The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-07-27PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. C AGENDA *Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and will be enacted b.v a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion qf these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. In that event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. Page Open meeting - Pledge of Allegiance Approve agenda, with any amendments *Consent Agenda *A. Approve minutes: July 13, 2004 regular meeting *B. Approve payment of claims: Batch #1 & #2 *C. Planning Commission Recommendation(s) 1. Case No. 04-17: Mike Gardner 1599 Bluebird Lane Variance - remodel & 2nd story addition, including basement PC recommendation: approval w/ conditions *D. Approve temporary sign permit for Our Lady of the Lake Incredible Festival- Sept 10-12, 2004 *E. Approve temporary on-sale 3.2 license for Our Lady of the Lake Incredible Festival - Sept 10-12, 2004 *F. Approve adoption of resolution pursuant to MSS 272.162, Subd 3 - municipal approval of land divisions or property transfers by City of Mound prior to processing by Hennepin County Taxpayer Services *G. Approve resolution requesting that Hennepin County post Commerce Boulevard (CSAH 110) as "no parking" from the end of the current Construction (approximately Church Street), north to the Minnetrista Border *H. Approve resolution authorizing the preparation of a feasibility report for Chateau Lane elevated water storage facility 2162-2167 2168-2192 2193-2209 2210-2214 2215-2216 2217-2220 2221-2222 2223-2224 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 13, 2004 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 13, 2004, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers of city hall. Members Present: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, David Osmek and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Bonnie Ritter, Community Development Director Sarah Smith, Public Works Director Carlton Moore, Sherry Therres, Gerald & Rita Borseth, Tom Gray, Tammy Faiola, Mike Specht, Joel Reinitz, Dan AIImaras, John Beise, Annick Pratbernon. Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine in nature by the Council and will be enacted by a roil call vote. There will be no separate discussion on 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 and Pledge of Alleqiance Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Approve Agenda Meisel requested the addition of Item 3L, 2004 Retaining Wall Project Resolution, and requested the removal of Item K., Cooperative Promotion Program. Hanus requested the removal of Item (3, Planning Commission Recommendation, and Hanson requested the addition of Item 3M, Moving Council meeting from September 14 (Primary Election) to September 15. Meyer mentioned he would like to put the Gillespie Center budget on the next council agenda. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to approve the agenda as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 3. Consent Aqenda MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Hanus to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion carried. A. Approve minutes of June 8, 2004 and June 22, 2004 meetings. B. Approve payment of claims in the amount of $983,633.48. C. Approve Payment Request #7 from Environmental Associates, Inc. in the amount of $66,509.50 for the Greenway Project. D. Approve Payment Request #2 from Valley Paving in the amount of $303,509.14 ' for the 2004 Street Reconstruction Project 1 -2162- Mound City Council Minutes- July 13, 2004 E. Approve Joint Powers Agreement between the Metropolitan Council and the City of Mound for installation, replacement and maintenance of bus stop signage. F. RESOLUTION NO. 04-77: RESOLUTION TO DENY PETITION FROM MIKE GARDNER AND TED METZ 'TO VACATE AN UNIMPROVED PORTION OF WOODLAND ROAD ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1599 BLUEBIRD LANE AND 1601 BLUEBIRD LANE BEWEEN THE WEST EDGE OF THE STREET AND THE EAST EDGE OF THE FORMER COMMONS. P&Z CASE #04-04: PID #13-117-24-12-0128 and #13-117-24-12-0129. G. (removed) H. RESOLUTION NO. 04-78: RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEE SCHEDULE I. RESOLUTION NO. 04-79: RESOLUTION RENAMING PRECINCT 2/4 J. Approve Service Agreement between the City of Mound and Northern Hennepin Mediation Program K. (removed) L. RESOLUTION NO. 04-80: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2004. M. Approve moving regular Council meeting from September 14, 2004 to September 15, 2004 due to Primary Election. 3G. Planninq Commission Recommendation Case #04-07 and 04-13 - Waiver of PlattinqNariance for 5077 Shoreline Drive - Thomas Gray Hanus recommended a change in wording regarding in section 1(i), to: It is the City's intent that hardcover not exceed 30%. He also asked that l(j) be changed to reflect that a private easement shall be prepared for the shared driveway and recorded at Hennepin County which shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and/or City Attorney prior to release of the building permit, not prior to the release of the resolution. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to adopt the following resolution as amended above. The following vote in favor: Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Osmek. The following voted against: Meyer. Motion carried. RESOLUTION 'NO. 04-81: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE WAIVER OF PLATTING AND VARIANCE REQUEST FROM THOMAS GRAY FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5077 SHORELINE DRIVE TO CREATE (2) LOTS. P&Z CASE #04-07 & 04-13. PID #13-117-24-43-0008 3K. Approval of Cooperative Promotion Proqram Meisel expressed that she thinks the concept of this program is very good, but too early, timing-wise. Discussion followed regarding where the funds for this program are generated, and that it may be better to wait until the budget process is underway to budget funds for involvement in this program. 2 -2163- Mound City Council Minutes -July 13, 2004 MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to defer action on this item and have it put back on a Council agenda when the City Manager deems appropriate. The following voted in favor: Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Osmek. The following voted against: Meyer. Motion carried. 4. Comments & suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the aqenda None were offered. 5. Public Hearings and Corresponding Action A. Case #04-12 - Joel Reinitz (Mt. Olive Church representative) - CUPNariance - Memorial Garden at Mt. Olive Church at 5218 Bartlett Blvd. Sarah Smith reviewed the new drawing and changes submitted since the June 22nd meeting. There is screen of arborvitae proposed on three sides of the garden and a raise in elevation of 2'. The use of interment sites was also revised to allow for only burial urns to be used measuring no more than 9x9 inches and shall be buried at depth of 24-30 inches, and in sites 18 inches wide. Mayor Meisel opened the hearing at 8:25 p.m. (hearing continued from June 22nd). Gerald Borseth, 2537 Wilshire Blvd., expressed deep concerns over the location of a memorial garden in his neighborhood. Sherry Therres, 2521 Wilshire Blvd., stated she is against placement of the memorial garden. In her opinion it's a cemetery and she is not comfortable living next to a cemetery. Ritz Borseth, 2537 Wilshire Blvd., also expressed her disapproval of placement of a memorial garden that she will see when looking out of her dining room and kitchen. Mayor Meisel closed the hearing at 8:52 p.m. Osmek commented that the applicant has done a good job in revising the plans for the garden, which addressed some of the concerns of the Council, but he still can't vote for this and has deep concern over this type of use. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to adopt the following resolution. The following voted in favor: Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Meyer. The following voted against: Osmek. Motion carried. 3 -2164- Mound City Council Minutes - July 13, 2004 RESOLUTION NO. 04-82: RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR THE PURPOSE OF A MEMORIAL GARDEN AT MOUNT OLIVE LUTHERAN CHURCH LOCATED AT 5218 BARTLETT BOULEVARD, TRACT A & PART OF BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT "D", P&Z CASE #04-12, PID #24-117-24-21-0036. B. Review/Adoption of new FloodPlain Manaqement Ordinance and Map and Repeal of existinq Floodplain Overlay Regulations Sarah Smith informed the Council that according to the DNR and FEMA, the proposed new ordinance and map need to be formally adopted no later than September 2, 2004 for the City to remain in good standing in the federal flood protection program. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the proposed new ordinance and map. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to pass the following ordinance and approve accompanying map. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 06-2004: AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CITY CODE SUBSECTION 300.15 (FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY REGULATIONS)IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING A NEW CITY CODE CHAPTER 300.16 (FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE) MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 04-83: RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 06-2004. 6. Update on CSAH 15 Project by Dan AIImaras of Hennepin County Dan AIImaras of Hennepin County Public Works appeared before the Council to update them on the CSAH 15 Construction and Realignme'nt Project. Challenges have arose and been met, and the project is still on target for November 15th completion. 7. Review of structure located at 2146 Cedar Lane and applicability with zoninq and: buildinq code requirements per City Code 350.505 (Board of Adjustments and Appeals) and proposed resolution - continued from June 22nd. Sarah Smith reviewed the history of this item. The former Building Official deemed the structure at 2146 Cedar Lane to be a carport which is subject to the accessory building requirements and ordered that it be removed. Annick Pratbernon, the owner, is requesting that the structure be considered a pergola and therefore allowed to remain. She says she came to the City before constructing it and was told that she didn't need a building permit. After direction by Council at the June 22nd meeting, City Staff has determined that the posts of the subject structure are 2' into the Cedar Lane right-of- 4 -2165- Mound City Council Minutes- July 13, 2004 way, and the overhang encroaches another 1-2 feet more. Smith stated it is not usual and customary to allow structures in the street right-of-way. The discussion that followed centered around the use of the temporary structure and if it should be deemed a pergola or a carport. John Dean read the definition of a carport from the City Code and views the Council's findings that it is a carport, consistent with the facts and definition as stated in the code. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to deny the appeal based on the finding that the structure is encroaching on public right-of-way, and that the structure's primary purpose is determined to be that of a carport and doesn't meet the setback requirements for a carport. Meyer feels that the structure should be allowed because applicant was told by City that it was OK. Meisel stated she is against removing the structure, but that it should be moved back out of the right-of-way. The following voted in favor of the motion: Brown, Hanus and Osmek. The following voted against: Meisel and Meyer. Motion carried. Smith will prepare a letter to the property owner conveying the Council's decision. Brown asked Smith if the owner could come to the Council and request a variance for the structure and Dean stated that it is now deemed a carport and she could apply for an after the fact variance. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Meisel to direct staff to bring the membrane structure ordinance back to the council for review at the earliest practical date. The following voted in favor: Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Osmek. The following voted against: Meyer. Motion carried. 8. Review of proposed amendment to City Code Chapter 330 (Subdivision Ordinance) to regulate dock lot parcels for the purpose of providing lake access for nearby properties - continued from June 22nd. Sarah Smith reviewed the proposed changes that resulted from discussion at the June 22nd meeting. Discussion followed with regards to the proposed changes including; inserting the notification of property owners within 350', but not using the CUP process, the requirement of a dock parcel license, lake and street front footage requirements, and the consequences if a property owner violates the provisions of the proposed ordinance. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to table action on this item until the July 27th meeting, so that staff can prepare an ordinance with all of the suggested revisions. The following voted in favor: Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Osmek. The following voted against: Meyer. Motion carried. 5 -2166- Mound City Council Minutes - July 13, 2004 9. Miscellaneous/Correspondence A. DCAC Minutes - June 17, 2004 B. Harbor Wine & Spirits Report - June 2004 C. Recap of 2004 Spring Clean-up D. LMCD Minutes of May 26, 2004 E. Newsletter: Gillespie Gazette F. LMCD 2005 Budget G. Three Rivers Park District Community Needs Assessment H. MFD Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2004 10. Adjourn MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to adjourn at 10:35 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 6 -2167- JULY 27, 2004 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 071404SUE $4,960.37 JULY 072004SUE $239.33 JULY 072104SUE $17,756.84 JULY 072204SUE $161,667.04JULY 072704S U E$179,017.08JULY TOTAL $363,640.66 -2168- CITY OF MOUND City of Mound 07/14/04 7:45 AM Page 1 Payments Batch Name 071404SUE Payments Current Period: July 2004 User Dollar Amt $4,960.37 Computer Dollar Amt $4,960.37 $0.00 In Balance Refer 71404 MINNESOTA WASTEWATER OPER Cash Payment E 602-49450-434 Conference & Trainin; 08-03-04 SKINNER,KIVISTO $400.00 Invoice 071404 7/14/2004 PO 18337 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $400.00 Refer 71404 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (POLl Cash Payment E 101-.42110-321 Telephone & Cells 05-04 CELL PHONES $672.49 Invoice 071404 7/14/2004 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 We1~s Fargo 10100 Total $672.49 Refer 71404 SBC MINNCOMM PAGING Cash Payment E 222-42260-325 Pagers-Fire Dept. 07-04 PAGERS $102.70 Invoice 2023307048 7/1/2004 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $102.70 Refer 71404 SPEEDWA Y SUPERAMERICA (POL Cash Payment E 101-42110-212 Motor Fuels THRU 06-26-04 GASOLINE CHARGES $1,911.38 Invoice 071404 7/14/2004 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,911.38 Refer 71404 VERIZON WIRELESS (P/W) Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells 05-10-04 CELL PHONES $181.06 Invoice 071404 7/14/2004 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells 05-10-04 CELL PHONES $95.85 Invoice 071404 7/14/2004 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone & Cells 05~10-04 CELL PHONES $95.85 Invoice 071404 7/14/2004 Cash Payment G 101-22816 Personal Cell Phone 05-10-04 CELL PHONES $330.17 Invoice 071404 7/14/2004 Transaction Date 7/7/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $702.93 Refer 71404 XCEL ENERGY Cash Payment E 609-49750-381 Electdc Utilities 05-26-04 THRU 06-25-04 $1,170.87 Invoice 071404 7/14/2004 Transaction Date 7113/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,170.87 -2169- CITY OF MOUND Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND City of Mound Payments 07/14/04 7:45 AM Page 2 Current Period: July 2004 10100 Wells Fargo $3,095.10 $102.70 $95.85 $495.85 $1,170.87 $4,960.37 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $4,960.37 $4,960.37 .2170- CITY OF MOUND Batch Name 072004SUE Payments City of Mound Payments 07/20/04 11:34 AM Page 1 Refer 72004 MOUND POST OFFICE Cash Payment Invoice 072004 Cash Payment Invoice 072004 Transaction Date E 601-49400-322 Postage 7/20/2004 E 602-49450-322 Postage 7/20/2004 7/20/2004 Fund Summary 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND Current Period: July 2004 User Dollar Amt $239.33 Computer Dollar Amt $239.33 $0.00 UTILITY BILLING UTILITY BILLING Wells Fargo 10100 Wells Fargo $119.66 $119.67 In Balance $119.66 $119.67 10100 Total $239.33 $239.33 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $239.33 $239.33 CITY OF MOUND City of Mound Payments Current Period: July 2004 07/21/04 11:03 AM Page 1 Batch Name 072104SUE Payments User Dollar Amt $17,756.84 Computer Dollar Amt $17,756.84 $0.00 In Balance Refer 72104 BLUE EARTH COUNTY COURTHO Cash Payment G 101-10100 Cash #04-2205 BOOKING #7244 WT #0422 $240.00 Invoice 072104 7/21/2004 Transaction Date 7/20/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $240.00 Refer 72104 CRIME PREVENTION MINNESOTA Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training 07-19-04 MCPA HOUSING PETZ $190.00 Invoice 04028 7/21/2004 PO 18402 Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training 07-19-04 MCPA HOUSING NICCUM $190.00 invoice 04028 7/21/2004 PO 18402 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $380.00 Refer 72104 EDINA REALTY TITLE Cash Payment G 101-12300 Special Assess Rec-Deferred REFUND DEFERRED ASSESSMENT $548.62 Invoice 072104 7/21/2004 Transaction Date 7/20/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $548.62 Refer 72104 FAMOUS DAVES BBQ Cash Payment E 101-41110-430 Miscellaneous EE APPRECIATION PARTY $834.97 invoice 072104 7/21/2004 Transaction Date 7/20/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $834.97 Refer 72104 JUMP FOR JOY RENTALS, LLC Cash Payment E 101-41110-430 Miscellaneous Invoice 072104 7/21/2004 Transaction Date 7/20/2004 Refer 72104 LEAGUE MN CITIES INSURANCE T Cash Payment Invoice 4198 Cash Payment Invoice 4198 Cash Payment Invoice 4198 Cash Payment Invoice 4198 Cash Payment Invoice 4198 Cash Payment Invoice 4198 Cash Payment Invoice 4198 Cash Payment Invoice 4198 Cash Payment Invoice 4198 Cash Payment Invoice 4198 EE APPRECIATION PARTY $165.07 Wells Fargo 10100 Total E 101-41110-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 7/21/2004 E 101-41310-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 7/21/2004 E 101-41500-151 Worker's Comp insuranc WORKERS COMP 7/2112004 E 101-42110-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 7/21/2004 E 101-42400-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 7/21/2004 E 101-43100-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 7/21/2004 E 101-45200-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 7/21/2004 E 222-42260-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 7/21/2004 E 609-49750-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 7/21/2004 E 601-49400-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 7/21/2004 $165.07 $85.45 $7o.11 $192.81 $2,248.00 $227.86 $843.55 $195.00 $5,584.94 $806.30 $1,161.25 -2172- - CITY OF MOUND Batch Name 072704SUE Payments Refer 72704 3M COMPANY City of Mound Payments 07/22/04 8:21 AM Page 1 Current Period: July 2004 User Dollar Amt $179,017.08 Computer Dollar Amt $179,017.08 Cash Payment E 101-43100-226 Sign Repair Materials Invoice TP30240 6/30/2004 PO 13820 Cash Payment E 101-43100-226 Sign Repair Materials Invoice TP30878 6/30/2004 PO 13820 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 $0.00 In Balance REFLECTION WHITE $189.30 CUTTABLE FILM $575.10 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $764.40 Refer 72704 AAA NURSERY AND LANDSCAPIN Cash Payment E 101-41910-220 Repair/Maint Supply 07-16-04 PULVERIZED DIRT $239.62 Invoice 072704 7/18/2004 Transaction Date 7/20/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $239.62 Refer 72704 ABM EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY, IN Cash Payment E 602-49450-221 Equipment Parts Invoice 076401-00 6/30/2004 Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts Invoice 076474-00 6/30/2004 Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts Invoice 076474-00 6/30/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 CLEAR LIGHT, PIG TAIL 3 WIRE #27 UTILITY PARTS UTILITY PARTS Wells Fargo 10100 Total $22.73 $35.90 $26.90 $85.53 Refer 72704 AMCON Cash Payment Invoice 072704 Transaction Date E 496-46580-500 Capital Outlay FA 6/30/2004 7/21/2004 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,191.37 $2,191.37 Refer 72704 ARCTIC GLACIER PREMIUM ICE Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice 438416613 6/12/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice 438419209 6/12/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice 438419108 Cash Payment E Invoice 438419416 Cash Payment E Invoice 438418408 Cash Payment E Invoice 438418508 Cash Payment E Invoice 438418715 Cash Payment E Invoice 438419807 Cash Payment E Invoice 438419908 Transaction Date 6/12/2004 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE 6/12/2004 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE 6/12/2004 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE 6/12/2004 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE 6/1 2/2004 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE 6/12/2004 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE 6/12/2004 7/12/2004 Wefts Fargo 10100 Total $82.11 $87.42 $52.05 $131.66 $116.73 $263.52 $112.68 $64.56 $83,88 $994.61 Refer 72704 BELLBOY CORPORATION -2173' CITY OF MOUND City of Mound Payments 07/22/04 8:21 AM Page 2 Current Period: July 2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 30051800 7/12/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR invoice 29990000 7/12/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MERCHANDISE invoice 38627700 7/12/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 30117400 7/12/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MERCHANDISE Invoice 38688000 7/12/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MERCHANDISE Invoice 38660700 7/12/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 30109600 7/12/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 30077100 7/12/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 30074900 7/12/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 10100 Total LIQUOR WINE CREDIT-LIQUOR WeLls Fargo $1,691.03 $1,693.87 $24.45 $928.75 $46.14 $214.10 $1,613.20 $938.00 -$5.08 $7,144.46 Refer 72704 BFI OF MINNESOTA, INC. Cash Payment E 101-45200-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos 06-04 GARBAGE SERVICE $249.91 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Cash Payment E 101-43100-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos 06-04 GARBAGE SERVICE $33.24 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Cash Payment E 601-49400-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos 06-04 GARBAGE SERVICE $33.24 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Cash Payment E 602-49450-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos 06-04 GARBAGE SERVICE $33.25 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos 06-04 GARBAGE SERVICE $19.42 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Cash Payment E 101-43100-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos 06-04 GARBAGE SERVICE $22,15 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $391.21 Refer 72704 BIFFS, INC PORTABLE RESTRO0 Cash Payment E 101-45200-410 Rentals (GENERAL) 06-04 MOUND BAY PARK $434.52 Invoice W226662 7/2/2004 Cash Payment E 101-45200-410 Rentals (GENERAL) 06-04 CENTERVlEW BEACH $234.26 Invoice W226661 7/2/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $668.78 Refer 72704 BLACK AND DECKER SERVICE CE Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials Invoice 02064623 7/7/2004 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials Invoice 02064623 7/7/2004 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials Invoice 02064623 7/7/2004 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 MULTIVOLTAGE CHARGERS MULTIVOLTAGE CHARGERS MULTIVOLTAGE CHARGERS Wells Fargo 10100 Total $38.85 $38.85 $38.84 $116.54 Refer 72704 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHE - 2174- CITY OF MOUND City of Mound Payments 07/22/04 8:21 AM Page 3 Current Period: July 2004 Cash Payment E 101-42110-400 Repairs & Maint Contract CJDN CONNECT CHARGE $630.00 Invoice P07 MN0271300 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $630.00 Refer 72704 BUSINESS FORMS AND ACCOUNT Cash Payment E 101-41910-210 Operating Supplies CHECKS $232.83 Invoice 32979 6/14/2004 PO 14875 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $232.83 Refer 72704 CARQUEST OF NAVARRE Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery BRAKE ROTOR $103.71 Invoice N35995 Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery BRAKE ROTOR $151.95 invoice N35398 Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery DISC PADS $65.64 Invoice N35392 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $321,30 Refer 72704 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (MINNEG Cash Payment Invoice 072704 Cash Payment Invoice 072704 Cash Payment Invoice 072704 Cash Payment invoice 072704 Cash Payment Invoice 072704 Cash Payment Invoice 072704 Cash Payment Invoice 072704 Transaction Date E 101-45200-383 Gas Utilities 7/27/2004 E 101-45200-383 Gas Utilities 7/27/2004 E 101-41910-383 Gas Utilities 7/27/2004 E 101-43100-383 Gas Utilities 7/27/2004 E 601-49400-383 Gas Utilities 7~27/2004 E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 7/27/2004 E 609-49750-383 Gas Utilities 7/27/2004 7/12/2004 Refer 72704 CHAMPION AUTO Cash Payment E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply Invoice D268929 7/6/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 05-19-04 THRU 06-22-04 #543-000-053-000 $51.54 05-19-04 THRU 06-22-04 #543-001-095-800 $58.75 05-19-04 THRU 06-22-04 #543-001-853-000 $234.32 05-19-04 THRU 06-22-04 #543-001-972-603 $30.04 05-19-04 THRU 06-22-04 #543-001-972-603 $16.39 05-19-04 THRU 06-22-04 #543-001-972-603 $21.85 05-19-04 THRU 06-22-04 #543-004-818-801 $28.04 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $440.93 SLOTTED 3/16 $8.50 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $8.50 Refer 72704 COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 83412061 7/8/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 72704 COLE DIRECTORY Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies COLE DIRECTORY Invoice 0356439-1N 6/22/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 72704 COMPUTER CHEQUE $267.30 Total $267.30 $299.95 Total $299.95 Cash Payment E 609-49750-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 05-04 CHECK VERIFICATION invoice 106850604 7/13/2004 $54.50 -2175- City of Mound 07/22/04 821 AM Page 4 Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: July 2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 06-04 CHECK VERIFICATION $54.50 Invoice 106850604 7/13/2004 Transaction Date 7/20/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $109.00 Refer 72704 COPY IMAGES, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 101-41910-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 06-05 COPIER MAINTENANCE $340.80 invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $340.80 Refer 72704 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT Cash Payment E 601-49400-221 Equipment Parts CASE METERS $996.94 Invoice 3239475 7/8/2004 PO 18573 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $996.94 Refer 72704 DA'Y DISTRIBUTING COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale BEER $2,356.60 Invoice 271768 7/7/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $111.65 Invoice 271769 7/7/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $779.75 Invoice 272448 7/7/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $114.00 Invoice 272883 7/7/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $42.50 Invoice 273078 7/7/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,404.50 Refer 72704 DODDS, BRUCE Cash Payment R 281-34725 Dock Permits REFUND SHARE FEE $100.00 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Cash Payment R 281-34705 LMCD Fees REFUND LMCD FEE $7.50 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/20/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $107,50 Refer 72704 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $7,083,95 Invoice 223643 7/12/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1tl.50 Invoice 44647 7/12/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $3,127,28 Invoice 223732 7/12/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $330.00 Invoice 44740 7/12/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10,652.73 Refer 72704 EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Cash Payment G 101-22908 Mound Harbor Renaissance 06-04 MOUND HARBOR RENAISSANCE $1,050.00 Invoice 22535 7/27/2004 Cash Payment E 455-46386-300 Professional Srvs 06-04 TIF 1-2 DEVELOPMENT $675.00 /'"-'~ Invoice 22534 7/27/2004 Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 06-04 PROJECT MANAGEMENT $525.00 Invoice 22533 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,250.00 -2176- CITY OF MOUND City of Mound Payments 07/22/04 8:21 AM Page 5 Current Period: July 2004 Refer 72704 ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT AN E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts 7/14/2004 E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts 7/14/2004 7/21/2004 Cash Payment Invoice 4429 Cash Payment Invoice 4416 Transaction Date CREDIT-SWITCH BROOM WATER -$27.69 MIRROR HEAD $169.18 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $141.49 Refer 72704 EQUIPMENT SUPPLY, INCORPOR Cash Payment E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings Invoice S258/71504 7/15/2004 Cash Payment E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings Invoice S258/71404 7/15/2004 Transaction Date 7/20/2004 07-01-04 THRU 09-30-04 MAINTENANCE BELTS Wells Fargo 10100 $980.00 $86.51 Total $1,066.51 Refer 72704 ESS BROTHERS AND SONS, INCO Cash Payment E 602-49450-220 Repair/Maint Supply MANHOLE COVERS $575.10 Invoice GG2808 6/29/2004 PO 18336 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $575.10 Refer 72704 FIRE CONTROL EXTINGUISHER Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials 2004 ANNUAL SERVICE MAINTENANCE $94.95 Invoice 80124 6/25/2004 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials 2004 ANNUAL SERVICE MAINTENANCE $94.95 Invoice 80124 6/25/2004 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials 2004 ANNUAL SERVICE MAINTENANCE $94.96 Invoice 80124 6/25/2004 Cash Payment E 101-42110-219 Safety supplies 2004 ANNUAL SERVICE MAINTENANCE $261.92 Invoice 80124 6/25/2004 Cash Payment E 101-45200-223 Building Repair Supplies 2004 ANNUAL SERVICE MAINTENANCE $54.70 Invoice 80086 6/25/2004 Cash Payment..E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings 2004 ANNUAL SERVICE MAINTENANCE $55.00 Invoice 80085 6125/2004 Transaction Date 7/20/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $656.48 Refer 72704 FIRE DEPT ASSOC OF MINNESOT Cash Payment E 222-42260-433 Dues and Subscriptions 06-01-04 THRU 05-31-05 MEMBERSHIP DUES $300.00 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $300,00 Refer 72704 FISCHER SALES AND SERVICE Cash Payment E 101-43100-226 Sign Repair Materials SIGN CAD/CAM TRAINING $350.00 Invoice 15 7/13/2004 Transaction Date 7/20/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $350.00 Refer 72704 FRONTIER/CITIZENS COMMUNICA Cash Payment E 609-49750-321 Telephone & Cells 06-04 472-0648 $620.42 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Cash Payment E 101-45200-321 Telephone & Cells 07-04 472-0646 $19,64 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $640.06 Refer 72704 FRONTLINE PLUS FIRE AND RESC Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies GH SCENE LIGHT $216.74 invoice 9123 6/3012004 PO 18083 -2177- CITY OF MOUND Transaction Date 7/13/2004 City of Mound Payments 07/22/04 8:21 AM Page 6 Current Period: July 2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $21G.74 Refer 72704 GARY'S DIESEL SERVICE Cash Payment E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery PLOW #8 REPAIRS Invoice 63644 5/13/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo $579.58 10100 Total $579.58 Refer 72704 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD Cash Payment Invoice 072704 Transaction Date E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies 7/27/2004 7/13/2004 06-04 WATER SERVICE $30.90 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $30.90 Refer 72704 GOODYEAR TIRES Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery TIRES FOR SQUADS invoice 101099 7/7/2004 PO 18423 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $525.00 $525.00 Refer 72704 GRAPE BEGINNINGS, INCORPOR Cash Payment Invoice 65531 Transaction Date E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale 7/15/2004 7/20/2004 WINE $323.00 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $323.00 Refer 72704 GRIGGS COOPER AND COMPANY ?"