The URL can be used to link to this page

1994-03-08 AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1994 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 22, 1994, REGULAR PG. 748-754 MEETING. CASE//93-058: JAMES & CATHERINE VEIT, 2563 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOT 18, BLOCK 1, LOST LAKE ADDITION, PID//24-117-24 22 0032. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL RE: VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT. PG. 755-757 BID AWARD; WATER METER READING EQUIPMENT. -(MATERIAL WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TUESDAY EVENING.) 1994 COMMERCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAM - CARL BENNETSON, R. L. YOUNGDAHL & ASSOCIATES. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. PG. 758-759 1993 DEPARTMENT HEAD ANNUAL REPORT: JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR STORE MANAGER PG. 760 SET BID OPENING FOR 1994 SEAL COAT PROGRAM. (SUGGESTED DATE: MARCH 31, 1994, 11:00 A.M.) SET BID OPENING FOR REPAINTING OF EVERGREEN WATER TOWER. (SUGGESTED DATE: MARCH 31, 1994, 11:00 A.M.) PG. 761 746 10. 11. 12. SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL KNOWN AS SHIRLEY HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LOCATED IN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. (SUGGESTED DATE: APRIl. 12, 1994, 7:30 P.M.) PAYMENT OF BILLS. .INFORMATION/MIg CELLANEOUS PG. 762 PG. 763-771 Department Head Monthly Reports for February 1994. LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for February 1994. (To be handed out Tuesday) C. LMCD Mailings. PG. 772-796 PG. 797-799 De REMINDER. League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) annual Legislative Conference is scheduled for Thursday, March 24, 1994, in St. Paul. Please let Fran know ASAP if you are interested in attending. REMINDER: No COW Meeting March 15, 1994. Next COW Meeting is April 10, 1994, at 7:30 P.M. Economic Development Commission Minutes of February 10, 1994 & February 17, 1994. PG. 800-803 I. Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 1994. PG. 804-808 747 Mound City Council Minutes February 22, 1994 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, February 22, 1994, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Phyllis Jessen, and Ken Smith. Councilmember Liz Jensen was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Edward I. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Official lon Suthefland, Finance Director Gino Businaro, Police Chief Len Harrell, and the following interested citizens: Dennis & Mary Brenny, Nancy Ketcher, Scott Schmieg, Ryan Schulz, Vern Veit, Catherine & Jim Veit, Nate Perbix, Alan Blackwell, and Michael Blackwell. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to approve the Minutes of the February 8, 1994, Regular Meeting, and the February 15, 1994, Committee of the Whole Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 RECYCI~TTO WINNER The Mayor stated that $200.00 Westonka Dollars were presented to Mr. & Mrs. Doug Minzel, 6164 Lynwood Blvd. for recycling the week of February 14, 1994. 1.2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CASE//93-058: JAMES & CATHERINE VEIT. 2563 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOT 18, BLOCK 1, LOST LAKE ADDITION, PID #2~ 117-24 22 0032, VACATION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT The Building Official explained that the applicants revised request is for the vacation of the easement on the northerly 45 feet of Lot 18. The applicant believes this easement is not necessary for drainage. The Building Official then reviewed the Planning Commission's Minutes from February 14, 1994. A motion recommending approval of the vacation of this easement failed on a 3 to 5 vote. The City Engineer stated that his memo of February 8, 1994, was not a recommendation for approval of this vacation, but merely a statement of fact. He referenced State Statute 412.851, Vacation of Streets. The City Attorney referred the Council to Minnesota Statute 412.851, Vacation of Streets. He stated that when the public has an interest in land, whether it's a street, alley, public grounds, public way or whatever it is, if that interest is going to be given up, the State has mandated how that is to be done and that is MS 412.851, "No such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so .......". That is the test. He referenced the Planning 7Yg Mound City Council Minutes February 22, 1994 Commission Minutes where several planning commissioner's stated that this statute does not apply because the headnote says this is vacation of streets and because we have an easement, we don't own it. The Attorney then quoted Statute 645.16, 645.17 and 645.49 on the interpretation of laws which are as follows: 645.16 LEGISLATIVE INTENT CONTROLS. The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature. Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions. When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit. When the words of a law are not explicit, the intention of the legislature may be ascertained by considering, among other matters: (1) (2) (3) (4) (7) ($) The occasion and necessity for the law; The circumstances under which it was enacted; The mischief to be remedied; The object to be attained; The former law, if any, including other laws upon the same or similar subjects; The consequences of a particular interpretation; The contemporaneous legislative history; and Legislative and administrative interpretations of the Statute. 645.17 P~IONS IN ASCERTAINING LEGISLATIVE INTENT. In ascertaining the intention of the legislature the courts may be guided by the following presumptions: (1) The legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable; (2) (3) (4) ($) The legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain; The legislature does not intend to violate the constitution of the United States or of this state; When a court of last resort has construed the language of a law, the legislature in subsequent laws on the same subject matter intends the same construction to be place upon such language; and The legislature intends to favor the public interest as against any private interest. 645.49 HEAl)NOTES. The headnotes printed in boldface type before sections and subdivisions in editions of the Minnesota Statutes are mere catchwords to indicate the contents of the section or subdivision and are not part of the statute. The Attorney then advised the Council that what is before them tonight is a public hearing to determine if it is in the public interest to vacate the easement on Lot 18. In essence, the Planning commission recommended against vacation. This is a utility and public walkway easement. The City Attorney gave the background of this easement, stating that the City Engineer's recollection of this is that originally both lots 17 and 18 were to be an Outlot and when the final plat was approved, the Council in 1983 asked that the Outlot be deleted for maintenance reasons and easements be taken on portions of the two lots. The easements were also taken so that there was access to docks as well as drainage for this subdivision. Councilmember Ahrens stated she could see no reason to retain this easement. Mound ~ity ~uncil Minutes F~ruary22,1~4 The Building Official stated that the rear corner of the house is too close to what is considered the rear lot line and will need a variance. He stated this was confirmed by the City Planner who considers the rear lot line to be the northeast line of lot 18. The Mayor opened the continued public hearing. Vern Veit - one of the original developers of this land, that it is his opinion that it is in the best interest of the public to vacate the easement as requested to allow construction of a garage for storage. He stated that the design for this lot was very poorly done and if the one lot line had been moved over the house could have been moved over 10 feet and the need for this vacation would not exist. Mr. Veit also questioned the Planner's interpretation of the rear lot line. The City Attorney stated that Mr. Veit could build the house exactly where it is shown, with a variance for the rear yard setback and without a vacation of the easement, but it is his understanding that he wants an upstairs and downstairs garage with two different driveways, one from the side and one from the street. Mr. Veit agreed. The Attorney stated that they have the right to do that even with the easement as it is. The problem is that if at any time in the future the City needs to use the easement for any reason, he is subject to having the pond built there. The Attorney further stated that there should be paper work signed by the Veits stating that they understand what the consequences could be by putting a driveway on the easement. Mr. Veit stated they are willing to take the risk but they have not been able to obtain a building permit from the Building Official for the following three reasons: 1. Placing part of the footing in the easement; 2. The 15 foot rear yard setback that just came up at the last Planning Commission meeting; and 3. The garage door on the north side of the house faces the drainage easement. Catherine Veit, stated that the reason the vacation was requested was so that they can develop and landscape the land and not worry about having it trampled and wrecked. She complained that it seems like the Building Official keeps coming up with reasons why they cannot build on this lot. She stated that she has done everything that has been requested by the City and still cannot get a building permit. Her opinion was that the the requested vacation area is not needed for drainage. Nancy Ketcher, 2502 Lost Lake Road - asked what effect this vacation would have on the docks that are in the area. The Staff stated the docks would not be affected. The Attorney stated that the issue before the Council tonight is the vacation of the easement and not the rest of the building permit issues that have been brought up tonight, i.e. the rear yard setback, garage door facing the easement, footings near or in the easement. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Mound City Council Minutes February 22, 1994 MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Smith directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the vacation of this drainage easement. The vote was 3 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried. The Council suggested that the Veits get together with thc staff on the rear yard setback, the garage door facing the easement, and the footing placement. The Veits stated they would call the City Manager for an appointment on these items. 1.3 CASE #9507: DENNIS & MARY BRENNY, 4909 THREE POINTS BLVD.. LOT 3. BLOCK 4. SHADYWOOD POINT, PID//13-117-24 11 0008, VARIANCE FOR DECK The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RF~OLUTION ~)4-26 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR A DECK AT 4909 THREE POINTS BLVD., LOT 3, BLOCK 4, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11 0008, P & Z CASE ~)4-07 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.4 RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION TO FILL VACANCY ON THE COMMISSION The City Manager reported that there were two applicants for this vacancy, Lisa Ann Bird and Lorraine Phernetton. The Planning Commission recommended the appointment of Lisa Ann Bird. Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g94-27 RESOLUTION TO APPOINT LISA ANN BIRD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A 3 YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 1996 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT 1.$ Scott Schmieg, 1736 Bluebird Lane asked why there is a difference in price between a straight dock and an L-shaped dock? The Council stated they feel it is perceived value of the different docks. pUBLIC LANDS PERMITS - BATCH g2 - PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON DOCK SITES. i.e. STAIRWAYS OR OTHER ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC LANDS Mound City Council Minutes February22, 1994 The Building Official explained that the Park.Commission acted on all items that needed no discussion with the following conditions: The permits will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval, unless otherwise noted in the Comments solumn of Batch The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder. Repairs to stairways, and erosion control measures be made as required by the Building Official and Parks Director. The Council asked that number 3 read as follows: e Repairs to stairways and the related erosion control measures be made as required by the Building Official and Parks Director. The Council agreed with the recommendations of the Park Commission. Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g94-28 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND ACCORDING TO "BATCH #2" The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A FISHING PIER AT CENTERVIEW BEACH & AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OF The City Manager reported that the State of Minnesota through the Department of Natural Resources will be installing a fishing pier at Centerview Beach. They have submitted an Agreement that needs to be approved and executed by the City of Mound. The City will have the following responsibilities: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Concrete work; Hard surfaced walk; City to operate and maintain, pay for routine maintenance; City to get license or permit to operate; City to take out or protect from ice damage; 20 year contract. Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g94-29 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A FISHING PIER AT CENTERVIEW BEACH & AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A Mound City Council Minutes February 22, 1994 CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Councilmember Ahrens asked if total cost to the City has been determined and whether or not this is in the Budget? The City Manager stated that the Park Director has reviewed this and feels we can cover the costs in the Park Budget. The Council suggested taking the money from the Liquor Store to cover the costs. The Council also suggested signage to let people know the fishing pier is there, trash control, and recycling containers. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 1993 DEPARTMENT HEAD ANNUAL REPORTS The following Department Heads presented their 1993 Annual Reports to the Council: Official Jon Sutherland, Police Chief Len Harrell, Finance Director Gino Businaro. 1.8 Building LICENSE RENEWALS: HEADLINERS BAR & GRILL - PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT & ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to approve a Public Dance Permit and an Entertainment Permit for Headliners Bar & Grill, 5241 Shoreline Drive. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 pAYMENT OF BILLS Councilmember Ahrens asked that $1,326.54 of the bill from McCombs Frank Roos be considered separately. She does not agree that this amount which has to do with boathouse removal should come from Dock Funds. This bill was pulled and acted upon separately. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $318,422.66, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Johnson to authorize the payment of a bill from McCombs Frank Roos, in the amount of $1,326.54, charged against fund #81- 4350-3100 Docks, when funds are available. The vote was 3 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried. 1.10 APPOINT TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION The City Manager reported that the EDC is recommending that Dave Willette be appointed. lessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g94-30 RESOLUTION TO APPOINT DAVE WILLETTE TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Mound City Council Minutes F&mary22,1~4 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFO~TION~SCELLA~US A. Financial Report for January 1994, as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. B. LMCD Mailings. Letter from Community Builders regarding application for funding from MHFA. The application has been rejested. This pertained to a lease to purchase program for single family dwellings for low to moderate income persons. League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) annual Legislative Conference is scheduled for Thursday, March 24, 1994, in St. Paul. Please note agenda. If you are interested in attending, please let Fran know ASAP. E. Memo from Multiple Dock Owner Association, re: multiple dock license fees. Fe .REMINDER: No COW Meeting March 15, 1994. Next COW Meeting is April 10, 1994, at 7:30 P.M. RF~[!~II)_.F,~ City Offices closed Monday, February 21, 1994, in observance of President's Day. H. Park Commission Minutes of February 10, 1994. I. Planning Commission Minutes of Feburary 14, 1994. The City Manager reported that Boy Scout Troop 571 from Our Lady of the Lake was present earlier in the meeting. Their attendance was part of a required exercise for the Communication Merit Award. The three that attended and one other that was not present will be candidates for the Eagle Scouts in the near future. Those present were: Leader Al Blackwell, Ryan Schulz, Michael Blackwell and Nate Perbix, not present was Steve Erickson. The Troop wanted to thank the Council and the Staff for the good example of work in the public interest. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 10:35 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL TO VACATE A PORTION OF AN ON LOT 18, BLOCK 1, LOST LAKE EASEMENT WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 412.851 authorizes the City Council by resolution to vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof when it makes a finding that: "No such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so .... " and, WHEREAS, a public hearing as required by the Statutes has been held and was conducted by the Mound City Council on February 22, 1994, at which time the City Engineer and the City Building Inspector presented information to the City Council along with written information and a written recommendation of the Planning Commission, and WHEREAS, on February 22, 1994, LaVern Veit and Cathy Veit appeared and spoke on behalf of the applicant requesting vacation of the drainage easement that lies southerly of a walkway that runs from Lost Lake Road to the wetlands lying west of Lot 18; and the Veits were requesting that that portion of the drainage easement lying southerly of that walkway to the location where they wished to construct a new home be vacated; and it was their testimony that in their opinion thatdrainage easement was not needed by the City; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission had considered this matter on several occasions and on February 14, 1994, a motion was made and seconded "to recommend approval of the easement vacation with the finding of fact that sufficient information has been provided to prove that the City is not going to be needing this portion of the easement for drainage in the future and that State Statute 412.851 entitled 'Vacation of Streets' is not relevant to this case and approval is contingent upon the amendment of the description for the easement to be vacated as follows" proposed description of the vacation was set forth in the motion, and the and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 5 to 3 in opposition to the motion, in effect recommending to the City Council denial of the request for vacation, and two of the three votes in favor of the motion were persons relying on the fact that Section 412.851 was not relevant to this case, and this information was transmitted to the City Attorney who has advised the City Council that under Minnesota Statutes Section 645.49, the headnotes printed in bold face type before sections and subdivisions of the statutes are mere catch words to indicate the contents of the sections and subdivisions and are not part of the Statute, and therefore the presumption made by two of the Planning Commissioners was erroneous, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has advised the City Council that if the drainage areas were being constructed under today's laws, they would have to be roughly double in size of the area that is currently in existence and which was constructed by the subdivider, and the City Engineer further indicated that if there is an extension in the future, the City would have to study its options, i.e., it could construct on the easement area or it might want to go in a westerly direction where the land is lower, but he has further advised that a resolution would have to be made as it relates to the blacktop walkway which crosses the drainage easement, since obviously that would have to be bridged in some fashion if the drainage area was extended to the south, and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has adopted the Wetland Conservation Act which requires that if the City utilizes any wetlands by filling, draining, or taking other action of that nature, it is required to mitigate that damage and to give two square feet of mitigation for each foot of intrusion into a wetland, and further that there are many other wetland regulations and water regulations that have been recently enacted by the State Legislature and the United States government which impose additional responsibilities on municipalities, and therefore it is impossible to know or even guess what the City's needs will be in the future, and WHEREAS, it has further been pointed out by members of the Planning Commission and members of the City Council that it is not in the public interest to vacate a public easement to accommodate how a lot owner wants a house located on a property when the lot has sufficient size and width to accommodate a very good sized home without encroaching on any of the public easements, and WHEREAS, the applicants have acknowledged that the drainage easement vacation is not their major consideration but rather the location of their proposed home and their desire to obtain a building permit, and the City Council felt that minor revisions in the house plans and/or relocation of the house on the lot could accommodate these desires without the need for a vacation of the public rights. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound, as follows: 1. The request for a vacation of a portion of the drainage easement on Lot 18, Block 1, Lost Lake Addition, is hereby denied for the following reasons: a. The City does not know what the future will bring in the line of drainage requirements in this area and the Council has been advised that under present drainage standards, the existing ponding area would have to be increased to double its present size. b. The house location requested should not dictate the need for a vacation of the public easement, and there has not been evidence presented to this Council to indicate that it is in the interest of the public to make a vacation of this easement. c. Members of the Planning Commission relied on an erroneous interpretation of the state statutes to find reasons for recommending approval, and the Rules of Statutory Construction and State Statutes as it relates to how its statutes are to be interpreted clearly point out that their reliance was on a "catch word" and not on a part of the statute. 2. It is a further finding of this Council that it is not in the public interest to vacate the easement, and that doing so would establish a bad precedent to vacate the public's right to utilize public areas merely to accommodate plans of private individuals which could be adjusted to accommodate their needs. 757 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL TO VACATE A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT ON LOT 18, BLOCK 1, LOST LAKE WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 412.851 authorizes the City Council by resolution to vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof when it makes a finding that: "No such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so .... and, WHEREAS, a public hearing as required by the Statutes has been held and was conducted by the Mound City Council on February 22, 1994, at which time the City Engineer and the City Building Inspector presented information to the City Council along with written information and a written recommendation of the Planning Commission, and WHEREAS, on February 22, 1994, LaVern Veit and Cathy Veit appeared and spoke on behalf of the applicant requesting vacation of the drainage easement that lies southerly of a walkway that runs from Lost Lake Road to the wetlands lying west of Lot 18; and the Veits were requesting that that portion of the drainage easement lying southerly of that walkway to the location where they wished to construct a new home be vacated; and it was their testimony that in their opinion that drainage easement was not needed by the City; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission had considered this matter on several occasions and on February 14, 1994, a motion was made and seconded "to recommend approval of the easement vacation with the finding of fact that sufficient information has been provided to prove that the City is not going to be needing this portion of the easement for drainage in the future and that State Statute 412.851 entitled 'Vacation of Streets' is not relevant to this case and approval is contingent upon the amendment of the description for the easement to be vacated as follows" and the proposed description of the vacation was set forth in the motion, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 5 to 3 in opposition to the motion, in effect recommending to the City Council denial of the request for vacation, and two of the three votes in favor of the motion were persons relying on the fact that Section 412.851 was not relevant to this case, and this information was transmitted to the City Attorney who has advised the City Council that under Minnesota Statutes Section 645.49, the headnotes printed in bold face type before sections and subdivisions of the statutes are mere catch words to indicate the contents of the sections and subdivisions and are not part of the Statute, and therefore the presumption made by two of the Planning Commissioners was erroneous, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has advised the City Council that if the drainage areas were being constructed under today's laws, they would have to be roughly double in size of the area that is currently in existence and which was constructed by the subdivider, and the City Engineer further indicated that if there is an extension in the future, the City would have to study its options, i.e., it could construct on the easement area or it might want to go in a westerly direction where the land is lower, but he has further advised that a resolution would have to be made as it relates to the blacktop walkway which crosses the drainage easement, since obviously that would have to be bridged in some fashion if the drainage area was extended to the south, and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has adopted the Wetland Conservation Act which requires that if the City utilizes any wetlands by filling, draining, or taking other action of that nature, it is required to mitigate that damage and to give two square feet of mitigation for each foot of intrusion into a wetland, and further that there are many other wetland regulations and water regulations that have been recently enacted by the State Legislature and the United States government which impose additional responsibilities on municipalities, and therefore it is impossible to know or even guess what the City's needs will be in the future, and WHEREAS, it has further been pointed out by members of the Planning Commission and members of the City Council that it is not in the public interest to vacate a public easement to accommodate how a lot owner wants a house located on a property when the lot has sufficient size and width to accommodate a very good sized home without encroaching on any of the public easements, and WHEREAS, the applicants have acknowledged that the drainage easement vacation is not their major consideration but rather the location of their proposed home and their desire to obtain a building permit, and the City Council felt that minor revisions in the house plans and/or relocation of the house on the lot could accommodate these desires without the need for a vacation of the public rights. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound, as follows: 1. The request for a vacation of a portion of the drainage easement on Lot 18, Block 1, Lost Lake Addition, is hereby denied for the following reasons: a. The City does not know what the future will bring in the line of drainage requirements in this area and the Council has been advised that under present drainage standards, the existing ponding area would have to be increased to double its present size. b. The house location requested should not dictate the need for a vacation of the public easement, and there has not been evidence presented to this Council to indicate that it is in the interest of the public to make a vacation of this easement. c. Members of the Planning Commission relied on an erroneous interpretation of the state statutes to find reasons for recommending approval, and the Rules of Statutory Construction and State Statutes as it relates to how its statutes are to be interpreted clearly point out that their reliance was on a "catch word" and not on a part of the statute. 2. It is a further finding of this Council that it is not in the public interest to vacate the easement, and that doing so would establish a bad precedent to vacate the public's right to utilize public areas merely to accommodate plans of private individuals which could be adjusted to accommodate their needs. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors March 8, 1994 Mr. Edward Shukle, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1687 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Water Meter Read System Award of Bid MFRA #10622 Dear Mr. Shukle: On March 1, 1994, bids were opened and read for a Water Meter Read System. Two (2) bids were received and they were as follows: Schlumberger Industries, Inc. $330,390.00 Water Pro Supplies Corporation $336,800.00 The low bid was from Schlumberger Industries, Inc. of Tallassee, Alabama, in the amount of $330,390.00. We have checked Schlumberger's bid proposal and bond and find that they are correct and the bid is balanced. We contacted Schlumberger Industries and several of their previous clients and found their work and systems are well recommended. In our review of Schlumberger's bid proposal, we found the proposal meets the requirements of the specifications. Therefore, it is recommended the contract be awarded to Schlumberger Industries, Inc. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. Rodney Gordon, P.E. RG:jmk An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF MOUND PREMIUM SUMMARY PROPERTY BUSINESS INTERRUPTION $ 8,535 $ 258 $ $ 8,247 258 CRIME PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISHONESTY CITY CLERK & TREASURER BONDS THEFT, DISAPPEARANCE & DESTRUCTION FORGERY OR ALTERATION MUNICIPAL LIABILITY ERRORS AND OMISSIONS $ 563 INCLUDED $ 365 $ 62 $ 50,257 INCLUDED $ 1,100 $ 200 $ 365 $ 138 $ 45,975 $ 5,896 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY UM/UIM PHYSICAL DAMAGE MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT INLAND MARINE LIQUOR LIABILITY FIREMAN'S AD&D WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOILER & MACHINERY $ 11,255 $ 451 $ 10,011 $ 1,112 $ 2,351 $ 8,580 $ 300 $ 55,554 $ 2,339 $ $ $ 13,500 555 10,699 N/A 3,056 7,731 300 53,234 2,217 TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL PREMIUM $151,993 $ 153,471 OPTIONAL QUOTES OPEN MEETING LAW $ 754 EXCESS LIABILITY - WITH WAIVER - WITHOUT WAIVER $ 23,037 $ 17,047 NOTES: 1) LMCIT - All coverages deductible - $500.00 (Property, Inland Marine, Municipal Liability, Automobile Liability and Physical Damage, Crime/Theft, Disappearance & Destruction). 2) Under the Crime Section - the Faithful Performance Employee Dishonesty Bond was quoted with Hartford and includes City Clerk and Treasurer. Forgery or Alteration was also quoted through Hartford. (The Theft, Disappearance & Destruction coverage stayed with the League of Minnesota.) 3) The Automobile was quoted prior to the new replacement cost figures. 4) The Boiler & Machinery was re-written on a cancel/re-write. The premium shown for 1993-94 was that of the policy period June 25, 1993 - June 25, 1994. The policy period will now coincide with the rest of the lines of coverage. 5) Deductible options: $10,000/10,000/1,000 deductible - Save approximately $7,250. Option $25,000/25,000/1,000 - Save approximately $28,900 March 8, 1994 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 R.L. YOuNGDAHL & ASSOCIAIES 10261 Yellow Circle Drive Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 (612) 933-7488 FAX(612) 933-0916 Attn: Mayor and City Council Members: The proposed premium for all of your current Property/Casualty and Workers' Compensation insurance policies is $151,993 for this year. This is $1,478 less than last year. There are two areas of insurance that generate the majority of the premiums: 1) Municipal Liability - This covers bodily injury and property damage negligence claims including municipal errors and ommissions claims. This accounts for $50,257 in premium. 2) Workers' Compensation - Covers employee workplace injuries as required under Minnesota statutes. This policy premium is $55,554, subject to payroll audit. The League of Minnesota Cities Trust (LMCIT) has provided a stable insurance program for over 15 years, while other insurers have entered and left the marketplace. As a result of the LMCIT program, the City has received an average annual dividend of $27,465 over the past five years, further reducing your net insurance costs. The LMCIT is offering three coverage options for your consideration: Open Meeting Law Defense Cost Reimbursement Coverage - Will reimburse city officials for 80 % of the legal costs they incur to defend themselves if they are charged with violating the Open Meeting Law, to a maximum of $20,000 after the official has incurred these costs. Excess Liability Coverage Limits - The Minnesota Statutes limit the city's tort liability to $600,000 per occurrence. LMCIT provides a standard $600,000 liability coverage limit to match the statutory limit. However, there are several ways in which that coverage could turn out not to be enough. This is explained in greater detail in the attached LMCIT bulletin. City of Mound March 8, 1994 Page 2 o LMCIT Package Deductible Options - (Excluding Workers' Compensation and non LMCIT policies) - You presently have a $500 deductible, which applies to the actual loss payment only. The deductible options offered are: ao Deductible $10,000 each occurrence, $10,000 annual aggregate $ 1,000 per loss per line coverage thereafter, approximate $7,250 savings bo Deductible $25,000 each occurrence, $25,000 annual aggregate $1,000 per loss per line coverage thereafter approximate $28,900 savings Both the $10,000 and $25,000 deductible options include legal defense costs in the actual claim cost that would have to be reimbursed to the LMCIT. (See attached Deductible Endorsement - All Lines). A larger deductible could possibly reduce any potential future LMCIT dividends because there would be less premium. Dividends are at the discretion of the LMCIT Board of Directors, and cannot be guaranteed by law. It is a pleasure working with Council and Staff to provide for your insurance needs. look forward to your decision on the above options. Sincerely, Carl A. Bennetsen Commercial Representative CAB/bk League of Minnesota Cities OPEN MEETTNG LAW DEFENSE COST RE'rMBURSEMENT COVERAGE NOW AVATL~LE Beginning November 15, 1993, LMCIT is offering an new Open Meeting Law Defense Cost coverage. This optional coverage will reimburse city officials for 80% of the legal costs they incur to defend themselves if they are charged with violating the Open Meeting Law. This new coverage is quite different from anything LMCIT (or anyone else, for that matter) has done before. We'll try in this memo to answer some of the questions that will come up when city officials are deciding whether this coverage makes sense for their city. I. Why is this needed? Doesn't our existing LMCIT coverage apply to Open Meeting Law claims? Generally, no. The LMCIT liability coverage is designed to respond to claims for damages. The Open Meeting Law doesn't provide for damages; it provides for a $100 civil penalty, and loss of office for repeated violations. Fines and penalties are not "damages" for purposes of the liability coverage, and LMCIT therefor generally has no duty to get involved in defending Open Meeting Law charges under the liability coverage. The only exception is if the Open Meeting Law charge is combined with a claim for damages that is covered under the liability coverage. For instance, if an employee brought a wrongful termination action against a city, the employee might also charge that there was a violation of the open meeting as part of the termination process. In that case, LMCIT would be responsible for defending the entire litigation - the Open Meeting Law charge as well as the covered liability claim. But an Open Meeting Law charge by itself is not a claim for damages, and the LMCIT liability coverage would therefor not respond. II. Why provide coverage for this type of exposure? One of LMCIT's member cities asked the Trust Board to consider adding this kind of coverage. The request grew out of an instance in which several council members incurred very substantial legal bills defending themselves against an Open Meeting Law charge. The Trust Board recognized that defending an Open Meeting Law charge can cost a city official a lot of money. Defense costs are often the most significant financial consequence of these lawsuits. While the statutory penalty of $100 might be relatively minor, defense costs can easily run to thousands of dollars. And those costs are incurred whether or not the official is ultimately found to have violated the law. The Board acted on the assumption that most violations of the law are inadvertent and may even be on the advice of an attorney. The Board also realized that is easy for somebody to make an accusation of an Open Meeting Law violation, forcing the city council member to expend significant sums to defend him/herself regardless of the merits of the allegation. The threat of that kind of litigation could even be used as a tactic to intimidate or coerce council members in some cases. Finally, the Board assumed that most city councilmembers act in good faith and try to comply with the law. But sometimes even these best faith efforts are not enough to head off an Open Meeting Law lawsuit. III. Why should public funds be used to pay for defending someone who actually did violate the Open Meeting Law? Doesn't this encourage city officials to violate the law? The legislature has spelled out in the statute what the penalties are for violating the law: a $100 civil penalty, potential loss of office for repeated violations, and possibly an award of the plaintiff's attorneys' fees in some cases. If the individual has to pay for his/her own defense costs as well, the real monetary penalty to the individual can be many times greater that the penalty the legislature provided in the statute. And how much those defense costs are may not have much relation to how serious the violation was. If more serious penalties are needed to deter violations, the legislature can change the statutes. That makes more sense than relying on defense costs as a kind of hidden penalty that might be wildly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense, and are incurred even if there was no offense. IV. Why is the coverage optional? Why not simply provide it as a standard part of the liability coverage? The LMCIT Board recognized that there are good public policy reasons why a city might want to protect its officials from this risk. But the Board also recognized that some cities might consider it inappropriate to use their taxpayers' funds for this purpose. Making the coverage optional lets each city make this call for itself. V. What does the Open Meeting Law Defense Cost Reimbursement Agreement cover? Under the new coverage, LMCIT will reimburse a city official for 80% of the defense cost incurred by the city official in defending an Open Meeting Law lawsuit. The Open Meeting Law Defense Costs Reimbursement Agreement is limited to $20,000. This is the most LMCIT will reimburse any one city official for defense costs for Open Meeting Law lawsuits commenced during the term of the insurance coverage agreement, regardless of the number of lawsuits or the number of actual alleged violations. VI. What doesn't it cover? There are two major kinds of costs for which this coverage would not reimburse the official: 1. Any fine or penalty for violating the open meeting law. 2. Any award that orders the city official to pay for the opposing party's attorney's fees. As an example, suppose a newspaper is successful in bringing an open meeting claim against a city official. The judge awards a $100 penalty against the official and also orders the official to pay the attorneys fees incurred by the newspaper in bringing the claim. The new coverage would not pay or reimburse either the penalty or the attorneys fees awarded. Note too that this coverage would not cover any legal costs that the city might incur if the city itself were a party to the Open Meeting Law litigation - unless, of course, it was part of a suit that also included a covered claim for damages, as discussed earlier. VII. How will the Open Meeting Law Defense Cost Reimbursement Agreement work? The coverage is significantly different than other coverage provided under the standard LMCIT coverage agreements in a couple important ways. First, unlike LMCIT's liability coverages, the Open Meeting Law coverage does not pay the legal costs on the city official's behalf. Instead, LMCIT will reimburse the city official for 80% of those costs, to a maximum of $20,000, after the official has incurred those costs. The city official remains responsible for paying his/her defense attorney, including the 20% which LMCIT will not reimburse as well as any costs over $20,000. Second, the city official retains control of the litigation. The city official makes the decisions on what attorney to hire, whether to settle or compromise the litigation, whether to appeal, etc. The coverage i~ triggered when a lawsuit is served on the city official alleging a violation of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. If a lawsuit is filed during that term of the agreement, the city official has to do two things: 1. Notify LMCIT of the litigation; and 2. Select deEense counsel. VIII. How much will this coverage cost? Initially, we'll be basing the charge for this coverage on the premium for the city's liability coverage. Generally, the cost will be 1.5% of the liability premium, subject to a $500 minimum premium. In an individual city's case the premium could be somewhat higher if in the underwriter's judgement there is a substantially higher risk of Open Meeting Law claims in that city, though we expect this to be rare. IX. How do we go about adding this coverage for our city? Have your agent contact LMCIT's underwriters at Berkley Risk Services and ask for an application form. The underwriters will be able to return quote fairly quickly. X. Whom can we call if we have other questions? If you need additional information or have other questions, you can contact Tom Grundhoefer or Pete Tritz at the League office, or call the underwriter at Berkley Risk Services who handles your city. We'd also appreciate any comments or suggestions city officials have for ways this coverage could be improved, or for any other changes cities would like LMCIT to consider. 10/93 :lmcil8 EXCESS LI~BE2TY COVERAGE What can go wrong The statutes Hmit the city's tort liability to $600,000 per occurrence. LMCIT provides a standard $600,000 liability coverage limit to match the statutory limit. However, there ara several ways in which that coverage could turn out not to be enough. For example: The statutory limits do not apply to some of the city's liability exposures. Some possible examples are liability under the federal civil fights laws; liability assumed by contract; liability for actions in another state (under an inter-state mutual aid agreement, or while a city officer is attending an out-of-state :... · conference, for example); or inverse condemnation liability for land use .:... - regulation actions. · 'The LMCIT liability coverage includes annual aggregate limits on the products liability coverage, the limited pollution liability coverage, and the land use liability coverage. If the city should experience more than one liability incident in one of these areas in a single year, the city's LMCIT coverage ..... might not cover the full extent of the city's liability under the statute. · Although the statutory liability limits have now been tested several times in court and have been upheld, it is still conceivable that the courts might someday change their minds and hold the municipal tort liability limits unconstitutional. All of these represent ways in which the city could conceivably end up with more liability than it has coverage. If so, the city would have to bear the excess from its own resources. There is another issue too that some view as a problem. The tort liability limits literally mean that if an injured individual's proven damages exceed the statutory limits, he will not be fully reimbursed for the damage he has suffered because of the ~ity's negligence. Since the statutes include a "per-occurrence" limit as well as a "per- claimant" limit, an individual's reimbursement could be severely limited if a number _. of other people were also injured in the same incident. E.g., if 60 people were injured in a single incident -- say a bleacher collapses, or a city vehicle hits a school bus full of kids -- there could be as little as $10,000 available under the statutory limits to compensate each person. In other words, the statutory liability limits mean that sometimes an individual will not be fully compensated for the damage the city has caused. DEDUCTIBLE ENDORSEMENT- ALL LINES I. aMCIT shall bc liable to thc 'city' or to others on behalf of the 'city,' only to the amount of damages in excess of thc deductible amounts stated below: Each Occurrence Deductible $ General Annual Aggregate Deductible $ If the General Annual Aggregate Deductible is exceeded then the following deduct~les apply: $1,000. per loss, per line Damages include legal defense costs. Legal de£cnse costs means attorney tees, court costs, court reporting and transcript fees, general witness and expert witn~ fees and expenses, and similar legal defense related costs. Damages do not include claim adjuster fees. The terms of the covenant, including those with respect to (a) LMCYI"s rights and duties with respect to the defens~ of suits and (b) the 'dty's' duties in the event of an occurrence apply irrespective of the application of the deductible amount. LMCIT may pay any part or all of the deductible amount to effect settlement of any claims or suit and, upon notification of the action taken, the 'dry' shall promptly reimburse LMCIT for such part of the deductible amount aa has been paid by LMCIT. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. MEO30 Rev. 11/87 CITY OF MOUND CLAIMS VALUED MONTH ENDING 12/93 PAID LOSSES PAID EXPENSES --~'ES ERVE LOSSES RESERVE EXPENSES INCURRRED AMOUNT SALVAGE SUBRO AMOUNT DEDUCTIBLE RECOVERY $1,127.24 $12,787.26 (1) 1,075.79 Er $21,642.79 (2) 1 127.24 13,863.05 21,642.79 -66.00 Er' -98.27 $51,337.67 (3) (4) (5) 6,415.39 57,753.06 -53.26 -2,100.00 fPAID LOSSES MD EXPENSES RESERVE LOSSES RESERVE EXPENSES INCURRED AMOUNT -'-~-ALVAGE SUBRO AMOUNT DEDUCTIBLE RECOVERY -------- $15,816.75(6) 15,816.75 -910.20 - 1,009.60 $1,423.00 (7) 394.39 5,000.00 4,611.75 11,429.14 $3,725.13 3,725.13 $16,342.91 (8) (9) 17,650.00 15,000.00 48,992.91 -1,100.00 MAJOR CLAIMS $5,000 AND ABOVE: 1. 12/15/87 AUTO FIRE - $11,341 PAID LOSS 2. 9/19/88 INSURED AUTO REAR ENDED - CLAIMANT $12,012.47 PAID LOSS 3. 1/11/90 WATER MAIN BREAK - $29,649.00 PAID LOSS 4. 6/11/89 SEWER BACK-UP - $10,405.91 PAID LOSS 5. 1/17/90 AUTO COLLISION (FLIP ON ICE) $5,000 PAID LOSS 6. 1/15/91 WATERTOWER STAND PIPE BROKE - PROPERTY DAMAGE - $9,020.50 PAID LOSS 7. 5/8/91 NSP POWER OUTAGE - LIFT STATION FAILURE - $5,000 RESERVE LOSS 8. 2/9/93 ALLEGED PUBLIC OFFICIALS LIABILITY - $15,000 RESERVE LOSSES 9. 10/1/93 AUTO PD - INSURED VEHICLE HIT OTHER VEHICLE - $13,434.13 PAID LOSS CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD M©UND. MINNESOTA 553~4-1687 C'2) 472 0600 FAX 612! 472 0C25 1993 ANNUAL LIQUOR OPERATIONS REPORT ** by Joel Krumm 1993 is over and did it ever seem to go by fast. Besides the normal turn over rate in my part time employees, matters remained the same. There were only three changes of significance as far as the appearance of the store was concerned. First of all, I vastly improved the quality and selection in our wine department. When doing so I also did a major reset in this area, redefining categories making it easy and clear for the customer to shop. Secondly, in March I installed new counter tops, replacing the old worn out ones. To protect them from abuse and weathering, we placed plexiglass covers over them. And last, in April we had new carpeting installed. This replaced the old carpeting which had lasted for 16 years. A project that was long overdue. Total sales for all departments (beer, liquor, wine, mix and misc., and discounts) for 1993 were $1,317,201. Total sales for 1992 were $1,193,308. An increase of slightly over 10%! Beer was up 11.25%, liquor 9.25%, wine 10%, mix and misc. 9.50%, and the discounts we offer our customers on large purchases of liquor and on sales of wine on Mondays was up 20%. Total customers for the year totalled 110,745. Customer count for 1992 was 105,131. An increase of 5,614. Average sale per customer in 1993 was $11.89. In 1992, the average sale per customer was $11.35. The average sale was up 4.50%, roughly, the amount the cost of goods exceeded the cost of goods for 1992. Thus, the average sale per customer rising accounted for $56,770 more in sales while the expanded customer base accounted for $67,123 more in sales. Our total square footage for the liquor store is 2,855. If you take the total square footage and divide it by the total sales, you will arrive at $461 per square foot. However, the configuration of the store allows us approximately only 1600 square feet, includes beer cooler, for merchandising. Take 1600 square feet and divide by the total sales, The dollar amount per square foot rises to $823. I expect that 1994 will be a calmer year, unless, that is, we get a hot summer which we did not have in 1993. My conservative prediction for sales this year is around $1,350,000 to $1,360,000. JK:ls printed on recycled paper SECTION 00030 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS Painting 300,000 Gallon Elevated Water Storage Tank Mound, Minnesota Sealed proposals will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M., Thursday, March 31, 1994, at the Mound City Hall, at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud, for the furnishing of all labor and materials and all else necessary for Painting a 300,000 Gallon Elevated Water Storage Tank. The bids will be considered by the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, April 12, 1994. All Proposals shall be addressed to: Ms. Fran Clark, City Clerk City of Mound 5341Ma~wood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 And shall be securely sealed and endorsed on the outside with the statement "PAINTING 300,000 GALLON ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANK" and shall be on the Proposal Form included in the plans and specifications for the project. Copies of the Plans and specifications and other proposed contract documents are on file at the office of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447. Plans and specifications for use in preparing bids may be obtained at the offices of the Engineer upon payment of $25.00 per set, which is NON-REFUNDABLE. Individual sheets of the plans and sections of the specifications may be purchased at the rate of four dollars ($4.00) per sheet of plans and twenty-five cents ($0.25) per page of specifications, WHICH IS NON-REFUNDABLE. Each bidder shall file with his bid a cashier's check, certified check, or bid bond in an amount of not less than five (5) percent of the total amount of the bid. No bid may be withdrawn within sixty (60) days after the bids are opened. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and waive any informalities or irregularities therein. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA ATTEST: Fran Clark, City Clerk Skip Johnson, Mayor END OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 0o030 - i MFRA #9832 SECTION 00030 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS City of Mound, Minnesota 1994 Seal Coat Program Sealed bids will be received, publicly opened, and read aloud at the Mound City Hall at 11:00 A~.. Thursday, March 31, 1994 For application of approximately 40,000 gallons of bituminous material and Z,OOO tons of seal coat aggregate. The bids will be considered by the City Council at their meeting Tuesday, April 12, 1994 at 7:30 P.M. All proposals shall be addressed to: Fran Clark, City Clerk City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 And shall be securely sealed, shall be endorsed on the outside with the statement "Proposal for 1994 Seal Coat Program, City of Mound" and shall be on the Proposal Form included in the specifications for the project. Copies of the plans, specifications and other proposed contract documents are on file with the City Clerk and at the offices of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers and Surveyors, 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447. Plans and specifications for use in preparing bids may be obtained at the office of the Engineer upon deposit of $20.00. The full amount of the deposit will be refunded to each bidder who has made a deposit and has filed a bid with the Owner upon return of the plans and specifications within ten (10) days after the bids are opened. Each bidder shall file with his bid a certified check, or bid bond in an amount not less than five (5) percent of the total amount of the bid. No bid may be withdrawn within sixty (60) days after the bids are opened. The City of Mound reserves the right to reject any or all bids and waive any informalities or irregularities therein. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA ATTEST: Fran Clark, City Clerk Skip Johnson, Mayor END OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 00030 - 1 MFRA #6173 CITY of MOUND 534t MAYWOOD ROAD ?,~OkJNS MINNESOTA 55364 1687 ~6i2~ 472 0630 FAX i6'12; 472 0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 94-12 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL KNOWN AS SHIRLEY HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LOCATED IN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT 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, April 12, 1994 to consider the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit as requested by Indepdendent School District 277 to allow expansion of a public school (Shirley Hills Elementary) located within the R-1 zoning district. The expansion consists of a media center addition and a north .retry addition. The subject property is located at 2450 Wilshire Boulevard., and legally ;scribed as follows: All that part of Block 2, lying Northerly and Northeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point in the Southeasterly line of said Block 2 with the intersection of the Southwesterly line of 'Re-Arrangement of Block Seven (7), Shirley Hills, Unit B" extended Northwesterly; thence Northwesterly in a straight line to the point of intersection of the extension Southeasterly of the line between Lots 7 and 8, Block 3, Shirley Hills, Unit D, and the Westerly line of said Block 2, and there terminating, except that part of said Block 2 lying Southeasterly of the Southeast line of Tract F, Registered Land Survey No. 739, and Northeasterly of the extension Southeasterly of the Southwesterly line of Tract G, said Registered Land Survey No. 739, and except that part of said Block 2, lying North of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly line of Registered Land Survey No. 739, and the North line of Section 24, Township 117, Range 24; thence Southerly along the Westerly line of said Registered Land Survey No. 739 a distance of 33 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence Westerly and parallel to the North line of Section 24, Township 117, Range 24 to the Westerly line of said Block 2, in Shirley Hills, Unit D, Mound, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Hennepin County. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark?City C~rk {Mailed to property owners within 350' by Apr. 994, and published in "The Laker' on March 21, 1994.) printed on recycled paper BILLS · March 08, 1994 Batch 4024 Total Bills $79,826,48 $79,826.48 t z Z o oo i o Z 0 .J uJZ 0 o ~J ,4' O~ 0 ~1 o u~ Z · tj o t~J o o CD t~J o Z _J Z I-. Z :Z ~.j .s-- o 0 I t I I I I ooo I I I ooo I I I o1~. o o ,0 z 0 Z 0 Z 0 oo I o ,,4 I .J · o 0~ ~0 O o Z uJ O~ ~0 o Z 0 0 0 o Z O~ Z o ¢~ uJ Z 0 o oo O~ ! I o o oooo ooo ooo oo0 o oo ~4 .4' ! o ,4) o .4' ~4 o .~z 0 ',~ 0 ~0 ~ co o 0 o 0 ~1 Z ~'~ Z uJ uJ .4, O~ co 0 a0 o o 3~ 0 0 0 ~ Z C~ Z o 0 Z uJ · eO 0 0 % CO 0 0 Z UJ '4' O~ aC) 0 Z O~ Z ~. 0 .g o 0 Z ,4' ~0 o 0 C~ Z 0 t~ o 0 Z .4' o Q~ 0 Z uJ 0 O0 ~l~ 00 ! 0 I 0 0 Z t. IJ ~4 O0 I 0 00 0 0 000 0~'~4 0~4 I I O0 ~t~.4 I I ~l 0 I~t 0 0 0 Z t~l Z UJ UJ O~ 0 eo ~:: o 0 Z UJ O~ 0 Z Z 0 0 O~ 0 ,..4 0 O~ ~0 0 O0 0*4 0 f~ I ~4 0 Z · 0 0 Z ~ Z o Z · Z ~" 0 Z ~'~ 0 00 00 0 0 · t ~ O0 0 O0 0 O0 0 ~ ~ ~ O0 0 O0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ O~ 0 ~ O0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ oo ! o ! o oooo iii ooo III 0~ 1 i o ~ 0 V1 UJ Z hi O ~ ,-4 >' 0 0 uJ t~ .-I ~0 0 0000000000 000000000~ IIIIIIIII 000000000 ~~000 00~~ Illllllll 0o0000~ 0 0 Z · ~r _J 0 Z ~,' ~0 0 0 Z uJ .4' d · 0 0 C~ Z · Z 0 0 0 ~J o oo Z 0 Z I u. Z UJQ~ 0 ~-. O~ 0 0 Z uJ 0· o UJ 0 ~ o (~ 0 Z J J .~J C~ ,lC Z C~ bJ ~ Z Z 0 I t/1 Z o oo ~-~ ~-~ .4' I o o .4' I o Z~ 0 o .4' o 0 o b~ .4' O~ o 0 o Z ~ o 0 Z 0 oo ooo oo~-4 ! I ! ! ~le.4 oo ~J I ~J Z ~j~,~ ZZ On, ~ oo o oo o oo o oo · 4' ~-4 ,-4 -'~ oo o I~ i~ oo ~t n,- oO 0 0 ~ UJ '4' O~ ~0 0 I"' 0 o t~ .4' _j 0 z ,r 0 0 0 ,y* ' i 0 ua Z~ 0 · ~'~0 ZZ o oo I o f~ o CCU ZZ o ~-~ ooo ! ! oo Oo o O0 o o .4, I .4' ~0 0 o oo0 oo~4 ~-~ oo oo ! ! oo z z t~uJ uJUJ _j..J ZZ O0 zZ I I-I--'1 o oO 0-4 o i ol o uJ I l--_J o ~-~ oo o~4 'o , o ! ~0 f~ Z 0 0 2: LIJ Z 0 0 ,et -I 0 Z 0 t~ i 0 .4' 0 0000 0 ~ ~ 0000 0 ~ J 0 0 0 Z · o oooo I I ! ooo 00oo ! ! I of~l~ '3,z ~J Z..J ,-.~z o ooo oo,~ oo oo oo ~.~z. ZZ O0 ZZ I o o oo oo N o o ! o o o o ! I -4 ,.4 o 0 ~ O~ ~ ~0~ ~ 0000 o ~ ~ ~0~ ~ ~ ~ 000 0 ~ ~ O0 0 ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ 0000 0 ~ ~ ~o~ ~ oO 0 ~0~ ~ ~ ~ O0 0 ~ ~ .. j ~j ...... ~ ..... ~ ...... ~ ..... ,4' 0 0'. ~0 '~' 0 0 Z ~0 0 0 0 Z 0 o 0 '4' O, ~0 0 0 ~0 t~J 00 a.. 00 ~' 0 o 0 o 0 uJ uJ O. ~0 o o 0 KOEGLER 331 PO2 MAR BE) '94 17:35 March 8, 1994 To: Ed Shukle From: Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator Re: ISTEA project grant application. Due to the virtual completion of the federal freeway and highway system, the Federal Government has begun to redirect funding for transportation related projects. In 1991 the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (IS'rEA) was p/tssed to allow for mow creative and gra.~s-roots use of transportation funds, These funds are to be administered by various agencies, usually at the state or metro government level and made available to local govcmment~ for specific types of projects. IS'rEA grants are cost-share grants which means that the City must pay for at least 20% of the project. April I is the deadline for the current round of grant applications. The next cycle will not occur until 1996. Because of the magnitude of ISTEA grants, they are very competitive and the City of Mound would not only have to compete with other municipalities but with state agencies as well. Development of the Lost Lake channel and thc transient dock facilities along Auditors Road as outlined in the Downtown Mound Concept Plan is eligible for a Transportation Enhancement grant. The maximum amount the enhancement program will fund on any given project is $500,000. The Lost Lake project could potentially be very appealing to ISTEA because of its relationship to local history as well as the impact it could have on the cultural aspects of downtown Mound and the Lake Minnetonka region. As you requested, I have outlined the necessary tasks in putting together a grant application. They include the following: Estimation o.f proiect costs.: Preliminary estimates which were completed in 1992 as part of the Redevelopment Feasibility Study showed a cost of roughly $700,000 for development of the entire Lost Lake project including modifications to the Bartlett bridge. For the grant application, the City will need to develop more detailed cost estimates. 