Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1997-02-25
Ill II I ,II ,,l~, ,I ~,~ AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1997, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. 3. *CONSENT AGENDA: *A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 11, 1997, REGULAR MEETING ................................. 640-651 *B. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 18, 1997 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ................. 652-654 *C. CASE g97-03: RESOLUTION OF DENIAL OF VARIANCE REQUEST FOR NEW DWELLING, FRANK NIESEN, 5300 LYNWOOD BLVD. LOTS 18, 19, 20 & P/21, BLOCK 7, A.L. ADDN. TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID #13-117-24 34 0089 ....... 655-675 *D. PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF MARCH 2-9, 1997, AS VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICAN WEEK IN THE CITY OF MOUND. 676-679 *E. APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 810:30, SUBD. 3 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO BEER LICENSES, BY REPEALING SUBSECTION (b) ............... 680 *F. REQUEST FROM BASS CHAMPIONS DIVISION 3 TO USE MOUND BAY PARK AS A TAKE-OFF AND WEIGH-IN SITE FOR A BASS FISHING TOURNAMENT ON SATURDAY, JULY 19, 1997 AND SATURDAY, AUGUST 23, 1997. 681-683 *G. PAYMENT OF BILLS ................................. 684-694 638 o "NDA - MOUND CITY COUNCIL 'UARY 25, 1997 ,oLIC HEARING: 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM ......... 695-729 CASE #97-06: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR ADDITION, CONRAD & NANCY STARR, 3152 & 3136 ALEXANDER LANE, LOTS 17-21 & 1/2 OF 22, BLOCK 6, ARDEN, PID #24-117-24 44 0068 & 0069 (VARIANCE APPLICATION RELATES TO ALLOW GARAGE FOR 3 YEARS). 730-751 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 1996 DEPARTMENT HEADS ANNUAL REPORTS: --JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR STORE MANAGER ................ 752-755 --STEVE ERICKSON, FIRE CHIEF ........................ 756-762 --GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR .................. 763-776 --JON SUTHERLAND, BUILDING OFFICIAL ................. 777-791 REPORT ON INTEREST FROM THE COMMONS TASK FORCE TO SERVE ON THE NEWLY CREATED DOCK & COMMONS COMMISSION ........................... 792-804 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: Ao FINANCE REPORT (UNAUDITED) FOR 1996 AS PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR .................... 805-806 Bo FINANCIAL REPORT FOR JANUARY 1997, AS PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR .................... 807-808 C. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 1997 ..... 809-823 Do FINDING OF FACT PREPARED BY THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT'S ATTORNEY IN PREPARATION FOR THE MEETING OF THE DISTRICT TO BE HELD ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1997, 7:30 P.M., MINNETONKA COMMUNITY CENTER. THIS IS PURSUANT TO THE BOARD'S ACTION OF FEBRUARY 6, 1997. WE SHOULD PROBABLY ESTABLISH THAT FEBRUARY 27, 1997, DATE AS A CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, ENABLING ALL OF THE COUNCIL TO ATTEND PURSUANT TO THE MINNESOTA OPEN MEETING LAW ...................... 824-840 E° NOTICE FROM THE HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RE: REAPPOINTMENTS TO MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS .............................. 841-843 639 !11 I Ii I, AGENDA - MOUND CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 25, 1997 PAGE 2 NOTICE FROM THE LMCD OF THE APPOINTMENT OF GREG NYBECK TO THE POSITION OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. GREG HAS BEEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICIAN FOR THE LMCD FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS ................................. 844 63~-A Minutes - Mound City Council - February I1, 1997 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, February 11, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, City Attorney John Dean, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Police Chief Len Harrell, Park Director Jim Fackler, Public Works Supt. Greg Skinner and City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interest persons: Ken Junker, Steve Bedell, Jim Bedell, Shirley Hatcher, Debra and Randy Bilger, Mark Reschke, and Jim Renny. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Cit&en so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 1.0 APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. The City Manager asked that the following items be added to the Agenda: Consent Agenda - Add set a bid opening date for the 50 H.P. tractor and flail mower, February 26, 1997. Regular Agenda - Add information on the LMCD Public Hearing regarding the Lost Lake Channel. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to approve the Agenda and the Consent Agenda as amended above. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *CONSENT AGENDA: *1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 28, 1997, REGULAR MEETING. MOTION Hanus, Ahrens, unanimous. Minutes - Mound Ci~. Council - February 11, 1997 '1.2 RESCHEDULE MARCH 11, 1997 REGULAR MEETING TO TUESDAY, MARCH 4~- 1997. MOTION Hanus, Ahrens, unanimous. '1.3 REQUF~T FROM MINNETONKA CLASSIC BASS CLUB TO HOLD TOURNAMENT WEIGH-IN, JLJNE 7, 1997, AT MOUND BAY PARK. MOTION Hanus, Ahrens, unanimous. *1.4 APPOINTMENT OF WEED INSPECTOR FOR 1997. RESOLUTION//97-16 Hanus, Ahrens, unanimous. RESOLUTION TO APPOINT JIM FACKLER, WEED INSPECTOR FOR 1997 · 1.5 APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HENNEPIN COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'S FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER$ MORTGAGE PROGRAM THROUGH THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY'S MINNESOTA CITIES PARTICIPATION PROGRAM. RESOLUTION//9%17 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE PARTICIPATION IN THE HENNEPIN COUNTY HRA APPLICATION FOR MHFA MINNESOTA CITIES MORTGAGE PROGRAM Hanus, Ahrens, unanimous. '1.6 APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HENNEPIN COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'S HOME IMPROVEMENT LOAN PROGRAM THROUGH THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY. RESOLUTION g97-18 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE PARTICIPATION IN THE HENNEPIN COUNTY HRA HOME IMPROVEMENT LOAN PROGRAMS Hanus, Ahrens, unanimous. 2 Minutes - Mound City Council - February 11, 1997 '1.7 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING- ORDINANCE SECTION 350:640 TO ADD "SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES" AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT MARCH 1997. MOTION Hanus, Ahrens, unanimous. '1.8 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ADD *1.9 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGI.E FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT 2450 WILSHIRE BLVD., SHIRLEY HILL,;; ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, MARCH 4, 1997. MOTION Hanus, Ahrens, unanimous. SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND RELATED VARIANCES FOR THE "SETON BLUFF" RF~IDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. MARCH 4, 1997. MOTION Hanus, Ahrens, unanimous. *1.10 LICENSE RENEWALS. MOTION Hanus, Ahrens, unanimous. *1.11 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION Hanus, Ahrens, unanimous. '1.12 SET DATE FOR BID OPENING FOR 50 H.P. TRACTOR AND FLAIL MOWER - FEBRUARY 26, 1997, AT 11:00 A.M. MOTION Hanus, Ahrens, unanimous. Minutes - Mound City Council - February 11, 1997 1.13 PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 4831 SHORELINE DRIVE TO ALLOW A "MAJOR AUTO REPAIR" BUSINESS AS REQUESTED BY RANDY'S AUTOMOTIVE. The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval with certain conditions. Councilmember Hanus questioned the second sentence in the third Whereas of the proposed resolution which reads as follows: "The permit allows minor auto repair, tire repair, valve jobs, service maintenance, gas welding and an open sales lot limited to 10 vehicles, 7 of which must be stored outside of the fence." The Council discussed the sentence. The City Attorney suggested deleting that sentence from the proposed resolution. The Council agreed. The applicant, Randy Bilger, stated that he will be cleaning up the site and will keep it clean. The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//97-19 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A "MAJOR REPAIR BUSINESS" FOR RANDY'S AUTOMOTIVE LOCATED IN THE 'B-2 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AT 4831 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS I TO 4 INCL. & LOTS 20 & 21 .... , BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID #13-117-24 44 0014, P & Z CASE//97-01 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.14 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF THE UNIMPROVED OXFORD LANE LOCATED NORTH OF HANOVER ROAD AND SOUTH OF ABERDEEN ROAD BETWEEN BLOCKS 5 & 9 IN DEVON. The Building Official explained the request. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial, but since then the City Engineer has revised his report due to obtaining additional information and his February 11, 197 memorandum was distributed to the Council. The Planning Commission did not have this memo when the vacation was considered. The Mayor opened the public hearing. KEN JUNKER, 4776 Island View Drive - asked who would get this property if it were vacated? He had no objection to the vacation. The City Attorney explained that normally half went to each abutting property owner. Minutes - Mound City Council - February 11, 1997 JIM RENNY, 2008 Thorndale Ave., New Brighton - owner of Lots 14-20 on Hanover Lane. He also spoke for his mother who owns Lots 1-6 on Aberdeen. He had no objection to the vacation as long as his property and his mothers continue to have access to their property after the vacation. The Building Official explained that the City Engineer has addressed this in his February 11, 1997 memo. It would be more feasible to extend Hanover Road west to Devon Lane, if Mr. Renny's property were to be developed. The watermain is already in place in Hanover Road and the sanitary sewer could be extended from an existing manhole in Devon Lane to serve this property. The Public Works Supt. explained that if Mr. Renny wanted to develop the property he could extend Hanover from where it ends at Oxford Lane. The Council discussed the fact that the Planning Commission has not reviewed the additional information and felt they should review this vacation request again. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to continue this public hearing to March 4, 1997, and refer the item back to the Planning Commission with the new information about the utilities and asking for their recommendations. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.15 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from citizens present. STEVE BEDELL, 4801 Shoreline Drive - stated that on January 14, 1997, he appeared before the Council requesting a 3.2 Beer License which was approved by a 4-1 vote. There were some questions that he thought were cleared up. He stated he was under the impression that he had met the qualifications for the License. After that meeting he started buying thousands of dollars in equipment for storage of the beer. He then stated that at the January 21st COW Meeting there was discussion concerning more legalities on the qualifications for the 3.2 Beer License. Following that meeting Mr. Bedell received a letter dated January 31, 1997, alerting him to the questions. He stated he still does not know if he has the license or not. He then submitted a petition signed by 17 people stating that they did not object to the sale of 3.2 beer at his business. He asked if there was any new information on this matter or how to proceed with obtaining his license. The City Attorney stated that Section 810:30, Subdivision 3, Subsection (b) requires that the applicant receive written consent of at least a majority of the property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Apparently that provision was not complied with when the application was received. It was overlooked when the City Council considered and approved this on January 14, 1997. In the City Attorney's opinion this provision of the ordinance is unenforceable and should not be used as a basis in consideration of 3.2 Beer License applications. The Council decided to let the approval of the license stand. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to direct staff to correct the language in Section 800:30, Subdivision 3 of the City Code. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Minutes - Mound City Council - February 11, 1997 1.16 1996 DEPARTMENT HEADS ANNUAL REPORTS The following Department Heads presented their 1996 annual reports to the City Council: Jim Fackler, Parks Director; Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent; and Len Harrell, Police Chief. 1.17 REQUEST FROM TONKA BAY MARINA INEW OWNER OF TEAL POINTE) TO RELEASE LETTER OF CREDIT ON TEAL POINTE DEVELOPMENT. The City Manager explained the request. The City Engineer and the City Attorney recommend the following: Release all but $15,930.00 of the remaining amount under the Letter of Credit. This amount will cover the remaining work that is to be completed by Widmer this spring. Gabriel Jabbour, as owner of the Teal Pointe property must send a letter to Marquette Bank Mound requesting that the Letter of Credit be released based upon the fact that the Letter of Credit, with the exception of $15,930.00 is no longer needed. Gabriel Jabbour, as owner of the Teal Pointe property, must send a letter to the City of Mound directed to Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager, that he is requesting that the Letter of Credit be released pursuant to #2 above. Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//97-20 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PARTIAL RELEASE OF THE LETTER OF CREDIT FOR THE TEAL POINTE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. 1.18 REOUEST FROM WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO USE CITY COUNCIl, CHAMBERS FOR REGULAR SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS TWICE PER MONTH ON A REGULAR BASIS BEGINNING JULY 1, 1997. The City Manager explained that the School Board is asking to use the Council Chambers for their School Board Meetings starting July 1, 1997. This would be a permanent arrangement. The Council discussed the fact that the School Board would have to reschedule their meetings because they meet on the same night as the Planning Commission. The Council discussed the following issues regarding the permanent use of the Council Chamber: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. security issues; is there need for a staff member to be present to open and lock the building; conflict with City use; extra wear and tear on the building, furnishings, and equipment; janitorial services; and utilities; insurance; and what happens if something breaks. The Council asked the Staff to address the issues and concerns and how it would relate to long term use. Minutes - Mound City Council - February 11, 1997 They stated they are not against the concept of letting the School Board use the building. This will be brought back to the Council at a later date after more information is gathered. 1.19 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AMENDING SECTIONS 255:05 AND 255:15 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 256 TO THE CITY CODE ESTABLISHING A DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION. The City Manager gave the background of this item. This proposal was brought up by Councilmember Hanus at the first meeting in January and was referred to Staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance amendments. The City Attorney prepared the draft of an ordinance amendment. The City Attorney reviewed the proposed ordinance for the Council. He stated that the revised draft is marked as such with the changes that were suggested. The changes were as follows: 1. Reduce the number of members of the POSC to 6 with 5 to be appointed by the City Council and one Council liaison. 2. Getting rid of some of the old language regarding start up and phasing in membership. 3. Section 255:15. The allocation of the responsibilities between the two commissions, POSC and the Dock & Commons Advisory Commission. 4. Adding section 256:00 creating the companion commission, the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission. This was to implement the recommendations that were considered and approved by the Council at the first meeting in January. This would be a six member commission, 5 members to be appointed by the City Council and a Council liaison. 5. Staging in the initial terms of this commission, all being appointed immediately, but staggering the length of terms of the commissioners. 6. The initial appointments shall to the greatest extent possible be made from members of the Commons Dock Task Force. 7. An appointee shall be automatically removed from the Commission if they cease to be active in the City's licensed dock program. This is consistent with the provision that in order to be appointed, they have to be active in the city's dock program. 8. Much of the language is the same as the existing Park & Open Space Advisory Commission Ordinance. The Council discussed having an even number of members on the proposed commission, including the Council liaison. The remainder of commissions all have odd numbers to avoid tie votes. Councilmember Jensen stated that she feels both these commissions should have odd numbers on them. The Council then discussed the fact that other ordinances may need to be amended if they deal with docks because they may refer things to the POSC and will need to be referred to the new commission. The City Attorney suggested putting in another section which would be like a revisor's note indicating that if, in any other ordinance in the code, a reference is made to a duty of the POSC which has now been assigned to the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission, it shall be understood that those duties are changed as a result of this ordinance. Councilmember Jensen questioned the duties being the same in the POSC and the Dock & Commons Commission. She stated this has a potential for overlap. Councilmember Hanus stated that those are not issues to be dealt with, it is a public policy that has been published. Councilmember Jensen stated she finds it confusing because it is in the section under their Duties. Minutes - Mound City Council - February 11, 1997 The City Attorney suggested the following wording be added: "Whenever the term Park & Open Space Advisory Commission (POSC) is used in this code of ordinances with respect to a duty to be assigned to the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission, it shall be understood that the use of the term Park & Open Space Advisory Commission relates to the Dock & Commons Advisory Commission." This will not appear in the Code Book. It will not appear anywhere, except as a direction to the City Clerk. Councilmember Weycker expressed concern over the phrase "public shoreline" in the proposed ordinance. She asked if this includes the dedicated commons? Councilmember Hanus stated that if there are city licensed docks there, it should apply. The City Attorney stated that was done so you would read the two concepts together, public shoreline which is subject to city docks, so if it is a publicly dedicated shoreline, which is part of the dock program, then it would come within the purview of this ordinance. If it was privately dedicated commons, it would not. Nor would it come within the purview of the ordinance if it were, for example, Canary Beach, which is a public shoreline but it's not within the dock program. Commons that are dedicated to the neighborhoods and not public dedications would not be within this ordinance. The City Attorney suggested removing the word "public" from the two places in the ordinance it appears. The Council agreed. Councilmember Weycker stated she has a problem with the whole ordinance. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Weycker to amend the proposed ordinance Section 255:05 to read as follows: "Composition. The Park and Open Space Advisory Commission shall consist of seven members. Six members shall be appointed by the City Council. Section 256:05 to read as follows: "Composition. The Dock & Commons Advisory Commission shall consist of six members._ Six members (to be composed of four inland and two abutting property owners." The vote was 2 in favor with Ahrens, Hanus and Polston voting nay. Motion fails 3-2. Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following ordinance amendment as proposed and amended by the City Attorney: ORDINANCE//84-1997 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 255:05 AND 255:15 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION AND ADDED SECTION 256:00 TO THE CITY CODE ESTABLISHING A DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION Councilmember Weycker stated - She would not vote for this restructuring for the following reasons: 1. "When the Commons Task Force was established, Councilmember Jensen raised concerns about the biased make-up of the Commons Task Force and the skewed nature of their possible recommendations. At the same March 20, 1995, meeting, Mayor Polston and Councilmember Hanus both assured her that the Commons Task Force would take its recommendations to the POSC and Mayor Polston also suggested a public hearing at the Council level or arranging public forums. All, I believe, were intended to assure that public input to ideas brought up by a select group. But, here we are trying to make this task force a permanent body without the public or the POSC input. 8 a~ ~ ~ i ,,a ,,~, Minutes - Mound City Council - February 11, 1997 "Mr. Hanus' proposal states one of the conditions to be past irritations with the POSC. The Park Commission continually voiced concerns over the uncertainty of duties between them and the Commons Task Force. They went as far as passing a resolution, August 8, 1996, demanding that the City Council clarify their duties or abolish the Task Force. They also showed up at the August 20, 1996, Committee of the Whole Meeting, raising concerns about lack of communication with their Council Representative, Andrea Ahrens. The Council Minutes show that there was, 'No consensus on what to do with these concerns and the Council then moved on to the next item on the Agenda.' The record clearly shows that the POSC was given no answers to their questions. In fact, they were wasting their time on public land permits because they were told if they denied the permit and the applicant contested that denial, the permit would be temporarily granted anyway, pending the Commons Task Force recommendations. The Park Commission volunteers did not deserve this lack of respect." "I do not wish to diminish all the work the Commons Task Force did. I agree with most of the concepts they came up with. The Parks Commission also agreed with them and had minor changes after hearing and discussing part of the recommendations. They were still addressing the section on encroachments. That presentation of proposed changes, a month or so ago, was the first to be presented to the Parks Commission since the Commons Task Force was formed in March of 1995, almost two years ago. The City Council continues to say it always intended the Task Force to report their ideas, first, to the POSC. But reporting to the POSC, does not make any group inferior. It just follows procedure and ordinances that are currently on our books." "I find that the make-up of the POSC, as it is, represents Mound's public. Two of the current members, who also use the commons dock program, have 20 years of combined knowledge and experience in dealing with these issues as well as other park issues. Three of the POSC are also members of the Commons Task Force and three of the members also participate in the commons dock program." In January three people applied for a single advertised open seat. The POSC is not as out of touch as Mr. Hanus' proposal makes it out to be. It was the City Council who had the opportunity to implement ideas from a mediation group in my neighborhood of Woodland Point. After ten weeks of mediation meetings, the Council chose not to adopt the mediation agreement of the neighborhood group, but rather a page of demands from the six people that sued them. The action by the POSC was never involved or resulted in any loss of commons in my neighborhood. Mr. Hanus' proposal does not accuse the POSC of this perse, but he thinks that his proposed restructuring could have prevented this." "I would like to see the Commons Task Force stay a task force. I agree with Mr. Hanus that we should have a sounding board to hear complaints and ideas from dock program users. That was the reason the task force was formed. It should then report to the POSC made up of a publicly diverse group and then to the City Council. In Mr. Hanus' letter to the editor, dated March 31, 1996, he says exactly this. To quote, 'This is the way it was set up. This is how it is now and this is how it should be. No one is bypassed and everyone has ample opportunity for comment and debate.'" "I strongly urge this Council to vote against this proposal and follow through on the fair Minutes - Mound City Council - February I1, 1997 In summary, the City Council has no justification for changing the present structure. input you told the public you were creating." The vote on the proposed ordinance was 3 in favor with Jensen and Weycker voting nay. Motion carried on 3-2 vote. The Council is still expecting a recommendation from the POSC on the encroachment policy. The following letter from Tom Casey, Chair, Park & Open Space Commission, was entered into the public record: "Mound City Council c/o Ed Shukle RE: Revision of Park Commission Ordinance - 2/11/97 agenda Dear Mr. Shukle, Please read the following comments orally into the public record tonight and include this letter as part of the written public record. For the following reasons, I wish to go on record in opposition to the Hanus proposal to amend the Park and Open Space Commission ordinance. 1. This is a transparent attempt to remove a political opponent, Mr. Bill Darling, from the Park Commission by not having any vacant seats for his reappointment; 2. This is a transparent attempt to "stack the deck" of the Dock and Commons Commission with people who share the commons philosophy of Mr. Hanus, Mrs. Ahrens and Mr. Poston; 3. The reduction of Park Commission membership from eight to five members will create the potential for 3-3 deadlocks (when the vote of the city council liaison is included); 4. The reduction of Park Commission membership from eight to five members also diminishes the opportunity for citizens to participate in local government (including the 3 applicants who interviewed for a vacancy on 1/9/97); 5. The Park Commission presently has decades of collective experience on commons/dock issues (2 present members have almost 20 years of experience); 6. The Park Commission has spent considerable time reviewing proposed encroachment policies, a wasted effort if the commons issues where removed from its duties; and 7. Mr. Hanus, in his 8/31/96 letter to The Laker, stated," ..... The procedure adopted by the city council is that the first place a task force policy recommendation goes is to the Parks and Open Space Commission for review. Then it is forwarded to the council. This is the way it was set up, this is how it is now, and this is how it should be. No one is bypassed and everyone has ample opportunity for comment, debate, and opinion." Constructive .~. t~ ,, a .a ...~. Minutes - Mound City Council - February 11, 1997 debate and citizen participation will be the victims. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, (signed) Tom Casey, Chair, Park and Open Space Commission" The Council asked that the Task Force members be contacted to see if they wish to serve on this new Dock and Commons Commission. If the new commission is not filled out by task force members, then it will be opened up anyone to apply. The Council would like to have the task force members decisions before the next City Council Meeting, February 25, 1997. 1.20 INFORMATION/~SCELLA~OUS:. A. Department Head Monthly Reports for January 1997. B. LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for January 1997. C. LMCD Mailings. D. Invitation from LMCD to attend the annual "Save the Lake" Banquet on February 13, 1997, at Lord Fletchers. Please advise if you wish to attend. E. Information from the League of Minnesota Cities re: Minnesota Court of Appeals decision on the fights of way issue in the US West/City of Redwood Falls case. F. REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting, February 18, 1997, 7:30 P.M. G. REMINDER: City Offices will be closed on Monday, February 17, 1997, in observance of President's Day. ADD-ON INFORMATION ITEM: LMCD PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE LOST LAKE CHANNEL DOCKS The City Manager presented the Council with the public hearing notice from the LMCD regarding the Lost Lake Channel dock proposal. He told the Council that the application is for 16 transient slips in the turn around area of the proposed canal dredge. Included was the application and staff report. The staff is recommending approval. The board representative from the City of Mound is also in support of this. He expressed concern that there may be some opposition to this at the public hearing and encouraged the Council to attend this meeting on March 12, 1997, at 7:00 P.M. in the Tonka Bay City Hall. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus at 9:25 P.M. to continue this meeting to Wednesday, February 12, 1997, at 7:00 P.M. at the Tonka Bay City Hall in conjunction with the LMCD Public Hearing regarding the Lost Lake Channel. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Minutes - Mound City Council - February 11, 1997 Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 12 jl I I~ j ,il ,,,IE, ,j ~,l~ MINUTES-COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE-FEBRUARY 18, 1997 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Mayor Polston. Councilmembers: Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen and Weycker. Also Present: Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator; John Cameron, City Engineer; and Ed Shulde, City Manager. Proposed Implementation for the Inflow/Infiltration (Sump Pump Disconnection) Program Ed Shukle, City Manager, described the program to date. He indicated that the City of Mound received a loan from Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) for $40,000 to assist the City in inspecting residences for sump pumps connected to the sanitary sewer system. He explained that the purpose of the program was to reduce the amount of ground water being discharged into the sanitary sewer system which, in turn, increases the amount of flow for treatment by MCES which translates into higher rates and costs for the city and its citizens. The discussion focused on implementing the inspection program by beginning with an ordinance amendment which puts some "teeth" into requiting that residences disconnect sump pumps from the sanitary sewer system. John Cameron, City Engineer reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment with the Council. Some suggested changes were made to the amendment. It was the consensus of the Council to bring the ordinance amendment to the March 4, 1997 regular City Council meeting for approval. Prior to the ordinance being adopted, Mayor Polston asked that a presentation be made by the City Engineer and others explaining the purpose of the program and how it is intended to be implemented. It was agreed that the presentation precede the adoption of the ordinance amendment. A news release will be published in The Laker announcing the presentation as part of the March 4, 1997 Council meeting. It was noted that Visu-Sewer of St. Louis Park will be the City's vendor to perform the inspections and work with City staff on the public relations aspect of the project. News releases in The Laker and the City newsletter will be published. In addition, a special mailing will be done to all households in the City of Mound notifying homeowners of the project. Preliminary_ Discussion Re: Cooperative Agreement with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Storm Water Management Plan Ed Shukle and John Cameron provided background on the requirements related to developing a storm water management plan. Cameron indicated that an agreement with MCWD is necessary in order to facilitate the construction of Auditor's Road and proposed construction by Westonka Public Schools related to the new facility at the Shirley Hills Elementary School site. Also discussed was the possibility of creating a Storm Water Management Utility Fund to help assist in the financing of a plan and subsequent regional ponding construction. More information on this subject will be provided at a later date. Minutes of the Committee of the Whole February 18, 1997 Page 2 Mound Visions Program Ed Shukle and Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator reviewed the status of the permit applications on the Lost Lake Improvement Project. Also discussed was the relocation of the Post Office and the developers interested in developing downtown Mound. Three different sites were reviewed as possibilities for the post office. The City Council seemed to prefer one of those sites over the other two for various reasons. More information will be brought back at a later date. With regard to potential developers, copies of statements of qualifications were reviewed from two possible developers. Staff wondered if the Council would like to meet in person with these developers to allow each to make a ½ hour presentation including questions. It was the consensus that these developers be invited to attend the March 18, 1997 Committee of the Whole meeting which will start at 7:00 p.m. rather than 7:30 p.m to meet with the City Council for the purposes of discussing their qualifications and interest in being a parmer with the City of Mound on developing the downtown. Auditor's Road Improvement Project was briefly discussed. John Cameron reviewed some of the issues related to the final plans for the road project. He indicated that he was waiting to hear the results of the MCWD permit on the canal dredge before going too much further with the design. Westonka Community_ Center Update Ed Shukle updated what is happening with the existing community center property and the School District's construction plans of building an Educational Service Center on the Shirley Hills property. Also discussed was the potential development for the existing community center site related to retail development. Senior Center Update Ed Shukle updated information discussed by a committee representing the cities of Spring Park, Minnetrista and Mound related to this subject. He indicated that these cities have been meeting to discuss the feasibility of constructing a senior center to be located in one of these cities. Sites have been narrowed to two with one being located in Minnetrista and the other in Mound. He explained that the Seniors Board of Directors has given conceptual approval to the site in Minnetrista but that they have not seen the site (Lost Lake) as the other possible site. The director of Senior Community Services is scheduled to meet with the Board of Seniors next week and another meeting of this committee has been set for March 5. At that time, direction will be provided as to which site is the one favored by the seniors and then the necessary resources can be allocated to investigate the site from an engineering and architectural standpoint. Minutes of the Committee of the Whole February 18, 1997 Page 3 1997 Spring Cleanup Ed Shukle indicated that the annual spring cleanup has been tentatively set for Saturday, April 26, 1997. He asked if the Lost Lake site could be used for this purpose. The Council agreed to allow the Lost Lake site to be used. Everything that has been collected in the past will be accepted on that day with the exception of brush. Other Business The idea of a compost site was again discussed. The Mayor and City Manager will attempt to arrange a meeting with Minnetrista officials to see if something can be worked out jointly between the two cities. There being no other business, it was moved by Jensen, seconded by Weycker and carried unanimously, to adjourn the committee of the whole meeting at 10:27 p.m. It was noted that the next meeting of the committee of the whole is scheduled for Tuesday, March 18, 1997, 7:00 p.m. (Please note time change). Ed Shukle City Manager RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST OF FRANK NIESEN FOR FRONT YARD VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A HOME AT 5300 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, P.I.D. NO. 13- 117-24 34 0089 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 462.353 conveys authority to the City to plan and Section 462.357 provides enabling legislation for the City to adopt a zoning ordinance and zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, Section 350:620 of the Mound City Code establishes the single family residential district and Section 350:420 indicates the provision governing non-conforming uses and Section 350:530 authorizes the variance procedures in the City Code; and WHEREAS, the applicant in Case No. 97-03 is Frank Niesen who is the owner of a vacant lot at 5300 Lynwood Boulevard, P.I.D. No. 13-117-24 34 0089, which lot has front yard frontages on Lynwood Boulevard and on Center View Boulevard; and WHEREAS, in 1980 a 20 foot strip of land along the south side of the property became tax forfeit and was acquired by the City for future road right-of-way; and WHEREAS, Lynwood Boulevard is classified as a State Aid street and needs to have a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet, and the tax forfeit land was retained by the City in case this portion of Lynwood Boulevard is ever improved utilizing State Aid funds; and WHEREAS, applicant is seeking variances to construct a new one level home on an existing vacant lot, which home would be approximately 27 feet wide and 105 feet long; and WHEREAS, the variances being requested are as follows: Required Proposed Variance Front Yard (Lynwood) 20' Front Yard (Center View) 20' 10' 10' 18' 2' and WHEREAS, while the property is more difficult to develop than a standard residential lot because of the existence of two street frontages and because of the right-of-way that retained by the City, the lot has a substantial buildable area which could accommodate a conforming house with a different footprint; and ~{ADLELllSlll MU200-1 Il I j i ,il ,, Ill,, ,l ~,li WHEREAS, the proposed structure does not fit on the subject lot since its length and positioning are responsive to a desired building plan rather than creating a plan for a home that will fit on the subject lot; and WHEREAS, other alternatives exist because a conforming home of a different design could be built on the lot without the issuance of any variances; and WHEREAS, no hardship exists which would make it difficult for the applicant to utilize the land in a conforming manner; and WHEREAS, Section 350:530 establishes the provisions for the granting of variances and indicates that a variance may be granted only in the event that certain circumstances exist including: "exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone and vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of this Ordinance have no control"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound as follows: 1. The application of Frank Niesen for a variance to construct a home on 5300 Lynwood Boulevard (P.I.D. No. 13-117-24 34 0089) is hereby denied for the following reasons: a. The lot has a substantial buildable area which could accommodate a conforming house with a different footprint. b. The proposed structure does not fit on the subject lot since its length and positioning are responsive to a desired building plan rather than creating a plan for a home that will fit on the subject lot. c. A conforming home of a different design could be built on the lot without the issuance of any variances. d. The requirements for granting a variance and the reasons for granting a variance in Section 350:50 are not met in that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which apply to this property or to other properties in the single family zone, and further the denial of a variance request does not deprive the applicant of rights generally enjoyed by other parties in the same district, and further the granting of the variance will confer on the applicant special privileges that are denied by the zoning HADLELll8111 MU200-1 ordinance to owners of other single family lands or structures in this zoning district. 