~' Cash Payment ~ Invoice 815358 Cash Payment Invoice 915357 Cash Payment Invoice 815335 Cash Payment Invoice 912127 Cash Payment Invoice 610878 Cash Payment Invoice 917725 Cash Payment Invoice 917710 Cash Payment Invoice 917709 Cash Payment Invoice 917742 Transaction Date E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE 7/8/2004 E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR 7/8/2004 E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE 7/8/2004 E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR 7/8/20O4 E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR 7/8/2004 E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR 7/8/2004 E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE 7/8/2004 E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR 7/8/2004 E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE 7/8/2004 7/12J2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $371.69 $1,198.03 $789.70 $1,793.87 $143.04 $1,047.66 $722.35 $78.38 $251.53 $6,396.25 Refer 72704 HART, PATRICK Cash Payment G 101-22803 Police Reserves Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo Refer 72704 HA WKINS, INCORPORA TED /,,,-.,,Cash Payment E 601-49400-227 Chemicals CONTAINERS (6) 3voice DM105145 6/30/2004 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo UNIFORMS, HART,PATRICK $97.76 10100 Total $97,76 $30.00 10100 Total $30.00 Refer 72704 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATIO -2178- CITY OF MOUND Cash Payment E 101-42110-418 Other Rentals invoice 24068024 6/30/2004 Cash Payment E 222-42260-418 Other Rentals Invoice 24068023 6/30/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 City of Mound Payments 07/22/04 8:21 AM Page 7 Current Period: July 2004 06-04 RADIO LEASE $1,323.44 06-04 RADIO LEASE $1,002.96 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,326.40 Refer 72704 HOHENSTEINS, INCORPORATED Cash Payment Invoice 335140 Cash Payment Invoice 330254 Cash Payment Invoice 329355 Cash Payment Invoice 336159 Transaction Date E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $92.50 7/6/2004 E 609.49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $123.00 7/6/2004 E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $154.35 7/6/2004 E 609.49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $294.00 7/6/2004 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $663,85 Refer 72704 HOME DEPOT/GECF Cash Payment invoice 072704 Cash Payment Invoice 072704 Cash Payment Invoice 072704 Cash Payment invoice 072704 Transaction Date E 101-43100-221 Equipment Pads 7/27/2004 E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials 7/27/2004 E 601.49400-230 Shop Materials 7/27/2004 E 602.49450-230 Shop Materials 7/27/2004 7/21/2004 TRAILER BALL $129.50 SHOP SUPPLIES $28.58 SHOP SUPPLIES $28.58 SHOP SUPPLIES $28.59 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $215.25 Rear 72704 Cash Payment Invoice 16477 Cash Payment Invoice 16320 Cash Payment Invoice 16345 Cash Payment Invoice 16360 Cash Payment Invoice 16406 Cash Payment Invoice 16467 Cash Payment Invoice 16505 Cash Payment invoice 16508 Cash Payment Invoice 16513 Cash Payment Invoice 16529 Cash Payment Invoice 16548 ISLA ND PA RK SKELL Y E 101.45200.409 Other Equipment Repair FLAT TIRE REPAIR 6~24/2004 E 101-42110.404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #844 REPAIRS 6/24/2004 E 101-42110.404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #6440 REPAIRS 6~24/2004 E 101.42110.404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #842 REPAIRS 6/24/2004 E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #843 REPAIRS 6/24/2O04 E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #841 FRONT UNIT 6/24/2004 E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #847 FRONT BRAKES 6/24/2004 E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery ~842 MOUNT/BALANCE TIRES 6/24/2004 E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #845 OIL CHANGE 6/24/2004 E 101-42110.404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #6416 BLADE 6/24/2004 E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #844 ROTOR 6/24/2004 $21.00 $415.82 $25.86 $162.12 $44.78 $203.50 $141.47 $85.00 $27.45 $32.59 $95.86 -2179- City of Mound 07/22/04 8:21 AM ×~~"-~.%, Page 8 // Payments CiTY OF MOUND Current Period: July 2004 Cash Payment E 1OI-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery BRAKE ROTOR $153.24 Invoice 16473 6~24~2004 Cash Payment E 601-49400-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery BRAKE ROTOR $38.31 invoice 16473 6~24~2004 Cash Payment E 602-49450.404 Repairs/Maint Machinery BRAKE ROTOR $38.30 Invoice 16473 6/24/2004 Cash Payment E 601-49400-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery 2002 CHEV TRANSMISSION $161.08 Invoice 16318 6/2412004 Cash Payment E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery BREAK LINES $141.35 Invoice 16334 6/24/2004 Cash Payment E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery R&R ARM, PITMAN $422.65 Invoice 16350 6/24/2004 Cash Payment E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery BATTERY $76.70 Invoice 16461 6/24/2004 Cash Payment E 601-49400-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery BATTERY $76.70 Invoice 16461 6/24/2004 Cash Payment E 602-49450-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery BATTER $76.70 Invoice 16461 6~24~2004 Cash Payment E 601-49400-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery BULBS $30.37 Invoice 16534 6/24/2004 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,470.85 : Refer 72704 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$10.98 invoice 254357 6/22/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUQR -$132.95 Invoice 254356 6/22/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LiQUOR -$49.50 Invoice 254357 6/22/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $6.90 Invoice 1749574 6/22/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $787.05 Invoice 1749573 6/22/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,444.25 Invoice 1749572 6/22/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,427,50 Invoice 1749571 6/22/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $405.55 Invoice 1752189 6/22/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $34.25 invoice 1752188 6~22~2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $276.79 Invoice 1752187 6/22/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2,638,05 Invoice 1752186 6/22/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$93,24 Invoice 255205 6/22/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$155.40 'Invoice 255204 6/22/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$69.93 Invoice 255203 6/22/2004 -2180- CITY OF MOUND City of Mound 07/22/04 8:21 AM Page 9 Payments Current Period: July 2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$163.~T Invoice 255202 6/22/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$69.93 Invoice 255201 6/22/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$54.39 Invoice 255200 6/22/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$70.89 Invoice 255199 6/22/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $6,149.96 Refer 72704 LANO EQUIPMENT, INCORPORAT Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair TRACK OFF SHOP REPAIR $75,48 Invoice 110935 6/23/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $75.48 Refer 72704 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials TRACTOR UTILITY LIGHT $31.45 invoice 2192927 7/6/2004 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials TRACTOR UTILITY LIGHT $31.45 Invoice 2192927 7/6/2004 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials TRACTOR UTILITY LIGHT $31.45 invoice 2192927 7/6/2004 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $94.35 Refer 72704 LEAGUE MN CITIES INSURANCE T Cash Payment E 101-41110-361 General Liability Ins GEN LIABILITY 2004 $1,352.58 Invoice 16654 6/30/2004 Cash Payment E 101-41310-361 General Liability Ins GEN LIABILITY 2004 $419.47 Invoice 16654 6/30/2004 Cash Payment E 101-41500-361 General Liability Ins GEN LIABILITY 2004 $539.32 invoice 16654 6/30/2004 Cash Payment E 101-41600-361 General Liability Ins GEN LIABILITY 2004 $99.30 Invoice 16654 6/30/2004 Cash Payment E 101-42110-361 General Liability Ins GEN LIABILITY 2004 $2,934.58 invoice 16654 6/30/2004 Cash Payment E 101-42115-361 General Liability Ins GEN LIABILITY 2004 $44,52 Invoice 16654 6/30/2004 Cash Payment E 101-42400-361 General Liability Ins GEN LIABILITY 2004 $513.64 Invoice 16654 6/3012004 Cash Payment E 101-43100-361 General Liability Ins GEN LIABILITY 2004 $3,247.90 Invoice 16654 6/30/2004 Cash Payment E 101-41910-361 General Liability Ins GEN LIABILITY 2004 $217.44 Invoice 16654 6/30/2004 Cash Payment E 101-45200-361 General Liability Ins GEN LIABILITY 2004 $732,79 Invoice 16654 6/30/2004 Cash Payment E 222-42260-361 General Liability Ins GEN LIABILITY 2004 $3,929.33 Invoice 16654 6/30/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-361 General Liability ins GEN LIABILITY 2004 $4,198.12 Invoice 16654 6/30/2004 Cash Payment E 601-49400-361 General Liability Ins GEN LIABILITY 2004 $3,066.42 Invoice 16654 6/3012004 -2181 - CITY OF MOUND Cash Payment Invoice 16654 Cash Payment Invoice 16654 Transaction Date City of Mound Payments 07/22/04 8:21 AM Page 10 Current Period: July 2004 E 602-49450-361 General Liability ins GEN LIABILITY 2004 $3,066.42 6/30/2004 E 281-45210-361 General Liability Ins GEN LIABILITY 2004 $433.17 6/30/2004 7/12J2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $24,795.00 Cash Payment Invoice 688494 Cash Payment Jnvoice 689339 'Transaction Date Refer 72704 MADDEN, FRANK AND ASSOCIA T Cash Payment E 101-49999-300 Professional Srvs 06-04 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $589.83 Invoice 072704 7/1/2004 Transaction Date 7/20/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total ~ $589.83 Refer 72704 MAINSTREAM SOLUTIONS Cash Payment E 101-42110-300 Professional Srvs 07-04 VIRUS FILTERING $11.98 Invoice 1140-12931 7/1/2004 Cash Payment E 222-42260-300 Professional Srvs 07-04 VIRUS FILTERING $17.97 Invoice 1.140-12931 7/1/2004 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $29.95 Refer 72704 MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $288.00 7/9/2004 E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,294.60 7/9/2004 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,582.60 Refer 72704 MATACHECK, SUZANNE Cash Payment G 101-22965 2530 Ruby Lane #03-47 Mat REFUND ESCROW ACCOUNT $691 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $691.00 Refer 72704 MATTHEWS, DAVE LANDSCAPING Cash Payment E 401-43104-300 Professional Srvs PREP/INSTALL SOD/SEED $1,422.00 invoice 287673 7/14/2004 Transaction Date 7/15/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,422.00 Refer 72704 MCKINLEY, JOHN Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training REIMBURSE CONFERENCE $200.00 invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $200.00 Refer 72704 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIR Cash Payment E 602-49450-388 Waste DisposaI-MCIS 08-04 WASTEWATER $32,544.13 Invoice 777939 7/8/2004 Transaction Date 7/15/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $32,544.13 Refer 72704 MICHAEL, GEOFF Cash Payment E 101-42110-210 Operating Supplies DVD PLAYER/BURNER $276.89 invoice 653 7/6/2004 PO 18427 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $276.89 Refer 72704 MINNEHAHA BUILDING MAINTENA Oash Payment E 609-49750-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings 06-14-04 WINDOW WASH $37.28 Wells Fargo 10100 'invoice 711006230 7/4/2004 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Total $37.26 -2182- CITY OF MOUND Rear 72704 Cash Payment InvOice 072704 Transaction Date City of Mound Payments 07/22/04 8:21 AM Page 11 Current Period: July 2004 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTRO E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs 03-24-04 THUR 06-15-04 DOWNTOWN TIF $1,140.00 DISTRICT 7/27/2004 7/9/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,140.00 Refer 72704 MORAN USA, LLC Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MERCHANDISE $85.52 Invoice 238673 6/14/2004 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $85.52 Refer 72704 MOUND BUSINESS Cash Payment E 609-49750-340 Advertising 07-04 1/4 PAGE AD $90.00 Invoice 285 7/1/2004 Transaction Date 7/1212004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $90.00 Refer 72704 MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT Cash Payment E 222-42260-185 Fire-Maintenance Pay 06-04 MAINTENANCE $597.00 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Cash Payment E 222-42260-190 Fire-Monthly Salaries 06-04 SALARIES $7,052.75 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Cash Payment E 222-42260-180 Fire-Drill Pay 06-04 DRILLS $720.00 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $8,369.75 Refer 72704 MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIA TIO Cash Payment E 895-49990-124 Fire Pens Contdb 07-04 FIRE RELIEF $9,641.67 invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 TOtal $9,641.67 Refer 72704 MOUND MARKETPLACE LLC Cash Payment E 609-49750-412 Building Rentals 07-04 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE $1,470.50 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,470.50 Refer 72704 MOUND, CITY OF Cash Payment E 609-49750-382 Water Utilities Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/20/2004 Refer 72704 NATIONAL WATERWORKS Cash Payment E 601-49400-221 Equipment Parts Invoice 1464670 7/8/2004 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 06-04 WATER/SEWER $21.91 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $21.91 REPAIR AUTOGUN $417,95 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $417.95 Refer 72704 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, INCORPO Cash Payment E 601-49400-395 Gopher One-Call 06-04 LOCATES $331.20 Invoice 4060570 6/30/2004 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $331.20 Refer 72704 PAINE MASONRY Cash Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic 4639 MANCHESTER CURB/APRON $3,000.00 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,000.00 -2183- CITY OF MOUND City of Mound Payments 07/22/04 8:21 AM Page 12 Current Period: July 2004 Refer 72704 PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMPA Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $541.00 Invoice 8040676 7/6/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $150.00 Invoice 8037263 7/6/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $605.97 Invoice 8041271 7/6/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,296.97 Refer 72704 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $286.06 Invoice 5090292 7/8/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $145.50 Invoice 2092256 7/8/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $294.55 Invoice 2092257 7/8/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $25.00 Invoice 2092258 7/8/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $46.00 Invoice 2092259 7/8/2004 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $797.11 Refer 72704 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CIGARETTES $511.26 Invoice 44188 7/13/2004 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $511.26 Refer 72704 QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,677.77 Invoice 425550-00 7/7/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,167.50 Invoice 425667-00 7/7/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $92.06 Invoice 384362-00 7/7/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $411.62 Invoice 427986-00 7/7/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $898.22 invoice 428292-00 7/7/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,567.83 Invoice 428201-00 7/7/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $63.13 Invoice 427990-00 7/7/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,878.13 Refer 72704 R.C. ELECTRIC, INCORPORATED Cash Paymen~ E 101-45200-223 Building Repair Supplies REHANG LIGHT FIXTURE $115.00 Invoice 072704 7/13/2004 Transaction Date 7/15/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $115.00 Refer 72704 ROTARY CLUB OF MOUND , Cash Payment E 101-42110-433 Dues and Subscriptions Invoice 072704 7127/2004 JAN,FEB,MAR 2004 DUES $250.00 -2184- CiTY OF MOUND Transaction Date 7/21/2004 City of Mound Payments 07/22/04 8:21 AM Page 13 Current Period: July 2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $250.00 Refer 72704 SCHARBER AND SONS Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts FILLER CAP $25.53 Invoice 01-318335 7/6/2004 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair OIL SEAL KIT $407.05 Invoice 28219 7/6/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $432.58 Cash Payment E 101-43100-226 Sign Repair Materials GRAPHTEC CUTTER $191.70 Invoice 101036 7/12/2004 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $191.70 Refer 72704 SOS PRINTING Cash Payment E 401-46377-300 Professional Srvs PROJECT FLYERS $80.42 Invoice 65475 7/9/2004 Cash Payment E 101-42110-210 Operating Supplies WARNING NOTICES $368.97 Invoice 65435 7/9/2004 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies PAPER $45,09 Invoice 65449 7/9/2004 PO 18411 Cash Payment E 101-42110-350 Pdnting BUSINESS CARDS FOR OFFICERS $773.83 Invoice 65281 7/9/2004 PO 18404 Cash Payment E 101-42110-350 Printing BECK BUSINESS CARDS $131.74 Invoice 65403 7/9/2004 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,400.05 Refer 72704 ST. BONIFACIUS MOTOR SPORTS Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery NEEDLE VALVE SET $36.15 Invoice 89338 6/4/2004 PO 18477 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $36.15 Refer 72704 STERNE ELECTRIC COMPANY Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay FA LIFT STATIONS $440.00 Invoice 8243 6/26/2004 Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay FA LIFT STATIONS $2,986.25 Invoice 8294 6/26/2004 Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay FA LIFT STATIONS $1,404.20 Invoice 8247 6/26/2004 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,830.45 Refer 72704 STOFFEL SEALS CORPORATION Cash Payment G 101-22803 Police Reserves JUNIOR POLICE BADGES $811.13 Invoice 0904664 6/25/2004 PO 18408 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 , Total $811.13 Refer 72704 STREi~FIERs ................................................................................................. Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts FLASHLIGHT BULBS $89.35 Invoice 1200574 7/6/2004 PO 18571 Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery TASK FORCE VEHICLE $39.25 Invoice 1200800 7/6/2004 PO 18425 Cash Payment E 101-42110-110 Clothing Allowance BALLISTIC VEST #6425 $779.95 Invoice 1201263 7/6/2004 PO 18426 -2185- City of Mound 07/22./04 8:21 AM ~/'"~ ~ ~~" ---'- ,.~ Payments Page 14 CITY OF MOUND Current Period: July 2004 Cash Payment E 101-42110-219 Safety supplies TACTICAL SLINGS $11g.g7 Invoice 449016.1 7/6/2004 PO 18419 Cash Payment E 101-42110-430 Miscellaneous KEY HOLDER $21.25 Invoice 446362.2 7/6/2004 PO 18410 Cash Payment E 101-42110-430 Miscellaneous BIG EASY OPENING TOOL $48.88 Invoice 446362.1 7/6/2004 PO 18410 Cash Payment E 101-42110-219 Safety supplies .45 AMMO $1,203.43 Invoice 446291.1 7/6/2004 PO 18409 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies INTOXILYZER MOUTHPIECES $143.51 Invoice 440132.1 716/2004 PO 18365 Cash Payment E 101-42110-219 Safety supplies SHIRT $35.00 Invoice 438900,tB 7/6/2004 PO 18352 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,480.59 Refer 72704 SUPERIOR FORD FLEET/GOVERN Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery REMOTE KEY/PROGRAMMING $28.95 Invoice 386063 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $28.95 Refer 72704 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $228.00 Invoice 33187 7/12/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $498.00 r Invoice 33266 7/12/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $140.85 Invoice 340642 7/12/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $3,781.75 invoice 340643 7/12/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,648.60 Refer 72704 TOTAL REGISTER SYSTEMS, INC, Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies LABELS FOR REGISTER $124.50 Invoice 14941 7/9/2004 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $124,50 Refer 72704 TRAINING OF OFFICERS, ASSOCI Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Trainin~ 04-12-04 CRISIS NEGOTIATION $25.00 Invoice 5594 7/27/2004 PO 18175 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $25,00 Refer 72704 TRUE VALUE, MOUND Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials 06-04 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $376.35 invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies 06-04 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $5.52 invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials 06-04 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $161,29 invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials 06-04 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $103,32 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Cash Payment E 101-43100-226 Sign Repair Materials 06-04 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $24.45 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply 06-04 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $174,93 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 -2186- CiTY OF MOUND Cash Payment Invoice 072704 Cash Payment Invoice 072704 Cash Payment Invoice 072704 Transaction Date City of Mound Payments 07/22/04 8:21 AM Page 15 Current Period: July 2004 E 101-45200-210 Operating Supplies 06-04 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $39.82 7/27/2004 E 101-45200-223 Building Repair Supplies 06-04 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $192.38 7/27~2004 E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic 06-04 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $178.34 7/27/2004 7/15/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,256.40 Refer 72704 UNIFORMS LIMITED Cash Payment G 101-22803 Police Reserves STREETGEAR PACK $55.50 Invoice 228488 7/27/2004 PO 18415 Cash Payment G 101-22803 Police Reserves SOFTVVEAR TASER $162.22 Invoice 229642 7/27/2004 PO 18416 Cash Payment G 101-22803 Police Reserves HUSBY UNIFORMS $97.80 Invoice 226356 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $315.52 Refer 72704 WALDRON, PAUL A. AND ASSOCIA Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 06-17-04 THRU 07-20-04 BLDG INSPECTIONS $6,710.00 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $6,710.00 Refer 72704 WHEELER'S PHOTOGRAPHY Cash Payment E 101-42110-430 Miscellaneous DEPARTMENT PICTURE $78.76 Invoice 1005 3/3/2004 Transaction Date 7/21/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $78,76 Rear 72704 WIDMER CONSTRUCTION, LLC Cash Payment E 601-49400-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 06-18-04 REPAIR LEAK $1,085.00 Invoice 582 6/30/2004 Cash Payment E 401-43104-300 Professional Srvs 06-25-04 FIRE HYDRANT $825.00 Invoice 590 6/30/2004 Cash Payment E 602-49450-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 06-21-04 SHOREWOOD LANE $725.00 invoice 591 6/30/2004 Transaction Date 7/12/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,635.00 Refer 72704 WINE COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 31001-00 6/30/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 31419-00 6/30/2004 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 31474-00 6/30/2004 WINE $369.40 WINE $529,70 CREDIT-WINE -$68.00 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $831.10 Refer 72704 XCEL ENERGY Cash Payment E 101-41910-381 Electric Utilities 05-04 BALANCE DUE $11.14 Invoice 072704 7/27/2004 Transaction Date 7/13/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $11.14 -2187- , ,&, I ,,Ii ~ ~ I& hh CITY OF MOUND Fund Summa~ 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 455 TIF 1-2 496 HRA PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 895 FIRE RELIEF FUND City of Mound Payments 07/22104 8:22 AM Page 16 Current Period: July 2004 10100 Wells Fargo $40,662.27 $13,867.65 $540.67 $2,327.42 $2,340.00 $2,191.37 $6,589.25 $42,504.12 $58,352.66 $9,641.67 $179,017.08 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 79,017.08 $179,017.08 -2188- CITY OF MOUND Batch Name 072204SUE Payments City of Mound Payments 07/23/04 8:04 AM Page 1 User Dollar Amt $161,667.04 Computer Dollar Amt $161,667.04 Refer 72204 CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY, INCOR E 496-46580-500 Capital Outlay FA 7/22/2004 7/22/2004 Cash Payment Invoice 072204 Transaction Date $0.00 In Balance PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING $736.00 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $736.00 Refer 72204 DALCO ROOFING AND SHEET ME Cash Payment E 496-46580-500 Capital Outlay FA PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING $4,911.00 Invoice 072204 7/22/2004 Transaction Date 7/22/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,911 Refer 72204 HANSON SPANCRETE MIDWEST, I Cash Payment E 496-46580-500 Capital Outlay FA PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING $24,005.00 Invoice 072204 7/22/2004 Transaction Date 7/22/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $24,005.00 Refer 72204 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP, I Cash Payment E 401-46540-300 Professional Srvs $3,556.63 Invoice 072204 7/8/2004 Cash Payment E 401-46377-300 Professional Srvs $3,370.88 Invoice 072204 7/8/2004 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs . $1,855.00 Invoice 072204 7/8/2004 Cash Payment G 101-22990 Mount Olive Church #04-12 $255.00 Invoice 072204 7/8/2004 Cash Payment G 101-22984 1717 Finch Ln #04-09 Bowm $63.75 Invoice 072204 7/8/2004 Cash Payment E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs $600.00 Invoice 072204 7/8/2004 Cash Payment G 101-22994 MHR Alternative Urban Area $11,103.68 Invoice 072204 7/8/2004 Transaction Date 7/22/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $20,805.14 Refer 72204 KELLEHER CONSTRUCTION, INCO Cash Payment E 496-46580-500 Capital Outlay FA PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING $11,197.00 Invoice 072204 7/22/2004 Transaction Date 7/22/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $11,197.00 Refer 72204 KELLINGTON CONSTRUCTION, IN Cash Payment E 496-46580-500 Capital Outlay FA PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING $3,754.00 Invoice 072204 7/22/2004 Transaction Date 7/22/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,754.00 Refer 72204 MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCI 06-04 LOST LAKE GREENWAY 06-04 CTY RD 15 STREETSCAPE 06-04 MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING 06-04 04-12 MOUNT OLIVE CUP 06-04 04-09 BOWMAN VARIANCE 06-04 MOUND VISIONS 06-04 ALTERNATE URBAN AREA REVIEW Cash Payment G 427-20200 Accounts Payable 06-04 2002 SEAL COAT PROJECT $555.40 Invoice 48030 7/22/2004 Project 06173 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 06-04 MISC BUILDING ENGINEERING $1,113.00 Invoice 48031 7/22/2004 Project 08901 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 06-04 MISC P/Z ENGINEERING $318.00 Invoice 48032 7/22/2004 Project 08902 -2189- CITY OF MOUND Cash Payment Invoice 48033 Cash Payment Invoice 48034-A Cash Payment Invoice 48034-B Cash Payment Invoice 48035 E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs 7~22~2004 E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 7/22/2004 E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs 7/22/2004 E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs 7/22/2004 City of Mound 07/23/04 8:04 AM Page 2 Payments Current Period: July 2004 06-04 MISC STREET ENGINEERING $159.00 Project 08903 06-04 MISC WATER ENGINEERING $466.75 Project 08904 06-04 MlSC SEWER ENGINEERING $466.75 Project 08904 06-04 STORM SEWER PROJECT $750.00 Project 10293 Cash Payment Invoice 48036 Cash Payment Invoice 48037 Cash Payment Invoice 48038 Cash Payment Invoice 48039 Cash Payment Invoice 48040 Cash Payment Invoice 48041 Cash Payment Invoice 48042 Cash Payment Invoice 48043 Cash Payment Invoice 48044 Cash Payment Invoice 48045 Cash Payment Invoice 48046 Cash Payment Invoice 48047 Cash Payment Invoice 48048 Cash Payment Invoice 48049 Cash Payment Invoice 48050 Cash Payment Invoice 48051 Cash Payment Invoice 48052 Cash Payment Invoice 48053 Cash Payment Invoice 48054 Cash Payment Invoice 48055 Cash Payment Invoice 48056 G 101-23008 2020 Commerce Parking Lot 06-04 2020 COMMERCE PARKING LOT 7/22/2004 Project 11894 E 401--46377-300 Professional Srvs 06-04 CTY RD 15 REALIGHMENT 7/22/2004 Project 12533 G 101-22854 Langdon Bay Major Sub-Divi 06-04 LANGDON BAY DEVELOPMENT 7/22/2004 G 101-22869 Landgon Woods, 00-35 7/22/2004 E 401-43110-300 Professional Srvs 7/22/2004 E 281-45210-300 Professional Srvs 7/22/2004 G 601-16300 Improvements Other Than BI 06-04 WELL/PUMPHOUSE 7/22/2004 E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 06-04 LONGPRE DEMO 7/22/2004 Project 12754 06-04 LANGDON WOODS DEVELOPMENT Project 12911 06-04 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT Project 13215 06-04 DOCK LOCATION MAP Project 13223 Project 13313 Project 13314 E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 06-04 6384 WALNUT LANE GRADING 7/22/2004 Project 13488 G 101-22890 2957 Cambridge Retain Wall 06-04 2957 CAMBRIDGE SKAALERUD 7/22/2004 Project 13501 E 401-46540-300 Professional Srvs 06-04 LOST LAKE GREENWAY 7/22/2004 Project 13566 G 101-22899 Pastuck Natural Homes #02- 06-04 PASTUCK SUB-DIVISION 7/22/2004 G 101-22908 Mound Harbor Renaissance 7/22/2004 E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 7/22/2004 E 401-46540-300 Professional Srvs 7/22/2004 G 101-22931 2241 Southview Ln,03-10 W 7/22/2004 E 401-43104-300 Professional Srvs 7/22/2004 E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 7/22/2004 E 401-43110-300 Professional Srvs 7/22/2004 G 101-22988 Heritage Point Trailer Court 7/22/2004 G 101~22996 4841 Islandview Drive #04-1 7/22/2O04 Project 13770 06-04 MOUND HARBOR RENAISSANCE Project 13832 06-04 TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY Project 14000 06-04 2003 STREET RECONSTRUCTION Project 14121 06-04 2241 SOUTHVIEW #03-10 Project 14275 06-04 STREET RECONSTRUCTION Project 14615 06-04 2004 MSA ADMINISTRATION Project 14702 06-04 2004 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT Project 14707 06-04 TRAILER COURT HERITAGE POINT Project 14755 06-04 4841 ISLANDVIEW DRIVE #04-16 Project 14871 $106.00 $2,014.00 $256.00 $265.0O $125.60 $1,066.70 $5,2O0.OO $53.0O $53.00 $159.00 $5,979.8O $212.00 $73.OO $265.00 $496.60 $25O.OO $29,564.80 $4,881,50 $1,537.00 $159.00 $53.OO -2190- CITY OF MOUND Cash Payment Invoice 48057 Cash Payment Invoice 48058 Transaction Date E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 7/22/2004 E 101~42400-300 Professional Srvs 7/22/2004 7/23/2004 City of Mound 07/23/04 8:04 AM Page 3 Payments Current Period: July 2004 06-04 LANGDON BAY/WOODS TRAILS $159.00 Project 14886 06-04 POST OFFICE 145-108-05 AUDITORS $212.00 ROAD Project 12379 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $56,969.90 Refer 72204 MIDWEST LANDSCAPING Cash Payment E 496-46580-500 Capital Outlay FA PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING $21,794.00 Invoice 072204 7/22/2004 Transaction Date 7~22~2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $21,794.00 Refer 72204 MUNTI-OGLE COMPANY Cash Payment E 496-46580-500 Capital Outlay FA PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING $5,298.00 invoice 072204 7/22/2004 Transaction Date 712212004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,298.00 Refer 72204 ROYAL FLOOR COVERING COMPA Cash Payment E 496-46580-500 Capital Outlay FA PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING $3,467.00 Invoice 072204 7/22/2004 Transaction Date 7/22/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,467.00 Refer 72204 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT SUPPLY Cash Payment E 496-46580-500 Capital Outlay FA PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING $1,014.00 Invoice 072204 712212004 Transaction Date 7/22/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,014.00 Refer 72204 STRAUGHAN HARDWARE, INCOR Cash Payment E 496-46580-500 Capital Outlay FA PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING $1,093.00 Invoice 072204 7/22/2004 Transaction Date 7/22/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,093.00 Refer 72204 TMI COATINGS, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 496-46580-500 Capital Outlay FA PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING $1,695.00 Invoice 072204 7/22/2004 Transaction Date 7/22/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,695.00 Refer 72204 WESTERN STEEL ERECTION, INC Cash Payment E 496-46580-500 Capital Outlay FA PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING $4,928.00 Invoice 072204 7/22/2004 Transaction Date 7/22/2004 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,928.00 -2191 - CITY OF MOUND Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 427 SEAL COAT FUND 455 TIF 1-2 496 HRA PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 675 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND City of Mound 07/23/04 8:04 AM Page 4 Payments Current Period: July 2004 10100 Wells Fargo $17,089.63 $1,066.70 $46,645.31 $555.40 $653.O0 $83,892.00 $10,548.25 $466.75 $750.00 $161,667.04 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $161,667.04 $161,667.04 -2192- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: July 15, 2004 SUBJECT: Variance(s) Request OWNER/APPLICANT: Mike Gardner PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 