The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-08-13 AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1996, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PAGE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 23, 1996 REGULAR MEETING .................................. PUBLIC HEARING, CASE//96-37: STREET VACATION - COBDEN 2673 - 2677 .bZot--LANE, ROBERT FOXWELL, 5090 WINDSOR ROAD, LOT 4, BLOCK 1, 4~TEAL POINTE, PID.25-117-24 12 0234 ....................... 2678 - 2699 '~:ot~JBLI.C HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL CRITERIA PERTAINING TO NONCONFORMING USES BY AMENDING SECTION 350:420 OF THE MOUND CODE OF ORDINANCES ........ 2700 - 2727 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: FINAL ACTION ON REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF MERGER OF TRIAX AND DD CABLE ............. 2728 - 2752 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT .......... - CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM MR. PATRICK KELLY, 6685 HALSTED AVENUE, MINNETRISTA, RE: CONNECTION TO CITY OF MOUND WATER SYSTEM ......................... 2753 - 2754 ~ 8. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO USE MOUND BAY PARK FOR A WEIGH-IN ONLY FOR OPERATION BASS RED MAN EVENT TO BE HELD ON SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1996 ........................ 2755 1,9. ~ APPOINTMENT OF ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS ..................................... 2756 (,10. REQUEST FROM COMMONS TASK FORCE TO APPOINT A PERSON TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE TASK FORCE ...................... 2757 2671 MOUND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1996, 7:30 PM PAGE TWO .11.~~'' [ PROPOSED PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR PARK PURPOSES, ADJACENT TO VETERAN'S PARK ......................... 2?58 -2761 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A TWIN HOME LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT AT 5214/5218 DRUMMOND ROAD, LOTS 4, 5, 14 & 15, BLOCK 12, WHIPPLE, PID 25-117-24 21 0025. SUGGESTED DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 ........................ 2762 PAYMENT OF BILLS .................................. 2763 - 2782 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR JULY, 1996 . . . 2783 - 2809 B. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR JULY, 1996 .... 2810 Co REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1996, 7:30 P.M. 2672 RECEIVED AUG 1 2 lg . LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday August 14, 1996 Tonka Bay City Hall PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 Robert and Kathy Gillum, 2406 Woodwinds Lane, Lafayette Bay, Minnetonka Beach, Consideration of Variance application for variances from LMCD side setback requirements and adjustment of the dock use areas for the properties located at 2338 Huntington Point Road West and the City of Minnetonka Beach firelane #11 on Huntington Point Road West adjacent to said property; CALL TO ORDER CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock READING OF MINUTES-7/10/96 Regular Board Meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. WATER STRUCTURES A. Ordinance Amendment, 3rd reading of a transitory Ordinance amending LMCD Code 2.12, Subd. 2 relating to nonconforming storage boats and facilities on Lake Minnetonka, additional consideration of draft amendment as provided by LMCD Counsel (Note: If draft amendment is adopted, this agenda item would be 1`t reading of the Ordinance amendment); B. Excelsior Park Pavilion, Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of New Multiple Dock and Special Density License applications; C. Robert and Kathy Gillum, Discussion on Public Hearing for Variance from LMCD side setback requirments and adjusted dock use areas; D. City of Minnetonka Beach, Continued discussion on municipal dock situation on Huntington Point firelane, follow-up on 6/26/96 & 7/10/96 Board meetings; E. Additional Business; e EWMIEXOTICS TASKFORCE *A. Minutes of the 8/9196 meeting (handout) B. Update on 1996 EWM harvesting program from Project manager Norm Paurus; C. 819196 meeting report; D. New EWM Harvester, Board discussion and consideration to authorize Marsh Gabriel trip to inspect potential new harvester; E. Additional Business; LAKE USE & RECREATION *A. Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol Significant Activity Report; B. Additional Business; ADMINISTRATION A. Staff update on office lease renewal; *B. Staff recommendations on deposit refunds as outlined in 816196 memo; C. Additional Business; FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment; B. June financial summary and balance sheet; C. Additional Business; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS EXECUTIVE SESSION- Performance Evaluation of Executive Director (Note: Board may vote to conduct evaluation in closed session) ADJOURNMENT 7. 8. 9. 10. RECEIVED AUG 1 2 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 10, 1996 Tonka Bay City DRAFT CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. ROLL__CALL Members present: Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Du~ne Markus, Wayzata; Paul Stark, Excelsior; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach. Also present: G. Alan Willcutt, Executive Director; Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Tom Reese, Mound; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Joseph Zwak, Greenwood; Craig Mollet, Victoria; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Gretchen Maglich, Minnetonka. Orono has no appointed member. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no chair announcements. READING OF MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1996 REGULAR BOARD MEETIN(~ Nelson moved, Partyka seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 24, 1996 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Foster moved, Nelson seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. (Approved agenda items include: Item 2A, Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol Significant Activity Report). COMMITTEE REPORTS WATER STRUCTURES A. _C_ity of Minnetonka Beach, Staff update on municipal dock situation on : Huntington Point fire lane, follow-up on 6/26/96 Board meeting. Babcock noted additional documentation has been received on this agenda item including a summary letter from staff. He asked Nybeck to highlight this letter. Nybeck stated staff was given directive at the 6/26/96 Board meeting to provide a historical analysis of when the Minnetonka Beach multiple dock was approved in I akO. Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting ~uly 10, 1996 Page 2 1984. He noted: 1) a new multiple dock license application was received for 86 WAU's at 21 locations from 1977; 2) a public hearing was scheduled for the new multiple dock license application on 5/16/84; 3) the "Dock" Committee reviewed the public heaxing scheduled; 4) the public hearing was held on 5/16/84; and 5) the Board approved the new multiple license application of 86 WAU's from 1977 at the 5/23/84 Board meeting. He noted historical data shows density was grandfathered, however, no data supports that side setbacks were grandfathered in or a variance was approved. Nybeck stated the Board gave staff a second directive to locate historical aerial photos to determine boat sizes and configuration when the application was approved in 1984. He noted LMCD photos do not provide sufficient detail and staff has not located other photos yet. He concluded noting the two parties have agreed on a survey with dock configurations on it. He noted it is included in the packet. Babcock noted staff was given directive to research whether any variances were approved for Minnetonka Beach regarding side setbacks. He noted no record has been found. He added no evidence in the Board minutes has found on grandfathered setbacks for these docks. He noted the City of Minnetonka Beach adopted Village Ordinance #89 to address their city docks. He noted in this Ordinance, LMCD Code Section 3.02 was adopted in it. He noted LMCD Section 3.02 outlined side setbacks. Markus noted in the letter from Robert Mitchell, attorney for Minnetonka Beach, it notes an amendment from 86 to 92 WAU's in 1986. He asked for an explanation for the increase. Nyheck noted he would have to research this. Markus questioned the fluctuating number of watercraft being parked at the Minnetonka Beach multiple dock license. He noted it has been observed that five watercraft have been parked at the Huntington Point dock site occasionally. Foster asked whether a settlement has been reached since the last Board meeting? Jim Gilbert, attorney for John Goodmall, noted no settlement has been reached. He provided the Board aerial photos of the area ranging from 1971 through 1985 taken in late Fall and early Winter. He stated he believed the photos show change over the years with increased usage and different boat sizes. He stated this should eliminate the grandfather question. He noted setbacks have always been an issue of concern for the LMCD and noted the docks are in violation of both LMCD and City codes. He encouraged the LMCD to enforce its Code. Mitchell noted there are signed affidavits on record that contradict the historical analysis by stating a side setback variance was granted. He noted the purpose of Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting July 10, 1996 P~e3 this meeting is to discuss what is the side setback situation. He outlined the baseline survey and agreed the dock configuration of 1996 encroaches on the extended lot lines. He added the configuration of 1996 was done to address Mr. Goodman's concerns. He reviewed the configuration in 1995 and its proximity to other neighbor's docks, Dr. Gillum. He noted Dr. Gillum is in the process of applying for a variance. He noted the City maintains they have acquired 17 more feet of shoreline from Mr. Goodman .through adverse possession. He noted this would allow the City to use its 1995 dock configuration and line the docks the way they have been placed historically. He provided a photo in 1985 of how the docks were placed in propoaion to the two adjacent properties. Babcock noted it is not the responsibility of the LMCD to decide whether adverse possession applies or not. He stated this needs to be decided in a court of law. He added since the proposal assumes adverse possession, it makes it difficult to consider it. He noted the City was given the variance option and they opted not to pursue it. He noted it is a possible solution, but he is not willing to consider it until the application has been received. Gilbert stated the question of adverse possession is totally irrelevant to the discussion since there has been no legal proceedings. He added this would bring into question the title of the fire lane, the wall, and the cottage. He noted his client wants the ordinance enforced this year. Foster stated since the other neighbor appears to be interested in applying for a variance, he recommended this issue be tabled to the next Board meeting. MOTION: Foster moved, Dahlen seconded to table this agenda item to the 7/24/96 Board meeting. VOTE: Ayes (3); Nayes (4, Babcock, Markus, Nelson, Partyka); Motion failed. Babcock stated whether a variance is approved for dock use area, the side setback issue still exists and needs to be addressed. Foster believed a configuration could be done with four boats that would meet Code. He believed there is an arrangement which could work for everyone. He believed the variance application is the starting point. Mitchell stated it is the City's intent to apply for a variance to dovetail Dr. Gillum's variance application. Markus questioned whether the situation would be resolved if the City was granted zero side setbacks. Gilbert noted his client would prefer the use of the fire lane for public access rather I alee Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting July 10, 1996 Page 4 than dockage. He noted this would allow more comprehensive access to the lake for the public. Nybeck noted a public hearing could not be held in two weeks because of legal publication requirements. Foster asked LeFevere if it would be appropriate for the City of Minnetonka Beach to jointly apply for a variance with Dr. Gilliam? LeFevere explained the LMCD could act under its authority to grant a variance no matter who is applying. He added a mandatory variance would allow the Board to adjust the applicants and other dock use area down the shore. He noted this could be handled with a co-applicant or concurrent applications. Mike Bloom, Trustee for the City of Minnctonka Beach stated he felt the real issue is the configuration was approved by the Board in 1984 and has been continuously since then. He noted the City wants to continue placing four boats at this location. He noted the configuration in 1984 was approved by the Board. Foster asked how the City's adoption of the LMCD setbacks can be reconciled? He noted the docks are in violation of the City's ordinance. Babcock asked for specifics of this approved configuration. He noted dock sites and number of boats were approved but LMCD files do not show specific configurations. Bloom noted the current configuration has been changed at the request of Mr. ~man. Brian Bcdell. former mayor {>f Minnet~nka Beach stated dock applications sent to residents have not asked for side yard setbacks since it has never been an issue. He added previous LMCD staff and Minnetonka Beach mayor have assumed that side setbacks are not a major issue. Babcock noted maybe the 1977 configuration, which is unknown, met LMCD setback requirements. He added over time, the size of the boats and docks has grown to maximum boat length of 26 feet. He stated he believed the City has not been active enough in dock placement. Marlins expressed concern with the increase of boat storage units (BSU's) from 86 to 92, the adverse possession claim by the City, and the possible conflict of interest of a city employee. LeFevere noted there has been a statement made by the City that a configuration of docks has been approved. He noted LMCD staff has not found a single plan of I ak~ Minnetonka Conservation District Rl~3lar Board of Directors Meeting July 10, 1996 Page 5 dock configuration in the City. He noted what has been approved are dock sites and number of boats associated with each site. He noted it has been implied that Minnetonka Beach has approved site plans with dock configurations, side setbacks, slip dimensions, etc. He restated staff has no documentation of this. Bloom stated he believed it should be the burden of the LMCD to show an approved dock plan with an application form submitted several years ago, He believed it is a heavy burden for the City to have to provide this. He noted the City does have some site plans for other dock sites. He noted the absence of a dock site plan does not mean none was submitted. Dr. Jerry AmC, resident of Minnetonka Beach asked the Board to give consideration to the li~'estyle of Minnetonka Beach rather than the legal issues involved. He noted the decision of the Board could greatly affect hundreds of residents. He stated a serious look should be taken at the behind the scenes issues which go deeper than the dock issue. He urged the Board to preserve the pleasure, as well as the safety, of the lake. He slated he believed the configuration of the dock in 1984 was essentially the same as the aerial photograph with three docks coming out and one Bloom submitted a dock plan approved from 1977 through 1983 at Dock Site 10 which he stated clearly shows a zero side setback. Babcock noted staff is not implying zero side setbacks were not approved, however, no evidence has been found to support it. Nybeck noted every variance approved by the LMCD has a file established with an Order. He added every variance approved for a multiple dock license has a copy of the variance order included in the multiple dock license file. He concluded neither exists in the LMCD office. Bloom noted the City of Minnetonka Beach's 92 docks have been licensed for 92 BSU's since 1986. He illustrated the city is licensed for 92 BSU's in 1996. LeFevere questioned the detail of side setbacks on the site plan provided by Bloom for Dock Site 10. He noted some of the details are not clear. Foster asked what impact a zero side setback approval would be on the rest of the community7 Babcock questioned what the hardship would be to grant a variance. He noted he would be hesitant to discuss that this evening. Dr. Gillum noted this may be able to be resolved if the City and Mr. Gilbert join in the variance application he is preparing. ! ~a~ Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting .luly 10, 1996 Page 6 B® Markus suggested taking action on this item rather than tabling the issue. He noted this would allow the parties to proceed accordingly. Foster stated if a variance applicativn is to be submitted, it would be premature to vote on it tonight. LeFevere stated until a variance application has been received, the only Board decision is whether to proceed with enforcement action through a criminal or civil action. If mere is a variance application pending, ~ would not advise taking this Foster suggested achieving voluntary compliance rather than making a decision? Babcock asked whether the LMCD can vary from the ten day public hearing notice requirement? LeFevere recommended ten days of public notice be given for a variance application. MOTION: Dahlen moved, Foster seconded to table this issue until the 8/14/96 Board meeting. VOTE: Ayes (6); Nays (1, Markus); Motion carried. Nyheck suggested the applicant(s) on any variance application should check with LMCD staff with Code compliance with LMCD Code. The Board was recessed at 8:35 p.m and reconvened at 8:40.m. Ordinance Amendment, 3rd reading of an Ordinance defining and prohibiting the use of storage boats on Lake Minnetonka; amending LMCD ~de Sections 102, 55B, and 55C, and Section 2.12, Subd. 2. MOTION: Partyka moved, Babcock seconded to approve 3rd reading and adoption of this ordinance. Foster believed it is bad public policy to paxs an ordinance amendment prohibiting something that was built legally. He added he is in favor of the ordinance subject to grandfathering in this structure. MOTION TO AMEND: Foster moved, Nelson seconded to amend the ordinance to grandfather in Mr. Hawks structure. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District R~gular ~ of I~i_re~tors Meeting July 10, 1996 Pgge 7 Nelson and Markus concurred with Foster's comments. Dahlen noted he had heard no comments on why a canvas boathouse is allowed and why Mr. Hawk's is not. Babcock stated Mr. Hawks may have technically complied with the roles, however, current city and LMCD Ordinances clearly prohibit similar structures on docks land. He noted the spirit of the ordinance would be affected by grandfathering the structure in. He suggested a sunset provision on the amendment if it is to be approved. Foster suggested possible conditions of a sunset grandfather clause should include when the house is sold, when the historic boat is sold, and when the boat is not stored in this slxucture for two years. Babcock strongly recommended a sunset clause with a timeframe be adopted rather than basing grandfathering on property ownership. LeFevere noted this could be written into the ordinance amendment. He noted the I.aMCD has the legal right to require removal of the boathouse when the ordinance is published. He noted this is an unique grandfathering clause, and it could be difficult to enforce at a future date if the house is sold. Stark expressed cone. em in voting because of the number of Board members present. LeFevere noted seven votes are needed to pass an ordinance. Jay Ouam. attorney for Mr, Hawks stated his client would be willing to write into a future purchase agreement that the grandfathered use of the boathouse would not continue to the next property owner. VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND: Ayes (5); Nays (2, Partyka, Babcock); Motion carried. Babcock suggested the original motion be withdrawn unill LeFevere has time to prepare a draft ordinance m-nendment and additional Board members are present. LeFevere suggested an ordinance should not be passed until the Board has time to review the detail of an ordinance amendment. Partyka and Babcock withdrew the original motion. ! alr~. Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting July 10, 1996 Page 8 Ce MOTION: Foster moved, Partyka seconded to direct LeFevere to prepare a new draft of the ordinance amendment to grandfather Mr. Hawks' structure with a sunset clause of: 1) when the property is sold; 2) when the boat is sold; or 3) when the boat is not stored in the boathouse for two seasons. VOTE: Ayes (6); Nays (1, Babcock); Motion carried. Excelsior Park Pavilion, Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of New Multiple Dock and Special Density License applications. Partyka stated he would like to add language to the Order by adding in the fourth paragraph after the word dock, 'which is owned and operated by the MTM in conjunction with a pier and access agreement dated March 16, 1995 with High Wire Cruises'. LeFevere stated he does not see any legal need to add this language, however, it could be added since it is accurate. He pointed out it is unusual to add a Finding which was not part of the original Board discussion. Babcock noted he would like to provide Fred Bame an opportunity to comment on this change before the order is approved by the Board. MOTION: Partyka moved, Stark seconded to direct attorney to incorporate the amendment to the Order. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Babcock moved, Foster seconded to table Board approval on this Order until the 7/24/96 meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Babcock noted a variance application should have been required for this change beyond 100'. He stated since the changes beyond 100' were limited to the removal of existing dock structure and did not add or change the existing structure, the new variance application did not seem practical at this point. LeFevere stated the record could show a decision was made that the nature of the change did not require a variance application. Chairmans Note: A new variance application will be required if the removed dock structure were reinstalled at a later date. D. Additional Business I ak~ Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting July 10, 1996 Page 9 ® ® There was no additional business. LAKE USE AND ~TION B. Ordinance Amendment, 1st reading of an Ordinance relating conditions; mending LMCD Code Section 3.021, Subd. 2A. MOTION: Nelson moved,. Partyka seconded to approve the 1st reading and adoption of the ordinance amendment relating to high water conditions; amending LMCD Code Section 3.021, Subd. 2A as mended. Babcock suggested a friendly amendment to add N.G.V.D. after the word feet throughout the ordinance amendment. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Review and Discussion on Personal Watercraft article Nybeck recommended tabling discussion on this article because the Board members who recommended discussion on this agenda item are not present. The Board noted this article was received and reviewed by the Board. D. Additional Business There was no additional business. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A. Update on 1996 EWM Harvesting Program Nybeck stated a statistical summary sheet was included in the Board packet. noted Paurus will be available at a future Board meeting. He Additional Business Willcutt asked for Board approval for a boat count survey with Clear Air, Inc. for $1,920.00. Foster suggested this survey be done every other year rather than every year. MOTION: Markus moved, Foster seconded to approve the boat count survey at a cost of $1,920.00 by Clear Air, Inc. with photographs to be provided to the LMCD. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. I ~lre. Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting 1uly 10, 1996 Page 10 ® ADMINISTRATION A. 1996 Budget Amendment for Computer Upgra~ Lisa Francis, Administrative Secretary reviewed a quote regarding the upl~ading of office computers from Geek Technologies. She discussed the need to computerize the licensing function of the LMCD via a network. Babcock noted the proposal is to purchase three 100 mhz Pentium computers and upgrade one of the existing computers and use it as a file server. He noted a Windows '95 network would be utili=ed. He proposed a budget amendment of $5,000 to bring the computer upgrade totally for 1996 to $7,500. He noted this would be taken out of reserves. Board members discussed the need to confider 17" monitors rather than 15" monitors. MOTION: Babcock moved, Foster seconded to approve the 1996 Budget amendment of $5,000.00 from rese~e to the budget line for computer upgrading for 1996, upgrading one monitor to 17" and up to $900 for software. Be VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Additional Business There was no additional business. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment Willcutt reviewed the vouchers for payment. MOTION: Stark moved, Nelson seconded to approve vouchers for payment as submitted. Be VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Additional Business F'mancial Holdings; Willcutt discussed a qua_nerly report on financial holdings. Third Ouarter Levy; Willcutt noted the third quarter levies have been paid except for one 6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Iake Minnetonka Conservation District Reg~flar Board of Directors Meeting July 10, 1996 Page 11 Willcutt reported on the following items: Goose Control: A meeting will be held with dries to bring this issue back to the table. Boat Count Survey: Updated information provided for informational purposes. Freshwater Institute: Discussed search for office space. Monthly Project Li~t; Discussion of projects worked on in the past year. Babcock discussed the need for the Board to provide a performance evaluation for Willcutt in the near future. OLD BUS~ There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. ADJOURNMEJhlT There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 10:01 p.m. Doug Babcock, Chair Joe Zwak, Secretary MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 23, 1996 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 23, 1996 at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Phyllis Jessen. Absent and excused: Andrea Ahrens. Also in attendance: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney Curt Pearson, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Economic Development Coordinator Bruce Chamberlain and Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. The following interested citizens were also present: Joe Stibal, Chris Brandl, Tom and Sandi Effertz, Bev Botko, Jerry Clappsaddle, Jerry Longpre, Jerry Pietrowski, Paul Meisel, Chuck Champine, Tom Casey, Dave Willette, Ms. Katherine Zimmer-Lokken. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed all in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 9, 1996 REGULAR MEETING. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to approve the Minutes of the July 9, 1996 regular City Council meeting. 1.1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: TRIAX/DD CABLE PARTNERS PROPOSED MERGER. (NOTE: LEGAL COUNSEL HAS ADVISED THAT WE CONTINUE THIS HEARING UNTIL AUGUST 13, 1996, AT WHICH TIME FINAL DOCUMENTS WILL HAVE BEEN PREPARED WHICH WILL REPORT TO YOU LEGAL COUNSEL'S Mayor 1996. RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PROPOSED MERGER). Polston stated the attorneys had requested the public hearing to be continued until August 13, MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to continue the public hearing regarding Triax/DD Cable Partners proposed merger until August 13, 1996. At this moved 1.2 Jensen time Mayor Polston requested the next four items be on a consent agenda. AH of the items were by Jensen, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously. CASE//96-29: VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION, JOHN HUBLER 5816 GRANDVIEW BLVD., LOT 1, MOUND SHORES PID//14-117-24 23 0003. moved, Hanus seconded the following resolution as recommended: Minutes - Mou~ul City Council July 23, 1996 RRESOLUTION#96-74 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 5816 GRANDVIEW BLVD., LOT 1, MOUND SHORES, PID #14-117-24 13 0003, PZ# 96-29. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 CASE #96-35: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION, CHRIS BRANDLE, 4842 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOT 4, BLOCK 1, SETON PLACE PID #24-117-24 14 0062. Jensen moved, Hanus seconded the following resolution as recommended: RESOLUTION #96-75 The vote was unanimously in favor. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 4842 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOT 4, BLOCK 1, SETON PLACE, PID #24-117-24 14 0062, PZ #96- 35. Motion carried. 1.4 CASE #96-36: VARIANCE FOR DECK, JOE & GEORGIANNE STIBAL, 4723 BEACHSIDE ROAD, LOT 3 & 1/2 OF 2, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 23 0046. Jensen moved, Hanus seconded the following resolution as recommended: RESOLUTION #96-76 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT 4723 BEACHSIDE ROAD, LOT 3 & 1/2 OF 2, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 18-117-23 23 0046, PZ#96-36. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 APPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS PERMITS - BATCH #8. 42461 42511 42556 42586 42626 42691 42791 BRADLEY MILLER CHRIS BRIGHT TOM EFFERTZ DEBORAH MATHEWS RONALD MCCOMBS WANDA STUERMAN JAMES MILLER 4747 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 4753 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 4757 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 4763 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 4767 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 4771 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 4781 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE g,~q t4 2 Minutes - Mound City Council July 23, 1996 Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution as recommended: RESOLUTION//96-77 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LANDS KNOWN AS DEVON COMMON "BATCIt//8" DOCK SITES 42461, 42511, 42556, 42586, 42626, 42691 & 42791. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.7 DISCUSSION: LINEAL FOOTAGE - CITY OF MOUND DOCK PROGRAM. This item was delayed for a short time as the Parks Director was not yet available to report. 1.8 REQUEST FROM BABE RUTH BASEBALL LEAGUE TO MODIFY THE BASEBALL FIELD AT PHILBROOK PARK. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the City had received a request from the Babe Ruth Baseball League to make modifications to the baseball field at Philbrook Park, at their expense, to allow continued use of the field. Jim Fackler, Parks Director, agreed but requested a plan be presented to him before and modifications occur. He also stated the Babe Ruth League has used the park for a long period of time and no mis-use has happened. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to approve the modifications of Philbrook Park by the Babe Ruth Baseball League at their own expense and subject to the Parks Department approval. 1.7 DISCUSSION: LINEAL FOOTAGE - CITY OF MOUND DOCK PROGRAM. Jim Fackler, Parks Director, stated he had compiled the lineal footage of shoreline that is under the City of Mound's control and utilized for the dock program. He based his information on reference to aerial photographs, half section maps and surveys dating back to the 1970's. He only referred to the current dock location map on a very limited basis. This information is an estimate to how close the City of Mound's dock program is to the compliance guidelines set up by the LMCD. There are areas that could require an updated survey. He read his statistics: Total Estimated Lineal Footage ............................ 33,225 Ln Ft Minutes - Moumt City Council July 23, 1996 Boat storage units (BSU'S) allowed based on LMCD Rules and 33,225 Ln Ft ........................ 664 BSU's Average boat count based on the past nine years of the City Program ............................... 514 BSU's Amount of Lineal footage required to meet LMCD rules for 514 BSU's ........................... 25,700 Ln Ft Lineal footage estimated above requirement for 514 BSU's ................................ 7,525 Ln Ft Mr. Fackler stated the LMCD did have final say, but the LMCD Director said this was a good representation of the area. Councilmember Hanus thanked Mr. Fackler for preparing the information he had asked for. He did come up with a different number of lineal footage as the report and will arrange time to meet with him at city hall and review the numbers. Councilmember Jensen asked if Longford Road had been included in the lineal footage count and it had. She also suggested that Mr. Reese, Mound's LMCD representative receive a copy of Jim's report. Mayor Polston stated he did not want assumptions on the actual lineal footage, he would like to see actual numbers. He suggested this be discussed at a Committee of the Whole meeting. 1.9 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FOR LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the EAW had been prepared by Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Consultant/City Planner, with some input of city staff. The EAW required comments from several organizations and these comments were included in the packet. He introduced Bruce Chamberlain. Bruce reviewed the EAW and made some housekeeping notes on it. He stated the EAW is sufficient and that an Environmental Impact Statement was not warranted for the project. He recommended Action "B" with the following conditions: 1. Secondary channels from adjacent shoreline to the main canal is a potential environmental threat. Dredging permits for the Lost Lake project shall have a condition placed on them that secondary channels other than those existing and proposed as part of the Lost Lake project plan dated 1996 shall be prohibited, and; 2. The RGU (Responsible Government Unit) directs staff to work with the MPCA and Watershed District to further explore options to the boat pull-outs to provide safe boat travel along the canal. Chamberlain further stated the flavor of the comments received on the EAW. Seven brought up minor modifications that can be easily handled. Two comments brought up by Tom Casey and Mrs. Zimmer- Lokken questioned the testing methods done by Braun Intertec. There was some discussion by Mr. Casey and Ms. Zimmer-Lokken regarding the testing methods used and the measurement descriptions used in the reports. Bruce commented that the testing was done, he felt, correctly and the MPCA had no objection. He also Minutes - Moumt City Council July 23, 1996 stated the Parks and Open Space Commission suggested that an EIS be done, and the Economic Development Commission was satisified with the EAW. The comment time was June 3 - July 3, 1996. Councilmember Hanus had a concern about prohibiting future dredging in Lost Lake. This sounded good now, but what about future plans that could be developed later on? Bruce stated the intent was to limit private dredgings. City Attorney Curt Pearson added different verbiage changing the tone of 3A in the proposed resolution to read, "It is a recommendation of this Council that future applications for dredging permits to be issued by permitting authorities for Lost Lake, other than those existing and proposed as part of this Lost Lake project plan dated 1996, be carefully examined by permitting authorities to protect the environment." Councilmember Polston moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following resolution with 3A being reworded: RESOLUTION//96-78 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND DETERMINING THAT, BASED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) AND PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE EAW, AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) IS NOT WARRANTED AND SOME PROJECT CONDITIONS AND FURTHER STUDY IS REQUIRED FOR THE LOST LAKE CANAL REHABILITATION PROJECT. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL CRITERIA PERTAINING TO NONCONFORMING USES BY AMENDING SECTION 350:420 OF THE MOUND CODE OF ORDINANCES. SUGGESTED DATE: AUGUST 13, 1996. MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Hanus, and carried unanimously, to set August 13, 1996 for a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Mound Zoning Ordinance pertaining to nonconforming uses by amending Section 350:420 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. 1.11 CONTINUED DISCUSSION: REQUEST FROM LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES RE: LMC WORK PROGRAM FOR MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY RELATING TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES AND UTILITY COMPANIES. City Manager Ed Shulde stated the Council had briefly discussed this at the last meeting. He summarized the item saying the LMC is asking cities to contribute to a fund for the LMC to set up a 5 Minutes ~ Mound City Council July 23, 1996 work program to counter the challenge brought to cities regarding who has authority over the cities rights-of-way regarding the installation of telecommunication equipment such as optic cable, etc. The LMC is asking for only $709. Mr. Shukle recommended contributing the funds. Councilmember Jensen indicated she would be abstaining from voting due to US West's involvement which is her employer. MOTION by Polston, seconded by Jessen to authorize the City Manager to contribute $709 to the LMC to move forward with an aggressive work program and financing plan to counter the challenge of who has authority over the cities rights-of- way regarding the installation of telecommunication equipment. The vote passed 3- 0, with Jensen abstaining. Motion carried. 1.12 RENEWAL OF A GARDEN LEASE, LEO AND BEVERLY WALLIS, 1668 CANARY LANE. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to approve a 10 year garden lease for Leo and Beverly Wallis of 1668 Canary Lane. The garden is located next to their property. 1.13 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Polston to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $202,129.95, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ADD-ON 1.14 VFW PICNIC Linda Strong, Acting City Clerk, stated the VFW wants to hold a picnic in their parking lot on Saturday, August 10, 1996. The Liquor Control Board needs to approve the extension of their license after the Council approves it. She stated she had not talked to Chief Harrell regarding the event. She suggested to the VFW that they fence around the parking lot for security reasons. MOTION by Polston, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to approve a permit for the VFW to hold a picnic in their parking lot on August 10, 1996, contingent upon the Police Chief also approving the special permit. 1.15 HAWKER PERMIT FOR BLUEBELL ICE CREAM Acting City Clerk, Linda Strong, stated that Bluebell Ice Cream sales had been approved earlier in the year. The company failed to follow the licensing process and were not operating. Now they have 6 I I I I ,It I~, ,I Minutes - Mound City Council July 23, I996 refiled, paid the correct fee and their insurance is current. This permit needs Council approval. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to approve a 2 month Hawker Permit for Bluebell Ice Cream to sell from their truck in Mound. 1.16 RENEWAL OF SOUTHWEST DRUG TASK FORCE PARTICIPATION City Manager Ed Shukle stated it was again time to renew our participation in the Southwest Drug Task Force and agree to contribute up to $10,000 cash match. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to approve participation renewal in the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force and to contribute up to $10,000 match for January - December, 1997. 1.17 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: FINANCIAL REPORT AS PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR, FOR JUNE 1996. ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES (NLC) RE: ANNUAL NLC CONGRESS OF CITIES, DECEMBER 7-10, 1996 IN SAN ANTONIO TEXAS. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ATTENDING, PLEASE CONTACT LINDA ASAP SO THAT REGISTRATION CAN BE SENT TO NLC. COUNCIL RECEIVED BROCHURE AT LAST MEETING. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 8, 1996. D. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 11, 1996. 1.18 EXECUTIVE SESSION At 9:25 the Council went into Executive Session and returned at 9:35 PM. City Attorney Curt Pearson stated he had updated the City Council as to the legal status of the Piper Jaffray Case. MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 PM. City Manager ~'~ ..... Attest: Acting City Clerk 7 CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 CASE NO. 96-37 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER TtlE VACATION OF A 30 FOOT WIDE PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS COBDEN LANE LOCATED NORTH OF WINDSOR ROAD AND TERMINATED AT LOT 3, BLOCK I OF TEAL POINTE LOCATED IN "ARDEN" ADDITION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 13, 1996, to consider the vacation of that portion of Cobden Lane located north of Windsor Road and terminating at Block 1, Lot 3 of Teal Pointe. This portion of Cobden Lane is platted to be 30 feet wide, and is unimproved. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting Pegg~/J~s, ~l~anning Secretary affected property owners by August 2, 1996. Published in "The Laker" on luly 27, 1996 and Posted by luly 29, 1996. printed on recycled paper MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TUF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 8, 1996 CASE 96-37: STREET VACATION - COBDEN LANE (PUBLIC HEARING) ROBERT FOXWELL, 5090 WINDSOR ROADt LOT 4t BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE~ PID 25- 117-24 12 0234 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the City Engineer's memorandum. Sutherland reviewed the history of a previous request to vacate this portion of Cobden Lane. In late 1992 and early 1993, as part of the platting procedures for Teal Pointe, a request to vacate portions of Cobden Lane came before the Planning Commission and City Council. A number of neighbors, including owners of property adjacent to Cobden Lane spoke out against the proposed vacation of Cobden Lane and the preliminary plat of Teal Pointe. The current vacation request covers the exact area of Cobden Lane that failed approval in January 1993 due to lack of a 4/5 majority vote. The right-of-way in question is very steep and it is highly unlikely that a street would ever be constructed. All the platted lots adjacent to this portion of Cobden Lane have frontage on an improved street, except Lots 1 and 2, Block 14, Whipple. It appears the most logical way to gain access to these lots would be from the end of Drummond Road. This parcel is not served with either sanitary sewer or watermain. The city watermains in both Drummond Road and Windsor Road are dead end mains and it is conceivable that the City may some day wish to construct a loop from Drummond to Windsor by way of Cobden Lane right-of-way. At the previous hearing, the subject of a public walkway within this right-of-way was also discussed. Even though it is unlikely, a street would ever be constructed in this section of Cobden Lane right-of-way, staff recommendation is for denial of the vacation request for the following reasons: The proposed vacation does not appear to be in the public's best interest. The right-of-way may be needed in the future for a watermain loop. 3. Adjacent parcel does not front on an improved City street. Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1996 The right-of-way could be used for a public walkway in the future. Voss questioned how wide of an area would be needed for the city to install utilities. Sutherland noted that it depends on the depth and type of utility, and they could require as much as 30 feet. Mueller referred to reason #3 and commented that the vacation of Cobden will not affect the fact that the adjacent parcel (109) currently does not have frontage on an improved road, in fact it would eliminate the corner lot requirements, which have more restrictive setbacks and tend to require variances more often. Mueller suggested that they could vacate the road and require easements, and emphasized that this would help for zoning purposes. Vacating the road and requiring that easements be retained was discussed. It was noted that if easements were placed on the vacated road, the adjacent owners could not build on the easements, but they could build up to it. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Glen Melina of 5139 Windsor stated that he is not in favor of the vacation, and he would like to see this area kept "as is" and would like to see a walkway. Bob Foxwell, applicant, stated that he has a contract to purchase Lot 4 in Teal Pointe which is located to the east of Cobden Lane. He explained that Lot 4 has a 30 foot setback requirement from Cobden Lane which makes the property impossible to build on, it would allow for only a 27 foot wide house. He emphasized that due to topography, the house would have to be constructed towards the front of the lot. He will not object to a walkway or utility easement, and believes the property will never be used for a road. If the road is vacated, it would allow for a 50 foot wide building footprint, and will increase both adjacent lot sizes. He stressed that parcel 109 would probably get it's road access from Drummond, not Cobden, and by vacating the road it would make that lot more useable too. Hanus stated that he is not opposed to retaining easements if the road is vacated. Hanus questioned liability concerns if a walkway easement is retained and the area is not cleaned up or improved. Brad Biermann, 5106 Windsor Road stated that his property is adjacent to a portion of Cobden proposed to be vacated, so he would gain 15 feet, however, he feels he would be losing 30 feet if it were vacated. He is opposed to the vacations and wants to retain the 30 foot buffer and the ability to walk there. He would like to see it stay as city property se he can be sure it will not get built on. 7 ?lanning Co~ission Minutes July 8, 1996 Hanus stated that the city has control of platted right-of-ways but they do not own them. Voss stated that if the road is vacated, then there is a guarantee that a road will never be constructed. Burma stated that the city has the right to put a road in unless it is vacated. Jim Brunzell, 5101 Windsor Road, stated that the only interest this vacation will serve is the applicant's interest, not the public's interest. He does not feel a 10 foot wide walkway would compare to the 30 feet they have now. Todd Rask, 5109 Drummond Road stated that he walks his dogs down there, and this area gives access in the winter to the lake to ice fish. He is opposed to the vacation and likes the buffer provided by the maples or oaks. He noted that if the property is vacated, the owners could cut the trees down. Thomas Albert, 5116 Drummond Road supports his neighbors and opposes the vacation and stated that he likes the buffer. Reuben Hartman, 5124 Windsor Road, has resided at his current house for 17 years, and is strictly against the road, he wants to see the trees remain and would like to see it remain "as is". Voss emphasized that by retaining the road, it will probably be improved in the future because this area will show a need for it. Applicant, Mr. Foxwell, stated that he sympathizes and respects the neighbor's concerns. He wants to keep as many trees as possible and also wants to retain a buffer. He believes they can build a house on Lot 4 without cutting any trees that are more than 6 inches in diameter. He questions if it is not in the interest of the public to vacate this area to serve as a buffer. Mueller stated that it could be possible to require a nature conservation easement which would not permit the removal of trees and will help protect drainage and erosion control issues. Mueller asked the applicant if he would be in favor of the vacation subject to a nature conservation easement, utility easement, and walkway easement being placed on the property. Mr. Fox-well stated he has no problem with the easements. Mr. Brunzell stated that even if there is a possibility a road would be constructed there someday, he would rather take the chance and not have the road vacated. Mr. Biermann agreed. Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1~$6 Michael sees good reasons to vacate Cobden, but also hears that the neighbors do not want it vacated. Burma stated that he has not heard that not vacating it would be in the best interest, and feels it would be in the best interest of both sides to vacate the road with the easements. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend denial of the street vacation as recommended by staff. Voss stated, for the benefit of the public, that he is afraid the road will go in, and suggested some other action should be taken so this area stays in its pristine condition. Mueller stated that he will vote against the motion because he feels the neighbors concerns can be addressed by requiring the nature conservation easement, walkway easement and utility easement. Michael agrees, but commented that the public does not agree. Mueller suggested to the applicant that if the vacation is not approved that he still has the option of applying for a variance to the setback to Cobden, and noted that he would be in favor of some sort of variance. Weiland agreed, because Cobden is unimproved. MOTION carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Reifschneider, ross, Weiland, Michael, and Glister. Those opposed were Burma, Hanus, and Mueller. Hanus commented that he has some further questions that he wants to ask the City Engineer, and suspects he will have that opportunity at the Council meeting. He feels that every issue they address can be taken care of with an easement. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 13, 1996. ,I I Il I, ,ut Ii,, I ,ii,, / ) /? ITEM #D McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors MEMORANDUM RECEIVEO JUL ri 3 MOUND PLANNINC, & ,i~SP, TO: Mound City Staff, Planning Commission and City Council FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer DATE: July 3, 1996 SUBJECT: Proposed Street Vacation - Cobden Lane Case No. 96-37 FILE NO.: MFRA #11412 BACKGROUND A request to vacate portions of Cobden Lane came before the Planning Commission and City Council in late 1992 and early 1993 as part of the platting procedures for Teal Pointe. The original preliminary plat for Teal Pointe included the Easterly Half of Cobden Lane from Drummond Road to Waterbury Road which required a separate vacation approval. A number of neighbors, including owners of property adjacent to Cobden Lane spoke out against the proposed vacation of Cobden Lane and the preliminary plat of Teal Pointe. During the public hearing before the City Council on January 12, 1993, the applicant changed his requested for vacation of Cobden Lane by deleting the portion between Windsor Road and Waterbury Road. The public hearing was closed and the Council noted 3 in favor and 2 against the proposed vacation of Cobden Lane between Drummond Road and Windsor Road. The motion failed because a 4/5 vote is required to approve a street vacation. Subsequently, the final plat of Teal Pointe was approved without including any portion of the Cobden Lane right-of-way. An Equal Opportunity Employer ,I It Ii ~ ,It I~, I Mound City Staff, Planning Commission and City Council July 3, 1996 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This vacation request covers the exact area of Cobden lane that failed approval in January, 1993 due to the lack of a 4/5 majority vote. The right-of-way in question is very steep and it is highly unlikely that a street could ever be constructed. All the platted lots adjacent to this portion of Cobden Lane have frontage on an improved street, except Lots 1 and 2, Block 14, Whipple. It appears the most logical way to gain access to these lots would be from the end of Drummond Road. This parcel is not served with either sanitary sewer or watermain. The City watermains in both Drummond Road and Windsor Road are dead end mains and it is conceivable that the City may some day wish to construct a loop from Drummond to Windsor by way of Cobden Lane right-of-way. At the previous hearing, the subject of a public walk-way within this right-of-way was also discussed. Even though it is unlikely, a street would ever be constructed in this section of Cobden Lane right-of- way, we are recommending denial of the vacation request for the following reasons: 1. The proposed vacation does not appear to be in the public's best interest. 2. The right-of-way may be needed in the future for a watermain loop. 3. Adjacent parcel does not front on an improved City street. 4. The right-of-way could be used for a public walk-way in the future. e:\main:\11412\memo7-2 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 26, 1996 Minnegasco Fire Department GTE Public Works Northern States Power Police Department City Engineer Parks Department/~ /- Peggy James, Planning & Inspections Secretary,-) k~ Request by Robert Foxwell to Vacate an Unimproved Platted Right-of-Way known as Cobden Lane The City of Mound has received a request from Robert Foxwell who has a signed Purchase Agreement for 5090 Windsor Road, to vacate that portion of Cobden Lane located north of Windsor Road and terminating at Block 1, Lot 3 of Teal Pointe. This portion of Cobden Lane is platted to be 30 feet wide, and is unimproved. Do you foresee a need for this right-of-way? Are there any utilities involved? What is your recommendation? please submit your comments or concerns in writing at your earliest convenience. This request will be heard by the Planning Commission on July 8, 1996, and by the City Council on August 13, 1996. If you have any questions, you may call me directly at 472-0607. Thank you for your time in reviewing this matter. Enclosures printed on recycled paper Rev. 3-6-96 I ,I Application for STREET VACATION city of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: AH. Application Fee: Distribut ion: City Planner 0-~5 Minnegasco ~-ZS NSP City Engineer , Police Dept. ~4 GTE Public Works / Fire Dept. Other Please type or print the following information: APPLICANT Name !!7 ADJACENT PROPERTY Name of Business (APPLICANT'S PROPERTY) Lot DISTRICT VACATED FOR PUBLIC NEED to' LAND? Applicant' s Signature Teal Pointe 10/95 All in Block 1 PID ~;L~- 1 17-24 1 20 Lot 1 (231) Lot 2 (232) Lot 3 (233) 5108 5104 5100 Drummond Road Drummond Road Drummond Road Lot 4 (234) Lot 5 (235) Lot 6 (236) Lot 7 (237) Lot 8 (238) Lot 9 (239) 5O9O 5O80 5O7O 5060 5065 5075 Windsor Road Windsor Road Windsor Road Windsor Road Windsor Road Windsor Road _ .~l ! HANOV~ , ~0 ~9 _-i 26.91 :.43. 14 WINDSOR RD :'. g. 18.. I0. 14, 7 I'~'. Og _ g. I-'"" '~) O 4 I. 64':. 81:- OUTLOT B I I I "':i I -IR::..:. I , , ,o, t '3 ' ~ '! IO')'- , , t ~8, I..~..l L I 40 L.~..~ ... I .x', x, . ~ .,U.. ~ .. ....... :"'~ ~ I X~ ' ; ~ ~ ~ r ....... ~ ,.~X ~. .~ ~.. .-k ' .... ~ ._, . .~ ~; '.~ "- ,. .'~ '-~!.:~- ~x"/'~ ,'~ .... , x-,,,, ,~ -., ..:; o ~ ' ~0~ ?x .... TX' . I ' '::"" ' ~", '~' "~-"' ",- .... h ~'-' ~ ~ ,'~ ,w~ ~ ~ ~ , I ~ ,,, rr/" r x- i / i ' .' ~ usI j i ' ; ' ' - ~ ~, '~ ~a ~t-/ i" ~ , I,~,~'77)h~ ~ i ~ i ~ _ L ~ ~ ~ Y -%-- /i~'~-'l ~D-4 .... ~ r~-(841i J i ~ i I-. , - - '~ 2~' "J ~,' ~ % "' ~ ',, -II~ ' - ~ ::~ , , ~ ,., Z. I-,~4q'-, , 4n.~ ~.~,',,~ 40 ~ ~,"' ~ ~,. ,, ,~ , , I ~ i42 t--.~'~:~'u i .uii 156.4~ '. r'~... ;~ 4r) j.!M f,~ 40 ,~ 40 i~ 40 ; i~ ,"' i ~¢: 4n~ XO ~ ......... ~ ~ !'., 0)(233),5! ' ' ¢51.5! 40 40 40 ,i !26 [~ F)R M ,~(-ff.'F~ PO ::::::...15 .......... ,t ..... ~d ~ L/ ~ FAST 2 ~'. ~1~ ¢ /:%_ ~ !N._ '*>~.-.::,, ~2~ ~ .. ',,, (257) i 57.09 ~! 4el 4r. ~ tic, r. 4o. 4,L. 4o j i 259 ::/' ~,I ~11~i , .' 1~.~ ~ ~'~ . ~5 ..... ' -, ....... v,.~ ........ ; ~ ~' rnr ..... NO i,590050 Wi rxD,_F.. F,u,' F~ ¢ '_., o I~1~7~ E;i'5~ '12"~'-'-]. 157~ I 40 ~ , ~ ~ i .----~ , ss PHELPS pr,.,.. -~, %, ,~n~ o J a J -~c-~ ,x ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ : ~ ..... ~ o ~-,.~., ,~ ~ o oi I , a , ,.' . ~ ~.~ ,o91 i ~ ~ '',~i ~ i~ ~ ,a i ~ ~ ~ 7 ..... - i i /U' ~%~ ~. ''.~ ''. I ~o' -'o'14o ...',i 16oj _ F')~L'7, '~'i .-~ C~i 5 '1 7~C~'' I ' [3~5' : ..... ~--:---7~r~~ i ~ , ~r, : Jr ' C~)- ~:1 , ,,.'y,,,~ ¢ ~' c~ a ':'~ ~- ¢ ,,-~ ',.-' ,r~; ,:_; ~ '~ ,41 ~~7-~ ~~% '$ iaO i¢~ z:m /,p,,~ 8 I / 0 ,It It Ii l, It I& ,I ,k,, MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - J]~NUkRY 12, 1993 1.4 PUBLIC HE~RING: NEIL WEBER FOR TEAL POINTE DEVELOPMENT CO. - CONSIDER A REQUEST TO VACATE PARTS OF COBDEN LANE AS DESCRIBED FOR THE PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA N~MED "TEAT, 1.5 POINTE" CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE ~92-060~ 061~ 062 & 063: NEIL WEBER FOR TEAL POINTE DEVELOPMENT CO.~ BLOCKS 10~ 11, 15 & 16~ WHIPPLE, PID 425-117-24 12 0225~ 0118~ 0119~ 0120 - REQUEST; PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA~ ~ V~IANCE The City Planner explained that there are two items: the public hearing on the street vacation which needs to occur prior to any action on the second half of the item which is a continued public hearing on the conditional use permit and the preliminary plat. The two issues are so intertwined because the reason for the vacation is the subdivision. So that if you find favor with the subdivision, it may have some bearing on your decision in the street vacation. If you do not approve the subdivision, then the vacation is not necessary. You need to take action in sequential fashion, i.e. vacation and then preliminary plat. He explained that the vacation is for parts of Cobden Lane from Waterbury to Drummond. He then reviewed the subdivision plan as follows: Windsor Road to be extended as a public street into the property terminating in a cul-de-sac. Windsor Road will serve lots 4 through 9. Lots 1-3 will be served by a private roadway/driveway that is label as Outlot A. Windsor Road has a proposed 40 foot right-of-way with a paved area of 18 feet. The proposed street will match the existing width of Windsor Road. The private driveway on Outlot A will have a width of 22 feet which matches the existing width of Drummond Road. He stated the City Engineer will talk about the street construction and utility issues. The average page 1 of 8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 1993 lot size is 12,800 square feet· The R-2 zone requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. The proposal involves a number of approvals. These requested approvals are: Approval of a conditional use permit to establish Teal Pointe as a Planned Development Area (PDA). The permit is also necessary to address the issue of establishing Outlot A as a private street. Approval of the preliminary plat for Teal Pointe. approval includes the following variances: This Street frontage variances for Lots 1-3 because they would front on a private street rather than on an improved public street. bo Cul-de-sac length variance for Windsor Road because the ordinance limits cul-de-sacs to 500 feet in length and as proposed, Windsor Road would have a total length of approximately 720 feet. Ce A variance for the right-of-way widths for Windsor Road including the cul-de-sac bubble. The plan calls for a ROW width of 40 feet instead of the required 50 feet and a cul-de-sac bubble radius of 40 feet in lieu of the required 50 feet. de A variance on the paved area of the cul-de-sac bubble. A 35 foot radius compared to the normal 40 foot standard paved radius. Approval of the vacation of portions of Cobden Lane. The developer has incorporated the requested vacated portions of Cobden Lane into some of the lots of the subdivision. There was an issue raised at. the last Council hearing and was addressed by the Planning Commission dealing with this site and how it would be considered under the City pending Shoreland Management Ordinance. This ordinance has to be in effect by May 10, 1993. That public hearing will be held January 26, 1993. The State Rules regarding shoreland and the proposed ordinance do have standards in them regarding steep slope areas. The proposed ordinance prohibits development in areas that are classified as bluffs (>30% slope). Virtually all of Lots 1, 2, and 3 would be unbuildable if this particular property were proposed after the shoreland ordinance was in effect. He explained there are 3 outlots: Outlot A - would be a private street; Outlot B - is a designated wetlands; Outlot C - the Planner suggested this be incorporated with lot 9. page 2 of 8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 1993 The Planner stated that if the action is to approve the subdivision in it present form or some modified form, then the appropriate action by the Council would be to direct Staff to put together a resolution that would reflect all the terms and conditions that might be brought forward. The City Engineer reviewed his report. He reported that one of his conditions was that the developer furnish documentation allowing fill to be place on adjacent private property. Since that time the developer has given the City some information on retaining walls. The Engineer stated he would need additional information on these walls before he would say it is going to work. The City Engineer stated that final plans for the storm sewer system will need the approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District before the final plat is approved. The City Engineer stated that if the plat is not approved then the street vacation should not be recorded. Drainage and utility easements would be kept on Cobden if vacated. The Building Official stated that the extra $1,000 for escrow has been submitted. Neil Weber, developer, showed slides of the Teal Pointe area. He stated he plans quality housing on large lots. He stated that Outlot C could be incorporated into Lot 9; he has no problem with that. The Mayor asked to take a 2 minute break. RECYCLOTTO WINNER The Mayor presented Shaun Darst, 4719 Bedford Road, with 100 Westonka Dollars for recycling the week of 1/4/93. RESUME TEAL POINTE HEARINGS The Mayor opened the public hearing to consider the vacation of portions of Cobden Lane from Waterbury to Drummond. Mr. Meeker read a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Rogers against the vacation of subdivision because of it being a natural wildlife area. Ruben Hartman asked that the Planning Commission Minutes be corrected to reflect that he was not in favor of the subdivision or vacation. Brad Biermann read the following petition signed by 35 persons: "I, (we), wish to make it be known, that as a concerned citizen of Mound, I am not in favor of what has become to be known as the "Teal Pointe Development". I feel that the streets of Phelps Island are becoming increasingly unsafe, and page 3 of 8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 1993 that the addition of more traffic would further complicate this all ready growing problem. I am also against the vacation of Cobden Lane and any other public property for this project, and believe the City should retain this land as much needed green space for the benefit of its citizens." Nancy Clough stated she is submitting a letter written by Neil & Patti Weber, dated 3/23/88, stating that, "It is our hope to fence in all of our property as a wildlife habitat." She also stated that Mr. Weber also assured her in May of 1986 that his plans for the old Hiller property was to leave it as it was for wildlife and its natural beauty and that he had not plans now or in the future to develop that property. The following persons spoke ag~ins~ subdivision for the following reasons: the vacation and the Harold Meeker, 5132 Waterbury Road Ruben Hartman, 5124 Windsor Road Pam & Orv Osgood, daughter & son-in-law of Glen & Alice Rogers, 17525 - 12th Ave. No. Plymouth Brad Biermann, 5106 Windsor Road John Edewaard, 5125 Hanover Road Glen Melena, 5139 Windsor Road Jim Brunzell, 5111 Windsor Road Nancy Clough, 5132 Waterbury Road Ron Norstrem, 4957 Island View Drive Harvey Berquist, 5038 Sulgrove Road Todd Rask, 5109 Drummond Road Jean Robinson, 5110 Windsor Road Reasons: 1. 17. Loss of natural wildlife area. 2. Increase in traffic that would be created by the subdivision. 3. Don't want property taxes to go up. 4. Upset the natural watershed. 5. Much needed green space will be gone. 6. Against the retaining wall that would be put up on Windsor Road. 7. Not a big enough parcel for 9 homes. 8. New houses aren't going to fit into the neighborhood. 9. Loss of mature trees. 10. May be Indian mounds on the property. 11. Vacation is not in the public interest. 12. Environmentally sensitive area. 13. 2 protected species of wildlife. 14. Should be making the developer conform to the shoreland management ordinance that will be in effect in May. 15. This project will ruin the area. 16. Wetlands are a major spawning area adjoining Phelps Bay and if this is developed may be dredged. Concern about lift station failure. page 4 of 8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 1993 The Mayor read a letter sent by Richard Kolosky that was in favor of the development. Tom Casey, attorney representing the neighbors, stated that the way he interpreted MN. Statute 412.851, the DNR should have been notified of the vacation of Cobden Lane because it abuts the wetlands at Waterbury Road. He questioned what the public interest was to vacate Cobden Lane stating that the only one benefiting was the developer who will incorporate the vacated land into some of his lots. He stated concerns about sedimentation, water runoff, effects on the wetlands, housing density, possible dredging of the wetlands and increase in taxes. He submitted a fax from the Institute for Minnesota Archaeology which stated that they have mapped three Indian mounds in Section 25 in the late 1880's, but they did not have time to gather any further information. He asked that some kind of study be done on the indian mounds before any action is taken on this subdivision. Mr. Casey further stated that another petition is being circulated and is on the way to the City for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). He has the original with 25 signatures, to satisfy the state law, and will be sent to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and they will review this and give an opinion of whether this needs an EAW. Mr. Casey asked that approval of this subdivision be slowed and the items he has brought up be dealt with in a very careful manner. Neil Weber, developer, stated that it is a matter of public record that he bought Blocks 15 & 16 before he brought his house on Windsor Road. It is also a matter of public record that he submitted a sketch plan to the Planning Commission and Council for review before he purchased the property in 1985. He stated it has always been his intention to do something with that property. The fence that was put up on the property was to limit his liability. Mr. Weber further stated that if the Council feels the vacation of Cobden Lane is not in the public interest, that is fine. The vacation is not necessary for the development of his property. He asked that if it is not vacated that the City maintain Cobden Lane because both sides of it will be developed. He stated as far as the EAW, that can be done. At this point, all the runoff from Windsor Road goes right down into the wetlands uncontrolled. If developed the runoff would go into manholes and into a holding pond. The development would also have to meet the hardcover portion of the ordinance. What the development would do is control the runoff. Mr. Weber stated that it is extremely unlikely that there are any Indian mounds on this particular piece of ground. That was based on the fact that it is right off a wetlands area that traditionally indians did not view as honorable for burial sites. The State Archaeologist will ask that if anything is found during excavation, they be notified. That would be done. page 5 of 8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 1993 Ms. Clough stated that Mr. Rogers who has lived in the area since 1914, has told her that at one time this property did abut Lake Minnetonka and because of various earth movements and storms that strip of land formed across the marsh. She stated that this would refute Mr. Weber's theory about the Indian mounds because typically they would abut the lake. The Council discussed lots 1-3 that would not be buildable if the shoreland management ordinance was in place because of the bluffs. The City Planner stated that in a discussion with the City Attorney, that anything the Council felt was reasonable that applied to a pending ordinance could be a condition of the permit. Mr. Weber stated that there could be 11.5 lots in this area. What he has tried to do is keep the density down by spreading them out and having only 9. He stated that was the concept of the PDA to allow flexibility based on the unique design. The Council discussed how much of Cobden Lane is to be vacated. The consensus was that the vacation is not needed for the subdivision. Mr. Weber asked that the vacation of Cobden Lane from Windsor to Waterbury be deleted from the request. The Mayor read a portion of Mr. Weber's letter dealing with if the neighborhood or the City would be interested in purchasing the land for a park or nature area, they would entertain a valid purchase agreement with earnest money. The Mayor stated the City does not have the money to purchase the property. The Council stated that they understand the public concern, but that the property is privately owned and the developer also has rights. They stated that if the neighbors know of a way to purchase this and dedicate it to the City that would be wonderful, but if that doesn't happen and it remains under private ownership with the right to develop something then the Council has the responsibility to see that the best thing be done for the property. Mr. Weber stated he does not know at this point how much they would take for the property. He further stated that if there is a qualified buyer, they would consider selling and come up with a price. The Council discussed the vacation and the subdivision. The Planner stated that the drawing that was submitted assumes that the vacation will occur. If that does not happen, the Council has segeral options: 1. To table and have a new plat drawing prepared that reflects no vacation; or 2. Make the new plat drawing a condition of any approval. The Council decided to specifically deal with the vacation issue first. The Council discussed which parts of Cobden Lane could be vacated. Mr. Weber stated the he is changing his request for the vacation of Cobden Lane by deleting the portion south from Windsor page 6 of 8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 1993 Lane to Waterbury· The City Engineer pointed out that there is a separate description for each piece of Cobden Lane to be vacated. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following: RESOLUTION #93-1 RESOLUTION TO VACATE COBDEN LANE FROM DRUMMOND ROADTO WINDSOR ROAD, SUBJECT TO .APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen and Johnson voting no. Motion fails because a 4/5 vote is required for passage. The Mayor reopened the public hearing on the Teal Pointe Development. The Council discussed the following conditions if this preliminary plat is approved, the approval would be contingent upon certain conditions. EAW - the Council discussed requiring an Environmental Assessment Worksheet even if the EQB does not require one. Indian burial grounds - the Council discussed requiring some kind of proof (a letter from the Minnesota Archaeologist) that there is no indian burial ground on the property before allowing the development to happen. Retaining walls along Windsor Road - that the developer prove to the City Engineer that the retaining walls he is proposing will work. Consideration of Lots 1, 2 & 3 - Council discussion on the bluffs and the shoreland management ordinance. There was also discussion eliminating these lots. Mr. Weber stated they would have to go back and look at the numbers and the number of lots might increase in Blocks 15 & 16. The plat would have to be amended to reflect the fact that Cobden Lane was not vacated. Mr. Casey asked that the Council require an EAW as per Section 330:05, Subd. 7 of the City Code. Mr. Casey also stated that he did not feel that the variances requested are in the public interest nor that they meet the variance criteria. He stated he felt if the developer could do his development without the variances and conditional use permit, then it could work. The following persons also spoke against the subdivision: Meek·r, Orv Osgood and Brad Biermann. Harold The Mayor closed the public hearing. page 7 of 8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 1993 HOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval for the preliminary plat of Teal Point· contingent upon the following items: The developer completing an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and if the Environmental Quality Board determines that it is appropriate, Mr. Weber would have to do an environmental study. That the developer get a more updated survey (something in writing from the State Archaeologist) of the Indian burial grounds in Section 25 to determine if any of those are within the proposed development. That the city Engineer approve the retaining wall plan proposed by the developer . Plus all the conditions in the reports of the city Planner and City Engineer. That the preliminary plat be redrawn without the vacation of Cobden Lane· Included in the resolution should be some findings to backup the variances that are being requested. The vote was 4 in favor with Mayor Johnson voting no. Motion carried. This will be brought back at the January 26th Meeting. page 8 of 8 CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INEORM^"FION SHEET ADDRESS: LOT OF RECORD? YES ~ ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: '" 000/60) B1 .R1 10,_ 7,500/0 R1A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,O00/100 REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT ' : VARIANCE IIIIUSE ......... FRO., k) nclSoC SIDE SiDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF . EW N S E W ( N_~: - S E W )S E W j 10' ® I0' OR 30' GARAGE, SIlED ..... OR OTHER DETACtlED BUILDINGS .' FRONT N S E W · FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' ~/ SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' .5 REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W $0' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' ttARDCOVER ~0 %~OR 40% This Zoning Infi)rmalion Sheet only summarizes a portion of tile requirements outlined in the Cily of Mound Zo~ng Ordin~ce. For luther information, con.ct ~e City of Mound - planning Department at 472-06~. 4o ~ ?S wE.~ r' ~ 4o i 4o ~ DF',,u,dMU,,~U EL} 5 '-E EA5'i 211 C c C C CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL CRITERIA PERTAINING TO NONCONFORMING USES BY AMENDING SECTION 350:420 OF THE MOUND CODE OF ORDINANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 13, 1996 to consider an amendment to the Mound zoning Ordinance establishing additional criteria pertaining to nonconforming uses, Section 350:420. The proposed provisions will allow certain improvements to residential properties without the issuance of a variance, or without the issuance of an additional variance in certain cases where variances have been previously issued. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Published in "The Laker" July 27, 1996. printed on recycled paper MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TI-IE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMI,qSION JULY 8, 1996 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR VARIANCE STREAMLINING Building Official, Jon Sutherland, briefly reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment and indicated that it has already been extensively reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council. If the ordinance is adopted, staff will monitor the impact of these provisions over the next year and report the findings back to both groups. Staff recommended approval of the ordinance amendment. Voss referred to the portion of the proposed ordinance which states, ". . . provided that the principal structure is in sound condition as determined by the Mound Building official" and expressed a concern that the interpretation of what is "sound condition" may change, depending on who is the building official. Voss also commented that it will be difficult to take away this ordinance amendment after a year review, even if it is found that it was not a large benefit to the City. He does not expect the sunset law to work. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Voss asked the Building Official if this ordinance amendment will save staff time. Sutherland commented that initially it will take staff time to figure the percentages of setbacks, etc., but feels that in the long run it will help and save staff time. Hanus stated that by having a sunset date will allow staff time to get comfortable with it, and it allows us to loosen it up, or to eliminate it. Hanus is not overly concerned with staff time. Voss questioned how we will know if time is saved or added? And if a time study is completed, he noted that this will require time by staff to complete. He does not foresee receiving realistic figures. Mueller stated that they have spent a lot of time on this ordinance amendment and feels a bigger problem still exists, in that when people buy properties they are not made aware of the nonconforming status of their property. Buyers are "unaware." The city needs to come up with a reasonable way to let people know what they are buying. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment for streamlining variances, as proposed. Mueller commented that this is a good idea and believes it will work in the long run and it works towards the goal to reduce variances, however, feels that truth in zoning would be a better way to deal with this. MOTION carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Mueller, Hanus, Burma, Glister, and Michael. Those opposed were: Weiland, ross and Reifschneider. Reifschneider commented that his reason for being opposed to the ordinance amendment is that previous numbers did not show that this would be a large benefit in reducing the number of variances. Weiland agreed. MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. mn TO: Planning Commission and Staff DATE: July 2, 1996 SUBJECT: Variance Streamlining FROM: Mark Koegler The variance streamlining provisions that have been reviewed extensively by the Planning Commission will be the subject of a public hearing on July 8th. In addition to the reviews that were conducted by the Commission, this item has also been discussed by the City Council and reviewed by the City Attorney's office. Consistent with discussion that occurred at both the Planning Commission and City Council levels, after adoption, staffwill monitor the impact of these provisions over the next year and report the findings back to both groups. Adoption of the ordinance provision is recommended. 7300 Melxo Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. May 17, 1996 Mr. Curtis Pearson Kennedy & Graven 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Curt: As you probably know, the Mound City Council directed the Planning Commission to review the City's Zoning Ordinance to see if a way could be found to reduce the number of variances reviewed annually by both bodies. The Planning Commission's charge has generally become known as "variance streamlining." Over the course of the past year, the Commission has discussed a number of potential streamlining techniques ranging from various forms of administrative review to major changes in the code that would in essence, relax current regulations. Throughout the process, I have been trying make sure that any changes uphold the integrity of the ordinance and the intent of the ordinance to bring about long term change. During their deliberations, several Planning Commission members publicly expressed reservations about enacting any changes. In response to such comments, during a Committee of the Whole meeting, the City Council reiterated they had specifically directed the Commission to develop streamlining techniques, not to come back with a recommendation that no changes are necessary. In response to their renewed charge, the Planning Commission assembled two streamlining provisions that will be the subject of a public hearing in June. The enclosed material will provide you wkh further background information on variance streamlining. Prior to putting the two streamlining provisions into an ordinance format, I would l/ke to review this issue with you. We can do so over the phone or if you feel that it would be appropriate, we can meet in person. Please call me after you have had a chance to review this material so that we can further discuss this matter. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, R. Mark Koegler, RLA Senior Vice President RMK:dbm /' cc: Jon Sutherland ~/ 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design May 17, 1996 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Mr. Curtis Pearson Kennedy & Graven 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Curt: As you p~bably know, the Mound City Council directed the Planning Commission to review the City's Zoning Ordinance to see if a way could be found to reduce the number of variances reviewed annually by both bodies. The Planning Commission's charge has generally become known as "variance streamlining." Over the course of the past year, the Commission has discussed a number of potential streamlining techniques ranging from various forms of administrative review to major changes in the code that would in essence, relax current regulations. Throughout the process, I have been trying make sure that any changes uphold the integrity of the ordinance and the intent of the ordinance to bring about long term change. During their deliberations, several Planning Commission members publicly expressed reservations about enacting any changes. In response to such comments, during a Committee of the Whole meeting, the City Council reiterated they had specifically directed the Commission to develop streamlining techniques, not to come back with a recommendation that no changes are necessary. In response to their renewed charge, the Planning Commission assembled two streamlining provisions that will be the subject of a public hearing in June. The enclosed material will provide you with further back~ound information on variance streamlining. Prior to putting the two streamlining provisions into an ordinance format, I would like to review this issue with you. We can do so over the phone or if you feel that it would be appropriate, we can meet in person. Please call me after you have had a chance to review this material so that we can further discuss this matter. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, R. Mark Koegler, RLA Senior Vice President RMK:dbm cc: Jon Sutherland v/ 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - APRIL 16, 1996 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Mayor Polston, Councilmembers Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen and Jessen. Also present: Mark Koegler, City Planner; Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator; Pete Meyer, Parks and Open Space Commission; Bill Davey and Stephanie Nyhoos, Hennepin County Assessor's Office; John Cameron, City Engineer and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Mark Koegler reviewed streamlining of variances with the Council. He indicated that at the City Council's direction, the Planning Commission had been reviewing ways in which to lessen the burden for applicants who apply for variances through the City's Zoning Ordinances. The purpose of the variance streamlining was to not only lessen the burden placed upon the citizen, but also the workload placed upon city staff and ultimately Planning Commission and City Council. After much discussion at the Planning Commission level, two streamlining methods were recommended for implementation and to be reviewed after one year by a review committee made up of staff, Planning Commission and City Council members. The purpose of the review committee would be to look at the effectiveness that the methods had on the actual variance application process. The following statements were recommended by the Planning Commission: Planning Commission Motion "That any previously recognized existing principal dwelling structure which was granted a variance, the property owner be allowed to construct an addition or accessory structure in a conforming location meeting all other requirements if such approval of the variance was granted within the previous 15 years, subject to the condition of the existing nonconforming structure, as determined by the Building Official". (The motion was subsequently clarified to add all types of previous variance approvals.) Draft Streamlining Statement: Nonconforming residential properties that have received variance approval within the past 15 years for principal structure setbacks, lot area, lot depth or width, hardcover, and/or street frontage may be improved by adding a conforming addition to the principal structure or adding a conforming detached accessory building provided that the principal structure is in sound condition as determined by the Mound Building Official. Furthermore, impervious cover on said lots shall be compliant with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. of the Mound Zoning Code or shall not exceed the amount allowed under prior variance approval. Staff Comment: This particular method of streamlining does not omit the variance requirement. It simply Minutes - Committee of the Whole April 16, 1996 omits the need to get a variance "recognized" if it has been granted in the past 15 years. An important aspect of this approach is the fact that the City has previously reviewed and approved a variance for the nonconforming aspect of the property. Planning Commission Motion 112 ~That should any one existing nonconformity exist on a property for either lot area, setback, lot/improved street frontage, or lot width/depth, and a request is received for an addition, of any sort, that is totally conforming, that they need not get a variance. The singular existing nonconformity should not exceed a certain threshold as yet to be determined and investigated by the City Planner. This would be subject to the Building Official's review of the structural condition of the existing nonconformity." Draft Streamlining Statement: Residential properties having only one (1) nonconforming condition may be improved by adding a conforming addition to the principal structure or by adding a conforming detached accessory building provided that the property complies with the following standards after application of the one nonconforming condition: - Side Yard Setbacks - 75 % of the setback required by the Mound Zoning Code - Front Yard Setbacks - 75 % of the setback required by the Mound Zoning Code - Rear Yard Setbacks - 90% of the setback required by the Mound Zoning Code - Lot Area - 90 % of the lot area required by the Mound Zoning Code - Lot Width - 90% of the lot width required by the Mound Zoning Code - Lot Depth - 90% of the lot depth required by the Mound Zoning Code - Improved Street Frontage - 50% of the improved street frontage required by the Mound Zoning Code If the existing nonconformity is due to the positioning of a principal or accessory structure, said structure must be in sound condition as determined by the Building Official. Furthermore, impervious cover on the lot shall be in compliance with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. of the Mound Zoning Code. Staff Comment This streamlining provision is different from the first position drafted by the Commission in that it allows improvement of nonconforming properties (containing only one variance item) without review by the City of Mound. 2 ,It Minutes - Committee of the Whole April 16, 1996 Both of these streamlining statements are in a very preliminary form. After additional review by the Planning Commission, they can be revised and sent to the City Council for an initial review. After the Council's review, they will be back before the Planning Commission in an ordinance format for formal review and recommendation. The City Council consensus was to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation and to have the City Attorney review it with the City Planner on how these statements could be implemented into the City's Zoning Ordinance. It would likely require an amendment to the Ordinance, and subsequent public hearings would have to be held at the Planning Commission and City Council levels. Proposal for Recreational Ice Skating Rinks - Peter Meyer, Parks and Open Space Commission Peter Meyer was present to present a proposal that has been discussed with the Parks and Open Space Commission as well as other community members and organizations. Mr. Meyer indicated that there is a definite need for a permanent ice skating rink that expands upon the existing rinks that are currently located within the City of Mound. His proposal pointed to having the City making an investment on Westonka Public School's property to locate a permanent rink to the west of the Pond Arena where there is currently an outdoor rink that has been placed there by the Hockey Association. In addition to the rink there is a warming house that was constructed during 1995. The plan would make use of that warming house and expand upon the rink that is currently at the site. The rink is designed to provide skating for non- hockey activities. However, it was indicated that hockey groups would have use of the rink to some extent. Meyer presented some cost estimates on the improvements that would be needed to be made to the site for excavation and berming in 1996 and a proposed budget for 1997. The council expressed a number of concerns related to investment, operations, involvement of the school district, the Hockey Association involvement, the public parking in the area, etc. It was suggested that more information be presented at the next Committee of the Whole meeting from city staff as it relates to these concerns. Preview of the Local Board of Review Bill Davey and Stephanie Nyhoos from the Hennepin County Assessor's Office were present to discuss the upcoming Board of Review meeting that is scheduled for Tuesday, April 23, 1996 at 7 PM. This is the annual Board of Review which the City Council conducts as part of State Law requirements. Issues related to 1995 sales, values on lakeshore and off lakeshore, as well as the differences of values of commons lakeshore and private lakeshore were discussed. It is anticipated that a number of residents of the community will be asking the Board of Review for MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 8, 1996 VARIANCE STREAMLINING Reifschneider referred to the annual report for the Planning & Inspections Department which indicated that 90 percent of the variances were approved in 1995 with a total of 42 variance cases. The secretary explained that the variance study did not include all the cases from 1995, so it was not a full year. Reifschneider confirmed that the approval rating of 96.5 % as indicated in the variance study is not accurate. Hanus recalled that the Planning Commission was concerned that the proposed streamlining methods did not make a large enough impact, only about 17%, but he feels it is a significant impact and that it is better than nothing. Burma asked for clarification of the reasons to streamline variances. Hanus reviewed the reasons why he pushed for the streamlining variances. The primary reason is to reduce citizen frustration, especially for those cases that are rubber stamped, and secondarily to reduce time spent by staff and the council. Weiland questioned who is complaining? Hanus emphasized that there are numerous cases that come before the Planning Commission that receive a rubber stamp, he is not suggesting that it is the majority, but many people are being put through the mill for nothing. Hanus reminded the Commission that the Council has asked for their help to perform this function. Michael suggested that streamlining is something they should try, and if there are problems with the system then it can be brought back for further review. Voss expressed a concern that if streamlining criteria is added, it will add research time for staff in order to verify if a request complies with the criteria. Voss asked if it would not be too cumbersome for staff. Sutherland agreed that it would increase staff time, especially if percentages of setbacks would have to be calculated. He would prefer a clean approach, such allowing all proposed uses that are conforming. Sutherland emphasized that virtually 100% of the variances that had a conforming proposal received approval. Voss is concerned about additional staff time and the extra workload. He believes that variances belong in the public forum and that people need to understand if their property is nonconforming, and realtors need to understand. He understands that Hanus would like to appease the public, but would vote against streamlining. Planning Commission Minutes April $, 1996 Streamlining Variances - Page 2 Clapsaddle stated that he has a concern with the zoning laws in that they should encourage long term solutions for the city, specifically relating to drainage and erosion problems. Sutherland commented that proper surveys showing elevations could help eliminate the creation of poor drainage situations, however surveys with elevations are expensive, but we could toughen-up our regulations. Michael asked staff if they feel streamlining is a good idea. Koegler agrees that option/ti is a good idea, however, feels option/?2 needs to be tested to find out if it will have an impact. Clapsaddle suggested that they forward these streamlining methods to council and recommend a one year test and that a committee be formed to review the cases that were streamlined and determine if it was worth while, fair, and effective. A review procedure will need to be established. Michael asked if this would be a big deal for staff. Koegler noted that staff will need to keep additional records on the cases that were streamlined. Hanus confirmed that if both streamlining methods were applied, the figures from the survey implied that about 17% of the variances could be eliminated. MOTION by Clapsaddle to recommend to the City Council that Streamlining Methods #1 and #2 be implemented, and after one year, a review committee made up of Staff, Planning Commission members, and City Council members report on the effectiveness of these methods. Glister seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Michael, Glister, Hanus, and Burma. Those opposed were Reifschneider, Voss, and Weiland. Koegler noted that this issue will be reviewed at the April 16, 1996 Committee of the Whole Meeting. Voss commented that he is opposed to any streamlining, they should leave the variance process as is. Reifschneider feels the zoning codes are very lenient right now and would not want them any more lenient. Weiland agreed and commented that in 26 years he has not gotten a complaint yet and he does not feel the code is that bad. MINUTES OF A MEE~G OF ~ MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 25, 1996 STREAMLINING V]~R!aNCES . City Planner, Mark Koegler, distributed copies of his report on Variance Streamlining. Koegler reviewed the variance streamlining history. NUMBER OF VARIANCES BY YEAR: 1990 ..................... 20 1991 ..................... 45 1992 ..................... 48 1993 ..................... 41 1994 ..................... 49 1995 .................... 30 233 VARIANCE ACTIONS: APPROVED .................. 225 DENIED WITHD ............. 4 TABLED .................... i (96.5% approval rate) APPROVED VARIANCES WITH NONCONFORMING SITUATIONS: NEW IS CONFORMING .............. 117 NEW IS NONCONFORMING ............. 70 NEW CONTINUES NONCONFORMING SITUATION (BUT DOES NOT EXPAND IT) .......... 39 LOTS WITH EXISTING NONCONFORMING: FRONT SETBACKS ............... 125 SIDE SETBACKS ................. 84 LAKE SETBACKS ................. 30 LOT AREA ................... 26 STREET FRONTAGE ................ 23 FRONT SETBACKS TO DETACHED STRUCTURES ..... 22 REAR SETBACKS ................. 20 SIDE SETBACKS TO DETACHED STRUCTURES ..... 11 Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1996 VARIANCES BY SUBDIVISION SHADYWOOD POINT ................ 32 DEVON ..................... 15 DREAMWOOD ................... 