment $16.60 Invoice 13264 Cash Payment $16.60 Invoice 13264 Cash Payment $45.00 invoice 13424 Cash Payment $100,83 Invoice 13377 ~ash Payment $507.03 Invoice 13364 Cash Payment $27.45 Invoice 13317 Cash Payment $25.86 Invoice 13304 Transaction Date 6/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,373.26 Refer 62403 JOHNS VARIETY AND PETS E 601-49400-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery BREAKS #30 E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery FLAT TIRE REPAIR E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery FLAT TIRE REPAIR E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery LUBE PIVOTS E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery MULTI V-GROOVE E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery HUB AND SENSOR ASSY E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery OIL CHANGE E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery OIL CHANGE Cash Payment G 101-22808 Adopt A Green Space PLANTS $13.69 Invoice 875463 Cash Payment G 101-22808 Adopt A Green Space RECEIPT BOOKS $16.06 Invoice 875571 Transaction Date 6/16/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $29.75 Refer 62403 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR Cash Payment Invoice 223322 Cash Payment Invoice 223321 Cash Payment Invoice 1570826 Cash Payment Invoice 1570825 Cash Payment Invoice 1570824 ~'ash Payment nvoice 1567806 Cash Payment Invoice 1567805 E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-WINE -$6,90 CREDIT-WINE -$3.46 WINE $835.85 WINE $1,453,55 LIQUOR $1,842,63 WINE $53.85 LIQUOR $26,00 -2485- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/20/03 7:31 AM Page 8 Current Period: June 2003 · ,~ ~ - ___._w--~~_~__~~_~ Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $127.94 Invoice 1567804 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $877.85 Invoice 1567803 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,207.31 Refer 62403 JUBILEE FOODS Cash Payment E 101-41110-430 Miscellaneous 07-28-03 COUNCIL COOKIES $47.90 Invoice 062403 Transaction Date 6/17/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $47.90 Refer 62403 KELLEHER CONSTRUCTION, INCO Cash Payment E 496-46580-300 Professional Srvs 03-31-03 PERIOD ENDING $90,772.00 Invoice 061103 Transaction Date 6/12/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $90,772.00 Refer 612403 Cash Payment $346.26 Invoice 654 Cash Payment $85.57 Invoice 655 Cash Payment $61.69 Invoice 674 Cash Payment $35.82 Invoice 672 Cash Payment $286.56 invoice 667 Cash Payment $79.60 Invoice 673 Transaction Date 6/9/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 62403 LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS E 101-43100-328 Employment Advertising 06-03-03 P/W ENGINEER AD Cash Payment Invoice 26830 Cash Payment Invoice 26830 Cash Payment Invoice 26830 Cash Payment Invoice 26830 Cash Payment Invoice 26830 Cash Payment Invoice 26830 Transaction Date LAKER NEWSPAPER E 101-42400-351 Legal Notices Publishing 06-07-03 ORDIANCE #02-2003 E 101-42400-351 Legal Notices Publishing 06-07-03 ORDINANCE #03-2003 E 101-41110-351 Legal Notices Publishing 06-14-03 COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS G 101-22942 2851 Tuxedo Blvd #03-24 C 06-14-03 RENO CUP E 601-49400-351 Legal Notices Publishing 06-14-03 CONFIDENCE REPORT E 101-41110-351 Legal Notices Publishing 06-14-03 REZONE COMP PLAN E 601-49400-328 Employment Advertising 06-03-03 P/W ENGINEERING AD E 602-49450-328 Employment Advertising 06-03-03 P/VV ENGINEERING AD E 101-43100-328 Employment Advertising 06-10-03 P/W ENGINEERING AD E 601-49400-328 Employment Advertising 06-10-03 P/W ENGINEERING AD E 602-49450-328 Employment Advertising 06-10-03 P/W ENGINEERING AD $895.50 $80.50 $80.50 $80.50 $80.50 $80.50 $8O.5O 619/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $483.00 Refer 62403 LANO EQUIPMENT, INCORPORAT . Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair COVER $18.94 Invoice 90683 Transaction Date 6/16/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $18.94 Refer 62403 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC -2486- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06120103 7:31 AM Page 9 Current Period: June 2003 iiii ii ..... ~,: ,.-~,. . , Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $230.18 invoice 0933854 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $230.18 Refer 62403 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts BARS $117.13 Invoice 046810 PO 17776 Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply RECOIL ROPE $6.61 Invoice 047141 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $123.74 Refer 62404 MADDEN, FRANK AND ASSOCIA T Cash Payment E 101-49999-300 Professional Srvs 05-03 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $99.00 Invoice 060103 Transaction Date 6/9/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $99.00 Refer 62403 MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR , $37,00 Invoice 550643 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $90.00 Invoice 550642 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $104.50 nvoice 550641 Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $3,580.32 invoice 550640 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $110.00 Invoice 548012 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $2,125,55 Invoice 548011 Cash.Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale CREDIT-BEER -$20.45 invoice 000971 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale CREDIT-BEER -$67,50 Invoice 000609 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale CREDIT-BEER -$0.06 Invoice 535399-B Transaction Date 6/1'9/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5.959.36 Refer 62403 MARLIN'S TRUCKING DELIVERY Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 06-02-03 DELIVERY CHARGE $10.80 Invoice 12753 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 06-05-03 DELIVERY CHARGE $56.70 Invoice 12776 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 06-09-03 DELIVERY CHARGE $23.40 Invoice 12786 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 06-12-03 DELIVERY CHARGE $226.80 invoice 12807 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $317.70 Refer 62403 MCCARVILLE, MICHAEL ;ash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training nvoice 062403 Transaction Date REIMBURSE FIREFIGHTER CLASS 6/17/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $317.84 $317,84 -2487- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/20/03 7:31 AM Page 10 Current Period: June 2003 ..... ~,~~~. - ; Refer 62403 Cash Payment Invoice 43840 Cash Payment Invoice 43841 Cash Payment Invoice 43842 Cash Payment Invoice 43843 Cash Payment Invoice 43844-A Cash Payment Invoice 43844-B Cash Payment Invoice 43845 Cash Payment Invoice 43846 Cash Payment Invoice 43847 Cash Payment Invoice 43848 Cash Payment Invoice 43840 MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCl E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs Cash Payment E401-43100-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 43850 Cash Payment E 281-45210-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 43851-A Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 43851-B Cash Payment Invoice 43852 Cash Payment Invoice 43853 Cash Payment Invoice 43854 Cash Payment Invoice 43855 Cash Payment Invoice 43856 Cash Payment Invoice 43857 Cash Payment Invoice 43858 Cash Payment Invoice 43859 Cash Payment invoice 43860 Cash Payment Invoice 43861 05-03 WESTEDGE STREET IMPROVEMENT Projec~ 07827 05-03 PLANNING MISC ENGINEERING Project 08901 05-03 ZONING MISC ENGINEERING Project 08901 05-03 STREETS MISC ENGINEERING Project 08902 05-03 WATER MISC ENGINERING Project 08904 05-03 SEWER MISC ENGINEERING Project 08904 05-03 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT Project 12252 05-03 CTY RD 15 REALIGNMENT Project 12533 G 101-22854 Langdon Bay Major Sub-Divi 05-03 LANGDON BAY DEVELOPMENT Project 12754 E 455-43255-300 Professional Srvs 05-03 MCES LIFT STATION Project 13132 E 101-45200-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA 05-03 SKATE PARK Project 13207 05-03 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT Project 13215 05-03 DOCK MAP SHORELINE FOOTAGE Project 13223 05-03 DOCK MAP SHORELINE FOOTAGE Project 13223 G 601-16300 Improvements Other Than BI 06-03 WELL/PUMPHOUSE Project 13313 E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 05-03 LONGPRE BUILDING DEMO Project 13314 E 101-42400~300 Professional Srvs 05-03 6384 WALNUT LANE,MEYER Project 13488 G 101-22890 2957 Cambridge Retain Wall 05-03 SKALLERUD LOT SURVEY Project 13501 E 401-46540-300 Professional Srvs 05-03 LOST LAKE/AUDITORS ROAD Project 13566 G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 05-03 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT Project 13646 E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs 05-03 STORM WATER IMPROVEMENT Project 13677 E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 05-03 WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT Project 13681 E 496-46580-300 Professional Srvs 05-03 PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY Project 13747 G 101-22899 Pastuck Natural Homes #02- 05-03 PASTUCK 02-12 SUB-DIVISION Project 13770 $272.O0 $2,575.00 $412.00 $103.00 $16.50 $16.50 $103.00 $1,497.0O $1,181.80 $257.50 $1,059.00 $2,097.70 $238.75 $238.75 $2,638.50 $1,287.6O $1,212.00 $154.5O $77.02 $355.10 $1,003.50 $861.0o $426.00 $566.50 -2488- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/20/03 7:31 AM Page 11 Current Period: June 2003 Cash Payment G 101-22908 Landform Development 05-03 LANDFORM DEVELOPMENT $463.50 Invoice 43862 Project 13832 Cash Payment G 101-22900 2331 Driftwood, Johnson, su 05-03 2331 DRIFTWOOD LAND $51.50 Invoice 43863 Project 13970 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 05-03 TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY $154.50 Invoice 43864 Project 14000 Cash Payment E 101-41500~300 Professional Srvs 05-03 INFRASTRUCTURE GASB $103.00 Invoice 43865 Project 14120 Cash Payment E 401-43105-300 Professional Srvs 05-03 2003 STREET RECONSTRUCTION $3,023.10 Invoice 43866 Project 14121 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 05-03 NPDES PHASE II PERMITTING $196.60 Invoice 43867 Project 14137 Cash Payment G 101-22924 6380 Bayridge Rd Stone 03- 05-03 6380 BAYRIDGE RD 03-11 $51.50 Invoice 43868 Project 14280 Cash Payment G 101-22925 6041 ddgewood, 03-13 John 05-03 6041 RIDGEWOOD ROAD 03-13 $218.00 Invoice 43869 Project 14297 Cash Payment G 101-22927 5025 Wren Road,Bodine #03 05-03 5025 WREN ROAD ~¢)3-16 $51.50 Invoice 43870 Project 14304 Cash Payment G 101-22928 4738 Kildare, Haug, #03-19 05-03 2544 COMMERCE #03-18 $166.50 Invoice 43871 Project 14307 E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 05-03 1861 COMMERCE WETLAND $370.50 43872 Project 14354 Cash P,ayment G 101-22928 4738 Kiidare, Haug, #03-19 05-03 1754 JONES LANE 03-20 $115.00 Invoice 43873 Project 14369 Cash Payment G 101-22941 2305 Norwood Lane, #03-23 05-03 2305 NORWOOD LANE #03-23 $51.50 invoice 43874 Project 14382 Cash Payment G 101-22942 2851 Tuxedo Blvd #03-24 C 05-03 2851 TUXEDO BLVD #03-24 $51.50 Invoice 43875 Project 14383 Cash Payment G 101-22939 4955 Donald Dr. #03-25 Vari 05-03 4955 DONALD DRIVE #03-25 $51.50 Invoice 43876 Project 14384 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $23,767,92 Refer 62403 METRO FIRE Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies HELMET $207.29 Invoice 12917 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies LENS IN POUCH $88.86 Invoice 13439 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies ASSAULT NOZZLE $1,465.25 invoice 13061 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies ELECTRIC FAN $571.49 Invoice 13503 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies LEATHER FRONT $34.82 invoice 13278 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,367.71 Refer 62403 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIR Cash Payment E 602-49450-388 Waste DisposaI-MClS 07-03 WASTEWATER $32,738,33 nvoice 0000757581 Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $32,738,33 Refer 62403 MICHAEL, GEOFF -2489- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/20/03 7:31 AM Page 12 Current Period: June 2003 Cash Payment E 101-49999-300 Professional Srvs UPDATE RESIDENT PACKET $225.00 Invoice 604 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $225.00 Refer 62403 MIDWEST FIRE EQUIPMENT AND Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies GUAGES $369.00 Invoice 7692 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $369.00 Refer 62403 MINNEAPOLIS DEPARTMENT HEA Cash Payment E 101-42110-305 Medical Services 05-03 ANALYSIS CONTROLLED $67.00 SUBSTANCES Invoice 062403 Transaction Date 6/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $67.00 Refer 62403 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTRO Cash Payment E 602-49450-434 Conference & Tralnin~ SD SEWER LICENSE $40.00 Invoice 17777 PO 17777 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $40.00 Refer 62403 MINNESOTA WASTEWATER OPER Cash Payment E 602-49450-434 Conference & Traininil 07-17-03 KIVISTO REGISTRATION $175.00 Invoice 062403 Cash Payment E 602-49450-434 Conference & Training 07-17-03 KESTNER, REGISTRATION $175.00 Invoice 062403 Cash Payment E 602-49450-434 Conference & Training 07-17-03 SKINNER, REGISTRATION $175.00 invoice 062403 Transaction Date 6/13/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $525.00 Refer 62403 MOUND MARKETPLACE LLC Cash Payment E 609-49750-412 Building Rentals 07-03 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE $478.45 Invoice 062403 Transaction Date 6/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $478.45 Refer 62403 MOUND, CITY OF Cash Payment E 222-42260-418 Other Rentals DOCK FEE $125.00 Invoice 062403 Cash Payment E 101-41110-438 Licenses and Taxes DOCK FEE $132.50 Invoice 062403 Cash Payment E 609-49750-382 Water Utilities DOCK FEE $21,55 Invoice 062403 Transaction Date 6/16/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $279.05 Refer 62403 MUELLER, WILLIAM AND SONS Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 05-27-03 BLACKTOP $117.96 Invoice 78863 Cash Payment E 601-49400-224 Street Maint Materials 05-27-03 BLACKTOP $258.66 invoice 78863 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 05-23-03 BLACKTOP $73.59 Invoice 78556 Cash Payment E 601-49400-224 Street Maint Materials 05-21-03 BLACKTOP $1,105.42 Invoice 78478 Cash Payment E 601-49400-224 Street Maint Materials 05-13-03 BLACKTOP $748.35 Invoice 77989 -2490- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/20/03 7:31 AM Page 13 Current Period: June 2003 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 05-13-03 BLACKTOP $86.O3 Invoice 77989 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 05-14-03 BLACKTOP $210.12 Invoice 77989 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 05-14-03 BLACKTOP $35.22 Invoice 77989 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 05-08-03 BLACKTOP $715.69 Invoice 77725 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 05-02-03 BLACKTOP $124.66 Invoice 77476 Cash Payment E 222-42260-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings 05-15-03 BLACKTOP $222.39 Invoice 78203 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,698.09 Refer 62403 NAMEPLATES Cash Payment E 281-45210-220 Repair/Maint Supply Invoice 22286 PO 17769 Transaction Date 6/9/2003 2003 DOCK TAGS Wells Fargo $210.82 10100 Total $210.62 Refer 62403 NAPPA GENUINE PARTS COMPAN Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials WHOLE SEAL $1.39 Invoice 772976 ,~ash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials WHOLE SEAL $1.39 Invoice 772976 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials WHOLE SEAL $1.38 Invoice 772976 Transaction Date 6/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4.16 Refer 62403 NEOPOST Cash Payment E 101-41910-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 07-05-03 THRU 07-04-04 RENTAL Invoice 41365774 Transaction Date 6/12/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 $894.60 Total $894.60 Refer 7720 NOONEN, MICHAEL Cash Payment G 101-22903 Robin Lane PDNCUP Rottlu REFUND ESCROW $1,000.00 Invoice 062403 Transaction Date 6/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,000.00 Refer 62403 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, INCORPO Cash Payment E 601-49400-395 Gopher One-Call 05.03 LOCATES $205.38 Invoice 3050535 Cash Payment E 602-49450-395 Gopher One-Call 05-03 LOCATES $205.37 Invoice 3050535 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $410,75 Refer 62403 PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMPA Cash'Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,213.40 Invoice 8007655 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,213.40 62403 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY ;ash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 46076671 $119.36 -2491 - CITY OF MOUND Payments 06~20~03 7:31 AM Page 14 Current Period: June 2003 ~~___~_ ..... ~_._~._,~~ ,, .. ~ Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $113.00 invoice 46076620 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $232.36 Refer 62403 PERKINS, DAVE dONTRACTING, I Cash Payment E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs 2002 STORM SEWER PROJECT $20,696.68 Invoice 062403 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $20,696.68 Refer 62403 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $50.00 Invoice 958148 Cash Payment E 809-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $2,469.80 Invoice 958147 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $75.75 Invoice 958146 , Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $241.45 Invoice 955900 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $77.20 Invoice 955899 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,914.20 Refer 62403 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CIGARETTES $681.38 invoice 18879 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $681.38 Refer 62403 QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 271666-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 271296-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 271075-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 271074-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 261365-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 268634-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 268134-00 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 $14,841.04 $32.08 $67.60 LIQUOR $3,621.55 CREDIT-WINE -$67.95 WINE $1,036.94 WINE $643.76 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $20,175.02 Refer 62403 REED BUS/NESS INFORMATION Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 2331529 Transaction Date 6/18/2003 Refer 62403 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY C° Cash Payment E 222-42260-219 Safety supplies Invoice R05031048 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 05-09-03 DEMO BIDS LONGPRE BLDG $123.76 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $123.76 AIR AND OXYGEN $22.45 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $22.45 -2492- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/20/03 7:3t AM Page 15 Current Period: June 2003 Refer' 62403 RIDGEDALE ELECTRIC Cash Payment E 496-46580-300 Professional Srvs 05-31-03 PERIOD ENDING $3,040.00 Invoice 061103 Transaction Date 6/12/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,040.00 Refer 62403 RIDGEVIEW MEDICAL, MOUND Cash Payment E 101-43100-305 Medical Services 04-23-03 DRUG SCREENING $26.00 invoice 0623403 Cash Payment E 101-43100-305 Medical Services 04-23-03 DRUG SCREENING $26.00 Invoice 0623403 Transaction Date 6/16/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $52.00 Refer 62403 SCHARBER AND SONS Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair TIRES Invoice 02 2033481 Transaction Date 6/16/2003 Wells Fargo $209.25 10100 Total $209.25 Refer 62403 SIMONEAU, MAT-I'HEW W. Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training REIMBURSE TUITION $935.52 Invoice 062403 Transaction Date 6/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $935.52 62403 SIPPRELL, KEVIN Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training REIMBURSE FIREFIGHTER CLASS $50.00 ~nvoice 062403 Transaction Date 6/17/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $50.00 Refer 62403 STAR TRIBUNE NEWSPAPER Cash Payment E 609-49750-328 Employment Advertising 06-01 CLASSIFIED Invoice 623053002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-328 Employment Advertising 06-08-03 CLASSIFIED Invoice 655198002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-328 Employment Advertising 06-08-03 CLASSIFIED Invoice 655198002 Cash Payment E 602-49450-328 Employment Advertising 06-08-03 CLASSIFEID Invoice 655198002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-328 Employment Advertising 06-15-03 CLASSIFIED AD Invoice 686683002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-328 Employment Advertising 06-15-03 CLASSIED AD invoice 686683002 Cash Payment E 602-49450-328 Employment Advertising 06-15-03 CLASSIFIED AD Invoice 686683002 Transaction Date 6/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic BALANCE DUE Invoice 7216-B Transaction Date 6/16/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 $589.00 $1t3.57 $113.57 $113.56 $113,57 $113.57 $113.56 Total $1,270.40 $98.00 Total $98.00 62403 STS CONSULTANTS Payment 3voice 244506 Transaction Date E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 6/17/2003 THRU 06-07-03 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $3,220.75 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,220.75 -2493- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/20/03 7:31 AM Page 16 Current Period: June 2003 Refer 62403 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $23.90 Invoice 299889 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $7,446.75 Invoice 299888 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $26.30 Invoice 299887 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $9,227.85 Invoice 299163 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $13.15 Invoice 299162 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $231.50 invoice 258815 Transaction Date 6/19/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $16,969.45 Refer 62403 TOLL GAS AND WELDING SUPPLY Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES -$10.75 Invoice 10593 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES -$10.75 Invoice 10593 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES -$10.76 Invoice 10593 Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $3.71 Invoice 415880 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $3.71 Invoice 415880 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $3.70 Invoice 415880 Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $5.85 Invoice 418184 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $5.85 invoice 420510 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $5.85 Invoice 420510 Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $6.05 Invoice 420510 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $6.05 Invoice 420510 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $6.05 Invoice 420510 Transaction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $14.56 Refer 62403 7'WIN CITY. OFFICE SUPPLY Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $7.81 Invoice 389089-0 Cash Payment E 101-41500,-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $7.81 Invoice 389089-0 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $7.81 Invoice 389089-0 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $7.81 Invoice 389089-0 -2494- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06120103 7:31 AM Page 17 Current Period: June 2003 Cash Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies Invoice 389089-0 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies invoice 389089-0 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice 389089-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies invoice 389089-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies Invoice 389089-0 Cash Payment E 222-42260-200 Office Supplies Invoice 389495-0 PO 17613 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 390078-0 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 389812-0 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies Invoice 389672-0 Cash Payment E 101-41110-200 Office Supplies invoice 389672-0 ;ash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies 388664-0 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies Invoice 388664-0 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Inv(~ice 388664-0 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 388664-0 Cash Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies Invoice 388664-0 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies Invoice 388664-0 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice 388664-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 388664-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies Invoice 388664-0 Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies Invoice 388664-0 Transaction Date 6/18~2003 Wells Fargo Refer 62403 UNIFORMS LIMITED Cash Payment E 222-42260-430 Miscellaneous SHIRTS Invoice 178455 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies SHIRTS Invoice 179989 ~saction Date 6/10/2003 Wells Fargo Refer 62403 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES INK JET CARTRIDGE TAB INDEXES BINDERS, TAB INDEXES INK JET CARTRIDGE AUDIO CASSETTES 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 DISK CD REWRITER 10100 Total $7.81 $2.60 $2.60 $3.91 53.92 $95.82 $0.00 $68.25 $35.62 $38.25 $15.97 $15.97 $15.97 $15.97 $15.97 $5.32 $5.32 $7.98 $7.99 $149.10 $545.58 $28.95 $58.25 10100 Total $87.20 VEIT AND COMPANY, INCORPORA -2495- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/20/03 7:31 AM Page 18 Current Period: June 2003 Cash Payment E 496-46580-300 Professional Srvs 05-31-03 PERIOD ENDING $21,317.O0 Invoice 061103 Transaction Date 6/12/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $21,317.00 Refer 62403 VERIZON WIRELESS (FIRE/FIN) Cash Payment E 101-41500-321 Telephone & Cells Invoice 061003 Cash Payment Invoice 061003 Cash Payment Invoice 061003 Cash Payment Invoice 061003 Cash Payment invoice 061003 Cash Payment Invoice 061003 Cash Payment Invoice 061003 Transaction Date Refer 62403 Cash Payment Invoice 344936 Cash Payment Invoice 344936 Cash Payment Invoice 53103 Cash Payment Invoice 53103 Cash Payment Invoice 53103 Transaction Date E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells E 602-49450-321 Telephone & Cells E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells 6/10/2003 WA TERTOWN PARTS CENTER E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Malnt Machinery HOSE END E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AIR FILTER E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials E 601-49400.230 Shop Materials E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials 6/17/2003 07-03 612-269-9058 07-03 612-590-4351 07-03 612-590-43513 07-03 612-723-7560 07-03 612-751-3572 07-03 612-751-3573 07-03 612-875-4502 Wells Fargo 10100 Total MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Wells Fargo. 10100 Total $7.99 $53.15 $53.14 $0.48 $0.48 $5.37 $7.99 $128.60 $20.38 $43.03 $22.93 $22.93 $22.93 $132.2O Refer 62403 WELLS FARGO Cash Payment E 354-43140-620 Fiscal Agent's Fees GO TAX INC SERIES II 12-1-85 Invoice 106301 Transaction Date 6/18/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Rear 62403 Cash Payment Invoice 6035-B Cash Payment Invoice 6090 Cash Payment Invoice 6071 Transaction Date 6/17/2003 Refer 62403 WINE COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 6520-00 Total $375.00 Total $375.00 -$684.25 WIDMER, INCORPORA TED E 60i-49400-400 Repairs & Maint Contract CREDIT BALANCE E 601-49400-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 05-27-03 THREE POINTS STAND PiPE E 601-49400-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 05-20-03 LANGDON AND CTY RD 15 WATERMAIN Wells Fargo 10100 WINE $1,160.00 $522.50 $998.25 $125.36 -2496- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/20/03 7:31 AM Current Period: June 2003 ,, , .~!~ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale CREDIT-WINE -$41.33 Invoice 5260-00 Transaction Date 6/1912003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $84.03 Refer 62403 WINE MERCHANTS Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $314.30 invoice 75773 Transaction Date 6/1912003 Wells Fargo 10100 .l~t,~a!~-'- ............... ~'-~.30 Refer 62403 WORLD CLASS WINES, INOORPO Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $726.93 Invoice 136282 Transaction Date 6/1912003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $726.93 Refer 62403 XCEL ENERGY Cash Payment E 101-41910-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 053003 Cash Payment Invoice 053003 Cash Payment invoice 053003 Cash Payment 053003 Invoice 053003 Cash Payment Invoice 053003 Cash Payment Invoice 053003 Cash Payment invoice 053003 Cash Payment invoice 053003 E 101-42115-381 Electdc Utilities E 601-49400-381 Electric Utilities E 101-45200-381 Electdc Utilities E 101-43100-381 Electdc Utilities E 601-49400r381 Electdc Utilities E 602-49450-381 Electdc Utilities E 602-49450-381 Electdc Utilities E 101-43100-381 Electdc Utilities 05-03 #2245-301-939 $1,163.98 05-03 #0466-607-223 $21.99 05-03 #0217-606-329 $2,424.19 05-03 ¢O047-005-229 $179.60 05-03 #0864-508-832 $100.19 05-03 ~0864-508-832 $100.19 05-03 #0864-508-832 $100.18 05-03 #0018-802-634 $1,979.10 05-03 #0009-604-835 $343.04 Transaction Date 6/12/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $6,412,46 -2497- CITY OF MOUND Payments 06/20/03 7:31 AM Page 20 Current Period: June 2003 ~~ .-- Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND 354 Commerce Place TIF 1-1 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 455 TIF 1-2 496 HRA PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 670 RECYCLING FUND 675 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND 10100 Wells Fargo $43,448.84 $8,255.68 $453.82 $375.00 $6,219.82 $12,346.63 $139,842.11 $10,974.09 $47,853.00 $77,342.90 $8,076.25 $21,700.18 $376,887.32 Pm-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $376,887.32 $376,887.32 -2498- 0 0802,5, CHtIRCHILLLANE 80.00 / , / II -2510- -2511 - I II iii~, -2512- -2513- I ii II -2514-,- -2515- Il I ri I ,I d ~ I I I' -2516- THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -2517- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3t90 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: June 16, 2003 SUBJECT: Variance(s) Request OWNER: Mound Chamberlain Goudy VFW Post 5113 CASE NUMBER: 03-18 LOCATION: 2544 Commerce Boulevard ZONING: B-1 Business COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Linear BACKGROUND At its June 16, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the request from the Mound VFW for variance(s) approval to allow construction of a 1575 SF addition to be constructed on the east and south sides of the existing building. According to the City Code, a variance(s) is required to address the (50) foot lakeside setback and the (50) foot required setback for buildings in the B-1 District which are adjacent to residentially zoned property. The requested variance(s) are described as follows: Lakeside setback Adjacent residential zone PROJECT DETAILS Required Requested Variance 50 feet 28 22 50 feet 28.3 21.7 A copy Planning Report No. 03-18 (excluding attachments) has been included for review and information. A full copy of the report is on file in the Planning and Building Inspections Department and will be provided to members of the City Council upon request. -2518- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Based on its review, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the variance(s) application as requested subject to conditions. A copy of the June 16, 2003 Planning Commission meeting minutes excerpts has been included as an attachment. Additionally, a draft resolution based on the Planning Commission's recommendation has also been provided. ADDITIONAL COMMENT The VFW has requested that the City Council waive the application and consultant fee(s) associated with the variance request. The Planning Commission did not comment on this matter and deferred discussion on to the City Council. -2519- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 03- A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SETBACK FOR PROPERTIES IN THE B-1 DISTRICT WHICH ARE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES TO ALLOW FOR EXPANSION AT THE MOUND VFW LOCATED AT 2544 COMMERCE BOULEVARD P & Z CASE # 03-18 WHEREAS, the applicant, Chamberlain-Goudy VFW Post 5113; has requested the following variances to allow construction ora 1575 SF addition to the building located at 2544 Commerce Boulevard: Required Requested Va riance Lakeside setback Adjacent residential zone 50 feet 28 22 50 feet 28.3 21.7 ; and WHEREAS, private lodges and clubs are permitted uses in the B-I District; and WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned B-I District and subject to the requirements as set forth in City Code Chapter 350:650 and a variance is required to address the 50-foot setback required for buildings in the B-I District which are adjacent to residentially zoned property; and WHEREAS, a variance is also required to address the (50) foot lakeside setback requirement of the City's shoreland regulations; and -2520- WHEREAS, the property presently includes a 6220 SF commercial building and (78) stall parking lot which was constructed in 1986 and the project, as proposed, includes a 24' x 50' single story addition to be constructed on the east side of the building to be used for storage and office space and a 10' x 37' addition on the south side to be used for handicapped bathrooms and mechanical equipment; and WHEREAS, the purpose for the addition is to meet the requirements of the American Disabilities Act (ADA) and to provide additional space for records retention associated with charitable gambling; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 350:760, Subd. 5 (P) states that the parking requirements for all uses not specifically referenced in Subdivision 5 shall be determined by the Planning Commission and the City Council; and WHEREAS, the plan, as submitted, includes (65) parking stalls and (3) handicapped stalls for a total of (68) stalls and an informal parking arrangement exists between, the VFW and Gillespie Center. Therefore, the proposed parking plan is deemed to be adequate for the use(s); and WHEREAS, hardcover on the subject property is currently 76 percent. The proposal, as submitted, will bring the subject property into conformance with the 75 percent hardcover allowance; and WHEREAS, while the proposed addition will move the structure closer to the 929.4 OHW, it will not extend beyond the existing site limits which is defined by the curb line of the parking lot; and WHEREAS, the proposal will allow for the existing stormwater pond to be repaired; and WHEREAS, the project, as proposed, will provide a dumpster enclosure to screen the existing garage and refuse area which is currently stored in open view; and WHEREAS, construction on the west, north and south side(s) is not feasible due to existing site conditions including the building's proximity to Commerce Boulevard and the location of the parking lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request at its June 16, 2003 meeting and recommended approval of the variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: -2521 - 1. The City does hereby grant the requested variances subject to the following conditions: a. 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. b. Applicant shall be required to submit all required information upon submittal of the building permit application. c. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits. 2. This variance is approved for the following legally described property in the Hennepin County Property Information System: See Exhibit A 3. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to M.S.S. 462.36, Subd 1~ This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. 4. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying for all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. 5. The variance is valid for one (1) year following its approval unless an extension is approved by the City Council pursuant to the City Code 350:530, Subd. 2 (E). 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 June 24, 2003 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -2522- MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS June 16, 2003 CASE #03-18 Variance for Building Addition 2544 Commerce Blvd - Chamberlain-Goudy VFW Post 5113 Becky Glister stepped down for consideration of this planning case. Mound VFW is requesting approval to allow construction of a 1575 SF addition to be on the east and south sides of the existing building. According to the City Code, a variance is required to address the 50-foot lakeside setback as well as the 50 foot required setback for buildings in the B1 District adjacent to residentially zoned property. They are requesting a 28-foot lakeside setback and a 28.3 setback adjacent to the residential zone. Staff recommends approval of the variance with 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 approval. 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 Mueller reminded staffthat condition #1 is an issue dealt with by the City Council not the Planning Commission. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval per staff recommendation excluding item 1 on the list of conditions. Michael asked what percentage of the variance is because of storage? Gordon said it appears to be about half. Gene Hostettler, applicant representative, said that architecturally there are other properties with storage a lot closer to the lake. Also, the exposed mechanical equipment will be scre6ned. Bill Anderson, applicant representative, indicated that satisfying requirements of the American Disabilities Act is a considerable percentage of the project. Also, the State Gaming regulations require retention of pull-tab records for 3 ~A years. MOTION carried unanimously. -2523- Findings of fact: (1) Current review of the ponding situation (2) reduction of hardcover (3) fulfillment of ADA requirements -2524- 5341 Map.rood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff' FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: June 9, 2003 SUBJECT: Variance(s) Request OWNER: Mound Chamberlain Goudy VFW Post 5115 CASE NUMBER: 03-18 LOCATION: 2544 Commerce Boulevard ZONING: B-1 Business COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Linear BACKGROUND The Mound VFW is requesting variance(s) approval to allow construction of a 1575 SF addition to be constructed on the east and south sides of the existing building. According to the City Code, a variance(s) is required to address the (50) foot lakeside setback as well as the (50) foot required setback for buildings in the B-1 District which are adjacent to residentially zoned property. The requested variances are described as follows: Required Requested Variance Lakeside setback Adjacent residential zone 50 feet 28 22 50 feet 28.3 21.17 Specific details regarding the project are outlined in the site and project plans that have been included as attachments as well as the applicant's supplemental narrative. LAND USE ISSUES Zoning. The subject property is zoned B-1. According to the City Code, private lodges and clubs are a permitted use in the B-I District. -2525- Lot Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. Height: 35 feet Lot Size: 7500 square feet Side / Rear Setbacks: · Same as B-2 if abutting residential district therefore, 50-foot setback to the property to the east is required. · Pursuant to shoreland regulations, 50-foot lakeside setback to OHW is also required. EXISTING / PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS Presently, the property includes a 6220 SF commercial building and (78) stall parking lot which was constructed in 1986. Commerce Boulevard fronts the property to the west and Lost Lake to the east. The property is bordered by the Gillespie Center to the south and a single-family residential use to the north. The project, as proposed, includes a 24' x 50' single story addition to the constructed on the east side of the building to be used for storage and office space and a 10' x 37' addition on the south side to be used for handicapped bathrooms and mechanical equipment. The purpose for the addition is to meet ADA requirements and to provide additional space for records retention associated with charitable gambling. 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 May 27, 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 June 13, 2003. 