04-17 LOCATION: 1599 Bluebird Lane PID: 13-117-24-12-0128 ZONING: Residential District R-lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential SUMMARY The applicant is requesting variance approval to allow construction of a comprehensive remodel and 2-story addition of the existing home located at 1599 Bluebird Lane. The requested variance is outlined as follows: Front / Corner (south) Required Existinq Proposed Variance 10.0 ft 7.3 feet 7.3 feet 2.7 feet BACKGROUND The subject property includes a 2-story single-family home and attached garage that is located on the corner of Bluebird Lane and Woodland Road which is unimproved. According to the City Code, a front / corner setback of (10) feet is required from Woodland Road. The applicant proposes to demolish the original portion of the house located on the west side of the lot and construct a 2-story addition (including a basement) and remodel the exterior and interior portions of the existing house. -2193- Variances were approved in 1987 to recognize the non-conforming setback(s) for the original home and to allow construction of a second story addition. Additionally, variance approval was also granted in 2002 to allow construction of an attached garage on the east side of the house. The existing house has non-conforming side setbacks on both the north and south sides. The proposed addition will correct a nonconforming condition on the north side as it will be located (6) feet from the north property line. The addition would maintain the same building line on the south side and would be located (7.3) feet from the property line on the south side at the closest point which is located in the SW corner of the existing home (excluding the deck.) As the City Council is aware, decks are subject to alternate setback standards. Specifically, lakeside decks located behind the rear building line are allowed a side setback of (4) feet and but must also meet the (50) foot setback from the OHWM. The existing deck is in a conforming location but is being replaced with a screened porch in the NW corner and lakeside deck in the SW corner. The screen porch is subject to a (6) foot setback on the north side as it is considered to be part of the structure while a four (4) foot setback would be required for the open lakeside deck on the south side. Both the screened porch and open deck are proposed in conforming locations. A lakeside deck addition was referenced on the submitted site plans but is not part of the current project according to the applicant. Access to the remodeled home will be via a doorway on the south side. Members of the City Council are advised that entrance structures are generally exempt from setback regulations according to the City Code Chapter 350:440, Subd. 3 as long as they are uncovered and less than (32) square feet. Steps are also allowable encroachments as long as they do not extend less than two (2) feet from any lot line. · Hardcover on the subject site meets the 40 percent hardcover restriction. PROJECT PLANS Copies of the floor plans and elevation drawings for the proposed project have been included as attachments. A current property survey dated June 10, 2004 from Gronberg and Associates has also been submitted. At the request of the Planning Commission, the survey has been modified by Staff to show the proposed addition area. -2194- PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW In general, the Planning Commission was favorable to the request as the variance is not being increased and no "new" nonconforming conditions are being created. Additionally, the proposed addition will correct a nonconforming condition on the north side as the proposed addition will meet the six (6) foot setback. RECOMMENDATION Based on its review, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the variance application as recommended by Staff subject to conditions. A copy of the July 19, 2004 Planning Commission meeting minutes excerpts has been included as an attachment. Additionally, a draft resolution based on the Planning Commission's recommendation has also been provided. -2195- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 04- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AT 1599 BLUEBIRD LANE FOR A 2-STORY ADDITION AND COMPREHENSIVE REMODEL P & Z CASE # 04-17 PID # 13-117-24-12-0128 WHEREAS, the applicant, Mike Gardner, has requested the following variance to allow a comprehensive remodel of the existing home and 2-story addition at 1599 Bluebird Lane: Required Existin.q Proposed Variance Front/Corner 10.0 ft 7.3 feet 7.3 feet 2.7 feet and; WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-lA and subject to a minimum front yard setback of (20) feet on the east side, a minimum front yard setback of ten (10) feet on the south side, a minimum side yard setback of six (6) feet on the north side and a minimum lakeshore setback of fifty (50) feet; and WHEREAS, the subject property includes an existing single-family house which fronts Bluebird Lane and unimproved Woodland Road and is non-conforming due to deficient setbacks on both the north and south sides; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to demolish the original portion of the house located on the west side of the lot and construct a 2-story addition (including a basement) and remodel the exterior and interior portions of the existing house; and WHEREAS, access to the remodeled home will be via a doorway on the south side. Entrance structures are generally exempt from setback regulations according to the City Code Chapter 350:440, Subd. 3 as long as they are uncovered and less than (32) square feet. Steps are also allowable encroachments as long as they do not extend less than two (2) feet from any lot line; and -2196- WHEREAS, the proposed addition will correct a nonconforming condition on the north side as it will be located (6) feet from the north property line. The addition would maintain the same building line on the south side and would be located (7.3) feet from the property line on the south side at the closest point which is located in the SW corner of the existing home; and WHEREAS, the proposal, as submitted, does not increase the non-conforming conditions and will correct a deficient setback on the north side as the new addition will meet the (6) foot side setback standard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at its July 19, 2004 meeting and unanimously recommended approval of the variance as recommended by Staff subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, City Code Chapter 530:530, Subd. 1 states that a variance may be issued to provide relief to a landowner where the ordinance imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of his/her property if certain circumstances exist. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the requested variance and makes the following findings of fact: The variance request, as submitted, does not increase the non- conforming conditions and will correct a deficient setback on the north side as the new addition will meet the (6) foot side setback standard. The subject property is a corner lot and therefore subject to a front setback of (20) feet from Bluebird Road and a second front setback of (10) feet from Woodland Road which is unimproved. As Woodland Road is unimproved in the subject area, the "front" setback generally functions as a "side setback." The side setback requirement is (6) feet. The proposed setback of (7.3) feet along Woodland Road exceeds the minimum (6) foot side setback requirement. C. The criteria for granting a variance as set forth in City Code Chapter 350:530 have been met. 2. This variance is approved subject to the following conditions: A. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land use requests. No future approval of any development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this action in the event the variance(s) application is approved. -2197- t C. Applicant shall be required to submit all required information upon submittal of the building permit application. D. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits. Applicant shall be required to submit an as-built survey prior to the final inspection by the Building Official to ensure that the structure has been constructed in compliance with the approved variance. 3. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOTS 18 & 19, BLOCK 6, WOODLAND POINT, AND PART OF ADJACENT VACATED WAWONAISSA COMMON, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA o This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to M.S.S. 462.36, Subd. 1. This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying for all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The variance is valid for one (1) year following its approval unless an extension is approved by the City Council pursuant to the City Code 350:530, Subd. 2 (E). Applicant shall be required to submit a written request at least 30 days preceding 1-year deadline of the original approval date by the City Council. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted July 27, 2004 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -2198- MINUTE EXCERPS. JULY 2004 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, David Miller, Michael Mueller, and Dave Osmek. Absent and Excused: Greg Raines. Staff present: Community Development Director Sarah Smith and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. Jorj Ayaz & Jon Schwingler arrived at 7:06. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #04-17 VARIANCE - REMODEL UPPER FLOOR ADDITION 1599 BLUEBIRD LANE - MIKE GARDNER The applicant requests a variance to allow a comprehensive remodel and upper story addition to the home with variances. Smith gave an overview of the project and noted that the 2-story addition will meet the (6) foot setback requirement on the north side and that the building line would be maintained on the south side. The property includes an existing 2-story single-family home and attached garage that is located on the corner of Bluebird Lane and Woodland Road. The applicants are proposing to remodel the existing home and add an upper story on the west side of the house. The existing house has non-conforming side setbacks on both the north and south sides. Staff recommends approVal of the variance with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all involved fees associated with the variance request. 2. Applicant shall be required to submit all required information upon submittal of the building permit application. 3. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits. -2199- Discussion Discussion ensued about clarification of the actual variance requested ~nd submitted drawings. It was pointed out that the future deck expansion referenced on the site plan appears to be closer to the south line than is being requested. Applicant said the plans will be reconfigured to the limits established by the Council. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Miller, to recommend approval of the variance on the condition that the addition meet a (7.3) foot setback on the south side at the closest point and be built in a conforming location on the north side with a minimum setback of (6) feet with any future deck expansion to be constructed in a conforming location. MOTION carried unanimously. -2200- Jun 24 04 08:13~ Pl~nnin~ ~nd Inspeo~ions ~bE~f~Ub~ M'w Application Fee and Escrow Deposit required at time of application. Planning Commission Date City Council Date Please iht legibly SUBJECT Address 1 ~"~ ~LU ~¢~ i..~/'~ Lv"~.x./,/'~ .. PROPER~ Lot / y ~ 1~ __ Block LEGAL DESC. Subdivision ~ o o ~ C~ ~ ~O, ~ ~ I%- !1~ -~ 1~Ol~ Plat~ (~ o1~ PID~ ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 ~3 PROPER~ Name ~ICI~U e ~..~ ~ ~~ Phone (H)9~2-~- 3~ (~ ~- Y~- ~Y ~ ,,.Fax APPLICA~ Name (IF OTHER Address THAN OWNER) Phone (H) ........ ~) ..... Fax 1. Has an application ever.been made for zoning, vanance, conditional use permit, or other zoning I for this property? Yes (/N~ No (). if yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application (Revised 12/30103) Page 1 of 3 PAID JUN g 8 ZO04 CiTY OF MOUND RECEIVEr JUN 2 8 2004 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. 7-2201 - Jun 24 04 08: 13a Pl~nnin~ ~nd Inspe¢~ions , ,Bb ,ii, Il& 9524'72067~ Case No. Do the existing stn.'ctures comply with all em.a, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No 0~). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for.v.arianca request, i.e. setback, lot ama, etc.): SETBA(;;KS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE {or exiting) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. '~ ~" ff. ft. side Yard: ( N S E W) '~~"'-~*'~' ft. fi'."/ ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) fi. ff. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) .~-0 It. C~ ~' fL ft. : (NSEW) fl. fl. fl. Street Frontage: ~' 0 fl, 4"/0 ft. ft. Lot Size: Hardcover. REFER TO SUBMITTED SHEET 4. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (X~, No (). If no, specify each non'COnforming use: -2202- HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ....................................... SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of ReCord) ............................. * 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 BUILDINGS (GARAGE/SHED) LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT TOTAL HOUSE .................................................... X = TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ............................... DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS,ETC. 81DEWALKS, DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. Opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover. x 2'";.':L. : '"7(,,I x 1"7,¢' .- I";f" x '-f= TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC Iff x 1:.,31 TOTAL OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER I IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ............................................. UNDER / OVER (indiCate difference) .................................................................... PREPARED BY Revised 08/06/03 -2203- i ! I -2204- ./ 0 C C 0 C < C ¢ C -2205- mm Remodel Mike & Judy PORCH COMMON WALL 1/4' - 1 (WEST ELEVATION 1/4'- 1'o' EAST ELEVATION 1/4' - 1'-0' 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Re: Honorable Mayor and City Council Sarah Smith 7/20/2004 2004 Incredible Festival Temporary Sign Permit Request SUMMARY. Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church has submitted a wdtten request and completed sign permit application to allow placement of a five (5) portable signs / sandwich boards at various locations in the City to promote the 2004 Incredible Festival. According to the City Code, the placement of the portable signs is allowed upon approval of the City Council. Additionally, they are requesting placement of "special event" signage on private property, the placement of a banner on CSAH 110 and use of a crane/boom truck with a temporary sign to be located on the church property which can be raised and lowered anywhere from 30 to 110 feet. As the Council is aware, the current promotion campaign has been in place for several years including the use of the crane/boom truck. For review and consideration, Staff offers the following comments regarding the request: Pennant / Banner on CSAH 410 . City Code Section 365:15 Subd. 9 (C) allows temporary banners and pennants employed for special events as long as they are removed within (30) days. Applicant is advised that permission from Hennepin County may be required. Special Event Yard SiRns. City Code Section 365.15 Subd. 9 (F) allows the placement of special event signs on subject to the provisions in the City Code which regulates garage sale signs. Crane / Boom with Attached Si.qn. City Code Section 365 does not specifically address this type of signage however previously it has been classified as a "portable" sign and therefore is allowed upon approval of the City Council. RECOMMENDATION. City staff recommends that the City Council approve the temporary sign permit request(s) from Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church for the 2004 Incredible Festival subject to the following conditions: 1. The crane/boom truck is properly stored and secured when not in use and lowered in the event of inclement weather. 2. All signage is removed immediately following the event. -2210- eelephor~e l:acsirnile ~ the cb~cb o~ LoOk/ot: Lake 958:~ commence bor~[er.~nb moclngl, minneaol:a July 01, 2004 To: The City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 We are in the process of planning for our upcoming Incredible Festival, held Friday evening, Saturday and Sunday, September l0th, 11th & 12th. The Committee would like to have a sign held up by a crane, as we have in the past years. This crane is owned and operated by Mr. Bernie Hanson of Rocket Crane Service. The crane is mounted on a truck, and the boom can be raised anywhere from 30 to 110 feet. The truck will be positioned in an enclosed area, by our pastor's garage, with the only access being from Commerce Blvd. The truck will be locked and secured. If inclement weather, such as high winds or storms appear, the boom will be lowered. It will be put up on Friday September l0th, and then taken down on Sunday, September 12~. If there are any questions about the crane, Mr. Bernie Hanson of 3555 Tuxedo Rd. in Mound would be glad to answer them. We also have five A-frame signboards that are four feet high and four feet wide. These freestanding signs will be positioned: -by the depot -by Super America -by Crow River Bank -by the vacant lot across from PDQ -by Our Lady of the Lake Church We also have an over-the-street banner across Hwy. # 110 and Highland Blvd. We also ask parishioners to display 'yard signs' on their property for several weeks before the event, and they are promptly removed after the festival is over. I have attached the sign permit that the City faxed to me. I appreciate your help. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact. Sincerely, Administrator at Our Lady of the Lake Church -2211 - ..., o..ou.. S I G N P E R M IT ~ ~.~oo~ ~oa~, ~o~.~, ~ ~ A P P L I CA T I O N Phone 952-472-0600 Fax 952-472-0620 .\ Home Phone 72_'~ C~' ~'7~-/~ ~'1/~ Other OWNER Name ~lf" _J~ ~. ~_~ Home P~one ~5 ~ ~ ~ Ot~er SIGN Company Name CONT~CTOR Address ~5~ Contact Person Phone ~a'¢~-l~ NUMBER OF SIGNS APPLYING FOR:45'"~ ~'~"'ff (if more than one wall sign is being requested, see Side 2) SIZE OF SIGN REQUESTED: SEASONAL SIGN to be in place from FREE STANDING SIGN height from ground level to top of sign feet high x d feet wide = //~ ~ I¢blb~ to c~/ /g./Dq (dates) feet square feet WALL SIGN: Wall area = feet high x Number of existing wall signs: List square footage of each existing sign: Total square feet of all existing wall signs: Percentage of wall area covered by signs: DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, illumination, etc.): feet wide = square feet square feet square feet App~~'~U ~R[~ DATE (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS: RECEIVED BY & DATE PLANS CHECKED BY APPROVED BY & DATE COPIED APPROVED ZONING ¢ cX~orVXlO'J--- -2212- CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. 16-2002 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 365 OF THE CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE The City of Mound does ordain: Subsection 365.15, Subd. 1 is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 1. No sign other than governmental units shall be erected or placed upon any public way or upon public easements with the exception of .qara,qe sale and real estate directional si.qna.qe as provided for in Section 365.15, Subd. 9 (temporary signs), Subsection 365.15, Subd. 9 is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 9. Temporary Signs (e) Garage sale signs will be permitted in conjunction with the sale of household goods and materials from the private residences. Such signs shall be exempt from permits and fees but shall be subject to the following: (1) Signs shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area. (2) The name and telephone number of the party responsible for the sale shall be clearly marked on the sign. (3) Directional off premises garage sale signs can be placed on. private property providing that the property owners consent is obtained prior to the. placement of such signs. (4) The use of garage sale signs shall be limited to five (5) occasions per calendar year per residence. (5) Boutiques, craft sales, and other sales events of hand-crafted merchandise shall be subject to all garage sale signage provisions. (6) Garage sale signs shall be limited to five (5) days per occurrence. (7) Gara,qe sale signs placed in the right-of-way (ROW) shall be placed a minimum of five (5) feet from the street pavement or curb and shall not obstruct visibility at intersections. (8) May not be on the right-of-way of County and State roads or municipal state-aid streets. (9) Garage sale si,qns shall be removed immediately following the sale. Special event signs shall be permitted subiect to the regulations as set forth in City Code Subsection 365.15, Subd. 9 (e) above. -2213- -~. Ordinance No. 16-2002 (g) Directional real estate signage shall be allowed subiect to the followin.q: (1) Sign shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area. (2) The name and number of the party responsible shall be clearly marked on the sign. (3) Directional off-premise real estate signs can be placed on private property provided that the property owners' consent is obtained prior to the placement of such signs. (4) Directional off-premise real estate signs advertisin.q open houses shall be allowed on Saturday and Sundays only. (5) May not be on the' ri.qht-of-way of County and State roads and municipal state-aid streets. (6) Directional off-premise real estate signs placed in the ri,qht-of-wa¥ (ROW} shall be placed a minimum of five (5) feet from the street pavement or curb and shall not obstruct visibility at intersections. ¢)-(h) Seasonal Signs - Seasonal signs of a temporary or portable nature may be used in the non-residential districts to promote or advertise on-premise seasonal services or merchandise. Such signs shall be limited to a maximum of thirty-two (32) square feet and shall not be left in place for more than a two (2) month period. Permits and fees shall be required for all seasonal signs, and permits may be issued no more than two (2) times per calendar year per business. Passed by the City Council this 13th day of August, 2002. Published in The Laker the 24th day of August, 2002. Effective the 25th day of August, 2002. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Acting Mayor Mark Hanus -2214- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYwooD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com July 22, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bonnie Ritter SUBJECT: Temporary On-sale 3.2 License Attached for your consideration is an application from Our Lady of the Lake for a Temporary On-Sale 3.2 Malt Beverage Permit for the Incredible Festival, to be held September 10, 11, and 12, 2004. Fees have been paid and all other regulations met. _printed on recycled paper 2215- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 TEMPORARY ON-SALE 3.2 BEER PERMIT G~¥ O'F ~oUND Event: Incredible Festival Address of Event: 2385 Commerce Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Organization: Our Lady of the Lake Church Address: 2385 Commerce Blvd. Chairman or Title: Address: Rhonda M. Eurich, Administrator 2385 Commerce Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Mound, MN 55364 Phone No.: 952.472.1284 ext. 161 Home Phone: 952.472.1284 ext. 161 Work Phone: 952.472.1284 ext. 161 Section 810.10, Subd. 2. Liability Insurance. (a) Prior to the issuance of any Beer license, the applicant shall demonstrate proof of £mancial responsibility with regard to liability imposed by Minnesota Statutes Section 340A.801 to the City Clerk and tO the Commissioner of Public Safety as a condition of the issuance or renewal of his license. Proof of financial responsibility shall be given by filing a certificate that there is in effect an insurance policy or pool providing the minimum coverage for dram shop liability as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.409, Subdivision 1. It is the intent of this section to require the minimum insurance coverage and amounts required by Minnesota law. Name of Insurance Co.: Catholic Mutual Relief Society Amount of Coverage: $500,000. Section 810:10. Subd. 1. Application Form. In the case of any application for a Temporary "On-Sale" license to allow sale and consumption of beer on public land or public school lands, the applicant shall, prior to issuance of such license, file the written consent of the owner of such lands to such use of its lands. 7-06-04 ' Date re~ Date Approval - City Clerk Date Approval - Police Dept. 00 -2216- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director Date: July 22, 2004 Re: Local Approval of Property Transfers and Divisions According to Jim Holen of Hennepin County Taypayer Services, the County's approval of land divisions or property transfers follows the procedures outlined in Minnesota Statutes Section 272.162 (copy attached.) So as to ensure that no subdivision or property transfer occurs without local approval by the City, it is suggested that a resolution be adopted pursuant to M.S.S. 272.162, Subd. 3. According to Mr. Holen, in most cases, Hennepin County informally sends out a proposed division to the City for review and approval prior to processing. However, adoption of the resolution makes the process mandatory. Members of the City Council are advised that local ordinance does not regulate lot combination activities. For review and consideration a draft resolution has been prepared. -2217- Minnesota Statutes 2003, 272.162 , Il, Page 1 of 2 Minnesota Statutes 2003, Table of Chapters Table of contents for Chapter 272 272.162 Restrictions on transfers of specific parts. Subdivision 1. Conditions restricting transfer. When a deed or other instrument conveying a parcel of land is presented to the county auditor for transfer or division under sections 272.12, 272.16, and 272.161, the auditor shall not transfer or divide the land or its net tax capacity in the official records and shall not certify the instrument as provided in section ~7/2_~12, if: (a) The land conveyed is less than a whole parcel of land as charged in the tax lists; (b) The part conveyed appears within the area of application of municipal subdivision regulations adopted and filed under section 462.36, subdivision 1; and (c) The part conveyed is part of or constitutes a subdivision as defined in section 462.352, subdivision 12. Subd. 2. Conditions allowing transfer. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision 1, the county auditor may transfer or divide the land and it's net tax capacity and may certify the instrument if the instrument contains a certification by the clerk of the municipality: (a) that the municipality's subdivision regulations do not apply; {b) that the subdivision has been approved by the governing body of the municipality; or (c) that the restrictions on the division of taxes and filing and recording have been waived by resolution of the governing body of the municipality in the particular case because compliance would create an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply would not interfere with the purpose of the regulations. If any of the conditions for certification by the municipality as provided in this subdivision exist and the municipality does not certify that they exist within 24 hours after the instrument of conveyance has been presented to the clerk of the municipality, the provisions of subdivision 1 do not apply. If an unexecuted instrument is presented to the municipality and any of the conditions for certification by the municipality as provided in this subdivision exist, the unexecuted instrument must be certified by the clerk of the municipality. Subd. 3. Applicability of restrictions. This section does not apply to the exceptions set forth in section 272.12. http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/272/16',- 22 ] 8 - 7/22/2004 Minnesota Statutes 2003, 272.162 Page 2 of 2 This section applies only to land within municipalities which choose to be governed by its provisions. A municipality may choose to have this section apply to the property within its boundaries by filing a certified copy of a resolution of its governing body making that choice with the auditor and recorder of the county in which it is located. HIST: 1982 c 564 s 1; 1983 c 239 s 1,2; 1986 c 444; 1988 c 719 art 5 s 84; 1989 c 329 art 13 s 20 Copyright 2003 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/272/16~- 221 9 - 7/22/2004 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION #04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATE STATUTES SECTION 272.162, SUBD. 3 TO REQUIRE LOCAL APPROVAL OF LAND DIVISIONS AND PROPERTY TRANSFERS PRIOR TO CONVEYANCE BY HENNEPIN COUNTY WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 272.162, Subd. 3 requires municipal approval for property transfer or divisions prior to conveyance by Hennepin County if a resolution is adopted by the City of Mound and a certified copy is filed with the County Auditor and County Recorder. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota to adopt the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 272.162 to require municipal approval of all property transfers or divisions prior to conveyance by Hennepin County. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this July 27, 2004 Mayor Pat Meisel Attest: City Clerk Bonnie Ritter -2220- MEMORANDUM To~ City Manger Hanson, City Council Members From: Chief of Police Jim Kurtz Date: July 21, 2004 Subject: Striping of County Road 110 For the past four months, Public Works Director Carlton Moore, Detective Dan Niccum, Mound School Officials and I have been working with Hennepin County to develop a plan to address traffic problems on County Road 110 near the Three Points neighborhood. The greatest concern about CR 110 is that there is currently no striping on the road from Minnetrista traveling South through Mound. Consequently, motorists have been using the road as a four lane road. The problems have created safety concerns for Grandview Middle School and the kids who cross the road. Hennepin County has presented a plan that addresses all of our concerns. The plan divides the road so that there are two 1 anes o f traffic (one going north and one going south), mm lanes, and six-foot shoulders. In addition, there will be a crosswalk placed at Grandview and CR 110. To implement the plan, Hennepin County is requiring the City to pass a resolution requesting the County post Commerce Boulevard (CSAH 110) as NO PARKING from the end of the construction zone (roughly Church Street) North to the Minnetrista border. The parking restrictions will affect Indian Knoll Manor located at 2020 Commerce Boulevard and Mound Evangelical Free Church located at 2117 Commerce Boulevard. Indian Knoll Manor has visitor and handicapped parking on Commerce Boulevard and the church parks on Commerce during Sunday services. The crosswalk at 2020 Commerce will also be removed. According to staff at Indian Knoll Manor, removing the crosswalk will not create a hardship for residents. I will be available Tuesday evening before the Council meeting to show you a colored map of the proposed changes. Thank you -2221 - :- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 04- RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT HENNEPIN COUNTY POST COMMERCE BOULEVARD (CSAH 110) AS NO PARKING FROM THE END OF THE CURRENT CONSTRUCTION (APPROXIMATELY CHURCH STREET), NORTH TO THE MINNETRISTA BORDER WHEREAS, City Staff, Mound Westonka School Officials, and Hennepin County have been working to develop a plan to address traffic concerns on Commerce Boulevard (CSAH 110); and WHEREAS, it is felt that the greatest concern is that there is currently no striping on said street from the downtown area, North to the Minnetrista border and motorists have been using this street as a four-lane, causing safety concerns for vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the Grandview Middle School area; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County has presented a plan that addresses these concerns, dividing Commerce Boulevard (CSAH 110) into one traffic lane traveling each direction, adding turn lanes, six-foot shoulders and a crosswalk at Grandview and CSAH 110; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby request that Hennepin County post Commerce Boulevard (CSAH 110) as NO PARKING from the end of the current construction (approximately Church Street), North to the Minnetrista border. Adopted by the City Council this 27th day of July, 2004. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -2222- Engineering ~' Planning · Surveying July 21, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: Chateau Lane Elevated Water Storage Feasibility Mound, Minnesota · MFRA #12615 Dear Mayor and Council Members: This letter requests authorization to prepare a Feasibility Report for the proposed new water tower. In June 1990, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. (MFRA) prepared a Preliminary Engineering Report for Water System Improvements. Several addenda dated September 6, 1990 through October 19, 1993 were subsequently prepared. The June 1990 report considered several options regarding water treatment and distribution. The report included a recommendation to plan for construction of a 300,000 gallon water tower in about 2005. A new water tower to be located on Chateau Lane has been discussed with City staff and is tentatively planned for construction in 2005. In order to receive bids prior to February 2005, final design should begin by September 2004. Prior to proceeding with Final Design, a Feasibility Report should be prepared to address the following preliminary design issues: Capacity - The population projections for the City of Mound have been revised since 1990. With the development of new high-density residential and commercial areas, it may be desirable to increase the size of the tower based on more recent projections. Operating Head Range - The new tower must function hydraulically with the existing towers and standpipe. This, in combination with the capacity will have a significant impact on the geometry of the tower. -2223- 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra@mfra, com Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council July 21, 2004 Page 2 3. Geometry - Elevated water storage tanks come in several different configurations, each with advantages and disadvantages with respect to capacity, economy, footprint and appearance. 4. Site Design - The proposed location of the tower is on a relatively small site. A preliminary layout will identify any requirements for additional property or easements. Construction Sequencing - The existing 75,000 gallon tower on Chateau Lane may need to remain in service until the new tower is available. Depending on the sequence of construction, it may be desirable to demolish the old tower, either as a part of the new tower construction contract, or as a separate contract. Removing the existing tank prior to constructing the new tank may reduce the land requirements. 6. Project Cost - Capital costs and financing options should be addressed. The recommended plan in this report will serve as a preliminary design for the new water tower. The field information gathered will be used for final design when the project proceeds to that phase. We propose to submit a draft Feasibility Report to City staff by August 13, 2004. Following revisions to the draft, we propose to present the Feasibility Report to the City Council at the August 24 or September 14, 2004 meeting. Work sessions, progress meetings and public hearings can be scheduled as deemed necessary by the City Council. Thank you for this opportunity to help address the City's needs regarding water distribution. If you have any questions or need further information, please call. Sincerely, MFRA Bryan T. Oakley, P.E. /bto Enclosure cc: Carlton Moore, Public Works Director John Cameron, City Engineer s:~nain:~'nou 12615Xcorres~mayor&council7-21 -2224- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 04- REsOEUTIoN TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR Stephen L Hewitt 4849 Island View Drive WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking a Public Lands Permit to repair and replace and relocate the deteriorating steps to the lake and replace the existing timber walls (all under 3') with new, natural look concrete segmental retaining walls. WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a majority vote for construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park or commons; and WHEREAS, City Staff recommended approval of the applicant's request per compliance w/recommendations from the Community Development Director. WHEREAS, the City Council considered this request at their meeting of July 27, 2004, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve the Public Lands Permit as submitted by Stephen Hewitt. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -2225- CITY OF MOUND - PARKS DEPARTMENT 5341 Maywood ROad Mound, MN 55364 PUBLIC LANDS REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DCAC Jim Fackler, Park Superintendent July 9, 2004 Public Lands Permit Application Stephen L. Hewitt 4849 Island View Drive REQUEST: To repair and replace deteriorating steps to lake and replace existing timber walls (all under 3') with new, natural look concrete segmental retaining walls. (Anchor block retaining wall.) Mr. Hewitt would like to move the stairs and replace them. (See Option B) CITY CODE 320 - PRIVATE STRUCTURES AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON PUBLIC LAND City Code 320.01 regulates private structures and private construction activities on public land in the City of Mound. Specifically, Subd. 1 regulates new construction activities on public lands. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all applicable City departments for review and comment. All written comments received to date have been stmunarized below: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director: Subject to review by Carlton Moore. Walls more than 4' required building permit with engineering data. Grading in shoreline/steep slopes subject to regulations in City Code 350.1200. Carlton Moore, Public Works Director: Okayed plans subject to review by Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent and Jim Fackler, Park Superintendent. 1 -2226- Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent: Okayed plans. Jim Fackler, Park Superintendent: Had questions on new stair location and use of the access. Applicant must notify neighbors on both sides of access and get their okay before proceeding. Applicant must also repair any damage to the access with new sod. (Fackler relayed this information to the applicant and applicant agreed.)Application should be forwarded to the DCAC for review. However, if the July 15, 2004 DCAC meeting is cancelled for any reason, this application will be forwarded to the City based upon City Staff's recommendation. SITE INSPECTION City Officials and Board Members are encouraged to visit the site prior to the meeting. PHOTOGRAPHS Included in application RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this application, per compliance w/recommendations from Community Development Director. Staff also recommends forwarding this application to the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission for their review. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Whether a recommendation from the Docks and Commons Commission is made at its July 15, 2004 meeting, or the meeting is cancelled, the Public Lands Permit Application will be forwarded to the City Council for review at its July 27, 2004 meeting.. ATTACHMENTS: Public Lands Permit Application dated Site photos and drawings 2 -2227- Crllf OF M~U#O 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone 952-472-0600 Fax 952-472-0620 Dock Commission Date APPLICATION Date Received City Council Date DISTRIBUTION Building Official Parks Director DNR MCWD Check One Public Works Other CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT- new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). [-] CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing encroachment to remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). (--] LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4). ;3e structure or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, ~heds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bdng all these uses into conformance, which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are granted for a limited time and are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new permit is applied for due to a change in dock site holder. Please type or print legibly APPLICANT Name ~'l-'~P~ Address Phone (H) ABUSING Address PROPER~ LEGAL Lot 3 Block DESC. Subdivision PID ~ Plat ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Public Lands Permit Application Page 1 of 2 Revised 12/03/03 -2228- PUBLIC PROPERTY CONTRACTOR Name Dock Site # Shoreline Type C.. Name Address Phone (H) %2'- WTI- 777.g (w)_Cj~-z/'7/-')'-7')3_(M) ~'/,.1'-~G~--,2,.2, Applicant's Signature ~~, ~.~ PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS) DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE J~EP~rl Date Public Lands Permit Application Page 2 of 2 Revised f2/03/03 -2229- CERTIFICATE Of SURVEY FOR STEVE HEWlTT OF LOT $, BLOCK.14, DEVON HENNEPINiCOUNTY, MINNESOTA r --, ...: ..... iSLAND - VIEW. ,m,,m~a,o.- N 89'3'7' 00" £140.00 PROPOSED EXiSTINO HOUSE HOUSE I S' 02" W EXISTING GARAGE CAR PORT Lot 3, Block 14, DEVON PHELPS BAY ~ ~VA~ONS ~ GARA~ - ~ T~ ~ F~AT~ -- ~ LOT ARKr..A -- ~ $F. (e08.3): danote~ existing ~pot elevation, mean eeo level datum r~: denotes prooo~ecl ~pot elevation, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an o~mned datum. This survey intends to show the Ixxmck~ries of the obove described property, the location of an existing house, and the proposed location of a .,~oposed houae thereom It does not purport to show <my other Jmprovc, f~ne~t~ or encroachments. COl'PIN k ORONBi~RC, INC. ~,,,""',,,~;" ~,.:,~,.~T,~,~. ~""'~,~, ~ ! r~ .-~f~-~z__ ~ uc~ ~.'~3~ _z~?f~' I 01-074 EX1ST~G HOUSE STEVE HEWlTT OF LOT 5, BLOCK .14, DEVON HENN£PIN · COUNTY, MINNESOTA ._I. SLAND - VIEW. N 8g'37'00' £140.00 Z PROPOSED. EXISTINO .-..DRIVE 0 ,% 02N ~ ELEVAllONS 3) BAS~EN?. ~ PHELPS BAY Lot 3, Black 14. DEVON -- LO~ AR~. ~ S~. o : denote~ iron marker ~: ~ ~o~ ~ot ~afi~ ~ aea I~ ~t~ Thl. mrvey kttend, to ~how the Im~td~ri~ of the .bore described Ix'ope't),, i-" IM ~ of on exlaflng h(x~e, mci the ~oposed location of a thereo~ It doe~ not purport to ~ any ether improveme~t~ or -2232- -2233 ............................ Engineering · Planning . Surveying :' .cFRA July 23, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound 2004 Seal Coat Program MFRA #6173 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: Enclosed is a tabulation of the bids received on Tuesday, July 20, 2004, for the 2004 Seal Coat P.~-ggram. Two bids were received with the low bid of $36,000 submitted by Pearson Brothers of Loretto. The other bid amount was $39,375. The Engineer's estimate for this project was $36,000. Included in the bid proposal was an add-alternate for sweeping to pick up and dispose of the loose aggregate, after the seal coating. In past projects, the City has done this; however, staff is recommending acceptance of the add-alternate bid in the amount of $2,900.00. Public Works is pleased with the work done in the past by Pearson Brothers; therefore, we are recommending that Pearson Brothers be awarded a contract in the amount of $38,900. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, MFRA John Cameron, City Engineer JC :rth Enclosure cc: Carlton Moore, Public Works Director s:\main :\Mou06173 :\Correspondencekmayor7 -21 -2234- -2235- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sarah Smith (on behalf of City Planner Gordon, City Engineer Cameron and Public Works Director Moore) DATE: July 19, 2004 SUBJECT: Sketch Plan Review- Halstead Pointe APPLICANT: Halstead Pointe LLC PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 04-15 LOCATION: 6701 County Road 110/6639 Bartlett Boulevard PID: 22-117-24-43-0002 / 22-117-24-43-0007 ZONING: R-1 SFR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential SUMMARY At its July 27, 2004 meeting, the City Council will review the sketch plan for Halstead Pointe, a (56) unit condominium project proposed for the manufactured home court located at 6701 County Road 110 and 6639 Bartlett Boulevard which straddles the western boundary of Mound and eastern boundary of Minnestrista. The project consists of seven 8-unit buildings which includes one (8-unit) building in Mound and six buildings (48-units) located in Minnetrista. A connected underground parking garage would be located beneath the buildings. REVIEW PROCEDURE Whenever any subdivision of land is proposed, the subdividing owner, or authorized agent, shall apply and secure approval from the City of Mound pursuant to the provisions in City Code Chapter 330.15 which includes three steps for major subdivisions. The submittal of a sketch plan is the first step in the major subdivision process and involves informal review by Staff and the Planning Commission to outline various planning-related issues associated with a pending project and also identifies items that will need to be addressed in subsequent submittals. Members of the Council are advised that the sketch plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its July 11,2004 meeting. An overview of the 7/12 meeting is provided on Page 4. -2236- PROJECT OVERVIEW Details regarding the proposal are contained in the applicant's narrative and concept plans which were submitted as part of the application dated May 3rd. Following review of the original sketch plan by the Minnetrista Planning Commission on May 24th, the applicant modified the sketch plan(s) to reflect some of the comments received. Copies of the modified plans have been provided. LAND USE Comprehensive Plan - The property would need to be reguided from Iow density to high density to facilitate the proposed project. Zoning -The property is currently zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and will need to be rezoned to R-3 Multiple Family Residential. The Planned Development Area (PD^) process will also likely be used to address various site-related issues (ie. structure setbacks, etc,) The PDA process is accomplished via CUP. Subdivision. It is anticipated that the property will be platted concurrently as a major subdivision in both the City of Mound and City of Minnetrista. Additionally, the structure(s) will be replatted for condominium use pursuant to state statute. No annexation and/or detachment is anticipated with the current submittal. Shoreland Management Overlay - The subject site is located within the shoreland overlay district as it is located within 1000 linear feet of Lake Minnetonka. Wetlands. There are no known wetlands on the subject property. Park Land Dedication - Dedication of park land and/or payment of fees in lieu of land dedication will be required as set forth in City Code Chapter 330. Bluff - In a previous sketch plan submittal for the subject property, topography indicated a bluff may be present in the Mound portion of the project. However, this submittal does not include detailed topographical information therefore Staff is unable to determine if the previous information was accurate. Contour data will need to be provided at 2-foot intervals in preliminary and final plat reviews to make an accurate assessment of the conditions. BUILDING CODE. Please refer to the memorandum dated May 12, 2004 from Paul Waldron & Associates, Ltd. regarding the proposed project which has been included as an attachment. -2237- UTILITIES AND INFRASTRACTURE Streets. Access to the proposed three-story building will be provided via a private driveway terminating on the east side of the project area in a cul-de-sac (CDS.) The proposed CDS shows a proposed 55-foot diameter pavement width and would be connected to Bartlett Boulevard by a fire department emergency access lane. The CDS pavement width would not meet the required 80-foot diameter standard for CDS but would provide adequate turning movement for non-emergency vehicles. Halstead Lane is platted with a 33-foot ROW and is located entirely within the corporate boundary of Mound. Pavement width is approximately 20 feet which is less than the standard 60-foot ROW and 28-foot pavement width. It should be noted that Minnetrista would accept 50 feet of ROW although 60 feet is preferred. The project area shares half of the eastern portion of Halstead Lane with the adjacent homes on the south side. The private access drive through the center portion of the site shows on-street parallel parking spaces with 20-foot stall lengths although none of spaces would provide parking for the upper units in the Mound building. Storm Water. Water runoff and ponding issues will need to be consistent with the Mound Surface Water Management Plan and City Code Chapter 375 and will require approval by the Mound City Council. Surface water permitting for the Minnetrista portion of the property will be done by the MCWD. A copy of the email dated May 24, 2004 from MCWD District Technician Renae Clark regarding the project has been included as an attachment. Water, Water to the Mound units will be provided from the existing watermain located along Bartlett Boulevard in addition to the fire hydrant for emergency fire suppression. Fire protection will be provided via a well source located in Minnetrista. Sanitary Sewer. Sanitary sewer connects into the Minnetrista system. Hennepin County. Please refer to the letter dated May 19, 2004 from Dave Z. etterstrom of Hennepin County regarding access and roadway dedication issues associated with the proposed project. DISCUSSION · The Minnetrista Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan at its May 24 2004 meeting. The Minnetrista City Council reviewed the sketch plan at its June 21, 2004 meeting. Copies of the meeting minute excerpts as well as a copy of the Sketch Plan Report have been included as attachments. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that a number of significant issues were raised during Minnetrista's review of the proposal including density, utilities and infrastructure and road access. · Members of the development team met with City of Mound and City of Minnetrista Staff in late spring to discuss the proposed project. · A neighborhood meeting for the proposed project was held by the development team at the Gillespie Center on June '14th. -2238- Architecture has been proposed for the project to reflect the historic Lake Minnetonka hotels. State statute includes specific regulations regarding the closing of manufactured housing courts. PRELIMINARY STAFF COMMENTS Preliminary issues identified by Mound Staff include neighborhood compatibility and emergency access. Specifically, the proposed CDS access will require detailed review by the Fire Department. · The proposed 3-story building with underground parking may pose challenges to the 3-story / 35-foot height restriction. · No elevation data or floor plans were included with the sketch plan submittal but will likely be provided during preliminary plat. PLANNING COMMISSION OVERVIEW - JULY 12, 2004 In general, the sketch plan was favorably received by the Planning Commission with the majority of the discussion focusing on the issue raised during Minnetrista's review of the project as well as emergency access and infrastructure / utility issues. Additionally, the status of the bluff and dock and/or boat storage issues were also discussed. Members of the Halstead Pointe Project Team indicated that resident docks are not contemplated as part of the current project as it is geared towards "empty nesters." Rather, they plan to promote use of the "boat club" concept. Details regarding the meeting are contained in the July 12, 2004 meeting minute excerpts which have been provided as an attachment. -2239- MINUTE EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER DRAFT Chairman Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Jorj Ayaz, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Dave Osmek. Absent and Excused: Greg Raines, Becky Glister and David Miller. Staff present: Community Development Director Sarah Smith. Smith provided an overview of the Planning Report contained in the agenda packet. Review of PC Case No. 04-15 Sketch Plan for Halstead Pointe (56) Unit Condominum Complex 6701 County Road 110 1 6639 Bartlett Boulevard Smith provided an overview of the Planning Report for the Halstead Pointe sketch plan. The project includes a (56) unit condominium complex proposed for the manufactured home court iocated at 6701 County Road 110 and 6639 Bartlett Boulevard which straddles the western boundary of Mound and eastern boundary of Minnestrista and consists of seven 8-unit buildings including one (8-unit) building in Mound and six buildings (48-units) located in Minnetrista. A connected underground parking garage would be located beneath the buildings. Craig Fink introduced members of the Project Team for Halstead Pointe LLC including Steve Johnson and Anne Hunt. Mr. Fink also noted that local realtors John and Kristin Beise were also present. Mr. Fink also provided a brief overview of similar projects the Team has worked on. Mr. Johnson explained the various modifications made to the site plan(s) following Minnetrista's Planning Commission review. The Project Team also helped clarified the access issues and that indicated they had met with the Mound Fire Chief to obtain preliminary comments and that the buildings will be sprinkled. Chair Michael asked about the status of Minnetrista review process. Members of the Project Team indicated that there are also outstanding Metropolitan Council issues in addition to the City of Minnetrista and that they are currently waiting for comments from the Met. Council. Monitoring and enforcement of the gazebo and docks was mentioned as possible concern by Hasse. -2240- DRAFT Ann Hunt mentioned that the docks will be for fishing and transient use only and will not be for overnight use. Ayaz commented on the opportunity for tax-base enhancement associated with redevelopment of the property. Osmek commented that a fishing pier only might be a better idea. Alternately, an enforcement provision could be included in the homeowner documents. Craig Fink commented that the owners of the condominium units will not have boats. They will encourage resident use of the boat clubs. Osmek commented that potential owners may want boats. Ayaz commented that dock(s) is one issue. The redevelopment of the site is the bigger picture item. He views the proposal to be an improvement. He did however comment that (56) units is a bit overwhelming but the price of the units will create a nice community. Market research has indicated that the project is geared for "empty nesters." Mueller indicated that he likes the project and said that they have dealt with a lot of the major issues. Dock issue in his opinion is a minor detail. However, it is important to note that it should be addressed. Other comments and/or questions from Commissioner Mueller are as follows: Inquired if project will be done as a Major Subdivision with PDA overlay which would address the variance(s) related issues. Smith commented that it would be done via PDA by CUP. Water flow is an issue. Commented that there is a watermain in the southern portion of the site. Asked if it could be looped. Craig Fink indicated that the engineer's had considered this option. Asked about access for the property on to a City accepted street and whether or not it could be done as part of the PDA. Smith felt the issue could be address with PDA process. Would like to see the bluff issue resolved. Ms. Hunt indicated that Mr. Hasse commented that the bluff may have been created when the County Road was originally built. Screening issues for gazebo. Would like to make sure that immediately adjacent neighbors to the south should be screened due to number of units and/or total volume of the project. -2241 - DRAFT 6. Parking provisions should be met if possible. City has reduced the size of stalls but due to large size of vehicles (ie. SUVs) this may be difficult. 7. Evaluate turning radius and emergency access issues. Ayaz indicated that he also would like to see screening and landscaping by the gazebo area. Hasse asked how far the site will be cut down on the Mound side. Team indicated that they are going to try and utilize existing grade as much as possible. The Team commented that there are a total of (24) manufactured homes on the subject with (13) currently located on the Mound side. Mueller asked about the shoreline boundary and does the real estate go to the lake. Fink will confirm. Ayaz asked if they are wet or dry ponds - facilities will both be aesthetic and will also treat stormwater. Smith asked about timing. The Project Team commented that the applications will be forthcoming within the next few months. -2242- 6639 Bartlett Boulevard -2243- MINNETRISTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE EXCERPTS June 21, 2004 1. Call to Order: Mayor Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. 2. Roll Call: Council Present: Mayor Cheryl Fischer, Lisa Whalen, George Zenanko, Margaret Davis and Jeff Montang. Staff Present: City Administrator Dean Lotter, City Planner Ben Gozola, Police Chief Craig Anderson, City Attorney Ron Batty, City Engineer Kevin Kimmes and Zoning Administrator Nate Sparks Business Items: 9. SKETCH PLAN / REZONE/COMP PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW: Request from Halsted Point LLC to redevelop property at 6701 County Road 1'10 West, and to rezone said property from R2 (single family residential) to RS (multi family residential); Gozola gave an overview of the application, per staff memo dated June 21, 2004. The applicant is seeking to redevelop the existing mobile home park at 6701 County Road 110 West. The proposal would replace the current mobile home units by constructing 56 condominium units (48 of the units would be in Minnetrista, while the remaining 8 would be in Mound). The condominium units would be housed in two separate structures---each consisting of three or four buildings all connected by an underground parking facility. The request would require both a comprehensive plan amendment and a zoning change to allow the proposed densities. Gozola stated the land would need to be zoned R5 to accommodate the number of units currently proposed, and the comprehensive plan would need to be amended to guide this parcel for high density development (a new category not currently within the plan). One major issue facing development of any parcel in this area is the current status of Halsted Avenue. Staff would request additional right-of-way (to 50' or 60'), and this would impact the proposed plan. Another challenge is posed by a small piece of land between the property and the road that the applicant does not own. The applicant could buy the property, obtain an easement or the City could condemn which is not recommended. Staff recommends a sidewalk and shade trees be required. The applicant did update the site plan after listening to the concerns of the Planning Commission and showed an effort to address the identifed concerns. Kimmes addressed the water issues with the project. He stated the lift station does have the capacity, but there are storm sewer issues. Kimmes gave an overview of the city's sewer system. The City is broken up into three areas. The north has one well and one tower but needs more. South has three wells and one tower and is the best system. Central needs improvement, as it is able to provide water and pressure for area, but not for fire protection. The plan shows a well for the development but may not be the best solution for the City as a whole. Whalen asked if by tapping into the southern system would that develop a situation that robs "Peter to pay Paul" and will it eventually run out. Kimmes replied that it was built with growth in mind but at some point another well may be needed. -2244- Davis asked for clarification on the proposed dry hydrant. Kimmes answered that a dry hydrant is a hydrant with pipe to Lake Minnetonka. The hydrant would require use of a pump truck, and therefore is not a long-term solution. He continued to say that the well for the development would offer fire protection for this development only, and that a pressurized tank would be needed for the purpose of fire protection in the case that the electricity were out. John Harriss, architect for the project, addressed the council to show updated plans and answer questions. He explained that they have added multiple rain gardens for run off along County Road 110 West. The water from the raingardens would be directed to a centrally located pond, before being directed into further rain gardens prior to entering the lake. They feel such a system would be excellent for runoff water quality. They also worked with the entrance plan to eliminate wrap around traffic, and they would use pavers to address hardcover issues. There would be eight units per building and each building would look different from the outside but have the same plan inside. Mayor Fischer expressed concern over having only one entrance that also serves as an exit in the underground garages. Harriss said that it has been very challenging. Craig Fink commented they are willing to look at solutions to water issues and staff has been helpful. He went on to say that the well would serve the City as it could eventually be tapped into a trunk line. Whalen questioned if council feedback would be giving the impression that the rezoning would go through and she believes comments should be given at a public meeting. Mayor Fischer agreed that this might be an issue and stated there will be two public hearings. Davis asked if they had built any other projects like this one. Fink replied that they have the Island Station development in St. Paul. Zenanko said he liked the idea of developing that area but asked Batty to comment on what Council should or shouldn't say at this point. Batty emphasized that these are first impressions--not commitments~and that the council members could share their thoughts without commitment. Zenanko then continued that he liked the idea of redevelopment but had some safety concerns. He also commented that he did not like the idea of a dry hydrant. Harriss mentioned that the units would be sprinkled. Fink stated they talked with the Mound Fire Department to get support of their fire protection plan. Whalen stated that she has always looked forward to redevelopment of this area but has some concerns about density with the plan calling for nearly 12 units per acre. She is also not excited about the concept of three stodes although she does like the ponds and vegetation. She questioned whether a cull-de-sac would be needed at the end of Halsted. Montang asked how much lake usage the development would have. Fink answered that they are allowed two slips to be shared by the residents by utilizing a boating services to drop-off and pick up boats at scheduled times. Davis wondered if the units would have ample security, and would they have a view the lake. Harriss replied that units would have security systems, and that the proposed elevations of the units would provide views with some blockage by trees. Zenanko suggested they look at the Gables. Whalen expressed concern about the 12-foot roads being too narrow and that they need an interior road. Harriss -2245- told the Council that a neighborhood meeting had been held and not everyone gave an "Atta Boy," but there was a lot of support. Mayor Fischer commented that the water is biggest issue and is very expensive. She liked the rain gardens, but wondered if they will take care of drainage. She also asked Gozola about improvements to Halsted. Gozola said staff informed the applicant they would need to improve road. He concluded the discussion with Mayor Fischer's request for staff recommendations. He recommended the applicant should consider the feedback given by Council, and determine whether to return with a revised sketch plan or walk away from the project considering the risks. He did not recommend the applicant proceed to preliminary plat due to the many outstanding issues. _. -2246- Page 1 of 1 Sarah Smith From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "STEVE JOHNSON" <steve20537@msn.com> <bgozola@ci.minnetrista.mn.us>; <sarahsmith@cityofmound.com> <AnneHunt@edinarealty.com>; <JayNord@edinarealty.com>; <lakeviewtrading@cs.com> Tuesday, June 15, 2004 9:03 AM Halstead Pointe Ben & Sarah, We had the neighborhood meeting last night at the Gillespie Center. I didn't get an exact count, but I would guess somewhere around 30 people showed up. As expected, they were primarily the immediate neighbors. And, not surprisingly they would favor no development or perhaps a few single family homes. I believe we addressed most of the issues and for the most part the site plan was looked upon favorably, but the density and it's related traffic is the main concern of the neighbors. We will work on having better answers to the traffic question in the future, specifically that a development aimed at "empty nesters" does not generate the same amount of traffic (especially not rush hour traffic) as a development full of young professionals and families. The attendees who were not immediate neighbors were all complimentary. I believe the larger community is in favor of this project, but the challenge will be to get them represented in the process. We are double booked next Monday and are wondering if we can be first on the agenda in Minnetrista and last in Mound. We can give you a more thorough report on the neighborhood meeting in person if you would like. Thanks, Steve Johnson KMJ Management - 2247- 6/15/2004 MODIFIED :. -2248- MODIFIED -2249- I .