2) Investigation of needed approvals for the proiect~ land Ur, e/Environmental · Planning/De~ign Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 · MJnneavolis. Minnesota 554½9 · (612) 8½5-9960 m Fax: (612) 835:½160 612-835-3160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 331 P03 MAR 08 '94 17:3(5 Mcmo- Ed Shuklc March 8, 1994 Pagc 2 3) Dcveloument of project timetab)c. 4) Discussions with the DNR and other a~encies which could impact the project. S) Preliminary e0vironmental evaluation: An important criteria for the grant is the environmental impact of the project. We propose that a preliminary environmental evaluation be conducted and included in the grant submittal. This evaluation could include impact on water and habitat quality as well as outline measures the City can tak~ to go the extra mile in improving the ecology of Lost Lake. 6) Forrnulate~auulication document and exhibits. 5.~hj' 7) Work.w~th City Staff to accumulate thc necessary letters and approvals from the City Council. Hoisiagton Koegler Group Inc. proposes to complete the grant application including the: necessary tasks listed above on an hourly basis not to exceed $1,800. This amount does not include item 5. One environmental consulting firm has been contacted about the work in item 5 but because of the short timeline, i,~ still in the process of formulating their proposal. Of critical importance to the City Council's decision to proceed is a criteria requiring the proposer to '!assure that the local match portion of the project is available at the time of application." In real terms this means that the City of Mound would have to identify upwards of $300,000 of non-committed money. This does not mean that the money must be earmarked ~'or the project in the City CIP nor does it bind the City to complete the project. If the City Council wishes to proceed with the grant application, work will need to begin promptly as we have only three weeks before the deadline. The City Council will also need to approve the application and assure that funds are available at their March 22 meeting. Funded projects have until the end of 1998 to begin construction. If the Lost Lake project is accepted (we would find out by August), the City can explore the funding mechanism it wishes to use for the local match. If you have any further questions please give me a call. iSTEA ~4.M EM CITY OF MOUND PARKS DEPARTMENT FEBRUARY 1994 MONTHLY REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Parks We have started to receive the capital outlay items that were ordered for 1994. Currently the new buoys for the beaches, the basketball goal and stand have been delivered. I have received confirmation on the play structure for Mound Bay Park with its delivery date of April 1. I have reconfirmed the installation with the Minnesota Tree Trust for Mid- April. Trees We have had three trees removed from City property. pocks The applications for dock renewals always increase as the final date before a late fee is added on. Tom has been busy entering all the new information into the computer. The riprapping projects on Devon Commons and Three Points Blvd. are done. The demolition of the boathouse and restoration of the shoreline has begun t'4729 Island View Drive (Munson's). This project will not be completed until this Spring. Cemeter~ The holiday decorations were removed, and as always, we received a few complaints. The policy is seven days after a holiday these planters and wreaths need to be removed. We always wait until this time of year when the wreaths begin to turn brown, and to catch them before the thaw when they would look bad. JF:pj printed on recycled paper CITY of MOUND February 28, 1994 534! MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA55364.1687 ~6!21 472-0600 FAX (612) 472 0620 To: Ed Shukle City Manager From: Subject: Greg Skinner Public Works February Activity Report Street Department This month we mixed 500 tons of salt and sand. We have used up our allotment of salt per our contract with Cargill. have received a new contract for a additional 150 tons. This will get us through the rest of the season. We plowed snow 3 times and sanded twice this month. I also have replaced the sander that came with the new plow truck last year. I went back to the spreader type sander. We were having to many problems with the broadcasting type. We have spent some time testing and looking at new and used loaders. Water Department What a month! We had 8 water main breaks. This brings the total of breaks since January 1, to 17. It's been many years since we had this kind of month. Of the 17 breaks, only 4 have been during working hours. Hopefully the weather conditions will settle down to a slow thaw. We also had one water service that we need to repair. Round two of the meter program. Spec's have been sent out and the bid date set for Marck 1, 1994. Sewer Department We had one force main break at our E-1 L.S. This was one of the 4 that happened during working hours. We our getting ready to repair some sewer line in Three Points that have some I&I problems. If the weather turns nice we will start cleaning wet wells. printed on recycled paper CITY of XlOUND 534', i','tAYWOOD ~OA~ ,~©U'hD L~i'INESOTA 5536-'.' FAX t6~2 472 062'- March 1, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR OPERATIONS MANAGER FEBRUARY MONTHLY REPORT Even though the month of February was cold and snow filled, we did manage to have excellent sales for this time of year. Sales for the month were $92,275. This is the first time we have broken the $90,000 mark for any given February. In 1993, February's sales were $86,217. As little as four years ago, in 1990, sales were only $60,854! Plumbing problems seemed to be the rage last month, not only in our bathroom and mop room, but also on our roofi Headliners, Larson Printing, and ourselves were experiencing roof leakage. Ours was minor and was confined to our storage room and did not cause any major problems. Larson Printing, on the other hand, was experiencing major difficulties. It seems to have been resolved for the time being. We will see what spring brings. As you know, all ice houses have to be off the lake by the end of February. So we are taking ours down also. Yes, we built an Ice House display, using 65 cases of Miller's new product called "Ice House". We put a roof on it, made an ice fisherman by stuffing newspaper in some old pants and jacket, put some boots on him, found a ski mask and one of my old Russian hats, put a fishing pole in his hands (including a fake fish on the line) and sat him in the ice house. People loved it. Quite a few were startled at first seeing him, believing it to be a real person. It was very authentic. The Miller big wigs took a picture of it and sent it to their corporate headquarters. It's possible that it may turn up in one of the trade journals in the next month or so. JK:ls printed on recycled paper CITY of MOUND. 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364 ~687 (612) 472-C:~90 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MARCH 3, 1994 CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK FEBRUARY MONTHLY REPORT There were two regular Council Meetings in February. There was agenda preparation, minutes, 9 resolutions, and clean-up items from the two meetings. I am continuing to input the 1994 minutes (resolutions and motions) on the Clerk's Index Program. We have had an update to this program and I just put it into the computer so I really don't know yet what enhancements have been made. Cigarette and Garbage Hauler Licenses were issued as well as several miscellaneous licenses. Notices of expiring Tree Removal Licenses were sent. The sales and burials in the Cemetery in the last part of 1993 and the beginning of 1994 have been inputted into the computer. I completed my annual report which was presented at the February 8th Meeting. The MCFOA Elections Committee, of which I am a member, met regarding upcoming legislation on elections. We are continuing to monitor proposed bills dealing with the following: absentee balloting; uniform election day; and a general housekeeping bill. The Minneapolis Technical College will begin shooting the Election Judges video the second week in March. The Video Committee had several meetings to firm up the contract with the College, work with the director on finalizing the script, lining up actors, and deciding on props. I don't think any of us realized how much goes into the preparation for something like this. It's not something I would want to do for a living. There were the usual calls and questions from citizens regarding various subjects. ~ ~ ~ printed on recycled paper 03-Mar-94 TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND Gl'P( MANAGER GINO BUSlNARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR FEBRUARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT February investment activity Balance: :February 1, 1994 $5,800,797 Bought: Money Market 4M 75,000 Inst Govt Inc Piper - Income Reinvested 16,865 Money Market 4M - Income Reinvested 1,736 Matured: (75,000) Money Market 4M Balance: February 28, 1994 $5,819,398 Recvclin.q Seminar Conference On February 23 and 24 Joyce attended the 11th Annual Minnesota Solid Waste Seminar Conference held at the Radisson Hotel in Bloomington. When this conference started 11 years ago some 20 people attended. At this year conference over 600 people were registered. Joyce's report follows: SOCIOLOGY OF GARBAGE It is estimated that 15% of the food you buy is thrown away into the solid waste system. How they found this out was by digging up 7 landfills between the years of 1987 and 1993. What they thought and what they found were two different things. They once thought that the landfills contained about 20% Styrofoam, 20-30% fast food packaging, and 25-45% disposable diapers. What they found was .8% Styrofoam, .05% fast food packaging, 1.2% disposable diapers, and 15% plastic. The rest was made up of paper (40-50%) and demolition material (20-30%.) COMPOSTING The City of Hutchinson started a new program last year on backyard composfing. They had about 300 residents attend a seminar on how to start backyard composting. They had displays from different companies showing compost bins and lawn mowers. They showed videos on how the process works and the do's and don't. City of Mound 03/03/94 Monthly Report Utilities Month of: February 1994 Residential No. of Customers: Water Sewer Water Used: (in 1,000 gallons) Billing: Water Sewer Recycle Total Payments: Water Sewer Recycle Total 1,102 1,104 17,800 $26,128 $48,540 $3,367 $78,035 $19,985 $42,358 $3,143 $65,486 Commercial 121 121 5,146 $5,542 $13,552 $22 $19,116 $4,577 $11,157 $21 $15,755 Utility-94 Tota 1,223 1,225 22,946 $31,670 $62, O92 $3,389 $97,151 $24,562 $53,515 $3,164 $81,241 LEN HARRELL Chiet o! Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-O621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle Len Harrell Monthly RepOrt for February 1994 STATISTICS The police department responded to 979 calls for service during the month of February. There were 20 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 burglaries, 16 larcenies, and 2 vehicle thefts. There were 35 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 6 child abuse/neglect, 1 forgery/NSF check, 1 narcotics, 2 damage to property, 2 liquor law violations, 6 DUI's, 3 simple assaults, 2 domestics (1 with assault), 3 harassments, and 9 other offenses. The patrol division issued 131 adult citations and 6 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 60 tickets. Warnings were issued to 124 individuals for a variety of violations. · There were 2 adults and 3 juveniles arrested for felonies. There were 16 adults and 2 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were an additional 7 warrant arrests. The department assisted in 17 vehicular accidents, 3 with injuries. There were 30 medical emergencies and 78 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 7 occasions in February and requested assistance 5 times. Property valued at $20,501 was stolen and $12,500 was recovered in February. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - FEBRUARY 1994 II. III. IV. Ve ~NVESTIGATION Sgt. Hudson has been out with an injury and for a good portion of February we have operated with only one investigator. Officer Niccum has now been assigned to the one year training position. Investigator Truax worked on 6 child protection cases and 1 criminal sexual conduct. He has also been working on a death investigation with Hennepin County detectives. Other cases investigated include theft, burglary, a shooting, criminal damage to property, and a liquor background. Formal complaints were issued for worthless check, assault, damage to property, careless driving, and minor consumption. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 62 hours of overtime during the month of February. Officers used 31 hours of comp-time, 32 hours of vacation, 176 hours of sick time, and 92 holidays. Officers earned 53 hours of comp-time. Sgt. Bill Hudson remained out for the month of February. Bill suffered an injury off-duty that has caused him to miss the last six weeks. . Training Three officers attended the mandatory training requirements for "Use of Force" and "OSHA". Investigator Truax attended a course on "Major Case Investigations,,. Chief Harrell attended a full day seminar involving sexual harassment and Officer Ewald continued in the Wilson Leadership Course. Officer Swensen attended the two week D.A.R.E. training course and will assume the role of D.A.R.E. officer in the fall. Police Reserves The Reserves donated 339 hours during the month of February. OFFENSES REPORTED CLEARED UNFOUNDED FEBRUARY EXCEPT. CLEARED 1994 CLEARED BY ARREST ARRESTED ADULT JUVENILE PART I CRI~E~ Homicide 0 0 0 0 Criminal SexUBL Conduct 0 0 0 0 Robbery 0 0 0 0 Aggravated AssauLt 0 0 0 0 Burg[aw 2 0 0 0 Larceny 16 1 1 2 VehicLe Theft 2 0 0 1 Arso~ 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 PART I! CRIME~ ChiLd Abuse/NegLect 6 1 2 1 Forgery/NSF Checks 1 0 0 0 0 Criminal Oamage to Property 2 0 0 0 0 geapons 0 0 0 0 0 Narcotics 1 0 0 Liquor Laws 2 0 0 1 1 OUI 6 0 0 · 6 6 SimpLe AssauLt 3 0 1 1 0 Ooaestic AssauLt 1 0 1 0 0 Omestic (No AssauLt) 1 0 0 0 0 Harassment 3 0 0 0 0 JuveniLe Status Offenses 0 0 0 0 0 PubLic Peace 0 0 0 0 0 Trespassing 0 0 0 0 0 Att Other Offenses 9 0 1 7 6 TOTAL 35 17 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 PART III & PART I~ Property Damage Accidents 14 Personal Injury Accidents 3 Fatal Accidents 0 MeclicaLs 30 Animal Conptaints 78 NutuaL Aid 7 Other General Investigations 787 TOTAL 919 Ner~epin County ChiLd Protection 5 Inspections 0 TOTAL 979 2O 18 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT FEBRUARY 1994 GENERAL ACTIVITY THIS MONTH Hazardous Citations 53 Non-Hazardous Citations 73 Hazardous Warnings 33 Non-Hazardous Warnings 32 Verbal Warnings 72 Parking Citations 60 DWI 6 Over .10 5 Property Damage Accidents 14 Personal Injury Accidents 3 Fatal Accidents 0 Adult Felony Arrests 2 Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 23 Juvenile Felony Arrests 4 Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 2 Part I Offenses 20 Part II Offenses 35 Medicals 30 Animmal Complaints 78 Ordinance Violations 18 Other Public Contacts 787 YEAR TO DATE 75 105 5O 108 133 87 14 10 25 6 0 3 48 6 6 43 78 52 151 18 1,686 LAST YEAR TO DATE 114 100 37 3O 307 111 14 9 15 3 0 4 42 5 7 40 85 57 122 1,211 TOTAL 1,350 Assists 64 Follow-Ups 29 Henn. County Child Protection 5 Mutual Aid Given 7 Mutual Aid Requested 5 2,704 99 161 8 21 14 2,313 83 33 5 18 2 CITATIONS 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 Violation 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 MV/ATV Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT FEBRUARY 1994 ADULT 6 5 0 4 0 45 0 0 8 0 2 0 5 0 40 0 2 60 0 3 2 5 0 191 ju~.. 