2 -2526- 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 Refer to memorandum dated June 11, 2003. Public Works No comment. Police Department No comment., Fire Department No concerns from Fire Department. Building Inspections Plans to be submitted for building permit must be signed by a licensed and registered architect. Handicapped accessible parking stalls and areas must be maintained Any new rooftop units should be screened. Construction of dumpster enclosure must meet provisions of City Code. Waiver of building permit fees is not supported due to current budgetary concerns. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS A copy of the variance application was forwarded to the DNR Area Hydrologist and Hennepin County for review and comment. Dave Zetterstrom of Hennepin County contacted City staff the week of June 2, 2003 and indicated that they have no objections or concerns regarding the request. DISCUSSION Resolution No. 87-59 was approved in March 1987 for variance(s) assc;ciated with reduced parking stall size, waiver of the fence installation regulation(s) for the parking lot and driveway entrance width. A copy has been included as an attachment. Presently, hardcover on the site is approximately 76 percent. The non-conforming issue associated with hardcover exceeding 75 percent for properties in the B-I District pre- dates the City's approval of the shoreland regulations. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that hardcover is expected to be reduced to 73 percent as result of the proposed project and therefore will be conforming to the current regulations. The purpose for the addition is for compliance with the American Disabilities Act and to provide additional storage. 3 -2527- 4. The primary exterior material for the building addition will be wood which ~s permitted pursuant to City Code Section 350:790, Subd 3. 5. The VFW is requesting that the City waive the required application and escrow fees. 6. The property to the VFW on the lake / east side is residentially zoned but does not include any structure(s). City Code Section 350:760, Subd. 5 (P) states that the parking requirements for all uses not specifically referenced in Subdivision 5 shall be determined by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The proposed plan, as submitted, includes (65) parking stalls and (3) handicapped-stalls for a total of (68). Members of the Planning Commission and City Council are advised that it is City staff's understanding th'at an informal shared parking arrangement exists between the VFW and the Gillespie Center. 8. The project, as proposed, will provide a dumpster enclosure to screen the existing refuse / garbage area. 9. The VFW has received public agency approval construct a walking bridge over the existing drainage ditch to connect the parking lots. 10. While the proposed addition will move the structure closer to the OHW, it does not extend beyond the existing site limits which are defined by the curb line of the parking lot. 11. Construction on the west side of the building is not an option due to proximity to Commerce Boulevard. Additionally, construction on the north side is not an option as the area lacks adequate buildable space. Additional construction along the south side eliminates and/or reduces the amount of parking available for the site. 12. Due to current budget concerns in the City and within the P&BI Department, City staff is concerned about the waiver of additional application and/or escrow fees associated with land use applications. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the proposed variance(s) to allow construction of an addition at the Mound VFW 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. 4 -2528- 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. 5 -2529- z COMMERCE BOULEVA'I~D H~,NNEPIN COUNTY HIGHWAY NO. 1 lO ..'"' ........ . .... '~,~,~ N 04'20' O0~ ~ 83,26 .... ' ~ ........ $ 04'12' 10" I~ IOS2.G4 101.06 '"'" ...... S 01'17'4f" W 82.06 ...... ' :/ oc/] ! 0 I ,t' l I .O¢.A114A~/. Ol T'~H 5341 May~ood Rond Mound, MN ~53§4 (952) 472~3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 17, 2003 SUBJECT: Variance(s) Request OWNER: Skipp and Heidi LaJoy CASE NUMBER: 03-22 HKG FILE NUMBER: 03-05 LOCATION: 1872 Shorewood Lane ZONING: Residential District R- 1A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a variance request to construct an attached two- stall garage, kitchen addition and lakeside deck for their property located at 1872 Shorewood Lane. As proposed, the project would require the following variances: Proposed Required Variance Front yard 15 feet 20 feet 5 feet Side yard 4 feet 6 feet 2 feet PROJECT DETAILS A copy Planning Report No. 03-22 (excluding attachments) has been included for review and information. A full copy of the report is on file in the Planning and Building Inspections Department and will be provided to members of the City Council upon request. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Based on its review, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the variance application as requested subject to conditions. Specifically, the side yard setback for the garage portion of the addition was increased to six (6) feet. Details regarding the Planning Commission's review of the application are contained in the June 16, 2003 Planning Commission meeting minutes excerpts which have been included as an attachment. Additionally, a draft resolution based on the Planning Commission's recommendation has also been provided. -2532- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 03- A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE OF 5 FEET AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE OF 2 FEET TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE / ADDITION AT 1872 SHOREWOOD LANE P & Z CASE # 03-22 WHEREAS, the applicants, Skipp and Heidi LaJoy, have requested the following variances to allow construction of an attached 2-car garage, kitchen addition and lakeside deck at 1872 Shorewood Lmie: Proposed Required Variance Front yard 5 feet 20 feet 5 feet Side yard 4 feet 6 feet 2 feet ; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R-1A Zoning District and subject to the requirements in City Code Section 350:425 which requires a 20-foot front setback, 6-foot side setback(s) and hardcover not exceeding 40 percent for lots of record; WHEREAS, a 50-foot lakeshore setback is also required for lots abutting Lake Minnetonka according to the City's shoreland regulations; and WHEREAS, the subject site includes a single-family dwelling which fronts Shorewood Lane to the west and Lake Minnetonka to the east; and WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is non-conforming due to a deficient side yard setback of (4) feet on the south side; and WHEREAS, the subject property currently lacks a garage or lakeside deck; and -2533- WHEREAS, a variance(s) to build a garage is reasonable as the property currently lacks a garage and the proposal would improve the livability of the property; and WHREAS, the inclusion of a deck on homes which front the lake is reasonable; and WHEREAS, hardcover will not exceed (40) percent; and WHEREAS, the proposed 4-foot setback for the kitchen portion of the addition is the same as the existing house; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request at its June 16, 2003 meeting and recommended approval of the variance(s) as recommended by Staff subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Engineer review grading and drainage issues at the time of the building permit. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all costs associated with the variance request. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for all necessary building permits. 4. The side yard setback of the garage portion of the addition be increased to 6-feet. WHEREAS, in making its recommendation, the Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: 1. The property currently lacks a garage. 2. The garage is of reasonable size to accommodate indoor vehicle parking. 3. The location of the house relative to the front setback almost necessitates the granting of a variance. 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 as recommended by the Planning Commission. -2534- 2. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: See Exhibit A. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar .of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to M.S.S. 462.36, Subd. 1. This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying for all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. 5. The variance is valid for one (1) year following its approval unless an extension is approved by the City Council pursuant to the City Code 350:530, Subd. 2 (E). 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 June 24, 2003 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -2535- MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION June 16, 2003 BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #03-22 Variance for Garage/House Addition 1872 Shorewood Lane- Skipp and Heidi La Joy The applicant requests a variance to construct an attached two-stall garage, kitchen addition and lakeside deck. The project would require a 5-foot front yard variance and a 2-foot side yard variance. Staff recommends the approval of the variance with the following conditions: 1. The City Engineer review grading and drainage issues at the time of building permit. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of alt costs associated with the variance request. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for all necessary building permits. Discussion Mueller commented that a 27-foot garage is nice but 25 foot would be adequate. He doesn't see hardship for the 4-foot variance. He was also concerned about the alley effect between the garage and house. Heidi LaJoy, applicant indicated that the roof'line would be continued to the existing creating a hip roof. She also said that they have 3 cars and a 27-foot garage will hold them all. Michael would be more inclined to approve a 2-foot setback for a 2-car garage. Hasse wanted to know where are they going to park the toys if we don't approve the 3-stall garage? LaJoy stated that the kitchen is now very unworkable. If it is reduced by 2 feet it eliminates a cabinet. Glister observed that the LaJoys have a lot of toys. She would like to see them have the garage space for storage. Ayaz suggested that the non-conforming wall be extended 4 feet to the end of the kitchen and move the garage over to a conforming setback. -2536- MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister, to recommend approval of the variance for the house but moving the garage to a conforming location. MOTION carried unanimously. -2537- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 12, 2003 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Skipp and Heidi LaJoy CASE NUMBER: 03-22 I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 03-05 LOCATION: 1872 Shorewood Lane ZONING: Residential District R-I A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a variance request to construct an attached two- stall garage, kitchen addition and lakeside deck for their property located at 1872 Shorewood Lane. As proposed project would require the following variances: Proposed Required Variance Front yard 15 feet 20 feet 5 feet Side yard 4 feet 6 feet 2 feet It should be noted the application incorrectly notes 4 feet as a required side yard setback when code actually requires 6 feet. The property does not currently have a garage. Access to the garage would need a new curb cut on Shorewood Lane east of the existing curb cut. The building plans indicate a 27 feet wide by 22 feet deep garage. A 3 feet by 16 feet entry corridor/kitchen connects the garage and house. A conforming 12 feet by 30 feet lakeside deck is proposed for the main living level. There is not currently a deck on the home. The submitted hardcover calculations indicate the property is under the impervious surface maximum of 2740 square feet (40%) by 340 square feet (35%). The property also has a small lakeside shed adjacent to the dock. Sheds require a 50 feet setback 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -2538- p. 2 #03-22 La Joy Variance dune 12, 2003 from the ordinary high water mark if constructed after adoption of Shoreland Management in August of 1994. It is unclear 'when the shed was placed in its current location. 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 May 29, 2003 and the 60-day timeline expired on or around July 28, 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. NOTIFICATION: City policy requires that abutting property owners are notified of variance requests by mailed notice. DISCUSSION: The issue with this case is the balancing of an adequate sized garage for a property, without an enclosed parking area and what is a reasonable setback from front and side yards. The following discussion points are offered for consideration in making a recommendation. 1. The request to build the garage is reasonable from the standpoint that the property does not currently have enclosed parking which would add to the livability of the property. 2. The proposed garage addition would maintain the existing nonconforming sideyard setback of the house. 3. The depth of the garage at 22 feet is a reasonable size to accommodate vehicles. The front yard could accommodate a conforming garage if built with a 20 feet depth. 4. The width of the garage at 27 feet will provide additional storage for lawn equipment, household items and other accessories. 5. The additional 3 feet of depth for the kitchen provides an entry area for transition from the garage but pushes the garage further into the front yard setback. 6. As a lakeshore property, a detached garage with side entry doors would be permitted with 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Mimaesota 55401 '..'~'..C)800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 #03-22 La Joy ~?ariance &~ne 12, 2003 4 feet side yard and 8 feet front yard setbacks. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval requested with the following conditions: of the variance as 1. The City Engineer review grading and drainage issues at the time of building permit. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all costs associated with the variance request. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for all necessary building permits. Staff offers the following findings in support of the variance request: 1. The property does not currently have a garage and the proposal would improve the livability of the property. 2. The garage is a reasonable size to accommodate indoor vehicle parking. 3. The location of the house relative to the front yard setback almost necessitates the granting of a variance. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ......... OoO0 ' _ 2540_~ o,, Fax (612) 3.,8-6838 ' -2541 iVIiJUND VLAr~U'~U & INSt. j/ %'-7 APR 2 3 2003 OUND '?LN~r~tN¢ & -2542- THIS PAGE IS iNTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -2543- o zO~ m:~ m / / o ~_,a _~ _q Engineering ° Planning ° Surveying June 19, 2003 Ms. Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Miunesota 55364-1627 SUBJECT: City of Mound 2002 Storm Sewer Improvements Partial Payment MFRA #13677 Dear Kandis: Enclosed is Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc.'s Payment Request No. 4 for work completed through May 31, 2003 on the subject project. The amount of this payment request is $20,696.68. We have reviewed this request, find it in order, and recommend payment in the above amount to the Contractor. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, John Cameron, City Engineer JC:pry cc: Gino Businaro, Finance Director, City of Mound Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent, City of Mound Enclosure s:~nain:~Vlou 13677:\Correspondencekhanson6-19 -2545- 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra@mfra, com ~ 8 · ~ m Z rn C~ rtl ..< "~0 ~o 9 mz (/)(3 -I' © '11 "q 0 < ITl m m --I r- "n -2546- ~- gg ~-~- 8888888888888888888 888888888888888888888 8888888888888888888 ~ 888888888888888888888 o ooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooo 8888888888888888888 ~ 888888888888888888888 ~o~mooo~o~o~o ~ ~ o ~mogoooS~o~=~o~oo 888888~888888888888= = 88888~88888~888888888 bbbb~bbb~bbbbbbbb bbb~sbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb 8888888888888888888~ ~ 88888~88888~888888888 0 "o --I ~ 0 m ~ -o .-I m 7 -I -.n m m m .m m..q m -2547- -~ ~ - m 888888888 88888888888888888 ~8~80, .~ o o o ~ ~8o z> ........ .o ........ 888888888 8 88888888888888888 9'mP¢9999099999999 'U · 999.o9999.m ................. mo 888888888 8 88888888888888888 oo~ ~ oooo~ "o 888888888 8 8°°88888888888888oo r,.- o~ o ~o -~ omooooooo oo4~m oooo 888888888 ~ 88888888888888888 .m. ~o0 4-1..11 m 0 0 < m ~ 0 m ..n ..q m m ~..q >__. m -2548- ~. ~~ ~ ~ oo o o oooo 8888888888 8 8 88888o o 8888 O000000000 8°°88 8 88888 00000 0000 00000 888°°88888oo o° 8 88888o° 8888 ~ bbbbbbbbbb 8888888888 0 00000 0 00000 ~~ ~ oo~ ooooo oooo bbbbb 88888 8 8888 8 88888 ~ bbbbbbbbbb bbbbb 8888888888 ~ 8 88888 oooo bbbbb 8 8888 8 88888 m 0 0 > m m m m -2549- MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. To: Mound Honorable Mayor, City Council and Staff From: Loren Gordon, AICP Date: June 20, 2002 Subject: Zoning Map / Comprehensive Plan revisions Public Hearing The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider comprehensive plan arid rezoning amendments throughout the community. The proposed revisions are intended to correct inconsistencies with zoning and the existing use of the property as required by statute. Minnesota State Statutes 462.357 Subd. 3 states that no zoning ordinance or amendment can be adopted until a public hearing is held by the planning agency or by the governing body. Additionally, the notice of the public hearing must also be published at least (10) days prior to the hearing date. The notice of public hearing was published in the Laker on June 14, 2003 and also mailed to all affected property owners within (350) feet on June 12, 2003. The Notice of Public Hearing was also posted on or around June 14, 2003. Background The Planning Commission formally reviewed the proposed rezoning and comprehensive plan (Land Use Map) revisions in June - July 2003. The City Council reviewed the proposed zoning and comprehensive plan revisions during the August and September 2002 meetings at which time the Council recommended that the Anthony's Floral property be excluded. Recommendation Staff's recommendation to the Council is to hold the public hearing on the proposed revisions and make formal motions adopting the changes as proposed by Staff and the Planning Commission. Upon formal recommendation by the Council, a resolution and ordinance will be prepared for formal adoption of the zoning and comprehensive plan revisions at a upcoming meeting. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -2550- ?.2 Mound Honorable Mayor, City Council and &afl June 20, 2003 Attachments · Comprehensive plan amendment public hearing notice - June 24, 2003 · Comprehensive plan map - proposed Rezoning public hearing notice - June 24, 2003 · Zoning map - proposed March 28, 2002 Memorandum HKGi · April 11, 2002 Memorandum HKGi · May 30, 2002 Memorandum HKGi · Planning Commission meeting minutes June 3, 2003 · July 10, 2003 Memorandum HKGi · Planning Commission meeting minutes July 15, 2002 · August 22, 2002 Memorandum HKGi City Council meeting minutes August 27, 2003 · City Council meeting minutes September 24, 2002 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Mirmeapolis, Minnesota 55401 (- 2551-~800 Fax(612) 338-6838 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARINGTO CONSIDER MINOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE CITY OF MOUND NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 to consider Comprehensive Plan amendments to a number of properties as indicated below: PID Property Address Current Comp Proposed Comp Plan Plan 1311724230048 1838 Commerce Blvd. MDR LDR 1311724230005 1806 Commerce Blvd. MDR LDR 1311724230027 1910 Commerce Blvd. MDR LDR 1311724230029 5574 Sherwood Dr. MDR LDR 1411724140002 1801 Commerce Blvd. HDR NC 1311724430041 2200 Chateau Lane MDR LDR 1311724430046 5068 Shoreline Drive MDR LDR 1311724430045 5080 Shoreline Drive MDR LDR 1311724430044 5092 Shoreline Drive MDR LDR 1311724430148 5098 Shoreline Drive MDR LDR 1311724440094 4804 Northern Road LDR HDR 1311724440051 4805 Bartlett Blvd. LDR NC 1311724440052 4801 Shoreline Blvd. LDR NC 1311724440053 4809 Bartlett Blvd. LDR NC 1311724440055 4823 Bartlett Blvd. LDR NC Information regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments is available to the public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting By: ~/" 1~11 Norlander Planning and Building Inspections Published in the Laker on June 14, 2003. -2552- -2553- NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REZONINGS FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPLEMENTING THE MOUND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the Ci .t.t.ty of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 to consider rezoning a number of properties to maintain consistency with the Ci.ty's Comprehensive Plan. The following properties are proposed for rezoning: PID Property Address Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning 1311724220022 Unassigned B-2 R-3 1311724220270 Unassi~caed B-2 R-3 1311724220269 5555 Tl~ree Points Blvd. B-2 R-3 1311724220268 5553 Tlxree Poims Blvd. B-2 R-3 1311724220267 5551 Tlu'ee Points Blvd. B-2 R-3 1311724220251 1790 Colmnerce Blvd. B-2 R-3 1311724220261 Unassigned B-2 R-3 1311724220260 1760 Colmnerce Blvd. B-2 R-3 1311724220259 1762 Conunerce Blvd. B-2 R-3 1311724220258 1764 Conmaerce Blvd. B-2 R-3 1311724220257 1766 Connnerce Blvd. B-2 R-3 1311724230052 Unassigned R-I R-3 1311724230047 1824 Commerce Blvd. R-1 R-3 1311724230046 1822 Co~mnerce Blvd. R-1 R-3 1311724230045 1818 Conmaerce Blvd. R-1 R-3 1311724230044 1816 Conunerce Blvd. R-1 R-3 1311724320030 2020 Colmnerce Blvd. R-2 R-3 1311724320177 2116 Conunerce Blvd. R-1 B-I 1311724320176 2117 Fern Road R-1 R-3 1311724430064 2200 Fairview Lane R-2 R-3 1311724430063 2208 Fairview Lane R-2 R-3 1311724430062 2212 Fairview Lane R-2 R-3 1311724430061 2216 Fairview Lane R-2 R-3 1311724430055 2203 Clmteau Lane R-2 R-3 1311724430057 2209 Clmteau Lane R-2 R-3 1311724430058 2213 Chateau Lane R-2 R-3 1311724430059 2217 Chateau Lane R-2 R-3 1311724430060 2221 Chateau Lane R-2 R-3 1311724440094 4804 Northem Road B-2 R-3 1311724440072 4828 Edgewater Road B-2 R-1 Information regarding the proposed rezonings is available to the public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard al this meeting. By: ~Z_..--....._ J~l Norlander Planning and Building Inspections Published in the Laker on June 14, 2003 -2554- 0 0 N 0 -2555- MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. k-'4H To: Mound Planning Commission and Staff From: Loren Gordon, AICP Date: March 28, 2002 Subject: Inconsistent Consistency Issues - Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map At the Jmauary workshop meeting we introduced the new parcel based zoning map that is part of the City's evolving Geographic Information System (GIS). One of the useful tools GIS provides is the ability to readily identify inconsistencies in parcel land infommtion. We have used this to identify parcels with zoning classifications that don't match the guided use designated by the land use plan. Identified on the attached map are 10 areas with "Inconsistent Consistency Issues." As the Commission is aware, Minnesota Statute states that the Zoning Map shall be consistent with the Land Use Plan. As of 1994, the Land Use Plan establishes how parcels should be zoned. Zoning is still the "law of the land," but only when it is consistem with the Land Use Plan. It is also the City's responsibility to correct any inconsistencies. In the 10 identified areas, there are essentially 3 approaches to get consistency: 1. Rezone parcels with inconsistent zoning to match the land use plan. 2. Retain the existing zoning and initiate minor land use plan amendments to match zoning. 3. If the first two approaches are not desirable based on existing and/or future use, initiate both a rezoning and a minor land use plan amendment to match the identified/intended use. For Monday's meeting we would like to identify the direction for each identified area. Future meetings will address the zoning map and/or land use plan revision processes by which this consistency will be achieved. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Mimaesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -2556- MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. To: Mound Planning Commission and Staff From: Loren Gordon, AICP Date: April 11, 2002 Subject: Inconsistent Consistency Issues - Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amenchnents Proposed Zoning Map Revisions During the March 28th meeting, we discussed the zoning/comprehensive plan consistency issues for a ntunber of parcels. We have prepared 2 maps depicting those parcels needing either a rezoning or a comprehensive plan amendment for consistency purposes. Please review these parcels and be ready to conm~ent at Monday's meeting. We anticipate public hearings will be held at the 2® meeting in May or the Ist meeting in June. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Mi~meapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-683~ -2557- MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. To: Mound Planning Commission and Staff From: Loren Gordon, AICP Date: May 30, 2002 Subject: Public Hearing - Zoning Map / Comprehensive Plan revisions Over the past few months, we have been reviewing the Land Use Plan and Zoning Maps for inconsistencies between guided land use and current zoning designations. All of the revisions as discussed minus the commercial property on Dutch Lake at Commerce and Bartlett has been noticed for hearing. During the week of May 20th, staff sent notices to the identified property owners of parcels that needed a change in zoning or land use to maintain the consistency provided in Minnesota State Statues section 462 as well as those properties within 350 feet of a proposed revision. Copies of the mailings are provided in this packet for your review. In terms of meeting process, we should handle each item separately, making independent motions on each. Since the Comprehensive Plan provides the guidance to the zoning map, the Comp Plan hearing could be held first. We don't anticipate holding an additional hearing at City Council, but will plan accordingly based on input received at the Planning Commission. 1..~ North Third Street, Suite 100. Mirmeapolis, Mim~esota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -2558- MINUTE EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION June 3, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS This is a request for amendments to the zoning map to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The State of MN requires city in the seven county area to adopt zoning maps and comp plans that are consistent. Gordon explained the proposed changes on a lot by lot basis. Chair Michael opened the Public Hearing. Amy Pudil, 2213 Chateau Lane - Lots are so small. Would 2 lots together even be big enough to use for high density? Gordon - the idea is that for those that haven't been upgraded in the past few years it is an opportunity for those to combine and upgrade. Ken Custer, 5533 Shoreline Drive - Wanted Gordon to explain why the change to the properties at Seton Channel and Shoreline. Gordon - We are making the change to make comp plan and zoning agree. Jim Turner - 2000 Dutchview Rd - He would like to be notified when Dutch Lake is affected. He is concerned about the amount of traffic on the lake, especially if density is increased. Minnetrista has gone to great lengths to preserve the character of the area. Please consider carefully the impact. Stacy Bigelow, 6190 Red Oak Rd - She received no notification. The vague terms on the agenda made it seem like Mound was trying to slide something by. She has serious doubts about the process. Consider the impact to the area. Steve Wright, 5972 Sunset Rd - Concerned about the effect on Grandview Middle School, particularly the traffic in the area. Noel Towley, 5842 Grandview Blvd. - She thinks Mound should stick to the comp plan. Sandy Schmidt, 6216 Red Oak Rd - She wanted to know why everything is being switched to high density? What is the advantage? Gordon - High density allows single family, twin homes, duplexes, condominiums and apartments. The inquiries staff has had to-date have all indicated that they can't make the Anthonies parcel work without high density. Schmidt - She thinks the city needs to consider the traffic impact before making any change. Is anyone monitoring it? Michael - Plenty of people are monitoring. There will be several public hearings and formal proposals before decisions are made. John Hubler, 5816 Grandview Blvd - He wanted know if all the properties were being changed in a lump sum? Michael - Gordon recommended individual consideration. Hubler thought the -2559- Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2002 Dutch Lake area ought to be considered separately. He counted high-density areas within a 4- block area. They are considerable. In this week's Laker there are several potential sites being considered for high density. He thinks Mound should reconsider the high density and address the Dutch Lake area as a separate entity. David Beede, 1824 Commerce Blvd - He is a resident of the Harrison Bay Townhomes - 1. Will the rezoning make Anthonies non-conforming? Gordon - Yes, but the greenhouse operation can continue until use changes. Mueller - Anthonie's is sandwiched between a school and business. Other things can come in as a commercial use that can increase the use of the land severely. If it continues to be zoned business land use could be as high as 75%. David Beede - 2. Harrison Bay Townhomes represents 4 families. Are we collectively or individually considered as it pertains to zoning? Will this have any affect on one or more of our units? Gordon - You are currently zoned single-family. Your property has a conditional use permit to allow the townhome use. All of you would be notified if one of you wanted to change that permit. Mueller- Your association bylaws would not allow an individual to change zoning of their unit. David Beede - 3. What difference would it make in the tax classification. Would the change in zoning have an impact on the property taxes? Gordon - We don't know and don't try to alter zoning in consideration of tax impact. Jim Sampson - 2203 Chateau Lane - He doesn't like the people element that comes with high density. He doesn't want apartment buildings across the street. What is the chance? Gordon - It would take at least 2 lots or more to build multi-family housing. Joe Schlechter - 5058 Shoreline Dr- He's concerned about traffic issues. Think ahead. Traffic is already backed up done Shoreline and visibility is limited at the intersection of Chateau and Shoreline. Concerned about the noise - more 911 calls. Do we want the image of apartment buildings all along a major road into Mound? Clapsaddle - How does the zoning affect how many family units per square foot. Single family is 1 house for every 6,000 sf; R3 would allow from a unit for every 4,000-5,000. Jeff Smith, 5872 Grandview - He asked for an explanation of the Anthonies property. Gordon - The City is requesting a comp plan change from medium to high density residential and a zoning change from business to high density residential. Jeff Smith- He is concerned that if we rezone to R3 and a developer came in wanting to put in a large apartment complex, there would be no reason for Planning Commission input if they follow zoning regulations. Clapsaddle - He recommends the city require a PDA to maintain control. Mueller - The change from Business to R-3 is the smallest change we could make. The small 40- foot lots with minimal homes could be imprOved if we change zoning and making the improvement .more feasible. -2560- Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 2002 Kelly Goddard, 5068 Shoreline Dr - Please take in consideration the traffic. Put in more homes with small children and their safety is jeopardized. Jim Bedell, 2627 Wilshire Blvd - It wouldn't be economically feasible to buy multiple properties to build high density. Greg Fenzl, 2212 Fairview Ln - Will R3 zoning permit sale of property? Gordon - Yes, it doesn't affect sale of property. David Beede, 1824 Commerce -He is concerned that the Commission or staff doesn't know how these changes affect taxes. Weiland - We don't make our decisions based on taxes. Jim Tumer, 2000 Dutchview Rd - He doesn't like the crowding of the lake and loss of recreational opportunities. If you make it R2 it gives us a chance for input in the future. Martin Carlson, 5782 Elm - He has no problem with the re-zoning. He is concerned with the need for a garage at 2117 Fern Road (lots 1, 2 and 3) which isn't allowed in the new zoning. How did the church get zoned RI? Staff will research. Chair closed the public hearing. MOTION by Burma, second by Weiland, to table action. MOTION carried. Mueller voted against. Ayaz, Burma, Clapsaddle, Hasse, Michael and Weiland voted for. Burma suggested that those that were in attendance be notified of the next meeting. MOTION by Mueller, second by Clapsaddle, to take it from the table MOTION by Clapsaddle, second by Mueller, to continue the public hearing. Public hearing will be continued on July 15, 2002. Mueller confirmed that no notice will be given for the continuation on July 15, 2002. New comments will be welcomed but please do not repeat the same comments as they will appear in the minutes. MOTION by Mueller, second by Clapsaddle, to move the continuance on July 15, 2002. Chair Michael declared a short recess. -2561 - MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. To: Mound Planning Commission and Staff From: Loren Gordon, AICP Date: July 10, 2002 Subject: Continued Public Hearing - Zoning Map / Comprehensive Plan revisions This item was continued at the June 3rd Planning Commission meeting until July 15, 2002. were 4 items staff'identified for follOw-up. They include: 1. 2. There Tax rate comparison of residential and business property. Current zoning status of 2117 Fern Road and 2116 Commerce Blvd. - City property information for the addresses indicates the zoning is R-1. The property at 2020 Commerce Blvd should be proposed for rezoning to R-3. Due to concerns regarding the noticing area, staff will present an overhead of the coverage as prepared by Hennepin County. Much of the meeting focused on the proposed rezoning and comprehensive plan amendments for the Anthony's Floral property. Some of the neighboring residents to the .north in Minnetrista and Mound residents along Dutch Lake had concerns about impacts on the lake including additional recreational activities that might result because of a high density residential development. Although Staff doesn't necessarily disagree with their concerns, consider these alternatives: · Rezoning to R-1 to create less intense development. This might lessen development intensity, but will not necessarily create more open space. Single family homes are more likely to have boats and other recreational toys than an apartment or condominium complex. · Leaving the property zoned as B-2. A B-2 zoning would allow commercial development which would be all'owed up to 75% hardcover. Residential would be limited to 30%. A boat marina is also a listed conditional use in this district. Procedurally, the public hearing will be open. The Commission specifically asked residents to only discuss new issues not covered during the last meeting. If the item is moved forward to the City Council, it would be the prerogative of the Council to hold public hearing if they deemed it necessary. If they do choose to hold a hearing, Staff will need to coordinate scheduling based on noticing requirements. At this time, we will work under the assumption that a hearing will not be held until directed otherwise. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Mim~eapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -2562- MINUTE EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING Gordon reviewed the information presented at the June 3rd Public Hearing. He addressed 4 points made at the previous public heating. 1) What difference in tax rate from Commercial to Residential? Zones R1 to R3 are essentially taxed the same. Taxes don't change with zoning only with use. Tax rates are higher for commercial than for residential. 2) Methodist Church property on Commerce Blvd and Fern Ln- our records indicate it is zoned Ri. Staff could not find documentation for any change to B 1. 3) 2020 Commerce should be R3 (it was an error) 4) The notification procedure per Hennepin County was explained. Regarding the Anthony's/Dutch Lake property: Some of the neighboring residents had concerns about impacts on the lake including additional recreational activities that might result because of a high density residential development. Although Staff doesn't necessarily disagree with their concerns, Staff considered these alternatives: Rezoning to R1 to create less intense development. This might lessen development intensity, but will not necessarily create more open space. Single family homes are more likely to have boats and other recreational toys than an apartment or condominium complex. Leaving the property zoned as B2. A B2 zoning would allow commercial development which would be allowed up to 75% hardcover. Residential would be limited to 30%. A boat marina is also a listed conditional use in this district. Brown asked if it was left as B2, could we make exceptions (like not allow a marina or other objectionable operations). Gordon said that would be very difficult because the assumption is that it is permitted. It would not be possible to eliminate it. Mueller wanted to know if the City would control the docks permitted. Gordon said there are some regulations from the DNR. Not sure of the details; it would be a question for Parks Director Jim Fackler. -2563- Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2002 Public Hearing opened. Mark Hagen, 6382 Maple Rd - Represents the Concerned Citizens for Dutch Lake. Dutch Lake is a good example of a balanced development area. 1) Protection of this asset is much easier, more vital, and less costly than correction. 2) We are not seeking to limit someone's ability to develop their land. 3) We don't want to see Anthony lose his investment. 4) We do want to maintain the integrity of the lake. Questions we have (answers given are in parenthesis): 1) What is the process for converting a property from commercial to a different zoning? (We are an advisory board. Staff brings the desired changes to the light. Planning Commission reviews and advises. City Council adopts changes. Comprehensive plan changes goes to the Metropolitan Council for approval.) 2) What was the rationale behind changing to R37 (Our process is based on what the community wants to be. The focus in this case was to redevelop the downtown. In a number of areas we are taking lands out of the business designation and putting them into residential. The reasons we considered residential in this case was; the property is large and a commercial development at this location would not aid in drawing traffic into the downtown area. It could generate a considerable amount of commercial development. We also considered the school and the apartments next door. The lake and traffic aspects were more negatives. Anything that comes in under R3 would be reviewed stiffly by the Commission and the Council.) 3) Because there are wetlands, what sort of easement is in place? 