[ -2250- MODIFIED Minnetrista Planninq Commission PC Minutes: 5.24.04 CITY OF MINNETRISTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPTS May 24, 2004 Call to Order Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: Commission Members present: Mark Heck - Chair, Mark Brandow, Roxanne Jordan, John Watson,. John Strandell, Guy Warner and Mike Stulberg. Members absent: None Others present: Honorable Mayor Cheryl Fischer - Council Liaison Ben Gozola - City Planner 9. SKETCH PLAN / REZONE I COMP PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW: request from Halsted Point L.L.C. to redevelop property at 6701 County Road ,West, and to rezone said property from R2 (single family residential) to R~; (multi family residential) Gozola stated the applicant is seeking to redevelop the existing mobile home park at 6701 County Road 110 West. The proposal would replace the current mobile home units by constructing 56 condominium units (48 of the units would be in Minnetrista, while the remaining 8 would be in Mound). The condominium units would be housed in two separate structures, each consisting of three or four buildings all connected by an underground parking facility. The request would require both a comprehensive plan amendment and a zoning change to allow the proposed densities. Staff has identified a number of different problems with the currently proposed site plan. It is recommended a second sketch plan submittal to ensure their proposal would be acceptable to the Commission and Council. Gozola presented an overhead of the sketch plan, information regarding the bluff codes to be looked at in the future and an overhead of the adjacent parcel development. Staff presented information regarding the roadway issues and noted one major issue is the current status of Halsted Avenue, he noted the City maintains a limited easement in the location of the road as a statutory user. He noted the City would like a minimum of 50 feet of right-of-way for Halsted Avenue which would impact the current sketch plan layout as each structure would be within the 35' setback and vacant parcel number one does own a small area of land in between the road and the subject parcel and the applicant would need to work with the property owner to obtain an easement over this area or purchase the parcel to facilitate required improvements to Halsted Avenue. Staff recommends the north/south portion be renamed to alleviate the confusing -2.251 - situation. Staff reviewed information regarding parking, wetlands, sanitary systems, sewers, utilities, sidewalks, tree preservation, screening, signage, warning sirens, park dedication; Park commission is requesting cash-in-lieu, trailer court relocation and resident concerns. Hardcover maintained to 25% Kimmes presented information regarding traffic flow and his concern regarding the storm sewer system. He suggested running the storm sewer through the proposed ponds. Kimmes presented information regarding the water main and he noted the applicants are proposing adding a well to their site. Kimmes felt this might not be the best solution for the future. He noted two other options are building a water tower or connecting to the south water system which are both very costly. Kimmes presented an overhead of the three water main districts and noted adding a well would be an investment into the current system. It was noted the comprehensive plan does show a connection from Kings Point Road to 110. It was noted with a multi family dwelling the fire protection is a bigger concern. Discussion was held on the functioning difference between a well and a water tower. Warner noted his concern regarding the water trucks reaching the second story of the buildings. The applicant noted these buildings would be equipped with sprinklers. Craig Fink, Halstead Pointe LLC, stated he is trying to be proactive in moving forward with this development. He agreed more time would be needed with Staff for further discussions. He stated they are planning a neighborhood meeting for further feedback and support. Mayor Fischer inquired about market price of their condominiums. Mr. Fink noted they would be approximately $299,000 to $599,000 per unit. Jordan suggested the applicants add information regarding the elevations to their notes for the next meeting. Brandow inquired about the side yard setbacks. Discussion was held regarding the right of way. Chair Heck inquired if Kimmes has looked into the traffic flow. Kimmes stated they are looking at 600 traffic counts. Further discussion was held regarding the need for the 60' right of way. Staff noted no additional access points would be added to Halsted Avenue and there is no access off of 110. It was noted the developer would do the reconstruction and improvement of the roads. Warner inquired about the sanitary sewer system. Kimmes noted there is a lift station that is adequate for this area. John Harris, Harris Architects, noted the ponds would take drainage off of 110. Stulberg recommended looking into the right of way issues further and suggested the Planning Commission give their opinions to the developer on how they view the setbacks and height variances. It was noted three stories is code. Jordan noted discussion has not be held if the Planning Commission wants this type of density and changing of the comprehensive plan. Mayor Fischer stated discussion has been held with the Council regarding this property as having higher density. Strandell stated the neighbors would have concerns to be addressed. Brandow inquired about the hardcover calculations. Gozola noted there would be a 25% maximum. Stulberg noted he is not in favor of going above three stores and is concerned about the density and traffic on this small area. Chair Heck noted this is also going in front of the Council at the next meeting. -2252- _. It was noted changes could be made to the site plan before the Council meeting. Stulberg suggested the applicant keep the Planning Commission updated on how the meetings go with Mound. -2253- -~ City of Minnetrista Planning Department Sketch Plan Report Meeting Date: Representative: Property Owner: Location: Current Zoning: File #: Planning Commission Ben Gozola, City Planner 5-24-04 Stephen Johnson Lake Minnetonka Highlands LLC (Halstead Pointe LLC, the applicant, has a purchase agreement with the current owner) 6701 County Road 110 West R2--Low single family residential 2004-18 Introductory Information Request: The applicant is seeking to redevelop the existing mobile home park at 6701 County Road 110 West. The proposal would replace the current mobile home units by constructing 56 condominium units (48 of the units would be in Minnetrista, while the remaining 8 would be in Mound). The condominium units would be housed in two separate structures--each consisting of three or four buildings all connected by an underground parking facility. The two structures would appear to be seven separate buildings from ground level. In addition to the issues normally facing a proposed urban subdivision (i.e. infrastructure extensions, park dedication, etc.), the applicant must also address the following: · Rezoning: the land would need to be zoned R5 to accommodate the number of units currently proposed; · Comprehensive Plan Amendment: the comprehensive plan would need to be amended to guide this parcel for high density development (a new category not currently within the plan); Site Data: Location - 6701 County Road ! 10 West Existing Zoning - R2: Low single family residential Proposed Zoning -R5: High density multi family residential Complete Project Acreage (including land in Mound) = 5.897 acres (256,873 sq ft) Minnetrista Parcel Acreage = 4.181 acres Property Identification Number: 22-117-24-43-0002 Existing Use - Nine mobile home units -2254- Page 2 Review Site Character: Applicant Comments: The site is wooded with sloping topography from County Rd 110 down to Halstead's Bay. There is a pocket of mature, native trees in the NE corner of the property. The majority of the remaining property is covered with Boxelder and Poplar. There is a bluff line that was created when the street and utility improvements were done a number of years ago. Prior to that point the property was farmland that sloped more uniformly down to the lake. The upper portion of the property has views of Halstead Bay. Staff Comments: None Proposed Density: Applicant Comments: The Minnestrista portion of the project is situated on approximately 4.2 acres or 182,950 sq ft. With the planned 48 units on the Minnetrista side, this works out to 11.43 units/acre. A zoning change will be requested to R-5. Under R-5, the project will be within the 12 units per acre density the zoning allows. Minnetrista's comprehensive plan does not have a category that matches the R-5 zoning. An amendment to the comp plan will be sought to have the zoning and comp plan match. [sic] Staff Comments: The proposed density for the subdivision is 48 units created on 4.181 acres, for an overall density of 1 unit per 0.087 acres (11.48 units per acre). The proposed density is NOT allowable within the 'R2' zoning district, so the applicant is proposing a rezone of the property to the R5 zoning classification. Under the R5 designation, a development could include up to 12.45 units per acre. Lot Configuration: Because the proposal is a condominium development, it will need to be platted under rules that differ from standard subdivision practice. Basically, both structures will be located on the single Minnetrista lot (with the northern building proposed to be built atop the Minnetrista/Mound border), but platting will define the ownership structure of stacked units. Future parcel development: The R5 zoning district could potentially allow for up to 52 units on the site. Considering the intent of the developer is to fully redevelop both the Mound and Minnetrista sites, it is unlikely that the additional four units could (or would) ever be added to the site. Potential reconfiguration of the proposal based on other findings in this report could impact this analysis. .5'."tL(md U, reiLa/td Divisions'~Ilr~/sted Point('.; 670! ('lq -2255- _. Page 3 Adjacent parcel dev.: This parcel is one of a group of four parcels sandwiched between CR 110W, Halsted Avenue, Cardinal Cove Drive, and the City of Mound (see diagram right). Vacant parcel #1 is approximately 0.5 acres in size, 88 feet wide, and is largely encumbered by the north/south portion of Halsted Avenue. Likewise, the single-family dwelling lot along Halsted Avenue is 0.6 acres and is also encumbered by Halsted Avenue. Both of these parcels cannot be further developed, but each impact development on both the subject parcel and vacant parcel #2. The main reason for this is comes from the current location of Halsted Avenue, and the lack of dedicated right-of-way for the road (please see further discussion on this subject in the next section entitled "road system"). Vacant parcel #2 is 4.4 acres in size and is eligible to develop into a maximum of nine lots. Improvements to infrastructure along Halsted Avenue should be done to facilitate this potential future development. Road System: · One major issue facing development of any parcel in this area is the current status of Halsted Avenue. Vacant parcel #1 and the single family dwelling parcel are both abstract recorded properties which currently contain a portion of the north/south Halsted Avenue. Because the road has been in place longer than six years, the City maintains a limited easement in the location of the road as a statutory user. This situation presents two separate challenges: 1) The City would like a minimum of 50 feet of right-of-way for Halsted Avenue; most of which could be obtained from the redevelopment of the subject parcel. Obtaining 50 feet of right-of-way (or the preferable 60') would impact the current sketch plan layout as each structure would be within such right-of-way, or would be within the required 35' setback. 2) Vacant parcel # 1 does own a small sliver of land in-between the road and the subject parcel. The applicant will need to work with this property owner to obtain an easement over this area or purchase the parcel to facilitate required improvements to Halsted Avenue. Another option that may be available would be for the developer to work with the property owner of Vacant parcel #2 to purchase Vacant parcel #1 as both parcels would benefit. The final option would be for the City to consider condemning the land if necessary. · There is currently only 33' of right-of-way along the east/west portion of Halsted Avenue. Again, staff would request additional right-of-way (to 50' or 60'), and again this would definitely impact the proposed plan. As currently proposed, the southern most proposed building is already five feet within the required setback. Upon dedicating additional right-of-way, the problem only increases. ,5,'(li,:md U&,'.La~td.Divisior~,x':IloLWed l'ointc, 67(I/CR ~ !Ol~,:SSgetch Rr;p--S&';ch: tlai:>'wdi'obt~c: P~X!Z: ~,-24...04, du',' -2256- _. Page 4 (cont.) · Regardless of how future reconfigurations may play out, no additional access points should be proposed onto CR11 OW. · Staff anticipates Hennepin County will request additional right-of-way for County Road 110 West (14 feet). If this occurs, there will be definite impact to the proposed location of the off street parking spaces and the internal traffic lanes. · The north/south portion of Halstead Avenue currently comes to a perpendicular intersection with and east/west street also called Halstead Avenue. Staff would recommend the north/south portion be renamed to alleviate the confusing situation. Hennepin Co. Hwy. Dept. Comments: · The provision of no direct site access to CSAH 110, other than an emergency vehicle entrance, is strongly supported by Hennepin County. However, some left turn accommodation (painted turn lane or by pass lane) on CSAH 110 at Halstead Avenue must be provided. · If this becomes a plat, the developer should dedicate a 50-foot half right of way along CSAH 110, similar to other recent subdivisions in the area. This action will help accommodate any future upgrading plus a trail as demonstrated on the City and County trail plans. Engineering Comments: · There is insufficient right-of-way along both the north / south and east / west portions of Halstead Avenue. Additional ROW will need to be given to have a total of 60' of ROW for these portion of roadway. · The traffic flow is unclear within the application. Please clarify with the next submittals. · The fire department only access is not recommended. Problems generally occur with these types of accesses in other users utilizing the access. Please resubmit the application with an alternative solution. · Submit the proposed street grades, typical section, and design specifications with the preliminary plat application. Parking Facilities: · City code requires that each dwelling in a multi-family development have at least 1.5 parking spaces (one of which must be provided via a garage). As the proposal includes 56 dwelling units, the required parking would be at least 56 garage stalls, and 28 off street spaces. o The proposal includes at least 112 garage spaces (2+ per residence). o The proposal includes 40 off-street spaces. · Staff does not see any issues surrounding the proposed parking for the project. S: iDtnd [;rc'iLa~d Divisions [lalx;ed Poinie; 670! CR ! 10B;'kSketch'Ret;,.-.*Skr,!r:h' t[aisa~d ~ c~ittt,;': P&Z: .5-24...04. doc' -2257- ~. Page 5 Requested Variances: · Regardless of the final configuration of structures, the applicant's would be seeking zero lot line setbacks from the Mound boundary. The northern most structure is intended to cross the municipal line to allow the final eight-unit building to reside in Mound. The southern structure will be entirely in Minnetrista, but is proposed to be built directly adjacent to the municipal boundary. · Depending upon the final layout of the proposed buildings, each structure might also require side yard setback variances from the north/south portion of Halsted Avenue. · Additionally, a front yard setback variance may be necessary for the southern structure from the east/west portion of Halsted Avenue. · Hardcover should be a concern as the project moves forward, and all steps should be taken to ensure that hardcover is limited at all times. Staff would not recommend a hardcover variance with any nonconforming future submittal. Wetlands & Drainage: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District: MCWD will require a permit for erosion control, stormwater management, and wetland protection if there are wetlands of the subject property. The requirements for stormwater management will be runoff rate control, water quality of 50% P removal, and additional permanent BMP's which are good for water quality. Staff Comments: The Hennepin Conservation District's wetlands inventory does not show the presence of wetlands and/or hydric soils on the property. Staff would recommend engineering verify this to determine if a wetland delineation will be required as part of any future preliminary plat. As always, staff would require the applicant adhere to MCWD requirements and permitting procedures. Water System(s): Engineering Comments: · A decision will need to be made regarding the proposed watermain system. Please refer the memo written on April 15th, 2004 regarding the overall look at the City's system. · Water should be extended to the along Halstead Avenue both on the north / south portion and the east / west portion of the roadway. · Provide more detail on the service connection sizes, pipe sizes, and pipe material that is being proposed. · Please refer to the attached memo from Bonestroo for further comments regarding water availability. -2258- _- P~e6 Sanitary System(s): Engineering Comments: · Indicate the proposed mainline and service sewer line sizes. Also, anticipated flows from each unit should be noted in the preliminary plat submittal. · Show the existing force main location and size on the plan. · The main connection into the existing sanitary sewer manhole is going "against the flow" of the mainline. Please reconfigure to alleviate this situation. · Please refer to the attached memo from Bonestroo for further coruments regarding sewer availability. Storm Sewers: Engineering Comments: · The 2-cell pond in the center of the development is not being properly utilized. The eastern cell of the pond does not receive drainage from the system. Please reconfigure. · The pipe that connects the 2-cell pond on the north east of the bridge is not necessary since the water under the bridge is already connecting the two ponds. If there is a reason to keep this pipe segment, please clarify the reason. Otherwise, please remove that segment of pipe. · The Emergency Overflow route must be shown such that in a large event, a path for the water to reach Lake Minnetonka is formed that does not damage any private property. · The outlet from the southern pond is currently shown to empty onto private property, this is not acceptable. Please propose a different scenario. · Stormwater design calculations will need to be submitted at the time of preliminary plat application. Please make sure that all drainage that contributes to this site from other properties is taken into account and properly shown on the final construction plans. · All drainage on the site that is north of the "central" pond should be directed to the "central" pond first. This will allow the central pond to act as a NURP pond and remove sediment from that water prior to entering the second, southern, pond on the site. · Roof drainage systems will need to be tied into the storm sewer system. Please indicate how during the preliminary plat application. · An erosion and sediment control plan will need to be submitted for the preliminary plat application. Utilities: · According to Sec. 21-124. Location, "all utility facilities, including but not limited to gas, electric power, telephone and other telecommunication cables, shall be located underground throughout the subdivision. Wherever existing utility facilities are located aboveground, except where existing on public roads and rights-of-way, they shall be removed and placed underground." -2259- ~. Page 7 (cont.) · All utility facilities existing and proposed throughout the subdivision shall be shown on a preliminary utility plan with the preliminary plat. Sidewalks & Trails: According to Sec. 21-122. Required improvements, "(a) Sidewalks shall be included within the dedicated nonpavement right-of-way of all roads; (b) Concrete curbs are required for all roads where sidewalks are required by this article or where required in the discretion of the city council; (c) Sidewalks shall be improved as required by the city engineer. Staff would recommend a sidewalk be built along at least one side of each portion of Halsted Avenue. This will provide an avenue for children to access the trail that will eventually be along County Road 110 West. Additionally, the intersection of Halsted Avenue and County Road 110 West is a logical location for a school bus stop (if it isn't currently one already). As staff is recommending sidewalks, we would also require the street to include concrete curb along the entire stretch of road. Flood Plain & Steep Slopes: · The subject property is no~t within a FEMA floodplain. r~ee Preservation: As the proposed subdivision will create more than five (5) units, it will be subject to tree preservation. As part of a potential preliminary plat application, staff would require the applicant to submit a tree preservation plan, prepared by a certified forester or landscape architect, including the following: o Page one shall depict the location of all existing significant trees (as defined by Minnetrista City Code) on the property. Each tree shall be labeled with a unique identification number. o Page two shall depict the 70%+ trees proposed to be protected as part of this development. Trees intended for removal shall be clearly distinguishable from those intended for preservation. This page should also depict the location of required street trees (which will also be protected). o Page three shall provide a matrix listing the unique identification number for the tree, the species or common name, the size in caliper inches, and an indicator as to whether the tree is intended for removal or preservation. The matrix should conclude with a tabulation of the total number of inches on the site, the total to be removed, and the total to be preserved. -2260- Page 8 (cont.) Considering the area of disturbance being proposed in the sketch plan, staff would anticipate a great deal of replanting will be required as part of this project. The applicant should strive to maintain those trees that provide natural screening from the surrounding single-family dwellings. Because of the heavy tree cover on this property, building permit applications will need to show solid fencing placement to guard protected trees during construction. The applicant is advised to discuss tree preservation with City Council, and reach an understanding as to whether planting will occur on-site, off-site, or possibly a cash-in-lieu dedication made in place of additional planting. Required Plantings & Screening: · According to Sec. 21-127. Shade trees planted by subdivider, "One (1) tree shall be planted for every forty (40) feet of frontage along each road unless the city council, upon recommendation of the city engineer, shall grant a waiver." Staff would recommend the developer comply with this requirement. · Staff would require that this planting plan be included as another component of the tree preservation plan (as these trees would also be protected). This plan shall be the preliminary guide for the eventual placement of the required street trees. · Spacing of the trees shall be generally 40 feet apart, but can/will vary depending upon the location of existing trees, natural features, view triangles for roads, etc. The initial plan should take these into consideration with proposed tree placement. Required Signage: · Replacement and/or new signs meeting City of Minnetrista specs for street signs will be required as part of this subdivision. · As part of a future preliminary plat application, staff will require that a signage plan be incorporated showing the following: o Existing/proposed locations of sign posts and a notation of sign(s) to be placed on the post (street names, traffic control, warning, etc.) o Table indicating the name of the required signs (example: Games Drive, Turtle Road, Halsted Ave, Stop signs, children at play signs, etc.) and the number of each sign needed for the development. Signs are required to have double frontage (one sign for each side of a post--excluding traffic control signs designed to be seen from only one direction). · Location for a permanent entrance monument and easements for such (if applicable). · Location for future temporary area identification signs and easements for such (if applicable). S.' !Lrt~td ( ;?e Laud.Divisiomv'~Ilalsted I%inle ; 670! CR ] ! Ol~,iSk~:,tch'.Rep....Ske/ch: tlai,~,~<~d Pc~b~lc : P& 2: -2261 - Warning Siren System: Page 9 The applicant must contribute a warning siren to serve the area, or paying a cash- in-lieu fee. The City's standard fee in lieu of providing an on site siren is $64 * the potential number of units (4.181 acres (209523.6 sq ft) / 3500 sq fi = 59 potential units) = $3776. Park Dedication: The Park Commission discussed this item at their May l lth meeting and recommended that a fourteen foot wide trail easement with a ten foot wide trail constructed within it and the remainder of dedication requirements be cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication. The cash-in-lieu amount for this density is 15% of the fair market value of the parcel not to exceed $25,000 per unit. Trailer Court Relocation: Because state statutes govern trailer court relocations/redevelopment, it is imperative that both the City and developer coordinate their efforts to ensure all regulations are being upheld. Staff would suggest the applicant's attorney and the attorneys from both Minnetrista and Mound meet to discuss the issue prior to any future submittal. Resident Concerns: · Neither staff, nor the applicant, has received any official comments/letters regarding the proposed project to date. · Staffhad recommended the applicant hold a neighborhood meeting in early May, but unfortunately, no such meeting was held. · It should be noted that sketch plans do not require a public hearing and therefore neighbor comments may not be available until a potential preliminary plat review (when a public hearing notice will be sent to the adjacent properties within 500 feet). Conclusion The Planning Commission must examine the proposed sketch plan and suggest changes and conditions that should be adhered to on any future preliminary plat application. If major changes are required, the Commission may advise the applicant to return with a different/revised sketch plan proposal the following month. Keep in mind that additional changes can be required as a result of further study during the preliminary plat phase. With any future preliminary plat submittal, the applicant should be prepared to address or correct all problems, concerns, violations or pertinent comments provided during the sketch plan review. -2262- Page 10 Commission Options: The Planning Commission has the following options: A) The Planning Commission may recommend the applicant proceed to preliminary plat by addressing proposed changes, concerns, and conditions outlined by the Commission. B) The Planning Commission may recommend the applicant return the following month with a revised sketch plan showing major changes to the proposal as a result of significant problems identified by the Commission Recommended Action: Staff recommends option B: Recommend the applicant return the following month with a revised sketch plan showing major changes to the proposal as a result of significant problems identified by staff and the Commission. Specifically, staff would recommend the following issues be addressed: 1. The applicant should demonstrate how additional right-of-way dedications-- and the resulting setbacks--impact the overall layout of the plan. Specifically, the applicants should show fourteen additional feet of ROW along CSAH 11 OW, and a total of 50' to 60' for all portions of Halstead Avenue (code requires a minimum dedication of 60'; a 50' dedication would need a variance granted by Council). These dedications will require significant site plan changes including location of the southern structure, internal traffic flow, off-street parking, and proposed ponding areas. 2. Initial plans for sewer and water services should be updated per engineering recommendations. Staff recommends this option as the applicant will most likely want greater assurance that the project has a likelihood of success prior to investing large sums of money into full plan sets. Answering the questions called out in this report and delaying progress for one month will provide that advantage. However, if the applicant decides to submit a preliminary plat application, staff would recommend the follow issues all be addressed and/or understood: 1. The applicant shall submit a completed application for preliminary plat within ninety (90) days of the planning commission review. Staff would recommend the applicant verify there are no wetlands on the property. If wetlands are determined to be present, all shall be delineated and shown on the preliminary plat. Drainage easements and buffers to acCommodate said wetlands shall also be shown on the preliminary plat; 3. The applicant shall adhere to MCWD requirements and permitting procedures; ,5? [Laad Use Land Divisionsitlals,~ed Poime; 670] CR ! !O~;5.%'etchlRep....Sketch, Ila~.swd Poim~< P&Z: .~.24-04.doc -2263- Page 11 (cont.) 4. The applicant shall provide a written narrative requesting all needed variances substantiating why each should be granted and would be allowable by code (if applicable). 5. The developer shall be responsible for the reconstruction of any roadway impacted by the extension of utilities to service the proposed lots. The developer shall make any necessary improvements to Halsted Avenue as determined by the City Engineer due to the impact of the additional traffic generated by this development. 7. Street lights shall be required at locations identified by the City Engineer. 8. The developer shall provide additional right-of-way along County Road 110 West as directed by the County Highway Department; 9. Concrete curbs shall be required along all of Halstead Avenue abutting this property. 10. All existing utilities shall be placed underground prior to final plat approval. Future utilities serving the proposed structures shall also be placed underground. 11 · Sidewalks shall be included within the dedicated nonpavement right-of-way along at least the north/south portion of Halstead Avenue. All sidewalks shall conform to engineering specifications. 12. The City, as part of the platting process, should rename the north/south section of Halstead Avenue. 13. A tree preservation plan shall be submitted with a future preliminary plat application, be prepared by a certified forester or landscape architect, and including the following: · Page one shall depict the location of all existing significant trees (as defined by Minnetrista City Code) on the property. Each tree shall be labeled with a unique identification number. · Page two shall depict the 70%+ trees proposed to be protected as part of this development. Trees intended for removal shall be clearly distinguishable from those intended for preservation. This page should also depict the location of required street trees (which will also be protected). · Page three shall provide a matrix listing the unique identification number for the tree, the species or common name, the size in caliper inches, and an indicator as to whether the tree is intended for removal or preservation. The matrix should conclude with a tabulation of the total number of inches on the site, the total to be removed, and the total to be preserved. -2264- Page 12 (cont.) 14. Two-foot contours should be depicted on future applications. 15. A signage .plan shall be submitted with a future preliminary plat application showing the following: · Existing/proposed locations of sign posts and a notation of sign(s) to be placed on the post (street names, traffic control, warning, etc.) · Table indicating the name of the required signs (example: Games Drive, Turtle Road, Halsted Ave, Stop signs, children at play signs, etc.) and the number of each sign needed for the development. Signs are required to have double frontage (one sign for each side of a post---excluding traffic control signs designed to be seen from only one direction). · Location for a permanent entrance monument and easements for such (if applicable). · Location for future temporary area identification signs and easements for such (if applicable). 16. A warning siren system shall be provided on site and/or cash dedication be paid prior to application for Final Plat (4.181 acres (209523.6 sq ft) / 3500 sq ft = 59 potential units) = $3776. 17. The parkland dedication of a trail constructed within an easement and cash- in-lieu of parkland dedication of 15% of the fair market value of the parcel, not to exceed $25,000 per unit must be dedicated. 18. Changes to the property (tree removal, grading, etc.) shall not occur until authorized by the City. 19. Payment of all associated sketch plan review fees shall be received by the City prior to acceptance of a preliminary plat application; 20. The preliminary plat shall show typical drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of all lots; 21. Compliance with any additional requirements established by the City Engineer and City Attorney. Future items of note: 22. The applicant shall provide adequate title evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney prior to submission of final plat; cc: Robin Bowman, Public Works Julie Eckman, DNR Dave Zetterstrom, Hennepin Co. Highway Dept. Robin Caufman, Met Council Stephen Johnson, Applicant X' i.