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT FEBRUARY 1994 WARNINGS No Insurance Traffic Equipment CrosSwalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRANT ARRESTS Felony Warrants Misdemeanor Warrants ADULT 3 21 24 0 4 64 1 0 0 6 123 0 7 JUV 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R~: 1-#ar-~ 8:47 PR~3 Primary l~'s rely: No Oate Reported r~e: 01/26/94 - 02/25/94 :tivit¥ codes: Stat~: Att ~erty Types: Att Property Descs: Att Brands: All #oders: Att Officers/Badges: Prop Prop lnc no ISN Pr Tp Desc SN MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Property Report STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED Prop Date Rptd Stoten Date Recov~d Stat Stoten Vatue Recov'd Vatue Quantity Act Code A Prop type Totats: O Prop type Totat's: I Prop type Totats: 0 Prop type Totals: R Prop type lotats: S Prop type Totats: T Prop type Totats: Prop type Totats: y Prop type Totats: **** Report Totats: 10,000 10,000 1.000 205 0 1.000 2,500 2,500 1.000 1,740 0 1.000 229 0 1.000 4,690 0 1.000 527 0 3.000' 10 0 1.000 600 0 9.000 20~501 12,500 19.000 Brand Modet Page off-1 Off-2 Assnd Assnd Run: 1-#ar-9& 10:05 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/26/94 - 02/25/94 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Ho~ Received: ALi Activity Resulted: Dispositions: Officers/Badges: A Grids: Patrol Areas: Oays of the ~eek: #OUHD POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9000 SPEEDING 45 9001 J-SPEEDING 2 9003 J-NO O/L, EXPIREO O/L 1 9014 STOP SIGN 2 9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 5 9022 EXHIBITION DRIVINg 1 9026 OVER THE CENTER LINE 2 90~ ALL OTHER TRAFFIC 2 9040 NO SEATBELT 5 9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 20 9140 NO PARKING/WINTER HOURS 40 9200 DAS/DAR/DAC 4 9201 J-OAS/DAR/DAC 2 9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 8 9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 40 9221 J-NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 1 9240 CHANGE OF DOMICILE 1 9309 FOUNO/RUNAWAY 1 9312 FOUND ANIFIALS/ZHI:~JNDS 5 9313 FOUNO PROPERTY 8 9420 DERELICT AUTO 2 9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 2 Page Run: 1-Mar-9~ 10:05 CFS08 Primary t$#'$ onty: No Oate Reported range: 01/26/94 - 02/25/94 Time range each day: 00:00 - 2~:59 Ho~ Received: Resu[ ted: A[~ Oispositions: Officers/Badges: Al Grids: ALL Patrol Areas: Att Oays of the Meek: ALL ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION 9440 N/R PERSONAL INJURY ACC. 9450 PROPERTY DA.qAGE ACCIDENTS 9451 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. 9465 SNO~ILE ACC%DENTS 9561 OOG BITE 9562 CAT BITES 956~ DOG AT LARGE ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 9710 MEDICAL/ASU 97~0 MEDICALS 97'51 MEDICALS/OX 9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 9802 PUBLIC ASSIST 9900 ALL HCCP CASES 990~ OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 9920 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 9930 HANDGUN APPLICATION 9950 INFO/IHT WARRANTS MISC. VIOLATIONS 9992 HUTUAL AID/8100 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Carts For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 1 11 1 2 1 2 2 1 5 18 9 2 8 1 Page 2 I~: 1-Mar-94 10:05 CFSO~ Primary ]SN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/26/94 - 02/25/94 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Hc~a Received: Activity Resutted: ALL Dispositions: Att Officers/Badges: Grids: ALL Patrot Areas: AL[ Days of the week: ALL HOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Carts For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9~3 HUTUAL AID/6500 A5351 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAN A5352 ASLT 5-#S-INFLICT BD HRM'HANDS-ASLT-AC A5-~54 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRJ4-HANDS-CHLD-FAM A5355 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HPJ4-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ A~500 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO UEAP-UNK RELAT B&330 BURG 4-UNOCC RES FRC-D-UNK ~EAP-UNK ACT B&930 BURG 4-AT FRC RES-D-UNK ~EAP-UNK ACT D~500 DRUGS-SHALL AI4OUNT MARiJUANA-POSSESSION E&?O0 ESC-GH-FLEE AN OFFICER 1:3000 CRIM AGNST FAH-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD J~O0 TRAFFIC-GH-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR J2~EO0 TRAF-ACC-GH-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH J~500 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR J3EO0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 1~106 LIGUOR - PROCURING LIOUOR FOR A MINOR I,l,~199 LIQUOR - OTHER #8199 CRUELTY TO ANIMALS-OTHER IIZ~IO STALKING-GROSS MISDEMEANOR 1131~0 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COt, U4UNICATIONS P3110 PROP OA~AGE-#S-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 1~169 THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 4 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 Page Run: 1-14ar-P~ 10:05 CFS08 Prim~ ]SN's mty: No Date Re~rted ra~e: 01/26/9/, - 02/~/9/, Tim re~e each day: 00:00 - ~'~:59 ~1(~ Receive: ALL ty ResultS: AIl Ois~siti~: AtT Officers/B~es: Att Gri~: Att PatroE Areas: AEE Da~s of the ~ek: A~E HOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Carts For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIOENTS TC029 THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING'OTH PROP TC159 THEFT.501-2500-FE~MOTOR vEH-OTH PROP TF029 THEFT-2OI-5OO-G~4-BUILOING-OTH PROP TF189 THEFT-2OI-5OO-G~-FISHOUSES-OTH PROP TG021 TG029 TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-HONEY THEFT-LESS 200-G~-BUILDING-OTH PROP THEFT-LESS 200-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP THEFT-UNK LVL-TELECOMMUNICATN SRV-UNK LOSS THEFT-MS-BY CHECK-200 OR LESS THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-AUTO VEH-501 2500-FE*TNEFT-SNOUHOBILE 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 U0340 U3018 U3288 VA021 VB024 **** Report Toters: 366 Page Run: 1-#ar-94 10:31 OFF01 Primary ISN's onty: No Date Reported range: 01/26/94 - 02/25/94 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: Att Activity codes: Att Officers/Badges: Att Grids= AIl NOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 1 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED A5351 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAN A5352 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT ltd HRM-HANDS-ASLT-AC A5354 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAN A5355 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ A5500 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-UNK RELAT B4330 BURG 4-UNOCC RES FRC-D-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT B4930 BURG 4-AT FRC RES-D-UNK t~EAP-UNK ACT D8500 DRUGS-SHALL AMOUNT MARIJUANA-POSSESSION E4700 ESC-GN-FLEE AN OFFICER I3060 CRIM AGNST FAN-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD J2500 TRAFFIC-ON-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR J2EO0 TRAF-ACC-ON-AL 10 HO~E-UNK INJ-UNK VEH J3500 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR J3EO0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 HO~E-UNK INJ-UNK VEH N4106 LIQUOR - PROCURING LIQUOR FOR A MINOR M4199 LIGU~ - OTHER N8199 CRUELTY TO ANIHALS-OTHER N2310 STALKING-GROSS MISDEMEANOR N3190 DISTURB PEACE'MS-HARRASSING COMHUN]CAT]ONS P3110 PROP DAHAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT TB169 THEFT-HORE 2500-FE-UATERCRAFT-OTN PROP TC029 THEFT-501-2500-FE-BU]LDING-OTH PROP TC159 TNEFT"501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1~.0 lc 33.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 1~.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 ~ ~ 0.0 0.0 Run: 1-Hat-94 10:31 OFF01 Primry ]SN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/26/94 - 02/25/94 T each day: 00:00 - 5:59 :Dispositions: ALL :tivity codes: ALL Officers/Badges: Att Grids: Att MOUND POLICE DEPARTHENT Enfors Offer~e Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS ACT ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION TF029 THEFT-201-5OO-GN-BUILDING'OTH PROP TF189 THEFT-ZO1-5OO-G~I-FISHOUSES-OTH PROP TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-GH~BUILDING'OTH PROP TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-GH-YARDS-OTH PROP TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-GH-ROTOR VEH-OTH PROP U03~O THEFT-UNK LVL-TELECOI~ICATN SRV-UNK LOSS U3018 THEFT-MS-BY CHECK-200 01~ LESS U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS VEH-NORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-AUTO VB024 VEH-501 2500-FE-THEFT-SNO~ILE Page 2 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT REPORTEO FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 **** Report TotaLs: 53 2 51 25 16 4 6 26 50.9 MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT MOUND, MINNESOTA FOR MONTH OF .PEBRUARY 1994 FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE 2/14 2/21 ~ { HI!qS ~ 1 JrFF AED~2~S~ X X 2 19.00 34 6.00. 204,QO 2 GR~G ANDI3ZSON X X 2 19.00 27 6.00 162.00 3 J£RRY BABB X X 2 19.OO 12 6.00 72.00 4 PAUL BABB /X.x X 2 19.00 31 6.00 186.00 5 DAVID BOYDL~ X 1 9.50 15 6.00 90.00 6 DON BRYCE X X 2 19.OO i5 6.LO 90.00 7 SC(TiT BRYCE X X 2 19.00 13 6.00 78.00 8 DAVID CARLSON X X 2 19.OO 18 6.00 108.{)O .9 JIM CASEY X X 2 19.00 8 6.00 48.00 10 STEVE COLLL~S X ~'~ 1 9.50 16 6. OO 96. O0 11 RANDY 5'~GELHART X X 2 19.00 15 6.00 90.00 12 STEVE F~YClCqOt; X 3< ? lq f~ 16 6.50 13 PHIL FISK X X 2 19.00 15 fi. CD ~4 D~ GRaDY X X 2 19.00 27 fi.cD ~fi?.cD 15 KEVIN GRADY ~'~_ ('~_ 0 -O- 14 fi. CD 84.~ 16 CRAIG I[~NDERSON X X 2 19.00 28 6.00 17 PAUL HENRY X X 2 19.00 17 6.OO 102.OO 18 BRAD LANDSMAN X X 2 19.00 18 6.00 108.00 19 RON MARSCHKE X X 2 19.00 22 6.(D 1'~?.(.10 20 JO}-~ NAFUS X (~) 1 9.50 19 i 6.00 114.00 21 JAHE. S NELSON X X 2 19.00 27 6,00 162.C 22 MARV NELSOM X X 2 19.00 10 6,00 60.0,. 23 BRET NICCo%! X X 2 19.00 19 6.00 114.00 24 GRt~G PALM X X 2 19.00 17 6.00 102.00 25 HIKE PAI24 X X 2 19.OO 25 6.00 26 IIH PAL~! X X 2 19.00 22 6.00 132.OO 27 GRDG PLDERSON X X 2 19.OO 19 6.25 118.75 28 CHRIS POUNDER X X 2 19.00 19 6.00 114.00 29 TONY RASMUSS[~q X ~'~ 1 9.50 15 6.00 90.00 30 HIKE SAVAGE X X 2 19.OO 23 6.00 138.OO 31 }zvn~ SIPPRELL × X 2 19.00 25 6.OO 15O.OO 32 nON SZALU~t~ (~ X 1 9.50 lO 6.OO 60.OO _3_3 ZO~.{ SW~SON(~3 X I ] · 9.50 16 6.OO 96.00 _3q. 'ED v.~Erm< X X 2 19.OO 25 6.OO 150.OO RICK WILLIAHS -- X X 2 19.OO ]R fi c~q ]OR.Cf) 36 TIM I~'ILLIAfiS ~) X I 9.50 16 6.OO q6 CD ..37 DEM'NiS WOYTCKL X k 2 19.OO 20 6.C~) 32 33 65 ~3rAL$ 80 82½ 162~-~ 617.50 706 ~ 4,248.75 162½ l~lq l S 617.50 IDYAL 6~033 MOUND ~IRE DgPARtMENT MONTHLY ACT1VII'I ~O~i ~ ~ ~O DATE TO DATE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 1994 NO. OF CALLS 38 59 97 69 6 9 15 15 MOUND M,~GENCY 22 ~7 49 28 '" 0 0 D FIRE fl 7, ?, MINNETRISTA ~GENCY 1 4 5 FIRE 1 3 & ORONO I~{ERGENCY 3 2 ~ FI~E O O 0 0 SHOREWOOD ~E~GENCY 0 0 0 0 FIRE 0 3 0 SPRING PARK FI~ O 1 ] MUTUAL AID '~ TOTAL FIRE CALLS 9 2] ~ TOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS 2q ~8 67 %q ~SID~ , % ~ 6 10 I~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~s & ~~s, ~ 2 3 2 A~ Q 2 2 F~E ~ / FIRE ~ 5 ]~ 15 ]5 ~. OF H~ FI~ qR 268 ~66 - MOUND ~G~ &~6 ~R1 1of7 FI~ A1 A7 ~ - MTKA BEACH ~ O D ~ ~ 4] 47 ~ 75 F!~ O 42 47 11 - M'TRISTA ~-~G~ ]2 75 B7 76 ~ ]2 ]]7 ]29 %7 FI~ 25 72 q7 ] 25 ORONO ~G~ )~ 33 71 FX~ O . O 0 0 - SHOREWOOD m~G~ O 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ,0 FI~ O 50 ~ - SP. PARK ~~ 56 q5 ]5] 74 F~ O 96 ~6 - ~ ~D ~G~ 0 0 0 ~ O 96 96 TOTAL DRILL HOURS 162~ 152~ 315 320 TOTAL FIRE HOURS 1~, ~Z9 ~93 661 TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 542. 730 1272 T~ FIRE & ~G~ ~S 7~ 1359 ~D6~ 1 ~7~ .. MUTUA.b AID RECEIVED O 2 2 HUTUA~ AID DIVBN... O 1 1 1 MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT DRILL REPORT Discipline and Teamwork ~ritique of fires ?re-plan and Inspections ?ools and Apparatus Identify Hand Extinguisher Operation ~{earing Protective Clothing Fi]ms First Aid and Rescue Operation 3se of Self-Contained Masks Date ~~ Pumper Operations Fire Streams & Friction Loss House Burnings Natural/Propane Gas Demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Radio Operations House Evolutions Nozzles & Hose Appliances Hours Training Paid : ~ Excused X Unexecused O Present / Not Paid ~.Andersen .Anderson J.Babb P.Babb Z_~=D.Boyd RD'Bryce S.Bryce D.Carlson J.Casey S.Collins .Englehart 7~-~S'Ericks°n PERSONNEL {~_P.Fisk ~D.Grady ~ ~ZK Grady ~C[Henderson LP.Henry B.Landsman LR.Marschke ~J.Nafus %~. J.Nelson ~%_~_M.Nelson ~.Niccum ~¥z_T.Palm _F~'~_G Pederson _AClPounder ~T.Rassmusen 'laM.Savage _~.Sipprell ~R.Stallman ~.Swenson 2~l.E.Vanecek %2Z~3.R.Williams ~%_~_T.Williams ~/_D.Woytcke DRILL REPORT MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT )line and Teamwork Critique of fires Pre-plan and Inspections Tools and Apparatus Identify Hand Extinguisher Operation Wearing Protective Clothing Films First Aid and Rescue Operation Use of self-Contained Masks ,Pumper Operations Fire Streams & Friction Loss HouSe Burnings Natural/Propane Gas Demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Radio Operations House Evolutions Nozzles & Hose Appliances Hours Training Paid : OExcused X Unexecused 0 Present / Not Paid PERSONNEL ~%jzJ.Andersen ~G.Anderson Babb Boyd .Bryce S'Bryce .Carlson f_q.Casey .Collins ~llz.R.Englehart {~_S.Erickson P.Fisk ~D.Grady _~K.Grady ~C.Henderson ~3.P.Henry ~?~3.B.Landsman ~R.Marschke ~1~ J.Nafus ~J.Nelson _, B'Nels°n (~ .Niccum ~_~G.Palm %3.~3J~.Palm · T.Palm ~---~-G.Pederson 7~%lLC.Pounder T .Rassmusen .Savage 1~K.Sipprell ~R.Stallman ~T.Swenson ~E.Vanecek __~'l,.R.Williams FI.Williams _~ ~.Woytcke 7~ CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: March 4, 1994 City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official FEBRUARY 1994 MONTHLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY In February there were 11 building permits issued, and 21 plumbing, mechanical, and Other miscellaneous permits for a total of 32 permits this month. PLANNING & ZONING The City Council has directed the Planning Commission to look at several issues, including Truck Parking in Residential Areas, and Time Limits on Building Completions which were presented to the Commission by Mark Koegler, City Planner. The Planning Commission will continue to examine these and other issues. Truth in Housing is nearing subcommittee review and should be back to the Planning Commission soon. There were the usual number of zoning requests. We welcome Lisa Bird (soon to be Lisa Crum) to the Planning Commission. Lisa's qualifications help create and maintain a good balance to our Commission. We look forward to her input in the future, and are pleased with her appointment by the City Council. PUBLIC LANDS Two boathouses are currently being removed on Island View Drive / Devon Commons. Batch #2 of the permit up-dates was approved by the Council. These issues consume a great deal of staff time. They continue to be very sensitive issues, demanding joint review and coordination with the Building and Parks Department. JS:pj 1 p,~nted on recycled paper City Gl Mound BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT Month: February Ycal': 1994 THIS MONTH Y£AR TO DATE RESIOENT~L I F~RMIT$ ~' UNIT$ VALUATION I UNITS VALUATION NEW (~ONSTRUCT1ON , , SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ~ 83,623 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS) TWO FAMILY I DUPLEX MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS) TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS I MOTELS) SUBTOTAL ! 