4) Is anyone considering other styles of development? (Nothing else has been presented.) We want to be very vigilant, we want to live here and be attentive to the process because the lake is what it is. Rhys Evans, 5920 Sunset Rd - Our family has enjoyed the quiet over the years. Anthony has indicated that he wouldn't want to see an intensive commercial development. They would like to see a personal lake for the people that live there. Dave Lobby, 6000 Aspen Rd - The lake is all R1 except for the school and Anthony's. How about split zoning? Front commercial, back residential? (It's a possibility.) Noel Towley, 5428 Grandview Blvd- Asked for clarification of the processes. She feels that R1 suits the area best. Carol Wagner, 6020 Aspen Rd - Is it possible for the Citizens of Dutch Lake and the City of Mound to work in partnership for Dutch Lake development? (Brown suggested a representative be chosen and staff will notify them when items come in that affect Dutch Lake.) -2564- Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2002 Derek Goddard, 5068 Shoreline Dr - Please consider leaving this property zoned as is. John Huber, 5816 Grandview Blvd - Please don't lump multiple properties together. It's been an hour and 10 minutes listening to other issues. What impact does the High Density zoning have on sewer and water? What impact on Police, Fire and other services? Has high lake density analysis been done? Has the LMCD been involved? (All these items are taken into consideration at the time a development application is received.) Ruth Schmudlach, 6248 Red Oak Rd - Has split zoning ever been done? (Brown - It can be.) Single family homes have vested interested in the school next door and the children that go there. R3 is not acceptable. She would prefer single family - split zoning or all single family. Jim Turner, 2000 Dutchview Rd - Last meeting we were told that the Comp Plan said it was R2. Was that a mistake? Keep it out of high density. David Bond, 6048 Aspen Rd - We are all here to maintain development, not change it. R1 is most appropriate development for the area. We moved to Dutch Lake because of certain qualities. Wetlands are sensitive. Kelly Goddard, 5068 Shoreline Dr - What are the benefits to change to R37 (The idea for this area is to make it available for other residential redevelopment possibilities.) We are not in favor of rezoning our lot to R3. Joe Schlecter, 5058 Shoreline Dr - If there are some properties that need updating why didn't staff stick it to those properties south of Shoreline that are in need of restoration? (Mueller - This is one way to make it happen. We can only do so much at one time.) Shari Erickson, 6064 Aspen - She is against the high density. Split zoning, i.e. on lakeside keep at Ri, Commerce side go R2. She is a little concerned about Gordon's comment about a developer not wanting to come in to do a single family development. (Gordon -A developer will want to develop as intense as they can to maximize profits.) Dave Peterson, 1715 Sterling Dr? - What provisions are made for Anthony's to continue business after rezoning to residential? (Michael - It would be allowed with a conditional use permit.) Could a split zoning include a lakeside parcel dedicated to park land? (It's a possibility.) Noel - Dutch Lake issue should be handled separately from all the others because it is a rezoning not simply a change to the Comprehensive Plan. Chair closed public hearing. Recess at 9:25. Recalled meeting to order at 9:37. Michael indicated he would be in favor of removing the Shoreline properties and Anthony's property and move the rest as recommended. -2565- Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2002 Burma disagreed with the Chairman. In the best interest of Anthony's Floral and surrounding property a decision should be made. MOTION by Brown, second by Glister, to split zoning for Anthony's Floral, R1 at the lake, R3 on Commerce and remove the block on Shoreline between Chateau and Fairview. The rest of the staff recommendations as is. Clapsaddle is very uncomfortable with that from the standpoint of how a developer will look at the property. He wanted to know if it could be designated a PDA? Gordon said yes. Mueller agreed that a PDA would be the tightest means we have to control the development of a property. Gordon stated it could be zoned R3 and overlay it with a PDA. That means that today the flower shop has a CLIP and it could be a flower shop forever. If it sold and the new owner wanted to do something other than a flower shop it would need to go residential and go under strict review. Brown rescinded the motion, Glister agreed. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to change 4828 Edgewater Dr to R1 and 4804 Northern Rd to R3. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, second by Clapsaddle, to leave the area east of Chateau Lane unchanged. MOTION carded unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, second by Burma, to change zoning on those properties between Chateau Lane and Fairview Lane north of Shoreline Boulevard south of the railroad tracks to zone R3. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, second by Brown, to change zoning to B1 for 2116 Commerce and the adjacent unassigned parcels. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma, to change 2117 Fern Road to R3. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION carded unanimously. Mueller would also support a variance for the church to put in a garage should they make that request in the future. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to change the remainder of the parcels in the proposal east of Commerce to R3 to conform with current use. MOTION carded unanimously. (Motion includes 5551, 5553 & 5555 Three Points Boulevard and 1816, 1818, 1822, 1824 & 2020 Commerce Boulevard.) 4 -2566- Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2002 MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to change the underlying zone to R3 with PDA criteria for the Anthony's Floral property located at 1861 Commerce Boulevard. Brown asked if Mueller would be willing to change zone to R1. Mueller declined. MOTION carded unanimously. Brown voted against. Brown hates to see it be anything but R1 by the lake. These zoning changes will likely be brought to the August 13th Council meeting. Michael requested that, since Mirmetrista residents would like to be notified when Mound has meetings that concern them, they extend the same courtesy to Mound. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle second, that all the zoning changes recommended this evening be coordinated by Staff and passed on to City Council. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to change the Comprehensive Plan to Low Density Residential for those properties east of Commerce Blvd north of Shoreline Drive. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to change the Comprehensive Plan to High Density Residential for the property north of City Hall on Maywood Road. MOTION camed unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to change the Comprehensive Plan to commercial for the property on the south side of Shoreline Drive along Seton Channel. MOTION carded unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to change Comprehensive Plan from High Density Residential to Low Density Residential for that piece east of Chateau Lane. MOTION carried unanimously. -2567- MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Imm [ttH To: From: Date: Subject: Mound Honorable Mayor, City Council and Staff Loren Gordon, AICP August 22, 2002 Zoning Map / Comprehensive Plan revisions BACKGROUND As many of you are aware, Staff and the Planning Commission have been working on the City's Land Use Plan and Zoning Maps over the past few months. These revisions are needed to comply with Minnesota Statute that states that the Zoning Map shall be consistent with the Land Use Plan. This law was enacted in 1994 and is a change from prior land use/zoning practice. Under the Statute, the Land Use Plan establishes how parcels should be zoned. Zoning is still the "law of the land," but only when it is consistent with the Land Use Plan. The Statue makes it the City's responsibility to maintain consistency between the two. At the January Planning Commission workshop meeting, Staff introduced a new parcel based zoning map that is part of the City's evolving Geographic Information System (GIS). The Zoning Map hadn't been updated since about 1995, so a new map is long overdue. The new Zoning Map and Land Use Plan Map are the basis for the update. One of the useful tools GIS provides is the ability to readily identify inconsistencies in parcel land information. have used this to identify parcels with zoning classifications that don't match the guided use designated by the land use plan and vice-versa. A comparison resulted in the property lists noticed for the public hearings during May and July at the Planning Commission. We DISCUSSION For purposes of this meeting, Staff wanted to discuss procedural matters with the Council regarding how to move this project forward. There are a couple of items that the Council should consider when setting a hearing date for both rezoning and land use plan amendments: 1. Should the rezoning and land use plan public hearings be held at the same meeting like the Planning Commission or separated? Staffwould suggest a concurrent process. 2. When should a hearing be scheduled? If they are held concurrently, the earliest date a hearing could be scheduled is September 24t~. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Mhmesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -2568- p. 2 Mound Honorable Mayor, City Council and Staff August 22, 2002 Items to consider: 1. Most of the rezoning/land use plan amendments are not controversial and actually improve the use status of a property. A couple of properties have envoked neighborhood discussion'- Anthony's Floral and the single family neighborhood on/adjacent to Chateau Lane north of Shoreline Blvd. In particular: Anthony's Floral property - Mound and Minnetrista residents have concerns about future use of the property and it's impact on the lake. A neighborhood group has organized and have had preliminary discussions with the Community Development Director since the Planning Commission meeting and would like to be involved in all future discussions and meetings. Concerns include, but are not limited to the following: site density, the City's development review process, dockage, traffic and lake access. 3. Any land use plan amendment will need to be approved by the Metropolitan Council. These amendments have been initiated by the City therefore, there is not a need or obligation to comply with the 60-day rule in State Statute Section 15.99. Taking additional time to hear and consider the issues is possible if desired. This report does not attempt to address all of the issues that have been raised in previous staff reports and Planning Commission meetings. Staff is however prepared to address any item the Council wishes to discuss in determining how to approach these amendments. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Milmeapolis, Milmesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -2569- 11. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS A. Case #02-12: John Pastuck/Natural Homes - 6385/6495 Bartlett Blvd. - Mino~ Subdivision. Loren Gordon reviewed the minor subdivision request, informing the Council that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 02-86: RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6380 BAY RIDGE ROAD. P & Z CASE #02-12. PID #23-'117-24-32-006.5 B. Case #02-29: Henry & Gina Lazniarz- 4531 Manchester Road - Final Plat for Lake Minnetonka Trails. Loren Gordon explained that the applicants have submitted a final plat for a four lot single family development named "Lake Minnetonka Trails". The preliminary plat was received on June 11,2002 and the final plat is consistent with the preliminary. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Osmek to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 02-87: RESOLUTION GRANTING-FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE LAKE MINNETONKA TRAILS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. P & Z CASE #02-06. 12. DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ZONING AMENDMENTS AND OVERVIEW FROM PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Loren Gordon explained that staff and the Planning Commission have been working on the City's Land Use Plan and Zoning Maps over the past few months, and the proposed revisions are needed to comply with state statutes that state that the Zoning Map shall ' be consistent with the Land Use Plan. There are numerous parcels under consideration for rezoning and the question is whether to consider them all at one time or separate the two areas that there seem to be of concern to residents. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Meyer to initiate the rezoning process for all properties except where Anthony's Floral is located, and the Chateau properties. All voted in favor. Motion carried. There was input from property owners living in the Dutch Lake vicinity, expressing concern over the future use of the Anthony's property and its impact on the lake. The neighborhood group would like to be involved in future discussions regarding this topic. 4 - 2'5-7-0'-' Mound City Council Minutes - August 27, 2002 John Dean expressed that there may be legal issues if the zoning is changed now to make the existing use nonconforming; ' Discussion followed regarding possible solutions and combinations of zoning designations. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to reconsider their previous motion. Those voting in favor: Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Osmek. Those voting against: Meyer. Motion carried. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to bring all of the pamels in the proposed Zoning Map/Comprehensive Plan revisions, with the exception of the Anthony's Floral property, to public hearing for further evaluation and consideration. Thos~ voting in favor: Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Osmek. Those voting against: Meyer. Motion carried. Mayor Meisel stated that the Anthony's Floral property would be put on the September 24t~ agenda for further discussion, and directed staff to contact the property owner for his input, and invite him to the meeting, along with the Dutch Lake neighborhood group. 12A. (Item 8 on agenda) REPRESENTATIVE ON SCHOOL DISTRICT REFERENDUM Hanus stated that he is uncomfortable using this forum to discuss a ballot question that's on the primary election in two weeks. If the Council lets one side use this forum they have to let the other side, and then also have to allow for a candidate to use the same forum. It has happened in the past and he is very uncomfortable with that action. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to have staff prepare a policy statement regarding the use of Council meetings for promoting any ballot question, and that the policy read that this not happen under any circumstance. This proposed policy will be presented at a future meeting for consideration. Those voting in favor: Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Osmek. Those voting against: Meyer. Motion carried. Gene Zulk, School District Superintendent, stated how pleased he was to attend the liquor store groundbreaking earlier in the day and commended the Council on their patience in the development of the downtown. He stated there is going to be a referendum levy vote on the September 10th primary ballot and that the YES Westonka Committee sent out a handbook to all residents - not to suggest they vote yes, but to educate the public on the issue. He thanked the Council and stated that he is excited to have potential for growth and wants to keep the schools competitiVe so new families will consider having their children attend Westonka Schools. t0, REQUErST-FROM,TIM--BECKERAND-:DAEE-AND-EORtEL-L-BEGI(ER TO REZONE LOTS 5~, BLOCK 4,~REPLAT.OF HARRISON SH0..RES_FROM R~I TO 4; MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to adopt the following resolution. All ~/oted in favor. Motion carried. RESOEU~I.O.N NO,. 02-96: RESOEUTIONTO ~DENY THE REQUEST-FROM-TIM ~ BECKER AND DALE AND LORELL BECKER TO REZONE LOTS 5-8, BLOCK 4,. REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FROM R.1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-lA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. P&Z CASE #02-16, PID #13-117-24-22-0046 - 0050 - 0051 AND 0052. ll. PROPOSED REZONINGICOMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT-' ~ ANTHONY'S FLORAL Loren Gordon reiterated the history and background of the proposed amendment, stating that the proposed rezoning and comprehensive plan amendments were undertaken for consistency and to be in conformance with Minnesota State Statutes. Brown stated he would be in favor of R1 by the lake and R2 by Commerce, but not in favor of changing anything until there's a proposed plan for the area. Osmek agreed with the split zoning idea, but leaving it is as for the present because of the current commercial use. Hanus and Meisel also concur with the split zoning aspect, but not doing anything at the current time because of lack of a proposed plan for the area. Meyer expressed that the Comprehensive Plan states, that no matter how you look at it, there is a shortage of park land and feels that the lake side of this parcel should be considered for additional park land. Residents of Dutch Lake spoke in favor of the R1 at the lake side and R2 along the street side and wanted and suggested the council make a motion to leave the current business as is and give support in the future of the RI/R2 split. Meisel stated that's why the consensus of the Council was n°ted in the minutes. Hanus also commented that even if this council made that motion, it would not bind future councils. A petition was received by the City with signatures of property owners against the Comprehensive Plan change and rezoning of Anthony's Floral property to high density. City Attorney John Dean stated that there is the option of not doing anything at this time. He is not speaking in support, but it is currently zoned B1, which allows the current user to do what he's doing at the moment. Even though there is a mismatch in the current zoning and comp plan, no one is forcing that issue at this time. The Council could decide not to take any action until some sort of proposal is presented. Council consensus is not to take any action at this time. 4 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (%2) EX E'CUTIVE'"SUMMAR TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, City Planner DATE: May 29, 2003 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Amendment APPLICANT: Bruce and Joan Reno PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 03-24 PID: 19-117-23-31-0119 LOCATION: 2851 Tuxedo Blvd. ZONING: R-2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential District. PUBLIC HEARING - CUP AMENDMENT The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider a conditional use permit amendment from Bruce Reno and Joan Reno who are proposing to build a 16' x 16' 9" two-story addition to the rear of their home. The addition would be built in the location of the existing deck. A new deck would also be constructed on the north side of the addition. Plans for the addition show a living room on the upper level and a bedroom on the lower level. According to the City Code, the request requires an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which was approved for the property in 1983 (Resolution No. 83-41.) PROJECT BACKGROUND Details regarding the original project are contained in Planning Report No. 03-24 which is on file in the Planning and Building Inspections Department and will be provided to members of the City Council upon request. NOTIFICATION - CUP REVIEW PROCEDURE City Code Chapter 350:525 Subd 3 (B) requires that all requests for conditional use permits are reviewed by the Planning Commission. Additionally, City Code Chapter 350:535 Subd. 3 (C) requires that a public hearing is held by the City Council. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Laker on June 14, 2003. Additionally, the Notice of Public Hearing was also mailed to all affected property owners located within (350) feet on June 11, 2003. -2573- PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The request was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its June 2, 2003 meeting. In general, members of the Planning Commission expressed support for the proposal. The neighboring property owner which shares a common wall with the subject property also attended the June 2n~ meeting and expressed concern regarding drainage and use of the existing drain tile. Staff indicated that the drainage issues would be reviewed by the City Engineer as part of the building permit process. Based on its review, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend Council approval of the CUP amendment subject to conditions. A copy of the June 2, 2003Planning Commission meeting minute excerpts have been included as an attachment. A draft resolution based on the Planning Commission's recommendation has also been included. -2574- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 03- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY ADDITION TO THE ATTACHED TWINHOME LOCATED AT 2851 TUXEDO BOULEVARD P & Z CASE # 03-24 WHEREAS, the applicants, Bruce and Joan Reno have submitted a request to amend their conditional use permit to allow construction of an addition to the rear of their twinhome located at 2851 Tuxedo Boulevard; and WHEREAS, as set forth in City Code Section 350:640, twin homes are allowed in the R-2 District by conditional use; and WHEREAS, the original conditional use permit was approved in 1983 following adoption of Resolution 83-41 which allowed construction of the structure containing the (2) twin home unit(s); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request at its June 2, 2003 meeting and voted unanimously to recommend Council approval as recommended by Staff subject to the following condition: 1. An updated survey and hardcover calculation sheet be submitted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: The City does hereby approve the conditional use permit amendment subject to the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. This conditional use permit is approved for the following legally described property: See Exhibit A. -2575- The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted June 24, 2003 Pat Meiset, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -2576- MINUTES June 2, 2003 CASE #03-24 CUP AMENDMENT - ATTACHED TWINHOME 2851 TUXEDO BOULEVARD - BRUCE RENO The applicant is proposing to build a two-story addition to the rear of their twin home. The addition would be built in the location of the existing deck. A new deck would also be constructed on the north side of the addition. The request requires an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit. City staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to receipt of an updated survey and hardcover calculation sheet. Discussion Mueller confirmed that all zoning requirements are met. Delores Beiersdorf, 2857 Tuxedo Blvd was concerned that the drain tile for the addition would tie in with the existing drain tile and overload the sump pump. Gordon replied that the building official would review that at the time of building permit issuance. Bruce Reno, 2851 Tuxedo Blvd - wanted to know when the additional property in the front was purchased. Gordon said the City Engineer indicated when the city did the project 10-12 years ago the land was bought. It may only show up in a title search. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Raines, to approve staff recommendation. MOTION carried unanimously. -2577- PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION FROM BRUCE AND JOAN RENO FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO THEIR ATTACHED TWINHOME LOCATED AT 2851 TUXEDO BOULEVARD P&Z Case No. 03-24 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota will meet in the Council Chambers, 5431 Maywood Road, at 7:30 PM on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 to hold a public hearing to consider an Conditional Use Permit (CUP) amendment application from Bruce and Joan Reno to allow construction of an 16' x 16' 9" addition to the rear of their home located at 2851 Tuxedo Boulevard. Copies of the application materials are available to the public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Published in The Laker on June 14, 2003. Jill Norlander, Planning and Inspections Secretary -2578- PLANNING REPORT HOisington Koegler Group InC. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, City Planner DATE: May 29, 2003 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Amendment APPLICANT: Bruce and Joan Reno PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 03-24 PID: 19-117-23-31-0t19 LOCATION: 2851 Tuxedo Blvd. ZONING: R-2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential District REQUEST The applicant is proposing to build a 16' x 16' 9" two-story addition to the rear of their home. The addition would be built in the location of the existing deck. A new deck would also be constructed on the north side of the addition. Plans for the addition show a living room on the upper level and a bedroom on the lower level. The request requires an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP). PREVIOUS APPROVALS According to City Code Section 350:640, twin homes are allowed in the R-2 District by conditional use. The original CUP was issued in 1983 following approval of Resolution No. 83- 41. Copies of the 1983 Resolution and supporting information have been included as attachments. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW CRITERIA In granting a conditional use permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed land use upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that the conditional use permit review criteria are contained in City Code Chapter 350:525 Subd. 1. 123 North 'Fhird Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 5540 I (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -2579- May 29, 2003 CUP REVIEW PROCEDURE City Code Chapter 350:525 Subd. 3 (B) requires that all requests for conditional use permits are reviewed by the Planning Commission. Additionally, City Code Chapter 350:535 Subd. 3 (C) requires that a public hearing is held by the City Council. Procedurally, state statute requires that the planning agency and/or governing body must hold a public hearing on all requests for conditional use permits and further requires that a Notice of Public Hearing is published at least (10) days in advance of the public hearing and is also mailed to all property owners within (350) feet. The tentative date for the City Council public hearing is June 24, 2003. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Notice of Public Hearing will be published in the Laker on June 14, 2003. Additionally, the Notice of Public Hearing is also scheduled to be mailed to all affected property owners located within (350) feet on or before June 13, 2003. 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 CUP application was received and deemed to be complete on April 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. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all applicable City departments for review and comment and are summarized below: City Engineer Cameron We will either need a better survey with elevations or this must be looked at in the field to determine how the drainage will be affected by the addition. Public Works Director Skinner No comments. Building Official Simoneau A building permit will be required including the submittal of all necessary information. Fire Chief Pederson No objections. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Mirmesota 55401 (-2580-}800 Fax (612) 338-6838 #03~24 2851 Tuxedo Blvd. CUP omendment May 29, 2003 Parks Director Jim Fackler No comments. DISCUSSION The submitted Certificate of Survey & Topographic Survey shows the property extends into what appears to be Tuxedo Blvd. right-of-way. This depiction of the property appears to be inaccurate as that area was conveyed with the last street reconstruction project. Typically, additional right-of-way is secured through an easement or outright purchase by the City. Conversations with the City Engineer appear to suggest that a purchase occurred and the title work was probably not reviewed during the preparation of the survey. Hennepin County property records appear to suggest the same.. The right-of-way area that is shown as additional property area skews the submitted hardcover calculations. The amount of calculated hardcover is correct, but the lot area needs to be revised to exclude the right-of-way area. Staff estimates the hardcover to be approximately (24) percent which is a conforming condition. The proposed construction extends the interior space at the common party wall. As shown in the survey and indicated on the application, the addition would have a 1.2 feet sideyard setback. It appears that when the home was built, the party wall separating each dwelling was constructed slightly north of the common line of lots I and 2. The Declarations of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions attached as Exhibit "A" to the 1983 Resolution remain in force as private agreements between the 4 described properties. 5. The addition is a logical expansion of the residence. Water runoff from the new addition should be addressed at the time of building permit to prevent any adverse drainage conditions to the neighboring residence at the 2857 Tuxedo address. Second hand conversation from the adjacent neighbor indicates a favorable acceptance of the proposed addition. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends Planning Commission .and City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. An updated survey and hardcover calculation sheet be submitted. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (-2581 -)8o0 Fax (612) 338-6838 eo 0 · lllll I -2583- Meeting held on 6/03/03 Date printed 06/20/03 C~ OF MOUND IVI~ ~.1 Ily I¥11 II UI.~ Mound Public Saf~ Facili~ The meeting was convened at 8:30 AM Monday, June 3, 2003 at Mound Fire Station: Present: Kandis Hanson City KH Todd Chdstopherson Amcon TC Greg Pederson City GP Bob Gamades Amcon BG Miles Britz SEH MB Don Geiger Amcon DG Schedule: 1.1. Footings completed on both levels. Stem walls completed on the lower level, working on the upper level nOW, 1.2. Scheduled to start setting precast on Wednesday, to start on curved wall. 1.3. Steel installation scheduled to start on June 17. Will not be working on entrance until all steel and precast are set. 1.4. BG to have GME check compaction of back fill and pea gravel at drain tile. GP to call BG on soils. People have indicated a desire for fill. The receiver will pay any expenses incurred. Funds have accumulated approximately $35,000 interest. DG to include $30,000 in the Funding Source of the Budget Work Sheet, balance to pay for banking fees. Meeting to update the City Council on Tuesday, June 24 at 7:30 PM Review millwork bids. Received bids from VVilke Sanderson, $29,646.00 and Gray Wolf, $30,155.00. Recommending award of contract to Wilkie Sanders at City Council meeting. KH agreed it would be acceptable to send letter of intent prior to City Council meeting if necessary to maintain schedule. Reviewed alternates and prioritized implementation order. TC stated we should wait until late July or early August to determine what contingency funds remain for alternates. The priority of alternates are: 6.1. Alternates previously accepted or deleted: 6.1.1. Alternate #1: Sloped roof detail - Accepted 6.1.2. Alternate #5: Revised rock aggregate within extedor precast wall panels - Deleted 6.1.3. Alternate #7: Picnic tables - Deleted. 6.1.4. Alternate ~8: Cast in place concrete wall "Formiiner" in lieu of actual limestone veneer and drystacking at retaining walls - Accepted. 6.1.5. Alternate #10: Decorative Flame Ceiling - Deleted. 6.1.6. Alternate #11: Colored exterior concrete - Deleted. 6.2. Alternates to be reviewed for later acceptance, in order of importance: 6.2.1. Alternate ~4: Sun screens at exterior windows at front entry curved wall. 6.2.2. Alternate #2: Aluminum metal grilles with aluminum back panels above apparatus bay overhead garage doors. Considering only doing the east side. 6.2.3. Alternate #13: Aluminum medallion grillage G6 and G7 at aluminum window frames. 6.2.4. Alternate #3: Aluminum sun screens over punched exterior windows along the north and west elevations. C:\WINDOWS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content. lE5~HNGGA448~vlPS 06 03 03 Budget.doc -2584- Page ! ot'2. Ci~ OF MOUND Meeting held on 6/03/03 Date printed 06/20/03 6.2.5. Alternate #12: Aluminum medallion grillage G3, G4 and G5 surface applied to precast wall panels. 6.2.6. Alternate #9: Decorative Brass Fire Pole - To be paid for with funds from the Fire Department. 6.3. Alternate not included for acceptance, not officially deleted: 6.3.1. Alternate #.6: Three additional items within the food Service inventory of equipment. 7. MB reviewing lights on top of precast panels to try to reduce the cost. 8. DG to call Larry Fortun of Xcel Energy to inquire on resolution of relocation of Mediacom wires from poles to be removed. 9. The construction easement with the neighbors has been signed. At the completion of the project the City will pay to sod the areas disturbed on the neighbors property, the property owner will have to water and maintain. 10. GP to meet with security and Iow voltage contractors this week at SEH offices. 11. The City has been offered a free new dishwasher, value is approximately $8,000. Installation will cost about $10,000. 12. Next meeting will be held July 1 at 8:30. 13. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 AM. Minutes by DG. Call if any missing items or discrepancy. C:\WlNDOWS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.lES\HNGGA448~MPS 06 03 03 Budget.doc -2585-. Page 2 0£ ~ Meeting held on 06/03/03 Date printed 06/05/03 C!~OF M~UNp Mound Public Safety Facility Site Meeting The meeting was convened at 10 AM Monday, June 3, 2003 at Mound Fire Station: Present: Greg Pederson City GP Wade Pederron Mediacom WP Miles Britz SEH MB Bob Gamades ^mcon BG Galen Peterson Kelleher GA Don Geiger Amcon DG Jesse Roush Yeit JR 1. Safety 1.1. Hard hats and safety vests required at all times. 1.2. Next week we will start back filling and erecting precast panels, be aware of equipment operations. 2. Precast installation will start Wednesday of next week. 3. Mediacom 3.1. Place pedestal in bushes to the north of the building surrounding the outdoor lunch area. Locate in inside row of bushes. Pedestal to be Iow 'doghouse' type. 3.2. Will have to relocate vault or use vault that pedestrians can walk over, current location will be in new sidewalk. If vault is to be relocated Mediacom is to locate in grassed area north of building, using a green top. 4. Comments: 4.1. JR - There is an 18" maple tree on the property of the neighbor to the south that will be effected by the revised retaining wall layout on PR #6A. GP to discuss removal of tree with neighbor. 5. Schedule, see attached. 6. Next meeting June 10, 2003 at 10:00. 7. Minutes by DG. Call if any missing items or discrepancy. C:\WINDOWS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content. lE5~HNGGA448'~1PS 06 03 03.doc -2586- Page ! of ], CITY OF I~OUND Mound Public Safety Facility Site Meeting Meeting held on 06/10/03 Date printed 06/10/03 The meeting was convened at 10 AM Monday, June 10, 2003 at Mound Fire Station: Present: Greg Pederson City GP Bob Gamades Amcon Miles Britz SEH MB Don Geiger Amcon Brad Jacobs Western Stl BJ BG DG 1. Safety 1.1. Hard hats and safety vests required at all times. 1.2. Erecting precast panels, be aware of equipment operations. 1.3. Be attentive when crossing street to parking and job trailer, this is a high traffic street. 2. Precast installation continuing. 3. Parking 3.1. All contractors to start parking in school parking lot until further notice. Do not park adjacent to school, trailer or in south row of spaces. If you have any questions contact BG. Do not leave your keys in your vehicle. 3.2. When taking coffee and lunch breaks do not litter, this includes cigarette butts. 4. Ensure all deliveries have contact name and phone number for person on site to accept delivery. 5. First steel delivery is to be columns and beams only, not joists or decking, due to space limitations on site. Erection contractor is responsible to ensure that all mud is off steel prior to installation. Painter is not responsible for cleaning steel. 6. Schedule, see attached. ?. Next meeting June 17, 2003 at 10:00. 8. Minutes by DG. Call if any missing items or discrepancy. C:\WlNDOWS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content. lE5~NGGA448\MPS 06 10 03.doc -2587- Page 1 of 1 TVVO WEEK SCHEDULE MOUND PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DATE: JUNE 10, 2003 Partial backfill 6 days 5/30/03 8:00 6/6/03 17:00 Erect Precast Panels Lower 14 days 6/4/03 8:00 6/23/03 17:00 Form/pour upper stem walls 8 days 6/4/03 8:00 6/13/03 17:00 Backfill Upper area 1 day 6/13/03 8:00 6/13/03 17:00 Precast Layout Upper 1 day 6/16/03 8:00 6/16/03 17:00 Erect Precast Panels Upper 14 days 6/16/03 8:00 7/3/03 17:00 CMU Lower Level 14 days 6/17/03 8:00 7/4/03 17:00 Steel Erection Lower Area 6 days 6/17/03 8:00 6/24/03 17:00 Underground Utilities 14 days 6/23/03 8:00 7/10/03 17:00 -2588- ~ OF MOUND Mound Public Safety Facility Site Meeting Meeting held on 06/17/03 Date printed 06/19/03 The meeting was convened at 10 AM Monday, June 17, 2003 at Mound Fire Station: Present: Greg Pederson City GP Jesse Roush Veit JS Miles Britz SEH MB Ed Vanek Ridgedale EV Kirk Onsager SEH KO Mike Knorr Allied MK Dan Burnam SEH DB Bob Gamades Amcon BG Safety 1.1 Hard hats and vests are to be worn at all times. 1.2 Starting tomorrow there will be two cranes, a forklift, several skidster loaders, and a minimum of four JGL's running around on a very small lot; so please be very aware of what's around you at all times. 1.3 The Federal Government through OSHA requires that all businesses have a Safety Program and further it requires that a copy be accessible on site. 1.4 The Federal Government through OSHA requires that anyone supplying materials or goods must furnish Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) on those products. 1.5 There are substantial fines for non-compliance of both (1.3 & 1.4). Thus I need a copy of your safety program and MSDS sheets in the trailer and not locked up in your gang box just incase you are not present on site when we get a visit from OSHA. E-Mail Address 2.1. Once again we make the request for everyone's e-mail address in order to keep everyone in the loop and to assure the up most efficient means of updating everyone on current issues. Parking 3.1. Please be advised that you need to park in the school lot in the designated area and not on site or on the street. We have a small lot and with all the trades it is not going to be efficient for you or me to have to spend time moving vehicles. 3.2. If you have equipment on site and do not plan to be on site for several days and that piece of equipment might be in someone's way be sure to leave keys, or check with the superintendent for a possible location to park it. 4. Road Expenditure 4.1, In order to bring the cranes into the upper area it was necessary to build a Class 5 road over the foundation wall. There was some expense incurred in this and as soon as the final cost is known; this expenditure will be presented in the form of a change order from Veit. 5. Schedule, see a~ached. C:\WlNDOWS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content,lE5\HNGGA448~lPS 06 17 03.doc -2589- Page 1 of 2 Meeting held on 06/17/03 Date printed 06/19/03 CI~ OF MOL~D Next meeting June 24, 2003 at 10:00. 6.]. Reminder that if you are doing work on site or are about to start in the week of or after the scheduled meeting you need to be present or your representative must be present. ( i.e. foreman, superintendent, project manager) 7. Minutes by BG. Call if any missing items or discrepancy. C:\WlNDOWS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content. lE5~NGGA448\MPS 06 17 03.doc -2590- Page 2 of 2 TWO WEEK SCHEDULE MOUND PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DATE: JUNE 10, 2003 Erect Precast Panels Lower 9 days 6~4~03 8:00 6/16/03 17:00 Form/Pour upper stem walls 9 days 6/4/03 8:00 6/16/03 17:00 Waterproof Upper Walls 2 days 6/13/03 8:00 6/16/03 17:00 Precast Layout Upper 1 day 6/16/03 8:00 6/16/03 17:00 Plumbing wall sleeves 1 day 6/16/03 8:00 6/16/03 17:00 Exterior HM Frame Delivery 1 day 6/16/03 8:00 6/16/03 17:00 Erect Precast Panels Upper 14 days 6/17/03 8:00 7/4/03 17:00 CMU Lower Level 14 days 6/17/03 8:00 7/4/03 17:00 Steel Delivery 1 day 6/18/03 8:00 6/18/03 17:00 Steel Erection Lower Area 6 days 6/19/03 8:00 6/26/03 17:00 Underground Utilities 14 days 6/23/03 8:00 7/10/03 17:00 Plumbing Underground 21 days 6/23/03 8:00 7/21/03 17:00 -2591 - Mound Public Safety Facility 6/20103 Mound, MN Budget Work Sheet March-03 June,-03 Budget Meeting June Funding Source Recommended Mar 2003 2003 Lease Revenue bond Sale Project Funds 5,350,000 5,350,000 HRA Contingency 12,478 12,478 Balance Budget - Contingency Allocation 237,522 237,522 Recommended allocation Construction Contingency - H RA 250,000 250,000 Set aside for construction interest Earned 30,000 To.