[~md (~s:e!Land Divisionsittahled Pointe; 670t CR ! lOI~,:53.'ketchJt~:p....Skc,,,ch; lIal,s'zed P.'.,btl~:. P&Z; .5...24-04. doc -2265- FROM: RE: FILE: DATE: MEMO Dean Lotter Kevin Kimmes Springpointe Trailer Park Redevelopment Summary of Utility Issues BRA File No. 260-04-146 Avril 15. 2004 This memo is intended to serve as a summary of the utility availability regarding the above-referenced project. While there is some good information known at this time, due to the early stages of this process, it should be understood that the level of precision on our findings is not yet refined. This is still a good estimate of the issues regarding this matter. The utility needs that are under question for the proposed subdivision are sewer and water availability. SEWER AVAILABILITY To answer the easier part, we have reviewed the capacity of the existing sanitary sewer lift station that the development will need to utilize and the station has more than enough capacity to handle the proposed 60 units. A more detailed breakdown of the number of homes will be forthcoming when the application process proceeds. WATER AVAILABILITY The water needs are much more difficult to answer. The property exists at the Mound / Minnetrista border. Staff examined each system and the following table summarizes how they exist today. Existing Required fire Existing Required Capacity flow Capacity Pressure Pressure Minnetrista +/- 450 GPM 1000+ GPM 65 PSI 40+ PSI Mound 750 GPM 1000 GPM 40 PSI 40+ PSI As is evident, both systems lack the necessary capacity for fire flow issues which is the requirement that drives the flow needs. This results in the water system having enough capacity for normal, residential use, but lacking the necessary fire flow protection capacity. Also, the pressures provided by Mound are on the very low end for residential use. This can be fixed if a pressure boosting station is constructed, but the capacity issues will still remain. To alleviate the system short comings, a few alternatives were investigated for preliminary ideas. They are as follows: 1. Potential Fix: Increase pipe size in Mounds system in a few select "choker" locations. Result: Cost would be around $150,000 +/- and would bring capacity to the very low end limit that is necessary for fire protection. A more detailed analysis would be required and may end up showing that this solution would not meet the necessary flows. Thus, this is not a solution that can be counted on at this time. -2266- Potential Fix: Install either a new water tower or install a connection under Six Mile Creek to the existing tower along Kings Point Road, in Minnetrista. Result: Both alternatives would supply the necessary capacity and pressure to the development, but the costs are estimated to be over $1.2 million and thus this solution may be cost prohibitive-at this time. Potential Fix: Install a well on site within the new development. This system would be a private well for the development and would eliminate any connection to either Cities water system. Result: This alternative could supply enough pressure and potential capacity to the development but would hinder any potential for solutions to the City systems which are currently in need of enhancements. Potential Fix: Install a "dry hydrant" with a lead into Lake Minnetonka that could temporarily solve the demand for fire protection. This option, while potentially viable, is somewhat rare, and would only fix the problem for the short term. Also, it is unknown if agencies such as the LMCD would allow such a hook-up to the Lake Minnetonka waters. -2267- TO: FROM: RE: FILE: DATE: CC: MEMO Ben Gozola Kevin Kimmes SprotgPointe Redevelopment Review BRA File No. 260-04-146 May 18, 2004 This memo is intended to be a review of the sketch plan submitted for the above referenced project. Please contact me at 651-604-4769 for any clarifications that may be needed regarding the following items. Sanitary Sewer 1. Indicate the proposed mainline and service sewer line sizes. Also, anticipated flows from each unit should be noted in the preliminary plat submittal. 2. Show the existing force main location and size on the plan. 3. The main connection into the existing sanitary sewer manhole is going "against the flow" of the mainline. Please reconfigure to alleviate this situation. Water 1. Main A decision will need to be made regarding the proposed watermaln system. Please refer the memo written on April 15th, 2004 regarding the overall look at the City's system. Water should be extended to the along Halstead Avenue both on the north / south portion and the east / west portion of the roadway. Provide more detail on the service connection sizes, pipe sizes, and pipe material that is being proposed. Storm 1. Sewer The 2-cell pond in the center of the development is not being properly utilized. The eastern cell of the pond does not receive drainage from the system. Please reconfigure. 2. The pipe that connects the 2-cell pond on the north east of the bridge is not necessary since the water under the bridge is already connecting the two ponds. If there is a reason to keep this pipe segment, please clarify the reason. Otherwise, please remove that segment of pipe. 3. The Emergency Overflow route must be shown such that in a large event, a path for the water to reach Lake Minnetonka is formed that does not damage any private property. 4. The outlet from the southern pond is currently shown to empty onto private property, this is not acceptable. Please propose a different scenario. 5. Stormwater design calculations will need to be submitted at the time of preliminary plat application. Please make sure that all drainage that contributes to this site from other properties is taken into account and properly shown on the final construction plans. 6. All drainage on the site that is north of the "central" pond should be directed to the "central" pond first. This will allow the central pond to act as a NURP pond and remove sediment from that water prior to entering the second, southern, pond on the site. 7. Roof drainage systems will need to be tied into the storm sewer system. Please indicate how during the preliminary plat application. -2268- 8. An erosion and sediment control plan will need to be submitted for the preliminary plat application. Streets 1. There is insufficient right-of-way along both the north / south and east / west portions of Halstead Avenue. Additional ROW will need to be given to have a total of 60' of ROW for these portion of roadway. 2. The traffic flow is unclear within the application. Please clarify with the next submittals. 3. The fire department only access is not recommended. Problems generally occur with these types of accesses in other users utilizing the access. Please resubmit the application with an alternative solution. 4. Submit the proposed street grades, typical section, and design specifications with the preliminary plat application. Please note, that while this review did add value to the sketch plan application review process, it should not be considered an all-inclusive list of the potential issues. Due to the potential of upcoming changes, our review was done on the main items that were prevalent at this time. Future items may still exist that have not been listed here. -2269- MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION Planning Cotlm~ssion Date Case No. 04'~ ~r' Clty'Council Date FEES MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION. \-"ox z,] ., _/~s~c. P~..~v,~. .350' - ~ P~UMI~Y P~T $3~+$15 ~ lot * FI~ P~T $3~+$15 ~r lot * ~DITIO~L USE PERMIT/PDA $350 * E~ DEPOSIT $5,000 ' V~CE $2~ * TOT~ $ * CALL THE MOUND PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO CONFIRM CURRENT FEES. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE. EXI~NG L~ Bi~ SubdMslon LE~ ~ ~ ~c ~ ~ Zone DESC~ON PI~ APPLICANT (if ~er ~ appll~nt) ~ ~) ~) ..Fax su~Y~ Page I of 2 l~vis~ ! 1/20t03 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the Impacts. If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Number of Structures: Lot Ama Per Dwelling Unit: sq. ft. Number of Dwelling Units/Structure: ~' Total Lot Area: I ~ EI ZS"-G sq. ff. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Application must be signed by eli owners of the subject property, or explanation given why this is not the case. I certify that alt of the statements above and statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I acknowledge that i have read all of the information provided (including Section 330 of the Mound City Ordinance) and that I am responsible for all costs Incurred by the City related to the processing of this application, t 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 q/t' inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notk:=e~ al may be required by law. -..- , / / ' Print A~!~Clrlt'l Name Apf:~ant'a~ Si g~ at~r~ x._._...~-- Dat~/ / Print Owner's Name Owner's signature Date Print Owner'l Name Owner's Signature Date Major Suni Al~amem Page 2 of 2 -2271 - Halstead Pointe LLC Sketch Plan Review May 3, 2004 Narrative - written Statements A listing of contact information including name(s), address(es) andphone number(s) of: the owner of record, authorized agents or representatives, engineer, surveyor and any other relevant associates; Owner of record: Lake Minnetonka Highlands LLC 6542 Regency Lane, #203 Eden Prairie, MN 55425 Purchasing entity: Halstead Pointe LLC Craig Fink 2373 East Old Shakopee Rd Bloomington, MN 55425 612-385-2252 Project Manager: KMJ Management LLC Stephen Johnson 9909 South Shore Drive Plymouth, MN 55441 612-384-4218 Architect: Harriss Architects John Harriss 331 Second Ave N Minneapolis, MN 55401 612-339-2190 Civil Engineer: James R. Hill, Inc Joel Cooper 2500 West County Rd 42 Bumsville, MN 55337 952952-890-6044 -2272- Surveyor: Henry Nelson 15050 23rd Ave N Plymouth, MN 55447 763-476-6010 Environmental & Geo-technical Engineer Braun Intertec Mike Heuer 11001 Hampshire Ave S Bloomington, MN 55438 952-995-2258 Sales & Marketing Edina Realty Anne Hunt/Jay Nord 952-476-5399/952-927-1119 b) ,4 listing of the following site data: ,4ddress, parcel size in acres and square feet, property identification numbers (PID) and current legal description(s); The proposed development consists of two PID's straddling the Mound and Minnetrista boundaries. 6701 County Rd 110 W P1D # 22-117-24-43-0002 COM ON THE NWLY LINE OF HALSTEAD AT A PT 520 8/10 FT NELY FROM THE MOST WLY COR OF HALSTEAD PARK TH NWLY LINE OF HALSTEAD 182,118 sq.ft = 4.181 acres 6639 Bartlett Blvd PID# 22-117-24-43-0007 HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, LOTS 1, 2 & 3 74,755 sq.ft = 1.716 acres Parcel is approximately 5.897 acres/256,873 sq. ft. c) ,4 description of the land's current characteristics (i.e. rolling hills, streams, wetlands, beautiful views, mature woods, etc); The site is wooded with sloping topography from County Rd 110 down to Halstead's Bay. There is a pocket of mature, native trees in the NE comer of the property. The majority of the remaining property is covered with Boxelder and Poplar. There is a bluff -2273- line that was created when the street and utility improvements were done a number of years ago. Prior to that point the property was farmland that sloped more uniformly down to the lake. The upper portion of the property has views of Halstead Bay. d) Information on the proposal: i) /t narrative explaining the intent of the project The proposed project consists of seven-eight trait buildings (6 in Minnetrista and 1 in Mound) for a total of 56 condominium town-homes. The buildings will be designed to look like "Old Lake Minnetonka" style mansions or resorts. There will be 4 units spaced along the upper (north) side of the property and 3 units along the lower (south) portion. Every effort will be made to have the buildings blend in with the natural topography and feel like they belong on the site. i0 The proposed name of the subdivision Halstead Pointe Number of lots N/A iv) Description of proposed parks and/or open space Halstead Pointe will attempt to preserve as much open space as possible. The area between the upper and lower buildings will be designed as a community "green" area with extensive ponding and landscaping. The shoreline will be natural vegetation with an area for picnics, a gazebo and a small dock. v) Discuss proposed infrastructure extensions County Road 110 will not be significantly impacted. The number of access points will actually be reduced. It is not anticipated that replacing the current mobile home park with condominiums will significantly increase traffic to the area. -2274- The sewer service is sufficient to handle the needs of the site. There is currently a lift station near the site that has ample capacity for the increased usage of the new units over the current trailers. Water supply is an issue that pre-dates this development and will continue to be a problem, with or without this proposed development. There is sufficient supply and pressure available for domestic use, but not for fire protection. A series of meetings have occurred with the engineers for the developer, the city of Mound and the city of Minnetrista to explore solutions, both short term and long term. Although a couple of long term solutions have been identified, these do not appear options that will be available in time to help this project. An over-sized well built near the site would offer a short term solution for the development as well as contribute to the city's future needs by being integrated into the city's system. e) A statement showing the proposed density of the project with the method of calculating said density shown; The Mound portion of the development is situated on approximately 1.716 acres or 74,755 sq. ft. With the planned 8 units on the Mound side, this works out to 4.66 units/acre. A description of how conflicts with nearby land uses(livability, value, potential future development, etc. and/or disturbances to wetlands or natural areas); It is anticipated that the proposed development will increase value for the surrounding area as well as the community at large. This property is the eastern gateway to the city. An attractive, well-designed housing project will be an asset to the area. There will be very little impact to the neighboring residents as to sight lines and views. The orientation of the area is toward Halstead's Bay. This project will not block anybody's views and will improve the view of those entering the community on County Rd 110. No wetlands or natural areas will be disturbed. The property is wooded, primarily with Boxelder and Poplar. Every effort will be made to preserve the natural feel of the property. A brief statement on theproposed ownership and maintenance of public and private open space areas; The private open spaces will be owned and maintained by the Hastead Pointe homeowner' association. There are no public spaces anticipated. ~2275- ~1 narrative addressing concerns/issues raised by neighboring properties (staff always suggests discussing your proposal with the neighboring land owners to get a sense of what issues may arise as your application is processed); A neighborhood meeting will be held early in the development process to hear and address any concerns the neighbors may have. Preliminary discussions indicate that there may be concerns for traffic issues, sight-lines/views and how the development will fit in with the Lake Minnetonka, semi-rural feel. 0 A proposed development schedule indicating the approximate date when construction of the project, or stages of the same, can be expected to begin and be completed (including the proposed phasing of construction of public improvements and recreational and common space areas). A construction schedule is hard to estimate on this project given the relative complexity of concurrent applications being processed through two municipalities, as well as making sure that the closing of the mobile home park is handled in the appropriate fashion. If all goes well, sales would occur in 2005. Provide justification that the proposal will not place an excessive burden on roads (traffic), sewage, water supply, parks, schools, fire, police, or other public facilities/services (including traffic flows) in the area. The target market for this development is "Empty Nesters". This type of resident has a very low impact on community services. With one or two non-commuting drivers per housing unit the impact on roads is minimal. Access to the property will be off of County Rd 110. Currently there are several access points - this number will be reduced. There are now approximately 24 households on the site. Although the number of units will double, the traffic may not increase significantly, if at all. Schools will not be affected, except to the extent that the increased value will lead to a greater tax base to fund schools. There is ample sewage capacity available now and for any furore growth. Water supply is currently an issue in the community. There is sufficient domestic water supply, but not enough for fire protection. We propose building an over-sized well on-site that can be eventually turned over to the city to assist in the community's fire protection. Schedule for removal of manufactured home park and associated legal issues. Every effort will be made to meet both the letter and the intent of the closure statutes. With two municipalities involved, there will be some scheduling issues to be dealt with. As the development schedule is firmed up, so will the park closure plan. -2276- -2277- ORIGINAL II II -2278- ORIGINAL · Paul A. Waldron & Associates, Ltd. 504 Industrial Boulevard Waconia, Minnesota 55387 (952) 442-7520 · Fax (952) 442-7521 MEMO TO: Sarah Smith, City of Mound Community Development Director FROM: Paul Waldron, Building Official DATE: May 12, 2004 SUBJECT: Building Code Application for the Site Sketch Plan Review for Halstead Pointe, LLC This review is only for preliminary site sketch plan review, an additional plan review will take place when the building permits are applied for at each respective City. At that time comments will be made for code compliance for the final site plan and building construction plans. The Minnesota Building Code has different code applications depending upon the type of construction, occupancy and ownership of the structures. In example, individual ownership of units have different code requirements than one entity ownership, affecting property line locations, fire wall placement, etc. General site comments are as follows: Water Supply- The water supply to the site must be capable of providing adequate pressures and volume to suppress fires or supply sprinkler systems and hydrants. Placement of hydrants must be 150' maximum radius of structure coverage. See the Fire Chief fm commm~ts. Handicapped accessibili _ty - All public areas must be accessible to meet State Code requirements. Private areas must meet the requirements for occupancy base on the type of ownership, possibly all units need to be adaptable for handicapped occupancy mainly on the ground level units. Building Drainage - Must provide drainage system showing drainage from building to meet code requirements. Underground Parking - Must meet all code requirements for fire separation, list construction materials and/or suppression systems, etc. Generally, the project A.I.A will need to provide a code analysis upon submittal for building permits. Again construction type, occupancy type and ownership will trigger different code applications. -2279- Hennepin County Transportation Department 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340-5421 763-745-7500, Phone 763-478-4000, Fax 763-478-4030,TDD www. co.hennepin.m ri.us May 19, 2004 Mr. Ben Gazola, Planner City of Minnetrista 7701 County Road 110 West Minnetrista, MN 55364 Re: Halstead Pointe Sketch Plan Review CSAH 110, Southeast Quadrant Halstead Avenue Hennepin County Review No. 2816 Review and Recommendations Dear Mr. Gazola: We have reviewed the above sketch and offer the following comments: The provision of no direct site access to CSAH 110, other than an emergency vehicle entrance, is strongly supported by Hennepin County. However, some left mm accommodation (painted turn lane or by pass lane) on CSAH 110 at Halstead Avenue must be provided. If this becomes a plat the developer should dedicate a 50-foot half right of way along CSAH 110, similar to other recent subdivisions in the area. This action will help accommodate any future upgrading plus a trail as demonstrated on the City and County trail plans. Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstrom at 763-745-7643. Sincerely, Robert H. Byers, P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer Cc: Sarah Smith, City of Mound Plat Review Committee An Equol Opportunity Employer - 2280- Recycled Poper Page 1 of 1 Sarah Smith From': To: Sent: Subject: "Renae Clark" <rclark@minnehahacreek.org> '"Sarah Smith'" <SarahSmith@cityofmound.com> Monday, May 24, 2004 10:47 AM Halsted Pointe Sara~ I apologize for my late comments on this project. Because the project is in Mound and Minnetrista, the District will require a permit. The permit requirements will be erosion control and stormwater management. The stormwater management requirements are rate control for the 1, 10, and 100, year events and BMP's in addition to what is required for rate control that are permanent in nature. For example, if the proposed ponds are designed to remove at least 50% P that would be a good BMP. Other examples of BMP's that are typically proposed for these types of projects are street sweeping twice per year and/or sump catch basins or grit chambers designed to work in conjunction with the ponds. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I have also commented to Ben Gozola at the City of Minnetrista. Please reply if you have any questions. Renae Clark District Technician 18202 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 Ph. 952-471-0590 Fx. 952-471-0682 -2281 - 5/24/2004 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 Memorandum To: From: Date: Re: Honorable Mayor and City Council Sarah Smith July 21, 2004 Dock Parcel Ordinance Dock Parcel Ordinance (Draft). At its July 13, 2004 meeting, the Council reviewed the suggested changes to the Dock Parcel Subdivision Ordinance which were requested at the 6/22 meeting. The Council reviewed the document and made several modifications and requested that the proposed ordinance be brought back at the July 27th meeting. Members of the Council are advised that the revised draft was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its July 19, 2004 meeting who offered a number of suggestions and/or revisions which are summarized below: Subsection 330.05. Consider revision of the definition of "Residential Parcel" to "Residential Dock Benefactor Parcel" and/or something similar to set it apart from a standard residential lot. If appropriate, revise accordingly. 2. Subsection 330.10.D (1). Establish whether the notification boundary is from measured from the Dock Parcel or Residential Parcel or both. Subsection 330.10.D (4). Revise second paragraph to read "Both the Dock parcel and the Residential Parcel must include frontage on the same public street." Subsection 330.10.D (6). Discuss whether the (45) day deadline for submittal of evidence of recording can be accommodated. Planning Commission suggests a minimum of (60) days due to possible recording backlogs at Hennepin County. o Subsection 330.10.D (7). Include additional language to establish that the Dock Parcel must be of sufficient width as measured at the 929.4 OHWM to quality for a LMCD dock license, when applicable. -2282- Other General Comments: · Planning Commission felt strongly that the Dock Parcel must meet the minimum frontage requirement at both the street and at the OHWM. · Planning Commission appears to prefer the use of the CUP process for review of an application for a Dock Parcel Subdivision. · Correct all formatting / typos, etc. · The Planning Commission discussed that the proposed provisions, as written, could create an irregularly shaped Dock Parcel. Staff and Council Liaison will comment further as part of the meeting. · Page 2 -2283- CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. -2004 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 330 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE (SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE) TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF DOCK PARCELS FOR PURPOSE OF PROVIDING LAKE ACCESS FOR NEARBY PROPERTIES The City of Mound does ordain: Subsection 330.05 (Definitions) of the Mound City Code is hereby amended and re-numbered to add the following definitions: Dock Parcel. A parcel or tract of land located on the shore of a lake which is combined with a nearby but non-contiguous residential parcel which shall be subject to review and approval of an annual license by the City of Mound to ensure compliance with City Code Chapter 330.05. Dock Parcel Subdivision. The process of: (i) creating the Dock Parcel, if necessary, by division of a larger parcel; and (ii) combining the Dock Parcel with a non-contiguous residential parcel. Residential Parcel. The non-contiguous nearby residential parcel with which the Dock Parcel is combined. Subsection 330.10 (Procedural Requirements) is hereby amended to add a new Subsection D as follows: Do Dock Parcel Subdivision Dock Parcel Subdivision will be processed as a Subdivision Exemption under City Code Chapter 330.10(C), and shall be subject to the following additional provisions: Published and mailed notice regarding the Subdivision Exemption request shall be mailed to all property owners within (350) feet of the subject site no less than (10) days prior to review of the application by the City Council. The approval of a Dock Parcel Subdivision will include an approved site plan showing the nature and location of all structures and improvements that may are being proposed to be constructed on the Dock Parcel. No accessory structures with the exception of those allowed in City Code Chapter 350.1200 (Shoreland Regulations)shall be allowed on the Dock Parcel. No structure or improvement other than those shown on the approved site plan may be constructed on the Dock Parcel unless the site plan is amended. JBD-248623v2 MU220~5 ,2284- 10. 11. 12. 13. The Dock Parcel shall be located within (200) feet of the Residential Parcel. The Dock Parcel must be separated from the Residential Parcel by a public street. Both the Dock Parcel and the Residential Parcel must include frontage on the public street. The approval of the Dock Parcel Subdivision will not be given until the City is assured that the Dock Parcel cannot be separated from the Residential Parcel and sold separately without the consent of the City. The form and documentation to ensure satisfaction of this provision, which shall include a development agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney and must be submitted in a form so as to allow for recording at Hennepin County The approval of the Dock Lot Subdivision will be automatically cancelled and rescinded if the applicant has not furnished the City with evidence that the Dock Parcel and the Residential Parcel have been tax combined within 45 days following approval of the Dock Lot Subdivision. The Dock Parcel will not be subject to any of the lot area and dimension restrictions applicable to Lots under the City Zoning Code; but must be of sufficient width to qualify for a Lake Minnetonka Conservation District dock license, where applicable. The Dock Parcel Subdivision shall not create any new nonconforming conditions. Square footage of the Dock Parcel shall not be included in hardcover, lot area or lot coverage calculations for the Residential Parcel. Dock Parcel Subdivision shall not trigger loss of non-lot of record status for the Residential Parcel. No exterior storage shall be allowed on the Dock Parcel with the exception of water-oriented structures as outlined in City Code Chapter 350.1200 (shoreland ordinance)including, but not limited to, boat lifts and docks. Boat vehicles and trailers shall not be allowed to be stored on Dock Lots during the non-boating season. Hardcover on Dock Parcel shall be no more than five (5) percent. No motor vehicles shall be parked on the Dock Parcel. JBD-248623v2 MU220-5 -2285- 14. Dock Parcel shall be used solely by the owners of the Reside ntial Parcel and their guests and/or invitees and shall not be used for rental purposes. 15. No alteration of the existing public road or curb line, if applicable, shall be allowed on the Dock Parcel. 16. Placement of any dock shall be subject to the provisions of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, where applicable. 17. Dock Parcel shall have the minimum frontage as required by the LMCD, where applicable, at both the public street and along the lake as measured at the OHWM. If applicant is seekinq a variance from required frontaqe from the LMCD, granting of such variance shall be a pre-condition to subdivision. 19. In addition to the penalties provided in Subsection 100.60 of the City Code, the City may pursue any remedy available in law or equity for a violation of this section. Passed by the City Council this day of 200_. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel JBD-248623v2 MU220-5 -2286~ Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2004 OLD I NEW BUSINESS D AFT Proposed amendment to City Code to regulate dock lot parcels following July 13th City Council meeting At its June 22, 2004 meeting, the City Council reviewed the latest draft of an ordinance to regulate dock parcels including suggested changes from the June 21st Planning Commission meeting to include a provision to process dock parcel subdivisions by Conditional Use Permit. Members of the City Council discussed whether or not the CUP process was appropriate for tis type of request. Also at issue was the removal of Subsection 330:10 (D) (8) and the minimum 200 foot distance between the dock parcel and the residential parcel. Discussion Mueller submitted the following comments for consideration: Definition Section: Residential Parcel is a poor definition. Should be "Residential Dock Benefactor Parcel" or other designation different that a normal residential parcel. Osmek thought this could be clarified with John Dean. · Page 1 Item 1: Is the 350 foot notice from the dock lot or residential benefactor lot? · Page2 Item 2: · Page2 Item 3: · Page2 Item 5: time Duplication of the words "be constructed on the dock parcel" Change to "frontage on the same public street" 45 days should be at least 60 days due to Hennepin County lag · Page 2 Item 7. Revise standard to state that width on lake needs to be measured at the OHWM. Mueller brought up the street frontage requirement on the dock lot? Osmek said the City Council felt interested parties are not buying the property for street frontage and that it is lake frontage that is the issue. Street frontage doesn't make any difference. Smith indicated that at the issue of licensing vs. CUP may still be up in the air. One benefit of the CUP is that it is recorded against the title of the property. -2287- DISCUSSION DRAFT NO. 5 CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. -200__ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 330 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE (SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE) TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF DOCK PARCELS FOR PURPOSE OF PROVIDING LAKE ACCESS FOR NEARBY PROPERTIES The City of Mound does ordain: Subsection 330.05 (Definitions) of the Mound City Code is hereby amended and renumbered to add the following definitions: Dock Parcel. A parcel or tract of land located on the shore of a lake which is combined with a nearby but non-contiguous residential parcel which shall be subject to review and approval of an annual license by the City of Mound to ensure compliance with City Code Chapter 330.05. Dock Parcel Subdivision. The process of: (i) creating the Dock Parcel, if necessary, by division of a larger parcel; and (ii) combining the Dock Parcel with a non-contiguous residential parcel. Residential Parcel. The non-contiguous nearby residential parcel with which the Dock Parcel is combined. Subsection 330.10 (Procedural Requirements) is hereby amended to add a new Subsection D as follows: D. Dock Parcel Subdivision Dock Parcel Subdivision will be processed as a Subdivision Exemption under City Code Chapter 330.10 C ~ ~nd ~and shall be subject to the following additional provisions: Published and mailed notice reqarding the Subdivision Exemption request shall be mailed to all property owners within (350) feet of the subiect site no less than (10) days prior to review of the application by the City Council. JBD-248623v2 MU220-5 -2288- -%2. The approval of a Dock Parcel Subdivision will include an approved site plan showing the nature and location of all structures and improvements that may be constructed on the Dock Parcel. No structure or improvement other than those shown on the approved site plan may be constructed on the Dock Parcel unless the site plan is amended. ~3. The Dock Parcel shall be located within (200) feet of the Residential Parcel. ,%4. The Dock Parcel must be separated from the Residential Parcel by a public street. Both the Dock Parcel and the Residential Parcel must include frontage on the public street. ~5. The approval of the Dock Parcel Subdivision will not be given until the City is assured that the Dock Parcel cannot be separated from the Residential Parcel and sold separately without the consent of the City. The form and documentation to ensure satisfaction of this provision, which shall include a development agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney and must be submitted in a form so as to allow for recording at Hennepin County ,%.6. The approval of the Dock Lot Subdivision will be automatically cancelled and rescinded if the applicant has not furnished the City with evidence that the Dock Parcel and the Residential Parcel have been tax combined within 45 days following approval of the Dock Lot Subdivision. ~.7. The Dock Parcel will not be subject to any of the lot area and dimension restrictions applicable to Lots under the City Zoning Code; but must be of sufficient width to qualify for a Lake Minnetonka Conservation District dock license. ~.8. The Dock Parcel Subdivision shall not create any new nonconforming conditions. ~9. Square footage of the Dock Parcel shall not be included in hardcover, lot area or lot coverage calculations for the Residential Parcel. .