2. The City Council further finds that the granting of this variance would be detrimental to the public welfare and would convey privileges on this property which do not exist for other properties. 3. The City Council further finds that if standards and requirements are waived or relaxed for one property, other property owners have the right to expect the same kind of treatment or their constitutional rights would be adversely affected by failing to apply the equal protection laws of the Constitution to all residents. ~L~DLELllSlll MU200-1 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 1997 CASE 97-03: VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING FRANK NIESEN, 5300 LYNWOOD BLVD. LOTS 18, 19, 20 & p/21, BLK 7, A.L. ADDN. TO LAKESIDE PK, 13-117-24 34 0089 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planning Report. variances to construct a new one level home on an existing vacant lot. are: The applicant is seeking The requested variances Front Yard (Lynwood) Front Yard (Centerview) REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE 20' 10' 10' 20' 18' 2' The subject lot is more difficult to develop than a standard residential lot because of the existence of two street frontages and because of the right-of-way that was established by the tax forfeit property. Despite these constraints, the lot has a substantial buildable area which could accommodate a conforming house with a different footprint. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the requested variances since a conforming structure would be built on the lot. If the Planning Commission feels that the proposed request is appropriate, it would have to determine that this case includes "practical difficulties" and it would need to state a series of findings that would support such a conclusion. Applicant, Frank Niesen, explained to the Commission that he needs a home with a three stall garage, and he has already by the modular home so he cannot change the house plan. They want a house without stairs. Hanus asked if the Building Official has worked with the applicant. Options for a detached garage were discussed. The applicant wants an attached garage. MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Glister, to recommend denial of the variance request, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on January 28, 1997. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. J'll TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: January 6, 1997 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Frank Niesen CASE NUMBER: 97-03 I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5c LOCATION: 5300 Lynwood Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking variances to construct a new one level home on an existing vacant lot. The proposed home is approximately 27 feet wide and has a length of 105 feet. Variances requested include the following: Required Proposed Front Yard (Lynwood) 20' 10' Front Yard (Center View) 20' 18' Va_dance 10' 2' COMMENTS: The survey identifies a 20 foot strip of land along the south side of the property that was forfeited land. In 1980, the strip became tax forfeit and was acquired by the City for future road right-of-way. Lynwood Boulevard is classified as a State Aid street and accordingly, it needs to have a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet. The tax forfeited land was retained by the City in case this portion of Lynwood is ever improved utilizing State Aid funds. In order for a variance to be granted for any property, the conditions identified in Section 350:530 of the Code need to be satisfied. Those conditions require a finding that the situation imposes undue hardship or practical difficulty for the property owner to utilize the land. Essentially, the conditions involved in a variance can not result from the actions of the applicant or need to be beyond the applicant's control. Admittedly, the subject lot is more difficult to develop than a standard residential lot because of the existence of two street frontages and because of the right-of-way that was established by the tax forfeit property. Despite these constraints, the lot has a substantial buildable area which could 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Niesen Planning Report January 6, ~996 Page 2 accommodate a conforming house with a different footprint. The proposed structure does not fit on the subject lot since its length and positioning are responsive to a desired building plan rather than creating a plan for a home that will fit on the subject lot. Because of this fact, staff can not support a finding of hardship as a rationale for granting the requested variances. In this particular case, other alternatives exist because a conforming home of a different design could be built on the lot without the issuance of any variances. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the requested variances since a conforming structure could be built on the lot. If the Planning Commission feels that the proposed request is appropriate, it would have to determine that this case includes "practical difficulties" and it would need to state a series of findings that would support such a conclusion. Length -Sewer Service Depth at P.L.~..~' Contractor/~'~--,~,---, ~..,,,',-, ~. Installed by ~Z~.-,-. .._ ._ .,f./~/~.~... Tied by Date ~ ~/o Street ~-_- P_J,4'l-e.l~.~/~ ~ No. Between L~ ~ ~o ~ ~ and ~ ~ Sewer Service MH Di~ance Length Depth at P.L. ~ Contractor Installed by Tied by. NIH Length Date Water Service Distance Size Type Pipe Contractor Installed by~ Tied by Date Addition Lot MH Length Block Water Service Distance J ~ ' Size ~//~-" Type Pipe Co Contractor Installed by Tied by, t~..~:::). Date VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner City Engineer Public Works DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DES(;. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER OWNER) Address ~_~_~ Subdivision ZONING DIST~CT R-1 R-lA ~ R-3 Phone ~) ~7~- Name Address Block '7~ Plat # ~_: 17 3i~ B-1 B-2 B-3 (M) Phone (I-I) ~(W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ,l~fno. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes.,~ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED (or exist/ag) VARIANCE FrontYard: (N~EW,~)~ft. q~O ft. Side Yard: ( ,~,S ~:(._~ 2) ft. __~~1_ ft. ,.~r Z. ft. Side Yard: (~ ~)S ::~ o ft. .~ o ft. Q ft. Rear Yard: (_~tS E W ) ~ '~ ft. O ft. O ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: 'ig. l l ~ ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: ~ /:~=~=sq ft /o~ ~7q'] sq ft sq ft Hardcover: -"- ' 'bi ~ sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? too nan'ow ( ) topography ( ) soil too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation too shallow 9~) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: 10/21196) ,~, It I ,I ~,~ 1,, Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. .... 6. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes ~; No (). If yes, explain: 7. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ~, No (). If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes j~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: oZ I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date (Rev. 10/21/96) CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: ~'~~ ]---~n OWNER'S NAME: RECEIVED DEC 1 9 1 96 LOT AREA ~ LOT AREA ~ LOT AREA /'~ .-~ SQ. FT. X 30% sQ. FT. X 40% SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) ....... = (for detached buildings only) .. I *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted es hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = 101~ D~IVEW~Y, ITC .................. X = X TOl~k DfiC~ .......................... X = X ~ TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY DATE ,T'-? 7;Z t £O'd 0 0 AIO "alD~'~31 hi"qMOl dOl~'.r'~O 9636-[_D50 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 ~ FAX (612) 472-0620 M e mo r a n d .. m~~/(~2/;[ ~:2~,~~~~ January 31, 1996 Jon Sutherland, Building Official~// ~.~?~~ Mark Koegler, City Planner Peggy James, Secretary Tax Forfeited Parcel Lot 18 & part of 19, 20 & 21, Block 7, Abraham Lincoln's Addition to Lakeside Park, PID 13-117-24 34 0089 Gordy Ramm from Hennepin County (348-7839) has received a request from the adjacent property owner to purchase the subject tax forfeited land. According to Resolution #80-63, the City has already released the property for sale, ho~er, the County has not released the property to-date. //~ ~ ~(~.~___~¥ Gordy is asking for re-confirmation that it is okay to release this~_ropert~-fo~r- pu_b.lic sale, or if it should be released for sale to the adjacent property owners only. The property no longer meets the minimum square footage rb--~ui~ments for a two-family dwelling. In addition, if this property is purchased by the adjacent property owner, parcel (90) should be combined with parcel (8). Please advise. ~ printed on recyciedpaper 237 September 20, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88-134 RESOLUTION RECONVEYING (IF NEC£SSARY) CERTAIN PORTIONS OF TAX FORFEIT LANDS BACK TO THE STATE AND REQUESTING THE COUNTY BOARD TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE SALE OF SAID TAX FORFEIT LANDS AND TO RESTRICT THE SALE TO OWNERS OF ADJOINING LANDS (PID %13-117-24 34 0009) WHEREAS, the City of Mound has been informed by the Department of Property Taxation of Hennepin County that certain lands within the City have been forfeited for non-payment of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has a number of tax parcels which do not comply with the City's zoning ordinance and building codes because of a lack of minimum area, shape, frontage, access problems, or the parcels contain nuisances or dangerous condi- tions which are adverse to the health, safety and general welfare of residents of this City; and WHEREAS, the City was instrumental in obtaining legis- lation which could allow said parcels to be withheld from public sale and sold at a non-public sale to eliminate nuisances and dangerous conditions and to increase compliance with land use or- dinances and Minnesota Laws of 1982, Chapter 253, Article 39, Sect. 6 was adopted to provide said authority to the City and the County; and WHEREAS, a specific list of tax forfeited lands has been provided the City and the City wishes to restrict and condi- tion the sale of certain portions of lands to bring them into conformance with City ordinances and land use goals; and WHEREAS, all special assessments were cancelled at the time of forfeiture and may be reassessed after the property is returned to private ownership pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282.02 (also note: M.S. 429.07, Subd. 4; M.S. 435.23 and M.S. 444.076); and WHEREAS, all special assessments that have been levied since forfeiture shall be included as a separate item and added to the appraised value of any such parcel of land at the time it is sold (M.S. 2']2 01, Subd. 3). ~OW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: 1. The County Board is hereby requested to impose conditions on the sale of the following described lands, and is further 1 238 September 20, 1988 requested to sell such lands only to owners of lands adjoin- ing at a non-public sale so that said lands will be combined for tax and land use purposes and will comply with City or- dinances and regulations: A. Portion of PID #13-117-24 22 0009 described as follows: "The northeasterly 10.00 feet of Lot 21, Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Minnetonka". Abrahma Mound, The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to release the aforementioned lands for sale, subject to the County imposing the aforestated conditions and the lien of special assessments on said lands. The City of Mound is releasing the above properties subject to street and utility easements being retained by the City of Mound. The foregoing resolution was moved by Mayor Smith and seconded by Councilmember Abel The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Abel, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith .... . The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 2 ~6 '. February 5, 1980. Councilmember Withhart moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 80-63 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR & MANAGER TO REQUEST THE STATE'RELEASE THE SOOTH 20 FEET OF LOTS 19, 20 & 21, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADD'N TO LAKE- SIDE PARK FOR STREET.& UTILITY PURPOSES & THE REMAINING LAND BE RELEASED FOR SALE. WHEREAS, Lots 18, 19, 20 & 21, Block 7, Abraham Lincoln's Add'n to Lakeside Park are tax forfeit and the City needs 20 feet along Lynwood for street pur- poses, and WHEREAS, it is recommended the City take the 20 feet for street purposes and allow the balance to be put on sale, and WHEREAS, it is calculated the lots have 20,953 sq. ft. prior to takln9 the 20 f~.and after taking 20 ft. they should have 13,825 sq. ft., and. WHEREAS, the area is zoned Residential B, which means there is enough room for a duplex and the engineer has tried to subdivide lots to allow 2 single family homes on remaining property but it does not seem feasible. NOW, THEREFORE,. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUE¢IL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA; That Council does hereby authorize and direct the Mayo? and Manager to request the State release the South 20 feet of Lots 19', 20 & 21, Block 7, Abraham Lincoln's Add'n to Lake Side Park for street and utility purposes and the remainder of the land be released for sale. Further, that it is recommended that either a d~p]ex be built on the remainder or a single fam- ily residence, as the land cannot be divided into 2 single family sized lots, after the 20 feet are taken. -' A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council member Polston and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor there- of; Lovaasen, Polston, Withhart and Ulrick, the following voted against the same; none, with Swenson being absent; whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. s/ Tim Lovaasen Mayor Attest:[J City Clerk CMC ! I ,? ,Ii ,1,i, 1~, / CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET l ~_~ ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ' · RI. 10,000/60 B1 7,$00/0 Rib. 6. rlr~fl lan B2 20,000/80 , ~ B3 10,000/60 t I~:~, R3 SEI ORD. I1 ~0,000/100 .,..CHON [ .E.UI.EO ] zxa · SURVEY ON FII.F.?~ NO LOT OF RECORD? YES YARD llOUSE ......... SIDE N S E.W~.~ N N S E W N S E W I0' IL ' I0' REAR LAKE 50' TOP OF BLUFF I0' OR 30' ~ LOT WIDTH: LOT DEP'rtt: VARIANCE GARAGE, SIIEI) ..... FRONT OR OTIIER DETACI1ED BUll DINGS N S E W N S E W N S E W 4'OR6' N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 5O' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' HARDCOVER CONFORMING? Y.~ { NO .~ ? Thi,~ Z,min!ll Inf. rmation Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requital Planning Department at 472-0600. ~ts outlined in the City of Mound Zo~inr, Ordinnnce. For further information, contact tbe City of Mound February 25, 1997 RESOLUTION #97- RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING MARCH 2-9, 1997, AS VOLUNTEERS 0FAMERICA WEEK IN THE CITY OF MOUND WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America, a Christian human service organization, is celebrating its 101st year of service to the people of Minnesota and the nation; it is therefore certainly appropriate for us, the City of Mound, to join in the observance of this milestone with the commemoration of March 2-9, 1997 as Volunteers of America Week; and WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America is making a valuable contribution by providing these services to adults and the elderly: 9 homes for mentally disabled, mentally ill, chemically dependent and/or elderly adults, congregate dining for seniors at 43 sites in Anoka and Hennepin Counties; transitional housing for women and their families in Aitkin, Chisago, Kanabec, Mille Lacs, and Pine counties; home delivered meals for persons 60 years of age and over; semi-independent living services and supported living services; 3 housing complexes for families, the handicapped, and the elderly; and 4 long-term health care facilities; and WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America provides these services for children and youth: a children's daycare, programs serving autistic, autistic-like, and/or development-ally disabled youth; children's shelters; in-home services; 52 foster treatment homes and correction group homes; a residential treatment center for emotionally handicapped boys; a specialized behavioral program for boys with severe problems; short-term after care for youth with special needs; and WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America provides 2 correctional services: a pre-release and work release correctional program serving men and a jail, workhouse and work-release correctional program serving women; and WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America, though its dedicated staff and volunteers and the many people who help support their work through financial contributions make a significant impact on the lives of people in the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America is commemorating its founding in 1896 and urges others to join them in bridging the gap between human needs and the resources of the public and private sector. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I Bob Polston, Mayor of the City of Mound, do hereby proclaim the week of March 2- 9, 1997, as VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA WEEK in the City of Mound. AND, BE IT RESOLVED, that copies of this proclamation be transmitted to the Volunteers of America as evidence of out esteem. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the City of Mound to be affixed this 25h day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety seven. Volunteers of America Minnesota February10,1997 RECEIVEDI 4 A Ministry of Service Volunteers of America Minnesota 5905 Golden Valley Road, Suite 110 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422-4490 Tel: 612-546-3242 Fax: 612-546-2774 The Honorable Robert Polston Mayor of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, ~MN 55364..1687 Dear Mayor Polston: The Volunteers of America is excited to be celebrating its 101't year, as we begin a second century of service. Volunteers of America Week, March 2 - 9, commemorates the founding of our organization on March 8, 1896. We are one of Minnesota's largest human service organizations, and annually more than 92% of every dollar we receive is spent directly on program services. Through the years, Volunteers of America has demonstrated it is a dynamic organization keeping pace with the ever changing world. We recognize the need for developing creative ways to solve problems and meet community needs for all members of our society. I hope you will recognize March 2 - 9, 1997, as Volunteers of America Week and ask that you join us in celebrating our 101 st year of service. Your personal proclamation acknowledging our service to the people in your community will be appreciated. Your proclamation, along with other proclamations and letters will be duplicated and put into booklet form. A booklet commemorating our 1 OPt birthday will be placed in the reception area of each of our programs and senior dining sites. Something wonderful is happening in Minnesota, because of you! Your interest and support makes a significant impact on the success of our organization. And, as you know our success is measured through the lives of those we touch. Respectfully yours, Board of Directors TM Volunteers of America Minnesota PROGRAM SERVICES Children & Teenagers Bar-None Residential Treatment Center serves boys who are emotionally/behaviorally disturbed. 612-753-2500 Children's Emergency Shelter social services in a protective environment for children in crisis. 612-753-2319 Children's Shelter Annex long-term care with social and educational services for children. 612-753-2500 CornerStone Child Care Center for infants and preschool aged children. 320-495-3345 Correction Foster Group Homes therapeutic homes for teenagers with a delinquent history. 612-546-3242 Emergency Shelter Foster Care Homes provide short-term care for children. 612-546-3242 Evaluation Shelter Unit determines appropriate treatment plans for troubled youth. 612-753-2500 Foster Homes for Children where traditional family care is provided for children. 612-546-3242 In-Home Respite Care for families of children who are autistic, autistic-like and/or disabled. 612-546-3242 Intensive Treatment Center for boys with severe behavioral problems in a secure setting. 612-753-2554 Out-of-Home Respite Care for families of children who are autistic, autistic-like and/or disabled. 612-546-3242 Settevig Center serves emotionally and/or behaviorally disturbed boys. 612-753-2500 Short-Term Aftercare prepares a child for a successful transition from treatment to home. 612-753-2500 Specialized Behavioral Program serves emotionally/behaviorally disturbed boys and their families. 612-753-2500 Specialized Foster Homes for children who are physically and/or mentally challenged. 612-546-3242 Treatment Foster Homes provide a supportive, directive environment for children and youth. 612-546-3242 Adults Columbia Heights Board and Lodging services for mildly mentally ill adults. 612-574-1167 CornerStone Supportive Transitional Housing for homeless/high risk families. 320-495-3344 In-Home Supportive Living Services and Respite Services for disabled adults. 320-495-3550 Ponderosa Board and Lodging services for adults. 320-495-3371 Portland House Supportive Living Services for developmentally disabled adults. 612-644-0577. Princeton Supportive Living Services a home for mentally disabled adults. 320-389-9461 Regional Corrections Center a jail, workhouse and work-release program for women. 612-488-2073 Residential Center a pre-release and work-release correctional program for men. 612-721-6327 Semi-Independent Living Services learning opportunities for individuals with special needs. 320-495-3550 Settevig Supportive Living Services a home for developmentally disabled adults in Mora. 320-679-2264 Stevencroft Apartment Supportive Living Services for developmentally disabled young adults. 612-644-2514 Stevencroft House Supportive Living Services for developmentally disabled young adults. 612-644-2514 Supported Independent Living Services for adults with special needs. 320-495-3550 White House Supportive Living Services for developmentally disabled adults near Wahkon. 320-495-3407 Senior Citizens Hennepin County Meals Coordination Program subsidy for home delivered & senior dining meals. 612-546-3242 Home Delivered Meals noon meals delivered to homebound seniors. 612-546-3242 Mora Senior Supportive Living Services for mentally disabled elderly who have special needs. 320-679-0243 Senior Dining noon meals in a community setting, to anyone 60 years of age or older. 612-546-3242 Social Services Coordinator for Senior Housing. 612-546-3242 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA... was founded March 8, 1896 in New York City. On April 24, 1896 services began in Minneapolis. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, a national Christian human service organization, has a 100 year history of serving people in need; regardless of their race, color or creed. It seeks to develop programs in areas where needs are not being met by existing services. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA staff is comprised of individuals who not only have administrative and/or professional social work expertise, but who also have a commitment to the Christian mission of the organization; the reaching and uplifting of all people. Last year, in addition to 300 staff, more than 2,100 persons volunteered their talents to help enrich program services in Minnesota. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, a 501(c)(3) organization, is eligible to receive tax deductible donations. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA meets all regulatory standards, publishes an annual report, has a certified audit, and files with the Charities Division of the Minnesota Attorney General's Office. BOARD OF DIRECTORS W. Lyle Meyer, Chair James E. Hogie Jr, President Mary E. Adams Ronald L. Britz Sharol L. Enger Walter W. Faster James W. Feil Mark. T. Flaten Gordon M. Haga Peter L. Hauser Barbara A. King Ross E. Kramer William W. McDonald John T. Richter William F. Rieckhoff Erling W. Rockney William E. Sandvig Clayton W. Strandlie Renee J. Tait Robert E. Van Valkenburg Dr. Harm A. Weber VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA MINNESOTA DISTRICT OFFICE administrative, accounting, and development offices are located at 5905 Golden Valley Road, Minneapolis, MN 55422-4490 (612) 546-3242 ORDINANCE//85-1997 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 810:30, SUBD. 3, OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO BEER LICENSES, BY REPEALING SUBSECTION (b) The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 810:30, Subd. 3 is amended by repealing Subsection Co) which reads as follows: Mayor ATTTEST: City Clerk Adopted by the City Council February 25, 1997 Published in the official newspaper, The Laker March 7, 1997 February 19, 1997 Mr. Kurt Scheer Bass Champions Division 3 Tournament Director Box 99 Unity, Wisonsin 54488 Dear Mr. Scheer: We are in receipt of your Public Gathering Permit Application for Mound Bay Park on July 19, 1997 and August 23, 1997. Before I take this to the City Council for their approval, I thought I should let you know that the Council only approves this park as a weigh-in site. Take-offs need to be done at another site, because of the early hour and the condominiums and residential area that is adjacent to the boat landing. You are more than welcome to use the area for a weigh-in but not a take-off. Please let me know ASAP if this is acceptable. Sincerely, Fran Clark, CMC City Clerk February 7, 1997 CITY OF MOUND $341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1687 RECEiVE , :o i 2 Dear Mound City Council/Linda Strong: I'm writing you to request the use of Mound Bay Park for a Bass Champions tournament take-off and weigh-in site. I have enclosed the public gathering permit request form and a copy of the Bass Champions Tournament Trail entry form. Upon inspection of the tournament entry form you will notice that it states" anyone wishing to fish the Lake Minnetonka tournaments must contact myself or the assistant director at least two weeks prior to the tournament". At this time I will notify all anglers of the rules and regulations that apply to Lake Minnetonka and Mound Bay Park. I will also notify them that only myself and the anglers helping at the weigh-in are allowed to launch their boats at the park landing( approximatly 3 boats),everyone else must launch elsewhere on the lake. This should greatly decrease the boat load at the Mound Bay landing. The dates I'm requesting are Saturday July 19, 1997 and Saturday August 23, 1997. Take-off will be schedueled for 7a.m. and weigh-in at 3p.m. Weigh-in and awards should take approximatly landl/2 hours. We will be pulling the boats to shore 2 or 3 boats at a time, weighing their fish and returning the fish to the anglers to be hauled back on the lake by the catching anglers and released to suitable cover or habitate(this is to reduce the stress on the fish). After the weigh-in is finished and everything is packed up myself and the individuals helping me will go over the area we used and make sure there was NO trash left on the grounds! I have set a 50 boat maxiumum for this tournament, but anticipate a turn out of between 30-45 boats for these events. I hope the rules and regulations I have set for these tournaments are suitable. But if you have any other ideas, rules or regulations for these events please contact me before denying my permit, I will be happy to inforce them. I would like to thank the Mound City Council and Linda Strong for your time. THANK YOU! Sincerely, Ku~~ampions Division Tournament Director 1997 Wisconsin/Minnesota Spring/Summer Bass Champions Team TYail Director Kurt Scheer (715) 223-6753 Asst. Director Gene Parker (715) 884-2224 May 24 Bi9 Cheta¢, Wi/Do-Little Park Birchwood, WI June 21 Long Lake, Wi/Reel-Em Inn Sarona, WI July 13 Miller Dam, WI/Dam Landing Gilman, WI *July 19 Minnetonka, MN/Mound Bay Park Mound, MN August 16 Boom Lake, WI/Hodag Park Rhinlander, WI *August 23 Minnetonka, MN/Mound Bay Park Mound, MN *To register for either Minnetonka tournament, anglers must call directors at least 2 weeks prior to tournament date. (Based on 30 Boat Field) 1st ................. $1,000 2nd .................. $425 3rd ................... $250 4th ................... $175 5th ................... $150 6th ................... $100 $110°0 ENTRY FEE-PER TEAM -Received at National Headquarters by Deadline for entries Monday, one week prior to tournament date or $125 ENTRY FEE at the ramp (includes $15 late fee) Payback 70% to 20% of field Send all Membership and Tournament Fees to: AnglerSport Inc. P.O. Box 34159 · Perdido Key, FL 32507-4159 BIG BASS (OPTIONAL) - $10.00 PeR BOAT PAY CASH AT THE RAMP FOR 100% PAYBACK EV//tfI~DEE ~LL Lg~S LL~c.S MITCH£L[ BILLS February 25, 1997 BATCH 7022 Total Bills $152,910.80 $152,910.80 o ~ ,..- im ¢ I ~?????~???? I'111; 0 Czm Z c~ r'- Ooooloo 0 0 z 0 C 7_ ~ o c ~?.z. ~0 0 Z z CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM February 21, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM The City of Mound has been notified by Hennepin County that it will receive $67,178 in CDBG funding for 1997. Upon notice by Hennepin County, I notified the existing participants and indicated to them that their requests should be submitted. Public Service delivery programs (all of the programs typically funded by the City's CDBG program with the exception of the rehabilitation program) are subject to a 20% cap of the total allocation. This is the same rule that applied for 1996 funding. The requests for funding for 1997 came above the 20% regulation and I have reviewed the previous years allocation and have divided up the funds as follows: Westonka Senior Center Operations $ 8,025 Westonka Community Action Network (WECAN) 2,821 Westonka Intervention 1,747 Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH) 806 Rehabilitation of Private Property 53,779 TOTAL $67,178 Attached you will find information from each of the organizations regarding their requests. I am sure there will be representatives from these organizations attending the Council meeting Tuesday evening and will speak during the public hearing on this subject. Also enclosed is a resolution approving the projected use of funds as I have recommended above. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. pr~nted on recycled paper ill I ii I~ ,il ,,,It~ ,I Lii February 25, 1997 RESOLUTION//97- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 1997 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Mound, Minnesota, through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound, Minnesota, has developed a proposal for the use of Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it and held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 25, 1997, to obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs, and the City's proposed use of $67,178 from the 1997 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Grant. BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Mound, Minnesota approves the following projects for funding from the Urban Hennepin County Development Block Grant Program and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for review and inclusion in the 1997 Urban Hennepin County Community Block Grant Program Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds. ACTIVITY BUDGET Westonka Senior Center Operations $ 8,025 Westonka Community Action Network (WECAN) $ 2,821 Westonka Intervention $ 1,747 Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH) $ 806 Rehabilitation of private property $53,779 TOTAL $67,178 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 10709 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 111, Minnetonka, MN 55305 Phone 541-1019 Fax 541-0841 BOARD of DIRECTORS Kevln Krueger President John Nelson I st Vice President Aiko Hlguchl 2nd Vice President Dwight Johnson Treasurer John Boeder Secreta/y Bob Zagaros Past President Marty Guritz Member-al-Large Dr. C. (Ike) Njaka Member-at-Large Lucille Crow Robert DeGhetto William H. Gray Francis Hagen Mary Hennlng Gloria Johnson Peggy Kelly Laurie Lafontalne Kathleen Miller Senator Gen Olson Ryan Schroeder Mary Tambornino Tom Ticen Benjamin F. Withhart Executive Director & C.E.O. PROGRAMS · Community Senior Groups & Multi-purpose Senior Centers January 31, 1997 RECEIVED.-:.; , 3 l gl Mayor Bob Polston and Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Polston and Council Members: Senior Community Services is requesting that the City of Mound allocate $8,025 for the 1997-'98 fiscal year from it's share of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Year XXIII (July 1, 1997 - June 30, 1998) funds to support Westonka senior programs and services. This is the same amount approved for the current year. If them am any questions, or you would like to have our staff discuss any of our services, please let me know. On behalf of the many elderly who benefit, thank you for your support of the programs. We look forward to the continuing cooperation between the City of Mound and Senior Community Services and we know that Senior Center participants are very excited about the prospect of a new facility in the near future. Sincere. ly, / Program Administrator · H.O.M.E. · Senior Outreach cc: Ed Shukle Jr., City Manager · Seniors Serving Business Westonka Community Action Network · Emergency Assistance · Meals on Wheels · Human Services · Job Development & Placement 5600 Lynwood Blvd. February 5, 1997 Mound, MN 55364 (612) 472-0742 (612) 472-5589 (FAX) SERVICE AREA Greenfield Mound independence R0cld0rd Loretto St. Bonifacius Maple Plain Spring Park Minnetonka Beach Tonka Bay Minnetrista Western 0r0n0 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Craig Andaraon St Boni-Minnetrista Police Chief Larry Bailey Director of West Hennepin Public Safety Mary DeVinney Westonl~a Foodshelf Coordinator Rosamarla Fabrega-Snyder Community Volunteer -e Harpeatad Junity Volunteer Mound Police Chief Mary Hurley Adult Basic Education Program Mgr Marvin Johna. on Mayor of Independence Ronnte Madaen Community Volunteer Sharon McMenamy-Cook No, west Bank Vice President Dorothy McQueen Community Volunteer Susan Mayera Community Volunteer Sandy Olatad Parish Nurse Kate Perklna Special Education Teacher Ken Rlbe Pastor of Rrst Presbyterian Church Richard Schlaffar Local Attomey Sandy Slmar Head Start Manager Fr. Michael Tegadar Pastor, Our Lady of the Lake Church Bob Tomalka Community Volunteer Dean UtteCoerg Community Volunteer Mardi Wet1 Westonka Chamber-Adm Asst. ADMINISTRATION KIki Sonnen Execulive Director hal Enter Counselor _ .dna McCurry Volunteer Coordinator/Program Manager Audrey Ogland Administrattve Assistant Meals on Wheels Coorriinator Mayor and Councilmembers of Mound 5341 Maywood Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, We respectfully request the City of Mound renew your allocation to WeCAN from Community Development Block Grant funds again this year. We thank you again for your generous support last year of $2,089 from Block Grant funds. This year we are requesting $5,000. We are asking for an increase this year because of several special circumstances. As you may know, WeCAN will soon be losing our office space at the Westonka Community Center. WeCAN's operating expenses will increase with the relocation of our programs to as yet an undetermined new space. In addition, start-up funds from the McKnight Foundation for our successful Jobs Program have ended. We believe getting people to work is a high priority in the community and needs local support for the program to continue. WeCAN is a community-based human service organization, dedicated to helping people achieve greater self-sufficiency and family stability. WeCAN provides a variety of services to Iow-income residents in western Hennepin County. WeCAN served 668 families in 1996, 323 of whom are Mound families. Our services include Emergency Services, Meals on Wheels, Food and Nutrition Education, Job Placement and Development, Family Support Services, Public Assistance Intake services, and Family and Individual Mental Health Counseling. Enclosed is additional information about services provided to Mound residents. We are looking forward to being at your Tuesday, Feb. 25 public hearing to discuss our request in greater detail. If you have any questions or concerns at any time, please feel free to call me at 472-0742. Sincerely, Kiki Sonnen WeCAN Director Sheet1 WeCAN PROGRAM TOTAL FAMILIES MOUND FAMILIES SERVED IN 1996 SERVED IN 1996 Emergency Services 134 64 Job Development & Placement 171 80 Meals on Wheels 115 48 Financial/Budget Counseling7 4 Food & Nutrition Education 16 9 Family Support Services 66 36 Referrals & Information 80 38 Economic Assistance Intake 68 37 Mental Health Counseling 11 7 TOTAL 668 323 Page 1 131 0 0 0 0~0 0]0~0 01010 00lO'O~O~O 0 00lOlO 0~0 00lO 0 0,0 010 0',0,0 0 0 00I C C C ClClC C C C C C C C ClClC ClCIC]CJ tlc ClC[ClC'C[ClC CCi , ~ I ~,~ ~ ~,~ oro~Lo,~ o o ~ ~1~ ~:~ o o o~ ~ o ~ o o ~o,o ~:o ~ ,o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OrO 00tO 0 0 o ~ ~,0 ~ 0~0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ OlO ., ..... ", ..... "'.:~ ,,-~t-~ ~ ~ ~,. ~r~ COl,-- oo o, r,,- '-'~'-i"','-I I '-~ '- "- '- ii Z Z Z I'I~,I:Z:IIIiIiiiiiZliiiiZ~Z, Z Z I:Z Z Z ili I Jl J ,,~1, ,,,Jl~ ,Il J ,ii ~widw~ d ~:dd~oo.d ~t~ C~ W ~W W ~ W IJJ LLI 0 w 0 0:0 0 0 0,0 0 © 0000000 ~ O0 !0~0!0!0 ?11 W > W I- ILl ',~ :> iw iw i I i i :0',0'0 0 0 0 ,ii D. D_ O_ Z r~ Z n ~:~:~0~0~ ILI~LU Z iii Z IJJ O~ O0 0 0 IJJ FEBRUARY 5, 1997 TO: CITY OF MOUNT) RE: BLOCK GtL&N'T FUNDING AMOUNT OF REQUEST: $9,000.00 Westonka Intervention Project is the organization that is a part of the Mound Police Department's policy that meets the law and provides for a uniform handling and reporting of domestic abuse and assault cases. Each year our budget for operation increases due to the fact that the clients we serve increases. That, coupled with the new CDBG requirements for funding, make it necessary to request a small increase from the previous years. As in the past, it continues to be demonstrated that arrest and incarceration coupled, with intervention has been the most effective way of dealing with domestic abuse and assault. We will continue to assist your police departmen: tn providing the vehiz!e in which to handle those domestic abuse and assault cases. Over 600 clients have been served through Westonka Intervention. It's continuing and ongoing succe,,s depends upon your continued financial support of the organization. We maintain over 500 files, a percentage of which continue to remain active and hopefully with your continued support cur clients can change their situation and live more productive and healthier lives. We serve your community as well as Minnetrista, St. Bonifacius, Orono, Long Lake, Minnetonka Beach and Spnng Park. We are a community based non-profit organization that has been in existence since 1985. Our board of directors consists of thirteen members and several volunteers from inside and outside our local communities. 