~ I 5,650,000.L 5,880,0001 , Expenditures Project Development Costa AJE Base Fee SEH 371,250 385,750 SEH A/E Reimbursables SEH 30,500 11,000SEH Scope Change Contingency SEH 25,000 50,000SEH Land Ccats City of Mound 30,0D0 766 MFRA Fee to 5/1103 Legal Fees/Non Bond Kennedy/Graven 2,000 2,000 Kennedy Graven Financing Costs/Non Bond 3,000 3,000 Ehlers Soft Cost - Miscellaneous to date Miscellaneous 48,832 48,832City of Mound - Gene City Road & Utility Fees (SAC) MCES 2,400 2,400 City Public Utility charges Excel 50,000 48.670MFRA/Amcon Geotechnical/Environmental Services Braun 8,300 8,300 Amcon Surveying MFRA 8,000 8,000 City Bid Advertisement and Printing To be Bid 30,000 30,000Amgen Lease Cost of Temporary Facility 47,880 47,880City Moving Costs (two moves) 8,000 8,000 City Construction Testing tn Construction Cost 0 0 Amcon Sub-totals 665,162 654,598 Furnlshinas and Eaul~3mant FFE Owner 85,000 85,000 City Audio visual Systems To be bid t5,000 15,000 City Secudty and Access Systems/CCTV To be bid 14,400 t4,400 City Telephone System To be bid 17,200 17,200 City Computer Nelwork To be bid 8,700 8,700City Paging System To be bid 7,500 7,500City Cable TV To be bid 2,500 2,500City VoicalData Cabling To be bid 18~500 18~500 City Construction Cost Sub4otale 168,800 168,800 Building Hard Costs Contractors (to be bid) 4,531,968 Amcon General Conditions (Estimated) 163,825 Contractors - Let 4,328,302 Contractors - To Be Let (Estimated) 107,646 Change Orders - Approved (6,984) Change Orders - Pending 46,737 Owner Direct Purchase 425 Asbestos Removal 4,000 Construction Manager Fee Amcon CM 128,500 128,500 Amcon Site Impmvenlents Included in Building Amcon Demolition of Existing To be bid 37,200 Max Staininger, Removal of Well 10,230 10,230 Stevens Ddlling New (replacement well) NOT included in project 0 City Contingency- Construction 250,000 250,000 Amcon Recommended Alternates Alternate #1 106.416 In Building Hard Costs Bldg, Committee Proposed Cost Savings (60,754) In Building Herd Costs Amcon Sub-totals 5,003,560 5,032,681 Totals S5,837,522 S5,856,079 u .... mr, ted F..da (F..d Sho~go) II 12,478 II 23,921 Ii AMCON -2592- CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY 6/20/03 CONTINGENCY Total $250,000.00 Chan~le Orders - Approved (6,984) Change Orders - Pendin~l 46,737 Chan~le Orders - General Conditions $0.00 Owner Direct Purchases $425.00 TOTAL $40,178.00 Contingency Balance $209,822.00 AMCON CM -2593- MPS Const cost 06-03 Budget Cont. CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY 6~20~03 GENERAL CONDITIONS Estimated $163,825.00 Pre-Construction (5/02 to 1/03) $9,722.04 Feb. $1,831.50 Mar. $2,995.79 Apr. $6,672.09 May $0.00 Jun. $0.00 Jul. $0.00 Aug. $0.00 Sept. $0.00 Oct. $0.00 Nov. $0.00 Dec. $0.00 TOTAL $21,221.42 General Conditions Balance $142,603.58 AMCON CM MPS Const cost 06-03 Budget Gen. Cond. -2594- I CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY 6/20/03 CONTRACTS TO LET C-05 Fencing $60,000.00 C-23 Fluid Applied Coatin~l $18,000.00 C-29 Casework $29,646.00 TOTAL $107,646.00 AMCON CM -2595- MPS Const cost 06-03 Budget Contracts To Let CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY 6/20/03 PRINTING Estimated $30,000.00 Pre-Con $25,386.30 Feb. $358.56 Mar. $0.00 Apr. $119.83 IMa¥ Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. TOTAL $25,864.69 Printing Balance $4,135.31 AMCON CM -2596- MPS Const cost 06-03 Budget Printing 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: June 17, 2003 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER/APPLICANT: Kristine Lovaas PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 03-23 LOCATION: 2305 Norwood Lane PID: 13-117-24-44-0104 ZONING: R-2 Single and Two Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential SUMMARY At its June 2, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a variance request from Kristine Lovaas to allow construction of a six (6) foot solid wood fence to be located within the 20-foot front setback along Shoreline Drive. Pursuant to City Code Chapter 350:475, front'yard fences are permitted to be placed along property lines within the front setback area as long as they do not exceed four (4) feet in height. The requested variance is described below: Proposed Required Variance Front yard fence (6) feet (4) feet (2) feet PROJECT DETAILS A copy Planning Report No. 03-23 (excluding attachments) has been included for review and information. A full copy of the report is on file in the Planning and Building Inspections Department and will be provided to members of the City Council upon request. -2597- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Based on its review, the Planning Commission voted five (5) in favor and two (2) opposed to recommend denial of the variance application as recommended by Staff due to the following findings of fact: There appears to be no hardship demonstrated for the increased fence height as there are numerous lots in the community which are bordered by public streets on (2) sides including County Roads. Allowing a six (6) foot fence within the required front setback may be precedent setting. The installation of a four (4) foot fence in the front setback area is permissible by City Code. Relocation of the evergreen trees further south may help prevent further damage from snow plowing activities and/or road salt. Details regarding the Planning Commission's review of the application are contained in the June 2, 2003 Planning Commission meeting minutes excerpts which have been included as an attachment. A draft resolution has also been included. -2598- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 03- A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR A SIX (6) FOOT FRONT YARD FENCE AT 2305 NORWOOD LANE MOUND, MINNESOTA PID# 13-117-24-44-0104 PLANNING AND ZONING CASE NO. 03-23 WHEREAS, the applicant, Kristine Lovaas, has submitted a request for a two (2) foot height variance to allow installation of a six (6) foot front yard fence to be constructed along the front property line on Shoreline Drive at 2305 Norwood Lane; and WHEREAS, the purpose for the fence is to minimize noise from Shoreline Drive and to reduce property damage associated with snow removal; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 350:475 regulates fence height to no more than four (4) feet when located in the front yard measured from existing grade; and. WHEREAS, Staff could not support the variance request as there are other feasible alternatives available including moving the fence further south, installation of the fence on top of the existing berm and landscaping which will accomplish the intended result; and WHEREAS, at its June 2, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommended that the City Council deny the variance as requested by the applicant. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City does hereby deny the variance as recommended by the Planning Commission based on the following findings of facts outlined below: -2599- height as there are numerous lots in the community which are bordered by public streets on (2) sides including County Roads. b. Allowing a six (6) foot fence within the required frOnt setback may be precedent setting. ¢. The installation of a four (4) foot fence in the front setback area is permissible by City Code. ct. Relocation of the evergreen trees further south may help prevent further damage from snow plowing activities and/or road salt. 2. The variance is denied for the following legally described property: See Exhibit A. 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 June 24, 2002 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -2600- O MINUTES MOtJ-ND ADVI~-Aq~-YNG COMMISSION June 2, 2003 BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #03-23 VARIANCE - FENCE HEIGHT 2305 NORWOOD LANE - KRISTINE LOVAAS The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow construction of a six-foot solid wood fence to be located within the 20-foot front setback along Shoreline Drive. Staff recommends denial of the variance due to the following findings of fact: 1. There appears to be no hardship demonstrated for the increased fence height as there are numerous lots in the community that are bordered by public streets on 2 sides. 2. Allowing a six-foot fence within the required front setback may be precedent setting. 3. The installation of a four-foot fence in the front setback area is permissible by City Code. 4. Relocation of the evergreen trees further south may help prevent further damage from snow plowing activities and/or road salt. Discussion Ayaz felt that dealing with noise and traffic comes with living on a busy street. People need to consider that before purchasing property. David Zillian, 2305 Norwood Lane - County snowplows drive so fast that slush hits the house. The landscaping really takes a beating. There is a fence two doors down that is located in a similar fashion to their request. A sprinkler system is in place already. Ayaz wanted to know if anything (shrubbery) was going in front of the fence to soften the look. Zillian said no but would consider it if it would make a difference to the commission. Ayaz asked if there wasn't some other idea or way .that would resolve the problem. Zillian was open to suggestions. Hasse was adamant that everyone on every busy street will be applying for a fence variance if this one was granted. Osmek thought that putting a 4-foot fence on the berm is a better choice. It was thought that maybe the sprinkler system was installed within the county right of way. It would need to be moved whether the fence was on top or behind the berm. -2601 - Mueller observed that, in his opinion, the Tuxedo case and this one are similar. The berm idea was brought up but not considered. He felt a precedent had been set and that this one should be approved. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister, to recommend approval of the variance subject to written approval from the homeowners association. Osmek said that this situation is not the same as the Tuxedo fence. Topography is not the same. Both are busy thoroughfares but very different in use and hardship. MOTION denied. Voting for: Mueller, Schwingler & Glister. Voting against: Osmek, Ayaz, Hasse, Raines & Michael. MOTION by Hasse, second by Raines, to recommend denial of the variance. MOTION carried. Voting for Osmek, Ayaz, Hasse, Raines & Michael. Voting against: Mueller, Schwingler & Glister. -2602- 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 28, 2003 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER/APPLICANT: Kristine Lovaas PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 03-23 LOCATION: 2305 Norwood Lane PID: 13-117-24-44-0104 ZONING: R-2 Single and Two Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential SUMMARY The applicant, Kristine Lovaas, has submitted a variance request to allow construction of a six (6) foot solid wood fence to be located within the 20-foot front setback along Shoreline Drive. Pursuant to City Code Chapter 350:475, front yard fences are permitted to be placed along property lines within the front setback area as long as they do not exceed four (4) feet in height. The applicant has indicated that the purpose for the fence is to minimize noise from Shoreline Drive and to reduce properly damage associated with snow removal, The requested variance is described below: Pro pos ed Req u i red Va ria n ce Front yard fence (6) feet (4) feet (2) feet LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 1, Lynmore -2603- 60-DAY PROCESS The application was received and deemed to be complete on April 29, 2003. pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City of Mound has sixty (60) days to approve or deny a land use request. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION All property owners abutting the subject site were mailed a copy of the Planning Commission agenda on or around May 29, 2003 to inform them of the variance request. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded' to all applicable City departments for review and comment. All written comments received to date have been summarized below: City Engineer John Cameron Application indicates that the proposed fence is to be placed near the sidewalk. Applicant must be advised that fence cannot be placed in ROW. Public Works Director The placement of structure(s) within City drainage / utility easements is generally not supported however a fence located along the north property line of subject lot will not likely cause any problems for Public Works. However, applicant is advised that in the event construction activities and/or utility work takes place in subject area by the Public Works Department, the City will not be responsible for removal or relocation of any improvements nor shall the City be responsible for payment or reimbursement. Building Official Matt Simoneau GENERAL COMMENTS Fence(s) are not allowed to be constructed in the sight triangle. Installation of a (6) foot fence in the front yard may be precedent setting. 1. The subject property includes an attached twinhome and is located on the most northerly lot of the Lynmore townhouse project which was approved a few years ago. -2604- 10. 11. Details regarding the Lynmore townhouse project are contained in Resolution No. 99-49 which includes a number of exhibits including the restrictive covenants for the project. Specifically, Article II, Section 2 references the preservation of the easement area(s) and Article II, Section 3 indicates that buildings and structures shall observe the setback ordinances and rules of the governmental body including the City of Mound. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Lynmore project also indicates that the placement of all structures and improvements is subject to the approval of the Declarant (Lynmore LLC.) The subject property is bordered by Shoreline Drive / CSAH 15 to the noah and Norwood Lane to the east. The fence is proposed to be installed along a portion of the northerly property line. There is a landscaping berm located along the noah side of the property which was constructed by the former owner in 2001. It appears that portions of the landscaping elements may be located within the County ROW. The proposed fence material (wood) is permitted by the City Code. The application was forwarded to Dave Zetterstrom of Hennepin County who indicated that they have no comments regarding the request as long as the fence is placed outside of the CSAH 15 right-of-way. There is a 10-foot drainage/utility easement along the north, west and east sides of this property in favor of the City of Mound. The preservation of the drainage / utility easements is referenced in the restrictive covenants for the Lynmore Townhomes. City staff agrees that fencing may help minimize road noise from Shoreline Drive but it doubtful that the installation of a six (6) foot fence vs. a (4) foot fence will provide any additional benefit. The installation of a six (6) foot fence within the front yard setback may be precedent setting as there are many lots in the City of Mound that are bordered by City streets and/or County Roads within the community. Based upon a visual inspection of the subject area(s) by City staff, it does not appear that there are other approved 6-foot front yard fences in the neighborhood. -2605- RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council denial of the variance as requested due to the following findings of fact: There appears to be no hardship demonstrated for the increased fence height as there are numerous lots in the community which are bordered by public streets on (2) sides including County Roads. Allowing a six (6) foot fence within the required front setback may be precedent setting. The installation of a four (4) foot fence in the front setback area is permissible by City Code. Relocation of the evergreen trees further south may help prevent further damage from snow plowing activities and/or road salt. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Tentatively, the variance application is scheduled to be forwarded to the City Council for review at its June 24, 2003 meeting in the event a recommendation from the Planning Commission is made at its June 2, 2003 meeting. -2606- 0 0 15.$7 2~g2 ! ! ! I ! I ! ! ! ! ol I ! 28.51 10.~) I I I I I I I I I I I o o ;0 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 03- RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES WITHIN THE CSAH 15/110 AND DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS BE RELOCATED OR PLACED UNDERGROUND ON PUBLIC PROPERTY WHEREAS, the City has approved two Public Improvement Projects within the City of Mound Downtown area and for the purpose of redeveloping the Downtown; the County State Aid Highway 15-110 Project ("CSAH 15/110") and City of Mound Downtown Redevelopment Project, a/k/a Mound Visions, originally conceived in 1991 and now being realized through public and private parmerships ("Downtown Redevelopment")(combined reference "Projects"); and WHEREAS, the City Council has found that the Projects are necessary to improve the economic viability, safety, and aesthetics of the City's historic and long-established downtown area, for the purpose of creating a community center for commerce, entertainment and public interaction; and WHEREAS, CSAH 15/110 will result in the widening of right-of-way to facilitate the flow of traffic into and out of downtown; and WHEREAS, Downtown Redevelopment will result in a new pedestrian walkway along the waterfront to the south end of the downtown area, new business establishments in previously unoccupied buildings, widened streets and sidewalks; and WHEREAS, it is the City's intent that upon completion of the Projects that the City Will once again have a downtown area that attracts City and area residents alike to shop, work and interact in a safe and pleasing environment; and WHEREAS, the undergrounding of all distribution lines providing electric power to properties in the area of the Projects is a significant and necessary component of the Project purposes, without which the Projects would be less likely to accomplish City goals. NOW THEREFORE, the City makes the following findings: 1. The area of the Projects are within the historically-identified downtown area of the City founded in the 19® century, and a center of commerce and community gatherings of the west Lake Minnetonka area for decades, including the days when both Tonka Toys and Toro were headquartered in the Mound area. JMS-233286vl 1 MU200-92 -2608- 2. The Projects area has been in decline for many year's and has suffered from the closing or relocation of both Tonka Toys and Toro, and from the development of competing retail and business centers in the area. 3. The current state of the City's downtown area is not conducive to the revitalization the City seeks through the Projects. Specifically, the downtown area is not a center for businesses for the city or region because of the outdated accommodations and poor layout, including overhead utility facilities, the poor motor vehicle and traffic access and the general unattractiveness of many buildings. 4. The Downtown Redevelopment or Mound Visions Project seeks to draw new businesses and housing to the downtown area, enhance the natural beauty of the waterfront and re- establish the community gathering place that the City once enjoyed in the downtown area. To accomplish this the City must assist in the construction of new buildings and significantly enhance the safety and convenience of the pedestrian and motor vehicle access to the downtown area. 5. The current electric distribution and telephone facilities feeding the downtown area are substantially all overhead with lines hung from wooden poles placed at various conspicuous locations throughout the downtown area. 6. The lines are hung over areas of vehicular and pedestrian traffic in many areas. The poles and other appurtenances are often placed less than 5 feet from the traveled portion of the right- of-way. 7. CSAH 15/110 requires that utility facilities be relocated in some way from the current location. Downtown Redevelopment Project similarly requires relocation of the distribution lines and facilities in some manner to accommodate the new buildings and sidewalk areas. Were the overhead utility facilities to be relocated overhead, the goals of the Projects would be significantly hindered in safety and attractiveness of the new area. Not only would the downtown be less safe for people to work or patronize the downtown area, but the goals of beautification would be negated because of the undeniable unsightliness of overhead distribution lines amidst new construction and design. 8. The goals of the Downtown Redevelopment would be further hindered because overhead distribution lines in a new downtown area would fall to meet generally-accepted standards for downtown beautification in downtown areas such as Minneapolis, St. Paul and other suburban areas that have an identifiable downtown: Underground utilities facilities are standard in newly- established or redeveloped downtown areas. 9. The City Council further notes that under Minnesota law overhead distribution lines are recognized as posing a safety threat to pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic and are more vulnerable to summer storms and winter blizzards than are underground electric distribution lines. The City notes, for example, that the City of St. Peter has redeveloped its downtown area and surrounding areas with underground facilities following the devastating tomadoes during the summer of 1998. JMS-233286vl 2 MU200-92 -2609- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. Pursuant to City Code section (Right-of-way Management Ordinance) Xcel Energy and all other utilities, including telecommunications carriers (collectively referred to as "Utilities"), with overhead facilities, are hereby required to relocate or otherwise place underground all facilities other than electric transmission lines located within the Projects that are within or above current City fight-of-way, or within or above fight-of-way to-be- acquired by the City pursuant to the Projects. 2. Utilities are further directed to relocate or otherwise place underground all overhead facilities other than electric transmission lines that are within or above current City-owned property that is not public fight-of-way, or within or above right-of-way to-be- acquired by the City pursuant to the Projects. 3. As soon as is practical and pursuant to filed Xcel tariffs for service regarding the undergmunding of distribution lines and facilities, Xcel shall provide engineering estimates to the City regarding, among other required information, whether Xcel deems the underground distribution facilities to be "special facilities" within the meaning of said tariff and if so, the cost it believes is justifiable under the automatic surcharge procedure established by the Public Utilities Commission. Xcel is further directed to provide to the City cost estimates of any other facilities relocated or installed in connection with the Projects that Xcel deems to be "special facilities" and whether Xcel intends to seek surcharge recovery of the.incremental cost of such designated special facilities from the Commission. 4. The City reserves all its rights under the tariffs and laws governing the Projects, including but not limited to those relating to the relocating and undergrounding of Utilities. 5. City staff is directed to-establish and maintain communication with Utilities with overhead facilities within the Projects regarding the details of where facilities wotfld be placed, both overhead to overhead relocation and overhead to underground relocation, as directed by the City in this Resolution and obtain cost information from Utilities regarding intended surcharged or other cost, if any, passed on to City ratepayers ofundergrounding facilities. The foregoing resolution was moved by Council member Council member and seconded by The following Council members voted in the aff'muative: The following Council members voted in the negative: JMS-233286v I MU200-92 -2610- 2003. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota this __ CITY OF MOLrND day of June, ATTEST: By: Pat Meisel, Mayor Kandis Hanson, City Manager JMS-233286vl MU200-92 4 -2611- MEMO TO: Kand±s Hanson FROM: John McKinley REF: Carry and Conceal Law Per your request, I have put together some information concerning the carry and conceal law. I must point out that, to date, I have not attended any schools regarding this new law. I will be attending some training in this new law in July, however. The suggestions listed on the last page of this memo are just that, suggestions. They were developed based on how the law was written. Several areas of concern were not addressed by this new law and, at some point, may either be addressed by the legislature or by the courts should some person decide to test a governmental sub-division's interpretation of the law. Should you have any questions, please contact me. John McKinley -2612- MINNESOTA'S Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003 The state legislature enacted the Personal Protection Act, (Carry and Conceal Law) in 2003. The effective date of this act was 30 days after being passed and signed. That was the end of May, 2003. In effect, the law has restricted any governmental unit, be it a city, county or state sub-division, from limiting the rights of a permit holding citizen from carrying a concealed weapon on his/her person. This law has also restricted the powers of a police officer from questioning a person who may be observed to be carrying a concealed weapon. To summarize the law, a person who has obtained a permit to carry a concealed weapon may carry such weapon on all public property. (with some limitations) All public property owned by the City of Mound, which is normally open to the public, falls into this category. The limitations refereed to above would be private offices or businesses. In such locations signs must be prominently posted stating in specific language that weapons are banned from that location. Harbor Wine and Spirits and private offices, such as those in the police department, meet this criteria. Being Harbor Wine and Spirits is a business, I believe, the city can regulate the possession of weapons in that facility. The signs must be posted between 4 and 6 feet above the floor and within 4 feet laterally of the entrance to the store. The sign must be at least 187 sq. inches in area and must have black Arial typeface at least 1 1/2 inches in height against a bright contrasting background. The police department falls under this, I believe, because the offices have never been open to the public. Access has always been restricted. I believe the offices in the remainder of the building may not fall under this because of the signage as you enter city hall and the signs put up at the different offices announcing who's office it is. -2613- The city may establish rules and regulations regarding the right of their employees, restricting the possession of a firearm while the employee is working for the city. The city may not, however, restrict anyone from carrying a concealed weapon into a parking lot. The employee can carry in to the parking lot, exit their vehicle and place such weapon in their trunk or retrieve the weapon from their trunk when leaving. In restricted areas, such as the public works building or the parks building, it is believed that the city may post the signs restricting the public from carrying concealed weapons on the property. If, however, the property is open to the public to enter at will, such as the oil drop off at public works, the restriction is not valid. The following is a list of properties owned by the City of Mound along with my suggestions as to whether or not the city may control the possession of firearms in that location: Location control firearms 5341 Maywood Road 2451 Wilshire Blvd. Wolner Field Mound Bay Park Depot City parks City beaches 2020 Commerce Future green ways Harbor Wine & Spirits CBD parking areas City vehicles Fire personnel City employees City volunteers Private vehicles Lift stations/wells Commons dock areas City owned docks HUD properties City parking lots Siren Locations Gillespie Center NO, except for police area Lobby NO - other area YES NO NO POSSIBLY (as condition of rental) NO NO NO, renters can in their own apts. NO YES NO YES When working for the city - YES When working for the city - YES As a condition of "employment" YES NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO However the Gillespie Center can -2614- DRAFT June 9, 2003 Policy Prohibiting Firearms at Work The City of Mound hereby establishes a policy prohibiting all employees, except sworn employees of the Police Department, from carrying or possessing firearms while acting in the course and scope of employment for the city. The possession or carrying of a firearm by employees other than sworn Police Officers is prohibited while working on city property or while working in any location on behalf of the city. This includes, but is not limited to: · Driving on city business. · Riding as a passenger in a car or any type of mass transit on city business. · Working at city hall or any other city-owned work site. · Working off-site on behalf of the city. · Performing emergency or on-call work after normal business hours weekends. · Working at private residence and at businesses on behalf of the city. · Attending training or conferences on behalf of the city. and on Violations of this policy are subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the city's disciplinary procedures policy. -2615- TO: City Manger Hanson From: Chief Jim Kurtz Date: June 12, 2003 Subject: Request for new squad car This memo is a follow-up to the discussion we had regarding a new squad. As you requested, I had our officers look at other options for patrol vehicles. There are currently only four vehicles that are being produced as "police" ears. A certified police car is a vehicle that is constructed for police work...they have a heavier suspension, upgraded electrical system, and are rated for pursuit. The four vehicles are the Ford Crown Victoria, Chevrolet Impala, Dodge Intrepid, and the GMC Yukon. I asked two of our officers to look at the vehicles and to report back to me on their findings and opinions. The officers did not like the Yukon because it is limited to two- wheel drive. They further informed me that our officers did not like driving our Durango's for patrol because they are not pursuit rated and they are "cumbersome." The officers liked the front-wheel drive Intrepid, but they worry about the fact that it has not been field tested. This is the first year the Intrepid has been available in a "police package" so there is no history on its durability. The officers liked the Ford Crown Victoria. They informed me that Minnetrista, Orono, and West Hennepin Public Safety use them and have had little problems servicing the "Island." In theory, I like the concept of using a front-wheeled drive vehicle as patrol car because of their maneuverability in the snow. But, the fact is, they have transmission, electrical and brake problems and their durability is questionable. I examined the maintenance records for our current patrol cars and found the following separate service problems. Squad 842 - Patrol 2000 Chevrolet Impala · A/C repair Electrical short Oxygen sensor · Transmission overhaul · Brake overhaul · Transmission slips · Air leak under dash 25~300 miles 1 -2616- · Transmission overhaul Squad 844 - Patrol Squad 845 - Patrol Squad 840 - Patrol 2001 Chevrolet Impala Transmission slips Transmission slips Tmnsmass~on - solenoid Transmission - rebuild Transmission - replace Transmission- overhaul Transm~sston slips ABS light Wheel sensor 2001 Chevrolet Impala A/C compressor Rear control arm · Transmission- overhaul · Fan & Motor Electrical · Brakes/tie rod ends · Transmission- solenoid · Bearings/hub Intake manifold · Ball joints 2003 Chevrolet Impala 39~ 200 miles 61~500 miles 3~500 miles The information clearly demonstrates the problems experienced with the Chevrolet Impala. The Crown Victoria on the other hand is the workhorse of the law enforcement community.., its durability has been tested and documented. In addition, the Crown Victoria has consistently been rated as one of the safest vehicles on the road. This point was proven yesterday when a Minnetrista officer was T-boned in route to a call, which caused his squad car to roll over two times. The officer suffered only minor injuries. The downside of the Crown Victoria is that it's rear-wheel driven and has traction problems in the winter on unplowed streets. In light of the information I have learned, I believe a fleet rotation plan that incorporates a balance of Impalas, Crown Victorias and 4x4 vehicles (Sergeant, DARE, CSO) is the best solution. The Crown Victorias will relieve the pressure and demands placed on the Impalas and our 4x4's will continue to supplement us during adverse weather. I would like to request $34,691 from the 2002 audited budget to purchase a 2004 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor. The price includes: 2 -2617- 2004 Ford Police Interceptor $20,877 Options $ 1,935 Lighting equipment $ 2,679 Camera $ 4,300 Radar Unit $ 1,500 Set-up/Stripping $ 2,000 Cage $ 400 Siren box $ 1,000 Total $34,691 If we place an order in June, the vehicle will be ready for delivery in August. 3 -2618- CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA GENERAL FUND SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - CONTINUED YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002 (With comparative actual amounts for the year ended December 31,2001) EXPENDITURES - CONTINUED Current - Continued Public safety Police protection Personal services Supplies Other services and charges Total Pianning and inspection Personal services Supplies Other services and charges Total Civil defense Supplies Other services and charges Total Total public safety Public works Streets Personal services Supplies Other services and charges Total public works Culture and recreation Parks Personal services Supplies Other services and charges Total Summer reereation Other services and charges Total culture and recreation Miscellaneous Cable TV Other Total miscellaneous Total current expenditures 2002 Budget Actual Variance - Favorable (Unfavorable) $ 1,007,130 $ 897,558 35,250 30,596 114,220 109~398 1,156,600 1,037,552 198,900 190,059 8,400 7,988 55,230 160,658 262,530 358,705 3,600 4,073 3,180 2,467 6,780 6,540 1,425,910 1,402,797 $ 109,572 4,654 4,822 119,048 8,841 412 (105,428) (96,175) (473) 713 240 23,113 277,670 277,875 (205) 104,100 85,149 18,951 173,430 159,229 14,201 555,200 522,253 32,947 158,910 137,390 21,520 24,120 22,825 1,295 67,710 53,309 14,401 250,740 213,524 37,216 250,740 213,524 37,216 48,000 44,926 3,074 48,230 19,562 28,668 96,230 64,488 31,742 3,139,280 3,013,805 125,475 -37- -2619- Exhibit A-4 200t Actu~ $ 878,723 36,692 78,082 993,497 168,754 8,164 111,645 288,563 8,847 8,847 1,290,907 279,163 83,783 170,850 533,796 111,701 25,859 42,481 180,041 42,260 222,301 60,059 66,429 126,488 2,936,380 I I I I I i I I I 1 I I I I I l 1 I l MEMORANDUM To: City Manager KandiS Hanson *From*: Chief of Police Sim KUrtz Date: June-1.7, 2003- Subject: Re~olution for Safe&SOber I have attached a resolution for the city council; which authorizes us to participate in a partnership agreement with the Orono Police Department in a multiple agency Sage&Sober grant. The resolution is part of the apphcation process 'and it recognizes that the Orono Police Department will be the fiscal agent of the grant. A Safe&Sober grant is unconditional monies provided to communities in Minnesota from the Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety to enforce DWI, speed, and seat belt violations. If awarded, the 'City of Mound wil'l receive up to 200 hours of overtime money, or approximately $8,000 to help with these efforts. Thank you -2620- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT Be it resolved that the Mound Police Department enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety for the project entitled SAFE & SOBER COMMUNITIES during the period from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004. The Mound Chief of Police is hereby authorized to execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the Mound Police Department. Be it further resolved that the Chief of the Orono Police Department is hereby authorized to be the fiscal agent and administer this grant on behalf of the Mound Police Department. I certify that the above resolution was adopted by the Mound City Council of Mound, Minnesota on ,2003. SIGNED: WITNESSETH: (Signature) (Signature) (Title) (Title) (Date) (Date) -2621 - CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com MEMO DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 10, 2003 Mayor Meisel Council Members Kandis Hanson, City Manager Performance Evaluation To date we have had two meetings on the topic of my performance. Members seem to agree that my performance has exceeded expectations and that the goals of the members and the vision of the City are being met. At the most recent meeting, there was a question as to whether the City could finance the corresponding salary increase. Action was taken to table a decision in order that I may assure members that there are funds to do so. At a May 27, 2003 special council meeting, action was taken to implement fees that will generate approximately $281,000 annually. Other mechanisms to enhance our City finances for this year and next include foregoing certain spending and the addition of miscellaneous fees. No jobs have been lost, services and programs will remain constant and the Mound finances are shining next to other cities that have been forced to make drastic cuts. More recently we have been notified of the bond rating increase, which further supports Mound's sound financial management. All of these factors are the evidences of our City being on very solid ground. As the Council considers this issue one last time, there are some pertinent points worth making: I am making an ongoing effort to cut costs. In the past the City absorbed most of the consultant fees. Now, monthly, I am reviewing the consultant's bills to the City and allocating pertinent costs to specific projects and cases, thus saving the City tens of thousands annually. Last year 19 city managers traveled to Sweden on a local government exchange program. Most cities paid the way for their managers. I personally covered the entire cost excluding ground transportation. printed on recycled paper -2622- Upon returning to work, I felt I had been gone too much already, so I did not attend the League of Minnesota Cities Conference, and this year I am not attending due to the LGA cutback. In September I will be attending the International City Manager's Conference in Charlotte, NC, but will share a room with Mary Ippel, bond attorney from Briggs and Morgan. The above mentioned items, along with numerous others, are examples of unspent budgeted dollars. These savings will reduce the impact of continuing with my pay plan as designed. On April 5, 1988, the Mound City Council took action adopting a pay plan to meet the pay equity requirements. Like other standard plans, it was based on levels of responsibility, education requirements, hazards, demands of the job, etc. Each position was assigned pay equity points and each job classification had its assigned pay steps which were and continue to be based on what the market pays. The City of Mound Pay Plan is a policy and all non- union employees are paid according to this policy. You are discouraged from deviating from the pay steps and making the annual salary discussion discretionary. Cities are all in competition for the limited number of qualified professionals available to do the job, and well-qualified and performing professionals will always expect to be paid according to the market, or will look for a competitive wage elsewhere. In April of 2001, the council showed its faith in my work when they awarded me a deferred compensation matching benefit. Council members chose that over other forms of employee retention mechanisms such as incentive pay, which would have been awarded for the completion of projects. This year, as a surprise to me, the deferred compensation contribution, initiated just 16 months ago, became a part of the discussion. In order for a deferred comp program to be a benefit, it must be perpetual. To not continue to fund it would be like paying on a life insurance policy for a year or two and then ending it. The dollars spent would be of little value. It seems reasonable that the Council's annual discussion should consist of my performance, my on-going engagement with the City, and my salary, once you agree to extend my contract, and that the deferred comp program be left in tact as long as my contract is extended. Additionally, if I personally have to make up the difference of a deferred comp shortfall, I will be doing so from my own wages, which would be a net decrease in my pay. Mayor and Council Members, I enjoy my work immensely; however, for my work to continue to have its same meaning, I must be rewarded fairly for my efforts. It is my hope that the information contained will help in what is a mutually beneficial decision. Thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, Kandis Hanson City Manager -2623- City of Mound City Manager's Salary 051t412003 Base Salary O.T. 10% Deferred 3.00 % Total Salary Step 4 Current 79,O55.00 7,905.50 2,608.82 89,569.32 step 5 Requested 81,876.00 8,187.60 2,701.91 92,765.51 Increase 2,821.00 282.10 93.09 3,196.19 % Increase 3.57% 3.57% 3.57% 3.57% Hourly Pay 43.06 44.60 1.54 3.57% Salary City Mgr Gino 05/14/2003 -2624- City of Mound City Manager's Salary 05/1412003 Base Salary O.T. 10% Deferred 3.00 % Total Salary Step 4 Current 79,055.00 7,905.50 2,608.82 89,569.32 Step 5 Requested 8t ,876.00 8,187.60 2,70t.91 92,765.51 Increase 2,821.00 282.10 93.09 3,196.19 Hourly Pay 43.06 44.60 1.54 Salary City Mgr Gino 05/14/2003 -2625- _-2626-, (,, _ CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 03-._ RESOLUTION AMENDING EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND CITY MANAGER, KANDIS HANSON WHEREAS, the City of Mound and Kandis Hanson entered into an employment agreement on March 14, 2000; and WHEREAS, this agreement wa§ amended bY Resolution No. 01-57 on June 26, 2001, and by Resolution No. 02-60A on May 21,2002; and WHEREAS, Kandis Hanson has presented a performance evaluation dated April 22, 20O3; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to amend the following items on the aforementioned agreement. Items not mentioned remain as' stated in the March 14, 2000 agreement. 