83,623 ~Of~ I IPERMIT$ I VALUATION I //PERMITS , VALUATION COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL ~JBLIC I SCHOOLS SUSTOTAL ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING ! 22,000 2 30,500 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS ] 13,056 ] ! 3,056 DECKS SWIMMING POOLS REMODEL- MI$C RESIDENTIAL 6 26,350 I 1 35,380 REMODEL · MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 2 ! 23,000 SUBTOTAL 8 61 ,~,06 16 201,936 ~i(~i.RESiDENTL~L ~ iPERMiTS I I VALUAT,ON ~ ,PERM,TS VALUATION ADDITION $/ALTERATION $ .... .. COMMERCIAL {RETAIL/RESTAURANT) I .~00 OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL 2 10,000 2 10,000 PUBLIC / SCHOOLS DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS BU~TOTAL 2 10,000 3 10, .500 II 'P'aM'TS ,UN.TS [ .v. W^TIO, .... II 'P RMITS I ...VA UAT,ON RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS t (mo~: Lle home]) 1 NON-RESIDENTIAL BUiLDiNGS TOTAL DEMOUTIONS 4~ PERMITS I UNITS VALUATION I ~JNIT~ VALUATION I PERMITS 11 0 71,406 ~ 296,059 TOTAL * 21 P~R~IT COUI~T TI'II~ I~Qt~TH I YEAR-TO-DATE 'BUILDING ! 1 2 l FENCES & RETAINING WALLS 0 0 SIGNS 0 PLUMaNG 14 27 MECHANICAL ~ 16 GRADING 0 0 S&W. STREET EXCAV.. FIRE. ETC. 2 I 32 69 TOTAL CITY OF EXCELSIOR 339 THIRD STREET EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 TELE: 612--474-5233 February 10, 1994 Gene Strommen, Chairman Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 East Wayzata Boulevard Suite 160 Wayzata, MN 55391 RECEIVE0 -7_3 2 8 Dear Mr. Strommen: The City Council is pleased to see some changes and restraint taking place within the LMCD. We are willing to provide more time for the LMCD to respond to the concerns raised and establish a positive rapport with the individual communities. Therefore, attached is a certified copy of the executed Resolution the Excelsior City Council adopted at their meeting on Monday, February 7, 1994 Opposing the Dissolution of the LMCD at this time. However, the Excelsior City Councilmembers are requesting that the LMCD: Be even more responsive to the concerns of the cities; Listen to the cities representatives and the information they share fxom the city; Provide more data explaining the LMCD's budgeting needs; Reduce budget expenditures to a more realistic figure; and Leave the Shoreland Management regulation to the jurisdiction of the individual cities. The City Council will monitor and review progress made to improve the operation and fiscal responsibility of the LMCD to determine if we can continue support in the future. Sincerely, Attachment- 1 CC: Councilmembers James Grathwol, Representative LMCD Member Cities BOARD MEMBERS William A. Johnstone Chair, Minnetonka Tom Penn Vice Chair, Tonka Bay Douglas E. Babcock Secretary, Spring Park Robert Rascop Treasurer, Shorewood Mike Bloom Minnetonka Beach Albert (Bert) Foster Deephaven James N. Grathwol Excelsior Ronald Kline Minnetrista Duane Markus Wayzata Craig Mollet Victoria Thomas W. Reese Mound Herb J. Suerth Woodland Joseph Zwak Greenwood Orono 60% Recycled Content 30% Post Consumer Waste LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 EUGENE R, STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO: MOUND C~TY COUNCIL DATE: MARCH 8, 1994 FROM: TOM REESE, LMCD REPRESENTATIVE SUBJECT: FEBRUARY REPORT - LMCD 1.0 It_~ion W&ler~ofoil Task Force. 1.1 The DNR has indkaed that $100,000 fwm t]~ boat fee w~lbe set askle for control efforts on/nfec~ lakes. Dism~ution of the ~ probably will be ontbe bas~s of tit~ral ama of t~ kke in qtesti3~_ This ~s a departme from pzevims po]icy. It is hoped that Mim~or0u~ w/l get som~ base ]i~ f~ yearly from this. 1.2 I ate~ed an envimr~nal meeti~ atRep Rams~'s office this week I vas representing mi]foil victims, I guess. It wes &boat a d_n~__-n pemon meeting with soch groups as t~ Si~zza Club, Eaztb Day, Mitmesom River VaI~ Presen, ation, the M~m Zoo, e~: represenled. I vas sta'prbed at how mfom~ the group was on our control efforts. 2.0 Lake Man~ement Plan 2.1 Discussion a~ work contmm~s ont~ fuml~of ~ fual report of the Lake Access Task Force. I am not on this commitee, so I am not privy ~o the detaf~ of why it is taki~ so long. 3.0 C,e~-ral l~ms 3.1 A poorly ate~ public ~ on ~ ~ht ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e~ e~r ~e a p~n~n ~ d~~n of ~. ~ d~t o~ B ww ~k ~ ~ L~ U~ ~b ~~ for ~~a~. ~ ~u ~ ~h~ on ~ I ~ ~p~ ~ 3.2 ~nt~ m~ ~ M~~m ~ ~ ~n~on m~ s~ ~ ~ spent o~ ~m~ ~ ~ ~ m~ d~ on ~ ~ ~ ~ a p~ip~ i~m of 8~pa~ ~ o~ ~ s~e b~. 3.3 Ade~ exXOn of ~ ~CD ~se~ f~ ~ ~1~ r ~ ~. Ne~s ~ ~ ~1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m~h~ fo~ of ~sr ~. RECEIVED FEB 2 5 199 t, LAKE HINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, Minnesota 5§991 473-7033 LMCD MEETING SCHEDULE MARCH 1994 Wednesday Wednesday Mo n d a y .... dne~day Friday 2 Fee Study Subcommittee 4-30 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata LMCD Lake Access CommiTtee 6:30 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata 14ul~iple Dock Envelope Subcommittee 5-00 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata Save the Lake Advisory Conm]ittee $-00 pm, Norwe~t Bank Board Room Wayzata 12 Water Structure~ Conm~ittee 7'30 am, #135 Norwe~t Bank Bldg, Wayzata 14 Lake Use & Recreation Committee 5-30 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata 23 Administrative Committee 6-00 pm Tonka Bay City Hall Public Hearing - Slow/No Wake Zone Adjustments 7'00 pm, #135 Norwe~t Bank Bldg, Wayzata LMCD Board of Director~ Regular Meeting 7'30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall 25 Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force 8-30 am, # 135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata RECEIVED FEB 2 L~KE MINNlqTONKA OONSERVA~ION DI$~RI~ Lake Access Committee Meeting Notice and Agenda 6:30 pm, Wednesday, March 2, 1994 LMCD Conference Rm 160, Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata Presentation of Lake Access Task Force Study draft as revised per January 24 draft, with revisions added per board member comments received 2/11 and 2/15/94. * Hand written change received 2/11/94 * Type-written changes, underlined, received 2/15/94 Presentation of Lake Access Task Force Study draft as prepared by Bert Foster, introducing: * A new History and Background A section on Type of Boating access Available on the Lake Change in order of presenting conclusions and extensive change in language Committee is asked to determine how it views these proposed changes for possible incorporation into the January Lake Access Task Force Study draft presented under Agenda Item ! above. o Determine a consensus on readiness to move forward with a final draft for presentation to the full Lake Access Task Force. 4. Additional business/next meeting if needed; 5. Adjournment MINUTES - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 17, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7 AM. Members present: Paul Meisel, Councilmember Ken Smith, Stan Drahos, jerry Longpre, Jerry Pietrowski, Sharon McMenamy-Cook. Absent: Mark Brewer, Marge Friederichs. Also present: Mayor Skip Johnson; Councilmember Liz Jensen; Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator; Gino Businaro, Finance Director and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Upon motion by Smith, seconded by Drahos and carried unanimously, the minutes of the January 20, 1994 regular meeting and the February 10, 1994 special meeting were approved. Dave Willette, 2542 Lost Lake Road, was present to be interviewed by the Commission for the vacancy that is currently on the Commission. Following his interview, the Commission discussed his application and the application of Jim Thomson of 1901 Lakeside Lane. It was the consensus that Dave Willette fill the vacancy on the Commission which will expire December 31, 1994. Mr. Willette will be eligible for reappointment at that time. This matter will go to the City Council at the February 22, 1994 meeting. City Manager Ed Shukle also pointed out that he will contact Mr. Thomson regarding his application and indicate to him that should a vacancy occur in the future that he resubmit his application. In addition, if any other vacancies occUr on task forces or commissions, Mr. Thomson might be interested would be invited to apply for those vacancies. Continued discussion was held on Auditor's Road development. Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator, presented scenarios 1, 2 and 3 to the Commission and City Council members. Discussion primarily focused on scenario//3, which involves a complete redevelopment of the downtown area. Essentially, scenario//3 is a construction of all of Auditor's Road within the existing configuration of the two county roads. In addition to the street construction, redevelop as much of Auditor's Road commercial structures as possible and apply for ISTEA grant to make improvements to Lost Lake: purchase all buildings in the southeast quadrant in the 15/110 intersection; create partnership with developer for new development; relocate businesses; and begin to prepare for the relocation of County Road 15. Estimated cost is $4.3 million. The $4.3 million involves the following breakdown: $900,000- $200,000- $1,500,000- $560,000- $1,020,000- Existing MSA Fund Balance Loan against future MSA allotments TIF and developer contributions ISTEA Grant (Lost Lake) Special Assessments Shortfall Chamberlain stated that this scenario is without question the most aggressive and the most difficult one to accomplish. He further stated that there is an outside chance that a developer may see a high potential of success in the development and would ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - MINUTES PAGE 2 be willing to contribute a great deal of funds to see it happen. On the other hand, the City would have to come up with approximately one million dollars from some other source to cover the shortfall that is estimated to occur. Discussion focused on this shortfall and whether the City Council would be willing to raise the funds where they deemed appropriate to'cover this shortfall. Mayor Johnson stated that he would like to see a cost benefit analysis done on scenario #3 to provide information as to what benefits the citizens of the community would receive from the amount of money that would have to be raised in additional taxes should that be the route the City Council would choose. The general consensus of the Commission and those present was that the City of Mound wishes to accomplish something in the downtown area, but it is difficult to know exactly what can be accomplished based on the lack of a developer and the City's willingness or unwillingness to take a risk. City Manager Ed Shukle pointed out that this is the major dilemma. We have a project that has some potential but no developer willing to come in and spend the money. Some Commission members feel that the City is going to have to initiate the project by expending money to entice development. After a significant amount of discussion, it was moved by Longpre, seconded by Smith and carried unanimously to direct the Economic Development Coordinator and City staff to prepare a proposal on a cost benefit analysis regarding scenario #3 and to have this proposal ready to discuss at the next regular meeting of the Commission. A brief discussion was held on the election of officers. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Longpre and carried unanimously to reappoint Paul Meisel as Chair and Mark Brewer as Vice-Chair of the EDC. City Partnerships was continued until the next meeting since Mark Brewer had asked that this be placed on the agenda and he was absent from the meeting. In addition, Business Development/Task force on seeking grants was also postponed for discussion until the next regular meeting. Stan Drahos is scheduled to bring rolls to the next meeting which is scheduled for Thursday, March 17, 1994, 7 AM, at Mound City Hall. Upon motion by Pietrowski, seconded by Smith and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 AM. Respectfully submitted, City Manager MINUTES - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7 AM. Members present: Paul Meisel, Jerry Pietrowski, Councilmember Ken Smith, Stan Drahos, Jerry Longpre and Sharon McMenamy-Cook. Absent and excused: Mark Brewer. Also present: Bruce Chamberlain, Hoisington Koegler Group; Gino Businaro, Finance Director; Marge Friederichs, Westonka Chamber and Ed Shukle, City Manager. City Manager Ed Shukle indicated that the purpose of this special meeting was to focus on the discussion of Auditor's Road and the three different scenarios that have been presented at last month's meeting. Bruce Chamberlain asked to have the Commission consider pros and cons of the three different scenarios. They are as follows: Half Auditor's Road Pro Cost Con Chance of not being completed Will not attract development We won't lose money If we use $$ on Auditor's Road, money won't be available anywhere else Loss of Business (is true in all three scenarios) All of Auditor's Road Pro Complete Road More Visible Shows City is serious Easier to Sell New Post Office Con No Developer Currently No place for Post Office 0°03- 3. Complete Redevelopment Pro Con Significant step taken by City with more funding options A sure development High cost to City to negotiate for land and building acquisition One thought presented was the need to select one of the scenarios before working on the process. The Commission thought that the Council ought to provide some direction on which option should be pursued. The consensus of the people present indicated that Drahos, Longpre, Cook and Friederichs were for scenario #2, all of Auditor's Road. Meisel and Pietrowski indicated that first a developer is needed to do any of the scenarios. It is important that if the City is going to expand public monies to entice development, that they are going to actually have to have a developer who is willing to do a project. They both talked about equity partners that could perhaps be involved in creating or pursuing a project. Meisel indicated that he would like to have the City go after businesses first before any of the three scenarios are selected. In summary, the Commission felt that a vote should be taken on one of the three options at the next regular meeting which is scheduled for Thursday, February 17, 1994, 7 AM, at Mound City Hall. Also discussed was to go to the City Council with a recommendation on #3 Complete Redevelopment. These matters will be discussed at the next regular meeting. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Longpre and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 AM. Respectfully submitted, Ed Shukle, City Manager ~_~/C~. and Gino Businaro, Finance Directoru'¢~'~ ES:Is MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMiSSiON FEBRUARY 28, 1994 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Mark Hanus, Brian Johnson, and Lisa Bird, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. Those absent and excused were: Commissioners Jerry Clapsaddle and Michael Mueller, and Council Representative Liz Jensen. The following people were also in attendance: Bob Smith. New Commissioner Lisa Bird was welcomed. The Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 1994 were presented for approval. The following changes were requested: Page 1, Lisa Ann Bird and Lorraine Phernetton should be listed as being in attendance. Page 8, 4th paragraph, Hanus requested the following be added at the end of the sentence, "which extends the nonconformity." MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hanus to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 1994 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. PROP SED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: SECTION 350:760 SUBD. 4 TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS,.. City Planner, Mark Koegler, explained that the City Council has determined there is a need to look at the current Code regarding truck parking in residential areas, and has referred this issue to the Planning Commission for further input and recommendation. Mound's current provision states, "No motor vehicle over one (1) ton capacity bearing a commercial license and commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreational vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this provision." Samples of other cities ordinance were reviewed. The common trend seen in the various communities used for sampling, is that certain types of commercial vehicles are prohibited from parking in residential areas. Some communities permit such parking, provided that it is contained within a garage. Only six of these communities (including Mound) mention recreational vehicles and allow them to be exempt from this provision. Weight restrictions and the terminology used to describe weight limits Planning Commission M/nutes February 28, 1994 varies from community to community. Weight terms were reviewed. Mound, Prior Lake, St. Louis Park and Bloomington use the term "capacity" to regulate truck weight. However, this is only the load capacity, not the entire gross weight of the vehicle and its load. Thus, it is impossible to compare Mound's current weight limit with the other communities that use the same weight term as Mound. The basic definition of Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) remains as the total weight of the vehicle and the load. Terms such as capacity, gross capacity and rated capacity are not used to determine truck weight at the state level. When the term GVW is used, the specifications (either manufacturers, registered, or actual) must be used to clarify whose rating system the GVW has been determined. The City Planner concluded, that Mound's current provisions restrict commercial vehicles from parking in residential areas at any time. The City Council would like to consider whether it is appropriate to allow some commercial licensed vehicles and some vehicles used for business purposes to be parked or stored in residential areas. Other communities have allowed certain commercial vehicles in residential areas if they are parked in garages. The inconsistent weight limit definitions do not allow accurate comparisons of Mound's weight restrictions to all of the communities used as examples within the City Planner's report. One approach to consider would be to standardize Mound's weight limit to that of the States standard (GVW) and specify which standards would be used (state registration, manufacturers, or actual). This may help clarify and allow for better enforcement of weight restrictions in the future. However, standardizing the weight definition would mean modifying the current weight restrictions. These new weight restrictions could be defined by determining which commercial vehicles and vehicles used for business would not cause safety, value and appearance problems if stored and parked in residential areas. Weiland stated that he is not in favor of requiring the vehicles be covered as this would create the construction of extra large garages which can be just as unsightly. Mueller's written comments were recognized by the Commission. Voss does not want to impact the private business person and is not in favor making the ordinance more stringent, however, he does not want to see large trucks such as semi trailers allowed that would be obtrusive in a neighborhood. He questioned how large trucks compare to the storage of campers or boats. Koegler stated, that generally, recreational vehicles are accessory to the residential use, and people who live in homes have boats and campers, but most people who live in homes don't have dump trucks. Johnson questioned what types of vehicles have been tagged. The Building Official commented that tool trucks and other service type vehicles have been tagged. 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 1994 Hanus questioned if the City would consider allowing the storage of larger vehicles through a Conditional Use Permit process? Koegler suggested that the ordinance needS to further clarify what types of vehicles should be allowed to be stored in the residential district. It was suggested that the ordinance limit the storage of one vehicle per property. Koegler clarified for the Commission that a I ton vehicle, depending on the manufacturer or brand, could equal 12,000 to 15,000 pounds. He clarified, that if the manufacturers weight is used as the determining factor, it does not matter how much weight you are hauling. Koegler noted that Jim Larson, who is with the City Attorney's office, stated it would be preferrable to use the manufacture's GVW as posted on the vehicle. Resident, Bob Smith, informed the Commission that he has a truck that looks like a bread truck, it is 22 feet long, and the truck is used for his private business. His truck is his store, he sells tools. He has a 10 foot high garage door, the garage is 32' x 32', and he still had to partially disassemble his truck to get it to fit inside. He believes the truck weighs about 15,000 pounds. Weiland stressed that the issue is not how much the vehicle weighs, but how big it is and how obtrusive it is to the neighborhood. It was also suggested that the type of vehicle and what it is used for be taken into consideration. Michael suggested the Commissioners think about what they would like to allow, then bring back the ideas back to the next meeting for further discussion. It was suggested that staff take a poll of the types of vehicles currently being parked within the City. There was discussion about publicizing the issue to get public input. This issue will be brought back to the Planning Commission at the March 14, 1944 meeting for discussion. The Commissioners should bring their ideas to the meeting. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: TIME LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETIONS_. City Planner, Mark Koegler, explained that the City Council requested the Planning Commission further examine the issue of restricting the amount of time allowed for building completion. This issue was raised because there have been a number of instances where building construction has been started but takes a number of years to complete. A survey conducted by White Bear Lake on this issue was reviewed by staff. The survey indicated that communities generally approach this issue in one of three ways: 1 ) Ordinance provisions are enacted controlling the time allowed for completion of the Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 1994 exterior of the building, 2) Ordinance provisions require total building completion with specified time limits, or 3) Communities employ the Uniform Building Code (UBC) provisions which allow construction to continue indefinitely provided that the work is not abandoned for a continuous period exceeding 180 days. Mound currently handles building completion by employing the UBC provisions. Issues the City Council would like the Planning Commission to consider include: 1) should such an ordinance apply only to the exterior finish of a building or should it regulate total completion? 2) Should such provisions apply to all types of structures including residential, commercial and industrial buildings as well as accessory structure? 3) How much time should be allowed for building completion? Based on comments offered during the City Council discussion, the Council is generally leaning toward regulating exterior completions only, applying such provisions to residential structures only, and allowing a one year completion time. Does the Planning Commission concur with this direction? Staff confirmed that if the ordinance was amended and someone did not finish the exterior in the required time, the type of enforcement used would be to issue a citation. Weiland would like to require the exterior to be done within 6 months and then enforcement be handled administratively. The Building Official noted that he would prefer a time period of 1 year for completion of the entire exterior (except paint). Michael is in favor of 6 months, for both residential and business, and exterior only. Sutherland noted that the commercial businesses have not been a problem, however, if the Commission would like commercial included, that is okay. Sutherland also requested that a clause be included that makes the ordinance amendment retroactive. Johnson is in favor of allowing 1 year for completion, he feels 6 months is too short. It was agreed that accessory buildings should be included. Koegler will draft language and bring it back to the Commission. DISCUSSION: HOW TO HANDLE RULES OF SPEAKING. Chair Michael briefly reviewed the work rules, specifically, A.4. and B.22., and he stressed the need to keep discussions focused on the subject issue. Voss suggested that the Chair be more stringent with the rules. Hanus does not believe there is a problem and since the Planning Commission is a small group he is not in favor of more regimentation. 4 February 28, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes Michael would like to see less interruptions, and a shorter amount of time spent on discussion. He stressed the need to stick to the issue and utilize the work rules and parliamentary procedure. The Commission agreed that it is not necessary to go down the line and get each commissioner's opinion on every issue. Voss and Johnson were in favor of strong chairmanship. MEMORANDUM FROM CITY MANAGER, ED SHUKLE, REGARDING "HANUS VS. CITY_ The memo was recognized by the Commission. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to adjourn the meeting at 9:32 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 5 Mc,,-,¢k, 1994 c tu or Mo.. SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT I 2 3 4 5 FEBRUARY 1994 Monthly Reports s u T w T F s are due 4~ 7 8 ~ 10 !1 12 13 14 13 18 17 13 19 Park Comm, ~o 21 "~ ~, ,- a klorkshoD ~ a 7:00 PM 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 City Park Council Commission 7:30 PM meets 7:00 PM 13 14 15 16 17Economic 18 19 ePlanning No C.O.Id. Chamber Develop. Commission Commission Lunch in meets Staff Council meets 7am 7:30 PM Meeting Chambers~' t130 PN 11130 St. Patrick's~ nay 20e~ 21 22 23 24 25 26 Spring *City Council Begins-Il meets .....~ 7130 PH 27 28 29 ~ 30 31 ' Planning~-~~¢/'/~-, ¢~ APRIL 1994 Commission . · s u T W T F meets 3 , s , , , 7:30 PM Io Full Moon PUBLIC HEARINGS: # 3-14-94 Planning Commission - Conditional Use Permit for Shirley Hills Elementary School - Medial Center Addition. * 3-22-94 City Council - Year XX CDBG Fund Wednesday Thursday Saturday Monday Wednesday Friday 9 10 12 14 23 25 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayza:a, Minneso:a SS991 47g-7033 o o : RECENEDMAR 3/2/94 LMCD MEETING SCHEDULE MARCH 1994 Fee S~tudy Subcommi=tee 4:30 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata Multiple Dock Envelope Subcommittee 5'00 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata Save the Lake Advisory Committee 5:00 pm, Norwest Bank Board Room Wayzata LMCD Lake Access Committee 7'00 pm, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Water Structures Committee 7'30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Lake Use & Recreation Committee 5'30 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata Administrative Committee 6'00 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall Public Hearing - Slow/No Wake Zone Adjustments 7:00 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall LMCD Board of Directors Regular Meeting 7'30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force 8'30 am, # 135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata "RECEIVED ":.'.,R 7 19! LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE AGENDA 7:30 AM, Saturday, March 12, 1994 Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Rm 135 (Elevator handicapped access at west entrance, Wayzata Blvd) 1. Minnetonka Yacht Club New Multiple Dock License application, Deephaven, Carsons Bay; Revised site plan and review of the following issues: a) shoreline ownership on east and west b) conversion of slides to slips c) whether or not a new special density license is required d) concerns identified by neighbors 2. Colson Dock Length Variance, 3219 Lakeshore Blvd., Minnetonka, Libbs Lake; Public Hearing Report and Findings 3. Carlson Dock Length Variance, 21650 Fairview Street, Greenwood, Lower Lake South; Public Hearing Report and Findings 4. Maple Forest Addition New Multiple Dock License application, Minnetrista, West Upper Lake; Revised site plan (Minnetrista city Council to review 3/7/94) 5. West Point Place Homeowners Association, Tonka Bay, Lafayette Bay; new dock license application for minor change - rebuilding docks in new configuration - no increase in size or number of slips 6. Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association, Minnetonka Beach, Lafayette Bay; new dock license for minor change 7. Beans Greenwood Marina, Greenwood, St. Albans Bay; new dock license application for minor change in slip location 8. Multiple Dock License Renewals, per staff memo 9. Ordinance relating to Storage of Unrestricted Watercraft; review of fourth reading as amended at 2/23/94 Board meeting 10. Resolution setting fees for multiple dock licenses as it relates to unrestricted watercraft 11. Additional business 3/4/94 : RECEiV[3 ? LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Lake Access Committee Rescheduled Meeting Notice and Agenda 7:00 pm, Thursday, March 10, 1994 Community Room 135, Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata Presentation of Lake Access Task Force study draft as revised per January 24 draft, with revisions added per board member comments received 2/11 and 2/15/94. * Hand written change received 2/11/94 * Type-written changes, underlined, received 2/15/94 Presentation of Lake Access Task Force study draft as prepared by Bert Foster, introducing: * A new History and Background * A section on Type of Boating access Available on the Lake * Change in order of presenting conclusions and extensive change in language Committee is asked to determine how it views these proposed changes for possible incorporation into the January Lake Access Task Force study draft presented under Agenda Item 1 above. Determine a consensus on readiness to move forward with a final draft for presentation to the full Lake Access Task Force. 4. Additional business 5. Next meeting, as needed; 6. Adjournment