7/-2 1 472-2141 · P.O. BOX 34 · MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 Each year the amount of cases handled by Westonka Intervention Project increases. As in the past the majority of cases come from the City of Mound. Therefore, we request that you seriously consider our request for CDBG funding of $9.000.00 so that Westonka Intervention Project can continue to serve your community. Sincerely,yours, ,,' / /%'; Valerie J. Hessburg,"Executive Director ~,/ 472-2141 · P.O. BOX 34 2 · MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 Community Ac n for Suburban Hennepin RECEiVE . 5 i§§l Community Education Community Services Emergency Assistance Homeless Family Support Homelessness Prevention Volunteer Services Energy Assistance Tenant Hotline Tenant Organizing Home Buyer Education -Iomeowner Counseling Home Renab Counseling 33-10th Avenue S. Suite 150 Hopkins, MN 55343 Business (612)933-9639 Tenant Hotline 933-0017 Energy Assist. 930-3541 Fax 933-8016 TDD 935-4011 Investing In People, Building Community Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 January 31, 1997 Dear Mr. Shukle: This letter is to request funding in the amount of $3,000 from the city's Community Development Block Grant program. This funding will be used to support HOME Line, the housing services of Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH). I am enclosing materials that describe all of our programs and, for our tenant hotline and foreclosure prevention programs, data showing use of these programs by residents of Mound. As you can see, we are mostly serving iow and moderate income people in your community. We have added a repair/rehab element to our homeownership program. This new service for existing homeowners, particularly those of lower incomes, is designed to help them maintain their property and stretch their budgets. We can offer information, technical assistance, and instruction on home maintenance. And, we will assist homeowners to get repairs done: developing specifications, selecting contractors, assuring quality work. We are currently working to establish a loan fund to help homeowners finance small repair jobs. We appreciate your generosity to us in the past three years and your willingness to consider our request for continued support. If you have questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at 933-9639, extension 203 or Karen Kingsley, our Planning and Development Manager, at extension 202. Sincerely, /'! Sharon A. JohnSon Executive Director Enclosures: HOME Line program descriptions Data sheets on renters hotline, homeownership programs Community Action for Suburban Hennepin's HOME Line Renters' "Hotline" Information on calls during the years 1992-1996 from Mound 49 41--38 34-- Number Mound of calls by year i I I I I 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Ove~ the past five years, a total of 191 Mound renters have contacted HOME Line. This represents service to approximately 478 residents when all family members are counted. Mound Callers' Incomes (1992-1996) Low 73.5% Moderate 24.1% Higher 2.4% A vast majority (over 97%) of Mound callers to HOME Line are Iow and moderate income. These income categories are those used by the U.S. Department of HUD: Low = incomes below 50% of the Metro median income; Moderate = incomes between 50 and 80% of the Metro median; Higher = incomes above 80% of the Metro median. Community Renters Education Program . ;OME Line's Community Renters Education Program provides education to high school students, (primarily seniors) presentations to tenants/staff of area agencies, information booths at community events and trainings to volunteers/staff from agencies. High, ${:hooI Presentations Number of students (Number of presentations) Name of School 1993 1994 1995 1996 Bloomington Jefferson 73 (3) 0 0 22 (1) Bloomington Kennedy 90 (3) 0 30 (1) 24 (2) Brooklyn Center 46 (2) 38 (2) 44 (2) 0 Champlin Park 40 (2) 0 82 (4) 219 (8) Coon Rapids 0 0 52 (2) 178 (6) Crystal 0 0 0 17 (1) Eden Prairie 46 (2) 48 (2) 76 (2) 86 (3) Edina 38 (2) 0 0 0 Excelsior 0 0 0 10 (1) Hopkins 156 (6) 26 (2) 82 (3) 110 (7) Mahtomedi 0 0 30 (1) 0 Minnetonka 0 47 (2) 0 99 (8) Osseo 0 64 (2) 0 10 (1) Osseo-Park Center 35 (3) 0 60 (2) 0 Richfield 60 (2) 47 (2) 58 (2) 60 (2) Robbinsdale-Armstrong 62 (2) 0 25 (1) 27 (2) Robbinsdale-Cooper 56 (2) 59 (2) 56 (2) 55 (3) Rockford 0 0 0 8 (1) St. Anthony 0 0 15 (1) 18 (1) St. Louis Park 0 12 (1) 15 (1) 86 (4) Wayzata ~4 (1) 38 (2) .O. O TOTAL 726 (30) 379 (17) 625 (24) 1,029 (51) The high school presentation covers the rights and responsibilities of renters. The presentation can be tailored to fit any class size, any class needs, and all class schedules. Presentatiqns Other Educational Community Events HOME Line receives requests from agencies and organizations to make presentations on landlord/tenant law and housing issues for their staff and clients. These presentations are conducted at the agencies' site i and are tailored to meet the I needs and time available. Association for Rental Management of Brooklyn Center Bloomington Managers and Owners Coalition Business and Professional Women League of St. Louis Park Center for Asians, Minneapolis Community Resource Center, Brooklyn Park Creekside Community Center, Bloomington Crisis Connection, Minneapolis Crystal Managers Coalition New Hope Managers Coalition Perspectives Transitional Housing, St. Louis Park Senior Linkage, Robbinsdale Thorson Family Resource Room, Crystal Womens Resource Network, Minneapolis Activities Traininqs HOME Line's Traveling Renters Education booth is designed to be set up at any community event. The booth is staffed by HOME Line employees and volunteers who provide information and written materials on landlord/tenant issues. We have participated in the following events. HOME Line runs training sessions for its hotltne volunteers three times per year during February, June and October. The trainings are two full days in length and consist of learning the basics of landlord/tenant law. This training is offered free of charge to personnel of outside organizations and agencies, as well as property owners and managers. To date, representatives of the following groups have received this training. Crystal Frolics Mall of America, WCCO Booth Bandana Square, St. Paul Richfield Cattail Days St. Louis Park Knollwood Mall 'Community Bazaar" St. Louis Park Party in the Park American Indian Housing Corporation, Minneapolis Bill Kelly House, Minneapolis Bristol Place, Minneapolis Community Action Council, Apple Valley Community Case Corporation, Minneapolis Eden Women's Program, Minneapolis Hamllne Coalition, SL Paul Heartland Community Action, Wilmar Hope Allianz, Minneapolis Itasca County Tenant Assistance Program, Grand Rapids Kooch-ltasca Action Council, Inc., Grand Rapids Maryland Park Tenants Association, St. Paul Metropolitan Center for Independent Living, Minnetonka NW Community Support Program, Crystal Overcoming Poverty Together, Mankato Person to Person, Minneapolis Perspectives Transitional Housing. St. Louis Park Pillsbury House, Minneapolis Pillsbury Neighborhood Services/Waite House, Minneapolis Property-owners, Bloomington and Minnetonka Property Managers, Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Edina, Minneapolis, Plymouth, St. Louis Park, and St. Paul Salvation Army, Project Breakthrough, Minneapoli Sc ott/Carve r/D akota Community Action, Shakopee South Eastern MN Housing Network, Rochester South West Minnesota Housing Partnership, Slayton Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, St. Paul SL Anne's Shelter, Minneapolis St. Paul Public Housing St. Paul Tenants Union St. Stephen's Shelter, Minneapolis Thorson Family Resource Room, Crystal Vail Place, Hopkins Vail Place, Minneapolis YWCA of St. Paul HOME Line's Center for Homeownership HOME Line now provides a complete spectrum of services to home buyers and homeowners in suburban Hennepin County. The housing industry refers to this as "full cycle homeownership services". The services include: · Pre-Purchase Home Buyer Education & Counseling. (Started August, 1994) · Home Maintenance, Repair and Rehab Programs. (Started October, 1996) · Foreclosure Prevention Counseling. (Started August, 1992) Pre-Purchase Home Buyer Education and Counseling Information on Mound residents served during 1996. HOME Line's Center for Homeownership provided pre-purchase home buyer education and counseling for one Mound household. Our three-part Home Stretch home buyers workshops are offered monthly. The workshops provide information on each step of the home buying process. The curriculum meets or exceeds FHA, MHFA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guidelines. We also offer individual home buyer counseling to assist potential home buyers in developing an action plan to overcome barriers to homeownership. The most common barriers are lack of down payment and closing costs, credit problems, and insufficient income. Home Maintenance, Repair and Rehab Program started October, 1996. HOME Line's newest program assists suburban Hennepin County homeowners who have home maintenance, repair or rehab needs. Our staff can provide technical assistance in identifying needed repairs, writing specifications, finding qualified contractors, evaluating bids, and working with contractors until job completion. We also provide information on numerous loan and grant programs that will finance the cost of home repairs and rehab. Another component of the program is a series of workshops for homeowners. These workshops include topics such as "Home Maintenance and Weatherization", "Financing Home Repairs and Selecting A Contractor", and "Dream House or Money Pit? - How To Know The Difference." Page Two HOME Line's Center for Homeownership Mound Data Foreclosure Prevention Program Information on Mound Homeowners Served From 1993 -1996 The chart below shows the number of Mound homeowners requesting foreclosure prevention assistance. Year i Mound Households Served 1993! 6 19941 17 1995 16 1996 ~ 18 TotalI 57 Approximately 90% of the Mound homeowners were Iow to moderate income households. 10% Household IncomeI 27% 63% · Low - Below 50% of Median Income · Moderate - 50% to 80% of Median Income E] Upper - Over 80% of Median Income There were children in 79% of these Mound homes. 30 ~-- 25 2O 15 ~Type of Household Families Single Adults Seniors With Parent Only Children Families Page Three HOME Line's Center for Homeownership Mound Data The main reason for default was unemployment or a reduction of income. Main Reason for DefaultJ · Unemployment · Health n Divorce/Separation 1:3 Money Mismanagement · Not Affordable B Other Foreclosure was averted in over 92% of the cases. 41 Mound homes were saved. A total of $7,986.00 in financial assistance was obtained for Mound homeowners Results of 49 CLosed FilesJ · 41 Homes Saved · 4 Homes Sold r-i 3 Foreclosures B 1 Unknown Community Action for Suburban Hennepin Community Education Community Services Emergency Assistance Homeless Family Support Homelessness Prevention Volunteer Services Energy Assistance Tenant Hotline Tenant Organizing Home Buyer Education · -Iomeowner Counseling Home Rehab Counseling 33-10th Avenue S. Suite 150 Hopkins, MN 55343 Business (612)933-9639 Tenant Hotline 933-0017 Energy Assist. 930-3541 Fax 933-8016 TDD 935-4011 Investing In People, Building Community HOME Line's Programs for Renters Tenant Advocacy (started in January 1992) - We offer a free call-in or walk-in service providing information and advice on Minnesota tenant/landlord law and on Hennepin County court procedures. The tenant advocacy program operates primarily via a telephone "hotline" staffed by volunteers recruited from area law schools and the suburban community. Detailed records of each call are kept on a computerized database. The tenant advocacy program handles approximately 4,000 to 5,000 cases per year; over the years, more than 90% of those using this service have been are Iow or moderate income households. _Tenant Organizing (May 1992) - Our tenant organizers assist groups of tenants with common problems in a given complex. These problems tend to be maintenance/repair related or instances of management abuses. Organizing situations often come to our attention through hotline calls. The organizing program publishes a quarterly newsletter distributed to approximately 2,000 suburban Hennepin renters, public officials, and social service agencies. Lv~_al Advocacy (September 1993) - HOME Line offers free legal representation to families with children who are facing eviction from rental quarters. Services are provided by an attorney in private practice under contract to CASH. The program is funded by and is a part of Hennepin County's "Family Homelessness Prevention and Assistance Program." Income-eligible families may also receive emergency, one-time loans from CASH's own revolving loan fund. Approximately 150 households are assisted per year, most are residents of Minneapolis's northwest suburbs. Renter Education for High-schoolers (March 1993) - We have developed a one- session program on the "basics of renting" for young people who will be entering the rental market for the first time on their own. Instruction covers inspection before move-in, getting repairs made, potential problems in roommate situations, and the responsibilities of renters. This class has been presented nearly 100 times in 18 different schools; well over 2,500 students have participated. HOME Line's Programs for Homeowners HOME Lined's "full cycle" homeownership program offers three services for potential and current homeowners: prepurchase education and counseling, home maintenance and repair, and postpurchase counseling aimed primarily at foreclosure prevention. All services are provided without cost. HOME Line's homeownership program is designated by HUD as an approved housing counseling agency. Homeowner Education and Counseling (August 1994) -This program is designed to expand homeownership opportunities in suburban Hennepin County, particularly for tower income and minority households. This is accomplished through educational seminars on the home buying process that are open to the public and individualized counseling to lower income buyers who may need help overcoming barriers to homeownership. These barriers might include no credit history--or a bad one, lack of enough money for the downpayment and closing costs, or poor budgeting of personal income. We offer buyers information on every detail of the home buying process. For income-eligible buyers, we also have limited financial assistance to help pay for a qualified inspection of the home and to ease the downpayment burden. The program works closely with area Realtors, lenders, and local governments to assure home buyers get accurate and current information. Home Maintenance and Reoair (October 1996) - This is HOME Line's newest program and provides the "middle piece" to our full cycle homeownership service. As its name implies, this service offers homeowners--both new and long-term--information, advice, and assistance needed to achieve and maintain a sound and liveable structure. Prospective homebuyers, especially those going through our prepurchase education and counseling will be helped to get a review of the physical condition by a qualified housing inspector before buying. Inexperienced first-time buyers will be offered educational opportunities and individual counseling in basic home maintenance. Homeowners wanting or needing repairs or remodeling can get help writing specifications, letting and reviewing bids, and working with contractors. Classes are offered on weatrherization and energy conservation measures and routine year-round preventive home maintenance. Post0urchase Counseling (foreclosure prevention) (August 1992) - This service is designed to assist homeowners facing the loss of their homes due to foreclosure. Assistance includes budget counseling, referrals to social services and financial resources, advocacy with lenders, and help with refinances. Income-eligible homeowners may also get an emergency one-time loan from CASH's own revolving loan fund. These loans are without interest and are due on sale of the home or when it no longer is used as the homeowners residence. HOME Line's Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention Program is one of eight selected statewide by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to administer its Foreclosure Prevention and Rental Assistance Program (FPRAP). Since beginning operations, this program has worked with over 1,600 homeowners and has tallied a 75% success rate in saving people's homes. A majority, over 60%, of the homeowners served were of Iow income; another 30% were moderate income. CASH, standing for Community Action for Suburban Hennepin, is the "anti-poverty agency" serving Iow income people throughout suburban Hennepin County. CASH is a private, non- profit, tax-exempt corporation; it has been in business since 1985. In addition to its Line housing programs, CASH operates Crisis Intervention and Community Education programs. We are funded primarily with state and federal grants passed through the Minnesota Department of Economic Security (formerly the Department of Jobs and Training). Additional funding is provided by Hennepin County, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), the National Corporation for Community Service, the Fannie Mae Foundation, Twin City Federal S&L, First Bank Stastem, and several suburban Hennepin municipalities. November 1996 funds -- Operational Expenses Sheet17 COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN BUDGET DRAFT 1997 EXPENSES TOTAL BUDGET GENERAL EAP SALARIES Salaries $ 605,521.00 $ 516,081.00 $ 89,440.00 Benefits $ 127,947.00 $ 109,344.00 $ 18,603.00 Increases $ 34,220.00 $ 30,643.00 $ 3,577.00 Subtotal $ 767,688.00 $ 656,068.00 $ 111,620.00 PROF SERVICES Audit $ 11,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Attorney $ 1,000.00 $ 900.00 $ 100.00 HC Attorney $ 27,500.00 $ 27,500.00 $ - Computer $ 10,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Other $ 15,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Subtotal $ 64,500.00 $ 52,400.00 $ 12,100.00 TRAVEL MILEAGE $ 8,500.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 500.00 TRAINING $ 15,000.00 $. 12,500.00 $ 2,500.00 SUBTOTAL $ 23,500.00 $ 20,500.00 $ 3,000.00 SPACE $ 72,400.00 $ 56,400.00 $ 16,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 72,400.00 $ 56,400.00 $ 16,000.00 SUPPLIES POSTAGE $ 10,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 3,000.00 PRINTING $ 11,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 3,000.00 SUPPLIES $ 23,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 3,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 44,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 9,000.00 EQUIPMENT COPIER $ 4,700.00 $ 3,700.00 $ 1,000.00 SERV CONT $ 3,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 1,000.00 COMP EQUIP $ 25,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 5,000.00 .SUBTOTAL $ 33,000.00 $ 26,000.00 $ 7,000.00 INDIRECT INSURANCE $ 7,000.00 $ 5,400.00 $ 1,600.00 TELEPHONE $ 22,200.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 8,200.00 DUES $ 16,000.00 $ 15,500.00 $ 500.00 BOARD $ 2,500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 500.00 OTHER $ 4,500.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 500.00 SUBTOTAL $ 52,200.00 $ 40,900.00 $ 11,300.00 UNDESIGNATED $ 7,407.00 $ 7,407.00 $ Subtotal $ 7,407.oo $ 7,407.00 $ TOTAL $ 1,064,695.00 $ 894,675.00 $ 170,020.00 Page Al'l Funds--Operational Revenues Sheet1 COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN I I BUDGET DRAFT 1997 REVENUE SOURCE AMOUNT GENERAL EAP MEOG $ 379,879.00 $ 379,879.00 CSBG $ 247,816.00 $ 247,816.00 INCREASE CSBG $ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00 CDBG - PLYMOUTH $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 CDBG - URBAN $ 30,000.00$ 30,000.00 :HUD $ 37,000.00$ 37,000.00 FCHOS $ 14,000.00 $ 14,000.00 EMERG SERVICES $ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00 VOL SERVICES $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 MHFA FRAP $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 HENN CTY CHDO $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 DES GRANT $ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00 HENN CTY LEGAL $ 27,500.00 $ 27,500.00 EAP $ 196,000.00 $ 196,000.00 TOTAL $ 1,064,695.00 $ 868,695.00 $ 196,000.00 Page-',~. Attachment CASH/HOME Line FY 97 CDBG request Hennepin County cities providing support to HOME Line Champlin (1994, 95, 96) Crystal (1995, 96) Eden Prairie (1993, 94, 95, 96) Edina (1993, 94, 95, 96) Hopkins (1995, 96) Maple Grove (1994, 95, 96) Minnetonka (1994, 95, 96) Mound (1994, 95, 96) Plymouth (1993, 94, 95, 96) Richfield (1~J96) Robbinsdale (1993, 94, 95, 96) St. Louis Park (1993, 94, 95, 96) other support has been provided by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing Counseling Program Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Foreclosure Prevention and Rental Assistance Program Hennepin County Family Homeless Prevention and Assistance Program First Bank Foundation The McKnight Foundation FEB 2. 1 lS~7 RESOLUTION #97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY VARIANCE FOR THREE YEARS TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE TO ALLOW A CONFORMING ADDITION ONTO THE DWELLING AT 3152 ALEXANDER LANE LOTS 17, 18, AND 19, BLOCK 6, ARDEN, PID 24-117-24 44 0068 P&Z CASE//97-06 WHEREAS, the owners, Nancy and Conrad Starr applied for a Minor Subdivision in order to remove an encroachment of their existing detached garage. A variance was also requested to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback to the same detached garage of 15.13 feet to the required 30 foot setback, and; WHEREAS, the application was submitted to allow construction of a second story addition on both the house and the garage, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings, a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet, and; WHEREAS, the property is conforming to lot area with over 18,000 square feet, and the principal dwelling is conforming to all setback requirements, and; WHEREAS, the existing detached garage encroaches into the neighboring property by .6 feet and is setback 15.13 feet from the front property line. If this garage is removed there is enough lot area and buildable footprint for a new garage in a conforming location without the need for a subdivision, and; WHEREAS, the existing detached garage is dilapidated, it is constructed of masonry and is in need of structural repairs, and; WHEREAS, the owners are using the garage to store their possessions until they can finish the house. The garage has existed in that location for 56 years, and; WHEREAS, In addition, there is a shed in the rear yard that does not meet the minimum 4 foot setback to the rear lot line. The owners have stated they will remove the shed, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a temporary three-year variance to recognize the existing nonconforming detached garage with a nonconforming side yard encroachment of .6 feet and a nonconforming front yard setback of 15.13 feet to allow construction of a conforming addition onto the conforming dwelling, subject to the following conditions: This variance will expire three-years from the date of City Council approval. ?$/ .. Proposed Resolution Starr, February 25, 1997 Page 2 o o b° An agreement shall be prepared by the applicant that is suitable to the City Attorney to guarantee removal of the nonconforming detached garage within three-years of date of approval of this variance. This agreement must be executed prior to release of this resolution and prior to building permit issuance for the house addition. C° The existing nonconforming shed must be removed prior to building permit issuance for the house addition. d° The three-year temporary variance hereby granted is only intended to permit the continuation of the existing garage and is not intended to permit the proposed expansion of the existing garage which proposed expansion is hereby denied. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 17, 18, and 19, Block 6, Arden. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of various additions onto the dwelling which will expand the footprint of the first floor and add a second floor. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. Proposed Resolution Starr, February 25, 1997 Page 2 bo o An agreement shall be prepared by the applicant that is suitable to the City Attorney to guarantee removal of the nonconforming detached garage within three-years of date of approval of this variance. This agreement must be executed prior to release of this resolution and prior to building permit issuance for the house addition. The existing nonconforming shed must be removed prior to building permit issuance for the house addition. ,, The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of various additions onto the dwelling which will expand the footprint of the first floor and add a second floor. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 17, 18, and 19, Block 6, Arden. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not ,-'3 be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 1997 CASE 97-06: MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE FOR ADDITION CONRAD & NANCY STARR, 3152 & 3136 ALEXANDER LANE LOTS 17-21 & 1/2 OF 22, BLOCK 6, ARDEN, 24-117-24 44 0068 & 69 The applicant is seeking a Minor Subdivision in order to remove an encroachment of their existing detached garage. A variance is also requested to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback to the same detached garage of 15.13 feet to the required 30 foot setback. The proposal includes construction of a second story addition on both the house and the garage. Both parcels are conforming to lot area. The existing garage on Parcel A is constructed of masonry and is in need of structural repairs. The encroachment into the front yard is in excess of the minimum setback allowed by the recent streamlining provisions which would be 22.5 feet. In addition, there is a shed in the rear yard that does not meet the minimum 4 foot setback to the rear lot line. The owners have stated they will remove the shed. If the existing garage is removed there is enough lot area and buildable footprint for a new garage in a conforming location without the need for a subdivision. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request due to lack of hardship and due to the fact that the nonconforming garage is dilapidated and could be removed and replaced with a conforming structure. Staff recommended approval of the subdivision based on the fact that all issues are conforming, however it is questionable if it is necessary without approval of the variance. The Planning Commission may wish to consider approval of a variance that would allow the applicant to construct the addition onto the dwelling subject to an agreement suitable to the city attorney to remove the encroachment of the garage within one year. Sutherland further commented on the condition of the garage. He does not know what type of foundation the garage has, it is constructed of masonry so it does not take very well to shifting well, and it needs some structural repair. The applicant stated that the garage has a new roof, a new wall on one side, and new windows. They feel the garage is in better condition that the house. They are using the garage to store their possessions until they can finish the house. The garage has existed in that location for 56 years, and it will be nonconforming only to the street setback, and they would like to keep it. Weiland suggested that they could keep the garage for one year until they finish the house. Sutherland commented that staff would be in favor of extending the amortization period to two years. Hanus explained to the applicant that the City could draft a temporary easement that will allow the City to access the property to remove the garage if the owner does not remove it, and then they will assess the charges to the property. Clapsaddle commented that the garage is not in good shape. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of a variance to allow the garage to remain for three years. The subdivision is not part of this approval as removal of the garage makes it unnecessary. Motion. carried unanimously. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February 25, 1997. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: 0068 ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of February 10, 1997 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official -~i~ ~ Minor Subdivision and Variance request Conrad and Nancy Starr and Jerry Kraugtkremer 97-06 3152 Alexander Lane, Lots 17, 18, 19, Block 6, Arden, 24-117-2444 3136 Alexander Lane, Lots 20, 21 & 1/2 of 22, Block 6, Arden, 24-117- 24 44 0069 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a Minor Subdivision in order to remove an encroachment of their existing detached garage and a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 14.87 feet to the required 30 foot front yard setback for the same detached garage in order to allow construction of a second story addition on both the house and the garage. Minor Subdivision: Both of the proposed parcels as existing and proposed are conforming to the lot area provisions for the R-1 zone and staff would recommend approval of the request for a subdivision, however, we question the need for a subdivision in light of the recommendation for denial of the variance request Variance: The existing garage on Parcel A is constructed of masonry and is in need of structural repairs. The encroachment into the front yard is in excess of the minimum setback allowed by the recent streamlining provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The minimum setback allowed by streamlining would be 22.5 feet, and the garage is located 1 5.13 feet from the front property line. prmted on recycled paper Staff Report - Start February 10, 1997 Page 2 In addition, there is a shed in the rear yard that does not meet the minimum 4 foot setback to the rear lot line. The owners have stated they will remove the shed. These properties are located in the R-1 zoning district which for non-lots of record require for principal structures a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. COMMENTS: If the existing garage is removed there is enough lot area and buildable footprint to locate a new garage in a conforming location on Parcel A without the need for a minor subdivision. This would eliminate the need for a variance for this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request due to lack of hardship and due to the fact that the nonconforming garage is dilapidated and could be removed and replaced with a conforming structure. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision request based on the fact that all issues are conforming, however it is questionable if it is necessary without approval of the variance. The Planning Commission may wish to consider approval of a variance that would allow the applicant to construct the addition onto the dwelling subject to an agreement suitable to the city attorney to remove the encroachment of the garage within one year. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February 25, 1997. FEB 1 0 1997 Dlam~g Commission Date: city Council Date: ApplicatiOn for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-~, F~: 472-0620 t049 ~ -25-q'7 Application F~: Distribution: Escrow Deposit: $1,000 !-_Q3 fi 3 City Planner DNR ~'~---) Deficient Unit Charges?... ~O , Public Works Other 7 ~ City Engineer ' ~ l-7_.~"7 Delinquent Taxes? ~ ~) VARIANCE REQUIRED? ~.'~ Hease type or print the following information: INFORMATION .... - '~" ~- ~ ~ ' - DE$C.IPTION Subdivision ZONING ~I$TRI~T Circle: ~ ~LI~&NT The applicant is: ~o~n~r other: {if othar ~han t ' - I ..... SURVEYOR/ / ENGINEER Address ~ Phone(H) ~{~--~}- ~ (W) ~}~-~?~-- ~ (U) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? { ) yes, { } no. If yea, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This app//cat/on must be signed by ali owners of the subject property, or an exp/anat/on given why this is not the case. Owner's Signature Owner s Signat~/L Date Date VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner City Engineer Public Works Case No. ~'~ -(~ & DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DF_SC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER OWNER) Address Subdivision ZONING DISTRICT (~ R-IA R-2 R-3 B-1 Block Plat # B-2 -7'730 B-3 Address Phone (H). (W). .(M). Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes,A<l[.no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): aria. ace Application, P. 2 Case No. 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located'?. Yes (), No J~K If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): G" SETBACKS: KEQUIKED KEQUESTED VAKIANCE (or existing) [2~e~-. (~ac. Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: GO ft. 1,5.13 ft./d.87 ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. iqc, sqft iq G::z-3 sqft "~ ~ht q,~sq ft ;2.'~y_ t sq ft ft. ff. ff. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ff Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~ If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too nan'ow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage (X) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: (Rev. 10/21/96) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes~;. No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. ~}wner's Signature Applicant's Signature ~'~ ~1- (Rev. IO/21/96) Date / // PARCEL A EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lols 17, 18, and 19, Block 6, Arden, Hennepin Courtly, Minnesola, containing 18,719 square leer. PARCEL B EXISTING LI~GAL DESCRIPTION Lot 20, 21, and the Southerly Half of Lot 22, Block 6, Arden, Hennepin Counly, Minnesota, containing 14,731 square feet. PARCEL A PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 17, 18, and 19, Block 6, Arden, Hennepin Courtly, Minnesota, also the Southerly 6.60 leer of Lot 20, Block 6, Arden, Hennepin County, Minnesota as measured at 90 degrees to the Soulherly line of said Lot PO, containing 19,747 square leer. PARCEL B PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 20, 21, and the Southerly Half of Lot 22, Block 6, Arden, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the Southerly 6.60 feet of Lot 20, Block 6, Arden, Hennepin County, Minnesota as measured al 90 degrees to the Soulherly line of said Lot 20, containing 13,703 square feet. SCHOBORO ND SURVEYING INC. aB~7 CI~. Rd 1) SE prepared by me or under my direcl supervision and that I am . duly Registe,ed Land Su,veyor unde, the ,.w, of ,he Slate _ ?¥2.. I CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: ~IS-P-- Al_~x~0v-qe~Z~. mtou~o,~,- OWNER'S NAME: CO/~)(Z4r'~ ~- J~/z~Cy ~rl-~ = (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) ....... = (for detached buildings only) LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% LOT AREA / (~.. ~ ~-~:~ SQ. FT. X 40% / LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) ~TOTAL HOUSE DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER WIDTH SQ~ x a_~,~- = q70 / D_ Ut-O × I _ = x ~q = 5~ I X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. ?~_~, x15'~ = 3(~ o ~' x ~O' = I X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = !7~'3 TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY C~ ~ DATE I- ;zs-q ? CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: ~P~r~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I I LOT AREA / 3 ~ SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with e pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT x = lOq;z-_ X = X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. Ho x = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... l! II _/ ,,-! '7 I, , ri)I t ,,BI, .... I1~, CITY OF MOUND - ZONIN( i ~,t 1~, INFORMATION SHEET ADDRESS: LOT OF REfTORI)? YES ~ ~3 YARD ~ DIREL~ON I REQUI~D IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: B! ?,500/0 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 83 ~0,000/60 14,000/80 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 EXi,gFING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LO'/' DEPI'H: VARIANCE SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF GARAGE, SIIEI) ..... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF w N S E W I0' OR 30' OR OTtlER DETACIIED N 5 E W BUll DINGS N S E W N S E W 4'OR6' N S E W 4'OR6' N S E W 4' N S E W 50' 10' OR 30' Thin Zoning Inform~on Sheet only mmarizes a pot"on of the requir~tnents oudlned in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Deparlment nt 472-0600. f LANARt t~ r" < L~ iRx,", o,uuu/nu B2 20,000/80 SURYEY ON FIL NO I R2 6,000/40 B3 :tO, 000/60 {/~ IR2 ~4,000/~0 LOT OF .E~'O,D? ',ES ~ ~FT~ blglSI0~ I"~ ~.o... EXISTING LOT LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE IlOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE NS(. W N S TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SllED ..... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF BUILDINGS 4' 50' 10' OR 30' '~ ¢E KD'nov¢I 7- Li This Zoning Information Sheet only summmizes a portion of the requirem~ts outlined in the City of Mound Zo~ng Ordin~ce. For ~rther information, contact the City of Mound · la LANARI Planning Department at 472-0600. O O", I O On t CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-062o MOUND LIQUOR STORE 1996 ANNUAL REPORT Is it that time again? A whole year has flown by and I don't know where it went. Time flies when you are busy. 1996 had its ups and downs. As far as sales were concerned, it was always up. I am not going to bore you with a bunch of statistics. This is only a preliminary report. Anything I were to relate would not be official. That will come in a couple of months once the audit is completed. Then I will bore you in one of my monthly reports with numbers and figures, but I promise no graphs. I do have a few simple facts that I feel safe and comfortable divulging. Gross sales (including sales tax) in 1995 were $1,533,608. In 1996 the gross sales figures came in at slightly over 8%, $1,657,713. A good deal of this increase was due to the cost of goods rising in 1996, and then passing the increase on to the consumer. The average sale in 1995 was $13.62. In 1996, that same sale was $14.42. You can do you own calculations to see that this is a difference of 6%. Where did the other 2% increase come from? It came from the 2,377 more customers (or sales) that we generated in 1996 than we did in 1995. Thus, business continues to grow. As I mentioned before, 1996 had its ups and down for us. A year is a long time and many unexpected events can pop up from time to time that are beyond anyone's control. What I am leading up to is that I have good news and bad news to tell you. I will begin with the bad. printed on recycled paper ?5'2.. Mound Liquor Store Annual Report February 6, 1997 After serving us without many incidents for over 10 years, our beer compressor bit the dust in January 1996. Instead of investing in a brand new one, for reasons ! will explain later, I decided to look around for a used one. I was able to find one for under $1000 from one of our beer distributors. All appeared well for a few months until the unit sprung a leak losing all its coolant. New federal laws prohibit the installation of any fluorocarbon producing agents in an effort to protect the ozone layer. So we were compelled to convert over to a new type of non-fluorocarbon coolant. I could have lived with this one incident until the same thing occurred in the fall. Well, I am happy to report I am still alive, but not too happy about this. This new coolant is extremely expensive. It is like buying paper bags that are made from recycling. Anything that is good for the environment seems to cost more. Another fixture which failed us after over 30 years of use was our safe. This was a huge monster of a thing which took four people and a heavy duty dolly to move. Parts to fix it were unavailable because it was outdated. The only way to describe it is to liken it to a pre-historic fred. The guys at the "Sta-Safe" here in Mound helped me to find a suitable model for our purposes. If we were to replace the old one with something similar, it would have been over $1500 installed. We finally settled for a "Meilinku. I had them bolt it into the floor so that there was no possibility of it going anywhere. Final cost was just over $700. The last unexpected expenditure that arose in 1996 had to do with an architect that we contracted with to do a feasibility plan in connection with converting the old "Headliners" space in our mall into a liquor store. This involved many hours of studying and planning on his part. Whether you know it or not, the place over there was a mess. There were a lot of things he had to deal with that I don't need to mention here. He came up with a beautiful working schematic. From there it took Ed and I nearly a whole day to start to cut what we felt, were nonessential needs that we could get by without. And, even after that exhausting session, after we had trimmed everything to the bare minimum, we had left a plan that still required way too many dollars in start up costs on our part. Couple that with the fact that our rent would nearly double, we arrived at the only possible conclusion that moving over there would not be cost effective. Truly, we are better off where we are at now. Even though this cost us some money, the one good thing that came out of this is that we realized that if we were going to lay out that kind of cash, we would much rather build and own our own store. Obviously, not in the immediate future, but perhaps sometime and somewhere down the road in conjunction with the revitalization of downtown Mound. Another unfortunate event occurred towards the end of the year, one that ended up saving you money, but one that was virtually a nightmare for me. It was the mass exodus of my part- time employees for one reason or another. This happened at the worst possible time, right during the holidays. Even if I were able to find anyone to hire, which I was not, I wouldn't have had the time to train them. Plus, that would not have been fair to them to throw them into 2 ?,5,5 Mound Liquor Store Annual Report February 6, 1557 the fire so to speak. Plus, they actually would have been in the way, doing more harm that good. Not a joyous holiday for me anyway. The ramifications of that exodus are still plaguing us at this time. We are dealing with it accordingly and are hoping that the problem will soon be resolved. "Now for the Good News!" I should stress the point that the good news also involved capital outlay. However, these were investments that are going to and already have paid you dividends. 1. The switch from our old credit card processing company to a new one for the low low cost of $125. Names of the companies are not important. But why switch? To save us unnecessary monthly processing fees for one reason. However, the main reason for doing this was to lower the rate that we were being charged from .024 on the dollar to .0191. Since we are doing $100,000 per year in credit card business, that will save us $500 alone. Also, we are no longer being charged .08 cents every time we run a transaction through the system. When I converted over in November, I also took the opportunity provided us at that time to add the "Discover-Novus" card to our repertoire of available cards to the consumer. 2. The addition of a free standing, two door, five shelf, cold beverage cooker. This little gem, which cost right around three grand, has already paid for itself many times over. This unit enabled us to expand our micro, imported and hand crafted beer selections by 50%. That is a substantial increase in such small confines as ours. It was not an easy fit to accommodate this fixture. We had to do some major re-positioning as far as our mix department was concerned. In retrospect, I should have put one in years ago. It turned out to be a great move. I wish I could have bought a bigger one or even another small one. But, alas, no room. 3. Last, but not least, the acquisition of two acrylic cigar humidors. Total cost for both; $1000, plus another $100 for an electronic humidistat. I cannot begin to describe to you the explosion in the pastime of fmc cigar smoking. As I am writing to you, I had a woman buy 10 cigars at $4.99 each. She had purchased her husband a personal home cigar humidor for Christmas. His 40th birthday is coming up and she wanted to surprise him with some very nice cigars, that she cannot find anywhere else. I have noticed that they don't sell as fast in the winter as they do in the rest of the seasons, but they are still very active. We did not begin to sell them seriously until the end of April. Since that time, here is a comparison between the last eight months of 1995 and the last eight months of 1996 for all tobacco sales: $20,440 in 1995 and $32,300 in 1996. 3 Mound Liquor Store Annual Report February 6, 1997 That's pretty much it in a nutshell. I believe I covered all of the important events of 1996. When I finalize the inventory extension, and Gino provides me with some dam, I will pass along to you a preliminary report as to the profit picture for the last year. Thank you. 4 2415 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 February 17, 1997 TO: Hayor Bob Polston Hound City Council City Hanager, Ed Shukle FROM: Steve Erickson, Fire Chief 1996 HOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT ANNUAL REPORT Total Fire & Rescue calls for 1996 were 774. This represents a modest 3~ increase over 1995. Again a record breaking year~ The total fire hours were 7,626, total rescue hours were 8,626, total recorded hours were 16,252 hours, Aisc 1,927,5 training hours and 1,526 total maintenance hours, There is no way to keep a record of the numerous hours that we volunteer to the Community thru out the year. A break down for each City we serve is: HOUND 185 fire calls, up 84 260 rescue calls, up 7~ Residential fire loss approx. $90,000. HINNETONKA BEACH -- 10 fire calls, down 904 13 rescue calls, up 1.64 Residential loss approx. $1,700.000. HINNETRISTA 52 fire calls, down 194 38 rescue calls, up 254 Residential loss approx. $60,000. ORONO 58 fire calls, down 6~ 42 rescue calls, up 274 Residential loss approx. $10,000. SHOREWOOD 0 fire calls 3 rescue calls, up 454 0 fire loss. SPRING PARK 33 fire calls, down 304 71 rescue calls, up 5~ Residential loss, approx, $20,000, HUTUAL AID gave 9 times received 4 times (3 we cancelled right away and 1 was for Hinnetonka Beach) 2. cont. Training continues to be a top priority. Many or our training hours are used for mandated training to satisfy OSHA, State, and Federal Regulations. We trained ? hours per month in house. We had 10 members attend State School, 9 members attended Regional Schools, 3 to State Fire Chiefs, 1 to International Fire Chiefs and 8 to First Responders Refresher course. In September we took delivery of our newly refurbished tanker. This completed our goal of a new pumper & tanker within the budget that was suggested by Manager Shukle. The committee spent countless hours to accomplish this goal and provide our City with quality equipment that should serve us well for many years. The work around the station has continued to further improve our building to meet todays needs. The 2nd phase of re-doing the station floor was completed this last summer. The new storage facility was completed and fitted with shelving to accommodate much of our equipment that was over flowing in the station. I applaud the City Manager & Council for finding the funds to bring a part time inspector on Board. Our entire coverage area has been in need of an individual with time to attend to the inspections that are needed. I look forward to working closely with Ed to find the right individual for the job. We are very proud of the fact that our Fire Rating was lowered to a town class 4! This is a level that few volunteer fire department achieve. It is a measure of the dedication to quality your fire fighters have. Everything from response times to training to equipment conditions are considered when we were evaluated by the I. S. O. As in past years I must once again say how proud I am of the Mound Fire Fighters. They continue to meet the demanding challenges year after year. Respectful ly Submitted, Steve Erickson Mound Fire Chief FIRE?IGHTER PHONE ADDRESS DOB ENTRY A~DERSON GREG BABB PAUL BOYD DAVID BRYCE S~R/IT CASEY JIII COLLINS STEVE CRAWFORD BOB ENGEiHART RANDY ERICKSON STEVE GRADY DAN GR_~DY KEVIN GUSTAFSON BRUCE Htl~DERSON CRAIG H~Y PAUL KENTGES ..... KRYCK ROGER ~iRSON JOHN MAAS JASON NAFUS JOHN NELSON JAMES NICCU~! BRET PAI2,! GREG P.~!~I TI~ PEDERSON GREG POUNDER CHRIS RASMUSSEN TONY ROGERS RI CI-IARD SAVAGE ~[[KE S I P PP~U~L KEVIN STALI~MAN RON SVOBODA BRUCE I~ILLIAi,~S TIM I'~0YiFEKE DENNIS 472-7564 472-308C~" 47 2~1.768 472-4515 472-3622 472-1750 472-5267 472-2955 472-7615 471-7129 472-3410 472-4058 472-6392 472-3361 472-5306 472-2769 472-1002 472-2133 472-2306 471-7432 472-0449 472-1983 472-1236 '472-1972 472-7140 472-5785 472=6644 472-1088 472-6377 472-3591 472-1014 472'7904 472-2712 472-3178 472'7170 472-6717 472-7906 2221 SOLrIMVI'EW"LANE, ~.IOlR~D 4924 PLY~DUTH ROAD, MOUND 5259 ED~ ROAD, MOUND "'i 5955 IDIJ5400D RD. I,~)UND 4968 2121 5093 3415 4367 5287 EDEN RD, PO BOX 13, MOUND 760 AP~EN RD, ~DUND 1743 SHORE~OOD LN, MOUND 4435 5056 5941 5986 5713 5901 258O 2185 2449 1160 2695 5942 6087 2092 P.O. 6023 3125 5~51 2201 4782 2345 5940 3135 4842 AFTON' RD, MOUND BARTLETT BLVD., MOUND WARNER LN, t'DUND SHORLEINE DR', SP. PK SO/X~OVE RD, ~DUND HAWTHORNE RD, MOUND SUNSET RD, MOUND' LYNW00D BLVD.., M011N-D GT,RNWOOD RD, ~DUhD DUNWOODY LN, WAYZATA FAIRVIE~ LN, I'DI2CD' OAKLAI,IN RD. I~OUND WESTRDGE BLVD., MOUND HA~THORNE RD. MOUND ASPEN RD. MOUND GRANDVIEW BLVD.', MOUND BOX 292 bK)UND LYNWOOD BLVD, MOUND HIGHLAND BLVD, MOUND SPRUCE 'ROAD, }~OUND CMkrfER~ I/~, MOUND NOR~-IERN RD., MOUND FAIRVIE~; LANE, I. DUND HIIJ. CREST LN, I.~OUND AYR LANE ~DUND DAI,F. RD, ~DUND 07/10/57 11/18/60 03/30/68 01/30/52 01/09/57 09/25/55 09/08/50 11/29/66 03/15/61 10/28/49 05/07/56 07/30/61 11/30/54 09/18257 11/24/53 04/23/62 09/21/70 07/19/71 11/22/69 05/10/54 01/21/71 12/09/65 04/17/61 07/14/59 07/16/65 02/22/53 03/15/63 05/02/59 11/16/65 03/08/50 08/31/65 03/18/64 06/20/62 12/08/66 07/08/60 02/03/62 06/01/71 09/22/80 12/03/79 09/13/93 02/03/75 01/09/78 09/12/88 02/06/78 03/21/94 04/02/90 11/03/75 12/03/90 06/06/88 02/05/96 11/01/76 05/01/89 05/06/96 12/04/95 03/06/95 05/02/94 06/02/80 12/03/90 07/10/89 02/06/84 06/04/79 05/01/89 02/03/75 09/13/93 03/04/85 10/16/95 09/15/80 03/05/90 01/05/87 05/02/94 11/04/91 11/07/83 11/07/83 03/02/92 2415 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 OFFICERS AND COMPANIES CHIEF 1 CHIEF 2 TRAINING FIRE MARSHAL ASST. FIRE MARSHAL STEVE' 'ERICKSON GREG PEDERSON .... RICK WI. LLIAMS MIKE PALM TIM PALM CA LT TRUCK CO. ~ i 12 11 CRAIG JOHN GREG SCOTT JIM STEVE PAUL MIKE RON HENDERSON NAFUS ANDERSON BRYCE CASEY COLLINS HENRY SAVAGE STALLMAN CA LT LA'DDER CO. ~ 1 15, 1S GREG DAN BOB MATT BRUCE ROGER JOHN RICH BRUCE PALM GRADY CRAWFORD HENTGES GUSTAFSON KRYCK LARSON ROGERS SVOBODA CA LT TRUCK CO. ~2 14 12 JEFF KEVIN RANDY BRET MIKE CHRIS TONY TIM ANDERSEN GRADY ENGELHART NICCUM PALM POUNDER RASMUSSEN' WILLIAMS CA LT RESCUE CO. ~'1 11 14 DAVID' BOYD KEVIN SIPPRELL PAUL BABB JASON MAAS JAMES NELSON TIM PALM ED VANECEK DENNIS WOYTCKE nl I it I, ,It .... mi, ,J J,t, A c T 2~415~,Vilsi~B~G. iglO~l,TMtnneSeta ,5~[ R 2 3 4 5 8 10 14 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 FIREF~GHTER ENTRY DATE DAVE 'BOYD 02/03/75 GREG PEDERSON 02/03/75 STEVE ER~CKSON 11/03/75 CRAIG HENDERSON il/Oil76 SCOTT BRYCE 0[/09/78 STEVE COLLINS ,02/~6/78 MIKE PALM 06/04/79 GREG ANDERSON 12/03/79 JOHN NAFUS 06/03/79 MIKE SAVAGE JEFF ANDERSEN 09/22/80 RICK WILLIAMS [1/07/B3 TIM .WILLIAMS [I/07/83 GREG PALM 02/06/84 TONY RASMUSSEN 03/04/85 'RON STALLMAN 0i/05/87 KEVIN GRADY 06/06/88 JIM CASEY PAUL HENRY 05/01/89 TIM PALM 05/01/89 BRET. NICCUM 07/10/89 KEVIN SIPPRELL 05/0i/89 RANDY ENGELHAR~ 04/02/90 DAN GRADY. [2/03/90 JAMES NELSON 12703/90 ED' VANECEK 11/OA/gl DENNIS WOYTCK~ 03/02/91 PAUL BABB 09/[3/93 CHRIS POUNDER 09/i3/93 BOB CRAWFORD 03/2[/93 JASON MAAS 05/02/94 BRUCE SVOBODA 05/02/94 JOHN LARSON 03/06/95 RICHARD ROGERS 10/~6/95 ROGER ~RYCK 12/04/95 BRUCE GUSTAFSON 02/05/96 MATT HENTGES 05/06/96 2415 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 1996 FIRE MARSHALS REPORT FIRE MARSHAL MIKE PALM ASST. FIRE MARSHAL TIM PALM Again this year the Mound Fire Department experienced the busiest year ever. Inspections that were conducted were done mainly by request. Again the inspections were done either in the evening or weekends. We did the best that we could, with what time we could do it in. Some people just don't understand why we couldn't see them - like yesterday - but thank goodness this year we will be hiring a part time inspector to get going on these late inspections. Inspections are intended to prevent fire from occurring because the inspector identifies fire hazards which could cause a fire, allow a fire to develope, or allow a fire to spread once ignited. In addition to locating and correcting accumulation of combustible trash and debris storage practices, proper maintenance, and the safe operation of building utilities. During the inspection process, technical information on the building and the processes should be collected. When used in pre-fire planning, this kind of information can be used as a valuable source for handling a fire at any property. Inspections provide an opportunity to educate the owners or occupants of a building about the need for adequate fire and life safety condition. Again Fire Prevention was taken care of by Chief Erickson, we did schedule other tours other than fire prevention week, so we could accommodate all our classes and pre-school kids. Thank goodness for fax machines and the old telephone. I'm always on them either at home or at my office in Farmington. I had to take some time off from my job to get the sprinkler testing, etc. that had to be done during the day. We are doing what comes up and what has to be done right at that moment, but we do get it done! INSPECTIONS FOR ALL CITIES ARSON & INVESTIGATION'S FIRE PERMITS JUVENILE FIRE SETTERS TELEPHONE INFO. ORGANIZATIONAL MEETINGS FIRE PREVENTION WESTONKA SCHOOLS 100 HOURS 75 HOURS 50 HOURS 25 HOURS 500 HOURS 2O HOURS 75 HOURS 50 HOURS JJ J JJ i ,,JJ ~JJi ,I J,I; 2415 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 ~997 C~g Co~c~L& 2415 Wi~i.%e. B&v~. Mou..n..d: , Mn... 55364 D~a~ Ck~i~ Erich~o... , CITY OF MOUND February 20, 1997 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER I have enclosed the 1996 Annual Report of the Finance Department. The purpose of the report is to point out the financial condition of the City of Mound to the City Council, which sets the policies that direct the future of the City. The financial recaps included in this report provide you with a preliminary summary of the City of Mound's financial position for 1996. The year 1996 was a productive one in the Finance Department. I would like to thank the staff of the department for their hard work during this challenging year. I look forward to a productive year in 1997. Respectfully, Gino Businaro Finance Director ! printed on recycled paper My first responsibility is the supervision of the Finance Staff. The current personnel in the Finance Department is as follows: N~ME TITLE STARTING DATE Gino Businaro Deloris Schwalbe Gayle Burns Joyce Nelson Finance Director Assessing Clerk Accounting Clerk Utility Billing Clerk 11-23-92 07-28-75 12-21-77 05-31-77 The finance staff should be commended for the teamwork and cooperation they have demonstrated in 1996. JOYCE NELSON Joyce handles the water and sewer billing process. We have approximately 3,260 residential accounts that are billed quarterly on a cyclical basis (the City is divided into three billing districts). In addition, there are approximately 125 commercial accounts that receive a bill every month. With this many customers to serve Joyce is kept quite busy. At the same time Joyce coordinates the various recycling programs. As an example of participation, for the month of October, out of 13,180 households, 6,374 had their recyclable set out. That is a 48% participation. The total materials collected for the year was 1,037.5 tons. Joyce also continues to assist Greg Skinner in public works with some of the paperwork and computer data entry as time allows. DELORI$ SCHWALBE Deloris does the special assessment searches of properties as requested by Realtors, title companies or residents when a house in Mound is purchased. Deloris receipts any prepayments of special assessments and she notifies the County of the prepayment. Any money collected is invested to pay off the special assessment bonds when they become due. Deloris also is the administrator of the Metro HRA Section 8 Rent Assistance Program for Mound, as well as for Minnetrista, St. Bonifacius and Spring Park. Currently, there are 36 families in our area receiving Section 8 assistance. The City receives reimbursements monthly on a per residence basis. Deloris' major responsibility is the processing of payments to city vendors (the accounts payable function). She codes and enters into the computer all the invoices and pays city vendors for purchases of goods or services. In 1996 2,952 checks were issued for a total of $5,489,820. Deloris assists the utility billing clerk and the Building Department in their absence. 2 GAYLE BURNS Gayle is responsible for all functions related to payments to city employees. She maintains and processes payroll every two weeks. All time sheets must be reviewed and entered into the computer, checks generated and reports printed. In 1996 1,512 payroll checks were issued to employees and 314 checks were issued for other payroll related purposes for a total of over 1.5 million dollars. Some of these payments are made by phone with a direct debit to the city bank account. Gayle also works in the following areas: Data entry for the computerized financial system and monthly reports' distribution to departments Computer back up's and year end closing of Finance and payroll applications Miscellaneous receipts and receivables Employees benefit enrollment, changes to benefits and related requirements Miscellaneous billing and reports to other agencies Reports for the Liquor Store: monthly sales tax reports, NSF checks Preparation of monthly, quarterly, and yearly reports to various federal and state agencies Bank reconciliation Issuance of merchant and dog licenses and assistance at the main counter when needed. Depot Rental: The Depot rental income over the last five years was as follows: 1992 1993 1)~4 1995 1996 $1,875 $1,800 $2,100 $2,450 $1,825 INVESTMENTS Cash management and investment of City funds are an important aspect of my job. The first objective in investing City funds is safety, legal constraints, and liquidity. Taking safety and liquidity into account, I look for the best market rate of return, normally within a 3-6 month range. I continue to follow a policy of investing only with broker/dealers in this state from the list approved by the City Council at their first meeting in January. The following is a breakdown of investments as of December 31, 1996: Commercial Paper Money Market 3,080,576 1.495.500 TOTAL $ 4,576,076 A comparison of interest earned for the City on all funds is as follows: 1992 336,766 1993 335,667 1994 318,235 1995 249,700 1996 214,868 Interest income in 1996 is down from prior years. This is due primarily to the decrease of cash balances available for investment and the interest fluctuation in the financial markets. Ail interest income is accumulated in the Investment Trust Account and distributed to the funds in proportion to the average balance during the year. For example, during 1996, the General Fund was allocated $36,703 in interest (17.1% of all interest earned) while the Capital Improvements Fund was allocated $15,382 in interest (7.2% of total interest). BUDGET Preparing the data for the annual budget document that is submitted to the Council is another important function of my job. During June, I estimate the revenues for the current year and also work on an estimate of the expenditures for the current year. I work closely with the city manager in budgeting revenue amounts and salary projections for the following year. The Finance Department budget is my responsibility, along with the City Property, the Special Revenue Funds and the debt service requirements. Once the city manager reviews the expenditure budgets with each of the department heads, the budget is compiled, analyzed and adjustments are made. The document is then prepared and presented to the Council for approval. The Water and Sewer Funds are examined during the budget process. The projected revenues and expenses are used to determine the adequacy of the rates. The Enterprise Funds (Liquor, Water, Sewer, and Recycling) are presented to the Council along with the General Fund for Council approval. 4 OUTSTANDING DEBT The total outstanding debt as of 12-31-96 is $3,570,000, with $1,275,000 in refunding bonds. The following details the outstanding debt: COMMERCE PLACE DEBT SERVICE BONDS This fund accounts for principal and interest payments on the bonds sold in 1985. The bonds will be paid for from the tax increment from the Commerce Place Development. The increment from the development is sufficient to make the principal and interest payments. With the developers' letter of credit and the Mound Clinic and Thrifty White as corner stores, Commerce Place is meeting all of its financial obligations. The City made principal payments of $115,000 during 1996, and has an outstanding balance of $1,390,000 at December 31, 1996. In 1993 TIF Refunding Bonds in the amount of $795,000 were issued and are outstanding as of December 31, 1996. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS Special Assessment Funds are used to account for the construction and financing of certain public improvements such as streets, sidewalks, street lighting and storm sewers. Bonds are issued and are paid for in full or in part from the special assessments levied against benefitted properties. No new bonds were issued during 1996. The City made principal payments of $435,000 during 1996, and has an outstanding balance of special assessments bonds payable of $395,000 at December 31, 1996. WATER/SEWER REVENUE BONDS The principal and interest on water revenue bonds are paid out of the revenue generated from the water and sewer bills. The City made principal payments of $90,000 during 1996, and has an outstanding balance of $1,305,000 at December 31, 1996. In 1993 bonds were issued in the amount of $1,350,000 with $607,500 allocated to the Water Fund and $742,500 to the Sewer Fund. PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY DEBT SERVICE This fund accounts for the principal and interest on bonds issued in 1988. The principal revenue source is a property tax levy. The City made principal payments of $60,000 during 1996 and has an outstanding balance of $480,000 at December 31, 1996. In 1993 Building Refunding Bonds in the amount of $540,000 were issued and $480,000 are outstanding as of December 31, 1996. The following shows the total outstanding debt for the City of Mound over the past 10 years: Year G.O. G.O. Refunding 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 10 060 000 10 060 000 9 040 000 7 680 000 6 790 000 5 835 000 5 500 000 4 845 000 4 270 000 3 570 000 $ t,335,000 1,335,000 1,335,000 1,275,000 Using the 1990 census population of 9,634, the total debt per capita decreased from $1,044 in 1987 to $371 in 1996. This decrease in total outstanding debt illustrates the fact that Mound is a mature suburb and has not had to issue debt to develop new streets and new water mains. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIES The general property tax levy is discussed every year during the budget process. The other significant item on the tax statement for Mound residents are the various special assessment levies. The following is the annual special assessments levied on Mound taxpayers during the past ten years and for 1997: 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 870 800 740 700 696 000 633 593 544 000 513 000 482 500 413 177 330 903 213 644 74 844 6 The major street projects were completed in 1978-1980. The total assessments on the taxpayers increased dramatically once these projects were assessed. Since 1982, the annual assessments have consistently declined. The corresponding Special Assessment bonds payable has decreased from $8,450,000 in 1986 to $395,000 in 1996. AUDIT Preparing for the annual audit is another important responsibility of my job. I prepare all the statements, schedules and notes to the financial statements for the annual audit. Our audit costs are reduced since all the statements and notes are done in house. The 1995 audit report received the National GFOA award "Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting". The certificate program judges an audit report on various criteria, including clarity, comparability and completeness. This is the eighth consecutive year the City of Mound has received this award. I plan on updating the audit report annually and submit future years' reports for this award. INSURANCE We have the majority of our insurance coverage with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. They have provided the City with good coverage and the costs for insurance have stabilized in the last few years. Our agent of record is Carl Bennetsen of R.L. Youngdahl & Associates, Inc. I have the responsibility of coordinating the City's insurance activity. I file all claims that are made against our insurance policies for the City automobiles, property damage, general liability, and workers compensation. COMPUTER OPERATIONS It is my job to supervise the overall computer operation. We have an on-site mini-computer processor with software purchased from Computoservice, Inc. The following software programs are currently operating on our system: utility billing, financial, accounts payable, payroll, special assessments and water meter reading. The finance staff does an excellent job working on the computer operations. The finance department has available three personal computers. The use of the PC enables me to work efficiently with many spreadsheets for cash flow analysis, investment need projections, fixed assets inventory, budget projections and various other applications. At the same time both Gayle and Joyce have the opportunity to use the PC and maintain various files in the payroll area and the utility services area. City employees have a strong interest in learning to work with PCs, which help them to become more efficient with their tasks. The commitment to technology is spreading from business to schools to government. 7 FUND STRUCTURE The following is a description of the funds of the City of Mound: GENEI~AL FUND The General Fund accounts for the Revenues and Expenditures to carry out the basic governmental activities of the City, such as administration, police, inspections, streets and parks. General Fund expenditures are made primarily for current day to day operating expenses. Major sources of revenue are the property tax and local government aid. FUND BALANCE The total fund balance of the General Fund is projected to be $1,189,203 for the year ended 1996. The balance increased $254,733 during the year. It is important for the City to maintain the current fund balance. This reserve is necessary to meet expenses in the General Fund until tax money and local government aid are remitted to the City in June/July. For cash flow purposes the city would be required to issue tax anticipation bonds if the fund balance is reduced or eliminated. The following table shows previous year end General Fund balances, compared to adopted expenditures budget for the past ten years: GENERAL FUND BUDGET TOTAL FUND BALANCE BEGINNING OF YEAR 1987 2,073,720 1988 2,128,550 1989 2,236,430 1990 2,327,090 1991 2,264,150 1992 2,249,350 1993 2,325,780 1994 2,366,950 1995 2,418,030 1996 2,443,830 743 810 803 207 749 654 629 326 642 934 593 155 626 361 644 522 843 561 934 470 35 9 37 9 33 5 27 0 28 4 26 4 26 9 27 2 34 9 38 2 REVENUES Revenues received for general governmental operations are $2,676,630. The following is an analysis of the major revenue sources of the General Fund - budget to actual for 1996: BUDGET ACTUAL % VARIANCE RECEIVED TAXES LICENSES & PERMITS INTERGOVERNMENTAL COURT FINES MISCELLANEOUS 1,280,640 1,298,717 (18,077) 82,900 132,553 (49,653) 890,740 948,728 (57,988) 60,000 95,854 (35,854) 136.950 200.778 (63.828) 101.41 159.90 106.51 159.76 146.61 TOTAL 2,451.230 2.676.630 (225.400) 100.99 The increase in licenses and permits of $49,653 is attributable to the increase in number of construction permits issued in 1996. The increase in miscellaneous of $63,828 is due primarily to the dividend received from the League of Cities Insurance Trust. The intergovernmental revenues increase of $57,988 consists of the two federal grants for the COPS FAST and COPS MORE programs. EXPENDITURES Expenditures for general government operations were $2,421,897 in 1996. The following is a budget to actual comparison by department: DEPARTMENTS BUDGET ACTUAL % VARIANCE EXPENDED Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning & Insp. Streets City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers 68,730 4,000 6OO 185 030 11 300 54 450 163 600 22 000 106 440 804 640 3 780 167 320 398 840 92 790 135 300 29 700 40 000 67,942 4,000 745 153 828 11 927 57 210 164 972 14 484 82 917 826 535 3,749 170,238 437,956 91,540 134,167 30,082 14,295 ~5.310 788 (145 31,202 (627 (2,760 (1,372 7,523 23,895 (21,895 31 (2,918 (39,116 1,250 (382 25,705 0 98.85 100 00 124 17 83 14 105 55 105 07 100 84 65 84 77 90 102 72 99 18 101 74 109 81 98 65 99 16 101 29 35 74 100.00 TOTAL 2,443.830 2,421.897 21.933 99.1Q SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Special Revenue Funds are used to account for certain tax levies and other earmarked revenue. The following is a list of the City's Special Revenue Funds and Fund balances as of 12-31-96: Cemetery 7,355 CDBG 0 Area Fire Serv. (16,413) Dock 173,647 The Area Fire Service fund balance is down to a negative $16,413 after the purchase of the new tanker truck, the refurbishing of an older truck, and the construction of the storage shed. The proceeds from the sale of the old fire tanker truck should make up for the deficit in 1997. CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS Capital project funds have been established to segregate funds to be used for various types of capital outlay expenditures. The following is the 1996 activity of this fund: Balance 1-1-96 778,239 Revenues 191,416 Total Available 969,655 Expenditures Professional Services Fire Capital Reserve Capital Outlay Other 74,239 15,280 180,944 22,054 Total Expenditures 292,517 Balance Remaining 677,138 The Capital Improvements Fund is an important one-time revenue source for the City of Mound. It allows the City to undertake projects that benefit the City without having to issue debt to finance them. The remaining balance of $677,138 was obtained with equity transfers from debt service funds that were used to account for bonds that have been recalled or that have expired. SEALCOAT This fund is used to account for the five-year rotation to sealcoat the streets in Mound. The total cost of the project for 1996 was $70,154, which was financed by the Liquor Store profits. l0 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Enterprise Funds are used to account for the financing of services to the general public in which all or most of the revenues are generated from user charges. LIOUOR FUND The year 1996 was again an excellent one for the Liquor Store. A condensed summary for the liquor operations for the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994 is presented below: 1996 1995 Sales Cost of Sales GROSS PROFIT Expenses Operating Income Other Income Transfers Out NET INCOME 1,523 897 1,145 974 377 923 212 573 165 350 13 495 173 850 4 995 1994 1,409,488 1,368,288 1,065,414 1,027,912 344,074 340,376 196,455 198,400 147,619 141,976 12,395 17,054 148,060 159,030 11,954 9,640 WATER FUND A condensed summary of the Water Fund operations for the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995, and 1994 is presented below: 1996 1995 1994 Revenues Expenses Operating Income Other Income/Expenses Income Transfer to/from City 422,269 380,457 41,812 (578) 41,234 5,054 391 975 357 847 34 128 (5 435) 28 693 17 000 373,974 329,039 44,935 23,409 68,344 16,000 In 1996 both revenues and expenses were slightly up from 1995. The cash balance in the water fund increased from $623,426 to $650,608. SEWER FUND A condensed summary of the Sewer Fund operations for the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994 is presented below: 1996 1995 1994 Revenues Expenses Operating Loss 804,849 936,738 (131,889 714,001 684,474 878,328 803,601 (164,327) (119, 127) Other Income/Expenses Loss Transfers to City (7,924 (139,813 17,000 (706) 45,678 (165,033) (73,449) 17,000 16,000 The cash balance in the Sewer Fund stands at $492,468 at the end of 1996. Both revenues and expenses were higher. A major concern is the charge of $597,751 from the Metropolitan Council Wastewater Services (MCWS,) which is an increase of $30,139 from 1996. We pay the MCWS based upon an estimated flow. The actual flow is determined following the end of the year, with the adjustment on MCWS billings the subsequent year. RECYCLING The following are the revenues and expenditures for recycling in 1996: Revenues Hennepin County Utility Billing Charges Sale of Recyclable Other Total Revenue Expenses Salaries Supplies Recycle Lotto Pick Up/Disposal Recycling Hauler Other Total Expenses 30,949 61,660 8,176 8,756 109,541 12,809 3,630 2,600 28,483 71,528 313 119,363 Balance 1-1-96 58,537 Balance 12-31-96 48,715 In 1994 Hennepin County reduced the reimbursement to $.80 per household from the $1.75 reimbursement in 1993. The estimated grant from the County in 1997 will be $30,720 and the City household charge $57,600. That represents a considerable shift from the County to the City. 12 ORGANIZATIONS I am a member of the Minnesota Government Finance Officers Association (MGFOA). There are currently 550/600 members. Monthly meetings are held in the metro area, with an annual conference held in the fall of the year. One of the requirements for keeping current my CPA certificate is that I maintain a continuing education program each year. Continuing education and training is a high priority in my professional development. I obtain the vast majority of my education credits through MGFOA. As an ex-officio member of the Economic Development Commission I attend all their meetings. I am also Treasurer of the Mound Crime Prevention Association. ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR 1996 Specific accomplishments are as follows: Issuance of the 1995 Comprehensive An_nual Financial Report The report received an unqualified opinion from the independent auditor and the Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting from the GFOA. Fixed Assets computerization With the purchase and installation of a new PC, the whole fixed assets inventory was entered into the computer and kept up to date, as recommended by the independent auditor. Tnsurance Claims Activity In 1996 we had again an exceptional number of claims in the general liability, auto, and workers compensation areas. We also reviewed extensively the present insurance coverage. Pre-Tax Plans The City employees were offered a Pre-Tax Plan in May of 1993. The plan was set up, maintained and extended into 1997. Almost all employees joined the plan, which benefits both the employees and the City in reducing Social Security, Federal and State tax payments. Water Meter Reading System Joyce and I worked closely with Greg Skinner and John Cameron during the installation of the new water meter system. We anticipated problems with the computerized part of the project. By the end of the year the system worked as expected. Now we are able to transfer utility billing data from our main computer to a hand held device in less than an hour. Once the meter readings are captured with the hand held device in the field, the data is transferred back into the main computer in about half an hour. GOALS FOR 1997 Work in the Finance Department will continue at a steady pace in 1997. The normal cycle calls for the staff to meet their deadlines in the payroll, accounts payable, and utility billing areas. The Finance Director will continue to cover the investments, the audit, the insurance claims, the preparation of reports, and all the other responsibilities in the financial, insurance, data processing, and supervision areas. Special challenges in 1997 will be related to the construction of Auditor's Road and the Lost Lake Canal, the inspection of all household sump pumps, and the reporting of the COPS FAST/MORE Federal Grants. Thank you for having given me the opportunity to point out the areas of special note in the operation of the Finance Department. The year 1996 was a productive one for the City in the financial area. The direction provided by you, the City Council and the City Manager, made it happen. I will be attending the February 25th Council meeting to answer any questions that you have regarding my annual report. 