15 WYCHWOOD ................... 13 HIGHLANDS ................... 13 AVALON .................... 12 PEMBROKE ................... 6 Koegler commented that number of variances in Shadywood Point is no great surprise. Sutherland asked Koegler if he knew the approval rating on new conforming situations. Koegler indicated that it is probably 100% however he does not have the information to obtain the exact number. APPROVED VARIANCES IN R-1 ZONE ........... 93 FRONT .................... 51 SIDE ..................... 32 REAR ..................... 6 LOT SIZE ................... 15 STREET FRONTAGE ................ 14 APPROVED VARIANCES IN R-iA ZONE .......... 85 FRONT .................... 50 SIDE ..................... 37 REAR ..................... 9 LOT SIZE ................... 7 ST FRONTAGE .................. 7 CASES RESULTING IN THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION DETERIORATING AND/OR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: OF 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 TOTAL ..................... 16 (6.9% of all variance cases) Koegler reviewed two streamlining statements that were originally recommended by the Planning Commission and how the last six years of variance history would have been impacted by these statements. As a result, approximately 17% of all variances cases would have been affected by the proposed streamlining statements. Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1996 Koegler explained that no other evident pattern jumped out from the statistics gathered. Most variance requests were for front and side setbacks and for accessory structures. However, many of these have two or more reasons for needing a variance. Streamlining statement #2 only allowed for one nonconforming situation per property. If two nonconforming situations were allowed, it may boost the number some, but not by a great deal. The development pattern in Mound is relatively set. If a streamlining method is developed, it will have to have an impact. Weiland questioned how you weigh this to what we have gained by getting things removed. Koegler asked if the number of nonconforming structures that have been removed is enough to warrant variance streamlining. Koegler indicated that they will have to decide if the affect is significant enough to proceed. Sutherland emphasized that of 117 of the variance that had new conforming construction, virtually 100 percent of these cases were approved, and the homeowner is burdened by going through this process. Weiland stated that if people want to vary from the rules, they should have to go through the process. He is definitely opposed to streamlining statement #2, and maybe #1. He feels the end result would eventually be more variances. Reifschneider suggested that if the variance falls under either of the proposed streamlining methods, then maybe those cases could just be reviewed by the Planning Commission and not the Council. Hanus expressed a concern that if the Planning Commission becomes the ultimate board of review, they could become a political body. Sutherland commented that he has looked at other city's ordinances and noted that in Prior Lake the Planning Commission has the authority to issue variances, and if a variance is denied, the applicant has the right to appeal to the Council. Mueller feels it is not a bad idea to give the Planning Commission the authority to approve variances, and emphasized that this would shorten the review process for the applicant by a couple of weeks. Hanus expressed two concerns with this the Planning Commission becoming the Board of Appeals. First, he is afraid that the council would loose track of and knowledge of what is going on, and second, he does not believe this would reduce the frustration for the applicant. Hanus recalled one of the initial reasons that streamlining is being considered; the variance fee of $50.00 does not cover the cost expended by the city to process the variance. Mueller emphasized that it is absurd to make people go through the variance process for easy cases. Reifschneider believes it is good for people to go through the process. Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1996 Hanus reiterated that the Council has asked for the Planning Commission's assistance on how to reduce variances. Michael, Glister, Reifschneider and Weiland agreed that discussing the issue of streamlining is not worth their time and effort if only 1 out of 6 variances would not be required. Weiland emphasized that there is not enough gain for the good. Koegler reviewed that the council has directed they look at this issue. The Planning Commission could recommend approval or denial of the options presented, or bring other suggested options to the table. Mueller commented that if streamlining will help 6 people per year, that would be 40 people in the last 6 years, that this is significant enough. He does not feel people should have to go through the process for a 12 second review by the Planning Commission. Mueller move4 to table 4iscussion on the Streamlining of Variances to allow for the new members to have the opportunity to review the history on this issue. Weilan4 secon4e4 the motion. Motion carrie4 unanimously. Staff is to give the new members background information on this topic. Hanus asked that this issue be placed on the next possible meeting agenda. Mueller also noted that the would like Clapsaddle and Voss to be in attendance for discussion on this issue. Variance 1. Summary of Variance History 2. What is the impact of streamlining statements 1 and 2? ge Are there other methods of streamlining that should be considered? 4. Conclusion ~n Variance (1990- 1995) Number of Variances by Year: 1990 ........................ 20 1991 ........................ 45 1992 ........................ 48 1993 ........................ 41 1994 ........................ 49 1995 .......................30 Total ....................... 233 (Average 3.2 variances per month) Variance Actions: Approved ...................225 Denied ....................... 4 Withdrawn .................... 3 Tabled ....................... 1 (Rate of approval - 96.5%) Variance Approved variances with existing nonconforming situations: New is conforming ............................. 117 New is nonconforming ........................... 70 New continues nonconforming situation with no expansion ............................... 39 Lots with existing nonconforming: Front Setbacks ................................. 125 Side Setbacks .................................. 84 Lake Setbacks .................................. 30 Lot Area ...................................... 26 Street Frontage ................................. 23 Front Setbacks to Detached Structures ................ 22 Rear Setbacks .................................. 20 Side Setbacks to Detached Structures ................ 11 Variances by Subdivision: Shadywood Point ................................ 32 Devon ........................................15 Dreamwood ....................................15 Wychwood 13 Highlands ..................................... 13 Avalon ........................................ 12 Pembroke ...................................... 6 Approved Variances in the R-1 Zone ............... 93 Front .........................................51 Side ..........................................32 Rear ........................................... 6 Lot Size ....................................... 15 Street Frontage ................................. 14 Approved Variances in the R-lA Zone ............. 85 Front ......................................... 50 Side .......................................... 37 Rear ........................................... 9 Lot Size ........................................ 7 Street Frontage .................................. 7 Cases resulting in the removal or relocation of deteriorating and\or nonconforming structures: 1990 ..........................................2 1991 ..........................................! 1992 ..........................................6 1993 ..........................................0 1994 ..........................................4 1993 ......................................... 3 Total .........................................16 (6.9% of all variance cases) Illla Draft Streamlinin: Provisions Streamlining Statement #1: "Nonconforming residential properties that have received variance approval within the past 15 years for principal structure setbacks and/or accessory structure setbacks (except lakeshore setbacks), lot area, lot depth or width, hardcover, and/or street frontage may be improved by adding a conforming addition to the principal structure, adding a conforming detached accessory building, or adding a conforming addition to a detached accessory building, provided that the principal structure is in sound condition as determined by the Mound Building Official. Furthermore, impervious cover on said lots shall be compliant with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. of the Mound Zoning Code or shall not exceed the amount allowed under prior variance approval." Streamlining Statement t/2: "Residential properties having only one (1) nonconforming condition may be improved by adding a conforming addition to the principal structure, by adding a conforming detached accessory building, or adding a conforming addition to a detached accessory building, provided that the property complies with the following standards after application of the one nonconforming condition: · Side Yard Setbacks - 75% of the setback required by the Mound Zoning Code · Front Yard Setbacks - 75% of the setback required by the Mound Zoning Code · Rear Yard Setbacks - 90% of the setback required by the Mound Zoning Code · Lot Area - 90% of the lot area required by the Mound Zoning Code · Lot Width - 90% of the lot width required by the Mound Zoning Code · Lot Depth - 90% of the lot depth required by the Mound Zoning Code · Improved Street Frontage - 50% of the improved street frontage required by the Mound Zoning Code If the existing nonconformity is due to the positioning of a principal or accessory structure, said structure must be in sound condition as determined by the Building Official. Furthermore, impervious cover on the lot shall be in compliance with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. of the Mound Zoning Code." gill Compliance with front yard setback provisions contained in Statement 4/2: @ 75% @ 65% @ 50% .......................... 15 fewer variances .......................... 18 fewer variances .......................... 27 fewer variances Compliance with side yard setback provisions contained in Statement 4/2: @ 75 % ...........................6 fewer variances @ 65% .......................... 10 fewer variances @ 50% .......................... 12 fewer variances Compliance with rear yard setback provisions contained in Statement 4/2: @ 75% @ 65% @ 50% ........................... 0 fewer variances ........................... 0 fewer variances .............................. 1 less variance Compliance with lot area provisions contained in Statement 4/2: @ 75% ........................... 4 fewer variances @ 65% ........................... 6 fewer variances @ 50% ........................... 6 fewer variances Compliance with street frontage provisions contained in Statement #2: @ 75% ........................... 2 fewer variances @ 65% ........................... 2 fewer variances @ 50% ........................... 4 fewer variances Net reduction in variance cases if Statements 1 and 2 were included in the Zoning Code (1990 - 1995): Statement #1 ................................... 24 Statement #2 ................................... 15 Total ......................................... 39 (17% reduction in total cases) klH MINUTES OF A MF, ETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 1995 ,V~R~ANCE ~TREP~,LININ~ The Building Official informed the Commission that at the last COW meeting, the Council reviewed the Variance Streamlining Study results as prepared by Michael Mueller and Peggy James and concluded that the impact of the proposed streamlining statements would be very minimal. The Council determined that staff should evaluate what type of variances have been given in the past and see what comes out of that information to decide where the streamlining should start. The Council directed staff to do a more thorough review and bring back the information to the City Planner who will then bring a report back to the Planning Commission for review. Hanus read the COW meeting minutes relating to this issue. Hanus summarized that they want to find out how serious of a change is necessary in order to make an impact. Mueller commented that it will take a lot of time and money for staff to do this research and they may just find that Mound has weird properties that need variances. He knows that most variances are approved, but feels that most are unique and the properties have troubles that should be looked at. Clapsaddle commented that by doing this research and going through this process we may learn something and may determine that our codes also need to be unique. Mueller noted that he is not interested in burdening people, but he doesn't want to not require variances just to convenience the Planning Commission and Council. MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - NOVEMBER 21, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Andrea Ahrens, and Phyllis Jessen. Absent: Councilmember Liz Jensen. Also present: Mark Koegler, City Planner; Jon Sutherland, Building Official; Gino Businaro, Finance Director and Ed Shukle, City Manager. The topic of Variance Streamlining was introduced by Mark Koegler, City Planner. He reviewed a memorandum dated November 14, 1995 regarding the Planning Commission's discussion on Variance Streamlining. He reviewed two different statements related to this matter. He then reviewed information that had been compiled by Peggy James, Secretary, and Mike Mueller, Planning Commissioner, relating to variances that had been approved in 1993, 1994 and 1995 and what impact the proposed streamlining statements would have on those particular variances. The impact was minimal and it was the consensus of the Council to have the Staff further review the impact of actual variances to see if streamlining will really make an impact. It was basically the consensus to have the variances studied and then recommend streamlining statements versus creating streamlining statements and then seeing what effect they would have on the typical variances that have been approved. The Staff will report further to the Planning Commission who will then discuss it and then will submit a recommendation back to the City Council. City Manager Ed Shukle asked for some clarification as it relates to Public Lands permits on City of Mound projects. He indicated that routine maintenance such as tree trimming along right-of-ways to clear tree branches from growing into power lines or trimming trees to avoid traffic hazards did not require Public Lands permits. He wanted the City Council's reaction to that. The consensus was that Public Lands permits did not apply in these cases. However, there was concern expressed by the Council as it relates to certain projects that the City Staff does that would involve major removal of trees and filling of areas and that it is important that the City of Mound follow the same standard as it requires citizens to follow. Jim Fackler was asked to come into the meeting from the Commons Task Force meeting to answer questions as it related to the project that was done on Beachside Road after the August 6, 1995 storm. He answered questions and clarified issues with regard to this matter. The 1996 Proposed Budget was then discussed. The Council reviewed some Capital Outlay items, line items and the consensus was to have the City Manager and Finance Director suggest a reduction in expenditures of $22,990 which represents the decrease in the Fund Balance as proposed. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. I'i']l k-tH MEMORANDUM RECEIVED TO: Mound City Council and Staff ~t9 FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: November 14, 1995 SUBJECT: Variance Streamlining At the direction of the City Council, the Planning Commission has recently held a series of discussions on the concept of streamlining the variance process. The result of their work is a draft of two possible streamlining provisions. These provisions are being forwarded to the City Council for preliminary review and subsequent direction to the Planning Commission. As the minutes from their meetings reflect, the Planning Commission is not unanimous in support of these provisions. Instead of being their recommendations, they represent the Commission's attempt to assemble language which responds to the concerns that have been voiced by the City Council. Draft Streamlining Statement #1: "Nonconforming residential properties that have received variance approval within the past 15 years for principal structure setbacks and/or accessory structure setbacks (except lakeshore setbacks), lot area, lot depth or width, hardcover, and/or street frontage may be improved by adding a conforming addition to the principal structure, adding a conforming detached accessory building, or adding a conforming addition to a detached accessory building, provided that the principal structure is i_n sound condition as determined by the Mound Building Official. Furthermore, impervious cover on said lots shall be compliant with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. of the Mound Zoning Code or shall not exceed the amount allowed under prior variance approval." This particular method of streamlining does not omit the variance requirement. It simply omits the need to get a variance "recognized" if it has been granted in the past 15 years. An important aspect of this approach is the fact that the City has previously reviewed and approved a variance for the nonconforming aspect of the property. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Variance Stream/ining Memorandum November 14, 1995 Page 2 Draft Streamlining Statement g2: "Residential properties having only one (i) nonconforming condition may be improved by adding a conforming addition to the principal structure, by adding a conforming detached accessory building, or adding a conforming addition to a detached accessory building, provided that the property complies with the following standards after application of the one nonconforming condition: · Side Yard Setbacks - 75% of the setback required by the Mound Zoning Code · Front Yard Setbacks - 75% of the setback required by the Mound Zoning Code · Rear Yard Setbacks - 90% of the setback required by the Mound Zoning Code · Lot Area - 90% of the lot area required by the Mound Zoning Code · Lot Width - 90% of the lot width required by the Mound Zoning Code · Lot Depth - 90% of the lot depth required by the Mound Zoning Code · Improved Street Frontage - 50% of the improved street frontage required by the Mound Zoning Code If the existing nonconformity is due to the positioning of a principal or accessory structure, said structure must be in sound condition as determined by the Building Official. Furthermore, impervious cover on the lot shall be in compliance with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. of the Mound Zoning Code." This streamlining provision is different from the fa-st position drafted by the Planning Commission in that it allows improvement of nonconforming properties (containing only one variance item) without review by the City of Mound. The City Council is not being asked to take any formal action on streamlining at this time. It is appropriate, however, for the Council to provide feedback on the concepts generated by the Planning Commission. From a policy perspective, are the provisions that have been drafted by the Commission supported by the City Council? Are they consistent with the Council's directive to examine the streamlining issue? Are there changes that the Council would like the Commission to further explore? CONSENT RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF AND CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS IN A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISEE; SUBJECT AND CONDITIONED UPON COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHEREAS, the cable television franchise of Mound (the "Franchise") is currently owned and operated by Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. CTriax"); and WHEREAS, Triax, DD Cable Holdings, Inc., DD Cable Partners, L.P., and various subsidiaries of DD Cable Holdings, Inc. (collectively "DD Cable") and certain new investors have entered into a Contribution Agreement dated April 5, 1996 (the "Contribution Agreement"), and Mound (the "Authority") wherein they will create a new entity ("Merged Entity") to assume the franchise obligations of Triax has received a valid and complete request from Triax for consent to the transfer of control of and certain ownership interests in Triax (the "Transaction"); and WHEREAS, the Authority has determined that subject to certain conditions which must be met, Merged Entity possesses the requisite legal, technical and financial qualifications: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Transaction is hereby consented to by Authority and permitted subject to the following conditions: Payment by Triax, DD Cable and/or the Merged Entity of all reasonable fees related to this Transaction and incurred by Authority. Triax, DD Cable and the Merged Entity shall each execute a waiver of any rights relating to supposed procedural defects regarding the Authority's review of this transaction; and BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER, failure to comply with Paragraphs numbered 1 and 2 above, shall convert this Consent in its entirety to a denial of the Transaction. BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER, no notice of breach or default under the Franchise has been issued by Authority within the past 12 months and none is outstanding; and BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Merged Entity may, at any time and from time to time, assign or grant or otherwise convey one or more liens or security interests in its assets, including its rights, obligations and benefits in and to the Franchise (the "Collateral") to any lender providing financing to Merged Entity ("Secured Party"), from time to time. Secured Party shall have no duty to preserve the confidentiality of the information provided in the Franchise with respect to any disclosure (a) to Secured Party's regulators, auditors or attorneys, (b) made pursuant to the order of any governmental attthority, (c) consented to by the Authority or (d) any of such information which was, prior to the date of such disclosure, disclosed by the Authority to any third party and such party is not subject to any confidentiality or similar disclosure restriction with respect to such information subject, however, to each of the terms and conditions of the Franchise; and BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER, that the consent to the Transaction herein provided shall be effective upon and only effective concurrent with the closing of the transactions described in the Contribution Agreement. ADOPTED by this ~ day of ,1996. Mound Attest: Mayor Clerk-Treasurer The undersigned, being the duly appoimed, qualified and acting Clerk of Mound, Minnesota hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ~ is a tree, correct and accurate copy of Resolution No. ~ duly and lawfully passed and adopted by Mound on the ~ day of , 1996. Clerk EXHIBIT A WAIVER This ~ day of , 1996, Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. ("Triax"), DD Cable Holdings, Inc. ("Holdings"), DD Cable Partners, L.P. ("Partners") do for themselves, their general partners, and their heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns, waive, release and forever discharge the Authority and its directors, officers, employees, successors, personal representatives, heirs, and assigns, relating to alleged procedural defects including, but not limited to, the procedure outline in Minn. Stat. § 238.083 regarding the Authority's review of the merger transaction described