1. Salary. The City of Mound shall pay Hanson for her services rendered on an annual base salary of $81,876 plus an additional 10% of her salary for time worked over 40 hours per week, equaling $90,063.60, effective and retroactive to April 17, 2003. Her salary is payable in installments at the same time as other employees of the City. Adopted by the City Council this 2~d day of'A.~, 2003. / Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -2627- '--)-~- D 7 LAKE MIflNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, June 11, 2003 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster · Annual Board Lake Inspection Tour (Wednesday, 6/18/03) READING OF MINUTES- 5/14/03 LMCD Regular Board Meeting 5/28/03 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTs - Persons in attendance, subjects nOt On agenda' (5 min.) WATER STRUCTURES A) Gideons Point HOA, consideration of draft Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock license and dock length variance applications; B) Ordinance Amendment, first reading of an ordinance relating to storage of watercraft owned by public agencies, amending Code Section 2.01; C) Additional Business; PUBLIC HEARINGS · Lisa Ryskamp, variance application from LMCD Code for dock length requirements at 1080 Wildhurst Trail on Forest Lake. 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration Hary Kreslins, new multiple dock license application for eight Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 407' of shoreline on St.. Albans Bay. 1. Public Healing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration Concept Landscaping, variance application from LMCD Code for side setback requirements at 5331, 5341, and 5351 Three Points Blvd. on Harrisons Bay. 1. Public Headng 2. Discussion and/or Consideration Bayview Event Center, new multiple dock license, special density license and variance applications on Excelsior Bay. The proposed variance application is for variance from LMCD Code for an adjusted dock use area. 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration -2628- 2. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A) Minutes from the 5~9~03 EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting (handout); B) Additional Business; 3, FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers (6/1/03 - 6/15/03); B) Review of draft 2004 LMcD Budget; C) Additional Business; 4. ADMINISTRATION A) Consideration of staff recommendation for compensation adjustment for Administrative Technician, Judd Harper (handout). B) Additional Business; 5. LAKE USE & RECREATION 6. SAVE THE LAKE 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10.ADJOURNMENT -2629- DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Foster called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Lili McMillan, Orono; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Crv Burma, Mound; Miles Canning, Greenwood; Paul Knudsen, Minnestrista; Tom Seuntjens, Minnetonka Beach; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Jose ValdesuSo, Excelsior; Katy Van Hercke. Aisc present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata, Victoria has no appointed member, CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster There were no Chair announcements. READING OF MINUTES. 4/23/03 LMCD Regular Board Meeting McMillan stated on page one, the minutes should be reflected to change that she was present rather than absent. Canning questioned the accuracy of the last paragraph on page 11 where LeFevere states that the Distdct has never granted a variance for boat storage density. He asked for clarification on this. Foster stated that the District, to the best of his knowledge, has never granted a vadance from Code for density purposes from the 1:50' General Rule. However, the Board allows for special density licenses up to one BSU for each 10' of continuous shoreline, provided it meets the requirements specified in Code. Babcock stated on page 14 in the fourth paragraph, the word "advise" in the second sentence should be changed to "advice". MOTION: Skramstad moved, Knudsen seconded to approve the minutes from the 4~23~03 Regular Board Meeting with the changes recommended by McMillan and Babcock. VOTE: Ayes (11), Abstained (1, Van Hercke); motion carded. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda. There were no comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA, Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in motion unless a Board member request discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. -2630- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District R~ular BOa:rd Meeting May 14, 2003 Page 2 Motion carried unanimously. Nelson moved, Skramstad seCOnded to approve the cOnsent agenda as submitted. Items so approved included: lA, 2003 MUltiple Dock LicenSes, Staff recommends Board appmval of 2003 renewal, without change, mUltiple dock license application for Bi~:island, Inc.; 2B, 2003 Truck Ha uling Bids, staff recommends Board aPpmval of truck hauling bids for the 2003 EWM Harvesting Program as outlined in the 5/9/03 staff memo; 3B, Mamh financial summary and balance sheet; and 4A, 2003 Liquor Licenses, staff recommends Board approval of: 1) renewal Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License applications for the charter boat, Holiday Fair, and 2) full refund of the $500 deposit for the preliminary investigation conducted for the charter boat, Sunstar. · · WATER STRUCTURES B. James Haug and Kelly Johnson, consideration of draft Findings of Fact and Order for approval of a dock length vadance application.. Foster entertained a motion or comments on this agenda item. Canning asked for clarification on the sentences in the draft Findings that state "The variance granted hereby shall grant no vested rights to use Lake Minnetonka. Such use shall at all times remain subject to regulation by the District to ensure the public of reasonable and equitable access to the Lake". Foster stated that them am differences in variances granted between land and water becabse the water in the State of Minnesota is owned by the public and subject to masonable regulations. The language referring to no vested dghts in the draft Order is standard and changes COuld be: made to it, although he believed that it is highly unlikely. Canning stated that appmval of draft Findings should be approved on May 14,' 2003 rather than Apd114, 2003. MOTION: BabcOck moved, Knudsen secOnded to aPprove the Findings of Fact and Order for apPmval of the dock length variance application for James Houg and Kelly JOhnson, subject to changing the date of approval from April 14, 2003 to MAY14,-2003. VOTE: 'Motion carded unanimously, C. City of Deephaven, consideration of new launching ramp (minor change) application to move the existing make,mady doCk'frbm"the south side of the launch ramp to the north side. Foster stated that he believed the proposed change on this agenda item am self-explanatory in the staff memo. He entertained questions or comments from the Board on it; Babcock stated that he wanted to ensure that the proposed make-ready dock and boats to be stored at it complied with minimum side setback requirements outlined in COde. Nybeck stated that the length of the. pmP0sed make marly-dOck, 56' would require a 30' side setbaCk' rather than the 20' proposed. However, them should be enough space between the north side of the make-ready dock and the 30' side setbaCk ama to stor~ watercraft and not encm ach in the setback ama. In fact, he believed that the City of Deephaven was considering amending the length o2 the rnake-mady dock from 56' to 48', which would result in a 20 side Setback rather than 30' from the.abutting neighbor to the north. -2631- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 14, 2003 Page 3 Mr,. Dana Young, Deephaven City AdministratOr, stated that he would like to amend the length of the proposed make-ready dock from 56' to 48'. Babcock stated that he recalled the make, ready dock in questiOn was part of the public amenities for the Minnetonka Yacht Club that Was granted a special density license in the past.. He suggested that this should be further checked into bY staff to dete~irie Whether Minnetonka Yacht Club is still claiming this as a. public amenity Or possibly to revisit public amenities for the Uinnetonka Yacht ClUb special density license~ MOTION: Babcock moved, Canning seconded to approve the Deephaven new launching ramp (minor change) application for a 4:8' long make-readY dock. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. D. GideonsPoint HCA, new multiple dock licenSe and vadance apPliCations for 51 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 2i553' of shoreline. The prOPOSed ~/ari'anCe appliCation is to amend a previously approved vadance at Lots 1~5. ' ~' Foster asked Nybeck to highlight the key issues from this agenda item from the 4/23/03 Regular Board Meeting when a public headng was conducted". Nybe.ck made the following comments: · One issue was that it. was discovered that the shoreline dedicated i0 'Pr0pose~ applications was not continuous, The non-continUous shoreline dediCated to th S faCility, :~ 553, needs to be reduced.to appr0ximately 2,398~ because a small Piece of Sh0:reline is not continUoUs at Lot 1 on the west side of the lagoon area, The aPPlicant COuld mak~ ~Pii~a.tion for 48.~U's based on the 1:50' General Rule; however, the Board encouraged them not to because of the straight-line measurement in Code Section 2.02, subd. 7 that would allow the Board to reduce the amount of usable shorelihe ~or thiS'faCility.' · · A second issbe was.that therewere C0ncemS about the proposed varianCe a~PijCation for Lots 1-5 when Compared to the12/1/93 Vadan~e Order.' s°m~ of th'~m included; 1) v~(~uld i[he application result in an increasein the numbert6f'BSU's,` 2) wOUld the apPlicatiOn result in an increase in the size of BSU's, 3) would the application result in an increase in added dockst~ucture or other water structures, 4) ShOuld further reStdCtiori~ b~p, laced o~ ca%~ies i or LOt~ i~i and 5i"and what side setbacks sh'oUld be required' from :the weSt~,exie~ded §i~ site Ii,ne for LO[':i." · A third issue? was. raised'when ~BabC%k re~r~ed:~"t ~e'~o~i~'Bia~ Ci~"~Uncii :had informed him that'theywereoppOsed to ~ny changes'Ai'.Gi~ns'Pd~:~i'H0A: r~lating to the nUmber of BSU's, size of BSUs, added dock structure, or changes to existing variances. The Board recommended that the applicant contact the City of Tonka Bay to communicate to them what was being proposed by Gidebn:s POint HOA. : ' ~ · Staff has met with representatives of GJdeons Point HCA since the 4/23/03 Regular B~ard Me~ting to' discuss th6is~ ~n'cei;ns: ' The aPPlicant has a.me~ded, the new multiple deck license apP. liCation fo'r 47 BSUS rather than 5 ~a~ber~ of Bsu s ~.JSso'Ciated withl the request for vanance from Code for lots 1-5 would remain the Same, 11. The size of these 11 BSU's would essentially remain the same, with one possible exception for BSU #11 at Lot 4, There=appears to be an'increase:in the Size of boat proposed at this BSU from 32~to 40'; however, he believed that this in'ti-ease may be a result m°re from dockdesign. If this is a concemfor the Board, the Board could place a restriction on the size of the boat to be stored at this B~U. There'would be some -2632- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 14, 2003 Page 4 added structure for BSU #1 at Lot 1 because the BSU was proposed as a three sided slip rather th'an the approved tie-on. There has alSo been previous discussion about whether a boat lift would be allowed at this BSU. The applicant has not proposed changes to canopies and dock lengths detailed in the 12/1/93 Variance,Order for Lots 1 - 5, The applicant has-proposed a 41' side setback from'tl~,e Western extended 'side site line for Lot 1.. In the 12/1/93 Variance Order, this setback WaS 60' based· on compromise by the applicant. The minimum side setback required by Code is 40' and he questioned whether there was a need to require a~side setback greater than 41' because it wOUld meet the minimum side setback required by Code. There:has not been feedback from the applicant on whether Gideons Point HCA has made contact with the City of Tonka Bay on the. changes they have proposed ,.. · : He belieVed that ihe appii~;ant has addressed·the majodty of the concerns raised by the Board at the 4/23/03 Regular Meeting. However, the Board should discuss the proposed size at BSU #11, the added structure and boat lift proposed at BSU #1, and the side setback for' BSU #1 from the western extended side site line. If the Board can resolve these issue to their satisfaction, he believed that the. Board could approve the new multiple dock license apPliCation'~f0r.t~e 2003 season', a.r)d direct the DistdCt attorney to prepare. Findings of Fact and Order·for approval of the dOCk ie~gth variance·application for Lots 1-5. He entertained questions or ·comments from the· Board. Babcock state~i that he had an update from the City of Tonka Bay. The city council met on 5/13/03 and a motion was approved that opposes any modifications to the dock structures at this facility. The last time changes were made to the docks at this facility were in 1993. In February 1994~.the homeowners got together and signed a letter that. they understood the approved configuration at this facility and that it was not' to cha'ngei" :l'~ 'City Of Tonk'a' Bay forWarded a copy of this document to the Distdct to notify the Board that it existed and that the residents understood it. Based on the information received from the City ofTonga BaY,'he sU~P°rted denial of the propOSed new .multiple dock license and variance applications submifled:by GideO~."Poin( HOA Canni'hg stated that the number of BSU's would remain, the same with the proposed applications, 47, but there would be some changes in the configuration of them. ·Although there,is .a lot of history with this deVeioP~entl ~e'belie~ed'that G:id.eOhs P~int HCA is a model design of spreading density throughout the site?and 'he stated thatchewould sUp~ort the proposed apPlications. Foster commented on the proposed applications. He stated that he would support a 60' side setback fr(~rh the Side siti~"lihe 0ri'the ~est'sid~ ~)f~oi"l, he was not troubled with a boat lift atBSU #1, and a size restriction ShoUl~ bi~ Pithed Oh th~"'6~'at ati~Si~ #;i'i. Thel~e were a I°t of hours spent by the Distdct in re~i~w Ofth~ original?apPljcatiohS"r~ei~d:~r this faCii.tyl adding that some mistakes were made by the developer.' Valdesus0'asked for clarification of the'l'agoon area on the west end. F°Ster stated that the' lagoon area'is primarily Cattails and wetlands and'a longer dock was required for LotS" 1-5 When the develbPer .did rio{ gia~{'e~sementS for Lots 6712 to allow docks t°be p aced from them th'at did hot '¢eq:Uir~ VadAi~befr,'om cod~:' . · Van Hercke stated that there apPeared tobe a tremendous amount of work and debate to reach the compromise in'the 12/1/93 Vadance Order; she questi°ned why a 60' side setback was required from the Western extended side site line for' LOt 1. -2633- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 14, 2003 Page 5 Foster stated that there was concem raised by the abutting propertyto the west of Lot 1 about impact of their sight lines and why the docks associated with this facility could not be moved further away from them towards the center of the Association. Because of these concerns, the Association agreed to the 60' side setback from the abutting property to the west of Lol 1. Babcock stated that one of the troubles he had with this development was that the outlots where the majodty of the boat storage occurs are on both ends of the site. He questioned whether the District would allow this on future new developments 'beCause he believed the .denser boat storage'should occur within the development. Another. problem associated with this development is that the only shoreline access is at Outlot A, which is approximately 170' of the 2,400' dedicated to the facility. Because of these concerns, he stated that he did not concur with Canning that this is a model case for Lake Minnetonka. Foster stated that he believed the developer made some bad decisions when access to the entire shoreline for the non-abutters was. not'granted, ·.' Canning stated that he understood the concerns raised by Babcock and Foster; however, he believed that the request made the applicant was reasonable. A number of dock poles have already been moved since the 1993 Variance Order and he believed that they have the right to move them. Valdesuso stated that he concurred with Canning that the proPOsed changes were reasonable. MOTION: Canning moved, Valdesuso seconded to approve the new multiple dock license for the 2003 season and to direct attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the dock length variance application for Gideons Point HCA, subject to: 1) restricting boat size at BSU #11 as currently approved, 2) continuing to require a 60' side setback from the westem extended side site line at.Lot 1, and 3) to allow fora boat and no added dock structure at BSU #1. Babcock stated that he was troubled with changes to dock structure and increase in size of BSU's at Lots 6-12 in the proposed applications. Nybeck stated that the number of boats at Lots 6-12 in the proposed applications would essentially remain the same; however, there would be some subtle differences to changes in the dock structure and size of BSU:'s for these lots. Staff could further evaluate the:.dOcks and boat sizes at Lots 6~1,2'if that was the desire of the Board~ McUillan stated,that she was concemed about the District making adjustments to the outlot:'situation at Gideons Point HCA as.proposed, espec al y w ththe City :of Tonka Bay not supporting the Proposed changes. She believed that the issues at hand were as much land issues as water issues and she would prefer to forward the discussion of the Board to the City of Tonka Bay. Babcock stated that he believed the Tonka Bay City Council has already taken a poSition on the proposed changes by Gideons Point HCA.. Cann ng encouraged the Board to focus on the proposed application because he believed that it was the authority of the District to focus on these types of issues because of expertise: Foster stated that he valued the input from the member cities on these types of issues on Lake Minnetonka; however, the majority of the city council members do not have the expertise of the District. -2634- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May ,14, 2003 Page 6 In the case of Gideons Point HCA, he understood the concems of the Tonka Bay City Council because of the history of the facility with Tonka Bay and the District, However, he was not troubled ~vith the proposed changes because he believed that they were relatively minor. Seuntjens stated that on the document, there were signatures from 13 residents within the development; however, there are more homes. He asked for clarification on this. Foster stated that there probably were a number of empty lots in 1994 when this document was signed that currently have homes constructed on them. Babcock stated that he believed the changes proposed'by the applicant are more significant than what was being described by Foster. McMillan stated that the City of Orono prohibits outiots like this unless they are grandfathered in. She believed that it is a good policy because it is good for the lake. Foster stated that the proposed motion would require the preparation of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the variance.application. It would be 'reviewed at the next Regular Board Meeting and staff could prepare a spreadsheet to provide the details that Babcock was looking for at Lots 6-12. Van Hercke stated that she would like the details for Lots 6-12 prior to being pressured to make a decision on the proposed new multiple dock license and variance applications. Nybeck stated that the preparation of the Findings, Whether for approval.or denial of the applications, could be reviewed at the first Regular Meeting in June if it was the con'sensus of the Board to review the details of changes to dock structure and BSU sizes for Lots 6-12 at the next meeting. Foster stated that he would support preparation of both the draft Findings and the spreadsheet for Lots 6- 12 for review at the 5128/03 Regular Board Meeting. ' Suerth asked Babcock if the Tonka Bay City Council gave any specific reasons for denial of the proposed Gideons Point HCA applications. Babcock statedthat the Tonka :Bay'City Council has referenced the ~rnprornises reached in'1993 and the covenants for the development, adding that changes cannot be made to them fOr 30 years because of negotiated prohibition. He agreed with the City of Tonka Bay because of the work and compromises agreed to in :.1993: He questioned whether it,would be procedurally correct to direct attorney tO prepare Finding9 of Fact and Order for. approval Of the Proposed ~applicationS until alit he expectations and facts are. resolved by the Board. VOTE: Ayes (6; Canning, Foster, Knudsen, Seuntjens, Skramstad, and Valdesuso), Nayes (6; Babcock, Burma', UcMillan, Nelson, Suerthi and Van HerCke); mdtion~failed. LeFevere stated that it is sometimes impossible to get an affirmative vote either way. In those instances, it is beneficial for the record for Board membem to express their'baSis for their vote and to assert that the proposed applications are effectively denied because they'have not been granted. -2635- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting ~a¥ ~ 4, ~.{)(~3 ~3age ? Foster questioned whether the Board members who voted against the. motion would like to have staff bring back the detailed information for Lots 1-12 of the ~proposed changes compared to the approved plan. Van Hercke and Nelson stated that they would like this information, Foster asked for clarification from LeFevere on parliamentary procedure on whether a motion to table the proposed application to the next meeting was required.. LeFevere stated that there was a motion to prepare Findings for approval of the proposed application and it failed. As long as Findings are prepared and approved by the BOard within :120 days, ~vhether it be for approval or denial, the District is legally covered. MOTION: Babcock moved McMillan seconded to direct the attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Order. for denial of the new multip!e dQ~k license and variance applications for Gideons Point HOA. Nelson stated that he would not support the motion because he had not rev owed the information received from the City of Tonka Bay and he would like the information prepared by staff to better understand the scope of the proposed changes. Mr. David COle, 80 GideOns POint Road, stated that he was the new President of Gideons Point HOA and that he would like to have the opportunity to communicate with the Tonka Bay City Council. VOTE: Ayes (3; Babcock, Burma, and McMillan), Nayes (9; Canning, Foster, Knudsen, Nelson, Seuntjens, Skramstad, Suerth, Valdesuso, and Van Hercke); motion failed, ~ Foster stated that with no objections from the Board, he would direct staff to prepare a spreadsheet that details the proposed changes versus the approved plan for all 47 BSU,s. He added that he would like feedback from the City of Tonka Bay on the proposed applications after Gideons Point HOA has the opportunity to. discuss the proposed changes with them E. Additional Business. There was no additiOnal business. PUBLIC HEARINGS · Herzog Acres Association, non-confo~ing, multiple dock license, application to reconfigure the non- conf°r~ing f~c !ii:y undei LMCD Code S~ct on 2.015,, : FoSter opened thePublic hearing at 8:05 P,m, and aSi~bd fo!' backgroUnd from staff Harper made the fOllOwing cbmments: · Mr. Warren Schimunek, rePreSenting He~og Acres Association"'has submitted a new multiple dock licenSeiappli~ati'on =to ~:r~Cb~figure thblegai?on~bonforming facility in the CitY of Minneotnka. The fac~i!i~Y iS cu~eniiy approVe~'~or i'5 B0aisi6iage units (Bs~j¥~) on 177~ of ~ntinuous shoreline' With a BSU density of 1!i2', they are considered a legal, non~°nfo~ing fac iiity for density pUrPoses. They are also cOnSideCed a legal, non-co, foXing facility for side setbaCk requirements for BSU's 7-13. The -2636- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting MaY 14, 2003 - page 8 applicant has proposed to relocate BSU #13 within the em/elope for this facility because'of water depth.concems and maintainthe same size of the approved BSU, 10' x 20'. · Code Section 2.015 allows legal, non-conforming facilities to reconfigure provided a number of requirements are met. They include: 1) the application may not result in an increase in BSU's, 2) the application may not result in an increase in the total square footage aSSOCiated With these BSU's, 3) the application may not result in a lakeward extension of the dock any further beyond 100' from the 929:4 shoreline than the existing dOCk, and' 4) the application may not result in any further extension into non-conforming side setback areas tha'n ti~e existing dOCk. He reviewed the proposed application and stated that it complied with these requirements. · He rec0mmedded approval of the hew multiple dOCk license application fbr Herzog Acres Association forthe 2003~ea~Oh. · He entertained questions or comments from the Board. Mr. John Kretsch, 2805 McKenzie Point Road, stated that his mother was the Owner of the adja~nt property to the sOuth. TheY' had questions reg§rding the n'u~nber of BSU's and whether the applicant complied with the rules of the District. However, he believed that staff had already addressed those questions. Foster-stated that he'believed the proposed ch'ahge WoUld imprOve the situation for Mrs. Kretsch because BSU '#'1'3 would not Continue to back out in front c~her property. Babcock clarified that the Herzog Acres Association was a legal, non-conforming facility for LMCD Code for densibj purposes and for side setback requirements 0i~ the south end of the facility. There being no further comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. MOTION: McMillan movbd, skmmstad seconded to aPProve the HerzOg Acres Association new multiple Dock license application for the 2003 season as submitted. VOTE: Motion cabled unanimOusly, Wayzata Marine, Inc., non-conforming, multiple dock license and vadance applications for the non- conforming facility on Maxwell Bay. The proposed variance application is for variance from LMCD Code for side setback requirements. Foster opened the pubJic hearing at 8:05 p.m, and asked for.background from staff, Nybeck made the following comments: ~ · Mr. DaVid Bi~ggs'frO~ ~Wa~ata Marine Inc. haS'submitted reconfiguration of nonconforming, multipie dock license and vadance applications for Board c°nsi~l'e-rat~'~i-i on M'axwbii~ay in the citY of 0r°no. The proposed vadance application has b~n submitted .for vadanc~ from Code for side setback. requirements t(~'~a~e 'a :t~'p:~:ta~:':varian~ grari.ted in 2000 permanent. The applicant has Pioposed a practical difficulty or particular hardship of the need to correct ne ghbody safety. · In 1981, North Star Marina, Inc. submitted an application for vadance, from~ Code forlength and s de setbacks on' li:o~'the W%t and e'~st Side~' 0fth~'~acility. The reque~i'for s,de setback vadance was denied on the west-Side:~ 'however,' it wa~ .a~Pro~ed' (~ the eaSt.sideI The ~B0ard determined that the hardship was Unusual sh0reiine '~figuraii~ 'o~ ~:~oCk u~.e. area: I'iowevei~i this.hardship was not sufficie~lt t~:justify a"~'igtii:fi'b;~[ vad~n~e ~ pr%i~i°ns of Code. At the time the vadance was aPpr°vedi':ti~e land'ab~ffing this fa(~iiitY to the ~a§'t w~s,not deveiO~d a~d future development was -2637- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May '14, 2003 Page9 unclear. This property owner requested that the variance on .the east-side of the facility should be subject to ~ntinuing review and the Board granted acondition that the variance was subject to annual review at the.time of application for renewa of,the applicants multiple dock license. · In 2000, Wayzata Marine, Inc, purchased the property from Lakeside Marina. Prior to the boating season that year, staff and Board-member UcMillan were notified by the applicant that they had some public safety concerns about.how the inner slips would navigate to the east near the abutting property that has been developed since 1981. Applications were submitted that year to move BSU's 18, 19, and 36 from the southeast end of the facility,tothe northwest, end .of the facility. The Board granted a temporaryvariance that year.to allow the applicant to evaluate their business that boating season and to consider reconfiguring the legal, non-conforming facility in the.near future, ~ ThiS temporary variance was to expire at the end of the 2000 boating season, unless modified of extended by order of the Board · Pdor to the 2001 boating season, the app cant was reminded of the COndition that the temporary variance granted in 2000 had exp red, unless modified or. extended by order of the Board. At that time, the applicant requested the Board to continue the temporary ~variance. granted in 2000. The Board. extended the 2000 temporary variance an additional two years that expired at the end of the 2002 boating season. There was motion in 2001 to make the temporary variance granted in 2000 permanent; however, that motion fa ed. · At the 3/26/03 Regular Meeting, staff forwarded the 2003 renewal, witho[jt changei, multiple dock license application for Wayzata Marine. The Board approved the renewal application at that meeting, subject to BSU's 18,, 19, ~and. 36 not being used until the proper applications are submitted by Wayzata Marine and approved by the. Board. He reported that an inspection of this facility pdor to the meeting revealed that the dock structure for BSU's 18 and 19 was installed and it appeared that the three BSU's appeared to be in use. · Code Section 2,01, subd, t prohibits a person fromusing any area of the Lake outside an authorized dock use area for docking and storage of watercraft~ The auth0dzed dock Use area is further defined by maximum dock length and minimum side setback restrictions. The approved site plan for this facility does not comp y w th Code for maximum, dock';length and.minimum side setback restrictiOns because BSU's' 18, 19, and 36 expired after the 2002 boating season. · Code Section 2.015 allows legal~ non-conforming facilities to reconfigure~'.provided a'numberof requirements are met, These include: 1) The application may not result in an'increaSe in BSU's; 2) Theapplication may not result in anincrease~in:total square: footage associated withtheSe BSU's, 3) The application may not rest.~lt in a.lakeward extension ¢~e,dock further beyond 1.00~ from the 929.4 shoreline than .the existing dock~ 4)The application ~ay not resUlt in any further'extension into non- conforming side setback areas than the existing docks, and 5) In the case of docks not in conformance with Section 2,12, subcl. 2b)2) applicable to new facilities; i) no new BSU~s shall be located in side setback areas without first secudng a variance .pUrsuant to'SeCtion 1.07,.and ii)the~application nlay not result in an increase in slip length of any slips opening toard the non-conforming side setback area. He noted that the number of BSU~s would remain at 77; however~ the proposed request to' relocate BSU's 18319~ and 36 would further,encroach into a non~nforming' side SetbaCk ama. Oneoversight of the 2000 temporary variance was that these BSU's :furthe~ extended beYond 100' fr0rn the,929.4 shoreline and the Board should address this,~, · . ,-. .... '~ ' · · · Code Section 1.07 allows the Board permit a variance from Code, with conditions deemed necessary, where practical difficulties or particular hardships occur. In review of the proposed application, the Board should ensure that the practical difficulties or Particular'hardships are caused bYOode and are not financial To ensure, this, the Board' should apply the. following dedision statidards in revieW of the proposed applications. These decisions standards include: IS the proposed use reasona'ble:i~ 2) Would it be unreasonable to require conformance to the ordinance, 3) Is the difficulty of conforming to the -2638- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 14, 2003 Page 10 ordinance due to circumstances unique to the property, 4) Is the problem one created by lhe applicant, and 5) Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality. He stated that he believed that hardship proposed by the applicant is caused primarily by the number of approved BSUs at this site rather.than from application of Code. The applicant has expressed an interest in past years to reconfigure the facility; however, they have decided not to at this time. He believed that the applicant could resolve their problems through Code Section 2.015 and he believed that it would not be unreasonable to require conformance to this ordinance because the problem is self-imposed. In compliance with MN DNR General Permit 97-6098, the MN DNR and the City of Orono were provided a copy of the proposed applications on 5/1/03, with comments due in the Distdct office by 5/12/03. No feedback was received by 5/12/03 from either the MN DNR or the City of Orono. He recommended that the Board deny the proposed variance application due to.the lack of a practical difficulty or particular hardship caused by the application of Code. He recommended that the best option for the applicant to address where to locate BSU's 18, 19, and 36 would be through Code Section 2.015 because it would not create additional variance at this site and would allow them to preserve these three BSU's and the square footage associated with them. He entertained questions or comments from the Board on the proposed applications. Seuntjens questioned whether there would be any locations within the envelope established for this facility to relocate these three BSU's as recommended by Nybeck. Foster stated that this was the facility that extended out well beyond 200' from the 929,4 shoreline many years ago. The District established an ordinance that required all facilities to come to within 200' from the 929.4 shoreline, it was challenged up to Minnesota State Supreme Court, and the District prevailed because it was concluded that these facilities were subject to reasonable regulations because the dock were installed on public waters. He believed that Nybeck is recommending that these three BSU's could be relocated within the existing envelope, with one possibility being along the shoreline. Seuntjens asked Nybeck if he was aware of water depths along the shoreline. Nybeck stated that he was not aware of water depths along the shoreline. This option has been discussed with the applicant; however, they have expressed concerns about it. There are other options within the envelope that boats could be tied along docks, adding that it was not uncommon to see boats tied up in these locations illegally during annual multiple dock license inspections. He expressed concem about the lakewide precedent that would be established if the Board approved the proposed variance request. Van Hercke expressed concem about granting a side setback variance that would not allow for side setbacks from. the western extended side site line extension, Babcock stated that he had concerns about navigational limitations if BSU's 18; 19, and 36 are continued on the west-end of the facility. This was a problem in 2000 on the east-end of the facility and it was resolved by a temporary vadance in 2000, with the understanding that it was not a long-term solution. The applicant was encouraged in 2000 to reconfigure the facility to meet the current requirements, as allowed by Code Section 2.015. Mr. Richard Thompson, 3262 North Shore Drive, complimented the efforts made by Wayzata Marine to clean the property and improve the showroom. It is costly to take over a business and he believed that it was the type of business that was good for the neighborhood and the City of Orono. -2639- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May ~4, 2003 Page ~ 1 Mr. Gary Briggs,"father ofthe applicant, stated that he was baffled because he perceived he removed a difficult set of circumstances in 2000 because the neighbor to the east placed his dock too close to the common extended side site line extension. The tempora~ variance 'granted~in 2000 addressed this and improved safety concerns. In 2001, the economy was not as good as the Prior year andhe had cOnCerns about how to reeconfigure within the envelope for this facility. At that time, he requested making the temporary variance permanent and the Board extended the temporary varianCe an additional two years. He SOld the marina in the past few years and his son requested his assistance to resolve the concems of the District. He stated that he assumed the responsibility of the facility not complying with 2003 license requirements pertaining to BSU's 18, 19, and 36. NYbeck stated that the 2003 renewal multiple dock liCense, with conditions for BSU's 18, 19, and 36, was recently sent to David Bdggs. GraY Briggs stated that he had recently met with staff and it Was communicated to him that staff recommended reconfigudng within the existing envelope. He believed that the plan approved in recent years does not hurt any body and he questioned how the proposed placement of BSU's 18 and 19 would encumber maneuverability for watercraft. He stated that he was not surprised to hear back from the MN DNR on the proposed applications because they have consented to it in the past. Because the neighbor to the east has moved their dock in compliance with the Code for minimum side setbacks, he proposed moving BSU #18 to the east of BSU #17 and BSU #19 to the west of BSU #37 to resolve the concerns of the District. Nybeck stated that Briggs was' correct that the placement of the neighbor to the east of the facility Was in non- compliance with Code for minimum side setback requirements in 2000. HOWever, navigation for the inner slips would have been a problem for the inner Slips, even With compliance by neighbor to the east for minimum side setbacks. The variance granted in 1981 allowed for boat storage up to the common extended side site line extension for these two propertieS. Babcock stated that the property to the east was at one time owned by the owner of the marina and did not have a dock placed from it. The two properties are not currently owned by the same individual and the. property owner to the east has requested to maintain their rights that resulted in impacting navigation for the inner slips. Because these Slips were moved in 2000 from the east to west end of the facilitYl he believed that the outer perimeter of the envelope for this facility would not include the location of BSU's 18, 19, and 36 on the west end since 2000. The temporary vadance was granted to allow the applicant to reconfigure the facility and he expressed.his frustration that a plan has not been s~ibmitted in the ~ast three years:that addresses the concerns of the DiStrict~' He also expressed concem that the applicant violated the conditions of their 2003 renewal multiple dock license when the Board made it quite clear thatthese BsU,S Were not tO lTM U'~ed until applications were submitted and approved by the Board. Foster asked,'if BSU~S 18, 19, and36 were leased for the season and currently being usedl David Briggs Stated that there Was currentlY a boat being stored in BSu #19 and that there are other BSU's available for potential service slips. Babcock stated that he concurred with Nybeck