14 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 February 20, 1997 Honorable Mayor, City Council and City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: 1996 ANNUAL REPORT PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Dear Mayor, Council and City Manager: It is with great pleasure I present to you this Annual Report of the Planning & Inspections Department. It is our hope that this report will supply City management with enough data to study and then decide and direct this department in its course of action in the years to come. We welcome any comments, suggestions or questions you may have. Jon Suther-land Building Official JS:pj prmted on recycled paper ill I ill l, ,Il, I1~, ,J PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 1996 ANNUAL REPORT CONTENTS Page ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT ......................................... 1 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ......................................... 2 PLANNING & ZONING ......................................... 2 - 3 COMPLAINTS & ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS .............................. 3 ORDINANCE CHANGES ............................................ 3 BUILDING CODE EFFECTIVENESS GRADING SCHEDULE (BCEGS) .............. 4 REVENUE/EXPENDITURES ......................................... 4 GOALS .................................................... 4 - 5 EDUCATION AND TRAINING ..................................... 5 - 6 SUMMARY .................................................... 6 EXHIBIT A: EXHIBIT B: EXHIBIT C: EXHIBIT D: EXHIBIT E: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ................................ 7 NEW HOUSING UNITS (1974 - 1996) ........................... 8 TOTAL YEARLY VALUES OF NEW CONSTRUCTION ............... 9 BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT, DECEMBER 1996 ................. 10 PLANNING & ZONING CASE STATISTICS ................... 11 - 13 1996 Annual Report Planning & Inspections Department ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT: Our purpose is to assist the general public, administer and enforce the provisions of the Mound City Codes, Zoning Ordinance, State Building Code, and related state statutes. It's our duty is to serve the public by careful application and enforcement of the regulations as adopted by the City Council, and as guided by the City Manager. Staffing. The department has two full-time employees, myself and Peggy James, who also works with the Parks Department. We also have budgeted one part-time secretarial position that is shared with the Finance Department, this position is filled during our busy construction season from approximately March through December. Patrick Clark and James Packard of the Police Department also work part-time as our Community Service Officers (CSO's). Coordination. We send all of our permits through an interdepartmental review process where each department has an opportunity to review and comment on the application. We allow for a 7 to 10 day review process, however, most permit requests are processed in less than 5 days. In addition to full-time staff, the following personnel assist us: Consultants City Planner City Engineer Part Time Building Inspections Plumbing Inspector Electrical Inspector Support Staff Fire Department Fire Chief Fire Marshal Secretary Mark Koegler, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. John Cameron, McCombs Frank Roos & Assoc. Loren Kohnen, Metro West Inspection Services John Breitner Jerry Kurth Al Tollakson, State Board of Electricity James Packard, CSO Patrick Clark, CSO Steve Erickson Mike Palm Judy Bryce ,111 I IJ J ,it ,,,11~ ,J J,k 1996 Annual Report Planning & Inspections Department CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY: Construction activity is measured by the number of permits issued and the total commercial/ residential permit value. There were 804 permits issued this year for a total value of $10,551,i58. Please note Exhibits A - D which illustrate our construction activity in more detail. The bulk of our construction in 1996 was 41 new dwellings with a total value of $6,554,625, Our new dwellings had an average permit value of $159,868 versus $164,500 in 1995, this average includes units constructed at Pelican Point that had individual permit values as high as $295,000. Our commercial activity this year was comprised of a variety of projects, a few of which were; Sheps Construction remodeled and moved into a portion of the Guthrie Woodwork building at 5450 Shoreline Drive, JRW/Mound Medical/United Properties at 2202 Commerce Blvd. had a major revamp of the interior medical offices. Norwest Bank opened its new location on the Saliterman property at 5211 Shoreline Drive, St. John's Lutheran Church the largest project of the year, added onto the sanctuary and constructed a two level education wing. We anticipate 1997 will be busy with all the work being proposed with the Mound Visions project, demolition permits will be processed for properties that will be removed to make-way for the realignment of Auditors Road. We are in the process of working with builders for homes in the Teal Pointe subdivision where we have a potential for nine new dwellings. We will also be looking forward to the five new twin homes to be constructed at Maple Manors. The Pelican Point subdivision has a total of 42 single family units planned, and about half are now occupied. The Shirley Hills School site is the proposed location for the new school administration building, this will be a major project for 1997. When the school administration offices are relocated to the Shirley Hills site, the existing site will then be available for possible development, and this site has many possibilities. The Seton Bluff Subdivision is now in the pipeline and we expect six or seven building sites to be available with dock sites on Minnetonka. All in all it looks to be another exciting and busy year! Our public lands permit updating process is moving at a slower pace than expected, however, we are making steady progress and anticipate completing our first run-through of the system by the end of 1997. PLANNING & ZONING There were 72 total zoning cases in 1996. A complete accounting of our zoning actions are listed in the attached Exhibit E for Zoning Case Statistics. Out of 46 variance requests, we had 39 ?gO 1996 Annual Report Planning & Inspections Department approved, resulting in a variance approval rating of 85% for 1996. The City Council has continued to maintain a very high level of agreement with the Planning Commission's recommendations, note the percentages below: 1996 = 96% 1995 = 94% 1994 = 94% 1993 = 96.5% 1992 = 96% 1991 = 98% 1990 = 100% 1989 = 92% 1988 = 95% COMPLAINTS & ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS Complaints and ordinance violation statistics are now located within the Police Department's monthly and annual report. The majority of our complaints are handled by the Community Service Officers, we work with them on a regular basis, however they are supervised by the Police Chief. In my estimation the CSO's have done a great job, are getting better with experience, and the appearance of the community reflects their work. Not included in our record keeping are complaints related to violations of the sign ordinance, building code, rental ordinance, or issues addressed independently by the Planning and Inspections department staff. ORDINANCE CHANGES: Variance Streamlining. In 1995, the Council directed staff to conduct a variance history study which in August of 1996 resulted in the adoption of our new ordinance, Section 350:420 pertaining to non-conforming uses. This new ordinance is intended to streamline the building permit process for cases that historically have received a "rubber stamp" variance approval. In 1996 six (6) cases took advantage of the new streamlining provisions. We look forward to realizing a greater impact in 1997 when we will have the full years effect of the ordinance being in place. Waiver of Platting. Another new ordinance adopted in 1996 was Section 330:12 to the City Subdivision Code allowing for a waiver of platting as a method of processing and separating lots that were combined in the past for tax purposes. Three applications for a Wavier of Platting were processed and approved in 1996. Ordinance Changes/Updates to Consider in 1997. An ordinance to regulate sump pumps and the discharge of stormwater into the sanitary sewer system (already in process). 3 1996 Annual Report Planning & Inspections Department Stormwater Management/Wetlands. Miscellaneous Zoning Code Modifications relating to domestic abuse shelters, adult entertainment, home occupations, antenna/PCS towers, corner lots, and the bluff definition. BUILDING CODE EFFECTIVENESS GRADING SCHEDULE (BCEGS) The Insurance industry and the Insurance Service Office, Inc. (ISO) has been faced with increasingly frequent natural disasters and a growing population in disaster prone areas. According to the ISO in the last several years the insurance industry and the public has suffered about 62 billion in catastrophic losses due to hurricanes and other natural disasters. One way the ISO is tackling the problem is with a program that evaluates the effectiveness of municipalities' building codes. They have developed the BCEGS and have implemented the program in Florida, and North and South Carolina. Other regions are currently being graded and grading throughout the country, including our area, is to be underway by the year 2000. BCEGS is a measure of local building code enforcement capabilities. The concept is that municipalities with effective codes that are well enforced should demonstrate better loss experience, and insurance rates should reflect that. There will certainly be more to come on this issue, and we will keep you updated. REVENLrE & EXPENDITURES: Below is a summary of budget and revenue for construction activity: 1994 1995 1996 1996 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL REVENUE 114,442 105,199 77,100 128,893' EXPENDITURES 149,645 163,280 167,320 170,238' *Unaudited as of December 1996. GOALS I feel we have accomplished a majority of the goals we set for 1996, and yet at the same time I cannot eliminate any from the list and would rather add more. However, just to be safe, I will only add one: I need to keep up with the work load! 4 1996 Annual Report Planning & Inspections Department Our Goals for 1997 are: o Continue to revise and develop procedures for effective nuisance abatement consistent with community spirit. o Improve record keeping and tracking of complaints and problem areas to provide for improved compliance. o Improve public awareness of zoning codes and ordinances. o Improve staff's response to complaints. o Improve reporting of activities to the City Council. o Update fee schedules. o Continue evaluating the streamlining process. o Update building/zoning handouts. o Evaluate a new computerized permit system and, if reasonable propose as part of budget process. EDUCATION AND TRAINING: Every municipality within the State of Minnesota over a certain population is required by state statutes to adopt the State Building Code in its entirety and appoint a qualified Building Official who is tested and certified by the Department of Administration Building Codes and Standards Division. Each Building Official must satisfactorily complete applicable educational programs established or approved by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry. Continuing Education is imperative to maintain certification and to stay abreast of the every changing codes and new methods of construction. Some of my educational opportunities in 1996 were: o ICBO Annual Code Change Hearings/Conference, September 8 - 13th in Saint Paul, Minnesota. o 40th Annual Institute for Building Officials, University of Minnesota Earl Brown Institute in January. o North Star/ICBO Chapter regular and subcommittee meetings. (Thank you for the opportunity to work on the ICBO Annual Conference Planning Committee!) 1996 Annual Report Planning & Inspections Department Peggy also had the opportunity to attend a one-day session at the 40th Annual Institute for Building Officials in January. The session was titled "Building Inspection for Secretaries and Clerical Staff." This was offered for those individuals who issue the building permits and schedule inspections. She was able to compare how other City's function, and learned that most other City's in attendance have computerized permitting systems and that the Building Departments is separate from the Planning Department. They discussed the potential for implementing a new organization specifically for permit clerks. SUMMARY: Much has happened in the last year. The work load was high due to the number of permits issued and the high number of zoning cases. We have accomplished a majority of our goals from 1995. We entertain any suggestions or comments you may have. We will continue our endeavor to improve our efficiency and service to the public. I am honored to be surrounded by such excellent people within this and other departments of the City. We look forward to another exciting and challenging year. 6 Planning & Inspections Department 1996 Annual Report Exhibit A Construction Activity YEAR NEW RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL, DEMOLI- TOTAL # OTHER TOTAL ADDITIONS, DECKS PUBLIC, TIONS BLDG MISC REMODEL, MISC. INDUSTRIAL PERMITS PERMITS INEW & REMODEL) /~ P~RMIT$ VALUI: ~' PERMITS VALU~ # P~R~TS VAIU~ { 1 ) { 2 ) # PERMIT S VALUE 1988 38 2,868,155 201 2,526,516 22 1,172,439 15 276 375 651 6,567,110 1989 32 2,931,437 237 1,326,656 8 256,500 6 283 324 607 4,514,593 1990 21 1,909,095 224 1,528,572 17 1,029,199 5 267 243 510 4,466,866 1991 28 1,551,792 268 1,962,799 14 476,181 13 323 269 592 3,990,772 1992 27 2,740,381 295 1,841,612 22 320,217 15 359 348 707 4,902,210 1993 19 1,986,680 292 1,918,586 18 314,961 7 336 297 633 4,220,227 1994 22 2,858,949 315 2,589,968 28 4,862,268 14 379 385 764 10,311,185 1995 34 5,593,402 336 2,088,249 19 532,931 6 389 373 762 8,214,582 1996 41 6,554,625 335 2,221,923 15 1,774,610 14 405 399 804 10,551,158 (1) New residential, commercial, public (schools), residential remodeling, decks, garages, demolitions, etc. (permits that are issued based on the "value" of the project). (2) Plumbing, mechanical, sewer and water, signs, fences, street excavations, etc. (permits issued that are not based on "value"). Planning & Inspections Department 1996 Annual Report Exhibit B'- CITY OF MOUND NEW HOUSING UNITS 100 80 40 2O 0 ~ :!~i;'-::--~:: ~:~ "~ ~;----' '~ ......... , ~'~-i ........... ~ 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 198O 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 57 29 118 77 59 48 36 33 45 29 66 45 8O 38 32 21 18 27 19 22 34 41 8 Planning & Inspections Department 1996 Annual Report Exhibit C 12 ~10 ~ 6 > 2 0 CITY OF MOUND TOTAL YEARLY VALUES OF NEW CONSTRUCTION 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 YEAR & YEARLY VALUE IN THOUSANDS $ 1975 2112 1976 1068 1977 5616 1978 4653 1979 4564 1980 3699 1981 2894 1982 2878 1983 5402 1984 3742 1985 6217 1986 10083 1987 9974 1988 6567 1989 4515 1990 4467 1991 399" 1992 490, 1993 4220 1994 10311 1995 8215 1996 10551 9 Planning & Inspections Department 1996 Annual Report City of Mound BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT Month: DECEMBER Year: 1996 THIS MONTH Exhibit D'- YEAR TO DATE RESIDENTIALNEw CONSTRUCTION I # PERMITS I #UNITS] VALUATION I' Un'is I VALUATION SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 29 3, 253, t~21 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS} ~L 2 3. 301, 20 TWO FAMILY / DUPLEX MULTIPLE FAMtLY (3 OR MORE UNITS} TRANSIENT HSG. {HOTELS / MOTELS} SUBTOTAL /41 6, 554, 625 I i i i COMMERCIAL ~RETAIL/RESTAURAN*) 1 1 l 0 , 000 DICE / PROF~SmO~L [ 200, 000 INDUSTRIAL .usuc / SCHOOLS suaxoxnt 2 3 [ 0.000 ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING 3 69, 768 32 841, 115 O~CHEO ACCESSORY aO,LmNOS 22 231, 836 O~CKS 1 3, 240 62 173, 146 SWiMMiNG POOLS 1 600 RtUOO~L. ~SC RES,D~NT~L 9 32, 721 215 860, 923 R~MOOEL - MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 3 114, 503 SUa~O~A[ 13 105, 729 335 2, 221, 923 COMMERCIAL IRETAIL/RESTAURANT~ ~ 33 ~ 600 DICE / .RO~ESS~O.~L 7 230. INDUSTR~AL PUBLIC /SCHOOLS 2 [,200,500 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS 8 NON RESIDENTIAL ~UILDINGS 6 TOTAL DEMOLITIONS [ 4 t PERMITS t UNITS VALUATION g UNITS VALUATION t PERMITS TOTAL [3 0 [05,729 '405 I PERMIT COUNT I THIS MONTH I YEAR TO-DATE ' BU~LOmG 13 405 FENCES & RETAINING WALLS 0 30 S,GNS 0 11 PLUMBING 7 151 MECHANICAL 6 133 GRADING 0 2 S&W, STREET EXCAV., FIRE, ETC, 3 7 2 TOTAL I 29 I 80/4 10 Planning & Inspections Department 1996 Annual Report Exhibit E._ p. lof3 PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS Case Statistics CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 5 5 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 1 (N/A) 1 PLATS/PDA'S 1 1 2 SUBDIVISIONS, MINOR 8 1 9 ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS 1 1 REZONING 1 1 VACATIONS 2 1 3 MOVING BUILDING 0 WAIVER OF PLATTING 3 3 VARIANCE EXTENSIONS 1 1 VARIANCES 39 3 4 46 TOTAL 62 5 1 4 72 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 7 7 PLATS/PDA'S 0 SUBDIVISIONS, MINOR 2 2 ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS 0 VACATIONS 0 MOVING BUILDING 0 VARIANCES 38 3 1 42 TOTAL 47 3 1 0 51 11 Planning & Inspections Departmera 1996 Annual Report Exhibit E._ p. ~of~ PLANNING COMMISSION CASE STATISTICS CONTINUED .... CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 5 1 6 PLATS/PDA'S 1 1 2 SUBDIVISIONS, MINOR 5 5 ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS 3 3' 6 VACATIONS 1 2 3 MOVING BUILDING 1 1 VARIANCES 52 2 54 TOTAL 67 6 0 4 77 *The Planning Commission worked on three ordinance amendments which are either pending or on hold at this time, they are: Truth in Housing, Truck Parking in Residential Areas, and Park Dedication Fees. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 2 2 SUBDIVISIONS, MAJOR 4 4 SUBDIVISIONS, MINOR 6 6 VACATIONS 1 1 VARIANCES 39 3 3 45 TOTAL 58 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 5 5 SUBDIVISIONS, MAJOR 3 3 SUBDIVISIONS, MINOR 4 1 5 VACATIONS 3 1 4 VARIANCES 51 3 3 57 12 Planning & Inspections Department 1996 Annual Report Exhibit E CITY OF MOUND PLANNING & ZONING CASES 8O 7O 60 u) 50 ~4o 1.30 20 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 13 Ill I a, & ,~1, IJ~, ,11 ,~ ,1~ CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM February12,1997 TO: FROM: COMMONS TASK FORCE ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER''7'')''~ SUBJECT: NEWLY CREATED DOCK COMMISSION You are probably aware that the City Council has approved an ordinance amendment reconfiguring the makeup of the Park and Open Space Commission and creating a new dock commission. The purpose of the dock commission will be to serve as an advisory commission to the City Council on commons matters and shoreline issues subject to the City's licensed dock program, a responsibility that has been held by the Park and Open Space Commission for many years. The ordinance amendment calls for the new dock and commons advisory commission to consist of six members. Five of the members (to be composed of three inland and two abutting property owners, all of whom must be active in the City licensed dock program) are to be appointed by the CiD~ Council and may be removed by four-fifths vote of the Council. The Council is to select one member of the Council who will be the liaison between the dock commission and the City Council and will be a voting member. The ordinance amendment also states that members to be appointed to the dock and commons advisory commission will first be selected from the current membership of the Commons Task Force. Thus, the purpose of this memorandum is to solicit your interest in serving on this new commission. If you are interested, please submit a letter indicating your interest to my attention on or before Thursday, February 20, 1997. We will provide copies of these letters to the City Council for their packet and subsequent discussion at their February 25, 1997 regular City Council meeting. Depending upon the level of interest, the City Council may ask that candidates interview with them printed on recycled paper Memorandum to Commons Task Force February 12, 1997 Page 2 prior to any appointments being made. If you have any questions, please contact me. I look forward to hearing from you. ~11 i ill i ,I Iil~ ,I 4,1i COMMONS TASK FORCE *** revised 7/14/95'** NAME ADDRESS HOME WORK PHONE PHONE FRANK AHRENS 4673 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE d72-1520 296-9484 RODNEY BEYSTROM 4466 DENBIGH ROAD 4.72-6567 472-3385 BEV BOTKO 2149 CARDINAL LANE 472-3553 541-6285 MARILYN BYRNES 2851 CAMBRIDGE LANE 472-1615 - JIM FUNK 3101 PAISLEY ROAD 472-5151 949-7031 MARK GOLDBERG, 4853 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 472-4624 472-2444 CHAIR DENNIS HOPKINS 4609 WILSHIRE BLVD. 472-1411 475-3034 RITA PEDERSON 2865 HALSTEAD LANE 472-7474 473-5807 ROI)RIGO PLAZA 4539 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 472-1042 472-1042 GORDY TULBERG, 1711 FINCH LANE 472-7963 472-1774 VICE-CHAIR 479-3489 RECEIVED ?£B 1 4 1997 REC,.,EtVELq, ,...u'-':' i8 February 13, 1997 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Attention: Ed Shukle, City Manager RE: Position on newly created dock commission Please accept my application for a position on the newly created dock commission. I previously served on the Commons Task Force, as a non-abutter, and would like to become a member of the new commission. I have been a dock holder since moving to Mound in 1965. I feel my experience working on the task force would be beneficial. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Dennis Hopkins 4609 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364-1913 (612) 472-1411 February 16, 1997 C;EIVF. D 18 TO ED SHUKLE AND THE CITY COUNCIL A big thank you to all of you for approving a new Dock and Commons Commission. 2. Am I interested in serving on this commission? YES,YES! I'm really se grateful that you have seen fit to move on this issue. As I'm sure you know, I feel it's SO important-- we've made a good start, but there's still so much work and planning to be done. Congratulations on taking a very strong step forward, and my thanks for letting me voice my interest and desire to be a part of it. Sincerely, Bev Botko J I J~ J ,il, J~, ,J J,li RECEIVED l g k.qg? Date: February 18, 1997 To: Ed Shukle, City Manager From: Jim Funk Subject: Dock Commission I would like to express my interest in serving on the newly created dock commission. experience on the commons dock task force has given me an appreciation for the problems the city faces in this area. I feel the commons dock program should provide convenient lake access for all users while keeping program costs to a minimum. My I look forward to heating from you regarding your decision on commission appointments. Sincerely, Jim Funk Home 472-515 Work 949-703 Feb 17, 1997 TO: Ed Shukle FROM: Mark Goldberg RE: Dock Commission This note is to express my interest in serving on the Dock Commission. I feel that the commons taskforce was doing productive things and I would like the opportunity to try to help the dock commission continue the taskforce's general direction. Thank you for your and the Council's consideration. Februa~ 18, 1997 Ed Shulde, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN. 55364 RECEIVED Dear Mr. Shukle, In response to your memorandum of February 12 regarding the newly created dock commission, I would like to be considered by the city council as one of the appointments to the new commission. It has been a pleasure to serve this community as a member of the Commons Task Force. I believe the task force has made significant contributions in balancing the fights of abutter land\ dock holders and non-abutter dock holders. As you know, task force recommendations were made based on a consensus among task force members after careful deliberation. I would like to be a part of the effort in implementing the recommendations of the task force. Sincerely, 4673 Island View Dr. il,, !11 I Ii J ,,I .... ILl,, ,Ii J,l, 1~, ~1 .MOORE 0 A~SOCIATES Cer~ifietl ~¢mber ~031345 RODNEY L. BEYSTROM VICE PRESIDENT MINNESOTA Office & Fax 4466 Denbigh Road (612) 4-/2-3385 Mound. MN 55364 /,noF£sslote,~L /~ot~£ msP£criotes RECEN CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 February 12, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: COMMONS TASKFORCE R,~, ./~~) ~~-,.,~(. FROM: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGE SUBJECT: NEWLY CREATED DOCK COMMISSION You are probably aware that the City Council has approved an ordinance amendment reconfiguring the makeup of the Park and Open Space Commission and creating a new dock commission. The purpose of the dock commission will be to serve as an advisory commission to the City Council on commons matters and shoreline issues subject to the City's licensed dock program, a responsibility that has been held by the Park and Open Space Commission for many years. The ordinance amendment calls for the new dock and commons advisory commission to consist of six members. Five of the members (to be composed of three inland and two abutting property owners, all of whom must be active in the City licensed dock program) are to be appointed by the c';~., Ce,,,,ci] and may ~'e ~,~,,,,~,~ by fo~-fifths vote of Lhe Council. Th.~ "' ..... ;~ ;-- ta ~ ...... member of the Council who will be the liaison between the dock commission and the City Council and will be a voting member. The ordinance amendment also states that members to be appointed to the dock and commons advisory commission will first be selected from the current membership of the Commons Task Force. Thus, the purpose of this memorandum is to solicit your interest in serving on this new commission. If you are interested, please submit a letter indicating your interest to my attention on or before Thursday, February 20, 1997. We will provide copies of these letters to the City Council for their packet and subsequent discussion at their February 25, 1997 regular City Council meeting. Depending upon the level of interest, the City Council may ask that candidates interview with them prtnted on recycled paper ©~T~; RECEIVED FEB Z O 1§§? CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT Dec. 1996 UNAUD~ED 100.00% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non -Business Licenses and Permits I ntergovern mental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments Dec. 1996 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,280,640 643,974 1,298,717 18,077 101.41% 5,800 5 3,660 (2,140) 63.10% 77,100 4,084 128,893 51,793 167.18% 890,740 385,892 948,728 57,988 106.51% 48,250 44,729 53,684 5,434 111.26% 60,000 21,706 95,854 35,854 159.76% 35,200 78,440 90,800 55,600 257.95% 43,500 43,500 43,500 0 100.00% 10,000 858 12,794 2,794 127.94% TOTAL REVENUE 2~451~230 1~223~188 2~676~630 225~400 109.20% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 307,570 (12,035) 308,399 829 100.27% 108,320 5,845 109,541 1,221 101.13% 1,430,000 162,663 1,537,393 107,393 107.51% 410,000 84,852 477,929 67,929 116.57% 766,500 103,707 829,983 63,483 108.28% 5,100 549 5,639 539 110.57% 70,800 9,578 77,568 6,768 109.56% 02/18/97 rev96 G.B. 80,5' Jl I J j ,j ill, ,J J,li CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT Dec. 1996 UNAUDITED 100.00% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Sum mer Recreation Contingencies Transfers Dec. 1996 BUDGET EXPENSE 68,730 4,000 6OO 1 85. 030 11 300 54 450 168 600 22 000 1 06.440 804.64O 3 780 167 320 398 840 92 790 135,300 29,700 40,000 1 55,310 YTD PERCENT EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED 4,651 67,942 788 98.85% 0 4,000 0 1 00.00% 101 745 (145) 124.17% 16,563 153,828 31,202 83.14% 2,790 11,927 (627) 105.55% 0 57,210 (2,760) 105.07% 20,526 1 64,972 (1,372) 100.84% 255 14,484 7,516 65.84% 17,775 82,917 23,523 77.90% 87,174 826,534 (21,894) 1 02.72% 645 3,749 31 99.18% 25,424 170,238 (2,918) 101.74% 88,128 437,956 (39,116) 1 09.81% 5,087 91,540 1,250 98.65% 14,781 134,167 1,133 99.16% 0 30,082 (382) 1 01.29% 10,415 14,296 25,704 35.74% 25,703 155,310 0 1 00.00 % GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2443830 320,018 2,421,897 21,933 99.10% Area Fire Service Fund 307,570 35,042 336,414 (28,844) 1 09.38% Recycling Fund 1 22,420 (15,660) 119,363 3,057 97.50% Liquor Fund 205,930 16,453 212,573 (6,643) 103.23% Water Fund 413,410 108,932 431,641 (18,231) 104.41% Sewer Fund 963,180 48,745 986,797 (23,617) 1 02.45% Cemetery Fund 5,570 193 3,911 1,659 70.22% Docks Fund 37,470 891 36,388 1,082 97.11% exp96 02/18/97 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT Jan. 1997 8.33% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non- Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments Jan. 1997 YTD BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE 1,266,46O 0 0 6,250 444 444 121,800 3,794 3,794 968,210 11,250 11,250 51,1 O0 1,172 1,1 72 65,000 0 0 43,300 190 190 43,500 0 0 10,000 728 728 PERCENT VARIANCE RECEIVED (1,266,460) 0.00% (5,806) 7.10% (118,006) 3.11% (956,960) 1.16% (49,928) 2.29% (65,ooo) 0.00% (43,11 O) 0.44% (43,500) 0.00% (9,272) 7.28% TOTAL REVENUE ' 2~575~620 17~578 17~578 (2,558.042) 0.68% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 336,020 61,393 108,320 4,942 1,525,000 104,268 430,000 34,289 880,000 97,691 4,100 0 73,800 13,414 61,393 (274,627) 18.27% 4,942 (103,378) 4.56% 104,268 (1,420,732) 6.84% 34,289 (395,711) 7.97% 97,691 (782,309) 11.10% 0 (4,100) 0.00% 13,414 (60,386) 18.18% 02/17/97 rev97 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT Jan. 1997 8.33% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Sum mer Recreation Contingencies Transfers Jan. 1997 BUDGET EXPENSE 69,370 4,000 8OO 193,470 2,100 59,480 168.960 23 550 114. 460 924 350 4 100 172 870 405 270 82.840 148 550 36,200 20,000 161,390 YTD EXPENSE VARIANCE 13,708 13,708 0 0 0 0 14,817 14,817 1,663 1,663 7 7 11,918 11,918 5,O36 5,O36 3,870 3,870 86,682 86,682 574 574 9,156 9,156 53,551 53,551 8,265 8,265 8,525 8,525 0 0 0 0 12,869 12,869 55,662 4,000 8OO 1 78,653 437 59,473 1 57 042 1 8 514 110 59O 837 668 3 526 163 714 351 71 9 74 575 140 025 36 200 20 000 1 48,521 PERCENT EXPENDED 19.76% 0.00% 0.00% 7.66% 79.19% 0.01% 7.05% 21.38% 3.38% 9.38% 14.00% 5.3O% 13.21% 9.98% 5.74% 0.00% 0.00% 7.97% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2,591,760 230,641 230 641 2,361,119 8.90% Area Fire Service Fund 336,020 21,298 21,298 314,722 6.34% Recycling Fund 118,950 14,333 14,333 104,617 12.05% Liquor Fund 289,020 24,866 24,866 264,154 8.60% Water Fund 429,300 20,590 20,590 408,710 4.80% Sewer Fund 1,020,460 119,632 119,632 900,828 11.72% Cemetery Fund 8,100 812 812 7,288 10.02% Docks Fund 68,440 429 429 68,011 0.63% exp95 02/17/97 G.B. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 1997 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Gerald Reifschneider, and Orv Burma; City Council Representative Mark Hanus; City Planner Mark Koegler; City Engineer John Cameron; Building Official Jon Sutherland; and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Becky Glister was absent and excused. The following people were also in attendance: Keith Jessen, Evaline Provence, Phillip A. Klein, Conrad Starr, Nancy Starr, Steve Behnke, Bert Haglund, Mark Thiede, Pam Myers, Vicki Hockert, Brian Schultz, and Mark Thiele, and one illegible name. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of January 13, 1997 were presented for approval. The following corrections were noted: Page 1, paragraph 'a.' change "mound" to "amount." Page 3, paragraph '7.' change "Parks" to "Parts" Page 5, paragraph 4 should read, "Clapsaddle commented that he would like to hold the owner responsible..." Page 7, 5th paragraph from the bottom, 2nd line, change "would be" to "could be." Page 7, 4th paragraph from the bottom, 2nd line, change "by" to "bought." MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of January 13, 1997 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. CASE 96-64: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT/PDA/VARIANCES "SETON BLUFF", FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, INC. LOTS 15 - 32, BLOCK 11, SETON, 19-117-23 22 0036-41 & 54 Chair Michael explained the public hearing procedures. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. Fine Line Design Group is seeking approvals for a Planned Development Area (PDA) on a 2.04 acre tract of land along a currently unimproved portion of Kildare Road. The physical conditions of the site and this area of Mound complicate development of the property. In lieu of a traditional platted lot approach which would result in driveway cuts and retaining walls for all of the lots in order to provide access to Kildare Road, the developers are proposing the project as a PDA which facilities the establishment of common areas including a common access drive serving all of the proposed homes. The common access drive also allows more control of storm water. The plan calls for the development of Kildare Road westward from Kerry Lane about 250 feet. Six of the proposed homes will be served by a common driveway, and two homes will have direct access to the cul-de-sac. Homeowner's association bylaws and covenants will apply to only the eastern six lots. Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February 10, 1997 ' - Items requiring Planning Commission action include approval of a PDA by Conditional Use Permit, Variances, and the Preliminary Plat. The PDA is being sought in order to establish the commons access drive and the commons green space areas that will be maintained by a homeowner's association. Koegler briefly reviewed the variances requested associated with the PDA. The street variances are as follows: Required Proposed Right-of-way width 50' 35' Cul-de-sac right-of-way (radius) 50' 40' Street paved width 28' 24' Variance 15' 10' 4' Koegler noted that there are various variances requested for lots 1-6, 8 & 9, including lot size, bluff setback, and side and front yard setbacks. The lot size variances relate to the type of development proposed because a significant amount of the site will be platted as an outlot. The total land area of the project lying above the flood elevation of 931.0 is 60,364 square feet. If the common areas were removed and the proposed lots were evenly split among the total site area, lot sizes would be 7,545 square feet. Impervious Surface coverage for the entire property is proposed to be 36.7% resulting in a variance request of 6.7%. The additional coverage is largely due to the expansive common driveway and guest parking area. The setback variances do not represent the tree structural setback situation. The Uniform Building Code requires that buildings be placed 3 feet from the side and rear lot lines unless the construction is fire rated. The developer has stated that it is his intent to observe the additional 3 foot setback from the side and front property lines resulting in 12 feet of separation between the actual housing units. A 6 foot setback (12 feet total) conforms to the lot of record setback for the R-lA zone but not the 10 foot setback required by the non-lot of record provisions. Koegler reviewed the density requirements in Section 350:460 of the City Code. This site area will accommodate 10 units under the PDA density provisions. However, since Seton Bluff is in the shoreland area, it also needs to be evaluated consistent with the shoreland density regulations in Section 350:1200 of the Code. The proposed density of 8 units exceeds the maximum of 6 units allowed by the ordinance. The shoreland ordinance does allow density bonuses, however, the proposed site plan does not qualify because the setbacks from the ordinary high water contour do not equal a minimum of 125 % of the required 50 foot setback. Therefore, a variance for the two units that exceed the density standard will need to be granted if the project is to proceed as planned. Koegler further reviewed tree preservation, landscaping, traffic, and wetland issues. RECOMMENDATION: The developers of Seton Bluff have designed the project that complies with most of the lot of record setback provisions of the Mound Zoning Code. The project, however, does not meet the non-lot of record provisions which apply in this case since 12 of the lots were combined in the past. In any PDA, trade-offs are involved. In this case, the major Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February 10, 1997 trade-off appears to be higher density than what is allowed by the shoreland ordinance and setback variances for a plan that handles storm drainage from the site in a more beneficial manner. The policy question that needs to be answered by the Planning Commission and City Council is whether or not this trade-off is equitable. After its deliberations, if the Planning Commission feels that it is equitable, the development could be approved with appropriate conditions. Alternatives to that approach include approval with modifications or denial. Koegler noted the suggested conditions for approval listed in his report. Koegler referred to the Engineer's report and noted that it contains further comments and recommendations. The Engineer recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to a number of conditions as outlined in the report. Applicant, Steve Behnke introduced himself as President of Fine Line Design Group, and addressed the planning report. Behnke noted that the street is proposed to developed as originally designed by the City Engineer in his street report which was done in December of 1995. Behnke emphasized the following: The average lot size is well over the 6,000 square foot minimum at 7,500 square feet when you take the common land and spread it out. Lot 8 is the smallest due to the cul-de-sac. Lots 8 and 9 are still lots of record and therefore are entitled up to 40% hardcover. 31 percent of this site is under water. 