above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties execute this Release on the day set forth above. TRIAX MIDWEST ASSOCIATES, L.P. By: DD CABLE HOLDINGS, INC. By: Its Its By: By: Its Its DD CABLE PARTNERS, L.P. By: Its By: Its MERGER FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the following municipalities or municipal consortia: The Cities of Prior Lake, Waconia, Hermantown, Morris, Maple Plain, Brooten, Hancock, Hutchinson and Mound, the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission and the Greater Grand Rapids Area Cable Commission ("Authorities"); have retained an independent legal consultant and have conducted a thorough and complete review of the merger of Triax Midwest Associates, L.P., DD Cable Holdings, Inc., DD Cable Partners, L.P., and various subsidiaries of DD Cable Holdings, Inc. (collectively "Companies") as mandated by law; and WHEREAS, the Authorities and the Companies agree that resolution of certain issues related to the Companies' payment of the Authorities' fees incurred in reviewing such merger is mutually beneficial. NOW, THEREFORE: 1. The Companies agree to pay all reasonable fees incurred by and on behalf of the Authorities in an amount not to exceed $25,000 for all of the Authorities (represented herein by Bernick and Lifson, P.A.); 2. The Companies agree to not withhold or offset against current or future franchise fee payments to the Authorities any amounts to recoup payment of the Authorities' reimbursement herein except as is specifically set forth herein; 3. The parties agree that the Companies may withhold or offset amounts payable pursuant to paragraph 1 herein from current or future franchise fee payments to the Authorities only in the event of a final adjudication involving the parties hereto by a court of competent jurisdiction requiring that such reimbursement for expenses be included in franchise fee payments; 4. The Companies reserve the right to seek such adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction; 5. The Authorities reserve the right to contest and appeal any such adjudication; 6. The Companies agree that any withholding or offsetting against franchise fees shall not be made until after a final adjudication, if any, requiring the withholding or offsetting of such franchise fee payments; and 7. Nothing herein shall limit or condition the merger consents issued by the Authorities, if any, or any of the individual above-referenced municipalities or municipal consortia. City of Mound DD Cable Holdings, Inc. By By Its Its Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. DD Cable Partners, L.P. By. By. Its Its C:\CABLE\MOUND\PAYMENT.AGM TO: FROM: BEtKNICI AND LIFSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5S416-1270 RECEIVED AU6 MEMORANDUM Clients Currently Served By Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. and DD Cable Partners, L.P. Thomas D. Creighton, Robert J. V. Vose, Theresa M. Kowalski Request for Approval of Merger of Triax and DD Cable DATE: July 31, 1996 FINAL REPORT, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS Please find below a summary and analysis of the proposed transaction regarding the merger of Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. and DD Cable Partners, L.P. (hereinafter referred to as "Current Owners") into Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. (hereinafter referred to as "Merged Entity"). Federal Communications Commission Form 394 ("FCC 394") dated April 13, 1996, was received by the various Franchise Authorities (hereinafter "Authority" or "Authorities") on dates ranging from April 15 through April 19. The confidential supplemental information to FCC 394 was dated April 17, and received by Authorities on or about April 22-23, 1996. Federal law provides for a 120 day review period from the date of receipt of FCC 394, together with all MEMORANDUM July 31, 1996 Page 2 exhibits and any additional information required by the terms of the Franchise Agreement or operative state or local law. Although additional information was required and received from the Merged Entity, for the purpose of this report, only the 120-day period is calculated from the date of receipt of the confidential documents supplementing FCC 394. Authorities should therefore conclude their review on or before August 20, 1996. The purpose of this report is to provide the Authorities with an understanding of the transaction and the standard for review. 1. INTRODUCTION. At the time of awarding the original Cable Communications Franchise and in subsequent transfers, if any, of the Franchise, the Authorities considered and approved the technical ability, f'mancial capacity, legal qualifications and character of the original and subsequent owners of the cable system, as well as other appropriate factors. These same qualifications are to be considered and reviewed as part of the review by Authorities of the merger of the Current Owners. The sources of information used in examining these factors included FCC 394, its exhibits, the current Franchise Ordinance, various FCC rules and regulations regarding cable communication systems, the Merged Entity's Response to the Request for Additional Information Regarding Request for Approval of Transfer of Control, and the Merged Entity's response to questions regarding confidential information (Form M), along with direct oral communications with representatives of Merged Entity. MEMORANDUM July 31, 1996 Page 3 All levels of government have something to say about such mergers. The local franchise, Minnesota state law, federal law and FCC rules all apply to this merger. Many Authority's Franchises require that Authority review the merger pursuant to the same standards used to award the original Franchise. Minnesota law, Minn. Stat. § 238.083, provides that the local franchising authority must consider a written request to approve a transfer of ownership, and the franchise authority cannot unreasonably withhold such approval. Minnesota law also arguably requires a shorter review period than the 120 days, with certain procedural requirements which have been complied with by Authorities. However, in any event, we have opined that it is more probable than not that the federal statutory time of 120 days preempts those state statutory timelines which are inconsistent with federal timelines. 2. STANDARD OF REVIEW. The Authority's task in this process is to review the information provided regarding the merger and to approve or deny the merger of the Current Owners. The Franchise Authorities have the express right to approve or disapprove such a merger. The standard of review is that the Authority's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. For the purpose of determining whether it will consent to the merger, the Authority has made inquiry into the legal, technical and financial qualifications of the Merged Entity, a well as other appropriate factors. In analyzing the transaction, the Authority must consider whether the Merged Entity meets all of the criteria originally considered in the granting of the Franchise. Note, however, that this analysis is not a comparison between the Current Owners and the Merged Entity. Rather, this MEMORANDUM July 31, 1996 Page 4 analysis is an application of factors to detem'dne whether the Merged Entity satisfies the standards to the reasonable satisfaction of the Authority. The Authority should focus on the following factors in determining whether to approve or deny the merger: i. ii. 111. iv. Legal and character qualifications of the Merged Entity; Technical ability of the Merged Entity; Financial stability of the Merged Entity; and Other appropriate factors. This office has conducted an extensive review of all relevant materials on behalf of the Authority. This report is a "shorthand" synthesis of that review in an attempt to fully inform the Authority without overwhelming the decision-making body with detail and minutia. Obviously, our review extended far beyond the summary of this report, and we will be available to further expand on this summary should the Authority have any questions. 3. DESCRIPTION OF TRANSACTION. The merger will place substantially all of the assets of the Current Owners under the management and control of a restructured Merged Entity. The Contribution Agreement outlines the terms of the merger between Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. and DD Cable Partners, L.P, its wholly owned subsidiary, DD Cable Holdings, Inc., and all its wholly owned subsidiaries ("DD Cable Group"). As a part of the merger, existing limited partners' interests will be MEMORANDUM July 31, 1996 Page 5 redeemed and new equity investors (Vg,~:A 12ornrnunlcatlons Partners II, L.P., Equity-Linked Investors, II, L.P., and DLJ Investment Partners, L.P.) will become limited partners. The merger will be accomplished through the contribution of assets of the DD Cable Group to Triax Midwest Associates, L.P., which will operate the cable systems. In addition to the limited parmership interest, all existing liabilities of the DD Cable Group will be assumed by the partnership and DD Cable Parmers, L.P. will be paid $4,200,000 for out-of-pocket costs associated with the merger. The current limited partners, whose interests are being redeemed, are to be paid $44,500,000. The Agreement does not identify the current limited partners or specify how much is to be paid to each limited partner. The Revised and Restated Partnership Agreement is the governing document for the post- merger ownership of the cable franchises. The partnership is a limited parmership and the limited partners have no management and control except for such issues as dissolution or replacing the general partner. The existing general partner, Triax Cable General Partner, L.P., is to be replaced by Triax Midwest General Partner, L.P. The business of the partnership is run by the general parmer in conjunction with an advisory committee. The advisory committee is made up of people appointed by the general partner and some of the new equity partners. The advisory committee has the power to preapprove business decisions to the general partner before they are implemented. The parmership is to be conducted in accordance with the five year business plan of the partnership. MEMORANDUM July 31, 1996 Page 6 The Partnership Agreement provides that a priority return of 13 % internal rate of return will be paid to Triax Cable and each limited parmer. The Partnership Agreement provides that its existence will end on December 31, 2006. This raised some concern in analysis and the Merged Entity was asked to clarify the termination of the Partnership Agreement. In its response, the Merged Entity stated that on or before December 31, 2006, the Partnership Agreement could be extended or the systems divested to a new entity. Any such divestiture would require the review and approval of the Franchise Authority, therefore, this termination date is not of concern to this analysis. Triax Telecommunications Company, LLC, is providing management services for the partnership. Triax will provide such services for the operation of each of the cable systems subject to this merger. Under the Agreement, Triax is required to oversee the operation of the systems, but the work is actually performed by partnership employees. Triax Telecommunications Company, LLC, will receive a management fee equal to 4% of the gross revenues of the partnership. The fee is to be paid in monthly installments of $275,000, but is capped at an annual amount equal to 4 % of gross revenues. The analysis generated some concern over the magnitude of this fee. Our concern is that the syphoning of such large amounts of money off the top of the operations of a cable system might tend to leave less money available for those things important to the City, such as system upgrade upon franchise renewal. It is, of course, impossible to tell from the information available to us whether there would be upward pressure on the rate as a result of such fees. Triax' response is that Triax Telecommunications Company, LLC, is an MEMORANDUM July 31, 1996 Page 7 experienced national company which has in the past and will continue to provide valuable management and leadership expertise to the operating systems. While this fee is of concern to this analysis, it does not rise to the level of a reasonable basis for withholding approval of the merger. Suffice it to say, however, that the Franchise Authorities should factor the existence of such fees into any responses received from the Merged Entity that resources are simply not available to comply with franchise requirements or enhance the operation of the system. Triax Telecommunications Company, LLC, is responsible for keeping the books and records of the partnership and preparing the f'mancial statements of the partnership. The cost of Triax Telecommunications Company, LLC employees, as well as the cost of preparing the f'mancial statements, is to be paid by Triax Telecommunications Company, LLC. The parmership is responsible for paying for an annual audit of the f'mancial statements and the preparation of the partnership tax return. The term of the Management Services Agreement is equivalent to the term of the parmership. Triax Telecommunications Company, LLC is not required under the Agreement to devote all energies and resources to the partnership's system management. In addition, the standard of liability for Triax Telecommunications Company, LLC is determined to be gross negligence or fraud. The parmership will indemnify Triax Telecommunications Company, LLC for any liability resulting from actions which do not arise to the gross negligence or fraud standard. MEMORANDUM July 31, 1996 Page 8 A chart showing the current ownership/control structure of DD Cable entities is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The current ownership/control structure of Triax entities is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. A post-merge chart is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 4. LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS. The legal qualifications standard relates primarily to an analysis of whether the Merged Entity is duly organized and authorized to own the cable systems. It should be noted that current federal law is shifting dramatically regarding the ownership of cable systems. However, this transaction is not affected by those changes in federal law. Since you basically have Triax absorbing the DD Cable holdings through a merger, you are not faced with many of the cross- ownership issues addressed in federal law. We have reviewed the current law and found that this transaction is not affected by such rules. According to the FCC 394 and resulting responses to inquiries, both original owners were qualified to transact business in the State of Minnesota as is the Merged Entity. We have reviewed those corporate documents available to us and have determined that the Merged Entity will be legally organized and constituted sufficient to pass the standards of the lending institution such that further review on the Franchise Authorities' part would be duplicative and an unnecessary expenditure of funds. The purchase documents require that the Merged Entity be duly organized and qualified to operate the cable systems. 5. CHARACTER QUALIFICATIONS. In response to our Request for Additional Information, the Merged Entity has represented that it has not been convicted in a criminal proceeding relating to any of the usual inquiries MEMORANDUM July 31, 1996 Page 9 regarding character. The character qualifications of the Merged Entity, as well as the individuals involved, are satisfactory. Based upon our review of the information provided, it would appear that the Franchising Authorities could not reasonably withhold approval of the merger based on the legal or character qualifications of the Merged Entity or its principals. 6. TECHNICAL ABILITY. The technical ability factor relates to the technical expertise and experience of the Merged Entity in operating and maintaining a cable system. This analysis focuses on the current and former experience of the proposed owner. As to the management of the cable operations, it appears that the overall Triax management structure will survive. Inquiries were made as to local management, and the Merged Entity advised the Authorities that while they have tremendous respect for current local managers, obviously this merger is taking place for the purpose of consolidating such functions. No decisions have been made by the Merged Entity, but a review of the existing management structure is promised post-merger. Experience has shown that the Franchise Authorities can assume a consolidation of management functions and no doubt a consolidation of local offices. The closing of a local office is often a traumatic experience for an Authority, and those Authorities which require local offices in their franchises will retain that authority to approve or disapprove the closing of such local offices. That being said, however, it is often very difficult to withstand pressure from a new owner who is determined to close a local office. MEMORANDUM July 31, 1996 Page 10 Experience has shown that the perpetuation of local management structures do not survive for the long term, so it is necessary for the Authority to investigate the management abilities and style of the parent entities. Information has been provided concerning Triax' experience in owning, operating and managing cable systems. We have reviewed the information provided by Triax as it relates to cable management experience. Triax is an experienced cable operator. The Merged Entity will pass 361,000 homes and serve 242,000 customers under common management and control. The transaction is explained as providing a significant opportunities for enhanced customer service and choice. Mr. James DeSorrento has served as the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Triax since the company's formation in 1982. He has had cable television experience since 1970. He has had various management and operational responsibilities through the cable industry. Mr. J. R. Busch has served as President and a Director of Triax since January of 1988. He is a 20 year veteran of the cable industry focusing on corporate £mance, mergers and acquisitions. The rest of the management team of Triax has significant experience in the cable television industry. While Triax is not as large as many of the cable operations in the United States, its principals have significant experience in the industry. The Triax organization appears to be staffed from top to bottom with technical expertise in the cable industry. MEMORANDUM July 31, 1996 Page 11 whether the resources are available to the Merged Entity to requirements of the Authority now and in the foreseeable future. on information provided by the Merged Entity, misrepresentations of fact are present. The Merged Entity has replied to the Franchise Authorities' Request for Additional Information by stating that it will comply with all FCC technical standards and will comply with all current franchise requirements regarding the technology of the cable system. Based on our review of information provided, it would appear that the Franchise Authorities could not reasonably withhold approval of the transfer based upon the technical ability of the Merged Entity, its management and its principals. 7. FINANCIAL STABILITY. The financial stability factor relates to whether the Merged Entity has the financial resources available or committed to not only acquire the system, but also whether its financial plan, as presented, is reasonable and economically viable. In the interest of preserving financial resources, the Authority has chosen not to engage a separate financial consultant to undertake a comprehensive review of this factor. However, the f'mancial information which was supplied has been reviewed by this office and a cursory due diligence analysis performed. The Authority can assume that if the Merged Entity does not have the financial resources available to it to close the transaction, the closing will not take place. Therefore, further scrutiny of the actual sale transaction has not been undertaken. However, of concern to the Authority is comply with the franchise Since the review has focused it must be assumed that no material MEMORANDUM July 31, 1996 Page 12 A merger of this son is different from the usual purchase of an entire entity by another entity. In a purchase transaction, the new entity brings with it its own financial history and financial situation which must be reviewed in detail regarding the new entity which will own the franchises. In this merger, it may be assumed that the assets of the two previously existing owners will be merged, logically presenting a situation where the sum of the parts could be stronger than the individual pans. This philosophy permeates the information provided by the Merged Entity as it discusses the economies of scale and the economies of consolidation of the management structures of the two current owners. Additionally, emphasis is placed on the ability of the Merged Entity to continue to take advantage of such things as the affiliation with TCI for the purpose of purchasing programming at a rate not otherwise available to a relatively small cable operator. In a merger transaction such as this, it is necessary to investigate whether funds are being taken out of the transaction at the time of merger which could weaken the financial stability of the Merged Entity. In other words, is profit taking underway such that the resources remaining for the Merged Entity are considerably diminished from those available to the original two owners? Frankly, there was some initial concern in this area. While the assumption of all existing liabilities of DD Cable group by the partnership was merely a transferring of liabilities that the owning companies already had (although the DD Cable group is strengthened by the assumption of its liabilities and Triax is weakened by such assumption), this assumption of liabilities does not appear to significantly weaken the Merged MEMORANDUM July 31, 1996 Page 13 Entity. The payment of $4,200,000 out-of-pocket costs associated with the merger to DD Cable Parmers does appear to be excessive and is not significantly documented in the materials provided to us. However, it does not appear to rise to the level of a problem sufficient to withhold approval of the transfer. The partnership is to obtain $375,000,000 of senior debt financing commitments for the transaction to go forward and is to retire the existing bank obligations and redeem the current limited partnership interest in the amount of $44,500,000. These monies are characterized as sufficiently financed in the transaction and leaving money available for the Merged Entity to .......proceed with existing and future capital commitments to the systems. Since the Merged Entity agrees to comply with all existing franchise requirements, all those Authorities with existing capital commitments should seek compliance with those requirements. However, no specifics were given as to the distribution of the remaining monies, and those areas in renewal and seeking future capital upgrades will be in competition for the remaining funds available. Additionally, monies are being paid by the partnership at closing to other entities. Almost $2,000,000 in fees are being paid to various entities for closing fees and out-of-pocket costs. This is not significant given the magnitude of this transaction. Notice is again taken of the monthly fee of $275,000 to Triax as a management fee. The Authority will need to monitor future developments in the system to be assured that the skimming off of this money does not significantly impact the Merged Entity's ability to comply with existing franchise requirements and to make the necessary commitments for future improvement of the MEMORANDUM July 31, 1996 Page 14 systems. It should be noted that technological improvement of the systems are in the best interest of the Merged Entity, and a number of the answers to our future inquiries indicate that they are interested in such enhanced technological advancement of the systems. Therefore, the Authorities must simply remain diligent to ensure that the systems keep pace