that these three BSU's and the square fOOtage aSSociated w th them could be preserved bY moving them to another loCatiOn within the envelope'for potential reconfigtiiations in the future. '~ Gary Briggs asked what would have happened if Wayzata Marine did not offer in 2000 to move the three' BSU's to improve Safety'concern in the area. -2640- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 14, 2003 Page 12 Babcock stated that he believed the Board would have required Wayzata Marine to make the changes even if they were not proposed by the applicant in 2000. David Bdggs stated that he would like to make exception to the statement made by Nybeck that boats are being stored frequently in unauthorized locations. He acknowledged that boats are tied up in unauthorized locations, primarily at the launch ramp and the gas dock, on a temporary basis. LeFevere stated that boats can' only be tied up at authorized BSU locations, whether or not it is for overnight storage or for tranSient purposes. There have been some cases when the Board has allowed multiple boats to be tied up on a transient basis at BSU's that are designated for transient purposes. Babcock stated that this facility has a license requirement that requires fencing to be placed along the west- end of the facility to discourage illegal boat storage. Knudsen asked how many of the BSU's at the facility are being rented in 2003 and in recent years. David Briggs stated that approximately 55 BSU's have been rented in 2003 and approximately 70 in recent years. Harper pointed out illegal storage activities that have occurred in recent years based on annual multiple dock license inspections. He stated that a number of instances of illegal storage have taken place in recent years, with the majodty of it along the main walkway on both sides of it. Babcock stated that the District would not prohibit the relocation of these three BSU's along the main walkway if the applicant uses these locations legally for service purposes. The goal should be to ensure that there are no more boats being stored at these facility than there are approved BSU's, 77, that comply with side setback requirements or are contained within the existing envelope. Knudsen stated that he concurred with Babcock that relocation of BSU's along the main walkway might make sense. Suerth questioned whether the discussion was appropriate because the applicant has stated that they have not entirely filled the madna in recent years. He questioned whether a madna has control of where a resident locates a boat after hours that requires service. McMillan stated that she would be troubled with the relocation of the three BSU's along the seawall because it would have impact on the abutting property to the east. The characteristics of the area have changed dramatically because the residential aspect of the area has been relocated from the west side of the facility to the east side. She encouraged that it might make sense to move as much of the docks from the east end of the facility to the west end, adding that there are safety concerns primarily on the east side. David Briggs stated that he could relocate the three BSU's to the east side of the facility within the envelope created by the 1981 Variance Order. However, he believed that this would create additional safety concems to the abutting neighbor to the east. Foster asked McMillan how she could justify a variance from Code for the proposed request when she has been strong advocate to granting variance with practical hardships caused by the application of the Code. He asked if she had a hardship in mind that might allow the Board to approve a variance at this site. -2641 - Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting Page MCMilian stated that she wOuld suggest piggybacking on the previous variances granted for this site and to improve public safety in the area. LeFevere stated that'the physical hardsh p identfied in the 1981 Variance Order was the unusual shoreline configuration ~tt~e site' altl~ough it Was recognized that it was that the physical' hardship was relatively weak and a ~tretCh. Annual review by the Board was made part of the 1981 Variance Order because there was concern of future development of the pro~rty to the east. McMillan stated that she would prefer moving either BSU #18 or BSU #i9 to the south of BSU #36 and to get feedback from the MN DNR on this type of a proposal. Foster stated that he m ght be able to support that type of a revised site plan, subject to the condition that BSU's 18, 1'9, and 36 are the last one leased out. There being no further comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 9:11 p.m. Valdesuso stated that he liked the compromise to allow the applicant to relocate the three BSU's on the west end of the facility as tie-ons. Seuntjens stated that he concurred with Valdesuso and that the applicant might want to designate some of their BSU's for transient purposes. Nybeck stated that the change in classification from "overnight storage" to "transient" might be prohibited by Code. The applicant would be better off to maintain these slips for "overnight storage" and they still could use them for "ttar~sien¢ purposes. Van Hercke asked the Board how they would like to deal with the BSU's that are currentlY within 100' from the 929.4 shoreline that are proposed to expand out beyond 100' from the 929.4 shoreline. Nybeck stated that if the Board was inclined to approved the proposed vadance request, the Board should clearly establiShed wh at the physical hardships are and the Board might want to requ re a new as-built survey that is t~-sCale. Babcock stated that he would like to move BSU's 18 and 19 so that they are within 100' from the 929.4 shoreline. TO accomplish this; he suggested'that BsU 18 couJd be moved'to th~'~ast of BSU ~i7, with as ze restriction of possibly 20~; and to move BSU 19 SOuth of main Walkway near the concrete tamp. He asked whether'preserving PubliC safetY has bee~ used a phySical hardship in t~e Past. If iJ~e Boa~! has a concern with preserving public safety at a facilitY,~ ah argumen{ could be':m~;:ie that ~"existing fabi:l'ii~i'was too large. He' proposed a SOlution that' he stated :he was not'in favor of, although it'Wi3Uld bed compromise. that the Board could cOnsider. He was not'in favor of mOving any'of'~i9 b(J~tS to ~i~ east:end of'~ ~aci'iity. He believed that this facility has a need for service ~iip~ andhe pr6Posed continuing BSU's i8,' i91' and 36 as serviCe slips. It~ addition; the dock strUcture aroUnd BSU's 18 ahd'19 would be i'emoved and either BSU 18 or 19 woUld be moved to the WeSt Of BSU 37. Any applications to recbnfigure the facility in the future should take into consideration the enveloPe from the 1981 Variance Order. Van Hemke asked What'the physical hardship Would be to approve the compromise propOsed by Babcock. Babcock. stated that he was unsure because the 1981 Variance Order explicitlY States that there were not hardships on the west-side of the facility. He suggested that the reference to service slips for BSU's 18, 19, -2642- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ~ Regular Board Meeting ~ MaY ~4, 2003 Page 14 and 36 should be made a condition of the Order and could be changed in the future if the applicant decides to reconfigure the faCility. He conClUded that it did not want to create an additional variance for renta purposes. MOTION: Babcock moved, Canning seconded to direct the District attorney to pmPam..Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the new multiple dock license appliCatiOn and side' setbaCk variance aPpli(~atio'n, subject to: 1) creating tie-on slips of BSU 19 west of BSU 45, BSO 36 ~est of BSU 41, and BSU 1.8 west Of BSU 37, 2)'to remOVe the dock structUre ass0C{ated wi[h BsU' ~'18 and 19 that was installed in 2000 - 2002, 3) to designate these three tie,on BS0"s for'service, non- rental purposes, and 4) subject to approval by the MN DNR and the City of Orono. VOTE: Ayes (9), Nayes (2; Babcock and Burma); motion carded. The meeting WaS recessed at 9:27 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. McMillan left the meeting at 9:30 p.m. 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. Foster opened the public hearing at 9:31 p.m. and asked for background from staff. Nybeck made the folloWing comments: · Mr. David Albrecht, President of Howards Point Marina, has submitted a new "off-lake" storage facility application for Board consideration, The facility is currently licensed for 58 BSU's in the water on 252' of continuous shOre!inet. With a BSU density of approximately 1:4!, they are considered a legal, non- COnfo~ing facility for density purposes. They are also considered a legal, non-conf~)rming facility for maximum dock length and minimum side setback requirements. They have proposed to license 37 "off-lake" storage BSU's in the parking lot on the east side of Howards Point Road. · Last' May, the'app!i.cant submitted new multiple dock and. special densitY license applications for the abutting properly to the north. A public heari~ng was scheduled for the 5/22J03 Regular Board Meeting; however, the applications were. withdrawn by H9wards Point Marina at the request of Albrecht...At this meetin'g, B.~'a[~ member Babcock stated that. itlJ~'ad come to h'i~. attention that "°ff~lake"' storage~in accordanc~ ~th Code SeCtion 2.045 was taking place at this facility and that he would like steps taken to correct it. Nybeck indicated at this meeting that this had been communicated to the applicant and th.~t it. would be further checked, into dudng annual.m~!tip{e dock:license inspections., · The an.nuai, muiti~Je dock license for ,Howards~ Poi.n~,Marina was conducted on 7/3/02 with. Board. mem~i~ Skii~a~i~d. Three' deficiencies were observedldUfing thisinspecti0n that were not in comp!ian~ with Code and' Limn~ requirements.. These included: ~1) three rental pontoons were bein~'~t°i~ed in unaUth0dZed i~c~§°nS; 2) there' Were dOck seCtions, installed on th~ north s deaf BSU 45"~t W~rb not ap~ibved, and 3)theie ~Vere ove'i'30 Watercraft being stored in .the parking Iot°n the ' othei; Side. of the ~{r~tthat a~pe~md" to.,i.~ dryst~cking.. TheSe defiCiencies were communicated to the aPPliC~ht in a 7~/02 j?specti~h..i~eport and'.9/~/02 nsPection letten' · The BOard was pr°¥ided feedbSq',k from Howa~'ds Point aadna of the 2002 inspection report and inspection letter. ~at the 11/13!~2~ Regular .Meeting, with greater emphasison the drystacking concerns, At this meeting,-LeFevere updated the. Board on feedback he had with legal counsel for Howards Point Marina, Mr. Julian Hook. LeFevere indicated that Howards Point Marina had taken the position that this activity did not qualify as "off-lake" storage as defined by Code Section 2.045.~ LeFevere stated that Hook indicated that the activity appears to have been going on for a number of years and that he informed Hook t!~at the activity could possibly be back licensed for such activity,, provided, that' -2643- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 14, 2003 Page 15 Howards Point Marina could document that "off-lake' storage legally existed before the grandfathered date. Babcock stated when the ordinance for "off-lake" storage was adopted in 1987, there was a provision of the Code that required those facilities that would like to be grandfathered to be licensed within 30 days of 12/28/87. The facilities that wanted to be' grandfathered were put on notice of this and he questioned how the Board COuld back licensed if the 30-day window has been passed. LeFevere stated that the Code allows existing "off-lake'' storage facilities to continue as they existed in 1987, as long as they were licensed within 30 days of 12/28/87. He Stated that there are distinctions between back licensing and grandfathedng, adding that back licensing was an option presented to Howards Point Madna that would be subject to the discretiOn of the Board. Canning asked LeFevere for clarification on the difference between non-conforming and illegal, LeFevere stated that a non-conforming use is one that is not permitted by Code; however, some are considered legal, non-conforming because they were grandfathered in by Code. An illegal structure is one that does not comply with Code and is not grandfathered in. He stated that he recalled the reason for the 30- day window eStabliShed for "off-lake" storage was that the Board was unclear on the amount of "off-lake" storage that was occurring on Lake Minnetonka. Although the Distdct does not have the jurisdiction to regulate storage of watercraft off the lake, it is the "off-lake" storage used in conjunction with the pdvate ramp at a licensed multiPle dock facility that allows the Distdct to regulate it. Nybeck continued his comments: · At the 11/i3/02 Regular Meeting, the Board directed LeFevere to write a letter to Howards Point Marina to further investigate this matter and to notify them that approval of their 2003 multiple dock license'CoUld be impacted by the outcome of this investigation. The Board also directed staff to notify H°wards Point Marina that the other two deficien ties relating to illegal storage of rental pontoons and the installation of unauthorized dock Structures needed to be cleaned up prior to the 2003 season. · LeFevere wrote a letter to Howards Point Uadna in eady January to comply with the direction of the Board. In this letter, he indicated that they did not have a license for an "off-lake" storage facility, as required by Code SeCtion 2.045, and that they had four options to consider. First, demonstrate to the District that the use of the launching ramp and associated storage of watercraft off the lake does not meet the definitbn of the code reqUiqng a license for an "off-lake' storage facility, Second, demOristrate to the satisfaction of the Board'that the facility is grandfathered in and that it was in existence on 12/28/8'?i NO such ;'off-lake" storage faCjl tie~ w(~ui~d be Permitted in excess .of the number of watercraft being stored at the facility dUring the 1987 boating season. If Howards Point Marina WiSheS to apply for "off-lake" storageon the grounds that the facility is grandfathered in, in addition to the existehce and eXtent of"off-lake" storage in 1987, it would be necessa~/to submit an applibaii°n'f°r the aPpr~opriate number of watercraft and paying license fees for the years 1988 througl'i 2003 for the additional watercraft. Third, ceaSb "off-lake" storage, cease use of the launching ramp, or take steps necessary to assure that watercraft stored at the off-lake facility does.not use the launChing ramP. FoUrth, apPly for an "off-lake" storage faCility license that would require substantial reduCtior{'in the numberof ~jtercraft'Stored at the f~;~:iiity. · At th~2/i9/03 Regular Meeting, the Board reviewed the 2003 renewal, without change, multiple dock license aPPlication for HOwards Point Madna. There was discussion at this meeting about "off-lake" storage at Howards Point Marina and the 2003 mutliple dock license was approved with two conditions. First, no "off-lake" storage is allowed on the east-side of Howards Point Road until -2644- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 14, 2003 Page 16 approved'by the Board of Directors, consistent with Code' Section 2.045. Second; ali watercraft storage and installation of dock structure must be consistent with the approved site Plan, dated 11/2J94. · Cod~ Section 2.045 outlines Code relating to conforming and non-conforming "off-lake" storage facilities on Lake Uinnetonka. An "off-iake" storage, facility is defined as "aflydock, moodng area or lauhching ramp used by any club, business or asSoCiation in conjunction with the storage of restricted watercraft off the water of Lake Uinnetonka". For'~cotiforming facilities, a number'of requirements need to be met. These.include: 1) the locations where they can be located on Lake Minneton. ka, 2) density criteria dudng peak usage ~riods, 3) the n~d for the. faCilitY to be a full service marina, 4) the need for staging dOCks:for lOading and unloading purposes, 5)the storage rack building must be on proPe~ contigU0~iS' to the full service mariria and the. lakeshOre~ 6) parking requirements for boats stored on and off the Lake, and 7) all facilities rhust meet zoning, b'uiiding and fire COde requirements in the City in which it is located. There is an exception in the Code for exist!ng facilities that were licensed Within 30 days of 12/28/87 to allow them to continue in' use and o'Peration. · The "off-lake" stoFage application submitted by Howards Point Marina does meet a number of these requiremer~ts and: the appllcation needs to be considered for what existed in 1987, The burden of establishing.what'existed in 1987 is the responsibility of HOwardS POint Marina:and staff and LeFevere have cOm~:anicated this to them. DocumentatiOn submitted by HOwards Point Marina includes a letter from Julian Hook, Income' statements from 1983-1989' and 1991, a letter from Day d Aibrecht,' a letter from Richard Baker, and site plans for the east parking 10t from 1979 and 2003. · In the Julian HoOk letter, dated 4/2/03, he indicated that he does. not believe that the "°ff-Jake" storage activity that occurs at Howards Point Marina meets the definition of the Code. In the 2003 contract, Hook stated that there' was language added to it in response to the LeFevere letter that states there are "NO LAUNCH PRIVILEGES"... Nybeck stated that it seems unlikely that'residents wou d pay $950 to store a boat in the east lot in 20Q3 and not Use the Ho.wards point. Madna Pdvate access because the nearest public-accesSeS are at Spring Park and the Lake Minneionka Regional Park The question for the Board to consider is not whether the owners of these watercraft.l.aUnch their bpats themselves. Instead', the issue is that it qualifies as' ,off'-Iake" Storage and reqUires a license because .boats are being stored in the east lot, With a contract issued, and the boats are being launched' through their private access. · In the income Statements submitted'by HOWards point Marina "Extended Parkin "is documented with ~' Iow of $1,125 in 1983 to a high of'$7,475 in 199i. One fiaw with this documentation is that it was Unclear to him exactly' what ~'l~S of'actiVities Were included in this line iie~. Wl~'~n these Income Statemerits were'broUght'to siA!ff attenti°? early in th~ year, the applicant ~as'adVised io provide aedal photOS'from 1987, a ~py Of'the contract ih 'i987, ora canCelled cl~eck frOm a cUStomer in 1987 to further'clarify how much'~'Extended parkjn:~, waS OCCurd.ng in 1987, · in (h'e David"Albrecht ie~te~:, dated'2/15~b3,' he stated that Howards Pont Marl'nd was unable to ocate the doCuhientation"requeStbd bY staff. In this letter, he ,stated that the Ho. wards Point Madna bus ness climate of':the'~0'~ ahd 80;SwaS n~t"as r°bus'{ as the 90%t° ~.p~sen.t, citing ~e. bus ness climate of the ?O's and' 80's and'the' I.O.W'Water~ ,c, ofiditions of the 80~s as two f~Ctbrs. He stated that.in the eddy 990 s, parking s~ts'were'.(~rgan~zed and ro~ed off to.improve appearance and; facilitate management,: re~'~iting' in 3~:'i~en~ed Pa~ih~" ~S~"s. ThiS is; prob emaiic l~Cause the grandfather date' Was '1'2/28/~ n~{ ~he earl~:'19~0;~.'He r~v!ewed' and'~ibula{ed'summer aedaJ'phOtos taken for the Distdct in 1983 1990, 1992; and 1994 that document "off-lake" storage has been expandin~ and g tting'tnore organize' OVbr the years. In 1983, he estimated that there, were only al. couple of boats being stoi'ed On"trailers in the east ot The nu~be~!~ of b°at~. ~ing storedl.' n ~is lot increaSed to approximately 15 in' 1990 and ..17 in. 1992, with. the boa~ being stored on the north side.of the lot. It continued to appear to inbreaSe in i994 when the boat being stored expanded to the east side of the -2645- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 14, 2003 Page ~17 lob,None of these aerial photos, including the three taken after 12/28/87, document the 37 "off-fake" storage BSU's as proposed by Howards Point Uadna. · In the Richard Baker letter, dated 3/3103, he stated that ha'was President of Howards Point Marina from AUgust of 1982 through December of 1992. He stated that he applied during his tenure for45 boat slips and 13 off-lake storage fishing boats. The 45 slips in the water are correct; however, the 13 "off-lake" BSU's for fishing boats is e~neous. The 13 BSU's apPrOved fOr fishihg boats are approved for slides along the north end of the facilitY and were originally approved for roWboats, not fishing boats. HoWards Point Marina has expanded this asPeCt of the nOn-Conforming facilitY' With the purchase of ~rental pontoons in' recentyears that were being illegally st°red' during the mUltiPle dock license inspection last JulY, TheSe rental pontoons appear to ~ stored illegally ~in the water and on land every daY and they need to be Stored Within'a[ith0rized BSU'S.' · TheSite Plans Submitted by HOwards POint Marina dO'not documentthe hurn'ber of BSU's that existed in 1987. on the 1979 site plan, it doCuments the I°t in questions bu't does not ~bdument ihe nUmber of "off-lake" storage BSU's. On the 2003 Site plan, it dOCuments the 37 "off. lake;~ st01iage BsU,S 5~t it is well after the 12128/87 grandfathe~date, one intei'esting'~156int is the ietter from Sh0~ewo0d Planner BradNielsen, dated 1/7/80, that states that HowardS Point Marinai~'t'e~h~nically c h'¢aered one Parce of land~ including the east lot. · In compliance With MN DNR General Permit 97,6098, the MN DNR and the Ci~ of Shorewood were provided a copy of the proposed apPliCatiOn on 5/1/03, with comments due in the District office by 5/12/03. NO feedback had been received from the MN DNR and the City of Shorewb°d On the proposed application. · Based on documentation provided by Howards Point Marina, he did not believe that they have satisfactorily doCUmented that 37 "off-lake" BSU's existed in the 1987' boating seas°n, There are a numberof options for the Board to consider When evaluating the proposed application. SOme of them include: 1) deny the application because it was not submitted within 30 days from the 12/28/87 grandfather date, 2) deny the application because they have not documented that 37 "off-lake" storage BSU's existed dunng the 1987boating'Season, 3) grant'the apPlication and back license to 1988 for the number of "off-lake" storage BsU,§ that the aPPlicant demonstrates, t°the B~ards sat sfaction, existed in 1987, and 4) continue the matter for presentati°n of fUrther information specified by the BOard, conditioned on WaiVer Of the 60,day rUle by the applicant. · He entertained queStionS or comments from the Board. Babcock aSked for further clarificatiOn on the 13 BSU's that are currently licensed for'slides at HoWards Point Marina. .. Nybeck stated that he belieVed that' nine or 10 watercraft are being stored on the Slides and that an additional three or foui': rental pont~ns are being stored at unauthorized ioca:tions because. they are too big f°r the slides. Mr. Julian Hook, legal counsel for Howards Point Marina, stated that his clients were withdrawing their new "0ff-lake" storage application at thiS time and that there Would not be a need t° diSCuss grandfathering of the activity in question. Babcock stated that if HOwards Point Madna was witthdrawing the proPosed applicati°n for "off-lake" storane were they Willing to continue to operate the madna under the 60nditiOns renewed thiS sDdna, inclUdin° no ;'~- lake" storage. '" ~ -2646- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May J4, 2003 Page18 Hook stated that they would like to have approval for the activities in the water; however, they' would not like to get into the discussion of grandfathedng,. Babcock questioned what action Howards Point Marina would like the Board to take at this time. Hook stated that no action was required at this time; however, he would like to make a presentation on the position of Howards Point Madna. To allowthis discussion to proceed, he changed his mind and did not withdraw the proposed application. Hook stated that no changes have been proposed by his clients that have not taken place at Howards Point Madna in,the past, He circulated a packet that summarized the position of HowardsPoint Uarin.a:on the prOposed application. Exhibit 1 included a copy of the public headng notice that was published for the proposed application in the 4/29/03 edition of the Lakeshore Weekly News. Exhibit 2 included a copy of the,.agenda for the 5/14/03 Regular Board Meeting for~which the public headng and dis~ussion/~!~sideraiion 'Was scheduied for the proposed application Exhibit 3 included a copy of the apPlication sUbmiffed by. Howards Point Uadna for "off-lake" storage. Exhibit 4 included a copy of the letter thatsummarized the 2003 annual multiple dock license inspection report and the staff memo for the prOpOsed' a~pijCation, .He lst~ted that the term "drystacking" Was referenced in the inspection letter, dated 9/27/02, and that he COuld nOt locate the term "drystacking" in Code Section 2.045 for "off-lake".storage facilities, He inquired into this with District staff and LeFevere cladfiedthe definition of"drystacking", adding that it is not Cladfied in the ordinance or statute. This term was also referenced three times in the 5/7/03 staff memo for this meeting. He stated that when them are legal questions to be addressed, a person needs to read the statute and apply the facts to the statute. Babcock stated that although the term drystacking might not be appropriate, he questioned whether Hook believed that Howards Point Marina was in compliance with Code Section 2.045 after reviewing it and applying the facts. Hook stated that he did not believe the activity that Howards Point Marina has conducted in the east parking lot in the past W~s covered in Section 2.045. He continued his comments: · COde SeCtion 2.045 defines "°ff-lake, storage as "any dock, mooring area or launching ramp used by anY club, business or association in conjunction with the storage of restricted watercraft off the water of Lake Minnetonka". Howards Point Marina does not use the storage across the street in the east lot in conjunction with the access romp. There has been historical storage in the lot of other items that are not boats,..Th.i~ includesdump trucks, snowmobiles, fishing houses, and trailers. Exhibit 10 summarizes the WebSter's 7th New Collegiate Dictionary definition of conjunction, adding that it states that is a compound statement in logic true only if all its components are true. He stated that the storage of dump .trucks and snowmobiles are cleady not used in conjunction with,the access ramp. · Exhibit 6 included a.copy of the summer parking contract.for Howards Point Marina, adding that it is not limited to watercraft.' There is a section of this contract for summer parking spots only and it states that there are no launch privileges associated. BabcoCk asked what was the practical use for these spots that are being rented in the east parking lot to get access to Lake Minnetonka. Hook stated that itwas possible that some of these boats might be launched intoLake Minnetonka through the'Howards PointMadna access ramp, adding that they would pay the same fee that others from the public would pay for this service. Babcock asked Hook if any of the watercraft in the east parking lot that has a contract with Howards Point Madna use the access ramp on an infrequent or regular basis. -2647- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 14, 2003 Page19 Hook stated that the access ramp is not used in conjunction with the contract. Babcock stated that he'would like to reserve this question for repreSentatiVes of the applicant that would have a better idea of launching activity on a daily basis. HoOk continued his comments: Three facilities are licensed for "off-lake" storage on Lake Minnetonka. TheY include North Shore Marina, Rockvam Marina, and Tonka Bay Madna. He stated that he Contacted these facilitieS and that they stated they Understood the term drystracking beCause they Store these Watemraft Vertically and launch' them utilizing forklifts. Exhibit 7 summarizes the seasonal cost for this service at North Shore Marina, Rockvam Madna, and Tonka Bay Madna, noting that these facilities have total control over pM{ting boats in and taking out of the water. This is not true at HoWards Point Marina because space is rented in the parking lot and Howards Point Marina does not have any control over the boats that are renting these spaces. He stated that many of these bOats dO not launch their boats at H0wards Point Madna and a separate fee that is required for:those Watemraff that launch throUgh the access. Exhibit 8 included a copy of inspection reports North Shore Marina, Rockvam Uadna, and Tonka Bay Madna: In these inspection rePOrtS, there is a line item ori the'f0rm for "off4~ke" storage for all three of these facilities. · Howards Point Marina has been in' existence for around 50 years and it has conducted its business over the yearsi noting that there has been historical renting'of space in the parking lot across the street. Exhibit 9 includes annual inspection reports of the DiStdct from 1987 through 1999. He stated that these inspection reports dudng these years document no "off-lake" storage at HoWards Point Marina and that the facility was in compliance with Distdct Code and license reqUirements. Since 1987, there has:not been representation by the Distdct that there has been "off-lake" storage BSU's at Howards Point Madna as defined by Code Section 2,045. He asked what has changed at Howards Point Marina that has become a concern of the District. · In a previous conVersation he had with LeFeVere, he was told that rental of spaces would not be prohibited if they were prohibited.from using the HOWards Point Marina launch ramp. He expressed concem with that beCause he believed that it would be discriminating against the Parties tenting space in the parking lot and that he would be in court defending this. He belieVed that this would not be a feasible solution. Babcock stated ~that Ho:wards Point Madna would not have to necessarily prohibit these boats from using the launch ramp;.however, therewould have to be a trade,off for the boats in the water. Hook stated that his clients do not believe that the rental of spaces in the parking lot has anything to do with the marina itself, Babcock stated that if the District researched into parties with contracts in 2002 to rent spacein the parking lot, he questioned how many of them would agree with the comment by Hook that there was no association between their contract and the madna itself, especially the launching ramp. Hooks stated that he would like to challenge two comments made by Nybeck in the 5/7/03 staff memo. First, Nybeck stated that it seems unlikely that residents would pay $950,to store aboat in the east lot; and not use the Howards Point Madna pdvate access, because the nearest public access are Spring Park and the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park. He believed that is inappropriate because the interpretation of a statute by the court would notbe done on what:is likely and what is not..likely, Second, the comment made by Nybeck that -2648- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 14, 2003 Page 20 the 8horewood has interpreted that Howards Point Madna property, including the madna and the parking lot, is technically one parcel of land is irrelevant to the proposed application. He recommended that his review of the District records to conclude after 17 years that this activity qualifies as "off-lake" storage would be arbitrary and capricious. He stated that the position of Howards Point Marina is that the storage spaces in the parking lot are not used in conjunction with the access ramp. Mr. Nick Dennis, 5360 Howards Point Road, stated that he was the'next door neighbor to Howards Point Marina. Some of the concerns he had with the facility deal with traffic in the area because of the narrow city streets, in the area and kids in the area. Mr. Dave Polley, an owner of Howards Point Madna, has encouraged hissupport of the proposed application for 37 "off-lake" BSU's because Howards Point. Marina suggests that congestion in the area would be reduced because the marina would control the launching of boats. This differs dramatically from the testimony of Hook that Howards .Point Madna has no control of the boats being launched in and out of the water at. the access ramp. He .suggested that this should be checked into further by talking to parties that have a contract for space in the parking lot to find out the facts. He was surprised with the comments that dump trucks, snowmobiles, and fishing house are. also stored in this lot and that a contact should be made with the City of Shorewood to verify whether this complies with city ordinances. Mr. Dave Polley, 27635 Island View Road, addressed the comments made by Mr, Dennis, He commented that: · He purchased his home in the area in 1977 and he bought a share.of the facility to ensure that he could stored a boat at the marina and to have some input on how it was developed. Howards Point Madna is currently owned by five or six padties in the area and not by a corporation that would have to make a living.off of it. There is a.fine line of balancing the economics of the facility with the concerns .. of the neighborhood in the :immediate area. · There have not been many issues with the neighborhood until last year when Howards Point Marina was approached by the City of Shorewood to comply .with a new ordinance that might allow a few more slips for the facility. The neighborhood opposed this request and Howards Point.Marina withdrew the proposed application, adding that there was probably some communication breakdowns with the neighbors. The madna still has the same number of BSU's and land in.'the Parking lot that existed in 1977 when he got .involved, noting that the issue was currently being discussed because of concems raised by the District. · If Howards Point Marina is not allowed to continue to rent spaces in the parking, lot across the street, he suggested that these boats would be trailered frequently on a daily basis to accomplish the same outcome. He b.e. lieved thatthis would not address neighborhood concerns of traffic in the area,' · He expressed concern.about how Howards Point Marina would replace the loss re~/enue if the facility was not allowed to continue to rent spaces in the parking lot, adding that this would have to be replaced through another means.. · He suggested that the District and the neighborhood should work with Howards Point Marina to.~ evaluate how to allow these rental spaces to continue; however, address the concems of the other parties~ Dennis stated that he believed that the neighborhood would be okay with a reasonable number of"off-lake" storage BSU's in the parking lot; hOwever, 37 is too large of a number. Polley stated 37 "off-lake" storage BSU's have existed since before 1987. Mr. Jeff Fox, 5270 Howards Point Road, stated that he .had lived in the area for a number of Years and that the facility is clean and polished. He believed that the-faCility has a John Deere tractorset upfor the transfer -2649- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 14, 2003 Page 21 of boats from the parking lot to the private access, adding that it is not for fishing or pontoon boats. He stated that he walks the area frequently and that additional spaces have been established since 1991, consistent with the presentation made by Nybeck. Howards Point Marina has done a good job of cleaning the area up in recent years; however, his main concerns were safety on the water and the shore. If the 37 spaces in question were not allowed to continue in the future by the District, he believed that this would reduce traffic in the area. He recommended that the District take a comprehensive look at the entire situation before making a decision on the proposed application. Foster asked Fox if he had observed watercraft being pulled by the John Deere tractor owned by Howards Point Marina from the east lot to the private access. Fox stated that he had observed some pontoon boats being pulled from the lot by Howards Point Marina with the tractor. However, he pointed out that he was generally not around during the day to observe activities of the trailer because he was at work. He believed that the generally parking activities in the area by Howards Point Marina have gotten more intense since 1989. Mr. Steve Johnson, 5845 Howards Point Road, stated that he lives in the route of from Smithtown Road to Howards Point Marina. He has lived in the area for around 10 years and the traffic has increased over the years. He believed that the proposed application was an example of Howards Point Marina side stepping the spidt and intent of the ordinance of the Distdct for parking watercraft in the parking lot, He did not agree with the comments as represented by Howards Point Marina that there are no launching privileges through the access ramp for parties that sign a contract to park their boats in the parking lot. On a busy day, there are more than 37 boats being parked in the parking lot in question. The abutting houses have been recently purchased for potential future expansion and that Howards Point Marina has the opinion that the laws do not apply to them. He concluded that he did not support any further expansion at Howards Point Madna. Hook stated that Howards Point Marina has had some previous discussions with the MN DNR on the possibility of converting the facility into a public access for up to 70 car/trailer spaces. He questioned whether thiswas something the residents in the area would like in the future and should be considered because he believed that this alternative would be worse than what was proposed. Nybeck stated that he had recently talked with the MN DNR on the possibility of purchasing Howards Point Marina in the future for public access purposes and it is not likely. If this was to occur in the future, the neighbors would be involved in the process prior to the purchase and he did not believe the MN DNR would purchase the property without consent of the neighbors in the area. Babcock stated that there is a wdtten policy in the District office that describes the procedures for possible future public accesses on Lake Minnetonka. Two examples of following this policy are the new public accesses on Maxwell and Grays Bays. Fox provided a historical summary of the policy back to the late 1970's for public accesses on Lake Minnetonka. He believed that the new public accesses are steps towards achieving the goals for Lake Minnetonka and that it would be unlikely to purchase other properties in the near future for a public access because of the current economy of the State of Minnesota. Mr. Jerry Brecke, 27450 Pine Bend, stated that there was a site plan from 1980 submitted that documented 37 spaces for the parking lot. This document was not included in the packet and he would like it included in future meetings. -2650- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 14, 2003 Page 22 Ms. Julie Schoyer, 26390 Edgewood Road, stated that she believed the issues were whether the existing facility should be expanded or maintained to allow for "off-lake~ storage in the parking lot. She did not believe there was discussion to eliminate it as some of the owners from Howards Point Marina have indicated. The residents have in general existed over the years with Howards Point Marina and have been reasonable neighbors with Howards Point Marina relating to complaints. She believed that the proposed application would expand the storage capacity of Howards Point Marina and that it WOuld.be inaPpropriate because of limited access into the neighborhood. She expressed concern about how the launching of watercraft through the Howards Point private access affects the traffic flow On Howards Point Road and how it could impact emergency vehicles. There is a wetland just east of the parking lot and she questioned whether it was appropriate to allow boats'to be stored in the parking lot, whether or not it is grandfathered, because of the possible impact to the wetland. Mr. Bill McCallum, a shareowner for Howards Point Madna, stated that the original purchase of the madna was set-up for 25 shareholders to protect the concems of the neighborhood. Tremendous efforts have been made to address the concerns of the neighborhood over the years. He suggested that some of the recent purchases are an effort of Howards Point Madna to buffer the facility from the neighborhood. Mr. Mark Peltier stated that he has been the manager for Howards Point Madna since 1995. The north and east Sides of the lot were designated prior to his arrival for parking purposes, with the north side being more organized than the east side. Because of this, the aerial photos may not reflect the accurate usage of parking because it was a free for all before it became more organized. Ms. Val Gregerson, 5735 Howards Point Road, stated that she had lived at her residence since 1969. She believed that the neighborhood in general supported the efforts of Howards Point Marina over the years; however, they do not support expansion. The business was originally set up to allow for access to neighbors in the immediate area rather than for economic concems. There being no further comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 11:14 p.m. He asked LeFevere to comment on the testimony received during the public headng, especially from Mr. Hook. LeFevere stated that one thing that should be addressed before he commented on the testimony is whether Howards Point Uadna would like to withdraw the proposed application at this time. Hook stated that the decision on whether to withdraw the application would depend on how it would impact the license for the marina facility in the water. Babcock stated that the Board has recently approved the 45 slips and 13 slides in the water. However, there was a condition included in the approval that would prohibit the use of the 37 "off-lake" BSU's in conjunction with the private access ramp. Hook stated that the application was submitted at the request of Nybeck. Nybeck stated that the 2003 renewal, without change, multiple dock license application was approved at the 2/19/03 Regular Meeting with two conditions. First, no "off-lake" storage was to be allowed on the east-side of Howards Point Road until approved by the Board of Directors, consistent with Code Section 2.045. Second, all watercraft storage, including rental boats and installation of dock structure, must be consistent with the approved site plan, dated 11/2/94. -2651 - Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 14, 2003 Page 23 LeFevere stated that the language on the 2003 license speaks for itself and "off-lake" storage is not allowed until approved by the Board. He asked again whether them was an application for the Board to consider for "off-lake" storage purposes. HOok stated that he questioned whether the application was necessary because he believed the activity does not qualify for "off-lake" storage as defined by Code Section 2.045. LeFevere stated that if the applicant did not withdraw the application, the DistdCt would be required by state law to take action, on it. Hook stated that his clients would not like to withdraw the proposed application for"off-lake" storage because it would have impact on the 2003 renewal, without change, multiple dock license recently aPprOved. LeFevere stated that if the Board concludes that the activity in the parking lot qualifies as "off-lake" storage, Howards Point Marina needs to understand that it would be a violation of the existing 2003 license for the multiple dock facility. He concurred with Hook that the core question is interpretatiOn of whether'the spots in the parking lot are being used in conjunction with the access ramp owned by Howards Point Marina. He questioned the validity of some of the arguments presented bY Hook. He stated that he was the Distdct attorney when the ordinance was originally adopted in 1987 and that there was concern that "off-lake" storage could introdUce a larger number of Watercraft at a point, sUCh as an acceSs ramp. This could result in a larger impact on the lake by boats being launched thrOugh a pdvate launch ramp at a commercial facility that is licensed by the District. He did not recall discussiOn in 1987 on distinguishing "off-lake" storage facilities based on whether it uses storage racks horizontally or whether there are only boats stored at the facility. The question was raised by Hook why this activity was not discovered by the annual inspections since 1987. This is a valid question and staff might not have known there was this type of activity going on in the parking lot. HoWever, it is not a good legal argument to State that it should be allowed to continue just because it has not been caught over the years. One of the questiOnS for the Board to address is Whether the "off-lake" storage activity was occurring in 1987 and whether to grandfather Howards Point Madna back to 1987. There was a 30-day window from the grandfather date from 12/28/87 for existing facilities to continue at the same level of activity, adding that this was subject to the discretion of the Board. He explained the process for back licensing, adding that it allows facilities that needed a license and were unaware of it to have a license granted for what would have been allowed that year. This has primarily been done for multiple dock facilities, not. for "off-lake" storage facilities, and should be licensed for what existed atthe grandfather date. He reminded th'e Boardthat the storage of the watercraft in the lot is. not the concern; hOWever, When they are launchedin conjunction, with the private access itis a concern ofthe DistriCt. Ifthe applicant~decided to close the private access, he believed that it would not be considered discrimination because it involves public waters. The meeting was recessed at 11:34 p.m. and reconvened at 11:40 p.m. Foster stated that there are a number of complexities associated with~the proposed application for the Board to consider that would not be resolved at this meeting. He recommended that this agenda item be tabled to a future Regular Board Meeting in the near future to allow for more time to discuss it. The c°ns~n~:~0~ihe Board was to table further discussion of this agenda to a future Regular Board Meeting in the near future. 2. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A. 2003 EWM Harvesting Season, staff overview of project. Foster stated that discussion of this agenda item would be moved to the 5/28/03 Regular Board Meeting. -2652- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 14, 2003 Page24 C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 3. FINANCIAL A. Audit of voUchers (5/1/03 - 5/15/03). Skramstad reviewed the audit of vouchers as submitted. MOTION: Skramstad moved, Babcock seconded to approve the audit of vouchers as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Review of timetable to consider draft 2004 LMCD Budget. Foster asked for an: overview of this agenda item from Nybeck, Nybeck stated that the budget process for the 2004 LMCD Budget was beginning and that the first formal review of it by the Board was scheduled for the 5/28/03 Regular Meeting. The Board has typically conducted a working session prior to this first review and he recommended that it be dOne on the week of 5/19/03 through 5/23/03. . The consensus was that interested Board members should contact Nybeck regarding this and that Nybeck should schedule a working session to review the draft 2004 LMCD Budget for the week of 5/19/03 through 5/23/03 based on the feedback from the Board. D. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 4. LAKE USE & RECREATION B. Goldwave Cruises, Inc., staff recommends Board approval of refund for withdrawn Charter Boat, Wine, and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License applications as outlined in the 5/14/03 staff memo. Foster stated that this agenda item would be moved to the 5/28/03 Regular Board Meeting. C. 'Additional Business. There was no additional business. 5. ADMINIST .RATION There was no discussion, 6. SAVE THE LAKE There was no discussion. '-2653- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting tllay 44, 2003 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Nybeck reported on the following: A copy of a recent press release sent out by Hennepin County to educate the public on changes to point buoys on Lake Uinnetonka was included in the handout folders. · Two recent articles from the Lakeshore Weekly News were included in the packet. · A copy of an announcement from the City of Minnetonka for the 615103 grand opening of the Grays Bay Public Access was included in the packet. · The lake level on Lake Uinnetonka as of 5/12/03 was 929.57', with a discharge of 100 c.f.s. · It has brought to his attention that there is another pending lawsuit with the City of Mound regarding the Commons Program. The attorneys representing the City of Mound, the abutters, and the inlanders have requested representation of the District at an upcoming mediation session where possible settlements will be discussed. The purpose of requesting representation of the District at this meeting would be to ensure that any possible settlements being discussed by the attorneys would comply with District Code. Page25 The Board disCussed the request and directed Nybeck to attend the scheduled mediation session. 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Albert O. Foster, Chairman Lili McMillan, Secretary -2654- As$ocia[ion of Me ropoli£an Municipalities DATE: June 16, 2003 TO: ~ Members FROM: Veld Muiznieks, AMM President SUBJECT: 2003 AMM Policy Committees AMM is currently seeking volunteers to serve on our four summer policy committees--Housing & Economic Development, Metropolitan Agencies, Transportation & General Government and Municipal Revenues & Taxation. Enclosed you will fred a description of each committee, along with a schedule of committee meetings and a sign-up form. This is one time of year when AMM really depends on the active participation of all of our members. The 2003 legislative session brought sweeping change to Minnesota, with significant consequences for metro-area cities, especially in the area of state aids. With a stagnant or possibly worsening economy, 2004 could bring even more reductions in state spending. Other major issues likely to be on the Legislature's agenda in 2004 include local sales taxes, transit funding, the metropolitan fiscal disparities program, land use/zoning issues, publication costs and a push for public service consolidation. We need your involvement in order to develop strong, clear policy positions that will direct our work and represent your interests on these and other issues. To join your colleagues fi'om other metro-area cities in serving on an AMM policy · committee, simply remm the enclosed form by July 1, 2003. If you have any questions, please call Laurie Jennings at (651) 215-4000. NOTE: This bulletin was mailed to mayors, managers/administrators, councilmembers and individuals that served on our 2003 summer policy committees. However, all city employees, including finance directors, community development and planning directors, and city engineers are welcome to participate. Therefore, we would appreciate it if you would route this information to these individuals. 145 University Avenue West Saint Paul, Minnesota 55103-2044 Telephone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: amm~amm145, org -2655- The following committees annually develop policy based on input from member city repre- sentatives. The four committees submit their policy recommendations to the Board of Di- rectors for review, modification and distribution to the general membership. The full mem- bership meets in November before each legislative session to debate and adopt AMM's policy positions. The Transportation bt General Government Committee considers all issues related to air and surface transportation, including funding sources. AMM appointees to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) are encouraged to join, along with other city officials. The committee also considers general government issues that are outside the scope of the other policy committees, such as state mandates and local authority, the 911 telephone tax and the 800 MHz Radio System. This committee will meet on Mon- days from noon to 2:00p. m. Meeting dates for this year are July 28, August 18, September 8, September 22 and October 6. The Municipal Revenue bt Taxation Committee is responsible for all matters related to city revenues, property taxes and city expenditures; including state aid formulas, levy limits, property tax assessments and fiscal disparities. This committee will meet on Tuesdays from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30p. m. Meeting dates for this year are July 29, August 19, September 2, September 23 and October 7. The Housing bt Economic Development Committee considers all issues related to housing, economic development and redevelopment. This includes affordable and inclusionary housing, and development/redevelopment tools such as tax increment financing (TIF). This committee will meet on Thursdays from 11:30 a.m. to l :30 p. m. Meeting dates for this year are July 31, August 21, September 4, September 25 and October 9. The Metropolitan Agencies Committee considers legislative issues related to the Metropolitan Council, as well as Met Council policies that impact cities. One of the issues to be addressed by this year's committee is how AMM should respond to legislative attempts to restrict or reduce the Met Council's statutory authorities. This committee will meet on Tuesdays from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. Meeting dates for this year are July 29, August 19, SepL 2, Sept. 23 and Oct. 7. / sociation of fletropolitan Municipalitiel -2656' Title: City: (Street Address or P. O. Box) (ZIP code) (Daytime Phone) (Fax) (E-mail) Committee Choices: Municipal Revenue and Taxation (Tuesdays: 11.'30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.) Metropolitan Agencies (Tuesdays: 2:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.) Housing & Econ. Dev. (Thursdays: 11.'30 a.m. - 1.'30 p.m.) Transportation & General Govt. (Mondays: noon to. 2:00 p.m.) Issues which should be studied: Association of Metropolitan Hunicipalities Please mail or fax cornpleted form to: A TTN: Laurie Jennings Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, MN55103-2044 Fax: 651-281-1299 ~ Phone: 651-215-4000 -2657- Medi MEDIACOM COMMUNITY ,LEADER JUNE 2003 Important information for Elected Officials, Staff, and Community Leaders from your Cable Television and Broadband Services Provider VIRTUAL CALL CENTER A REALITY! There is some exciting news for Mediacom communities and our customers. Mediacom is currently implementing a new telephone traffic handling system that will provide improved service while preserving our local presence. Utilizing the latest technology in telephone traffic routing equipment and software, Mediacom telephone customer service centers are being interlinked as a virtual contact center. This system allows local calls to flow to local representatives as they have been previously while routing calls to customer service representatives across all Mediacom phone centers if all local representatives are handling other calls. The introduction of this telephone switch translates into the availability of a greater number of customer service representatives available to answer customer calls at all times of the day for improved customer availability and reduced customer waiting experiences. The system will also provide additional customer service, enhancements to streamline the customer response process. For example, the new telephone switch works in tandem with the billing and scheduling system to present customer account information instantly to the customer service representative when the switch recognizes the caller's telephone number. A menu driven automatic response unit will allow those customers who want to pay their bill with a credit card or reschedule service appointments. The account recognition feature and the automatic response units will save valuable time for the customer and Mediacom Customer Service Representatives. The new system is expected to provide additional customer service handling features and benefits as the implementation evolves in stages. Mediacom has invested millions of dollars to implement this phone handling process rather than creating mega call centers similar to the practices of other cable operators, satellite providers and utilities. By creating a virtual call center, Mediacom affirms its commitment to improving customer service and to maintaining a local position in communities. Mediacom values the experienced employees in our call centers that would have been relocated or released if the mega call centers had been utilized. We hope this investment will maximize customer service experiences and minimize future costs to limit future price increases. "We appreciate the patience and support of our customers as we move into this new arena of customer service." Charles King, North Central Divisional Vice President MEDIACOM ADDRESSES CABLE PROGRAMMING RATES Mediacom has continued its efforts to address the issue of escalating programming rates. The programming rates are paid by Mediacom to ESPN, Disney, and others to redistribute content to our customers. Some programmers, particularly sports programming providers, have insisted on double-digit increases and have "bundled" other less popular programming channels as part of these contracts. They also have prevented the ability to offer such programming on an ala carte basis. Large multi-media companies who also own cable programming interests have provided the largest cable operators with programming discounts that are not available to other operators such as Mediacom. Mediacom, at the leadership of its Chairman, Rocco Commisso, has undertaken an aggressive effort to change the practices of programmers. To date, Mediacom has: 1. Publicly offered to freeze rates if programmers would do likewise, 2. Filed comments with the FCC in support of media cross ownership rules. 3. Supported the Petition for Inquiry of the American Cable Association to combat price discrimination. 4. Met with FCC and other Federal officials to discuss pricing practices. 5. Conducted over 100 visits with Senators and Congressional representatives to raise the awareness of the issue. Mediacom will continue to work to change the practices of the programmers and attempt to include a broad range of programming choices at competitive rates. CONTACT MEDIACOM: Customer Service: 1-800-800-CABLE Bill Jensen, Director of Operations, MN 1-507-835-2356 Randy Brown, Regional VP, IA 1-319-395-9699 Tom Bordwell, Sr. Mgr. Gov. Relations 1-952-440-9682 Theresa Sunde, Gov. Relations Coord. 1-507-835-2356 -2658 Mound Police Department May Monthly Report -2659- In the month of May, the police department responded to 624 calls for service. There were 35 Part I offenses reported including 3 Criminal Sexual Conduct, 23 larcenies, 2 aggravated assaults, and 7 vehicle thefts. There were 68 Part II offenses reported, which included 14 liquor law violations, 4 domestic assaults, 9 simple assaults, and 8 narcotic violations. The police department responded to 521 additional events including child protection complaints, nuisance inspections, and medical emergencies. To date, the police department has handled over 5,000 incidents and contacts, which is a 15% increase from 2002. In May, our patrol officers issued 129 citations and charges, 17 parking tickets, and 169 verbal warnings. On May 23, 2003 at 00:57 hours, our officers responded to a loud party complaint at an apartment complex. When they arrived, they could hear loud music and people partying inside. When they made contact, several people fled out of the apartment and onto a deck that overlooked the lake. An intoxicated juvenile jumped into the lake and attempted to swim away. Officer Schoenherr jumped into the lake and rescued the party. The officers arrested four people who were taken into custody for disorderly conduct, procuring alcohol, and minor consumption. On May 27, 2003, Officer Burke responded to a domestic assault in which a party was armed with a knife. The suspect fled the scene before the officers arrived, but was apprehended a short time later, still in possession of the knife. In the month of May, Detective Swanson and Sergeant McKinley were actively involved in investigating incidents including, theft, forgery, child protection, child pornography, and sexual assault. Detective Swanson investigated a very difficult juvenile sexual assault in May. The case involved a 14 year-old female who was assaulted by her stepfather. The case required the victim to be interviewed at the Comerhouse, which is a specialized facility that interviews child victims of sexual assault. The suspect in this case was charged with two counts of 3rd degree Criminal Sexual Conduct. -2660- Sergeant McKinley has been investigating a child pornography incident that allegedly occurred in our city three months ago. In the complaint, a juvenile female disclosed to a school counselor that the suspect's mother had taken sexually explicit nude photographs of her and a friend and then posted them on the Internet. The family operates two Intemet pornographic websites and an exotic dance club. Sergeant McKinley served two search wan'ants and seized computers, video recorders, digital photography equipment, and information on their businesses. The computers are currently being analyzed by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office for evidence of child pornography. CSO Wocken responded to 172 calls for service in the month of May. He continues to work on code enforcement, animal control, and maintaining our fleet. Our Reserve Officers donated 391.75 hours in the month of May. Their activities included operating a reserve squad, riding with an officer, prisoner transports, and training. In June, the Reserves are going to place an emphasis on bike patrol! In May, all of our officers attended range training and were introduced to our new AR-15 rifles. Sergeant Truax is scheduling 4 hours of specialized AR-15 training for the officers in July. All of the officers will be certified and qualified to use the rifles, which will go into service following the training. Our department began participating in the State's Safe&Sober program. The objective of the program is to reduce motor vehicle accident injuries and fatalities through seatbelt and alcohol enforcement. The program is split into three sections; May Mobilization, the Chief's Challenge, and Traffic Grants. We are teaming with the cities of Orono and Corcoran in applying for a three-year grant that would start in October. There are no restrictions to the grant, which gives cities monies to conduct alcohol and seatbelt enforcement. Officer Mike Sussman is coordinating our project and we hope to win incentive prizes through the Challenge. The incentive prizes include radar units, portable breath testers, and window tint meters. A May traffic survey conducted by the Mound Police Department, revealed that only 62% of the traveling public in Mound are wearing seatbelts. We hope to increase that percentage to at least the state average of 68%. We recently began placing "Buckle up" seatbelt signs at public locations throughout the city to help with this effort. On May 30th we began using the Hennepin County issued case number system. The system is designed so that when an officer is dispatched to a call, they automatically get a Mound ease number. The new system should give us a more accurate account of the number and type of calls for service we receive. In July, or August we will expand our -2661 - use of the system to include daily log sheets. Currently, our officers hand write their daily logs, which is a duplication of the computer technology that is available in our squad cars. In May, we wrote two new city ordinances, one on repeat alarm violations and the second on licensing commercial tow tracks and a corresponding impound processing fee. The ordinances are currently being reviewed by the City Attorney. In June, our department is hosting a 3-day filed sobriety school at the Gillespie Center. The class is being taught by the State Patrol and there are 20 officers from agencies throughout the state attending. By sponsoring the class, we can send four of our officers to the training for free. I met with Gino this week to discuss our overtime budget. To date, we have used $7,175.82 or 16.67% of our overtime budget. To help cover calls and to try and combat some of the thefts and burglaries we've encountered, I am adding some overtime coverage. I have asked Sergeant McKinley to add overtime, patrol powershifts every Friday and Saturday night from 19:00 to 03:00 through August. 24 shifts, 8 hour shifts = approximately $6,700 Respectfully submitted, James E. Kurtz Chief of Police -2662- JAMES E. KURTZ Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood ~ ROad Mound, MN 55364 Telephone (952) 472-0621 Dispatch (763) 525-6210 Fax (952) 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 Contact: Mike Sussman 952-472-0621 Patrol Officer During the last week of Sober seat belt safety sil Mound as a reminder to drivers to wear safety'b~ Department put the signs up for the Gillespie Center, Mound i addition to other signs ten additional Safe and within the City of driving. The Mound Public Works Some of the locations include the 0 W. These signs were an Mound from surrounding Look for these signs ~n yo~: ~; ~ ~[ yo~ elts! -2663- -2665- :e.- 6/9/2003 Time.. 10.-07 AM To.. % 952-472-0656 He~neDin County 23 Page= 001-001 P S W 3 EVENT HISTORY DETAIL: H031600297 06/09/03 C A D HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 10:04 ********************************************************** MSG %0316005693 < PAXed FROM: JA01 / TO: FMPD64 @ 06/09/03 10:04:08 > INITIATE: 07:52:21 06/09/03 ENTRY: 07:53:11 DISPATCH: 07:54:14 ONSCENE: CLOSE: 10:02:57 SYSTEM SEQUENCE NUM: 030092998 CALL NUMBER: H0297 CURRENT STATUS: CLOSED PRIMARY UNIT: 6416 CASE NUMBER: 6403001221 DISPOSITION: 8 REPORT LOCATION: 5065 WINDSOR RD,MND (DEAD END & TUXEDO BL) AREA: 64 Address is in Property Tax file DIST: 6400 TYPE: THEFT4 THEFT/RPT PZONE: 64P050 PRIORITY: 4 FZONE: 64F010 EZONE: RID64 07:53:11JA14 ENTRY NAME:ELISA BLUME W 952 525 6959\TX:PHONE CALL-IDENTITY THEFT 07:53:11JA14 BOUNDARY 07:53:53 JD01 MISC DISPATCHER REVIEW 07:54:14 JD01 DISP ENR 6416/006416-BURKE JAMI 07:54:14 JD01 CASE 6416 6403001221 :02:57 CLEAR 6416 8, REPORT, WAS HADLED BY PHONE AS DISPATCHED :02:57 CLOSE OPERATOR ASSIGNMENTS: JA14 JD01 197621 COATES AARON 197136 BURGESON LINDA S,Su -2666- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MAY 2003 OFFENSES CLEARED EXCEPT- CLEARED BY ARRESTED REPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARED ARREST ADULT JU~ PART I CRIMES Homicide Criminal Sexual Conduct Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Larceny Vehicle Theft Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1 1 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 35 2 i 2 2 0 Child Abuse/Neglect 3 1 0 2 Forgery/NSF Checks I 0 0 0 Criminal Damage to Property 8 0 1 0 Weapons 1 0 0 0 Narcotic Laws 8 0 3 5 Liquor Laws 14 0 0 13 DWI 4 0 0 4 Simple Assault 9 0 4 3 Domestic Assault 4 0 2 2 Domestic (No Assault) 6 0 0 0 Harassment 3 0 0 0 Juvenile Status Offenses 2 0 0 2 Public Peace 3 0 0 3 Trespassing 1 0 0 0 All Other Offenses 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 5 0 21 6 4 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0_' .2 6 5 0. 0 0 0 TOTAL 68 i 10 34 41' 15 PART II & PART IV Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations TOTAL 8 1 0 25 3O 10 416 490 HCCP Inspections 5 26 TOTAL 624 11 43 '~ 15 -2667- MOT31~-D POLICE DEPAR~ENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT MAY 2003 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY Hazardous Citations Non-Hazardous Citations Hazardous Warnings Non-Hazardous Warnings Verbal Warnings Parking Citations DWI Over .10 Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Adult Felony Arrests Adult Misdemeanor Arrests Juvenile Felony Arrests Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests Part I Offenses Part II Offenses Medicals Animal Complaints Ordinance Violations Other Public Contacts THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR MONTH DATE TO DATE 55 428 56 237 6 88 16 138 169 664 17 114 4 43 4 34 8 49 1 8 0 0 5 16 48 194 1 2 16 41 35 91 68 307 25 128 30 164 26 130 416 2,175 286 145 13 87 429 137 21 14 56 23 0 18 112 7 64 120 299 113 179 105 2,051 TOTAL Assists Follow-Ups HCCP Mutual Aid Given Mural Aid Requested 1,006 51 5,051 '".4,279 259 195 17 84 ~' 70 5 18 <~' 14 !0 44 66 9 59 18 -2668- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MAY 2003 DWI More Than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired or No Plates Stop Arm Violations Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Code Enforcement Seat Belt Overweight Vehicles Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL 4 4 1 8 0 39 2 0 8 0 3 0 4 0 12 0 0 17 0 0 0 19 1 7 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 -2669- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MAY 2003 Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRANT ARRESTS Felony Misdemeanor 7 5 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 4 24 Juveniles 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 -2670- Property Class Class Extension Sub Total: Record Type Loss Type Consumable Goods Sub Total' Stolen C - Camera Equip Sub Total' Stolen Q-Motorcycles Sub Total' Stolen Y - All Other Sub Total' Stolen B - Bicycles Sub Total' S - Sports Equipment Sub Total' Stolen A - Motor Vehicles Sub Total: Stolen T - Currency, Negotiable bonds Sub Total: Stolen 0 - Office Equipment Sub Total: Stolen R - Radio/TV/Sound Entertainment Sub Total: Stolen Money Stolen Licensed to Mound Police Department -2671 - Stolen Items Dollar Value $341.00 $341.00 $15.00 $15.00 $550.00 $550.00 $350.00 $350.00 $53.00 $53.00 $600.00 $600.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $427.00 $427.00 $193.00 $193.00 $1,001.00 $1,001.00 Page I of 2 Property Class Class Extension Other Sub Total: Record Type Loss Type Stolen Items Dollar Value 4 $1,609.00 4 $1,609.00 Report Total .... 26 $26,709.o0 Licensed to Mound Police Department Page 2 of 2 -2672- Offense Summary Report Mound Police Department Date Assigned BETWEEN 04~26~03 and 05125103 and NCIC Number =MN0271300 Printed On: Monday, June 02, 2003 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 7 1 11 1 2 1 2 5 11 1 1 5 3 2 1 21 2 1 2 3 6 3 5 1 i8 1 MOC MOC Literal Transection 9000 9002 9013 9018 9020 9038 9040 9200 9210 9220 9222 9240 9301 9309 9312 9313 9316 9440 9450 9451 9568 9710 9730 9731 9740 9750 9800 9801 9802 9900 9901 9904 9910 SPEEDING NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L J-OPEN BOTTLE EQUIPMENT VIOLATION CARELESS/RECKLESS MISC CITATIONS/TRAFFIC NO SEATBELT DAS/DAR/DAC PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF OVERWEIGHT VEHICLE CHANGE OF DOMICILE LOST/MISSING PERSONS FOUND/RUNAWAY FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOI. YNDS FOUND PROPERTY IMPOUNDED PLATES H/R PERSONAL INJURY ACC. PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. ANIMAL COMPLAINTS MEDICAL/ASU MEDICALS MEDICALS/DX MENTAL CASES FIRES ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED "DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT PUBLIC ASSIST ALL HCCP CASES ADULT PROTECTION OPEN DOOR/ALARMS MISC. SERVICES BY OFFICERS Licensed to Mound Police Department Page I -2673- of Offense Summary Report Total MOC Mound Police Department Date kssiOned BF_TWc..c._N 0~tl26i03 and 05/25/03 and NClC Number =MN0271300 Printed On: Monday, June 02,2003 MOC Literal Transaction 11 2 1 ! 7 3 1 1 6 4 l 4 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 9930 9932 9933 9945 9980 9981 9982 9983 9992 9993 A2332 A5355 A5502 A5503 A5505 A9502 AL351 AL354 AL504 AL552 D8540 DA540 DC500 DE2C0 DF5C0 I2070 J3T01 JD501 JDF01 JG501 JGF01 L1033 L1B71 HANDGUN PURCHASE GRANTED OFP VIO. CRIME CONTROL & LAW ENF RESTRAINING ORDER ON FILE SUSPICIOUS PERSON WARRANTS FELONY WARRANT JUVENILE WARRANT JUVENILE FELONY WARRANT MUTUAL AID/8100 MUTUAL AID/6500 ASLT 2-INFLICTS BODILY HARM-KNIFE ETC-ADLT-ACQ ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-ADLT-ACQ ASLT 5-MS-THREATEN HRM-NO WPN-ADLT STR ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-CHLD-ACQ TERR THREATS-INFLT BH-UNK WEAP-ADLT-ACQ DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-CH-FAM DOM ASLT-MS-THRT BODILY HARM-CHILD FAMILY ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-THRT BODLY-HRM-HNDS-ADLT-ACQ DRUGS-SMALL AMOUNT MARIJUANA-POSESSION DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK CON SUB 2-SALE-METHAM-UNK CON SUB 3-POSSESS-METHAM-UNK CRIM AGNST FAM-GM-MALIC PUNISHMENT CHILD TRAF-ACC-MS-UND AGE DRINK DRIVE-UNK-MOTOR VEH TRAF-AC-FE-1 ST DEG DWI-UI ALCOHOL-MV TRAF-AC-FE-1 ST DEG DWI-10 OR MORE WIN 2 HRS-MV TRAF-ACC-M-4TH DEG DWI-UI ALCOHOL-MV TRAF-ACC-M-4TH DEG DWI-10 OR MORE WIN 2 HRS-MV CSC I-UNK ACT-GUARDIAN-13-15-F CSC 1-CONTACT-ACQUAINT-UND AGE- 13-F Licensed to Mound Police Department Page 2 of 4 -2674- Mound Police Department Date Assigned BETWEEN 04126103 and 05125103 and NClC Number --MN0271300 Offense Summary Report Printed O.n: Monday~ June 02,2003 Total MOC MOC IJteral Transaction 1 L4021 4 M3001 1 M4104 1 M4113 3 M4140 2 M5313 3 N3030 3 N3190 1 N3380 1 Pl120 2 P2110 1 P2120 3 P3110 1 P3310 1 P3610 1 T0060 1 T0160 1 TC029 1 TC059 1 TC159 1 TC 169 1 TQ021 3 TQ159 I TQ169 1 TR029 I TR059 2 TR099 1 TR159 2 TR169 1 U249C 1 U302D 4 U349D 1 V0080 CSC 2-WEAP-UNK ACT-PARENT-UND 13-F JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER-UNDER 18 YRS LIQUOR - POSSESSING LIQUOR-MS-MINOR PURCHASE OR ATTMPT TO PURCHASE LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 JUVENILE-CURFEW DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS MS-VIOL HARASS RESTRAINING ORDER PROP DAMAGE-FE-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT PROP DAMAGE-GM-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-PRIVATE PRO THEFT-UNK LVL VAL-FRM MAIL-UNK PROP THEFT-UNK LVL VAL-FRM WATERCRAFT-UNK PROP THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP THEFT-501-2500-FE-YARDS-OTH PROP THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP THEFT-501-2500-FE-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP THEFT-251-500-GM-BUILDING-MONEY THEFT-251-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP THEFT-251-500-GM-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP THEFT-250 OR LESS-MS-BUILDING-OTHER PROP THEFT-LESS 250-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP THEFT-LESS 250-MS-SELF SRV GAS-OTH PROP THEFT-LESS 250-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER THEFT-LESS 250-MS-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP THEFT-GM-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-251-500 THEFT-MN-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-250 OR LESS THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-250 OR LESS VEH-201-500-UNK-TAMPER WITH-ENTER-OTH-MTRI Licensed to Mound Police Department Page 3 of 4 -2675- Mound Police Department Date Assigned BETVVEEN 04/26103 and 05~25~03 and NCIC Number =MN0271300 Offense SummaryReport ............. Printed On:~Ylon.day, June_02,_2003 ..... Total MOC MOC Uteral Transaction 2 2 2 1 GRAND TOTAL: 263 VA021 VC023 VN081 W3220 THEFT-FE-AUTO-MORE THAN 2500 VEH-NOT MORE 500-FE-THEFT-MOTORCYCLE VEH-250 OR LESS-MS-TAMPER WITH-AUTO WEAPONS-MS-RECKLESS HANDLES-PISTOL-NO CHAR Licensed to Mound Police Department Page 4 of 4 -2676- Mound Police Department Date Cited BETWEEN 04126103 and 05/25103 and NClC Number -'-MN0271300 Pr4ntedOn~Monday~Ju.ne 92~2003 Citation~Summa~O~.! .... Report Total Offense Offense Literal Transaction 37 9000 SPEEDING 5 9001 J-SPEEDING 1 9002 NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 3 9014 STOP SIGN 1 9038 MISC CITATIONS/TRAFFIC 17 9040 NO SEATBELT 1 9041 J-NO SEATBELT 17 ~ 9100 PARKING/ALL O ..TH. ER I 9200 DAS/DAR/DAC 7 9210 PLATESfNO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 1 9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 4 9240 CHANGE OF DOMICILE GRAND TOTAL: 95 Licensed to Mound Police Department Page 1 of I -2677- Case Status Report LIn- M0C Total Founded Mound Police Department Date Arrived BETWEEN 04126/03 and 05/25/03 and Ofc Offense Code >=AO000 and NClC Number =MN0271300 Printed On: Monday, June 02, 2003 Except- Cleared Pending/ Total Ref. To Oth. GOA Assisted Cleared Arrest Inactive Cleared Agen /UTL /Advised Other A2332 Total l percent A5355 Total 4 percent A5502 Total 1 percent A5503 Total 1 percent A5505 Total 3 percent A9502 Total 1 percent AL351 Total 2 percent AL354 Total 2 percent AL504 Total 1 percent AL552 Total 1 percent D8540 Total 2 percent DA540 Total 2 percent DC500 ASLT 2-INFLICTS BODILY HARM-KNIFE ETC-ADLT-ACQ 0 0 I 0 1 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ 0 1 3 0 4 0 0 0 0.00 25.00 75.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-ADLT-ACQ 0 - 1 0 0 1 0 - 0 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ASLT 5-MS-THREATEN HRM-NO WPN-ADLT STR 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-CHLD-ACQ 0 I 0 2 1 0 0 0 0.00 33.33 0.00 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 TERR THREATS-INFLT BH-UNK WEAP-ADLT-ACQ 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-CH-FAM 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 50.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DOM ASLT-MS-THRT BODILY HARM-CHILD FAMILY 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-THRT BODLY-HRM-HNDS-ADLT-ACQ 0 1 0 0 1 0 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 DRUGS-SMALL AMOUNT MARIJUANA-POSESSION 0 2 0 0 2 0 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK 0 0 2 0 2 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Licensed to Mound Police Department Page 1 of 5 -2678- Case Status Report Un- MOC Total Founded Mound Police Department Date Arrived BETWEEN 04~26~03 and 05125/03 and Ofc Offense Code >--A0000 and NClC Number =MN0271300 Printed On: Monday, June 02, 2003 Except- Cleared Pending/ Total Ref. To Oth. GOA Assisted Cleared Arrest Inactive Cleared Agen /UTL /Advised Other Total 2 9ercent DE2C0 Total 1 oercent DFSC0 Total 1 oercent I2070 Total 1 ~ercent J3T01 Total 1 oercent JD$01 Total 1 percent JDF01 Total 1 uercent JG501 Total 3 ~ercent JGF01 Total 3 oercent L1033 Total 1 percent L1B71 Total 1 percent L4021 Total 1 percent M3001 Total 4 percent 0 1 1 0 2 0 0.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 I00.00 0.00 CON SUB 2-SALE-METHAM-UNK 0 0 1 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 CON SUB 3-POSSESS-METHAM-UNK 0 0 1 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 CRIM AGNST FAM-GM-MALIC PUNISHMENT CHILD 0 0 1 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 TRAF-ACC-MS-UND AGE DRINK DRIVE-UNK-MOTOR VEH 0 0 1 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 TRAF-AC-FE- 1 ST DEG DWI-UI ALCOHOL-MV 0 0 1 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 TRAF-AC-FE-1 ST DEG DWI-10 OR MORE WIN 2 HRS-MV 0 0 1 0 I 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 TRAF-ACC-M-4TH DEG DWI-UI ALCOHOL-MV 0 0 3 0 3 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 TRAF-ACC-M-4TH DEG DWI-10 OR MORE WIN 2 HRS-MV 0 0 3 0 3 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 CSC 1-LINK ACT-GUARDIAN- 13-15-F 0 0 1 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 CSC 1-CONTACT-ACQUAINT-UND AGE- 13-F 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 CSC 2-WEAP-UNK ACT-PAR.ENT-UND 13-F 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER-UNDER 18 YRS 0 0 4 0 4 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 Licensed to Mound Police Department 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 2 of 5 -2679- Case Status Report MOC Total Founded Mound Police Department Date Arrived BE'¥WEF_.}4 0N26103 and 05125103 and Ofc Offense Code >=A0000 and NClC Number =MN0271300 Printed On: Monday, June 02, 2003 Except- Cleared Pending/ Total Ref. To Oth. GOA Assisted Cleared Arrest Inactive Cleared Agen /UTL /Advised Other M4104 Total 1 percent M4113 Total 1 percent M4140 Total 3 percent M5313 Total 2 percent N3030 Total 3 percent N3190 Total 3 percent N3380 Total 1 percent Pl120 Total 1 percent P2110 Total 2 percent P2120 Total 1 percent P3110 Total 3 percent P3310 Total 1 percent P3610 LIQUOR - POSSESSING 0 0 1 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 LIQUOR-MS-MINOR PURCHASE OR ATTMPT TO PURCHASE 0 0 1 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 0 0 0.00 0.00 JUVENILE-CURFEW 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT 0 0 3 0 3 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS 0 0 0 3 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 MS-VIOL HARASS RESTRAINING ORDER 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 PROP DAMAGE-FE-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 0 0 0 2 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 0 0 0 3 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 0 0 0 I 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-PRIVATE PRO 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Licensed to Mound Police Department Page 3 of 5 -2680- Case Status Report MOC Total Founded Mound Police Department Date Arrived BETWEEN 04126103 and 05~25~03 and Ofc Offense Code >--A0000 and NCIC Number =MN0271300 Printed On: Monday, June 02, 2003 Except- Cleared Pending/ Total Ref. To Oth. Cleared Arrest Inactive Cleared Agen GOA Assisted /UTL /Advised Other Total l percent T0060 Total 1 percent T0160 Total 1 percent TC029 Total 1 percent TC059 Total 1 percent TCI59 Total 1 perCent TC 169 Total 1 percent TQ021 Total 1 percent TQ159 Total 3 percent TQ169 Total 1 percent TR029 Total 1 percent TR059 Total 1 percent TR099 Total 2 percent 0 1 0 0 1 0 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 THEFT-UNK LVL VAL-FRM MAIL-UNK PROP 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 THEFT-UNK LVL VAL-FRM WATERCRAFT-UNK PROP 0 0. 