64% of the site is green space. The impervious coverage that is planned is designed to keep water out of the Kildare Road and Kerry Lane intersection. The arrangement of the proposed dwellings maintain the lines as originally platted. The private drive increases impervious cover, but also performs the function of decreasing run off onto Kildare. Current impervious surface calculations are with the driveways three car wide. If the driveways are reduced in size to two cars wide, the impervious coverage drops by 1%. If this property was developed with standard driveways extended from Kildare, impervious coverage would drop by only another 1%. The houses have been situated to create a detached townhome feeling with the grounds being maintained by an association. This is the same number of houses that would be allowed by the original plat and is 4/5 of what the density requirements would allow now. 3 ill I Ii i. ,~ Ill, ,J ~,I, Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February I0, 1997 '" Only lot 8 is not at 125% of the lake side setback. They have no problem installing over-story trees in certain locations, between lots 2 & 3, 4&5, and 6&8. The other islands contain services and over-story trees are not recommended over services. Behnke proceeded to address the conditions outlined in the Engineer's Memorandum, and made the following comments: All association land is held in common and is available for drainage and utility easements. The association also would control any construction within the common area. Lots 8 and 9 will have the drainage and utility easements added around the boundaries. The "no parking on the private drive" is acceptable to them. The parking area is not intended to be used for everyday parking, and therefore, would like to maintain the 16 foot wide width of the private drive. He also noted that 18 feet is the recommended maximum width for hardcover drives according to design standards. He does not feel it would be wise to shift the houses closer to the bluff as this would decrease the bluff setback and also add impervious surface by increasing the length of the driveways. He does not feel curb and gutter have a value at this point since the private drive will drain through the middle. During construction they will install silt fences and intend to control all run-off from the site. Watershed approval is being sought, but they will not review until there is preliminary approval from the City. Behnke explained the "rip rap basin" proposed at the bottom of the slope, and the catch basin manhole at the top. Visual aids were used to indicate that 40 % of the site currently drains down Kerry Lane, and after development only 10% will drain down Kerry. The 30% balance will go into the proposed catch basin. Visual aids were provided to show the types of homes to be constructed. The Commission discussed the steep grade of the proposed road and the steep grade of the existing Kildare Road extending to the east. Voss expressed a concerned with the silt/sand on Kerry Lane that washes down from Kildare, and noted that the amount of silt should be reduced with the development of this plan. Mueller questioned if the retaining wall proposed at the southeast corner of the development will be 16 feet tall. Behnke confirmed that the wall will be 15 to 16 feet tall and will have plantings on the top and bottom. Mueller noted that there will only be 3 feet between the wall and the Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February 10, 1997 . _ easement. Snow removal was discussed. Behnke noted that the association will handle the plowing and snow will be stored at the end of the cul-de-sac. The setbacks were reviewed. Behnke confirmed that decks will be within the footprint shown. Mueller expressed a concern about setting a precedent by approving the bluff setbacks. Koegler commented that you can argue all variances on a case by case basis, and noted that this is a difficult site due to the road and bluff, and analyzing the merits of this development, if the same conditions were present elsewhere, then maybe variances would need to be considered. Mueller questioned the ability to develop this property utilizing existing lot lines. Staff confirmed that these lots could not be developed until the street is improved and utilities are extended. Mueller questioned if there are any other developmems that have been approved that have no direct access from a public road. Koegler noted that there are townhouses by the bridge on Bartlett that may be similar, but this may be the first, and explained that this configuration was the product of a lot of discussion in order to control the grade. Mueller asked if the City is required to allow people to build on lots just because they're platted. Koegler noted that there would be cases where the property could not be developed. Clapsaddle commented that it is bad to assume that the structures will not be built closer than 3 feet to the property line and suggested that the plat just show 6 feet. Clapsaddle expressed a concern about outside storage of recreational vehicles. Behnke noted that the association rules will require they be parked inside the garages and that no outside storage will be allowed. Behnke would not object if this were a requirement of the PDA. Hanus asked Koegler to explain the confusion with the DNR relating to the delineation of a bluff. Koegler explained, and noted the end result is that the drawing does conform to the definition. The density variance was reviewed. Koegler noted that this development does meet the overall density requirements and it does comply with the underlying 6,000 square foot lot area requirement. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Steve Grand expressed concerns with the developmem and drainage in the area. At the end of his driveway on Kerry Lane there is a dip in the road and this is were most of the sand and silt from Kildare Road settles. His neighbor's property across the street also gets silt in from of her house. Also, the corner of her lot was destroyed by during construction of the new houses on Kildare. Grand is concerned about loss of view towards the lake, he will not be able to see between the houses because they will be so close together. He has great concerns about drainage and aesthetics. Grand explained that when they built the existing houses on Kildare they Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February ]0, ]997 ' ' removed all the trees on the lot and everything was a muddy mess. All the erosion eventually goes into Black Lake. At the request of the Chair, City Engineer, John Cameron explained that less drainage will go towards Kerry Lane with the proposed plan. Voss questioned how many houses could be constructed on this property if it were not replatted. Koegler stated that the way the property is currently platted, the one parcel would need to be divided and there are three lots at the end, but street access would need to be provided, so he would estimate about 5 or 6 units with driveway access directly of Kildare could be constructed. Behnke commented that utilizing the property as lots-of-record, he believes 9 units could be constructed. Grand stated that he does not want a worse problem, and there is no drainage problem from that property now, but when the road is developed there will be. Vicki Hockert, owner of the house across the street from Steve Grand stated that during the construction of the two new homes across the street from her, the corner of her lot was destroyed by trucks and construction equipment. There was a tremendous amount of dirt and erosion running onto her property. She expressed a concern about increased traffic as a result of this development. She feels the proposal is for too many homes in too little of an area. Vicki asked who is responsible for damage done to her property. Behnke confirmed that until the Kildare Road improvements are done, there will be construction equipment in the intersection of Kerry and Kildare. Sutherland commented that he had a problem with Brenshel Homes in controlling the erosion during construction the houses on Kildare, but with a new development such as what is proposed the City will have a development contract and a financial guarantee to better control these types of issues. The radius of the corners from Kerry to Kildare was reviewed. Grand agreed that he would rather see a rounder comer rather than seeing people bounce over the curb and ruining his yard. Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Clapsaddle asked staff how this project will affect the intersection and asked what is the solution. Cameron explained that the radius of the comer on Kerry and Kildare is currently 5 feet which is the result of improving a 28' wide street in a 30' wide platted right-of-way. When these streets were improved they had to get easements from owners for the corners of their properties. Vicki's property corner is in the street. Behnke stated that no parking will be allowed on Kildare Road due to the narrow width, which is why guest parking was proposed in the private drive. Behnke stated that with the additional 4 feet of right-of-way on the south side, they could have a 9 foot radius, and if Grand donated an easement the radius could be even bigger. 6 Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February 10, 1997 .. Erosion control during the project was further discussed. Behnke noted that the excavator who worked with Brenshel during the construction of the existing homes is no longer working with Brenshel. The width of the driveway and parking stalls was reviewed. Cameron noted that the reason he is recommending curbing on the south side of the common driveway is to protect the easement area from cars parking on it and to assist with drainage. The requirement for a guardrail at the top of the 16 foot high retaining wall was discussed. Sutherland, noted that the building code does not require a guardrail. Behnke stated that he would accept a condition requiring a hedge on the top of the wall. MOTION by Voss to recommend denial of the Seton Bluff PDA. Seconded by Mueller. Reasons for denial is that the p:'oject is too dense, there are topographical problems, drainage issues, and too many houses are proposed for this property. Mueller commented that they are pushing the envelope in every perspective. There are setback variances, bluff setback variances, and hardcover variances and this is because they are pushing the envelope. The DNR allows six houses in the first tier, and if only six houses were proposed the variances would go away and the houses would not be so narrow. Mueller feels they have to look out for the good of the community and for the future residents of this development. Clapsaddle feels that the parking and private drive does not work. He does not totally agree with Mueller, but does agree that the project is too dense. Motion to deny carried 7 to 1. Those in favor of denial were: Burma, Reifschneider, Weiland, Hanus, Voss and Mueller. opposed. Clapsaddle, Michael was This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 4, 1997. CASE 97-05: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION PHILLIP A. KLEIN, 5010 WOODLAND ROAD LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, 13-117-24 11 0146 The applicant is seeking a setback variance of 15.5 feet to the required 30 foot front yard setback to the east in order to allow construction of a 22' x 16' two story addition with a 9' x 7' entry. This property is located in the Rol single family residential zoning district and is a unique site in that it has street frontage on three sides. A 30 foot setback is required to Woodland Road to the south, and to Heron Lane that wraps around on the east and the north yards. A side yard setback of 10 feet is required to the west. The existing dwelling was constructed in 1994 and is conforming to the zoning ordinance. 7 Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February 10, 1997 ' - The criteria for granting variances requires that in order to grant a variance a finding of hardship or practical difficulty must be made and also that specific circumstances exist as outlined in Section 350:530. In this case staff cannot support a finding of hardship as there are other options available to the applicant such as moving the addition to a conforming location on this site or relocation to another site that can accommodate their needs for additional space. If the Planning Commission concurs with this finding a recommendation for denial should be made. When reviewing past variance cases with respect to corner lots there has been discussion that comer lots are an issue that may deserve further study and that in some cases the ordinance provisions result in a minimal buildable footprint when applied to corner lots. In this case, the applicant was able to construct a suitable dwelling to meet their needs in 1994 without the issuance of any variances Staff recommended the Planning Commission consider the application of the corner lot provisions of the ordinance as they apply to this parcel and determine if issues of practical difficulty can be found that result in an unreasonable buildable footprint. If issues of practical difficulty cannot be identified, a recommendation for denial should be made based on lack of hardship. Weiland questioned if this is going to be a "mother-in-law" apartment. Sutherland confirmed that it appears so, and that this use is permitted as long as there is no identifiable separation between the living areas and there is no locked door between the units and the house resembles a single family dwelling in all aspects. The Commission discussed other possible locations for the addition and poor soil conditions on the site. Applicant, Phil Klein explained that the worst soil is to the rear of the house which is the only area where the addition could be put and still meet setbacks. He has also done a lot of landscaping in the back yard with boulder walls and does not want to disturb it. He will have to tear out one wall to build it where it is proposed, but he will not lose any trees. He stated it would be a hardship to construct the addition in any other location. This is the most architecturally appealing proposal that would accommodate his needs for his family to have his mother in the house to help raise their children. He commented that there are many other nonconforming structures in his neighborhood. The addition will be 22 feet from the edge of the road as there is a 7 foot boulevard. Klein commented that topography of the lot is also a reason to allow the addition where proposed so the basement can have windows. Hanus clarified with the applicant that the elevations noted on the survey do not reflect what is existing. Clapsaddle suggested that the addition be located at the northwest corner of the house, it is difficult to find hardship in this case, and feels that the addition in the location which is proposed would visually plug up the neighborhood area of Heron lane. Clapsaddle feels there are other options available. Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February 10, 1997 "- MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Burma to recommend denial of the variance as requested. Klein questioned the definition of a "hardship." Koegler stated that there is a definition in the State Statutes, however, the closest reference to "hardship in the zoning ordinance is reflected in the Variance Provisions, Section 350:53, Subd. 1. A. "Exception or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of this Ordinance have no control." Koegler summarized, if there is no alternative, or if a variance is driven by topography, then there may be grounds for hardship. The practical difficulty rule is far more subjective. Mueller suggested a finding for denial is that the dwelling was constructed in 1994 and is conforming and there is an alternative location for the addition. Burma commented that often they have been more lenient with comer lots, but there does appear to be an alternative here and it does not appear that every avenue has been explored to seek conformity. MOTION to deny carried unanimously. Hanus explained to the applicant that he has .the option to withdraw his request and re-work his proposal before it is formally acted on by the Council. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February 25, 1997. CASE 97-06: MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE FOR ADDITION CONRAD & NANCY STAP, R, 3152 & 3136 ALEXANDER LANE LOTS 17-21 & 1/2 OF 22, BLOCK 6, ARDEN, 24-117-24 44 0068 & 69 The applicant is seeking a Minor Subdivision in order to remove an encroachment of their existing detached garage. A variance is also requested to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback to the same detached garage of 15.13 feet to the required 30 foot setback. The proposal includes construction of a second story addition on both the house and the garage. Both parcels are conforming to lot area. The existing garage on Parcel A is constructed of masonry and is in need of structural repairs. The encroachment into the front yard is in excess of the minimum setback allowed by the recent streamlining provisions which would be 22.5 feet. In addition, there is a shed in the rear yard that does not meet the minimum 4 foot setback to the rear lot line. The owners have stated they will remove the shed. If the existing garage is removed there is enough lot area and buildable footprint for a new garage in a conforming location without the need for a subdivision. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request due to lack of hardship and due to the fact that the nonconforming garage is dilapidated and could be Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February I0, 1997 .. removed and replaced with a conforming structure. Staff recommended approval of the subdivision based on the fact that all issues are conforming, however it is questionable if it is necessary without approval of the variance. The Planning Commission may wish to consider approval of a variance that would allow the applicant to construct the addition onto the dwelling subject to an agreement suitable to the city attorney to remove the encroachment of the garage within one year. Sutherland further commented on the condition of the garage. He does not know what type of foundation the garage has, it is constructed of masonry so it does not take very well to shifting well, and it needs some structural repair. The applicant stated that the garage has a new roof, a new wall on one side, and new windows. They feel the garage is in better condition that the house. They are using the garage to store their possessions until they can finish the house. The garage has existed in that location for 56 years, and it will be nonconforming only to the street setback, and they would like to keep it. Weiland suggested that they could keep the garage for one year until they finish the house. Sutherland commented that staff would be in favor of extending the amortization period to two years. Hanus explained to the applicant that the City could draft a temporary easement that will allow the City to access the property to remove the garage if the owner does not remove it, and then they will assess the charges to the property. Clapsaddle commented that the garage is not in good shape. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of a variance to allow the garage to remain for three years. The subdivision is not part of this approval as removal of the garage makes it unnecessary. Motion carried unanimously. T~s case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February 25, 1997. CASE 97-07: PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING AMENDMENT TO ADD "PUBLIC AND PRIVAGE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES" IN THE R-1 ZONE BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS CASE 97-08: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT "PUBLIC SCHOOL & ADMIN. OFFICES" & "LICENSED DAYCARE & PRESCHOOL (13 OR MORE)" IN THE R-1 ZONE AT 2450 WILSHIRE BLVD., 24-117-24 12 0059 WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS (SHIRLEY HILLS PRIMARY) City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the staff reports for both the zoning amendment and the conditional use permit application l0 Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February 10, 1997 ZONING AMENDMENT: Westonka Public Schools is seeking a conditional use permit to construct an addition to the Shirley Hills School to house district offices and space for programs. The zoning ordinance currently allows "Public and Private Schools" as a conditional use in residential zones. Westonka Schools is requesting that the code be amended to allow "public and Private Schools and School Administrative Offices" as a conditional use in the R-1 zone. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed zoning text amendment that will place "Public and Private Schools and School Administrative Offices" as a listing in the chart found in Section 350:640 of the Mound Zoning Code under R-1 for Non- shore, G.D., and R.D. zoning classifications. Such a modification is consistent with a change in conditions in the City. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Westonka Public Schools is seeking a conditional use permit to construct an addition to the Shirley Hills School to house district offices and space for school related programs. The proposal includes a building addition of 29,242 square feet which will house offices for the school district and classroom space for a variety of educational uses including a preschool program. The proposed conditional use permit will also need to include the preschool since "Licensed Daycare and Preschool (13 or more)" is listed as a conditional use in the R-1 zone. In addition to the building addition, construction will also involve a parking lot, playground area, landscaping improvements and supporting utilities. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a conditional use permit for Westonka Public Schools to establish a "public school and administrative offices" and a "preschool serving more than 13 students" at the Shirley Hills Primary School site subject to the following conditions: Plans stamped "Received January 23, 1997, Mound Planning & Insp." including sheets CUP1 through CUP8 are incorporated into the conditional use permit approval. 2. Proposed signage shall comply with the Mound Sign Ordinance. 3. Grading and drainage plans shall require Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. The applicant shall supply a detail of the domestic and fire protection water service(s) to the new building addition which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and/or Fire Marshall. Erosion control fencing shall be extended along Wilshire Blvd. up to the south leg of the existing loop entrance drive. If a temporary entrance is established during construction, such entrance shall be surfaced with rock. ,t~ iii I I i ,,It ll~ ,11 ~,i, Ii, ~1 Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February 10, 1997 Weiland expressed a concern about the amount of property required for the number of students for open space and play area. He remembers that this was an issue in the past when improvements were proposed on school property. It has something to do with qualifying for State aid. Bert Haglund of TSP/EOS Architects stated that this plan will also require approval from the state, and this site does conform to the required number of acres for a school. He is not aware of any certain requirements in the planning guidelines relating to a required area for play per student. He would be comfortable with an additional condition that requires that the State also approve of the plan. Reifschneider questioned the uses proposed for the addition. Haglund summarized that the addition will house childhood programs for about 75 toddlers and preschool aged children who will be transported to the site by bus and cars. The increase in traffic flow was discussed. Reifschneider asked if there were any plans to relocate the tennis courts. Haglund related that the School Board saw no need to replace the tennis courts. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There being nobody present to speak on the issue, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the zoning ordinance amendment to allow for "Public and Private School and Administrative Offices" by conditional use permit in the R-1 zoning district. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Michael, Voss, Burma, Hanus, and Mueller. Weiland and Reifschneider were opposed. Weiland commented that there are too many things that need to be looked into yet. Reifschneider commented that he is not in favor of increased traffic as a result of allowing school administrative offices in the R-1 zone. The Commission continued discussion relating to the Conditional Use Permit. Mueller asked the architect representing the school district why they decided on the location as proposed. Haglund explained that they looked at all sides of the building as possibilities. Mueller expressed a concern about adding more parking when they already have a large parking lot that is under-utilized. Haglund explained that they are really only adding 45-50 additional spaces because the existing parking area will be covered by the addition or used as a hard surface play area. They have determined that they need 80 parking spaces to serve the uses proposed for this wing. Mueller expressed a concern with the location of the addition because of how it affects the adjacent neighborhood area. He feels the impact of the uses proposed for this addition should be toward other similar uses, such as on the north side of the site by the church and other businesses. 12 Planning Co~nmission Minutes ................................. February 10, 1997 ' - Hanus moved to extend the meeting 15 minutes past 11:00. Voss seconded the Motion. Motion carried unanimously. Voss expressed a concern about increased traffic in the R-1 zone and feels it will be difficult for people coming southbound on Wilshire to enter the parking lot where it is proposed. Weiland expressed a concern about how the increased traffic may affect the fire department. Haglund noted that the fire department has reviewed the plans. The City Engineer commented that Wilshire is a State aid road and met the standards when it was constructed in the 60's, but he will have to confirm if it meets current standards. Dr. Pam Myers, Superintendent of the Westonka School District, explained what school related programs are proposed to be moved from the current site to this new site. The lower level will contain the early childhood and preschool programs. The second floor will accommodate the community services staff, district offices, special services, and adult basic education. The only school related program that is not being transferred to this site is the alternative program because the school board did not feel this program should be in the same building with primary school age students. Myers explained the reason they chose this location on the site was that busing for the preschool children and primary school children can be kept separate. Mueller stated that he agrees with using this site for this use, however, does not necessarily agree with the location chosen on the site because existing green space will be taken away, there are existing parking lots that are under-utilized, and the increase of traffic is not conducive to the adjacent neighborhoods. Clapsaddle commented that he also shares some of these concerns. Myers emphasized the need to keep the bus traffic and drop off area separate from the existing primary school, and the need to have the play area close to the early childhood center. None of the other locations examined as an option on this site provided a solution for both these needs. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the conditional use permit as recommended by staff. Weiland expressed a concern that the proposed free standing sign will require a variances as it will be a second free standing sign for the site. Koegler stated that he feels it is reasonable to allow two free standing signs on this site due to the size of the property and the amount of street frontage and the fact that there will be two uses on the site. Mueller moved to extend the meeting for 15 more minutes. Clapsaddle. Carried unanimously. Seconded by 13 Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February 10, 1997 Weiland suggested that the maker of the motion accept a friendly amendment to add a condition to the motion as #7 to check into the conformance of Wilshire Blvd. to state-aid requirements, and that condition #2 be amended to read as follows: "Proposed signage shall .... .......... ~ ............. be approved as detailed on sheet CUP5 of the plans submitted." Voss, maker of the motion, and Clapsaddle who seconded the motion, accepted the amendments as suggested by Weiland. Mueller commented that he cannot support the motion because he would rather see the addition on the north east side of the existing building. Voss commented, as maker of the motion, that he agrees with Mueller and would like these issues addressed and feels there could be a better utilization of the property, however, is generally in favor of the expansion. MOTION failed 4 to 4. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Burma, Voss and Hanus. Those opposed were: Reifschneider, Weiland, Michael, and Mueller. Michael commented that he is not sure this is the best utilization of the land. Reifschneider commented that he is opposed to the location. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend this case be tabled until the February 24, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Hanus suggested that the school bring the old drawings to the next meeting which shows the expansion on the north east side of the building. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Weiland requested that they continue this item to the February 24th meeting. DOWNTOWN PLAN Clapsaddle commented, that the sale of the Community Center property potentially affects the downtown plan, and hopes the City will look closer at the master plan to the north of the new main street and start including some thought to the rest of the downtown. 14 Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February 10, 1997 -- ADJOURNMENT MOTION made by Voss seconded by Reifschneider to adjourn the meeting at 11:31 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: Smith Pa a professional limited liability partnership rke 1997 Louis N, Smith Andrew D. Parker Thomas C. Mielenhausen Steven L. Freeman Waverley Eby Booth Matthew E. Johnson February13,1997 Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Economic Development Coordinator City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Re: MCWD Permit Application No. 96-280, City of Mound Dear Mr. Chamberlain: Enclosed please find a copy of the draft Resolution of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Board of Managers regarding permit application 96-280, City of Mound. The draft Resolution has not been approved by the Board of Managers. The Board of Managers will be reviewing and voting on the final Resolution at its regularly scheduled Board meeting of February 27, 1997. At that time, the Board may approve the Resolution as written or amend it. As established by the Board at its February 6, 1997 meeting, written submissions regarding the permit application and comments on the draft Resolution will be accepted through 4:30 p.m. on February 20, 1997. Any submissions to the Board should also be copied to Thomas Casey, attorney for the Intervener. Very truly yours, Louis N. Smith Enclosure cc: MCWD Board of Managers Thomas Casey 808 Colwell Building . .I,23 North Third Street ~neapolis, MN 5540 I Telephone: 612.344.1400 Facsimile: 612.344.1550 E-mall:' admin@smithporker, com Smith Parker o pro£ess:cnal limaed ~abllity par~ne,sh~l) Louis N. Smith Andrew D. Parker Thomas C. Mielenhausen Steven L Freeman Waverley Eby Booth Matthew E. Johnson February 13, 1997 Mr. Thomas Casey 9854 Cambridge Lane Mound, MN 55364 Re: MCWD Permit Application No. 96-280, City of Mound Dear Mr. Casey: Enclosed please find a copy of the draft Resolution of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Board of Managers regarding permit application 96-280, City of Mound. The draft Resolution has not been approved by the Board of Managers. The Board of Managers will be reviewing and voting on the final Resolution at its regularly scheduled Board meeting of February 27, 1997. At that time, the Board may approve the Resolution as written or amend it. As established by the Board at its February 6, 1997 meeting, written submissions regarding the permit application and comments on the draft Resolution will be accepted through 4:30 p.m. on February 20, 1997. Any submissions to the Board should also be copied to Bruce Chamberlain, the permit applicant' s representative. Very truly yours, Louis N. Smith Enclosure cc: MCWD Board of Managers ~ Bruce Chamberlain, City of MoundJ 808 Colwell Building 123 North Third Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: 612.344.1400 Facsimile: 612.344.1550 E-mail_: ,admin@smithparker. com Smith Pa o professional '~n'~:ed ,~iabd~ty rker MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Interested Parties Louis N. Smith, District Counsel~ Draft Resolution Regarding Permit Application 96-280 City of Mound February 13, 1997 Attached please find a copy of the draft Resolution of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Board of Managers regarding permit application 96-280, City of Mound. This draft Resolution has not been approved by the Board of Managers. The Board of Managers will be reviewing and voting on the final Resolution at its regularly scheduled Board meeting of February 27, 1997. At that time, the Board may approve the Resolution as written or amend it. As established by the Board at its February 6, 1997 meeting, written submissions regarding the permit application will be accepted through 4:30 p.m. on February 20, 1997. Submissions should be directed to each of the following parties: Eugene Strommen Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Gray Freshwater Center 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Bruce Chamberlain Economic Development Coordinator City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Thomas Casey Attorney for the Intervener 9854 Cambridge Lane Mound, MN 55364 2/13/9 7 Draft MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS RESOLUTION GRANTING PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER 96-280, CITY OF MOUND February __., 1997 Manager moved, seconded by Manager ., that the following Resolution be adopted by the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District: I. FINDINGS 1. On December 19, 1996, the City of Mound submitted a permit application to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for certain activities to take place in and around Lost Lake, a DNR public water wetland. Lost Lake is below the ordinary high water mark of Lake Minnetonka as established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2. The permit application was assigned permit application number 96-280 and placed on the agenda for the January 23, 1997 MCWD Board of Managers meeting, the first meeting for which the permit application was eligible for review. 3. Prior to receipt of the permit application, the MCWD had met with the City of Mound on numerous occasions to discuss the proposed project and the requirements of the MCWD Rules. The MCWD also reviewed the environmental assessment worksheet performed for the project and provided comments on the worksheet. 4. The specifics of the project are contained in the permit application, which is part of the record before the MCWD and upon which the MCWD's decision is based. The project involves several activities which are regulated by the MCWD pursuant to its rules. 5. The project involves dredging in a historic channel that connects the City of Mound's property to Cook's Bay of Lake Minnetonka. The original channel width was 30 feet. The Applicant proposed dredging the channel to a width of 70 feet, one-half mile long, with proposed side slopes at a 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) ratio. Dredging is regulated pursuant to MCWD Rule E. 6. The project involves the installation of a seawall and riprap. These activities are regulated pursuant to MCWD Rule F. 7. The project involves placement of structures around the perimeter of Lost Lake. These activities are regulated pursuant to MCWD Rule D. 8. On January 21, 1997, the MCWD received a Notice of Intervention to intervene in the permitting proceeding and Memorandum in Support of the Notice of Intervention from John Edewaard. 2/13/97 Draft 9. At the Board meeting of January 12, 1997, the MCWD Board of Managers voted to table the permit application pending review of the Notice of Inter~'ention and supporting documents by each Manager and District Counsel. The Board then voted to continue the Board meeting to February 6, 1997. 10. At the February 6, 1997 MCWD Board meeting, after receiving comments from interested individuals, the Board voted to grant the permit application with conditions and direct District Counsel to prepare draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions. 11. At the resolution. ,1997 MCWD Board meeting, the MCWD voted to approve this A. DNR General Permit 95-6140 12. The MCWD is not reviewing the City of Mound's permit application under its general permit with the DNR, general permit 95-6140. 13. The DNR general permit allows the MCWD to issue a permit for certain types of activity without the permit applicant also obtaining a permit from the DNR. The MCWD can issue permits under the DNR general permit for, among other things, riprap, retaining walls, and excavation for navigation. 14. The MCWD will not be permitting the City of Mound's project under the DNR general permit because the DNR has exercised its right pursuant to special provision 5 of the general permit to require a separate individual permit for the project. B. MCWD Rule C - Floodplain Alteration 15. The MCWD regulates activities taking place in a floodplain pursuant to MCWD Rule C. Rule C requires that floodplain filling "shall not cause a net decrease in flood storage capacity below the projected 100-year flood elevation unless it is shown that the proposed filling, together with the filling of all other properties on the affected reach of the waterbody to the same degree of encroachment as proposed by the applicant, will not cause high water or aggravate flooding on other properties and will not unduly restrict flood flows." 16. The permit application meets the requirements of MCWD Rule C because the record before the Board establishes that the project will actually increase flood storage capacity in the area. C. MCWD Rule D - Wetland Protection 17. The MCWD regulates wetlands pursuant to Rule D - Wetland Protection. Rule D primarily regulates wetlands regulated under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA wetlands). While the MCWD does not regulate work in DNR protected water wetlands, the MCWD does 2 2/13/97 Draft regulate activities surrounding DNR protected water wetlands by requiring that those activities not take place within a certain area around the wetland. This is the buffer zone requirement. 18. Rule D provides that a buffer zone of 35 feet be maintained around a wetland that is larger than five (5) acres, such as Lost Lake. A buffer zone is defined in the MCWD rules as "an area of native, unmaintained, vegetated groundcover abutting or surrounding a wetland." Activities such as mowing, disposal of yard waste and fertilizer application are not allowed within the buffer zone. 19. The record indicates that certain aspects of the project as proposed will take place within the 35 foot buffer zone around the perimeter of the wetland. The record also indicates that the project involves creation of significant wetland revegetation areas and other green buffer areas which do not exist today. These buffers are significantly wider in areas than the 35 feet required by the rule. 20. Because a 35 foot buffer will not be maintained around the entire wetland, a variance is required. MCWD Rule I governs issuance of a variance. 21. In this case, a variance is wan'anted. Special conditions apply to this property that do not generally apply to other land or structures in the District. The area around the wetland is public land that will be used as parkland. Construction of a "floating" boardwalk around the perimeter of the wetland which will serve as an educational tool on wetlands is a condition unique to this project. The use of the site for public enjoyment and education is unique to this site. 22. The granting of the variance is not merely a convenience to the applicant. The applicant has made significant efforts to minimize the activities around the wetland and has provided for extensive revegetation around portions of the wetland and a green buffer around other parts of the wetland. A buffer zone does not currently exist around the wetland. Granting of the variance is necessary to allow the applicant access to the docks. 