with necessary technological advancements, as promised by the Merged Entity. Based upon our review of the information provided, it would appear that the Authority could not unreasonably withhold approval of the transfer based on the financial stability of the Merged Entity or its principals, provided that the Merged Entity agrees to comply with all local franchise requirements, as it has done. 8. OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS. Other appropriate factors which have been reviewed for the purpose of determining whether to approve or deny this merger are contained in the information received for our review. The most significant factor to be considered is whether the franchise will remain intact and whether the Merged Entity will agree to comply with all existing franchise requirements, promises and representations of its predecessors. With respect to the franchise requirements, the Merged Entity has indicated that it will comply with all existing franchise requirements and obligations. The Merged Entity has not proposed any modifications to the channel capacity or system design. The Merged Entity has indicated in its responses that it intends to conduct a complete review of all systems toward the possibility of technological upgrade and, where feasible, MEMORANDUM July 31, 1996 Page 15 interconnection. After that review is completed, if franchise modifications are required, the Merged Entity indicates that it will work with individual Franchise Authorities to accomplish mutually acceptable goals. The Merged Entity has also indicated that its review of the existing systems may involve consolidation of local management structures as well as local offices. Those Authorities which require local offices in their franchises should be vigilant in their position that closing a local office would require the approval of the local Franchise Authority. The Merged Entity has indicated that it would seek any approvals otherwise required by franchises, but often the battle is whether the franchise in fact requires such an approval. Any Authority with the requirement for a local office should maintain the position that closing such a local office would require the approval of the Authority. The Merged Entity has indicated that it will comply with FCC technical specifications regarding the location and length of subscriber drops. The Merged Entity will seek to accommodate each subscriber's request for the location of drops and will restore property damaged during an installation. The Merged Entity has agreed to comply with all undergound installation policies as such are established in existing franchises. drops but does require compliance If an Authority's franchise does not refer to underground with local ordinances, and local ordinances require underground construction, those ordinances should be enforced by the Authority. MEMORANDUM July 31, 1996 Page 16 The Merged Entity will maintain normal business hours for the purpose of receiving customer complaints. The customer service line will refer callers to a second number after normal business hours which is answered by a person 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. The Merged Entity has agreed to work with each community to meet its needs regarding public education, government access and will continue current channel designations for public education and government access channels unless a mutual agreement is reached with the affected community or unless such a move is otherwise permitted by state or federal law. Those systems which previously were owned and operated by DD Cable will be converted to a new billing system, Cable Data. Cable Data is the largest cable billing service in the country. The change will not affect billing policies. The Merged Entity has indicated that franchise renewal negotiations will still be conducted by the system manager responsible for the Authority, assisted by local legal counsel. All system managers will report directly to Mr. Ric Hanson, who reports directly to Mr. Noel Bambrough. A final point of contention is in the payment of all fees incurred by the Authorities for the purpose of this approval process. This office has opined that the parties requesting your approval of this transaction are responsible for the payment of reasonable fees incurred in the Authorities' review of this merger. Legal counsel for the parties requesting your approval has indicated that no such obligation to pay such fees exists, however, fees would be reimbursed with the qualification that the company reserves the right to withhold such fees from future franchise fee payments or take other action. We have opined and communicated to you in previous MEMORANDUM July 31, 1996 Page 17 correspondence that such withholding of franchise fees is inconsistent with federal, state and local law, and would be unacceptable. Therefore, the proposed Resolution provides for the franchise Authority approving the merger subject to the payment of all reasonable fees by the parties requesting your approval. Should the payment of such fees not occur prior to closing, your approval shall not be effective and your action shall be deemed a denial. 9. CONCLUSION. As a result of the above analysis, and subject to the contingencies of the attached Resolution and Waiver, there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the Authority to deny the request for approval of the merger. TDC/rs EXHIBIT 1 Current Ownership/Control Structure of DD Cable Entities IIntermedia Capital Management II, LP (CA Ltd. partnership) General Partner Intermedia Partners II, LP (CA Ltd. partnership) teral ner DD Cable Partners, LP (CA Ltd. partnership) 100 % Ownership 9 Subsidiaries Operating Cable Systems LEO HINDERY, JR. General Partner EXI-IIBIT 2 Current Ownership/Control Structure of Triax Entities JAMES CH JAMES DeSORRENTO Majority Shareholders Triax Communications Corporation Parent Corporation I Triax Associates IV, Inc. General Partner I Triax Cable General Partner, L.P. General Partner I Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. I I / / I \ Cable Systems EXHIBIT 3 Ownership/Control Following Triax/DD Cable Merger VS&A Communications Partners II, LP Equity Linked Investors II JAY BUSCH JAMES DeSORRENTO Members Triax Telecommunications Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Member DLJ Investment Partners, LP Triax Midwest, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Unidentified Limited Partners DD .Cable Partners, LP Limited Partners Triax Cable General Partner, LP Nonmanagiag General Partner General Parmer Triax Midwest General Parmers, LP, a Delaware limited partnership Managing General Partner Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. Cable Systems ,It It II i I it, ,I ,it,, Ed Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5541 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 Municipal Offices 7701 County Road 110 West Minnetrista, MN 55364-9552 July 22, 1996 RECEIVE0 Jill Dear Ed: Mr. Patrick Kelly, 6685 Halsted Avenue, is experiencing problems with his water well. Since Mound water is one lot away to the east, he is requesting permission to connect to Mound water. Minnetrista requests and agrees with this connection to Mound water, if Mr. Kelly at his cost, constructs a 6" watermain with a hydrant ending at hi,.; westerly property line. His plans and specifications would require approval of our city engineer. Please let me know if Mound is willing to allow this watennain connection. Sincerely, Charlotte Erickson Administrator/Clerk Co Keith Gordon, City Engineer Patrick Kelly OFFICE 612-446-1660 ~r FAX 612-446-1311 ~'~) ~'~ .° % ..................... 11.20,.IPLAT-. I1", $ (2) APPROX e. LP~ OF ROAO et'R RI~ Iq4OTO Ig~O 2~O E DR .. · 18 _- 2 CITY OF MOUND Memorandum 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUN D, MiNNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 26, 1996 Ed Shukle, City Manager Mark Goldberg, Commons Task Force, Chair Commons Task Force Resignation This note is to inform you that Michael Shearer is no longer participating in the Commons Task Force due to family reasons. We would appreciate it if the City Council could appoint another person to fill the vacant "nonabutting" position. Please call me if you need any additional information. Thank you. MG:pj cc: Commons Task Force CITY OF MOUND MEMORANDUM 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 August9,1996 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER~'~' SUBJECT: 2509 COMMERCE BLVD. ~ PROPERTY ADJACENT TO VETERAN'S PARK As you know, the City has negotiated for the parcel of property located at 2509 Commerce Blvd. adjacent to Veteran's Park. We have negotiated the sale at a price of $39,000. Evergreen Land Services negotiated on the City's behalf and has purchased the property. The closing date is scheduled for August 15, 1996. It is the intent that the City of Mound will purchase the property from Evergreen Land Services after Evergreen has acquired the property from the current owner. The matter was brought to the Parks and Open Space Commission at its meeting of August 8, 1996. The Commission unanimously approved the idea and has recommended to the City Council that the property be purchased. The minutes were not ready at the time of this writing to include with your packet but I was told that there were no objections to the idea. It is my understanding that Councilmember Ahrens and Mayor Polston were at the Commission meeting and can report to you what transpired on this item. In summary, we are recommending that you approve of the purchase and then I will contact Evergreen Land Services who along with Curt Pearson, City Attorney, will prepare the necessary documents for signature and then we can obtain title to the property and begin seeking bids to demolish the house on the property and prepare the site for future park development. If you have any questions, please contact me. printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION #96 - RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2509 COMMERCE BLVD. FOR PURPOSES OF FUTURE EXPANSION OF ADJACENT VETERAN'S PARK AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE APPROPRIATE PURCHASE DOCUMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY WHEREAS, the City of Mound has identified a parcel of property for sale in the City of Mound for purchase; and WHEREAS, the parcel is located at 2509 Commerce Blvd., adjacent to Veteran's Park; and WHEREAS, the property is suitable for expansion of the park and would provide added space that would make the park more useable and attractive to city residents; and WHEREAS, a price of $39,000 has been negotiated for the property; and WHEREAS, a closing date of August 15, 1996 has been established for the sale of the property to Evergreen Land Services who represented the City of Mound in the purchase of the property; and WHEREAS, Evergreen Land Services will purchase the property for the City and then Evergreen Land Services will sell the property to the City of Mound in a separate transaction. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby approves the purchase of the property located at 2509 Commerce Blvd. and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute the appropriate purchase documents on behalf of the City of Mound. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the purchase of the property will be paid for from the Park Dedication Fund. The following vote was taken on this resolution: Attest: City Manager Mayor CITY OF MOUND MEMORANDUM 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 July 31, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER L 2509 COMMERCE BLVD. - PROPERTY ADJACENT TO VETERAN'S PARK On your agenda for the Thursday, August 8, 1996 Parks and Open Space Commission Meeting is the above item. The purpose of this memorandum is to explain to you why this item is on your agenda and the interest of the City Council regarding this matter. Recently, this property, a single-family dwelling consisting of 330 square feet of building and approximately 3,000 square feet of land, became available for sale. The listed price on the property was $45,900. Under the City's Zoning Ordinance, the property cannot be improved because the minimum square footage requirements in a B-1 zone are 7,500 square feet. The property is unbuildable and the only use of the existing building is to continue as a single-family dwelling. I was approached individually by the City Council to investigate the feasibility of purchasing the property for the purpose of expanding Veteran's Park, a narrow strip of land located to the south of 2509 Commerce Blvd. If the City of Mound were to purchase this land for park purposes, it would increase the size of an already existing park which could then become more useable from a park standpoint and could make better use of Lake Langdon, which abuts both Veteran's Park currently and the property in question. One of the Councilmembers even suggested the possibility of installing a canoe landing on the property to encourage the utilization of the park and Lake Langdon. In addition, an "eyesore" is removed from the area which will provide a better and more picturesque view of Lake Langdon. It has been suggested that such a purchase could be made from the City's Park Dedication Fund which is a fund that was created for just such a purpose. As you may know, there are adequate monies currently in the fund (approximately $150,000). This is a logical source of funds for this printed on recycled paper Memorandum to the Parks and Open Space Commission July 31, 1996 Page 2 purchase. We have negotiated for the purchase of the property subject to your recommendation and final City Council approval. The negotiated price is $39,000 payable at the date of closing. The closing date has been set for August 15, 1996. The reason for the expeditious schedule is because the seller of the property wishes to sell as soon as possible and the fact that there are other offers on the property from private individuals. It is my understanding that those offers are not on a cash basis. The City of Mound's is on a cash basis. We believe that this purchase makes a great deal of sense for future park needs and an effort, although in a small way, in carrying forward the intentions of the overall Mound Visions program; that is, to redevelop and rejuvenate downtown Mound and make it a more attractive place to do business in and to improve it to make it more aesthetically pleasing to the community as a whole. This property is an extension of the City's downtown as it is located only a short distance from the central business district but is also located in a B-1 zoning district which is principally business. I am requesting that the Parks and Open Space Commission give a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve this purchase from the Park Dedication Fund with the intended purpose to expand an existing park which is known as Veteran's Park. Although I will not be present at your meeting, I would ask that if you have any questions regarding this matter, that you contact me ahead of the meeting or direct your questions to Jim Fackler, Parks Director who will be at the meeting. The City Council will need to consider this item at its August 13, 1996 meeting in order to meet the schedule of the closing on the property. Thank you for your attention to this matter. cc: Jim Fackler, Parks Director CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 96-44 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A TWIN HOME LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT AT 5214/5218 DRUMMOND ROAD LOTS 4, 5, 14, & 15, BLOCK 12, WHIPPLE PID 25-117-24 21 0025, P&Z 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 Wednesday, September 11, 1996 to consider the approval of a conditional use permit to allow for a Twin Home located within the R-2 Two Family Residential Zoning District. Two family dwellings and twin homes may be divided into single parcels of record with the party wall acting as the dividing lot line by issuance of a conditional use permit. The subject property is legally described as follows: Lots 4, 5, 14, and 15, Block 12, Whipple, Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with that part of adjacent Hanover Road which accrued thereto by vacation. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Pegg J r s, Pl i' ing Secret,{ry Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property by August 30, 1996. Published in "The Laker" August 24, 1996. printed on recycled paper BILLS August 13, 1996 BATCH 6073 $ 81,710.93 BATCH 6074 207,307.01 Total Bills $ 289,017.94 0 C, 8 8 8 I ! U I I oc ,I _.J Z ::3 0 .-~ o' .f ?- o~ 8 Z I-- o~ .l 0 0 Z ? CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR JULY, 1996 REPORT PARKS The parks recreational program and the swimming beaches were going full swing this month. The beaches continue to take up most of the day for one worker by cleaning up weeds that float into shore and picking up trash. The mowing has to be worked into the schedule of the recreation program with the parks. We did not see a slow down in the growth of the grass until the last week of the month. The hot weather allows us to catch up on other tasks. The two new basketball poles and goals were installed at Pembroke Park, replacing the old bent ones. DOCKS The dock program is very busy with inspections insuring boats are being properly moored and verifying dock design. Currently the program has issued all available docks except some in dedicated areas and we still receive calls weekly from residents seeking to have a dock. TREES Four trees were removed from public property and two forced rough cut mowings were done on private property. printed on recycled paper City of Mound O8/O2/96 Monthly Report Utilities Month of: July 1996 Utility-96 Residential No. of Customers: Water 1,109 Sewer 1,111 Water Used: (in 1,000 gallons) 20,039 Billing: Water $30,834 Sewer $50,826 Recycle $5,166 Total $86,826 Commercial $5,758 $14,403 $1 O5 $2O,266 Total 1,232 1,234 24,071 $36,592 $65,229 $5,271 $107,092 Payments: Water $28,464 $6,532 $34,996 Sewer $52,024 $15,201 $67,225 Recycle $5,126 $99 $5,225 Total $85,614 $21,832 $107,446 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Mayor, City Council and City Manager Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager July 1996 Monthly Report August 5, 1996 This report will be an abbreviated one since I was on vacation the last half of the month. A much needed one to say the least. I am almost thinking about taking another one, because in my absence, things went exceptionally well. Julie Clyne, your assistant manager, did a whale of a job keeping the store organized and the staff hopping during two very hectic weeks. I am pleased and comforted that when I am gone Julie can take of matters around here in a professional manner. July was another scorcher. Gross sales for the month were $164,443. Last year in July sales were $157,356. For the year we are at $917,551, and that compares to last year at the same time when we were at $862,852. Business continues to grow. We are on a pace to do five to six percent more in sales this year than we did in 1995, which is good, because the cost of goods this year is up more than it has been in previous years. printed on recycled paper TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCILAND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR JULY FINANCE DEPARTMENTREPORT Investment Activity Bou_clht: Money Market 4M 58,097 Money Market Norwest Bank 4 Money Market First Bank 475,735 Money Market Smith Barney 20,039 CP Sm ith Barney 5.53% 257,270 CP Dain Bosworth 5.43% 399,539 C P F BS I nvestm ent 5.54% 247,263 CP FBS Investment 5.63% 422,890 M atu red: Money Market First Bank (412,262) Money Market Smith Barney (9,270) CP Smith Barney 5.34% (244,991) CP Dain Bosworth 5.33% (120,262) CP Dain Bosworth 5.35% (330,491) CP Sm ith Barney 5.32% (200,249) Balance: july 31, 1996 $4,385,416 1997 Budget Preparation To comply with the truth in taxation laws, the city must certify the proposed levy to the county and adopt the proposed budget by September 15. The State Department of Revenue has provided us the necessary forms and instructions. The Local GovernmentAid for 1997 has been calculated by the State Department of Revenue and it will be in the amount of $327,302. The Homestead and Aqri- cultural Credit Aid amountwill be certified to us in the near future. The 199~ Local PerformanceAid will be $10,806. The city departments are busy preparing their respective budgets and the finance department is assisting in the process. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 7, 1996 City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official --~"~c~?' JULY 1996 MONTHLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY There were 52 building permits issued in August for a construction value of $1,555,884, year-to-date construction value is up to $7,283,081. This month's value included five new dwellings. Four of these new dwellings are two new twin homes to be built in the Pelican Point subdivision. There was no further commercial activity in July. We issued 45 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellanous permits for a total of 97 permits this month, and 440 year-to-date. These are record setting numbers for construction activity and value. PLANNING & ZONING The Planning Commission reviewed four zoning cases in July, including three variances and one street vacation. A public hearing for the proposed zoning ordinance amendment for streamlining variances was held at the July 8, meeting. COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER (CSO) ACTIVITY Total contacts for the month were approx 220 with approximately 28 being of a zoning related issue. There is additional CSO information in the Police Department report. JS:pj printed on recycled paper City of Mound BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT Month: JULY Year: 1996 THIS MONTH YEAR TO DATE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 1 1 120,000 21 2,234,835 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS) /4 4 1,10],, 299 8 2,256,815 TWO FAMILY / DUPLEX MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS) TRANSIENT HSG, (HOTELS / MOTELS) SUBTOTAL 5 5 1,221,299 29 4,491,650 ~EW CONSTRUCTION COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) i 110 , 000 OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL i 200,000 INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / SCHOOLS SUBTOTAL 2, 310,000 ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING 6 ]-88, 849 15 378,876 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 3 39,295 12 121,637 DECKS 15 35,860 37 91,844 SWIMMING POOLS 1 400 REMODEL · MISC RESIDENTIAL 22 67,581 Ill 472,929 REMODEL- MULTIPLE DWELLINGS I 3,000 2 81,6/40 SUBTOTAL 47 334,585 178 1,1/47,326 COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) 2 30,000 OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL 2 104,105 INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / SCHOOLS 1 1,200,000 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SUBTOTAL 5 1,334,105 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS 6 NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 4 TOTAL DEMOLITIONS ]- 0 # PERMITS # UNITS VALUATION # UNITS VALUATION 52 5 1,555,884 29 7,283,081 TOTAL PERMIT COUNT ] THIS MONTH I YEAR-TO-DATE *BUILDING 52 224 FENCES & RETAINING WALLS 4 16 SIGNS 1 5 PLUMBING 13 79 MECHANICAL 13 69 GRADING 0 ' 2 S&W, STREET EXCAV., FIRE, ETC. 14 45 TOTAL I 57 I 4/40 LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLIC 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle Chief Len Harrell Monthly Report for July 1996 The police department responded to 836 calls for service during the month of July. There were 25 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 1 criminal sexual conduct, 2 burglaries, 1 aggravated assault, 18 larcenies, 2 vehicle thefts, and 1 arson. There were 76 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 4 child abuse/neglect, 5 forgery/NSF checks, 1 weapon, 11 damage to property, 3 liquor law violations, 9 DUI's, 6 simple assaults, 7 domestics (5 with assaults), 7 harassment's, 4 juvenile status offenses, and 19 other offenses. The patrol division issued 124 adult citations and 3 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 13 tickets. Warnings were issued to 89 individuals for a variety of violations. There was 1 adult felony arrest. There were 29 adults and 19 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were an additional 15 warrant arrests. The department assisted in 7 vehicle accidents, 2 with injuries. There were 24 medical emergencies and 75 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 17 occasions in July and requested assistance 6 times. Property valued at $6,812 was stolen. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - JULY 1996 II. INVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on 2 child protection matters and 2 criminal sexual conduct cases, accounting for 50 hours of investigation time. Other cases include the investigation of robbery, arson, theft, 2nd degree assault, burglary, damage to property, insufficient fund checks, vulnerable adult, harassment, violation of protection orders, hazardous material dumps, trespassing, and absenting. Formal complaints were issued for 2nd degree assault and misdemeanor assault. III. Personnel/Staffin~ The department used approximately 32 hours of overtime during the month of July. Officers used 47 hours of comp-time, 105 hours of vacation, 42 hours of sick time, and 6 holidays. Officers earned 15 hours of comp-time. IV. ~ Sgt. McKinley attended a two day school of policy development. Harrell and McKinley also attended the Southern Police Institute Re-Training Conference, taking part in seminars on "Personal & Professional Leadership", "Leadership & Innovation in Policing", "Bringing the Information Age to Law Enforcement", "Changing Perspectives on Training and Development in Law Enforcement for the 21st Century", "Computers: Tools not Toys", "Law Enforcement Technology: Link to the Future", "Vehicles, Weapons, Crime Scenes, & More: What the Future Holds". Chief Harrell also attended the FBI National Academy Associates training in St. Paul in July. Courses and seminars involved community policing issues and building partnerships in law enforcement. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - JULY 1996 V. COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICERS Officers Packard and Clark addressed 37 animal complaints, 35 ordinance violations, and 87 miscellaneous calls for services. No citations were issued in July. The reserves donated 77 hours during the month of July. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT JULY 1996 OFFENSES CLEARED EXCEPT- CLEARED BY ARI~ESTED REPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARED ARREST ADULT JUV PART I CRIMES Homicide Criminal Sexual Conduct Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Larceny Vehicle Theft Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 TOTAL PART II CRIMES 25 2 2 I I 0 Child Abuse/Neglect 4 0 1 1 1 Forgery/NSF Checks 5 0 2 0 0 Criminal Damage to Property 11 1 0 1 0 Weapons 1 0 1 0 0 Narcotic Laws 0 0 0 0 0 Liquor Laws 3 0 0 3 1 DWI 9 0 0 9 9 Simple Assault 6 0 3 2 1 Domestic Assault 5 0 1 5 4 Domestic (No Assault) 2 0 0 0 0 Harassment 7 0 2 0 0 Juvenile Status Offenses 4 0 0 3 0 Public Peace 5 0 0 4 3 Trespassing 1 0 1 0 0 All Other Offenses 13 0 1 11 10 TOTAL 76 I 12 39 29 19 PART II & PART IV Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations TOTAL 5 2 0 24 75 17 614 737 HCCP Inspections TOTAL 836 14 4O 30 19 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT JULY 1996 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMA/~Y Hazardous Citations Non-Hazardous Citations Hazardous Warnings Non-Hazardous Warnings Verbal Warnings Parking Citations DWI Over .10 Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Adult Felony Arrests Adult Misdemeanor Arrests Juvenile Felony Arrests Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests Part I Offenses Part II Offenses Medicals Animal Complaints Ordinance Violations Other Public Contacts THIS YEA/~ TO LAST YEA/{ MONTH DATE TO DATE 70 452 505 40 317 460 12 141 122 61 365 325 123 555 384 35 417 228 9 35 25 8 28 19 5 39 57 2 13 21 0 0 0 3 26 12 40 208 190 0 34 36 21 114 84 25 176 160 76 451 417 24 229 201 75 280 385 8 110 353 614 5,040 4,027 TOTAL Assists Follow-Ups HCCP Mutual Aid Given Mutal Aid Requested 1,251 9,030 8,011 119 475 536 51 254 231 4 35 17 17 106 106 6 70 92 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT JULY 1996 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 Violations Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Code Enforcement Seat Belt MV/ATV Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL ADU~ 9 8 1 11 1 41 1 0 21 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 0 35 0 1 0 13 0 159 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT JULY 1996 Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRANT ARRESTS Felony Misdemeanor Adult 34 23 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 14 85 2 11 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Run: 1-Aug-96 9:09 PRO03 Primary ISN's on[y: No Date Reported range: 06/26/96 - 07/25/96 Activity codes: All Property Status: All Property Types: All Property Descs: Alt Brands: All Node[s: All Officers/Badges: All HOUND POL[CE DEPARTNENT Enfors Property Report STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED Prop Prop Znc no [SN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stoten Date Recovmd Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value Recov~d Value Quantity Act Code 8 Prop type Totals: 350 0 9 Prop type Totals: 1 0 B Prop type Totals: 845 250 E Prop type Totals: 38 38 0 Prop type Totats: 195 85 P Prop type Totals: 400 0 R Prop type Totals: 760 0 S Prop type Totats: 2,500 SO0 T Prop type Totals: 1,323 0 X Prop type Totals: 400 0 **** Report Totals: 6,812 87'5 1.000 1.000 4.000 2.000 2.000 1.000 3.000 3.000 4.000 1.000 22.000 Brand Mode[ Page Off-1 Off-2 Assnd Assnd 1-Aug-96 8:46 CFS08 Primary ISN's on/y: No Bate Reported range: 06/26/96 - 07/25/96 Time ..... te each day: 00:00 - 23:59 ow Received: All Activity Resulted: Dispositions: Att Officers/Badges: All Grids: Alt Patrol Areas: Alt Days of the week: At[ ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION SPEEDING J-SPEEDING NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 9012 OPEN BOTTLE 9014 STOP SIGN 9015 J-STOP SIGN 902P~--~ARELESS/RECKLESS 9038 ALL OTHER TRAFFIC 9040 NO SEATBELT 9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 9150 NO TRAILER PARKING 9200 DAS/DAR/DAC 9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 9300 LOST ARTICLES/OTHER 9301 LOST PERSONS 9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 9313 FOUND PROPERTY 9314 FOUND VEHICLES/IMPOUNDED 93?' ~CLAIME DESTROYED ANIMALS 9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 9450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Carls For Servfce INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 41 2 1 1 10 1 1 2 13 34 1 11 21 4 1 2 5 15 1 1 5 1 Page 1 Run: 1-Aug-96 8:~6 CFS08 Primary ISN's on[y: No Date Reported range: 06/26/96 - 07/25/96 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: AK[ Officers/Badges: Ali Grids: AK[ Patrol Areas: AK[ Days of the week: AK[ ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION 9451 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. 9561 DOG BITE 9563 DOG AT LARGE 9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 9567 DANGEROUS DOG 9710 MEDICAL/ASU 9730 MEDICALS 9732 MEDICALS/Cl 9735 IOD INJURY 9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 9802 PUBLIC ASSIST 9810 LOITERING/LURKING 9811 J-LOITERING/LURKING 9900 ALL HCCP CASES 9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 9910 MISC. SERVICES BY OFFICERS 9920 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 9930 HANDGUN APPLICATION 9980 ~ARRANTS 9990 MISC. VIOLATIONS 9992 MUTUAL AID/8100 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors CalKs For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 1 1 1 5 17 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 7 2 4 3 15 1 6 Page Run: 1-Aug-96 8:46 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date~eported range: 06/26/96 - 07/25/96 Tim' ge each day: 00:00 - 23:59 ,~ow Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 9993 MUTUAL AID/6500 9994 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER 9996 MUTUAL AID/NARCOTICS A2337 ASLT 2-INFLICTS BODILY HARM-KNIFE ETC-POLICE A5351 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM A5352 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ASLT-AC A535~"ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM A5355 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ A5502 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-ADLT-ACQ A5503 ASLT 5-MS-FEAR BOO HRM-NO WEAP-ADLT-STR B3494 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT B3794 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT C1219 FORGERY-FE-UTT POSSESS PLACE-CHECK-OTH VICT F3290 ARSON 3-FE-UNINHB-NO UEA-OT MOBI-UNK LOSS F7000 NEGLIGENT FIRE-MS-OT PROP-UNK LOSS 12100 CRM AGNST FAM-GM-ENDANGER CHLD-UNK INJURY I3060 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD J2500 TRAFFIC-GM-DUl LIQUOR-UNK 1NJURY-UNK VEH J2EO0 J35 J3900 J3EO0 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH RAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR TRAFFIC-MS-OTHER TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEN 5 4 2 1 5 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 3 6 1 5 Page Run: 1-Aug-96 8:46 CFS08 Primary ISN's on[y: No Date Reported range: 06/26/96 - 07/25/96 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: At[ Activity ResuLted: AIL Dispositions: Att Officers/Badges: Alt Grids: AIl Patrol Areas: At[ Days of the week: AIl ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Ca[Is For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS Page L3003 M3001 M3005 M4199 M5313 M5350 N1310 CSC 2-UNK ACT-UNK ASSAIL-13-15-F JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO LIQUOR - OTHER JUVENILE-CURFEW JUVENILE-RUNAWAY DISTURBING PEACE-FE-STALKING-UNKNOWN N3190 P3110 P3120 P3130 P3310 TC059 TC159 TC169 TF159 TGO01 TG029 TG059 TG151 N3070 DISTURB PEACE-MS-PUBLIC NUISANCE N3080 DISTURB PEACE-MS-INTERFERE WITH PRIVACY DISTURB PEACE'MS'HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT PROP DAMAGE-MS'PUBLIC-UNK INTENT PROP DAMAGE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT TRESPASS'MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT THEFT-501'2500'FE'YARDS-OTH PROP THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP THEFT'501'2500-FE-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP THEFT'201-5OO-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP THEFT-LESS 200-MS-UNKNOI,/N-MONEY THEFT-LESS 200'MS-BUILDING-OTH PROP THEFT'LESS 200'MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH'MONEY 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 7 7 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 Run: 1-Aug-96 8:46 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No )ate. ~j~orted range: 06/26/96 - 07/25/96 Tim~ ~e each day: 00:00 - 23:59 .ow Received: Alt Activity Resulted: Att Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: ALL Grids: All Patrol Areas: Att Days of the week: Alt ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION ?G159 TG169 U3018 U3288 U3497 U3498 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTNER THEFT-LESS 200-MS-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP THEFT-MS-BY CHECK-200 OR LESS THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS VOO&~-,~EH-UNKNOWN-MS-TAMPER WITH-ENTER-AUTO VA021 ~3980 X3250 X3360 THEFT-FE-AUTO-MORE THAN 2500 ~EAPONS-MS-OTHER ACT-FIREWORKS-NO CHAR CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-MS-VIOL ORD PROTECTION CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-MS-VIOL HARRASS REST ORDER **** Report Totals: MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors CalLs For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 1 1 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 368 Page I Run: 1-Aug-96 8:49 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 06/26/96 - 07/25/96 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: Al[ Activity codes: Al[ Officers/Badges: AIl Grids: A[[ MOUND 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 ASLT 2-INFLICTS BODILY HARM-KNIFE ETC-POLICE ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ASLT-AC A5354 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM A5355 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ A5502 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-ADLT-ACQ A5503 ASLT 5-MS-FEAR BOD HRM-NO WEAP-ADLT-STR B3494 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK ~EAP-COM THEFT B3794 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-U-UNK ~EAP-COH THEFT C1219 FORGERY-FE-UTT POSSESS PLACE-CHECK-OTH VICT F3290 ARSON 3-FE-UNINHB-NO ~EA-OT MOBI-UNK LOSS FTO00 NEGLIGENT FIRE-MS-OT PROP-UNK LOSS CRM AGNST FAM-GM'ENDANGER CHLD-UNK INJURY CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD TRAFFIC-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJURY-UNK VEH TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR TRAFFIC-MS-OTHER TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH CSt 2-UNK ACT-UNK ASSAIL-13-15-F JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO LIQUOR - OTHER I2100 I3060 J2500 J2EO0 J3500 J~900 J3EO0 L3003 M3001 M3005 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 6 0 6 0 4 1 1 6 100.0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 3 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 33.3 I 0 1 0 0 I 0 1 100.0 3 0 3 1 1 0 1 2 66.6 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 ( 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 0 0 0 I 1 100.0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0 6 0 6 0 6 0 0 6 100.0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 100.0 I 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0.0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100. 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 I 100.0 A2337 A5351 A5352 Run: 1-Aug-96 8:49 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: No Date.~.e.~orted range: 06/26/96 - 07/25/96 Tin le each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: ALL Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All ACT ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION M5313 M5350 N1310 N3070 JUVENILE-CURFEW JUVENILE-RUNANAY DISTURBING PEACE-FE-STALKING-UNKNOWN DISTURB PEACE-MS-PUBLIC NUISANCE N3080 DISTURB PEACE-MS-INTERFERE ~/ITH PRIVACY N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS'PRIVATE'UNK INTENT p312'"""'IOP DAMAGE-MS'PUBLIC'UNK INTENT P3130 PROP DAMAGE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT P3310 TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT TC059 THEFT-501-2500-FE-YARDS-OTH PROP TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE'MOTOR VEH'OTH PROP TC169 THEFT-501-2500'FE'~/ATERCRAFT-OTH PROP TF159 THEFT-201-5OO-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP TGO01 THEFT'LESS 200-MS-UNKNOgN-MONEY TG029 THEFT'LESS 200-MS'BUILDING-OTH PROP TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTNR PROP TG151 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH'MONEY TG159 THEFT-LESS 200'MS'MOTOR VEH-OTHER TG169 THEFT'LESS 200'MS-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP U30! {EFT-MS-BY CHECK-200 OR LESS U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS U3497 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 7 0 7 5 7 1 6 6 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 4 0 4 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 2 Page 2 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED 0 2 0 2 100.0 0 1 0 1 100.0 1 0 0 1 50.0 1 1 0 2 100.0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 0 2 2 28.5 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 1 50.0 0 0 1 1 100,0 0 0 0 0 0,0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0,0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0,0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 2 2 50.0 0 0 1 1 100.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Run: 1-Aug-96 8:49 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 06/26/96 - 07/25/96 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: All Activity codes: Atl Officers/Badges: Ali Grids: All ACT ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION U3498 VO081 VA021 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS VEH-UNKNOWN-MS-TAMPER WITH-ENTER-AUTO THEFT-FE-AUTO-MORE THAN 2500 W3980 WEAPONS-MS-OTHER ACT-FIREWORKS-NO CHAR X3250 CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-MS-VIOL ORD PROTECTION X3360 CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-MS-VIOL HARRASS REST ORDER MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEAREO 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 I 100.0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 **** Report Totals: 100 3 97 43 31 9 14 54 55.6 MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT MOUND, MINNESOTA FOR MONTH OF JULY 1996 FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE 7~8 7/15 W~f~S HD[I~S H3LRS ~IE _ JEFF AI~FR%FTq X X 2 19.00 3 51 6. 50 331.50 GF~EG al,rip, sOil X X 2 19.00. 2.5 II 57 6.50 370.50 _ pain, ~;~,n X X 2 19.00 2.5 48, 6.50 312.00 pAVID ?©YD X X 2 19.00 4 26 6.50 169.00 , 5COT? BRYCE X X 2 19.00 2.5 44 6.50 286. O0 ... i JIM CASEY X X 2 19.00 2.5 25 6.50 162.50 ? STEVE COLLINS X X 2 19.00 2 . 31 6.50 201.50 ~ ~BOB CRALrFORD X X 2 19. O0 2. 5 35 6.50 227.50 ~__._ ~u\rDy ~NGFJ_MART X X 2 19. O0 2 29 6.50 188.50 D STELE ERICKSON X X 2 19.00 0 33 7.00 231.00 1 D.~2q GRADY X X 2 19.00 0 40 6.50 260.00 2 KEVIN GRADY X X 2 19.00 2 38 6.50 247.00 3 ~,pT ;("I~' GU. FTAVSON X X 2 lq. 00 2.5 q2 6.50 ?oR. gg 4 C?5. Iq _H~.~ERSOW X ~ 1 9,50 0 II 29 6,75 195.75 .5 pa~n ~Y X X 2 19.00 $ 28 6.50 182.00 .6___.~LkTT HENTGES X X 2 19.00 6 39 6.50 253.50 .7. ROGER KRYCK X X 2 19.00 7 32 6.50 208.00 :8 JOH]~ LARSON .X X 2 19.00 2 31 ~.50 201.50 [9 JASON ~.kgAS X X 2 19.00 2 37 6.50 240.50 ~0 JOH~ NAFUS X X 2 19.00 5.5 33 6.50 214.50 Z1 JAi.~ES NELSON X X 2 19.00 2 36 6.50 234.00 22 BRET NICCUI.! ,X X 2 19.00 19 40 6.50 260.00 23 GREG PAI2I X X 2 19.00 2.5 30 6.50 195.00 ._ 24 !lIKE PAI~i X X 2 19.00 5 24 6.50 156.00 25 TIM PAI~M X X 2 qq gO ? q7 6.50 26 GREG PEDERSON × ¥ 2 lq.OD ?. 40 6.50 260_OO 27 CHRIS POUNDER X X 2 lq.Do '4 46 6.50 299.0O 29 RICHARD ROGERS g X 2 lq.OO 2 SO 6.50 325.00 .... 30 !lIKE SAVAGE X X Z 19.00 9 II 35 6.50 227.50 31 KEVIN SIPPR~.L X X 2 19.00 1 ~B 6.50 214.50 (P 0 -0- 0 0 6.50 -0- _ 33 BRUCE SVOBODA .X X 2 19.00 2.5 46 6.50 299.00 .... 3~ RICK WILLIAHS X X 2 19.00 i /36 6.50 234.00 .. 36 35 t 71 %0IM_S ~0 87.5 177.5 674.50 122.5 1290 W~GE$ 8~408.75 177.5 11RILLS 674.50 122.5 ~ _ 1;167.00 ~ 10. 250.25 MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT MOWn{ }~ON~H TO DATE TO DArE ,~'r~ OF JULY 1996 ,. OF CALLS 65 72 /'~? ~1 ? )UND FIRE .] 6 ] 8 1 ] 5 E~RGI~ 1 q 25 17D 1 50 [NNETONKA BEACH ..FIRE I I 5 6 EMERGENUY ?, I 8 INNETRISTA FIRE 4 I 3~ 25 t~ERGEhKrY 4 5 2] ] 6 RONO FIRE 2 6 61 EMERGENCY .3 2 ] 'i 1 HOREWOOD FIRE 0 0 (] 4 ~I~ERGENCY 0 O 3 2 PRING PARK FIRE 4 2, ]7 20 I~.[SRGE~L'~Y 8 1 O' 48 42 UTUAL AID-' FIRE ],,, O. 4 EM~GENCY ~ 1 3 1 'OTAL FIRE CALLS 29 28 215 183 iOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS 36 44 80 229 O~ZRCZAL 1 O I 2 !SIDENTIAL 1 7, 7,4 41 ;RASS & MISCELLANEOUS 11 15 78 64 ~u'rO 3 ~' 17 ,7~LSE ALARM / FIRE ALARMS 11 6 87 6t ~0. OF HCO'RS .FIRE 371 5?0 2708 2039 MOUND '.]R~ERGENCY 367 530 q/,gA 2q62 TOTAL ~mm ~ n~n 61 ~ FIRE 1 ? 1 ?, 79 145 MTKA BEACH E~ C~E~ 51 %7 1~ 53 TOTAL 63 A9 ?67 1 qR .FIRE '~ '~ 6 1 3 677 61 - M'TRISTA ~.fl~GENCY 69 1D3 388 299_ TOTAL 183 116 1D60 ql 7 FIRE .39 918 , 159 828 - ORONO ,EMERGENCY 49 41 303 364 TO'f_A~ Fka 200 1 ~l 1192 FIRE 0 0 0 ] 07 - SHOREWOOD ,~ltERGENCY O 0 68 44 ,FIRE tiff 7,6 7,81 41 n - SP. PARK .EM~GE~ 127 199 978 82.1 TfY~ 195 225 12,59 1 ?.ql FIRE 40 0 141 131 - ~7IUAL AID ,F2~ERG~lqCY 33 13 73 17 TOT_AL 73 13 18~ 148 TOTAL DRILL HOURS 177.5 180 1215 1102. TOTAL FIRE HOURS 594 730 477fi TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 696 923 TAg? EYZAL FIRE & ~ERGENCY HOURS L2~0 1653 10.256 ~tUTUAL AID RECEIVED Q O D 1 >~UTUAL AID GIVEN ~ 1 7 MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT DRILL REPORT Discipline 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 : Excused Miscellaneous : ~k~'~ X Unexecused 0 Present / Not Paid PERSONNEL '~"'-~' (~.,.- C.Henderson ~ ~_~t~_P .Henry 'z. ~ ~- M.Hentges ~-~ ~ :~. ~-R .Kryck -A;~_I~ J.Larson ~ l~_j .Maas. ~'~. jJ .Nafus .Nelson ~\!~ B.Niccum /~"G .Palm ;~j~j~ TM'palm .Palm ~ ~-- G .Peder son 1--~~C-pounder T.Rasmussen i'R°gers .Savage .Svoboda .Vanecek .Williams ~/{. ~.Williams %~_%_L~D.Woytcke TRAINING OFFICER MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT DRILL REPORT Discipline 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 Hours Training Paid : Excused X Unexecused Miscellaneous : ~ Pumper Operations Fire Streams & Friction Loss House Burnings Natural/Propane Gas Demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Radio Operations House Evolutions Nozzles & Hose Appliances O Present / Not Paid PERSONNEL ,~C.Henderson ~i~-P. Henry !.Hentges .Kryck %~J.Larson .~aas.. . ~%i~.~J.Nafus ~.Nelson ~r~B.Niccum .Palm .Palm ~_~G.Pederson Z~ C.Pounder ~'%~--T.Rasmussen F-'_~-~-~_~-~--~-R.Rogers K.Sipprell ~l~R.Stal.lman ~%;%-B.Svoboda ~/_~.Vanecek ~-~-~.Nilliams TRAINING OFFICER MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT TOTAL MAINTENANCE FOR MONTH OF kS/~ J. ANDERSEN D. BOYD ; 7~'- j CASEY I S. COLLINS ~ ~ B. CRAWFORD ~ R ENGELHART ~ S ERICKSON ~ D GRADY K GRADY 2/~ B GUSTAFSON 0 C HENDERSON -'~ P HENRY R KRYCK ~ J LARSON J MAAS MEN ON DUTY TOTAL HOURS ..¢ ,2 ,,¢.' ? / ¥ ¥ J. NAFUS J. NELSON B. NICCUM G. PALM M. PALM T. PALM G. PEDERSON C. POUNDER T, RASMUSSEN R ROGERS M SAVAGE K SIPPRELL R STALLMAN B SVOBODA E VANECEK R WILLIAMS T WILLIAMS D. WOYTCKE M. HENTGES 0B/08/19% ii:lB 612--4724435 TOM REESE PAGE 01 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT · g00 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 * WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 6121473~7033 · Q. Alan Wlllcuff, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS Douglas E. Babcock Chair, Tonka I~ay Tom Reese Vice Chair, Mound Joseph Zwak Secretary, Greenwood Robert Rascop Treasurer, Shorewood Kent Dahlen Mlnnetonka 8each Bert rosier Deephaven Gretchen MagllCh Minnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata Craig Moiler Victoria Craig Nelson Spring Park Eugene Partyka Minnetrista Paul Stark Excelsior Herb J. Suerth Woodland Orono TO: MOUND CITY COUNCIL DATE: AUGUST 8, 1996 FROM: TOM REESE, LMCD REPRESENTATIVE SUBJECT: JULY REPORT - LMCD 1.0 General Item,. 1. l The 7/24 meeting was cancelled duc to the short agcnda. 1.2 The district Local Area Network (Ia, N) installation is complete. It has three interconnected work stations, a printer, a fax and a server. There is e-mail capability. A Web Page is under consideration. 2.0 Exotic Species Task Force, 2. I Thc boat washing program seems to be limited to several large yachting and fishing contests. While not at all the planned scale, much has been learned for next year. 2.2 Through 8/3,505 acres have been harvested. Of this amount, 30 acres represents a second cut. 2.3 Investigation proceeds on thc purchase ora new harvester. Marsh Gabriel, who has handled thc maintenance on the existing machines is slated to view one of the new generation machines in operation in St Clair Shores, Michigan. This purchase will be handled from existing previously donated privatc funding. 3.0 Water Structures 3, l A concerted effort has been mounted by the Bil Hawks interests to have his floating boat house grandfathered in. The ordinance banning such structures was amended at the third reading to allow this, but only a bare quorum of 7 members was present. This will come up again at the final vote on the ordinance. 3.2 The Minnetonka Beach fire lane issue has been tabled for more resean:h on the nature of any grandfathering. This could potentially involve Mound's common docks. 4.0 Lake Use. 4.1 No significant activity. ~.0 Mound Specific Items ,~. 1e No significant activity. ,, /x,,,'To~ Rcc~ {.// Mouad Re. presentativc- LMCD lc. Al W~cutt, Doug Babcock.