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 THEFT-501-2500-FE-YARDS-OTH PROP 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 THEFT-501-2500-FE-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 THEFT-251-500-GM-BUILDING-MONEY 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 THEFT-251-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 0 0 0 3 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 THEFT-251-500-GM-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 THEFT-250 OR LESS-MS-BUILDING-OTHER PROP 1 0 0 0 0 0 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 THEFT-LESS 250-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 . 0.00 0.00 THEFT-LESS 250-MS-SELF SRV GAS-OTH PROP 0 1 0 0 1 0 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 Licensed to Mound Police Department 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 1 0.00 0.00 50.00 Page 4 of 5 -2681 - Case Status Report MOC Total Founded Mound Police Department Date Arrived BETWEEN 04/26/03 and 05125/O3 and Ofc Offense Code >=A0000 and NCIC Number =MN0271300 Printed On: Monday, June 02, 2003 Except- Cleared Pending/ Total ReL To Oth. GOA Assisted Cleared Arrest Inactive Cleared Agen /UTL /Advised Other TR159 Total l percent TR169 Total 2 percent U249C Total I percent U302D Total 1 percent U349D Total 4 percent VO080 Total I percent VA021 Total 2 percent VC023 Total 2 percent VN081 Total 2 percent W3220 Total 1 percent THEFT-LESS 250-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 THEFT-LESS 250-MS-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 0 0 0 2 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 THEFT-GM-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-251-500 0 0 0 I 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 THEFT-MN-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-250 OR LESS 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-250 OR LESS 0 0 0 4 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 VEH-201-500-UNK-TAMPER WITH-ENTER-OTH-MTKI 0 0 0 I 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 THEFT-FE-AUTO-MORE THAN 2500 0 0 0 2 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 VEH-NOT MORE 500-FE-THEFT-MOTORCYCLE 1 0 0 1 0 0 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 VEH-250 OR LESS-MS-TAMPER WITH-AUTO 0 0 0 2 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 WEAPONS-MS-RECKLESS HANDLES-PISTOL-NO CHAR 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 97 percent 3 11 37 45 48 0 0 0 1 3.09 11.34 38.14 46.39 49.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 Licensed to Mound Police Department Page 5 of 5 -2682- 500 South Maple Street · Waconia,'MN 55387-1791 952/442-2191 800/967-4620 June 11, 2003 Mayor Pat Meisel City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Dear M~ Thank you very much for your support of Ridgeview Medical Center's legislation to increase our licensed bed capacity from 109 beds to 129 beds. I'm pleased to report to you that this legislation passed as part of the Health & Human Services bill and was signed into law by Governor Pawlenty. We believe that the continued expansion of Ridgeview Medical Center is good for our patients and for the economic health of our region. Thank you again for your support of this legislation and Ridgeview Medical Center. incerely, Robert Stevens President RS:jah Affirmative Action ,-2683-)pportunity Employer Page 1 of 4 Kandis M Hanson From: To: Sent: Subject: "Leah Weycker" <weyckerl@westonka.k12.mn.us> "Leah Weycker" <weyckerl. CentraI.Westonka@westonka.k12.mn.us> Wednesday, June 18, 2003 4:46 PM WHCC agenda 6/25 * * * Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative*** Agenda - June 25, 2003 12:00- 1:30 PM Gillespie Center 2590 Commerce Blvd. Mound Any comments or questions, contact Leah Weycker, Collaborative Coordinator, at 952-491-8058 or WeyckerL~westonka.kl2.mn.us 1. Lunch 12:00 Feel free to bring your own bag lunch or join us for a light "free will donation" lunch, suggested value $6.00. 2. Introductions 3. Additions or Changes to the Agenda / Minutes 4. Announcements 5. Updated Budget We will have time for question on the updated budget for the Collaborative. 6. Jim Kurtz, Mound Chief of Police Meet the new police chief in Mound, Jim Kurtz. Jim will discuss his plans for Mound's Police Department and community policing. NO MEETING IN JULY - ENJOY THE SUMMER! "Our nation will succeed or fail to the degree that all of us - citizens and businesses alike - are active participants in building strong, sustainable and enrichingcommunlt~es.' ' " --Arnold Hiatt * ** Advisory Group Updates * * * Health Sandy Olstad, Laurie Fitz, Mary Goode, Jeanette Metz, Mark Brekke, Carol Miletti, Kevin Erickson The health group has not met this month. - 2684 - 6/19/03 Page 2 of 4 Youth Activities Sandy Rauschendorfer-temp chair, Jean Ann Thayer, Kathy Jones, Kim Erickson Heiar 12 kids are participating in two groups of NYPUM (National Youth Program Using Minibikes) this summer. For the first time, we were able to take kids that participated in the past. The school counselors selected the kids that are doing well on their contracts or need more help. Their is a waiting list for additional kids. All six of the returning kids showed up for the van ride to Monticello at 7 AM. That was a surprise to me! Drains are in at the skate park. Volunteer labor is going slow but consistent. Next step is to dig the hole and pour the cement. Parent Education Sandy Wing, Sandy Olstad, Bill Erickson, Amy Taggart Parent group distributed new parenting brochures to the library and will look into adding racks at more churches. Amy, the parent advocate will work on this with Sandy Olstad. Amy and Leah tied 250 balloons at the Trista Days celebration May 31. This was a great way to get out information about the web site - www.westonka, org. We are planning on doing Dog Days in Navarre. Community Margaret Holste, Carol Olson, Ginny Lazano, Jeanette Metz, Dena Kuenzel, Bill Anderson The Community group continues to review data. We will be discussing the action steps of this group after gathering more information from the building director of Mound and the police chiefs of our three cities. Executive Craig Anderson, Carol Olson, Margaret Holste, Sandy Wing, Sandy Raushendorfer, Mary Hughes The Executive group did not meet. Alliance for Families and Children in Hennepin County The Alliance has distributed applications for funding for "Allies for Change Grants". We have used these grants for parent education and the attendance projects last year. Next year much of the funding will be used for the Excel coaching positions as well as the parent advocate and the parent education group. *** WHCC Minutes *** May 28, 2003 Attending: Kathy Jones, JeanAnn Thayer, Deb Truesdell, Ginny Lazano, Dena Kuenzel, Pete Meyer, Amy Taggart, Leah Weycker, Sandy Wing, Mary Hughes, Margaret Holste, Scott Palmer, Sandy Rauschendorfer, Gwenn Spence, Gene Zulk Due to Chairperson Carol Olson's absence, Vice-chair Sandy Rauschendorfer presided. -2685- 6/19/03 Page 3 of 4 1. Agenda and Minutes: Sandy Wing moved and Mary Hughes seconded the motion to approve the minutes as printed. Approved unanimously. There were no changes or additions to the agenda. 2. Announcements: * Although the Relay for Life for Westonka and Orono is scheduled for June 27 and 28, they need people to help plan and run it. Let Leah know if you are interested in helping. * The Executive Group approved the budget in concept based on revisions made by work groups after our last meeting as well as transfer of some projects to Alliance Grants (with Alliance approval.) We were able to fund most proposals although some were cut back. We have $30,000 in reserve in case monies don't come in as predicted. This seems in line with the mount (15%) that has been recommended to community education. Although there is a two year spending limit on some of our funds, we have not had problems with carry-over because it is calculated across the county. Letters are being sent to applicants regarding the amount of dollars approved based on funds being available. Leah is also requesting missing or additional information from some projects. She will e-mail WHCC members a copy of the revised budget. * Amy and Leah will be sharing WHCC information at Trista Day on Saturday, May 31, 2003. * Leah will no longer be an independent contractor in her coordinator position, but will be a school district employee. There is no change in cost to the WHCC, and she will continue to "report" to us rather than a school district administrator. The major change is that she will have access to benefits rather than paying her own medical insurance and estimated taxes. The WHCC executive committee reviews Leah's performance annually and makes a salary recommendation. Optimally this should be completed before the WHCC budget is approved. Gene Zulk, Superintendent, shared that the school district is happy to have Leah as a district employee. 3. By-laws Review: A copy of the current Bylaws was shared. In reviewing the section on membership, Leah asked that we consider a change of wording to clarify when someone is no longer a member as membership gives someone the right to vote at WHCC meetings including approval of our budget. Although being part of a work group is encouraged, it is not a requirement for voting. In addition, those people who only attend work group meetings do not have voting privileges at WHCC meetings. After discussion, Scott Palmer moved, seconded by JeanAnn Thayer, that wording be added to 3.4 of the bylaws stating voting privileges will lapse after missing three consecutive WHCC meetings with no communication to the collaborative coordinator. Approved unanimously. Leah will share copies of the revised bylaws at a future meeting. 4. Guidelines for Requesting Funds: Since we have not had clear funding guidelines including due dates and criteria, we discussed ways to improve the process. Leah shared the - 2686- 6/19/03 Page 4 of 4 forms used to request project funding (Part A) and to report results (Part B). It was suggested that an item be added to Part A asking whether the project had been previously funded. Leah also shared a draft checklist for the funding process that all work groups would use as they review projects. It includes the priorities of our collaborative as well as those of the county and the legislation that set up family service collaboratives. It was suggested that the latter be moved to the top of the section and that the word "required'' be added. It was also suggested that an item be added to the checklist asking if other funding sources have been applied for. Leah requested that work groups review the checklist and bring feedback to the next meeting. After discussion of the need to begin our budgeting process earlier in order to comply with the timelines of the school district as our fiscal agent, Mary Hughes made a motion, seconded by Sandy Wing, that the deadline for proposals be the Friday of the first full week in January, that work groups review them and set priorities for funding prior to the WHCC meeting in February, that recommendations for funding be shared by workgroups at the February WHCC meeting, and that the budget be voted on at the March meeting and submitted to the district in April. Approved unanimously. Projects could then be notified in May by letter stating approval provided funds are available. A copy of Form B would be included with the letter. (It was decided that these are "procedures" rather than an addition to the by-laws.) As part of the funding discussion, we discussed how other collaboratives deal with funding requests including some who ask for RFP's from throughout the community. We have historically preferred to have projects generated by members of WHCC or work groups, but often the projects became additional work for Leah. Although our work groups include community members, Amy added that many people in the community are not aware of us. Therefore, it seems time to again do PR to share information about WHCC and our projects, and to invite community members to join work groups so that they can share their concerns and ideas for possible funding. We also need to educate LCTS responders about the value of their job so that we get maximum funding. In addition to the thank you's Leah already does, Kathy and JeanAnn offered to meet with special education staff for this purpose. Gwenn Spence will work with them to schedule this in the fall. Margaret moved, seconded by Kathy, that the meeting be adjourned. Approved unanimously. Margaret Holste, Recorder - 2687 - 6/19/03 CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Outlots Tumover- Mound Marketplace / Village by the Bay Punchlist of Items to Be Completed Date of Field Inspection: Attendees: May 28, 2003 John Cameron, Jim Fackler and Sarah Smith Excel anchor pole on west side of Bellaire Lane is in the side and needs to be relocated. Grass is very thin on Outlot B. Area needs to be top dressed with good top soil to fully establish tuff. Temporary construction sign (Flannery) needs to be removed from Outlot B prior to turnover to City. Planting(s) need to be verified for consistency with Landscaping Plan approved with Subdivision Agreement. Status of tree warranty needs to be verified with Subd. Agreement. Boulevard area along Bellaire Lane should be sodded. Outlot along Elm Road has been washed out. Groundcover (ie. sod and/or seed) must be fully established. Boulevard area along Elm Road should be sodded. MP needs to procure a Public Lands Permit for the street lights located on the Outlot near the entrance to VBTB. Application was submitted the week of June 2 and is under review by City staff for completeness. Remnant fence post along south side of Elm Road needs to be removed. Power pole along Elm needs to be removed. The bituminous trail connection to Elm Road, in the northeast corner of the development, is not acceptable. The remainder of the old concrete driveway apron must be removed and new concrete curb and gutter installed. Where the trail intersects the street, a concrete gutter and small concrete apron section must be installed to keep the water in the street' and not allow it to run down the trail. The apron must meet the handicap requirements, just as a pedestrian curb ramp would. -2688- 12. All unused construction material(s) and/or debris should be removed from the Outlots. 13. The system manuals for the irrigation system which was installed need to be provided to the Parks Department. In the event it has not already been done, the system should be checked. The status of the warranty for the irrigation system needs to be verified. 14. The southeast comer of Outlot B north of Jubilee Foods need to be seeded and/or sodded. It is currently gravel. 15. Concrete slab at entrance of new park area(s) is cracked in the northwest comer and needs to be replaced. 16. The condition of the sidewalk in the Outlot on the east side of Great Houses needs to be evaluated to determine if it is in an acceptable condition. Other Discussion Items 1. The status of the fence located along the west side of the property needs to be evaluated. Specifically, the barbed wire fence on the top portion of the fence should be removed as it is not allowed by City Code. 2. The silt should be removed from the stormwater pond. 3. Fence along the south side of the property adjacent to the alley must be removed. · Page 2 -2689- -2690- 100. The Chaska Herald :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.:.:LI Advanced Search Search Sponsored by HOME PAGE Help Desk/FAQ Sneak Peek at Tomorrow's News Weather Sian up for our email edition Sign up for our print edition News Top stories Opinions Sports Obituaries Police/Courts 5ociety Entertainment Public notices Chaska's 150th Minnesota River Directories Home improvement Area churches Entertainment Guide Special sections Hidden Treasures Hawk Talons Chaska Today The newspaper Contact us Subscriptions Page 1 of 3 Local ( Ameri~ premie~ south c See we Premi( Water A HO.ME IN $0 TOP STORIES Print, Email, or comment on this story Council mulls over solutions to state aid cuts Mark W. Olsonf Staff Writer Wednesday, June 18, 2003 "Tax rates go down, services go down," said Mayor Gary Van Eyll. Halla r Lands( perenn Prior L New/u.~ fish, pc watersI 20 acr( Fahey_! Auctior "Can you feel the love," responded Councilor Chad Dockter. "We're from the state and we're here to help you," quipped Councilor Bob Lindall. "This was the most disappointing legislative session I've ever seen," Councilor Randy Maluchnik added later. The councilors were discussing the cards dealt them by the Minnesota Legislature in the last session - lower state aid to cities combined with restrictions on increasing tax levies. BOATS USED - MARII~ Buy a [ than th house! Curve., 30-min weight Order I; appean Herald With this in mind, the council passed $318,405 worth of budget adjustments to cover the 2003 shortfall. The changes included everything from increasing dog licenses by 50 percent to eliminating a $25,000 "thinking grant." This is just the beginning. The council also considered what to do with a loss of $413,11! in revenue for 2004 and another $500,000 state aid decrease by 2005. "The challenge for us as a growing community is not filling positions we need filled," said City Administrator David Pokorney. In a workshop session following its lVlonday night meeting, councilors considered how to cover the holes left by the aid reductions. A few ideas inCluded electric rate hikes, natural gas fees, proceeds from a second gas turbine, and a 20 percent property levy increase (if levy limits are rescinded). Minnegasco provides Chaska with natural gas and the city is allowed to collect a "franchise fee" as compensation for the use of public right of way. If Chaska im'~~'~:ent franchise fee it could raise about $400,000. A customer paying $46 per month would pay an additional $2.30, which would be remitted to the city, Pokorney said. Approximately nine other cities in the metro area already have gas franchise fees. includina Minneaoolis. St. Paul. Coon Rapids. Robbinsdale and 30BS,_] 30BS,j .lO BSa_] Home needs; direct( Stop at water: piannin http:.../main, asp?FromHome= 1 &TypelD= 1 &A~_i~r~=4426&S ectionlD=2&Sub SectionlD= 6/! 9/2003 The Chaska Herald Page 2 of 3 Photo reprints Submit news Story tips Submit births Submit engagements Submit weddings Write a letter How to advertise The website Links FA(~'s Contact us E-mail edition File gallery Feedback Guestbook How to advertise Community Calendar Entry "how-to's" Add Event Merchants Local merchants Photo reprints 3obs Now Classifieds Announcements Auto Mart Automotive Employment For Sale Real Estate Rentals Sales Services Sports Deel~haven. ~everal o[her ~ities are 'currently ;:on~idering franchise fees as an alternative to lost state revenue, Pokorney said. Councilor 3ay Rohe said he wondered if the Legislature would try to stop this source of city revenue. Another option is increasing the city's municipal electrical rates by 3 percent, generating $450,000 annually. However, Pokorney noted, industries use the largest share of electricity in Chaska, and decide where to locate based on costs. Dockter said he preferred raising electrical rates, "rather than create a new tax." Another gas turbine could raise $350,000 to $450,000 annually, Pokorney said. The city would know by September whether its electric cooperative is interested in adding another turbine in Chaska. The city staff will be working on a five-year forecast in the next few months, and will develop a "specific strategy" to address future aid cuts, Pokorney said. Article Comment Form Please feel free to add your comments. Article comments are not posted immediately to the Web site. Each submission must be approved by the Web site editor, who may edit content for appropriateness. There may be a delay of 24-48 hours for any submission while the Web site editor reviews and approves it. Note: All information on this form is required. Your telephone number is for our use only, and will not be attached to your comment. Name: i' Telephone: E-mail: http :.../main. asp?FromHome= ] &TypeID= ] &Ar::~r~Z 4426& SectionID=2&Sub SectionID: 6/19/2003 THE SUMMER 2003 A PUBLICATION Of THE LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION The Lake Minnetonka Association is a proud sponsor of the Excelsior Fourth of July Fireworks display. Last year's fireworks display attracted about 22,000 spectators on land and about 8,000 on water! Your tax-deductible contributions to the 2003 Fireworks go to offset the $20,0~0 ~dgeted cost for the fire- works: T~ ':E~cce~[~' 4 Comn e C events commf~t~ :'~: ~, ~ ' 7.:~. r~% sp.6~i ,~ Lj?vlA~; ,~i,o,r~,,G~amber ,7:" ,,~,~): ' .;.):~3~ ~¢,:::' Hea~'~'~ ~h~ .tear- for~ i~ the back this newsletter ~ make your contri- bution todaF Annual Membership Meeting ,: JUly 22 The LMA will hold its annual member- ship meeting on July 22 at 7 p.m. at Deephaven City Hall, 20225 Cottage- wood Road, Deephaven: All LMA mem- bers as welt as people interested in LMA membership are encouraged to attend. The meeting will include a report about the past year's activities, highlights of upcoming issues and activities, and' dis- c%sion iabb~U~additiOnat .and i.future 60n- cerns. Please pi~/n' to'attend. '- Members Matter Dick Osgood, Executive Director We are on a roll. The LMA'is involved in many important issues affecting our beautiful lake. As summer is-upon us, we look for- ward to enjoying time on the lake, free from nuisances and distrac- tions. The LMA is working hard to keep Lake Minn~tonka a'safe and pleas- ant place to live, work and play. For example, we are a major spon- sor of the zebra mussel inspection program, which began on Memorial weekend. We are work- ing at the state level on new con- trois for milfoil. We are working with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District on recre- ational use issues and lakeshore development. We are a major con- tributor, thanks to your donations, to the annual Excelsior Fourth of July Fireworks. We keep you informed through this newsletter and our weekly cable access show. We hope you find our efforts valu- able - ~nough so that you become a member or make a contribution. We need lakeshore owners, lake businesses and anyone interested in protecting Lake Minnetonka to support our cause. Our efforts on your behalf require continued sup- port. An annual membership pay- ment is the simplest, easiest way to help. SUMMER 9~f~ · PAGE 1 -2695- Your membership and contribution dollars are spent wisely. The majori- ty of the LMA's budget goes to write, publish and mail this newsletter Dick Osgood to 7,500 lakeshore residents and lake businesses. We believe it is absolutely critical to keep the lake community informed about issues from our members' perspective. Another share of the budget pays for administrative activities which include: overseeing the day-to-day operations of the business, produc- ing the weekly cable TV show, attending LMCD and other meet- ings, coordinating Board activities and representing the LMA in the community. We believe every lakeshore owner and lake business should support the LMA. Our influence increases with our membership base - numbers speak volumes. So, in addition to your financial support, the LMA is strengthened by numbers. Please support the LMA. If you have not joined or made your con- tribution, please do so now. If you are already a member or support, Thanks. Please consider making an additional contribution. Our members matter! University of Lake Minnetonka The LMA welcomes the University of Lake Minnetonka as a corporate supporter. The University of Lakes - Minnetonka Campus is a for profit business that was created to pro- mote community within the Lake Minnetonka area. The University' of Lake Minnetonka sells hats, shirts and other clothing and donates 10% of ALL PRODUCT SALES to the Lake Minnetonka Association. You may purchase merchandise through their web site(www. UniversityofLake Minnetonka.com) and support the LMA. Let's Clean Lake Minnetonka from top to bottom! June 21st is the Lake Minnetonka Lake Clean Up Day. We expect about 100 divers to participate this year. The event has been planned and coordinated by LMA Board member Mike Mason, who is also a diver. The Minnesota Frogmen and the LMA coordinate the event and Crystal-Pierz Marine is a major sponsor. Maynard's Restaurant hosts the divers and provides lunch afterwards. "ON THE LAKE" is a quarterly publication of the Lake Minnetonka Association, P.O. Box 248, Excelsior, MN 55332 ISSUE 2003:2 · JUNE 2003 I I HOW TO CONTACT THE LMA Phone Number: ............ (952) 4704449 E-Maih .......... Minnetonka@Mnlakes.org Web Site: ...... www. mnlakes.org/Minnetonka This year's event has been expanded to include individuals or groups around the lake to dean up the shore around homes or to adopt a park or public area of the lake. Many lake communities will provide trash pick up and disposal. "This program adds to the other stew- ardship efforts of the LMA," says Mike The zebra mussel inspection program is a reality. 'Thank you' to several key contributors who made the LM~s par- ticipation possible. I am proud of the LM~s role in this pos-. Gedney Tut-tie itive, protection and prevention program. I believe that without the LMA's involvement, this program would not have happened. LMA members should be proud too. The lake dean up event is another visible and tangible program supported by the LMA. We expect 100 divers to help dean up Lake Minnetonka by bring- ing up trash and debris. Our corporate sponsor, Crystal-Pierz Marine, has also coordinated with the cities around the lake to coordinate cleaning up the lakeshore the same day. Again, I am gratified the LMA is a real player in keep- ing our lake clean. I hope lakeshore owners and businesses will participate. We once again look forward to the Fourth of July Day events sponsored by the Excelsior Area Chamber of Commerce. The full day concludes with the wonderful fireworks display, made possible in large part by the generous con- tribufions of our members. The LMA is involved in many more activities too. Please refer to our web site or call o~ Executi,ve Director, Dick Osgood, if yo~t to learn more or become involved. We also need your financial support. Planning, coordinating and implementing our programs require money. As well, being an advocate for lakeshore owners and lake businesses is a big job. Please renew your membership, join for the first time or make a donation to the LMA. Have a wonderful summer on the lake. Gedney Tuttle 685 Excelsior Boulevard * Excelsior,/elH 55331 - (952) 470-1800 DON STODOLA WELL DRILLING CO., INC. SINCE 1945 3841 North. Main St., St. Bonlfaclus, MN 55375-0065 WELL AND PUMP SERVICE WELL ABANDONMENT RICK STODOLA, President Office (952) 938-2111 or (952) 446-WELL Re~. (952) 472-5253 · FAX (952) 446-9670 www.$tod01awell.com MN# 27172 suM- 2696-.~E 2 Mason, LMA Board member. "As a diver on Lake Minnetonka, I know there.k a lot of trash littering the lake a~bottom. This is one way I can help keep t~e lake clean." The LMA hopes this attitude will spread around the lake. For more irfformation about this event, contact Mike Mason at 952-472-4575. Access Inspections Underway Access inspections to help prevent the introduction of zebra mussels and other exotic species are under- way. Inspectors began inspecting boats and trailers on Memorial weekend. The inspectors will con- tinue through mid-September. This year's program is an expanded ver- sion of last summer's successful pilot program. Inspectors will conduct physical inspections at key public access on Lake Minnetonka and provide an effective educational message to boaters about the harmful effects of zebra mussels and other unwanted exotic plants and animals. The LMA is pleased to again be working With the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District to coordinate and help fund this important activity to protect or lake. Funding for this project comes from the Legacy Foundation, the LMCD, the LMCD's Save-the-Lake Fund as well as from members of the LMA. The budget for this year's inspections is $18,000 and the LMA has raised a significant part of this. The LMA welcomes contributions to our Exotic Species Fund to support this effort. MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL -- CONTRIBUTIONS ARE NEEDED! Thank you to LMA members who have renewed their membership. Your dues help support the important work of the LMA. WE NEED MORE LAKESHORE OWNERS AS MEMBERS. Without a larger base of support, the LMA cannot continue to provide a voice for the betterment of our beautiful lake. Membership categories are: Basic Member .................................... $50 *About covers the costs of basic member services Sustaining Member ................................ $150 *Provides resources to sustain LMA's activities Captain .......................................... $500 *The highest membership level Business Member .$250 *Lake-related businesses supparting the LMA Support the Exotic Species Fund. The ESF a/lows the LMA to aggressively prevent the spread of new exotic species into Lake Minnetonka and he/ps to better control those already in Lake Minnetonka. Make a contribution. Additional contributions help strengthen the LMA. THANK YOU, Bob Beutler Tom Kenyon Cleo & Donna Powers OsNTRIBUTORS SINCE Paul & Beverly Blomberg Judy & Bruce Kobs Richard Rademacher T LMA NEWSLETTER! ~on Bozlinski Betsy & Jule H~naford .. Dick & Jill Ragatz PTAINS ($500 +) Mat%l~'e~v & Cynthia Burns Rick & Dottie Hanson Brian Rasmussen Mr. & Mrs. H. Brewster Atwater, Jr. Julia & Mark Chatterton Fredrick Hey Jason & Audrey Richman Fred Clark Mrs. Charles Holmes George & Annelies Sayer SUSTAINING ($150 - $499) Gene & Carol Dahlin Diane & John Huston Audri Schwartz Donna & Warren Beck Delores Du Toit Ann & Robert Jackson Henry See Richard & Terri Bowman Welles Eastman Terrence & Wanda Joy Dale & Mary Sirsunons Russell Bennett Donald & Jean Elmberg Wallace & Audrey Larson Richard & Judith Spiegel Ralph Bumet Bill & Karen Erickson M/M Morris Levy, Jr. Jim & Mollie Suddendorf Mary Lee Dayton Judy & Tom Ess James & Marie McBride Scott Suttle Don & Heidi Haberman M/M Kingston Fletcher Martie & Ross McGlasson Tim & Beth Traft Louis Heffelfinger Kate Flom & Malcom Reid Ted & Janette Metz Peter Watson J. Hinnenthal Gorden/McClelland Craig Moen David Wessner Tom & Mari Lowe Jack Miller & Sharon Tauber Jennifer Mullm M/M Charles Zalk Jim & Laura Miles Jim & Cathy Gray ED. Newell BUSINESS ($250) Gary & Susan Rappaport Groveland Homeowners Association Helen Ohnesorge The Danberry Company Tim Thole Ralph Hatch Ed Oliver Mahogany Bay BASIC (UP TO $149) Sonja Hutchinson & Rick Rohrer Mitch & Klm Olson Sigma Engineering, Inc. Pat & Bunny Alexander David & Virginia Houck Connie Phillips Don Stodola Well Drilling Co., lnc.* H.M. Baskerville, Jr. Hollis Fritts & Nancy Kallio Molly & Ron Poole Wells Fargo Half Marathon* mm m m m m m mmm m m ~ w~m m m m m m mmm F/REWORKS AND OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS WELCOME/ P/ease complete this form and mail it with your tax-deductible contribution to the Lake Minnetonka Association, RO. Box248, Excelsior, MN 55331. Make your check payable to the "LMA." Thanks! Name(s): E-maih Address: I City, State, Zip: Phone: I I 1 I want to support the LMA at the following membership level: I ' [] Basic $50 - $149 [] Sustaining $150- $499 [] Captain $500+ [] Business $250 2. I want to support the "LMA Exotic Species Fund" . .................. $ 3. Other or Additional .......................................... $ I I 4. 2003 Fireworks Contribution ................................... $ ! The LMA is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. *Business members who have included additional contributions to LMA (thank you!). ~I'TIAN K YOU, CONTRIBUTORS TO THE EXOTIC SPECIES FUND! $500+ John Brooks James & Mary Jundt Bill & Tefi Popp Jan & Bill Spoor Gedney & Emily Anne Turtle UP TO $100 Gene & Carol Dahlin Margaret Davis Kate Flom & Malcom Reid Scott Suttle LMA BUSINESS ';:MEMBERS Please support . : the f011ow~ng lake;are~ businesses ihat contribute i' to the ~:.. : CryStal,Pierz.Maiiiie' i: LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 248 Excelsior, MN 55331 NONPROFIT ORG U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 108 Excelsior, MN 1,1,1,,I,1,,,11,,11,,,I,,I,,,11,11,,,,I,I1,,,I,1,,'I,,,11,11,,I 3801 Member# 16894 Ed Shulde Or Current Resident Mound City Administrator 5341 M ~aywood Rd Mound MN 55364-1627 -2698- -2699- m 06-18-2005 03:2~PM FROM LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICA TO 4?20620 P.02 -2701 - 06-18-200~ 03:23PM FROM LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICA TO 47206~0 P.O] -2702- TOTAL P.03 BUDGET DEFICITS SPENDING ISN'T THE PROBLEM State and local governments need productivity gains For the third straight year, state and local governments across the country are dealing with weak revenues, rising expenses, and the prospect of enormous budget deficits. In some cases, the problem has grown to a staggering size: Texas had to wres- tle with a $10 billion deficit, while Cali- fornia is still struggling with a shortfall as large as $29 billion. State legislators and governors have been stuck between two vocal groups. On one side are those who would raise taxes to save jobs and services. On the other are those who think that the deficits stem from a decade-long spend- ing binge and that cutting jobs is pre- cisely the way to go. But both sides are wrong: There's no that state and local spending is of control. By Business Week's esti- mates, employment in the state and lo- cal sector outside of public schools and the criminal justice system--including such mundane jobs as garbage collec- tion and recreation--has grown only 8% since 1993. That compares with a 19% rise in the private sector over the same stretch. Pay for state and local workers has trailed that of private counterparts. The only real increases in spending and employment have come in fields voters really wanted: education, criminal justice, and medical care. Unfortunately, those are precisely the areas where pro- ductivity is hard to measure and even harder to increase, even given all the advances in technology. As a result, while many states cut income tax rates in the 1990s, the combined state and local tax burden, including property and sales taxes, is near an all-time high. Consider pay first. Unlike the 1980s, the '90s were a good time to be working for a private company rather than the government. Inflation-adjusted compen- sation in the public sector--including both salary and benefits--rose merely 6% from 1993 to 2002, compared with a Igain for private-sector jobs. here's no sign of any pay boom, n for unionized groups such as teach- ers, police, and firefighters. Real median weekly earnings for these workers was more or less unchanged from 1993 to 2002, compared with a rise of 3% for workers in general. Similarly, benefits rose faster in the private sector than in the public sector. What about public employees in a city such as New York, known for its strong unions? Surprisingly, a recent study from the Citizens Budget Com- mission estimates that from fiscal years 2000 to 2004, wages and salaries for New York municipal workers will rise at a 3.5% annual pace. That's not much faster than the 3% increase in wages and salaries for private-sector workers nationally over the last year. Moreover, benefits are 29% of compensation, in line with the private sector, and health- care costs are rising at about the same rate as in the private sector. The one big difference is pension costs, which have soared in New York--but that is partly due to the fall in the stock mar- ket, cutting pension returns. Nationally, there's no sign of any big expansion in state and local hiring, ei- ther, outside of public schools and crim- inal justice. From 1993 to 2002, public education systems added the equivalent of 1.2 million full-time positions, almost 60% of total hiring by state and local. governments. A farther 20% came from hiring additional police, judges, and cor- rectional officers. Politicians did what STATE constituents wanted: educated their ldds and kept their streets safe. State and local governments have re- cently begun cutting jobs (except in ed- ucation), something not done in the pre- vious recession. According to the latest BLS data, noneducation state and local employment appears to have peaked in late 2002. Nevertheless, the public sector has not been able to improve productivity as fast as the private sector--and certain- ly not fast enough to hold down fiscal pressures. The BLS does not provide productivity figures for state and local government, but there's a way to make a rough estimate. The output of state 72 BusinessWeek / June 16, 2003 -2703- Since 1993, public-sector jObs, excluding education and criminal justice, are up by an estimated 8%, vs. a 19% Private-sector rise and local government can be thought of as the services that they provide, garbage collection being one example. As the population rises, more services are needed. If government workers are becoming more productive, then state and local employment should increase more slowly than the population. That's what happened--but the gsin in productivity wasn't sufficient. From 1993 to 2000, the total U.S. population rose by about 9%, while public-sector workers, again not counting education and criminal justice; rose by 4%. That means "output" per worker rose by roughly 5%. By comparison, output per worker in the typical private-sector service industry rose by about 20% from 1993 to 2000. There are productivity hurdles in ed- ucation and criminal justice that may be hard to overcome. For example, dur- ing the past decade, the growth of edu- cation employees far outpaced enroll- ment growth. Pupil-teacher ratios have plunged sharply, from 17.4 in 1993 to 15.1 in 2001, the last year available. Unfortunately, this increase in educa- tion workers per pupil was not accom- panied by a similar rise in accomplish- ment. The mathematics performance of 12th-graders, as measured by the gov- ernment's National Assessment of Edu- cational Progress, was about the same GOLDEN in 2000 as it was in 1992. GATE: 'l~e performance of four~' SECURITY: and eighth-graders incl. Strong up a bit, by about 3%. support'for Boosting this perform- funding ance is possible but not the police easy. For example, it · makes sense that school choice--allowing parents to pick their children's school--should put pressure on ex/sting schools to improve their per- formance. In practice, competition seems to work, but the impact is not over- whelming. A recent study from the Na- tional Bureau of Economic Research shows that competition from charter schools can produce a 1% gain in achievement at traditional schools. That's passing, but hardly an A. Improving the performance of the criminal justice system is even trickier. While po]ice, court;, and correctional jobs were soaring, crime was plunging, by 16% nationally. Under normal circum- stances, that would make such spending a natural candidate for cutbacks or pro- ductivity improvements. Indeed, earlier this Year, Oregon started laying off state troopers, letting people out of jarl early, and closing courtrooms one day a week around the state in order to save money. Across most of the country, shrink/n~ the public-safety workforce seems she sighted in a world where terrorist ~ tacks are a real threat. And public sup- port remains strong for anticrime measures: California, despite its budget woes, is still planning to spend $220 million expanding San Quentin State Prison's death row. The question, then, is how to the fiscal problems of the states and cities, especially ff the economy remains sluggish. In historical perspective, it's hard to justify any big increase in state and local taxes. In 2002, the state and local tax burden--including levies on personal income, property, and sales-- was 9.3% of gross domestic product, far above the 40-year average of 8.7%, and just a hairbreadth below the. record of 9.5% set in 2000. By comparison, the federal income tax is only 8.1% of GDt.: The bottom line: States and cities have been spending on the things that people want. The U.S. has made educa- tion a national priority, public safety is critical, and no one is ready yet to ra tion medical care. The key to U.S. economic growth the 1990s was the enormous increase in productivity across many industries. Unfortunately, productivity gains in e' ucation, crime-fighting, and health c are hard to come by. But that, in tl~! end, may be the only way for state~ and cities to make permanent headw~ against their fiscal crunch. By Michael J. Mendel in New York -2704- BusinessWeek/June 16, 2003 73