23. Granting the variance is not contrary to the intent of the rules. The intent of Rule D is to provide protection for wetlands and DNR protected water wetlands. The extensive revegetation proposed by the applicant around a portion of the perimeter of the wetland combined with the use of a green buffer around an additional portion of the wetland and the use of curbed gutters around the parking area will minimize the impact of upland activities on the wetland while allowing access to the docks. D. MCWD Rule E - Dredging 24. The MCWD regulates dredging pursuant to MCWD Rule E. Rule E sets out four (4) circumstances where dredging will be permitted and five (5) circumstances where dredging will not be permitted. Rule E also sets out general standards that apply to dredging. The MCWD finds that the project complies with the terms of MCWD Rule E. 2/13/9 7 Draft 1. Compliance with Rule E ¶ 4 (a)(2) 25. Paragraph 4(a)(2) of Rule E provides that dredging will be permitted "[t]o implement or maintain an existing legal right of navigational access." "Riparian rights" are certain rights enjoyed by owners of land abutting waterbodies. 26. The City of Mound owns land surrounding Lost Lake. Lost Lake is entirely located below the ordinary high water mark of Lake Minnetonka, and therefore considered part of Lake Minnetonka. As a result, the City of Mound has a riparian right of navigational access to Lake Minnetonka. 27. The exercise of riparian rights is not unrestricted, but rather is subject to regulation in the public interest. 28. The MCWD finds that the City of Mound has an existing legal right of navigational access and the dredging is necessary to implement or maintain that legal right. 29. The MCWD has consistently allowed riparian owners to use dredging to accomplish access only if other means of access are not available. Both MCWD Rule E and the Lake Minnetonka Dredging Joint Policy Statement entered into between the MCWD, DNR, and LMCD, require that dredging be the "minimal impact" solution to achieving navigational access. This requirement is also reflected in DNR's rules regulating dredging in public water wetlands. Minn. R. 6115.0201, Subp. 4 (1995). 30. Intervener claims there is no need to dredge to obtain access because the land has access to the Bay via canoes and kayaks. The MCWD and DNR have consistently applied the depth requirements set forth in the Lake Minnetonka Dredging Joint Policy Statement to establish what constitutes "navigational access" on Lake Minnetonka. Pursuant to the Policy Statement and MCWD practice, an appropriate dredging depth for multiple-user channels is five (5) feet or less. As a result, the MCWD has consistently determined that "navigational access" for a multiple- user channel is a channel with a depth of five feet. The record establishes that the City proposes to dredge to a depth of five feet. 31. Because the MCWD finds that the City of Mound has an existing legal right of navigational access and the dredging is necessary to implement or maintain that legal right, the dredging meets the requirements of MCWD Rule E ¶ 4(a)(2) and a permit may be issued. 2. Compliance with MCWD Rule E ¶ 4(a)(1) 32. The MCWD also finds that a permit for the project may also be issued under MCWD Rule E ¶ 4(a)(1 ) with a variance allowing the dredging to exceed the original channel width. 33. Paragraph 4(a)(1) provides that dredging may be permitted "[t]o maintain, or remove sediment from, an existing public or private channel, that does not exceed the originally permitted requirements." In order to issue a permit under this section, it must be established that: 4 2/13/9 7 Draft a. there is an existing channel; b. the dredging is for the purpose of maintaining or removing sediment from the channel; and c. the maintenance does not exceed the originally permitted requirements. 34. The MCWD finds that the first condition is met because a channel through Lost Lake currently exists. 35. The MCAT) finds that the second condition is met because the proposed dredging is for the purpose of removing sediment from the channel. 36. The MCWD finds that the third condition is not met because the dredging will exceed the historical dimensions, but that a variance is wan'anted to allow dredging to the proposed dimensions. 37. The record establishes that the original channel was 30 feet wide. The channel is proposed to be dredged to a width of 70 feet. As a result, a variance is required. MCWD Rule I governs issuance of a variance. 38. In this case, a variance is warranted. Special conditions apply to this property that do not generally apply to other land or structures in the District. The granting of the variance is not merely a convenience to the applicant. The applicant originally requested permission to dredge the channel to a width of 50 feet with three boat pull-out areas. The MCWD in conjunction with the DNR proposed the wider channel in order to reduce the frequency of maintenance dredging and, as a result, reduce the frequency of disruption of the wetland and wildlife. 39. Granting the variance is not contrary to the intent of the rules. The intent of Rule E is to provide for sound and responsible dredging that provides the minimal impact solution for reasonable navigational access. The increase in the width of the channel promotes sound dredging and the objectives of the rules in that the wider width allows for safe passage of boat traffic in both directions and requires less frequent maintenance dredging, thereby resulting in the minimum impact solution. 40. Because the project meets the criteria for a variance set out in MCWD Rule I, the MCWD finds that granting of a variance for the wider channel width is appropriate. 41. The fact that a permit was not issued by a government agency to construct the original channel does not mean that the channel cannot be maintained. The MCWD has interpreted this language to mean "historic channel" in cases where the original channel was dredged prior to any dredging regulation. The language "does not exceed the originally permitted requirements" sets limits on the extent of the dredging, not on the types of channels that can be dredged. The intent of the provision was to "grandfather" in channels that were dredged prior to imposition of the rule. The rule provided for a grandfather clause in part because of the history of the creation of Lake Minnetonka. Lake Minnetonka was created by the dredging of channels between many 2/13/9 7 Draft small lakes to create one large lake. The rule is intended to recognize that those channels and others that were created prior to implementation of Rule E can be maintained as originally constructed. 42. The MCWD finds that the project meets the requirements of MCWD Rule E ¶ 4(a)(1) and a variance is warranted. 3. The dredging is not prohibited under MCWD Rule E ¶ 4(b) 43. In addition to establishing circumstances where dredging may be permitted, Rule E also established certain situations where dredging will not be allowed. The MCWD finds that the project is not prohibited under MCWD Rule E. 44. Paragraph 4(b) provides that dredging will not be allowed: 3 4. 5. Above the ordinary high water level or into the upland adjacent to the lake or watercourse; Which would enlarge a natural watercourse landward or which would create a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas for navigational purposes; Where the dredging will alter the natural shoreline of a lake; Where the dredging might cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage; or Where any portion of the dredged area contains any slope steeper than 3:1 in a marina or channel, or steeper than 10 to 1 for an area adjoining residential lakeshore. 45. Rule E also provides that, if a dredging proposal falls under category 1, 2 or 3, the dredging may be allowed if the project complies with applicable DNR rules. MCWD Rule E, 4(c). a. Dredging above the ordinary high water level or into the upland adjacent to the lake or watercourse 46. The MCWD finds that the dredging will occur in an upland areas adjacent to the lake but that this dredging will be allowed if approved by the DNR. As a result, the permit will not be issued until the DNR approves the project. 47. The record indicates that dredging would occur in upland adjacent to the watercourse. The City of Mound has proposed to dredge upland in a small area at the north end of the channel to create the turn-around area. The record indicates that this area was at one time part of the channel but was subsequently filled. 2/13/9 7 Draft b. Dredging which would enlarge a natural watercourse landward or which would create a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas for navieational purposes 48. The record indicates that the project as proposed by the City of Mound would enlarge a natural watercourse, Lake Minnetonka, landward. The City of Mound has proposed to dredge landward in a small area at the north end of the channel to create the turn-around area. The record indicates that this area was at one time part of the channel but was subsequently filled. 49. The MCWD finds that the dredging would enlarge a natural watercourse, Lake Minnetonka, landward but that this dredging will be allowed if approved by the DNR. As a result, the permit will not be issued until the DNR approves the project. c. Where dredging might cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage 50. The MCWD finds that the dredging will not cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage and, as a result, the dredging is not prohibited under this section. 51. The record contains the profession opinion of the District Engineer that the dredging will not cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage. The District Engineer's opinion was based on, among other things, the geotechnical evaluation completed for the project and also contained in the record. d. Dredged area contains any slope steeper than 3:1 in a marina or channel, or steeper than 10 to 1 for an area adjoining residential lakeshore. 52. The MCWD finds that the slope will not be steeper than allowed by MCWD Rule E and, as a result, the dredging is not prohibited under the rule. 53. The record indicates that the slope will be 5:1. 4. The Project meets the general standards for dredging and the required exhibits have been provided to the MCWD 54. The MCWD finds that the project meets the general standards for dredging and that the required exhibitS have been provided to the MCWD. 55. MCWD Rule E requires that all dredging comply with the following standards: The spoil disposal site must be identified and found not to be below the OHW of a public water or public water wetland, wetland subject to the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, or floodplain and not prone to erosion. In cases of an identifiable source of sedimentation under the control of the applicant, the plan shall include remedial action to minimize deposition of sediment into a waterbody or off-site. 7 2/13/97 Draft o Prior to review by the District, all dredging proposals that involve docking shall be submitted to and approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and, in the case of Lake Minnetonka, by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. The proposed project shall represent the "minimal impact" solution to a specific need with respect to all other reasonable alternatives such as dock extensions, aquatic nuisance plant removal without dredging beach sandblankets, excavation above the bed of public water, less extensive dredging in another area of the public water, or management of an alternative water body for the intended purpose. The dredging shall be limited to the minimum dimensions necessary for achieving the stated purpose (Reference DNR General Permit 95-6150, "Excavation for Navigation," ¶ 5). If the dredging will be accomplished by means of hydraulic dredging, additional conditions must be met. a. Identification of the spoil disposal site 56. A spoil disposal site has not been identified for the project. It is common for municipalities to seek permits before a construction contract has been let. Most construction contracts provide that the contractor is responsible for proper disposal of materials. 57. It is appropriate and consistent with the MCWD's past permitting experiences to approve the permit application conditioned upon the project receiving a Spoil Disposal Site (SDS) permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 58. As a result, the MCWD finds that the permit may be issued with the condition that the project receive a SDS permit from the MPCA. b. Minimization of sources of sedimentation 59. The MCWD finds that there are no significant sources of sediment under the control of the City and that the project does include activities designed to reduce sedimentation into the channel and wetland. 60. The rule requires that, prior to allowing dredging, an applicant must establish that sources of sediment under the control of the applicant and which may contribute to the on-going need to dredge have been controlled. The record indicates that there are no significant sources of sediment under the control of the City. The record also indicates that the project does include activities designed to reduce sedimentation into the channel and the wetland. For example, a buffer zone will be maintained around much of the wetland perimeter associated with the project. In addition, rip rap erosion protection will be installed along portions of the shoreline to prevent erosion. 2/13/9 7 Draft c. Approval by the LMCD and the DNR 61. The proposed project requires approval from both the LMCD (docks) and the DNR (dredging and docks). It is appropriate and consistent with the MCWD's past permitting practices for the Board to issue the permit conditioned upon approval by the LMCD and DNR. 62. The MCWD finds that a permit may be issued conditioned upon approval of the project by the LMCD and the DNR. d. Minimal impact solution 63. The MCWD finds that the project as proposed represents the minimal impact solution to achieve navigational access. 64. The rule lists several alternatives that should be considered. Extension of a dock is one alternative the Board should consider. In this case, the canal is approximately ½ mile long. The MCWD finds that construction of a dock is not a realistic or reasonable alternative in this case because of the length of a dock. 65. The MCWD finds that aquatic nuisance plant removal without dredging is not a reasonable alternative. Aquatic nuisance plant removal would not provide the depth necessary for navigational access as set forth in the Joint Dredging Policy. 66. The MCWD finds that the use of sandblankets is not a reasonable alternative. The MCWD considers sandblankets an appropriate alternative to dredging in circumstances where the placement of sand over a mucky area would provide access. Sandblanketing in this circumstance is not a reasonable alternative due to the fact that filling would result in more environmental degradation and further reduce the depth of the channel. 67. The MCWD finds that excavation above the bed of public water is not an appropriate alternative because dredging above the bed of a public water would not provide navigational access for this site. 68. The MCWD finds that the proposed dredging is the least impact dredging necessary to maintain navigational access. The record indicates that the channel as proposed provides the most direct access. In addition, as discussed above, the proposed channel design provides the least impact of other dredging alternative. There is no evidence that management of an alternative water body would provide navigational access for the City. e. Minimum dimensions 69. The MCWD finds that the dredging is limited to the minimum dimensions necessary for achieving navigational access. 9 2/13/9 7 Draft 70. Paragraph 5 of the Excavation for Navigation section of the DNR general permit provides the standards for determining necessary dimensions for dredging. Paragraph 5 provides that the maximum depth for multiple user channels and mooring/maneuvering areas is 923.6 feet. The record indicates that the depth o£the Lost Lake channel will be 923.6 feet. 71. Paragraph 5 also provides that sideslopes of excavated channels should be 3:1 (horizontal to vertical), "unless substrate conditions and other mitigating factors warrant a steeper or more gentle slope." The slope of the proposed channel is 5:1. The record contains several documents, including an opinion from a geotechnical engineering consultant, that the 5:1 slope is appropriate and will result in a stable slope. f. Conditions applicable to hydraulic dredging 72. The record indicates that hydraulic dredging will not be used. As a result, the MCWD finds that the additional conditions applicable to hydraulic dredging set forth in the rule do not apply. E. MCWD Rule F - Shoreline Alteration 73. Alterations to shoreline are regulated pursuant to MCWD Rule F - Shoreline & Streambank Improvement. The project involves the placement of riprap and reconstruction and construction of retaining walls, both of which are regulated under Rule F. 74. With one exception, the record indicates that the project as proposed meets the requirements of Rule F. The one exception is that the riprap cross-section does not contain all of the information contained in the text portion of the permit application. 75. As a result, issuance of the permit is conditioned upon receipt of a revised riprap detail and approval of the detail by the District Engineer. F. MCWD Rule K - Performance Bond or Letter of Credit 76. MCWD Rule K provides that a performance bond or letter of credit be submitted to the MCWD for projects regulated by MCWD Rules E and F. A performance bond or letter of credit has not yet been submitted for the Lost Lake project. 77. The MCWD has in the past conditioned issuance of a permit on receipt of a performance bond or letter of credit. Issuance of a permit for the project is likewise conditioned upon receipt of a performance bond or letter of credit covering the work regulated by Rules E and F. G. Compliance with Water Management Plans 78. The proposed project is in compliance with the MCWD's current water resources management plan dated 1993. The plan states on page V-8 that the policies of the MCWD in regard to dredging are: 10 2/13/9 7 Draft o Allow dredging projects to improve the recreational, wildlife, and fisheries resources of surface waters, and when necessary, to implement or maintain an existing legal right of navigational access. Prohibit dredging in the watercourses, waterbodies, or wetland areas.., which would enlarge a natural watercourse landward to create a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas for navigational purposes. Allow maintenance dredging to remove harmful sediment. 79. The project is in compliance with policy 1 because, as set forth above, the Board has determined that dredging is necessary to implement or maintain an existing legal right of navigational access. 80. The project is in compliance with policy 2 because the dredging does not enlarge a natural watercourse landward to create a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas. The dredging does enlarge a natural watercourse landward, but does not create a channel that connects adjacent backwater areas. The channel is not being created, but rather it is being maintained and expanded. Lost Lake is not a backwater area that is being connected to a waterbody. Backwater areas are areas unconnected to a waterbody. Lost Lake is already connected to Lake Minnetonka. 81. Policy 3, allowing maintenance dredging to remove harmful sediment, is not applicable to the proposed project. H. Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) 82. The MCWD finds that, barring a determination by the MPCA that levels of PCB's exceed acceptable standards, the project does not result in "impairment, pollution, or destruction of the air, water, land or other natural resources" and that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives. 83. Minnesota Statutes section 116B.09 requires an agency in issuing a permit to consider any alleged "impairment, pollution, or destruction" and forbids an agency from allowing an activity that results in "impairment, pollution, or destruction .... so long as there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirement of the pubic health, safety, and welfare and the state's paramount concern for the protection of its air, water land, and other natural resource from pollution, impairment, or destruction." Minn. Stat. § 116B.09, Subd. 2. 84. MERA only forbids actions which will result in "impairment, pollution or destruction" of the environment. The statute defines "pollution, impairment or destruction" as: ao Any conduct by any person which violates, or is likely to violate, any environmental quality standard, limitation, rule, order, license, stipulation agreement, or permit of the state or any instrumentality, agency or political subdivision thereof which was issued prior to the date the alleged violation occurred or is likely to occur; or 11 2/13/9 7 Draft bo Any conduct which materially adversely affects or is likely to materially adversely affect the environment. Minn. Stat. § 116B.02, Subd. 5. 85. The MCWD has conditioned issuance of a permit for the project on approval of the project by the LMCD, DNR, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and approval of the spoil disposal site by the MPCA. The MCWD has also conditioned issuance of a permit for the project on additional testing for PCB's and a determination by the MPCA that levels of PCB's do not exceed acceptable standards. If each of these agencies approve the project, then the MCWT) mav conclude that the project will not be in violation of an environmental quality standard. 86. The MCWT) finds that in regard to the presence of contaminants other than PCBs, the MPCA has established standards and found that the project does not exceed those standards. 9. The MPCA testified at the February 6, 1997 MCWD Board meeting that the dredging of the channel would not result in harm to the water quality of Lost Lake or Lake Minnetonka. The MCWD accepts the testimony of the MPCA in this regard due to the expertise of the agency. 87. In regard to PCBs, the MCWD finds that the MPCA did not make a determination as to whether PCBs were present at a level of concern. As a result, the MCWD has placed a condition on the issuance of the permit that the City will perform sediment testing for the presence of PCB's based upon the method for sampling and analysis prescribed by the MPCA and the results must be determined by the MPCA to meet or exceed acceptable standards, which determination the MCWD shall consider final. 88. If an environmental standard is established by an agency and a project is not in violation of that standard, then the project does not result in "pollution, impairment or destruction" of the environment as set forth in the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. 89. The MCWD also finds that the project does not result in "pollution, impairment or destruction" because the project is not likely to materially adversely affect the environment. 90. In MERA cases, courts consider the following factors in determining whether the conduct in question materially adversely affects, or is likely to materially adversely affect, the environment: do Whether the natural resource involved is rare, unique, endangered, or has historical significance; Whether the resource is easily replaceable (e.g., by replanting trees or restocking fish); Whether the proposed action will have any significant consequential effect on other natural resources (for example, whether wildlife will be lost if its habitat is impaired or destroyed); and Whether the direct or consequential impact on animals or vegetation will affect a critical number, considering the nature and location of the wildlife affected. State of Minnesota, ex rel. Wacouta Township v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp., 510 N.W.2d 27, 30 (Minn. App. 1993). 12 2/13/97 Draft 91. Wetlands are an important natural resource, but the record shows that the proposed project will actually generate a net gain of wetland acreage in the area. 92. The record shows that the proposed dredging project will not eliminate water or fish from the area in question. The record shows that cattail vegetation would be eliminated in the dredged area, but that this vegetation is not endangered and would be present elsewhere in the area. 93. Even if the MCWD determines that the project will result in "impairment, pollution or destruction," the MCWD may issue a permit for the project if there are no "feasible and prudent alternatives." Any "feasible and prudent alternative" must be consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare and the state's paramount concern for the protection of its air, water, land, and other natural resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction. Economic considerations alone shall not justify the proposed conduct. 94. The "no feasible and prudent alternative" analysis is intended to strike a balance between the rights of property owners and the protection of natural resources. In this case, the right of the City to navigational access must be balanced with the protection of natural resources. 95. As discussed at length above in the discussion of MCWD Rule E, the MCWD finds that the dredging as proposed represents both the "minimal impact" solution and is the most feasible and prudent alternative. 96. The only alternative suggested by Intervener is to allow the City no navigational access, except by way of canoe and kayak. The City's riparian right, however, encompasses navigation for which Lake Minnetonka is reasonably used. Lake Minnetonka is used substantially for motor boat navigation, and therefore the City has a legal right of navigational access by way of motor boat. Completely denying that right to the City is not a feasible or prudent alternative, particularly if the City's proposed dredging project is consistent with MPCA and DNR standards and permits. Nor does Intervener's suggested alternative strike a balance between property ovmer rights and protection of natural resources. The MCWD and DNR Lake Minnetonka Dredging Joint Policy Statement, on the other hand, does strike a balance. 97. As a result, the MCWD finds that if the agencies listed in the permit conditions approve the project, then the project will not result in "pollution, impairment or destruction" of the environment and that the project represents the most feasible and prudent alternative for the exercise of the City's right to navigational access. II. CONCLUSIONS 98. The project as proposed in permit application 96-280 subject to the conditions set forth below and the variances discussed above meets the requirements of MCWD Rules C, D, E, F and 13 2/13/9 7 Draft 99. The project as proposed in permit application 96-280 subject to the conditions set forth below is in compliance with the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. III. RESOLUTION NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers, by a vote of yeas and nays as follows: Permit number 96-280 will be granted to the City of Mound for the activities set forth in permit application number 96-280 pending approval of the activities by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and with the following conditions: 1. Revised riprap detail be approved by the MCWD; 2. Documentation must be submitted to the MCWD that multiple silt flotation curtains will be installed within the channel during dredging; 3. The project receives a SDS permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to dispose of the dredge spoils; 4. Lighted buoys are placed around the entire turn-around area at the north end of the channel; 5. The City will perform sediment testing for the presence of PCB's, based upon the method for sampling and analysis prescribed by the MPCA; the results must be determined by the MPCA to meet or exceed acceptable standards, which determination the MCWD shall consider final; and 6. receipt by the MCWD of a performance bond for the project. BLIXT GROSS LABOUNTY LOVE MAPLE REID THOMAS YEAS NAYS Upon vote, the Chair declared the Resolution Dated: .,1997 14 < ': :;i~" '"" PHONE KAY MITCHELL .~?, ~ ?]~:-_:~; '7(.i[ 348-5433 CLERK TO THE BOARD BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A-2400 GOVERNMENT CENTE~ MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487- 0240 February 14, 1997 To Whom It May Concern: RE: MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD APPOINTMENT Enclosed please find a copy of an extract from the minutes of the February 11, 1997 meetin9 of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. Please note, that Thomas S. Maple, Jr. of Excelsior, and Thomas W. Labounty of Wayzata were reappointed to the board for a term of three years, to expire March 8, 2000. Yours truly, Deputy Clerk of the Board Encl. 000162 A vote was taken on the first vacancy, as follows: Commissioner Nomination Stenglein Mueller Andrew " McLaughlin Beaverson Tambomino " Steele Mueller Opat Robb Johnson Mueller Accordingly, Richard M Mueller, of Plymouth, was appointed. A vote was then taken on the second vacancy, as follows: Commissioner Nomination Andrew Walsh McLaughlin Beaverson Tambornino " Steele Walsh Opat " Stenglein " Johnson " Accordingly, Carol A Walsh, of St. Louis Park, was appointed. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board had two vacancies and applications had been received from: Stephen Baker, James Calkins, John Hovanec, Thomas Labounty,, Thomas Maple, John Senior and Stephen Stolarek. A vote was taken on the first vacancy, as follows: Commissioner Nomination McLaughlin Maple Tambornino " Steele " Opat " Stenglein Baker Andrew Maple Johnson " Accordingly, Thomas S Maple. Jr, of Excelsior, was reappointed. 000163 A vote was then taken on the second vacancy and Thomas W Labounty, of Wayzata, was unanimously reappointed. ATTEST~ FEB 11 B~ ' RECEiVEO Z 0 Ii L, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 19 - Excelsior. Minnesota 55331 · Telephone (612) 471-9588 Board Members [.*n, Jql;.::. E. B.~b'. ,:)',air. T,:,r,ka [;%,, Cr ~,:1 N~l...:,n lr~-~ urer. '~l,[thq i'~rk Hinheh.,hk~ E;6~, h ~ert Fo:,t er lvm ,,~rel, her; F)~,:li~,~ h ~JmJ~l ff. Harku': R,~,ben E~:.~ .',l~ .,/r,3,.,ri;J ..... For hnmediate Release .... FebmaD' 18, 1997 Please.ioi,~ me ill congratulating Mr. Greg Nybeck on his pronlolion to 111,2 position of Executive Director of the LMCD. The LMCD Board of Directors approved this change ,'it it's regular board meeting on February 12. 1997. Mr. Nybeck's promolion is efl~clive immediately. Mr. Nybeck has been employed with die District Ibr over hvo years in thc capaci~, of Administrative Teclmican. His prima,.'y responsibilities have been in Hie area of multiple dock inspections and renexvals. Fie has also been involved in all tile other day-to-da}' aspects of tile Dislrict's operation. The District will be tilling the position of Administrative Technician in fha ,,'er)., near fimire. Doug Babcock LMCD Chair Park and Open Space Commission Minutes February 13, 1997 ' - Weycker moved to continue discussion on this item for 15 more minutes. Botko seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Byrnes feels that commons are misunderstood. Pederson reviewed, the intent of our fore-fathers when they platted commons was to dedicate these areas to the neighborhoods, and she feels the word "public" has been misinterpreted from its initial meaning. Weycker stated that she would like to see the new Dock Commission help educate new homeowners and the public about the commons. Meyer raised the issue of the budget and the fact that money is not budgeted in the Dock Fund for staff time for Peggy, Jon or Jim. Meyer asked if attorney's fees for the various lawsuits involving the commons have been paid for by only the dock fund? Fackler stated that a percentage was paid for out of the dock fund, and that staff time, other than the Dock Inspector, is not paid out of the dock fund, but it basically comes out of the same pot. MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Weycker to recommend to the City Council that the Dock and Commons Commission review the Park and Open Space Commission recommendations relating to the Commons Encroachment Policy Proposal and incorporate them into their proposal before presenting back to the City Council for final approval. Motion carried unanimously. Darling commented, if the policy is not changed and is worded as is, he will not support it and will do whatever needs to be done to actively defeat it. REVIEW "SETON BLUFF" PRELIMINARY PLAT - PARK DEDICATION & DOCKS This item was withdrawn at the request of the applicant. DISCUSS PARK COMMISSION'S REQUEST FOR 1998 CAPITAL OUTLAY Darling noted that a workshop is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Thursday, February 27th to discuss this issue. Byrnes suggested that staff provide a list of park improvements needed and what play structures need replacing, and that the commissioners come with ideas of what they think is needed in the parks. Pederson asked staff to provide a copy of the list drafted last year, and to have the items highlighted that were done, and to include with the list items that were done but were not on the list. Darling suggested that they request from the Council a ball-park figure of what they will allow them to spend. Darling moved that the Council, at their next meeting, discuss and set a potential ball-park dollar amount of what might be available for capital outlay for the parks (i.e., what do they have to play with?). Meyer seconded the Motion. Motion carried 5 to 1. Weycker abstained. 4 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes February 13, 1997 -.-_ It was noted that on February 27th the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be reviewing the Lost Lake Dredge project. The Commission unanimously decided to cancel the workshop scheduled for February 27th, and to discuss this subject at their March 13th meeting. Receiving public input was discussed. ~ Meyer moved that a notice be published in "The Laker" requesting citizen input on the 1998 budget request for park improvements. Citizens are to be invited to the meeting and/or they may submit their comments in writing. Motion seconded by Weycker. Motion carried unanimously. 1998 PARKS AND BEACH PROGRAM UPDATE The Parks Director referred to the memorandum from Tim Piepkorn and explained that a better report will be submitted in March. Meyer asked if the budget was increased for these programs. Fackler explained that the budgeted amounts did increase, as follows Parks/Recreation Beach/Lifeguard 1996 1997 13,300 17,800 16,400 18,400 REVISED 1997 AGENDA CALENDAR Faclder explained that he removed those items from the calendar which will now be reviewed by the Dock Commission, and noted that those dates referring to budget review should be changed to 1998. REVISED WORK RULES The secretary noted that she changed the number of members required for a quorum from 5 to 4, and this will comply with the new ordinance amendment reducing the number of Commissioners from 9 to 6. SKATING RINK UPDATE. Meyer explained to Weycker the status of the proposed Community Skating Rink and the steps that have been taken so far. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT The Commission explained to Weycker that this is the time that she may report on actions or discussions by the Council which she feels are important to the Commission. 5 dfvision ~ince ft ~,.,i] t not be oecessam7 wfth the t~emov~l of the g~rage. ~e ~re ~lso ~sk. ing that the pemmit ~pp!ic~tior~ momies, rom this be P,Et~.~e -- 1 ,,m ,,,.,,, ,Ii ~,l, ii, 08: 15AM BEMMETT MATL HDLG PLAZA-NAVAI;Ilti Ti. & CO. GRAPHIC DESIGN ADVERTISING MARKETING CO~tMUNICATION$ 4839 Island View Drive, Mound, Minnesota $$364-9029 PHONE ~ FAX: 612 4724042 E-Maih ~la~a~fsd,net February 24, 1997 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 5,5364 Re: Application to newly created Dock Commission. Dear Mr. Shukle: Thank you for accepting this late application, as you will rc, cali I mentioned that I was out of state for 15 days, and had just today opened my I am interested in serving in the Dock Commission. As a property owner, abutting to the Mound Commons, I am very aware of the issues at he nd and the politics involved. However, as a member of the Mound Common.,~ Task Force I have a clear understanding of the governmental and citizens exp,~ctations of what needs to be addressed by the Dock Commission. i have been asked by some members of the Commons T~sk Force, to apply for the Dock Commission post. simply state~ ~. because we all worked in unison and we respected each others opinions, and always delivering a unanimous concent. I brought Community input to our meetings - which in turn were acted upon by the Commons Task Force. resulting in the development of th~; first municipal multi-doc program in Mound, at Pembrook Park. A prograr~ may I add, that has the support of all it's participants, ending a lack of communication and community understanding among good neighbors. Thank you for this opportunity to serve Mound. Sincerely . --.i Roddgo Plaza Navarrete ' LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, February 26, 1997 Tonka Bay City Hall :T-./J I=o PUBLIC HEARING Eagle Bluff HOA, Halsted and Priests Bays, Minnetrista, Consideration of new multiple dock license application to increase existing Boat Storage Units (BSU's) from six to 11; CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock READING OF MINUTES- 2112197 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. SAVE THE LAKE A. 1996 Water Quality of Lake Minnetonka, Report from John Barten (Previously sent out in 2/12/97 Board packet); B. Hennepin Parks, Request for $2,500 for 1997 Water Quality of Lake Minnetonka Report; C. Discussion on Committee makeup; *D. "Save the Lake" Recognition Banquet Refunds E. Additional Business; WATER STRUCTURES A. Minnesota Transportation Museum, Review of proposed lighting plan for 160' pier at the Excelsior Park Pavilion; B. Eagle Bluff HOA, Discussion on Public Hearing for new multiple dock and variance applications; C. Bill and Sheila Todd, Discussion and consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of side setback variance at 20 Crabapple Lane, Gideons Bay, Tonka Bay; setback requirements; D. Lord Fletchers of the Lake, Review of Public Hearing Report and continued discussion on new multiple dock and special density license applications; E. City of Greenwood, Minor Change application to extend non-conforming dock to 100'; F. DNR Letter, 6/25/96 from Ceil Strauss regarding the Bil Hawks houseboat; F. Additional Business; 3. LAKE USE & RECREATION *A. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Pa(roi Significant Activity Report; B. Additional Business; 4. EWM/EXOTICS TASKFORCE A. Discussion on 2/5/97 letter from Jay Rendall, DNR Coordinator for the Exotics Species Program; B. Additional Business; 5. ADMINISTRATION A. Staff Report on filling vacant Administrative Technician position; B. Additional Business; 6. FINANCIAL A. Staff report on final payments/billing to Al Willcutt; B. Audit of vouchers for payment; - 2/16/97 - 2~28~97 C. January financial summary and balance sheet; D. Additional Business; 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION- (Hawks v. LMCD pending litigation) (Note: Board may vote to discuss pending litigation in closed session) 11. ADJOURNMENT JJJ I I~ ~ ,I ,,~1~i ,J J ,ii RECEh,'ES . L3 2 4 DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 7:00 P.M., Wednesday, February 12, 1997 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 8:21 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Joe Zwak, Greenwood; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Tom Re.se, Mound; Gretchen Maglich, Minnetonka; Duane Markus, Wayzata; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Douglas Babcock, Ton 'ka Bay; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Bert Foster, Deephaven. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Interim Executive Director. Members absent: Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Tom Gihnan, Excelsior. Orono and Victoria have no appointed member. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Babcock announced that: (1) The "Save the Lake" Recognition Dinner is scheduled for 7 P.M. on 2/13/97 at Lord Fletchers of the Lake. (2) An executive session will be held following the regular Board meeting to discuss personnel issues and pending litigation. (3) The recent deaths of Mayor Vern Haug from Tonka Bay and Mayor Nicolas Duff from Woodland. He suggested a moment of silence in their memories. READING OF THE MINUTES Reese moved, Rascop seconded to approve the minutes of the 1/22/97 Regular Board meeting as submitted. Babcock recommended on page 7, that "with original and authorized receipts in the future" be added to the motion. Reese and Rascop agreed to this amendment. Motion carried unanimously. Zwak moved, Rascop seconded to approve the minutes of the 2/5/97 Special Board Meeting as written. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda. WATER STRUCTURES A. Eagle Bluff HOA, Petition to Amend LMCD Code Section 2.02, Subd. 5(a). Babcock stated the HOA is asking to alnend Subd. 5a from 150' to 200' in order to transfer density from one site to another. He added in addition to this code amendment, he believed Subd. 5c would also have to be amended to consider their dtx:king requests. He stated the applicant would not be allowed to place the three proposed slips on Outlot A if Eagle Bluff HOA is proposing to transfer density from this outlot. Peter Johnson, representing Eagle Bluff HOA, clarified density would be Lake Minnetonka Coltservation District Regular Board Meeting February 12, 1997 Page 2 transferred from Outlot B to Outlot C, and that Outlot B would be undeveloped. He noted the homeowners association has approxima'ely 1,300' of lineal shoreline and needs only needs nine docks. He reported Ou~tot C is on a private road, it is protected from traffic, is easily accessible to non-riparian homeowners, and it is the preferred site of the applicant. He stated a second code amendment of Subd. 5c to allow for one restricted watercraft per 28' of shoreline of the transferee site is requested. He stated the proposal would be to maintain the six existing slips on Outlot C and three new slips on Outlot A. LeFevere stated there may be a problem because they were six Boat Storage Units (BSU's) that were licensed were based on continuous shoreline. If the proposed code amendment is not granted, these dock could be considered illegal since the Outlot C has only 166' of lineal shoreline. Johnson clarified that the original licensed was approved with continuous shoreline on Outlots A, B, and C, plus the shoreline on Lot 1, Block 1. He noted this was a residential lot that had been subdivided out. He stated the problem stems in that the developer did not require the owner of this lot to join in the common, multiple dock license. He concluded the owners of this residence do not wish to join in the multiple dock license application, but do not have concern with the density transfer to Outlot C. Nybeck stated staff was made aware of this situation when an application was received from Eagle Bluff HOA to change their docks in 1996. He added staff has researched this and found the property was initially approved with continuous shoreline and that it is not continuous anymore because the residence at Lot 1, Block I is placing their own riparian dock out. Babcock clarified the shoreline at Lot 1, Block I is currently private shoreline. Partyka asked if the lot between Outlot C and B are part of the homeowners association? Johnson replied the house, not the shoreline, is part of the homeowners association Janet Hanson, President of Eagle Bluff, stated the homeowners association is trying to accommodate dock space for the nine homes off the lake. Johnson stated there is historical documentation to support there were 17 BSU's approved in the past, with 14 on Outlot C and three on Outlot A. He reported Outlot A has approximately 900' of lineal shoreline, Outlot B has 400', and Outlot C has 166'. Babcock stated he was not convinced amending the ordinance would get Eagle Bluff what they want. He expressed concern in that the applicant may asking for density trm~st'erfing from Outlot A to B, with a transfer made to Outlot A. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 12, 1997 Page 3 Johnson clarified that they are proposing 6 BSU's on Outlot C and 3 BSU's on Outlot A. Partyka asked for the amount of shoreline on Lot 1, Block 1 ? Johnson stated this lot is approximately 265' wide. Babcock clarified the code that is being proposed to be amended was established to transfer density from an island while the island remains undeveloped. He added all the provisions of the current code would need to be complied with even if the density transfer request was allowed. Markus expressed concern that if this petition for code amendment is granted, it may have undesirable ramifications in other similar circumstances. LeFevere stated he recalled when the original code was adopted, the density figures approved by the Board were justified as good for the Lake. He added this request takes these figures further and the Board needs to consider whether the request takes them too far. Zwak stated he did not feel exceptions should be made to the ordinance because he believed every minor change will result in increased density on the lake. Johnson stated with regards to density on the lake, Eagle Bluff is only looking for 9 BSU's on approximately 1,400' of shoreline. MOTION: Markus moved, Rascop seconded to deny the petition to amend the ordinance as requested. Maglich asked what the disadvantage would be to allow this to occur? Babcock stated he believed it may open up more radical changes in other locations on the lake. He stated it may appear to make sense at this location, but lakewide, it might not make sense. Foster questioned why they could not just agree amongst themselves where they want the docks to be located. LeFevere stated code adjustments is allowed lbr dock use areas, not density. He stated a logical answer to solving this issue is for the neighbor in Lot 1, Block 1 to participate in the multiple dock license. Babcock stated he believed the ordinance needs to be amended in the near future stating if there is an intervening parcel, density transferring cannot occur. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 12, 1997 Page 4 Be Bill and Sheila Todd, Discussion on Public Hearing for Variance from LMCD Side Setback Requirements Board members discussed what further information is needed to consider this application. It was agreed the applicant needs to document the location of the proposed dock with the neighbors dock previously granted a variance in 1983. It was noted maneuvering space between the two dock needs to be identified. Sheila Todd discussed time constraints and the need for approval on a dock placement this evening. She stated a dock location can be found to satisfy both their needs and the needs of the neighbors previously granted a variance. LeFevere explained Findings could be drafted with a 5' side setback variance and length concerns with regards to the neighbors dock could be worked out with staff before the 2/26/97 meeting. Zwak asked why the Board is so concerned with a neighbors dock who has an unbuildable lot, the dock has generally not been used in the past, and there may not be a dock there in the future. Babcock stated the Board should be concerned with the neighbors dock use area because a variance for this residence has been previously approved. LeFevere expressed reluctance in revoking a previously granted variance. MOTION: Rascop moved, Zwak seconded to direct attorney to prepare Findings for approval of a zero foot side setback variance, with stipulations that boats not be stored on the east side of the dock. The hardship is converging lot lines on an inside comer. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Co Lord Fletchers of the Lake, Discussion on Public Hearing for New Multiple Dock and Special Density License Applications MOTION: Reese moved, Foster seconded to table discussion on this agenda item to the 2/26/97 meeting. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. De City of Mound, Discussion on Public Hearing for New Multiple Dock License Application Babcock clarified the proposed application is to license slips 1-16, with the remaining 10 slips to the east not part of this application. He added the 10' boardwalk behind these 10 slips is included in the proposed application. He stated the EAW calculations did not include the boardwalk and walkway between slips 9- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 12, 1997 Page 5 15. Bruce Chamberlain, representing the City of Mound, stated a mandatory EAW was prepared in 1996 that included docking. He reported there was a finding of no significant impact by the City of Mound. He stated he understands a second EAW does not need to be done, provided the first EAW covers the items that triggered the first one. LeFevere concurred with Chamberlain's comments about the EAW provided the same issues were addressed. Babcock asked if the site plan has changed significantly since the EAW was done in 19967 Chamberlain stated the site plan and number of docks have decreased since the EAW was done in 1996. He noted the LMCD did comment on the EAW at the time. Babcock stated it appears the western terminus is not where the lot line extension is. He clarified the lot line should be extended from the terminus point. He clarified the buoys and the dredging would not be permitted in this application. Chmnbeflain stated he would adjust the western terminus. LeFevere stated it would be beneficial to have a drawing of what has been approved attached to the license if the Board approved this application. MOTION: Reese moved, Foster seconded to approve the new multiple dock license for the City of Mound, including slips 1-16 and the boardwalk behind the easterly slips. LeFevere stated the slip depths and widths should be identified in the approved site plan. Markus asked if this application is to include permanent storage docks. Chamberlain stated he was uncertain whether the 10 future docks would be permanent or overnight storage. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Discussion on Public Hearing for New Multiple Dock Liceme Application Babcock asked JoEllen Hurr if she understood what is needed to further discuss the new multiple dock license application. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 12, 1997 Page 6 Hurr stated she understood there is a need to maintain required setbacks at dock sites g 24 and 25, and that they need to work with LMCD staff to arrive at slip lengths based on historical data. Babcock stated the difficult issue to resolve is that Code calls for no increase in slip size because they are non-conforming. Rascop stated he had serious concerns because the license was grandfathered and the proposed plan would be relocating sites. He stated he may not be able to support the application. Babcock stated if a site moves or a slip becomes larger, he believed setback and other grandfathering could be lost. Reese expressed concern with how the LMCD is treating the applicant. Nybeck stated the basic trouble in this whole analysis is that approved site plan dating back to 1977 have not been documented. Jim Gilbert, attomey for Mr. Goodman, stated his client has challenged in court whether dock can even be placed out on the firelane where dock site plan gl 1 exists. He encouraged the Board to look at the ordinances and make a decision appropriately. Partyka stated he had concerns with dock site gl I until the situation between the City and Mr. Goodman is resolved. Babcock stated he believes the proposed site plan at dock site gl l meets the requirements the Board gave the City this past Summer. Gilbert stated his client may have to include the LMCD in the lawsuit if the proposed site plan is approved. MOTION: Partyka moved, Rascop seconded to further discussion on this agenda item to the 3/12/97 Board meeting. VOTE: Motion caxried unanimously. City of the Village of .Minnetonka Beach, Discussion and Consideration of Hndings of Fact and Order for Dock Length Variance at Dock Site glO on the Cross Point Fire Lane MOTION: VOTE: Zwak moved, Partyka seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Order for a dock length variance at Dock Site 10. Ayes (9), Nayes (1, Rascop); Motion carded. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 12, 1997 e o G. Additional Business Page 7 There was no additional business. LAKE USE AND RECREATION There was no discussion. EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL/EXOTICS TASK FORCE * Suerth stated he had a telephone conversation with Jay Rendall, Coordinator of the Exotics Species Management Program, regarding the recently adopted boat washing ordinance. He noted Rendall expressed concern with the proposed ordinance. He encouraged staff to include the 2/5/97 letter received for Rendall in the next Board packet to discuss at the 2/26/97 meeting. He stated that the tournament fishermen has expressed objections to implying they have been in infested waters and that they need to have their boats washed. He concluded that Rendall encouraged the LMCD to enforce the DNR Rules as they exist using peace officers to do the inspections. Suerth stated he believed this would not work on Lake Minnetonka. He stated he would draft a response to his letter in the next few weeks for the Board to discuss. Babcock reported that zebra mussels have been found in the St. Croix River near Stillwater reported by the National Parks Service. They have also been found in Lake Peppin and have dramatically increased. * Reese stated Suerth and he had met with Todd Grams, EWM Supervisor, to discsuss the idea of utilizing a transporter to increase efficiency. He added a man/machine analysis was done and it appears that a transporter would improve productivity between 25 and 30 percent on the average. He stated a more detailed report would be provided at a future Board meeting. SAVE THE LAKE Ao Whaler Ice Clean-up Reqtlesl MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded to approve the winter ice clean-up request for $250. Be VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 1996 Water Quality of Lake MMnelonka Reporl (for discussion at the 2/26/97 Board Meeting) Nybeck stated John Banen, Hennepin Parks, will be presented at the 2/26/97 Board meeting to discuss this report and answer Board questions. C. Discussion on Conmfittee Make-up Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 12, 1997 Page 8 e De Discussion on this agenda item was tabled to the 2/26/97 meeting. Addilional Business There was no additional business. ADMINISTRATION There was no discussion. FINANCIAL REPORT A. Audit of vouchers for payment 2/1/97 - 2/15/97 B. December financial summary and balance sheet. Ce De MOTION: Foster moved, Zwak seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted, with the exception of check #1598, and the December financial summary and balance sheet. Rascop stated on page 1, accounts receivable should indicate the levy payment from Spring Park still due. Also, he questioned the high figure with regards to the Lake Use Density Study. Nybeck explained the LMCD has not fully received funds from the DNR for this project. He added a billing would be sent out in the near future. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Staff report on ongoing checks Board members discussed expenses and ongoing checks that can be paid by staff in the absence of a quorum. MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded to approve payment of ongoing bills, when there is not'a quorum, as detailed in the staff memo. Rascop stated he believed some these on-going bills, such as legal and telephone, should be audited before they are sent out in the absence of a quorum. There was a consensus of the Board to delete this items. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Additional Business Babcock asked the Board who they felt should be on the signature cards at the banks for CD's. He suggested the Executive Director and all officers be signers on these Lake Minnelonka Co~tservalion District Regular Board Meeting February 12, 1997 e ge accounts. Page 9 e MOTION: Babcock moved, Maglich seconded to approve signatures for all CD's to include the Executive Director and all officers. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT * Nybeck stated he had planned vacation days for 2/14, 2/27, and 2/28 prior to the resignation of Willcutt. The Board expressed no concerns in allowing Nybeck to take these three vacation days. * Nybeck circulated a calendar for the month of February that outline meetings and vacation requests. * Nybeck stated staff has calculated final vacation and sick hours for Willcutt. He reported hours are 95 and 135 respectively. OLD BUSINESS Babcock reviewed two previous executive sessions. First, he reported the executive session held at the 1/22/97 meeting was to discuss W' ' fllcutt s performance. The second executive session at the 2/5/97 special meeting was to discuss labor negotiation relating to an offer to Nybeck. MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded to accept G. Alan Willcutt's letter of resignation. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS LeFevere recommended discussion on severance payments on current payroll, accrued vacation hours, and unpaid health benefit premiums not be done in executive session. Babcock stated the last payroll check for Willcutt during the period of 2/1/97 - 2/15/97 is $I,472.66. He added he is aware Willcutt has not been reimbursing his share of family health insurance as was negotiated last Spring. The total amount due is $1,999.26. He added staff has indicated Willcutt has 95 hours of accrued vacation hours. He stated an adjustment should be made to determine vacation taken from July through September. He noted Willcutt took 7/5/97 off when he qualified to take a vacation day. He believed the amount owed for health insurance premiums should be deducted from the accrued vacation pay. The Board discussed final accrued vacation hours for Willcutt and stated 94 hours is Lake Minnetonka Cmtservation District Regular Board Meeting February 12, 1997 Page 10 appropriated. This was calculated using 130 total vacation hours, deducting the seven days of vacation reported, and by deducting a full day of vacation for 7/5/96. LeFevere recommended checking out what is required by State law regarding the recovery of family health insurance reimbursements and how it relates to final payroll and accrued vacation payments. MOTION: Foster moved, Markus seconded to approve the final paychecks which would be payment in full unless the law authorizes the deduction of family health insurance reimbursements owed to the LMCD. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Babcock stated the office has received an unemployment insurance request from the MN Department of Employment Security. He stated he recalled that previous Board discussion was that the Board would not contest this. He added he would be sending a letter to their office to address the events leading up to Willcutt's resignation. MOTION: Reese moved, Rascop seconded to approve the payment of unemployment of insurance to Willcutt. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION: Rascop moved, Reese seconded to recess the meeting and conduct an executive session to discuss labor negotiation, with the possibility of reconvening the meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Zwak moved, Reese seconded to go into executive session to discuss pending litigation. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously MOTION: Rascop moved, Zwak seconded to move back into regular session following the executive session for labor negotiations. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Rascop moved, Zwak seconded to move back into regular session. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was recessed at 10:45 p.m. and reconvened at 11:48 p.m. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeth~g February 12, 1997 Page 11 MOTION: Zwak moved, Dahlen seconded to authorize the employment of the Executive Director position to Gregory Nybeck at $38,100 annually, with a six month review. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 11:54 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chair Joseph Zwak, Secretary al I J J ,!1 ,,,It, ,Ii 1997 D AFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 7:00 PM, Wednesday, February 5, 1997 Gray's Freshwater Center CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Tom Gilman; Joe Zwak, Greenwood; Gretchen Maglich, Minnetonka; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Tom Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Shorewood;.Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Duane Markus, Wayzata. Orono and Victoria have no appointed member. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 1) Executive Direclor Position Status Babcock updated the Board on the status of this position. He stated he accepted the resignation from Al Willcutt on 1/29/97 and that Nybeck had agreed to be appointed Interim Executive Director. He added he had discussed salary adjustments with Nybeck and reported that Nybeck has recommended a $500 per month adjustment, increasing his salary from $29,120 to $35,100. MOTION: Rascop moved, Zwak seconded to appoint Nybeck as Interim Executive Director at an annual salary of $35,100. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Babcock stated final paycheck, payment for accrued vacation hours, and payment for unpaid insurance premiums will be reported at the 2/12/97 Board meeting. He believed decisions on the interim and long-term for this position needed to be discussed. He reported he had talked to a number of Mayors and administrators around the lake and that a number of them had expressed support for Nybeck on at least a short-term basis. He believed there were three options for the Board to consider. They were 1) have Nybeck serve as Interim Executive Director and do nothing, 2) have Nybeck serve as Interim Executive Director and conduct a search, or 3) hire Nybeck to assume the position with a one year probationary period. Suerth expressed support for hiring Nybeck with a one year probationary period. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Special Board Meeting February 5, 1997 Page 2 2) Foster stated he believed further Board discussions should be done without Nybeck present. Nybeck left the meeting while Board members discussed the status of the Executive Director position. MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded to offer the Executive Director position to Nybeck at a salary of $35,100, with a salary review at six and 12 months. Dahlen stated he believed the reviews at six and 12 months should be performance reviews rather than salary reviews. Babcock recommended a friendly amendment that if a favorable review is received after six months, they should be done annually from that date. Foster and Re. ese agreed to this friendly amendment. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Nybeck rejoined the Board meeting. Babcock reviewed the Board's position and offered the Executive Director position to Nybeck to at an annual salary of $35,100 with a six month salary review. Nybeck stated he needed some time to consider the offer. Code Review by LMCD Attorney Babcock stated the purpose of this agenda item is to have a roundtable discussion of LMCD Code with the Board and LeFevere. He encouraged questions and answers. LeFevere stated he intended to provided an overview of the enabling act and a summary of all Chapters of the Code, with a more in depth discussion of Chapter II that regulates structures in the Lake. A general summary of what was discussed is detailed below: Enabling Legislation * LMCD was first created in 1967 by a special law, which was amended in 1969 and periodically, which was codified in Minnesota Statutes Section 103B.601 and following. * It is a public corporation with a special purpose public body that is not a lake improve- ment district. * The powers of the district are derived directly from the enabling legislation, not from the member cities. * The cities involvement is the appointment of a Board member and partial funding of the Lake Minnelonka Conservation District Special Board Meeting February 5, 1997 Page 3 LMCD. * The LMCD does not have the power to tax or levy, but does have the authority to adopt ordinances. * Pursuant to the authority granted from the legislation, a comprehensive set of ordinances have been adopted, dating back to 1970, to regulate the activities on the Lake. Babcock suggested LeFevere briefly review funding mechanisms and the limited regulatory land authority outlined in the enabling legislation. LeFevere stated the enabling act allows the LMCD to make assessments to cities around the Lake. He added the legislation is quite clear on how much it can assess the cities. He added the LMCD has the ability to set fees but they cannot be revenue generating beyond costs incurred by the LMCD. He noted the LMCD has limited off-lake authority but has generally opted not to exercise it. He noted the most obvious use of this authority granted in the enabling legislation has been off-lake storage in conjunction with a licensed facility. LMCD Code LeFevere stated there are five separate Chapters in the LMCD Code Book. each Chapter as detailed below. He outlined Chapter I- General Provisions and Uniform Procedures * Statement of purpose and definitions are outlined. * Variance procedures are detailed in Section 1.07. Chapter II- Regulation of Structures Within the Lake He stated he would provide further detail of this Chapter later in the meeting. Chapter 111- Regulation of Watercraft and Other Craft and Vehicles This Chapter deals with a wide variety of issues including careless and reckless operations, BWI's, use of personal watercrafts, safety and noise issues, high water conditions, and many other issues. He added these issues are generally dealt with by the Water Patrol after the ordinance is enacted by the Board. Chapter IV- Environmental Control He stated this Chapter deals with littering and is not used frequently. Chapter V- Liquor and Beer The authority of licensing beer, wine, and liquor licenses on the Lake has been delegated by the Liquor Control Division. It outlines the requirements in obtaining a license for a charter boat and defines the LMCD jurisdiction. Lake Minuetonka Conservation District Special Board Meeting February 5, 1997 Page 4 Chapter II- Regulation of Structures Within the Lake LeFevere explained the following Sections of Chapter II in great detail: * Section 2.06- * Section 2.07- * Section 2.08- * Section 2.09- * Section 2.10- * Section 2.11- * Section 2.12- * Section 2.03- Section 2.02- Section 2.01- Permanent Non-Commercial Docks Temporary Structures Illegally Placed and Hazardous Structures De-icing Equipment Nonconforming structures Conversion of Use Miscellaneous Provisions Multiple Docks, Mooring Areas, Launching Ramps, and Docks in Excess of 100' in Length Shoreline Requirements Authorized Dock Use Area 3)- Additional Business Reese expressed concern with the pending litigation against Bil Hawks. He noted he had conversations with Mr. Hawks and believed he would agree to a compromise consisting of grandfathering his houseboat under certain conditions. These conditions could include the grandfather status ceases when the house is sold, when the boat is sold, or when the house- boat is not used for storage for one year. He believed it is in the best interest of the to grandfather Mr. Hawks structure in. He noted he had subpoenaed to testify against Mr. Hawks and did not know how beneficial he would be to the LMCD. Suerth concurred with Reese it is time to move on and grandfather this structure. Several Board members expressed concern in grandfathering this structure in. No action was taken this evening. 4) Old Business There was no old business. 5) New Business There was no new business ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 10:0:5 pm. Douglas Babcock, Chair Joseph Zwak, Secretary CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-O600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM February 24, 1997 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~, ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION - OPEN MEETING LAW - CITY OF ELY, MINNESOTA Attached is an Attorney General's Opinion pursuant to a request by, I believe, the City Attorney for the City of Ely, Minnesota regarding the Open Meeting Law. Councilmember Hanus had spoken to John Dean, Assistant City Attorney about this opinion last week and when he brought it up at the Committee of the Whole meeting last week, you asked if you could receive a copy of it as well. Any questions can be directed to John Dean regarding this opinion. printed on recycled paper Open Meeting Law: City Council: Committees. lv~cre attendance by ~ddition~l council member(s) at meeth~g of a council com~tiee, held tn compliance wi~ Open Meet~'~ Law, would not constitute sp~i~l c~unc, fl mc~n~ re~ separate noti~, but sucl~ mernbeffs) ~hould .not psrtlcip~ tn conunktcc discussions or deliberations, absent sepazat~.'nOtice. 63a-$ (Ct. Ref. 125a.'14, ],61a-16, 471-e) August 2g, 1996 Laurence I. Klun Attonley at l~w 103 East Chapman.StreW. l~ly, MN $$751 In your letter you presen~ subs~lly tl~ following: Tl~e City Council of Ety is composed of s~ven members. Thc Council has established several' co-,mitres, each composed of three of its members.. Mc~tngs.of the Council sad ail comminees nrc held in compliance with O~e notice requi.tements of Minn. Stat. § 471.705, subd. lc. You then a~k substantially the following questions: QLr~T~ON ONI; If a ~om~ttee of Ru'~ ($~ Com~ membez~ meets pur~az~t to..notk'¢ uoder Mina. Stat. [ 47~.?0~, do~:a v|otafion of tlae statute ~ if a fourth Or. addt:tor~ Coup;il. ~embor attends, the conuniuee 'meetly? OPINION To the extent that ~he involvement of the additional member. ~ limked to a~tcndnnco at the committee meeting, we answer your question in t~ negative. However, we believe that s i1., JJ I J J I Lenrence I. IClun, Esq. August 28, lgg6 Page'2 violation may be foued if tiz gditior~l tremOr(s) p~c~i~ in diSc~sio~ or del~era~ M~. S~t j 4T1:~5, (~ ~n M~ ~w) r~u~m, wi~ ce~in excep~o~, ~at meetings of a local ~ovemmen( bod~ "and of any co~ittee, subcommittee, board, dep~ni or commi~ion ~P ~ open. ~ ~ pubUc. Subdbision lc of ~t secfi~ , ~Ses reqo~s ~r nofl~ m ~ publ~ of ~ time ~ pla~ of me~s of bodies A ouorum Or mom members of tl~ governing b. od.y, or. s quo. rum o.f .a .commi~.~e. .m.l~:ommitt~, board, dcpsrtment, or co~,,ss~on .thereol,_at. ~ ' _d~c~_~. decide, or r~.~t, ve information as a._.m:oup on issu=s r=lattruL~o [ne ~u~ineu ofthat_iovemi~_ bod~. Mober~ v. ln~_%~,~,tent $ch. D~...N..o.~.8i, 3~6 N.W.2d $10, 518 '(Mina. 1983) (emphasis ~ldcd); __Th_ om~ v.l~-oschel, 506 N.W.M 14 (Mhm. Ct. App. 1993). In the situation you desertS, ir is presumed duta mee~ of a committee composed of ~ members of a seven- member Council is bein~ held, puzsua~ ~o proper notice, open ~o d-,e public; If one or addilional mcmber~ of the Council arrive at hhe mottOS, however, a. quorum of. the Council is . then present. Thus. k.may be argued that the $athering is in violation of .the no,ce requirements of the Op~. Meeting Law unless.there has been.apprOpriate notice of a Council Mcct.~, in addition to the uot, ice of the comrnieee meett~. s~ch meetings si the body s pn'nur~, o~!ccs: ~pe. cm .m~u~fis, a~, ~l~,u[~z_.,.-j:__?..-. held at a time or plata other than Chat listeo on t~z sc~uie are l~cnera,y suojcc~ ~u lostin~ and mailed or.published notice requirc'ments in esch instance.' Minn.. Stat. 471.705, subd. l(c) (1994). ill I J J ,il Tim distribution of written questions and ar~swcrs w~ fan~,ioriatl¥ equivalent to receiving the information, through the mail, which is permissible 'under our p .rest__ holding. There w~.l ~ no d.e~ger of formi~ t group con~ei%'u~ becsuse no znformation was actually received until the material vas read, a~dno discussion occun'ed.' 336 N.W.2d at SI'/-18. (F. mp~is added.) The foregoes reasoning would not apply, however, In circumstances where the ~lditional Council members pantclpate in dis~ssion or dclibcr'ations of a committee which is officially comprised of less than a quorum of the Council, In such a case, the additional members' involvemertt would go beyond mere receipt of Re same information as members of th~ public who .mi~Ja choos~ to attend. Discussions a~i del~erations among a quorum or more of the Coumil could lead ~o the formulalton of m cor~ensus or preliminary decision by the Council itself. Such a proc, e~ should take place in a properly call~ and noticed Council mee~)%- rathce than in a meeting represer/ted as m committee meeting only. There may well be citizens who would forego at~ending a c°mmit~¢ me,tins, expecting to observe tho full Council dcliberations on the co~'s re~omme~IarJons st a subsequent COuncil. meetly. To the extent that fltose discussions may have already occurred without prior no,ice, the public's ri_=~s under.the Open Meeting Law would bo subver~zd. These conclusions would seem Io be implicitly SUl~..orted'by the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Thomas v. _Ifzosch¢l, ~06 N.W.Id 14 (Mitre. Ct. App. 1993), in that .case, persons constitutin~ ~ quorum of the Atica City Council attend~l a meeting ~f the A/ton Plam~in~ Commission mre found to have violated the Open Meeting Law. However, the violation wes no~ bmaed upon their presence mt tl~ mecdns, b~ u~n, ~ f~g ~at. ~ey ~d C~~ ~b~ ~ ~ a pfi~ di~si°n o~ide ~ m~ room. . Q~TION ~0 H ~ A~er ~ Qu~ion,I ~ ~y~,' w~t pr~ur~ c~ ~ employed ~ ~o~t ~ def~ ~ ~low a~ifional Cou~il mem~ m "p~icipa~"? ,~,, JJ I I~ ~ ,~J ~ R6 52~ ~ STE 200 Fax:612r297-~:i.2~5 La~t~e ~. Klun, ~q. August 28, 1~96 It is tls) arguable, howe,/et, th~ notice of the colrtmittce meedrtg is sufficient to h~form the public that infonmtion perfinc~ to city issues within the committee's subject ~rea will be received alid d~ at the st~tcd time Ju, d place and no additional notice should be ~equired. · Our coum baYe noted tl~t: [3] Legislative history suggests that thc Open Meeting Law. was enactcd to prevent public bodies fi.om dissolv~g into executive sessions on ~rrtport~nt but controversial matters and to insu~e that the public has nn opportu~ both to detect lmpropcr influences ~nd'. to present its ,/iews. Mober~_ v. Indar~_ nde~t. $ch. Dist. 1~..o. 2~I, 336 N.W.2d 510, 5I'/(Minn. 1~3). However, it-hns also been held ttm~ them needs to be a 'bt~a~. ing [of] the public's figh~ to be informed' against the 'effective and efficient administration of public bodies.' $o_~cre[~n w I)t~r~ 49s N.W.2d 61 (Minn. App. 1~93).' In the ctmumstances you present, the public h~ been approl~riately informed of the comt~ meeting and may choose to attend tn order to obselwe.comm[ttce discussions and .the presentation .of inforn~tion .to thc committee, detect ~nfluences. upon the committee's deci~lom and, wh~'c &ppropriate to thc proceedings, present'its ¥iews. It would not seem that the mere presenr, c of' an ac~itioml n'len'lber of the Council would afl, ct the right or decision of membe~ of thc public to attend tile comm~:tee meed~_~.. Indeed~ any member of the public in ~ would be .in the same. position ns a council member in the audience to observe znd evaluate the operation of the committee in carrying out its duties. Therefore, we do not bclieye that thc prit~iples underlying thc Open Meeting Law are subverted [f one or mote council n',cmber, without prior notice, merely ob.~.-rves an event or pt'oceed~ which is open on ~ equtl b~s to all members of. the public, Such "receipt of information' 'would seem even Iess troublcsome than the distribution of written information, not available to thc public, to members of a governing body as w.~$ s~nctioned ht ~ where the court said: 525 ~ STE 200 Fax:612*-297-12~, August 23, 1996 P~o 5 ,It ~,k 1[, 'Oct 16 OPINION An open, crged que, s'fion such as ~ does not lend itself ~o a comprchc~iye answer bY mesm of s~ opinion of our off'~,c. ~ best we can say is that we are unaware o~ any specific gmlu~ory procedu~ wl~ch would permit t quorum of mv-mbcrs, on an ad hoc b~sis, to discuss cipj business without specifi~ l~or ~c. One poss~ity you ha~e ~ggested is the posting sag publication of a generic notice which would rate that a quorum of members may. ~m time-to=time attend, for example, committee meetings; and that such occasions will bc comidered '~:ectal meetings" of the Coum:il. Aa noted above,, we do not believe any separate notice would be required if additional members merely attend, a committee meeting. A notice such as the ore in your ~xample might, howe~r, be hel"ful in alerti~ elm lmblic, to thc extent thcy am int~:rcstcd, that Council members might ~ obser~ the coramittee proceedtnS$. However, such a noticc would not satisfy the statutory requirements, for notice of any particular special meetin$ of the'Counc:'I For purgoses of discussions or deliberations upon city ~ by a quor-m. Mitre. Stat. § 471.705, subd. lc(b) requires that notic~ of each special meeting specify the dat~, time,, and purpose of the meeting. A conthauin$ general notice of the sort you have dcsr. rtbed would clearly not satisfy these requirements. No other mechanism comes to mind which satisfy those requirements absent a qualifying notice for each Very h'~Iy yours, HUBt~T H..~NlZEY HI Attorney KENNETH E, RA$CH.K.E, YR. Assis~rn Ar~rncy General TUESDAY, FEBRI/ARy 25 ,. 1997 ISTEA for MOund? ... ·: I Rgree with your .Feb. ]3 editorial about federal ISTEA-transportation funding -- that a "political feeding frenzy" erupts when these tax' dollars are distributed and environmemal concer,~s are not given due consid-"*' eration. - · ':. ': , - One example is the $250,000 of TEA money' pledged to the Moand, w.~ch proposes to dredge, a half-mile,.'70.fool:wide channel in a protected We. tland adjacent 'to Lake Minnetonka. This wetland acts' aa. a proteclive buff`er for Lake Minnetonka ' against: [1) storm-water runoff,, from dmw~town Mound; (2} an abandoned landfill on f. he northeast end 'of the wedand; and (3) the outflow of Lake Langdon,-one of the m6st'poUuled lakes in the Twin Cities area. "· · Citizens' concerned aboul: the un~.' wise use of tax money and p~oteeting Lake Minnetonka's water' quality should attend the Feb. 2.7 meeting Of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed'Dis- Irict, when a final decision will. be made about whetl~er tO approve 'or deny Mound's application for a dredge permit. For more information about : this important meeting, call the Mtn- nehaha Creek Watershed District at 471-0590. -- Tom Easey: Mound. '.