~.10. Dock Parcel Subdivision shall not trigger loss of non-lot of record status for the Residential Parcel. JBD-248623v2 MU220-5 -2289- , JJ,, ,Il, ,,Ill · 10.11. No accessory structures with the exception of those allowed in City Code Chapter 350.1200 (Shoreland Regulations) shall be allowed on the Dock Parcel. 11.12. No exterior storage shall be allowed on the Dock Parcel with the exception of water-oriented structures as outlined in City Code Chapter 350.1200 (shoreland ordinance) including, but not limited to, boat lifts and docks. Boat vehicles and trailers shall not be allowed to be stored on Dock Lots during the non-boating season. 12..13. Hardcover on Dock Parcel shall be no more than five ( 5 ) percent. 13.14. No vehicles shall be parked on the Dock Parcel. -14~.15. Dock Parcel shall be used solely by the owners of the Residential Parcel and their .quests and/or invitees and shall not be used for rental purposes. .l¥~-No alteration of the existing public road or curb line, if applicable, shall be allowed on the Dock Parcel. 15.16. Placement of any dock shall be subject to the provisions of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. 16.17. Dock Parcel shall have the minimum frontage as required by the LMCD at both the public street and along the lake as measured at the OHWM. 1R -rh.~ DocR D .... I ch.-~ll he, icc, ,~rl .'~n ,-~nn, ,~1 li~ne~ f~ll~,:,in, e: P~~o ~,~f~e,, ,~es~ +~~ ~m~ ~ ....... ~ JBD-248623v2 MU220-5 -2290- Passed by the City Council this day of Published in The Laker the day of Effective on ,200 . 200 . ,200 . Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel JBD-248623v2 MU220-5 -2291 - CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT June 2004 60.00% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Ucenses/Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Street Lighting. Fee Franchise Fees G.O. Equipment Certificates Charges to Other Dpts Other Revenue June 2004 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 2,222,510 866,660 866,660 (4,355,850) 38.99% 9,150 13,200 18,910 9,760 206~67% 273,500 15,204 71,015 (202,485) 25.97% 368,200 0 13,200 (355,000) 3,59% 257,050 7,492 39,545 (217,505) 15.38% 100,000 7,971 45,381 (54,619) 45.38% 75,000 9,061 53,279 (21,721) 71.04% 352,000 7,542 158,329 (193,671) 44~98% 483,433 483,133 483,133 14,000 2,733 5,197 (8~803) 37.12°/6 38,600 13.966 20,426 (18.174} 52.92% TOTAL REVENUE 3.710.010 1.426.932 1,775,075 (1.934.935~ 47.85% FIRE FUND DOCK FUND MOUND HRA WATER FUND SEWER FUND LIQUOR FUND RECYCLING FUND STORM WATER UTILITY 674,140 t 06,885 431,866 (242,274) 64.06% 115,900 (1,263) 11 t ,006 (4,894) 95.78% 0 · 178 178 700,000 45,890 267,841 (432,159) 38.26% 1,202,000 106,755 629,786 (572,214) 52.39% 2,400,000 169,571 909,330 (1,490,670) 37.89% 137,400 8,247 56,983 (80,417) 41,47% 120,500 10,774 63,355 (57,145) 52.58% O7~O8~20O4 rev2004 Gino -2292- CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT June 2004 June 2004 YTD BUDGET EXPENS~E EXPENS~E 50.00% PERCENT VARIANCE EXPENI~E_D GENERAL FUND Council 72,850 13,773 30,271 42,579 41.55% Promotions 3,750 0 3,750 0 100.00% City Manager/Clerk 276,900 21,068 131,461 145,439 47.48% Elections 13,460 0 1,098 12,362 8.1 6% Finance 234,070 16,250 101,122 132,948 43.20% Assessing 79,300 11 47 79,253 0.06% Legal 135,580 14,615 52,632 82,948 38.82% City Hall Building & Srvcs 124,270 13,203 80,754 43,516 64.98% Computer 29,900 7,477 10,997 18,903 36.78% Police 1,301,340 93,288 622,635 678,705 47.85% Emergency Prepardeness 7,130 (838) 4,225 2,905 59.26% Planning/Inspections 367,880 26,459 154,389 213,491 41.97% Streets 655,610 68,579 273,457 382,153 41.71% Parks 331,930 58,704 160,222 171,708 48.27% Cemetery 9,610 0 603 · 9,007 6.27% Transfers 256,690 31,944 191,664 65,026 74.67% Cable TV 50,000 10,576 10,576 39,424 21.1 5% Contingencies 607.250 387.643 391,370 215.880 64.45¥9 762.752 2,221,273 2,336,247 48.74% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 638,140 46,308 199,574 438,566 31.27% 143,150 8,477 37,250 105,900 26.02% 0 167,967 752,688 (752,688) 0 2,958 376,941 (376,941) 687,240 46,790 298,649 388,591 43.46% 1,201,940 65,302 521,308 680,632 43.37% 559,800 31,294 256,593 303,207 45.84% 167,680 27,864 81,329 86,351 48.50% 96,870 1,418 35,318 61,552 36.46% Area Fire Service Fund Dock Fund Capital Projects TIF 1-2 Water Fund Sewer Fund Liquor Fund Recycling Fund Storm Water Utility Exp-02 07~08~2004 Gino -2293- General Fund $1,691,262 CDBG 1,464 Area Fire Protection Services 330,239 Dock 226,827 G.O. Equip. Certf. 2004 -C 62,056 G.O, Bonds 2001 - C 99,372 commerce Place TIF G,O~ Bonds 2003 - C TIF 1-2 (294,401) 38,486 G.:O~Bonds 2001 - A 18,222 G.O~ Bonds 2003 - A 236,694 G.O. Bonds 2004 - A 42,348 H~Lease Rev Bonds (235,381) Capital Improvement 4,363,995 MSA 19,280 sealCoat 38,809 CDB 4,264 DOWntown TIF 1-2 263,959 HRA.Public Safety Bldg 27,207 water 2,418,891 SeWer 1,357,556 ~-~ LiqUor Store (330,300) ReCycling 6,096 storm Water 882,033 F ire Rel ief (42,480) HRA 50,000 Note: The above schedule shows the combined cash and investment balances by fund for the months indicated as recorded in the General Ledger. The balances do not reflect receivable, payables, authorized transfers, encumbered funds, or dedicated/reserved resources, etc. Only:isome accrued transactions are reflected. Investment income will be distributed to the funds at the end of the year and is not included. A.long and comPlete process is followed to record all transaCtions, before we ~lose the books, at the end of the year. In addition, the: aUdit from the independent auditor is performed and an official Comprehensive Report will be presented to the City Council and made available to interested parties. In no way this schedule is intended to represent balances of funds available for spending. 07108/2004 CashReportCouncil Gino -2294- Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Central.Region Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977 July 15, 2004 The Honorable Pat Meisel Mayor, City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1627 STATE APPROVAL, ORDINANCE REVISION, HENNEPIN COUNTY FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY Dear Mayor Meisel: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has revised the Flood Insurance Study text and the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Hennepin County. The Hennepin County Flood Insurance Study and map will become effective on September 2, 2004. Before this effective date, your community must amend its floodplain management ordinance consistent with state and federal floodplain management standards in order to maintain its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. Ms. Sarah Smith, City of Mound Community Development Director, submitted a final draft of an updated floodplain management ordinance to this Department via e-mail on July 15, 2004. On behalf of the Commissioner of Natural Resources, I am pleased to inform you that the above-cited proposed floodplain ordinance amendment is in compliance with "Statewide Standards and Criteria for Management of Floodplain Areas of Minnesota," Minnesota Rules, Parts 6120.5000 to 6120.6200. Therefore, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 103F. 121, Subd. 2. (g), I hereby conditionally certify state approval of the above-cited draft ordinance. This proposed ordinance amendment also appears to be compliant with the floodplain management standards of the National Flood Insurance Program. This approval is valid upon adoption of the draft ordinance by the city and receipt by this office of three (3) certified copies of the adopted ordinance amendments along with the signed and completed "Ordinance Certification Checklist" that I have attached. We will then forward a certified copy to FEMA's regional office in Chicago on your community's behalf. Your community's cooperation and quick action in providing for the reduction in flood damage through the adoption and administration of this ordinance is greatly appreciated. Please continue to work with Tom Lutgen of our central office until this ordinance revision process is complete. For all other matters, please contact Area Hydrologist Julie Ekman (651-772-7919) of this office should you have concerns or questions. Sincerely, Dale E. Homuth Regional Hydrologist Enclosure C: FEMA, Guy Matheson Community Development Director, Sarah Smith DNR Waters, Tom Lutgen DNR Waters, Julie Ekman DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TTY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Eml)ioyer Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a - Minimum or.:~0r;~ PosI-Consumer Waste ORDINANCE CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST Please sign and return the Checklist and all reqUired documents to the DNR Waters Area Hydrologist's office when completed. Date of published hearing notice. Date of postmark of hearing notice to Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources/Area Hydrologist. Date of Hearing(s). o Date of Ordinance Adoption. o If ordinance is published in entirety, date and affidavit of newspaper publication of adopted ordinance. (Include 3 copies.) If only ordinance summary published, date and affidavit of newspaper publication of ordinance title and summary along with certified copy of adopted ordinance in its entirety and zoning map from Clerk/Auditor. (Include 3 copies.) Date of official filing of adopted ordinance with the County Recorder ( record book number; page number). °¸ Board of Adjustment/Appeals has been established. Note: Cities under charter must also submit a list of additional requirements for hearings, notices, etc., as stated in their charter. Please specify: Signature of Clerk/Auditor -2296- City of Mound Redevelopment Update Summer 2004 Greenway Construction. The groundbreaking ceremony for the Lost Lake Greenway Trail was held in August 2003. Construction began last summer and is expected to be completed in late summer 2004, with the exception of a small portion along the east side which has been deferred and will be constructed with the proposed Lost Lake townhomes. The Greenway will have a pier with 24 transient slips, a boardwalk and walkways, gardens and seating areas. It will also serve as a very noteworthy gateway to Mound's new downtown. Residents are advised that the second buy-a-brick campaign was recently announced. Costs of the bricks are $75.00 and can be purchased by contacting Jodi Rahn at City Hall at 472-0601. Mound Marketplace. Work on the waterfall at the intersection of Commerce and Lynwood has been completed. Tenant space(s) is still available in the freestanding building by the Pond Arena. Village by the Bay. Permits have been issued for (46) units including the Great House in the Village by the Bay residential development. The project was part of the Spring Parade of Homes Tour. CSAH 15. Construction activities on CSAH 15 and 110 began in April 2004. It is anticipated that the new road will be open for traffic by mid-November. Landscaping activities will be completed in Spring 2005. Downtown Streetscape. Plans are underway for the new downtown streetscape. The project includes sidewalks made of concrete and brick pavers, significant landscaping, ornamental streetlights, benches and decorative fencing. Landscape vegetation will be fully irrigated. Xcel Energy. It is expected that distribution lines will be underground in the downtown area. The substation will eventually expand to the east and emphasis will be placed on buffering and landscaping. MCES Lift Station. The lift station located at Shoreline and Belmont is slated for removal and will be moved to a temporary location to accommodate the redevelopment in the Auditor's Road District. It is expected that it will be permanently replaced by a gravity line that will run from its current location at Belmont and Shoreline to the wastewater treatment plant on the western boundary of Mound. -2297- v. Former Dakota Railroad Line / Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA). The City received notification from the HCRRA in March that the formal abandonment process for former Dakota Railroad corridor, which runs from Wayzata to Hutchinson, was approved by the Surface Transportation Board in Washington D.C. The process to remove the railroad tracks began in April in HutchinsOn and i~expectedto be-coi'hpleted by the end of summer 2004. Downtown Parking Deck. Preliminary plans are being prepared for a 2-level multi-use parking deck to be constructed in the True Value District which includes (50) spaces for park and ride use, a MTC transit station and a farmer's market. Several grant programs and/or alternate funding sources are being investigated. Mound Harbor Renaissance Development, LLC (MHRD). At its June 8, 2004 meeting, the Mound HRA and City Council approved an extension to the Preliminary Development Agreement until late summer 2004, so as to complete negotiations associated with the proposed Final Development Agreement. The estimated value of the current proposal from MHRD is $98 million. Other notable points: The City of Mound and MHRD were notified last fall that the downtown project was awarded a $80,000 Metropolitan Environmental Partnership Grant for innovative stormwater techniques. · Grant applications for environmental investigation in the Auditor's Road Value District was submitted in May. The MPCA awarded the City of Mound a grant in July for environmental investigation in the True Value District which is the proposed site for a future multi- use parking deck / transit station and Park and Ride. · A Livable Communities Development Grant is being submitted for the downtown and MHRD projects was submitted in June. Auditor's Road Hotel. Plans for the proposed hotel, which is tentatively scheduled to begin construction in Fall 2005, are progressing. The new hotel is part of Mound's downtown redevelopment efforts and will be located on the site that includes the former post office, the property currently occupied by Glass Plus, a section of the City-owned park and ride lot and a portion of Shoreline Drive which will be vacated once the new County Road 15 project is completed. The hotel will face Auditor's Road and the new Lost Lake greenway and pier. The preliminary hotel plans include a 52,000 square foot building that includes between 70-78 rooms, an indoor swimming pool, restaurant and bar areas, and a 5000 square foot banquet facility. The architecture is based on the historic hotels of Lake Minnetonka. Rick Bloomquist is the developer. · Page 2 -2298- Cypress Commons. The former bowling alley known as Cypress Commons owned by Dave Willette is now complete. Tenants include Curves for Women, the Mound Home Laundry, Sew Like New and Cypress Spa and Salon. All the occupants of that block, which include Java Lodge, the American Legion and SOS Printing should be cbmpl~mented for their k~ -de-si~t¥ ~n~e ~l~l~eir' efforts to-'coorclinatetlTelr-exterior ......... facades. Mound Development Update. City staff prepares a brief development update throughout the year that is sent out in electronic form. Anyone interested in being added to the email list is requested to contact Community Development Director Sarah Smith at 952-472-3190. Email: Sarahsmith~,cityofmound.com · Page 3 -2299- ;~. l& Page 1 of 1 Kandis Hanson From: "Leah Weycker" <weyckerl@westonka.k12.mn.us> To: <thomasstokes@brenshellhomes.com>; <jameskurtz@cityofmound.com>; <JimFackler@cityofmound.com>; <KandisHanson@cityofmound.com>; ....... <sig.nshop@cityofmou nd~com>t. <djnicc-u rn22@jun-o:com>;-<jdean@ken nedy~g raven.com>; <johnmekinlev§l 4~vahoo.corn>: <taooart52001@vah0o.c0m> Cc: <geneallendesign@aol.com>; <carol.rae@mchsi.com>; <KHeiar@ymcampls.org> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 2:28 PM Subject: Last pour is done! Just to let everyone know, we poured the last of the sidewalks at the skate park today, Friday the 18th! Yea!!!!!! The rule sign will be finished by the city sign crew and hopefully installed on Monday. I will double check with Jim Fackler about the insurance company guidelines for opening the park. I think the sign is the last step for the soft opening. We plan to start with a soft opening and have a grand opening later. There are still additional features that we will add to the park. As money comes in, we will continue with the additional features like the shelter, half pipe, water fountain, mister, and landscaping. Keep the donations coming! Many thanks to all for the "community effort" in getting this park open. The kids are already talking about "their" top quality park. We made Mound proud!!!! I will be in touch. Thanks, Leah Leah Weycker Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative 5901 Sunnyfield Rd.E Minnetrista, MN 55364 952.491.8058 fax 952.491.8043 www.westonka.org - 2300 - 7/19~2004 Page 1 of 1 Kandis Hanson From: "Leah Weycker" <weyckerl@westonka.k12.mn.us> To: <thomasstokes@brenshellhomes.com>; <jameskurtz@cityofmound.com>; <JimFackler@cityofmound.com>; <KandisHanson@cityofmound.com>; ........ <si gn shop-@cityofmound:.co m>;,-<dj n iccu m22@jun o: com>;-<jdean@kennedy<j raven .-corn>¥ <taggart52001 @yahoo.com> Cc: <geneallendesign@aol.com>; <carol.rae@mchsi.com>; <KHeiar@ymcampls.org> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 2:49 PM Subject: Skatepark update ** Skatepark update** The insurance company visited the skatepark site and has given us the OK! Friday morning, Blackowiak will be bringing a dumpster to the site and Facklers crew will remove the pile of supplies laying at the end of the road. That will clear the way to remove the DANGER signs and allow the kids to use the park. Thanks for your patience. And thanks for the help! I am thrilled to allow the kids to use the park. We will monitor the activity for the first couple of weeks. We will continue working on additional projects as money and labor become available. The insurance company just asks that we keep safety in mind with materials and terrain that could cause accidents. ** I would guess the DANGER signs will come down by noon, Friday, July 23!** '-) Leah Leah Weycker Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative 5901 Sunnyfield Rd.E Minnetrista, MN 55364 952.491.8058 fax 952.491.8043 www.westonka.org -2301 - 7/22/-_2~04 FROM LAKE M I NNETONKA COMMUN I CA TO 4?20620 P.O~ -2302- 07-21-2004 10:55AM FROM LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICA TO 4920620 P.03 -2303- TOTRL P.03 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7~0 PM, Wednesday,-Juneg~2004 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Skramstad called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Katy Van Hercke, Minnetonka; Jose Valdesuso, Excelsior; Paul Knudsen, Minnetrista; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Orv Burma, Mound; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Debbie Halvorson, Orono; Pete Nelson, Victoria; Tom Scanlon, Spring Park; Tom Seuntjens, Minnetonka Beach; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Miles Canning, Greenwood. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Skramstad Skramstad stated that the annual Board Lake Inspection Tour was scheduled for Tuesday, 6/29/04. He asked Nybeck for further details. Nybeck stated that he was working with Al & Almas regarding the reservation of a charter boat. Departure location and time of departure are being finalized and will be forwarded to the Board in the near future. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. Burma moVed, Seuntjens seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Items so approved include: lB, 2004 Multiple Dock Licenses, staff recommends the Board approve the 2004 renewal without change multiple dock license application for Minnetonka Edgewater Apartments, and 3B, Hennepin County Sheriff"s Office Water Patrol Significant Activity Report. PUBLIC HEARINGS · Rita Zebeck, new multiple dock license application for seven Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 466' of continuous shoreline at 998 Wildhurst Trail on Forest Lake. -2304- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page 2 Skramstad opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m and asked for background from Harper. Harper-madethe-fellowing comments:- Ms. Rita Zebeck has submitted a new multiple dock license application for seven BSU's at approximately 466' of 929.4' shoreline on Forest Lake. With a BSU density of 1:67', this site would be conforming to the 1:50' General Rule. · During the 2002 Lake Minnetonka Shoreline Inventory, staff observed more than four restricted watercraft being stored at this site. The dock installed in 2002 was also too long; however, it has been brought in so that it complies with the maximum length restrictiOn at this site, 100'. In the meantime, staff has been working with the applicant on resolving the number of restricted watercraft that has been stored at this site. · Code Section 2.01, subd. 1 states that no person may locate, construct, install, or maintain a multiple dock on the shoreline of the Lake, or in the waters of the Lake, unless licensed by the Board to do so. Code Section 1.02, subd. 28 defines a multiple dock as any dock constructed or maintained for the storage of five or more restricted watercraft. Because the proposed dock would be used to store seven watercraft, Code requires a multiple dock license. Code Section 2.01 prohibits a person from using any area of the Lake outside an authorized dock use area for docking and storage of watercraft. The proposed site plan and storage of watercraft would be within the authorized dock use area for this site. · Staff has calculated structure and maneuvering space square footage to determine whether a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) needs to be conducted for the proposed site plan. He stated that a mandatory EAW was not required based on Environmental Quality Board rules. · In accordance with MN DNR General Permit 97-6098, the City of Orono and the MN DNR were provided a copy of the application on 5/26/04, with comments due by 6/7/04. The City of Orono has stated that the applicant would not need a permit if all the watercraft stored at the dock are owned and registered to the residents of the single family residential structure. No comments have been received from the MN DNR. · He recommended the Board approve the new multiple dock license application for the 2004 season. Additionally, he recommended that the Board approve a refund of $26.25 to the applicant for overpayment of fees. · He entertained questions or comments from the Board. Halvorson asked how long the dock was currently installed at? Harper stated that the dock was installed at slightly less than 100'. Foster asked if the dock was seasonal or permanent, Harper stated that the dock was a seasonal dock that is left in the lake 12 months a year. Foster stated that a number of slips were quite large, 32' to 40' in length. He asked if the applicant provided information on ownership of boats and the type of boats. -2305- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page 3 Harper stated that a variety of watercraft have been stored at this dock based on inspections conducted in recent years. Some of the boats include larger cruiser boats, personal watercraft, and an ...... unrestricted watercraft. : Ms. Rita Zebeck, 998 Wildhurst Trail, addressed the ownership question raised by Foster. She provided a summary of the watercraft to be stored at the dock, adding that she and her husband owned them all. She stated that she had spent a great deal of money to bring this dock into compliance with the rules. Foster asked if the applicant had a deicing license for the dock. Harper stated that this site has had a deicing license the past two winters. Scanlon asked if the efforts made by staff were out of the ordinary to bring residential dock into compliance with Code. Nybeck stated that staff makes the effort to identify non-compliant docks dudng shoreline inventories conducted every two years. When docks are obviously not complying with Code, which was the case in this situation, staff works with the public to bring it into compliance voluntarily. He stated that this is a prime example where a dock installer installed an illegal dock and the Board might want to discuss whether it would make sense to license dock installers to hold them accountable for their work. Babcock asked Ms. Zebeck if she was comfortable with the restriction of the City of Orono that all of the watercraft be owned and registered to the residents of the site. Zebeck stated that she was comfortable with that restriction. Mr. Bob Wolf, 4450 Forest Lake Landing, stated that he was concerned about operations that take place during the winter rather than the summer. The seasonal dock is left in place 12 months a year and he expressed concern about the deicing activities occurring at this site. He was primarily concerned about how the deicing activity was creating safety concerns for the public because of open water outside of fencing. Foster stated that deicing that occurs during the winter has been a concern of the LMCD and there has been some discussion about not allowing deicing at residential seasonal docks that could be removed. He pointed out that deicing sites are required to maintain fencing that is lit that and is within the authorized dock use area for the site. He stated that he believed further review of the ordinance relating to deicing would take place yet this summer. He suggested that the Board could approve the multiple dock license application and place a condition on it that would prohibit deicing at this site. Nybeck commented on deicing at the Zebeck site this past winter. There were some problems originally at this site because the Zebecks were out of town and the dock installer was not adequately supervising the deicing activity. These problems included fencing, signage, and lighting. Staff communicated these concerns to the Zebecks and they were addressed and resolved through a -2306- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page 4 subsequent inspection. He pointed out that this was one of the sites where staff has communicated to the Board the trend that deicing permits were being issued to larger seasonal that were not being :removed~ primarilybecause ofeconomios-;--He suggested-that-the--Board-mightwant-tofocusits discussion on the multiple dock license application rather than deicing activity at this site. Babcock stated that he believed it was reasonable to have the new multiple dock license application comply with the existing deicing ordinance. If deicing occurs outside the authorized dock use area for this site, the applicant should be aware that this is a problem and that staff could turn off the bubbling equipment if needed. The primary concern he expressed was that fencing at a deicing site needed to be installed within the authorized dock use area. Nybeck stated that Babcock raised a valid point that fencing at deicing sites needs to be contained within authorized dock use areas. However, the vast majority of existing deicing sites do not comply with this requirement and the Board should address it when the ordinance is reviewed. Mr. Robert Eastman, 1359 Park Drive, stated that the neighbors were quiet and good neighbors. However, he questioned why there was a need for a dock to store seven BSU's at it. He stated that he believed four restricted watercraft at this site would be adequate. Skramstad stated that this site could store up to nine restricted watercraft based on the 1:50' General Rule. Zebeck stated that the boats to be stored at the site would be consistent with what has been done in recent years. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed at 7:31 p.m. MOTION: Nelson moved, Foster seconded to approve the Zebeck new multiple dock license application for the 2004 season and refund $26.25 for overpayment of fees. Babcock stated that he would like a condition to ensure that this site was in compliance with the regulations pertaining to deicing, especially since it would have a multiple dock license if the motion were approved. Additionally, he stated that he would like a condition to ensure that all of the watercraft to be stored at this dock were owned and registered to the residents of this site. He recommended these as conditions on the approval of the multiple dock license and that future deicing violations could impact renewal of the multiple dock license. He recommended this as a friendly amendment. Nelson and Foster agreed to this. LeFevere stated that the friendly amendment relating to deicing could be considered to be appropriate as a condition on the multiple dock license because of subjective criteria. Knu'dsen stated that he would be in favor of the deicing friendly amendment if the dock to be installed were permanent. Because the dock to be installed is seasonal and could be corrected if problems occur, he expressed concern about placing a restriction on the multiple dock license for deicing -2307- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page5 requirement. Skramstadstated that-hesuppo~ed the multipledockJieenseapplicationaspreposed without-tyinga - .... restriction on deicing requirements to it. Seuntjens stated that he believed there was a process to address deicing violations separate from the multiple dock license process. MOTION: Seutjens moved, Knudsen seconded to remove the deicing condition from the original motion, as amended. VOTE: Ayes (8), Nayes (3; Babcock, Foster, and Nelson); motion carried. VOTE ON: Motion carded unanimously. ORIGINAL MOTION · Bayview Homeowners Association (HOA), new multiple dock license application submitted on 9/22/76 to back license 10 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on a 100' wide outlot on Smithtown Bay. Skramstad opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. and asked for background from Nybeck Nybeck made the following comments: · In September 1976, Nicholas Palaia submitted an application for multiple dock and/or mooring license for Bayview Properties to dock 10 boats at the 100' wide outlot in the Bayview Homes Development on Smithtown Bay. The LMCD scheduled a public hearing for the 12/1/76 Regular Board Meeting; however, it was postponed at the request of the Village and no formal action was ever taken by the Board on the application submitted. · During the 2002 Lake Minnetonka Shoreline Inventory, staff observed more than four restricted watercraft being stored at a dock(s) from the 100' wide outlot in question. In March 2003, staff sent Bayview HOA a letter that summarized Code Section 2.02 and the number of restricted watercraft that could be stored at this site. A letter was received from Bayview HOA in April 2003 stating that the dock was grandfathered and that the issue had been resolved by the LMCD in the spring of 1995. LMCD records are not consistent with these statements made by Bayview HOA and an offer was made to meet with representatives on-site to review LMCD Code, to answer questions that they had, and to provide them options. · He stated that he met with representatives of Bayview HOA on 5/13/03. Two options provided included: 1) submittal and approval by the Board of a legal, non-conforming multiple dock license application, and 2) submittal and approval of a legal, non-conforming non multiple dock license application. It was communicated that they would need to demonstrate to the Board's satisfaction the number of restricted watercraft that were stored at the site prior to 5/3/78. He stated that it was his expectation that Bayview HOA would either submit an application for either one of these options or they would be adjusting boat storage to comply with the 1:50' General Rule. Neither occurred and six restricted watercraft were observed at this site on -2308- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page 6 6/19/03. A letter was sent out in September 2003 that continued non-compliance would not be tolerated in 2004 and beyond and that corrective steps would be taken to resolve the matter, ............... including-turning-thematter over tothe LMCDprosecuting~attorney: In a letter submitted by John Thomas on 318104, he references the multiple dock and/or mooring license application submitted in 1976 for the outlot in question. Mr. Thomas has requested that the LMCD Board equitably resolve this situation through the discretionary use of its back license authority. After consulting with LMCD counsel Charlie LeFevere on this request, Nybeck stated that he deemed the 1976 application incomplete' because a number of items on the application have changed in the past 28 years. Although Mr. Thomas did not submit a new application, he submitted a letter that provided the details that were being sought in a current application. The application was deemed complete on 4/26/04. · Code Section 2.01 prohibits the placement .of docks and storage of watercraft outside an authorized dock use area. The dock length proposed in the 1976 site plan, approximately 85', would comply with maximum length allowed at this site, 100'. However, the 1976 site plan would not comply with existing Code for side setbacks. In the 1976 site plan, 10 side opening slips that were 20' long were proposed approximately 28' from the side site line extensions. Code requires that side opening slips maintain a setback equal to the depth of the slips, with a minimum of 20'. Additionally, Code requires a doubling of setback when a multiple dock abuts non-multiple dock facilities, which is the case in this application. The application does not meet the doubling of setback requirements; however, it does not apply to multiple dock facilities in existence on 5/3/78 that were deemed legal, non-conforming facilities. · Code Section 2.02 allows boat storage based on the 929.4' shoreline at this site. This includes the 1:50' General Rule, the two boat rule, and the four boat rule. Applying current rules, the 100' wide outJot would be allowed to legally store two restricted watercraft However, the applicant has requested the Board to evaluate the 1976 application based on rules that existed at that time. The 1:50' general Rule applies to sites that were legally in existence on 5/3/78. Docks legally in existence on 5/3/78 were allowed to continue provided that such dock does not exceed the number stored on 5/3/78. LeFevere stated that the Board traditionally back licensed for facilities that were physically in existence on a specified grandfather date, not what has been proposed in an application that has not been acted upon by the Board. · In compliance with MN DNR General Permit 97-6098, the City of Victoria and the MN DNR were provided a copy of the 1976 application on 5126104, with comments due on 6#7104. He stated that he discussed the application with Victoria staff on 6/2/04 and that the applicant would need to discuss with Victoria whether the proposal would trigger the need for a conditional use permit. No feedback has been received from the MN DNR. · There are a number of options for the Board to consider when evaluating the application submited in 1976 by Mr. Palaia. Some of them included: 1) deny the application because Bayview HOA has not documented that 10 boats were being stored at this site prior to 5/3/78, 2) grant the application and back license to 1977 for the number of BSU's that existed during the 1977 season, and 3) continue the matter for presentation of further information specified by the Board, conditioned on the waiver of the 60-day rule by the applicant. He stated that he did not believe that Bayview HOA had satisfactorily demonstrated that 10 boats were being stored at this site prior to 5/3/78. · He entertained questions or comments from the Board. -2309- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page 7 Babcock stated that it appeared that the fundamental problem was that the developer might have represented something to the buyersthat was never- approved by the LMCD. Nelson stated that he believed the problem existed with the City of Victoria rather the LMCD. There were a number of homes sold in this development that were sold with the representation of docking rights, It appears that the application submitted was not acted upon because of the request of the Village and the Board should consider the 1976 application as though the dock facility existed. LeFevere stated that there were no density regulations in existence in 1976. Nybeck stated that he had contacted Victoria staff to see if they had record on why the Village recommended that the 12/1/76 be postponed. There was no record at the city level on why this recommendation was made. Foster stated that if the developer met the requirements in 1976 and an application was made, there is an assumption that the LMCD should have acted on it. He communicated that he would have a hard time holding them to current day standards because each property was sold with the right to a dock. Because these home were being constructed over a number of years, he believed it was clear that 10 boats would not have existed on 5/3/78. Seunt~ens asked how it has been concluded that the Village requested that the 12/1/76 public hearing be postponed. Nybeck stated that there was hand written documentation in file from Frank Mixa that documented this. Seuntjens asked if postponing of a scheduled public hearing at the request of the Village was proper. LeFevere stated that postponing of a public hearing atthe request of a member city would not be done currently. If a request was made by a member city, the Board has typically opened the public hearing to allow the public to provide their input and then continued the public hearing to another meeting. The Board today would not typically postpone a public hearing as it was done in 1976. Seuntjens stated that if the public hearing was not postponed in 1976 and the Board acted on the application, the request made today would not be occurring. He asked if staff has reviewed aerial photos from 1976 or 1977. Nybeck stated that he had not; however, there might photos that could be reviewed. Seuntjens asked Nybeck how many boats were being stored at this site in recent years. Nybeck stated that an undetermined number of restricted watercraft were being stored at this site in 2002; however, it was more than four. In 2003, there were six restricted watercraft being stored at this site. -2310- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page8 Babcock stated that he was uncomfortable about the Board making a hypothetical decision that there is no documentation to supports--He pointed out that-the hypothetical couldalw-ays~work-the-other way; He stated that legal back licensing situation should take into consideration what existed in 1977, not existed in 2002, 2003, or another year. LeFevere stated that even if a multiple dock license was issued in 1976 or 1977, it could be conceivable that the same issues would exist today because back licensing was for what existed and were constructed. One of the concerns he had with this application was the precedent that grandfathering a non-conforming multiple dock facility could set for legal, nonconforming non multiple dock licenses on a lakewide basis for boats that were not in existence. Foster stated that he believed there was a distinction between grandfathering a multiple dock facility compared to grandfathering a non multiple 'dock facility. Halvorson stated that grandfathering in the Code requires boats to be in existence on 5~3~78. Foster stated that although the Code reads that way, he did not believe it passed the logical test. Babcock stated that he concurred with the comment made by Halvorson and that developers need to get licenses or permits approved prior to making representations to buyers. If the developer in this development made the representation to buyers that each house had access to store a boat at a dock, this was misrepresentation. The Board could decide to fix this; however, the problem was not created by the LMCD and might require ordinance changes. Van Hercke stated that she had concerns about concessions that would need to be made to approve the application and the precedent it might set. Mr. John Thomas, 6520 Bayview Drive, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that he had been a resident since 1996 and the letter he submitted, dated, 3/8/04, provided a great deal of historical details. He believed the record is abundantly clear thatthe application had not been withdrawn and the 12/1/76 public hearing had been postponed at the request of the Village, as reported in the 12/8/76 Board minutes. At that time, the Village was actually Laketown Township and it was in disarray. The Bayview development is quite stable with the last lot sold in 1987. The 1976 application represented the developers intent to have one BSU for all 10 lots that were not on the lake. At the 1978 grandfather date, six lots had been sold with four houses constructed. He believed that between five and seven BSU's existed at the 1978 grandfather date and he did not contend there were 10 boats in existence at that time. He questioned why there would be 10 boats if all 10 lots had not been sold. He suggested that the 12/1/76 public hearing should have been conducted and the application would have been approved. In 1977, it appears that the developer went bankrupt and a local builder acquired the remaining lots, four. Throughout the 1980% the lots have been resold with the use of outlot B not to exceed 10 BSU's. Between 1977 and 1992, the number of BSU's have increased and there were a number of dock configurations. There were 10 BSU's installed in some of these years. A letter was received in 1995 from the LMCD stating that there were too many watercraft being stored at this site. -2311 - Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page 9 Bayview HOA responded at that time the facility was grandfathered at that time; however, it was not substantiated at that time. A resident at that time, Bill Stendard, was in attendance to address this. Mr. Bill Stenard stated that he used to reside at 6510 Bayview Drive. A letter in 1995 was received from the LMCD stating that there were too many boats being stored atthe outlot. He stated that he responded in writing to the LMCD that the site was grandfathered and that he had a follow-up visit with a LMCD employee. Nybeck stated that he was the only employee of the LMCD in 1995 and that inspections were not conducted that year. If Bayview HOA met with someone that year, he suggested that it might have been another governmental agency, possibly the City of Victoria. Skramstad stated that if a letter was forwarded to the LMCD from Bayview HOA in 1995, he recommended a copy of it be forwarded to the LMCD office. Thomas restated that in a letter, dated 3/18/03, staff advised that too many watercraft were observed at the site during the 2002 Lake Minnetonka Shoreline Inventory. The homeowners association replied on 4/11/03 stating that the dock was grandfathered and that they had put the dock in. Unfortunately, it was installed too close to the abutting property to the east of the outlot, Allan and Nancy Greenwood. He stated that representatives of Bayview HOA met with the Greenwoods after the dock was installed in 2003 and there was agreement that it did not need to be readjusted as long as it was resolved for the 2004 season. He apologized to the Greenwoods for the docking violation in 2003 for encroaching into setback areas. He stated that Bayview HOA would like to get this situation resolved once and for all. An alternative plan was prepared to be proposed hopefully to be acted upon by the Board at a future Regular Meeting, pointing out that he believed it would be substantial improvement to the neighborhood by alleviating side opening slips. This alternative plan has not been reviewed with staff; however, he had copies available if the Board desired. Nybeck recommended that the alternative proposed site plan not be reviewed at this Regular Meeting because staff has not had the opportunity to review it and prepare written comments for the Board. He stated that the Board could review this alternative site plan at a future Regular Meeting. The file for the 1976 application has been misplaced and has not been located in the office. This was observed after he prepared the letter that was sent out in March. In December, Mr. Thomas reviewed the 1976 file and he had staff copy the majority of the file. The 1976 file that has been misplaced has been recreated based on the copies prepared in December for Mr. Thomas. Babcock stated that the 3/8/04 letter prepared by Thomas references a newspaper article that was part of the odginal file. This article was not included in the Board packet and he stated that he would like to review it to see what the Laketown Township actions were with regards to the dock. Thomas provided a summary of the article that was published in the Carver County Herald on 3/10/77. In this article, it stated that the objection of Lakeship Township focused on the providing of a dock at the outiot rather than the development of the land itself. -2312- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page 10 Scanlon asked if the Greenwoods were part of the homeowners association. Thomas stated that the Greenwoods do not have ohe-tenth ownership of the outlet, The. association- ' currently is not that formalized; however, he proposed making it more formalized in the future. Halvorson asked for the amount of 929.4' lakeshore frontage at the outlot. Thomas stated that there was 100'. Babcock stated that he would like to better understand whether the ownership of the outlot changed after the application was originally submitted in 1976. He believed that this should be formalized through covenants, a deed, or an easement. Thomas stated that each of the 10 lots that are not on the lake have a one-tenth undivided ownership on Outlot B, adding that this was clarified on the deeds of these 10 properties. The 14 properties within the development each own a one-fourteenth undivided interest in a water runoff pond on the property. He concluded by stating that the development would have secured a license for 10 BSU's if the public hearing had been conducted in 1976. Mr. Allan Greenwood, 6500 Bayview Drive, stated that the 6/1/04 letter submitted expressed some of the concerns he and his wife Nancy had with the 1976 application. He believed that 10 boats on a 100' wide outlot was too dense for that area because of the private lots and the swimming of children in the area. He expressed concern about the storage of boat lifts on the land during the months when boating does not occur. He stated that there appeared to be concerns with the original application in 1976 and another hypothetical is that the application would not have been approved. He believed that the follow-up of the application in 1976 was the responsibility of the developer. Bayview HOA does not have any covenants or rules set up and this was the primary reason he did not belong to the association. There currently are not 10 homes constructed off the lake and he did not recall 10 boats ever being stored on the outlot since 1993 when he and wife purchased their home. In 1993, he estimated that there were approximately three docks and six or seven boats being stored at them. The docks installed and boats stored have historically encroached in the setback area since 1993; however, he submitted a public inquiry in 2003 when the dock placement and boat storage extended over the common side site line extension. Mr. David Thun, 6490 Bayview Place, stated that he and wife Mary were the owners of the abutting property on the west side of Outlot B. There is a letter in the packet, dated 6/8/04, which summarizes his wife comments. The owners of these 10 properties have purchased these properties with docking dghts. When he and his wife purchased their property, they were aware of the docking rights on Outlot B. He concluded that he did not object to the proposal to store 10 boats on the outlot. Thomas stated that there was a letter from Arthur Wick, dated 6~7~04, stating that he resided at 6480 Bayview Place since 1981. This letter points out that there have been a varying number of boats ranging from five to 10 during this period. -2313- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page11 There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed at 9:01 p.m. MOTION: Babcock moved, Seuntjens seconded to table further discussion of the Bayview Association to future meeting to: 1) allow staff to provide a complete copy of the 1976 file, including the Carver County Herald newspaper article, 2) to allow the applicant to submit any new site plan(s) they want considered by the Board, 3) to allow the applicant to provide documentation of when the one-tenth interest on Outlot B occurred, possible through a copy of the deed, and 4) to allow staff to investigate pictorial evidence of what existed around 1978. VOTE: Ayes (10), Nayes (2; Nelson and Valdesuso); motion carried. The meeting was recessed at 9:15 p.m. and re-convened at 9:25 p.m. Skramstad stated that Senator Gen Olson and Representative Steve Smith were in attendance to discuss the recent changes to the LMCD's state enabling legislation. If the Board did not object, he stated that he would like to discuss this under "NEW BUSINESS". The Board did not objection. 9, NEW BUSINESS Skramstad welcomed Senator Olson and Representative Smith on behalf of the Board for coming to this Regular Meeting to discuss the recent changes to the LMCD enabling legislation. He stated that Knudsen has had previous conversations with Senator Olson and Representative Smith on this topic and he asked for background on these discussions. Knudsen stated that Nybeck brought the legislation change to his attention the Friday morning before the legislatiive session ended. When this was brought to his attention, Knudsen stated that he placed telephone calls into Senator Olson and Representative Smith. He had brief conversations with both legislators within a couple of days; however, the legislation that changed the enabling legislation of the LMCD had already passed. Senator Olson and Representative Smith were in attendance to discuss the legislation thatwas passed and how it would affect the LMCD. He introduced both legislators and welcomed them on behalf of the Board. Senator Gen Olson made the following comments: · She frequently receives telephone calls from citizens that are having problems dealing with government in some form, sometimes at the local level. When she receives these calls, she generally refers them to their local elected official. · In this case, a decision was made by the LMCD that is not an elected unit of government. Olson believed that her affected constituents had valid concerns and she attended at least one Board meeting when the ordinance was discussed. · She respected the history of the LMCD and she has worked very hard to maintain the agency so that Lake Minnetonka would not be managed by the State of Minnesota. Equally so, she stated that she respected the property rights of private citizens when the actions of government take away a historical right or impact the value of property. She recalled that she suggested the -2314- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page 12 Board resolve this issue without having this kind of impact on the property rights of private citizens rather than dealing with it legislatively. The parties that were affected by the LMCDordinance hadcommunicated-to her that they were in regular contact with the LMCD to be grandfathered and there was no response. Legislative changes were initially discussed early this past spring; however, not a lot was done until the article was published in the Star Tribune that discussed the idea of expanding municipal docks. She expressed concern about the LCD not protecting affected private citizens that reside on Six Mile Creek. · She believed that jurisdiction of Six Mile Creek was not within the intent of the legislators when the LMCD was originally created. If Six Mile Creek was within the jurisdiction of the LMCD, she believed that St. Bonifacius and Laketown Township should have representation on the Board. · Because of this, she introduced legislation working with the Senate Council by making amendments to the LMCD's enabling legislation through the MN DNR technical bill. The one thing that the legislation clarified was that the jurisdiction of the LMCD was on Lake Minnetonka, excluding drainage ways and watercourses. · She entertained questions or comments from the Board. Skramstad addressed the comment made by Senator Olson that the LMCD did not respond to the private citizens. The LMCD worked on this issue for nearly three years with input received from a wide variety of groups. Based on the input received from these groups, an ordinance was adopted that took this input into consideration. Senator Olson stated that the solution that was eventually adopted by the Board was alrea'dy on the table for consideration when she attended her first Regular LMCD Board Meeting. She noted that she would make no apologies for taking a stand on justice when there are jurisdictional questions. Skramstad asked how the LMCD, City of Minnetrista, MN DNR, and the MCWD could have been involved prior to making a change to the enabling legislation for the LMCD. Senator Olson stated that there was no time to get the agencies involved. She did not believe adopting an ordinance that only restricts the size of a motor on a watercourse was appropriate. Skramstad stated that he appreciated the comments from Olson; however, he felt that the LMCD was left on the sideline because it was not involved in a last minute legislative change. Babcock stated that he was charged by the Board to discuss with the affected property owners if there was another action that could be taken by the Board after the ordinance was adopted. He believed that changing the enabling legislation of the LMCD was a heavy handed approach. He expressed his disappointment because he did not believe Senator Olson and Representative Smith had all of the facts correct before making a legislative change. He believed that bad facts make bad laws, which was the case in this situation. A grandfathering concept was proposed to the affected property owners on Six Mile Creek for the historical use of approximately three to five boats. However, this became problematic when the owners of these sites expressed an interest in grandfathering the potential boat storage at these sites, which could be upwards to nearly 40 boats. When this occurred, negotiations -2315- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page13 broke down and it does not seem that this was communicated by the affected property owners to Senator Olson and Representative Smith. Senator Olson stated that she had heard public statements from one of the affected residents regarding the concept of utilizing conservation easements to prevent expansion of boat storage up and above historical boat use. Knudsen stated that was originally discussed with the affected property owners. However, the discussions did not continue when the affected property owners requested grandfathering up and above historical use. Foster stated that he had met with the affected property owners with Babcock and Knudsen regarding grandfathering of historical boat use in concert with conservation easements. He believed that this would have been approved by the Board. He expressed his concern that the Board worked on this issue for nearly three years and that hours of testimony was received from experts, the City of Minnetrista, and a wide variety of experts. The concept of an electric motor only ordinance was originally proposed by Jim Stuebner from Upland Farms. Six Mile Creek is generally quite shallow during the course of a summer and testimony was received regarding environmental concerns. Environmental and density concerns on Lake Minnetonka for were significantly impacted by the legislative change if Six Mile Creek becomes fully developed because of the large amount of shoreline and the potential request to dredge in the future. Senator OIson stated that she was sorry that elected officials within the City of Minnetrista are not willing to take the heat of making decisions around the development through zoning regulations. She believed that these decisions should be made by the City of Minnetrista because they are elected officials rather than by appointed officials of the LMCD. Skramstad stated land base decisions are generally made by the member cities and that decisions in the water are within.the jurisdiction of the LMCD. Knudsen expressed his concern that the legislative change was done for four property owners at the expense of the majority of property owners on Halsteads Bay. He suggested that decisions made by the legislature should be made for the constituents that they represent rather than discussion amongst colleagues. He did not concur with the comment made by Senator Olson that the adoption of the ordinance resulted in a loss of value for the four property owners and the taking of riparian rights. He stated that riparian rights abutting a water body do not ensure the ability to use motors. Both Mayor Fischer and the city administrator for the City of Minnetrista have expressed concern to him about the lack of consulting and the manner in which the legislative changes occurred. If time was so short that a decision needed to be made, he stated that no change should have occurred in this legislative session. Babcock made the following comments: · He prefers to have decisions made when all the facts are considered. There are major differences between what was covered in the Minneapolis Star Tribune article and what takes place in wetland areas, -2316- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page14 · He believed the Board demonstrated due diligence because ittook a boat tour in Six Mile Creek. He stated that he took a second boat tour on his own last summer and that it was difficult to navigate withoutstirring upthe nutrients atthe base of the creek, · He has attended several meeting with the City of Minnetrista to work through the issues relating to Six Mile Creek. He stated that the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka indicated that the LMCD was to work with the MN DNR, the member cities, and the MCWD on identifying the values of wetlands at or below the 929.4' contour for the enhancement and preservation of water quality on Lake Minnetonka. It also states that the LMCD should also identify wetland areas with a lower need for protection. The'LMCD has regulatory authority of docking on Lake Minnetonka and the Management Plan states that docking constructed over wetlands might have an adverse impact on them. A great deal of cooperation was secured because the MN DNR, the City of Minnetrista, and the MCWD supported the ordinance that was adopted by the LMCD. · He expressed his frustration that this was the second time that changes had been made to the enabling legislation for the LMCD since he had been on the Board where the LMCD was not consulted or represented. Additionally, he expressed his concern that the decision made by the Board was not valid because he was appointed by his member city rather than elected. Skramstad stated that he would prefer that the discussion focus on looking forward rather than looking behind. Knudsen stated that he believed all Board members keep in regular contact with the city council that appointed them. In his situation, he makes decisions based on feedback he receives from the Minnetrista city council and his constituents. There' are a few occasions where he might vote a different way than the city council or the majority opinion of the constituents that he serves might desire. He expressed concern about Senator Olson and Representative Smith proposing legislation that changed the enabling legislation for the LMCD based on four constituents that reside on Six Mile Creek. Van Hercke stated that she had been on the Board since 2000 and that she was shocked with the change in the enabling legislation for the LMCD because of the time and due diligence that was exhibited by the LMCD. Scanlon stated that he believed communication was critical and that maybe efforts need to be made to forward a copy of approved minutes to Senator Olson and Representative Smith. On the short time that he served on the LMCD, he did not believe there was a lot of politics on the decisions made by the Board. He believed that improved communication efforts could be made by both the local legislators and the LMCD. Senator Olson stated that she appreciated the comments made by Scanlon and that she would be interested in receiving information from the LMCD. A number of lakes have been classified as impaired based on federal regulations, including Lake Minnetonka. She did not believe the recent Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page15 legislative change was necessarily a setback for the LMCD because Six Mile Creek has also been classified as impaired and will need to be analyzed and addressed further in the future. Skramstad asked Senator Olson if she would consider changing the recent legislative changes in the future or if there was anything else the Board could do to change her mind. Senator Olson stated that the change in the enabling legislation was in statute; however, she would be willing to sit down and facilitate discussion of the underlying issues and what jurisdiction they belong in. Knudsen asked Senator Olson if she would be willing to change the recent change to the LMCD's enabling legislation at a future legislative session. Senator Olson stated that changes to enabling legislation for the LMCD need to be made by future legislatures and that she was not willing to introduce legislative changes at this time. Nelson stated that since Senator Olson was on the Senate Environmental Committee, he believed that Olson could provide the LMCD a periodic update on activities occurring at the committee level, citing exotic species as an example. Senator Olson stated that she would be willing to provide a periodic update if she had the e-mail addresses of the LMCD Board of Directors. Knudsen stated that he had been working with the City of Minnetrista and the MCWD on a resolution showing opposition or reluctance to additional development on Six Mile Creek and the two other tributaries included in the ordinance that was adopted by the LMCD, Painters and Long Lake Creeks. The MCWD Board of Managers voted unanimously to move this resolution forward, the City of Minnetrista would likely be reviewing this resolution in the near future, and he recommended that the LMCD review it in the near future. Senator Olson asked for clarification on what additional development means. Knudsen stated that this would focus on additional development in these creeks with access rights to Lake Minnetonka. He asked Senator Olson what government agency she felt had jurisdiction over these creeks if the LMCD does not. Senator stated the jurisdictional questions relate to the function. In most cases, she believed that the member city would have the jurisdiction. Babcock stated that he believed most cities would take the position that they do not have jurisdiction. Seuntjens recommended that the Board report back to their respective city council on the ordinance that was adopted by the LMCD and the recent legislation authored by two local legislators that changed the enabling legislation of the LMCD. He stated that he believed it was not uncommon for government to protect the majority of the public by adopting ordinances that might impact a minority of -2318- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page16 the public. He believed that the LMCD has done this in the past when limitations were placed on the number of boats that can be stored at a site. Senator OIson stated that she did not see the harm caused by the recent legislative change for the LMCD. Babcock stated that he believed the adoption of the ordinance was a long-term protection measure to set expectations to address nutrient concerns raised through testimony by experts in these creeks. Experts have communicated to the Board that Six Mile Creek is the number one source of external phosphorous in-flow to Halsteads Bay that has some of the poorest water quality on Lake Minnetonka. He believed that there area areas on the lake that do not support large boat storage, including wetland areas. Nelson stated that there was a recent power point presentation prepared that talked about phosphorous and the problems it can create for a water body. Additionally, there has been a 30- minute videotape recently prepared by the Freshwater Foundation. He suggested that efforts should be made to forward the power point presentation and the videotape to Senator Olson and Representative Smith. Skramstad asked Representative Smith if he had any comments that he would like to make to the Board. Representative Steve Smith stated that he agreed with the comments made by Skramstad on the need to look towards the future rather than the past. Where the discussion should go on this issue and other issues merits further discussion. He suggested that the LMCD and the 14 member cities might want to create a partnership to deal with jurisdictional issues because the LMCD and the member cities are creatures of the state legislature. He suggested that there might be a need to discuss the role of the state legislature on local environmental issues, noting that he takes these issues very seriously. Babcock re-stated that he would like to have the local legislators communicate with the LMCD if changes are being proposed to its enabling legislation. Representative Smith stated that he did not anticipate that massive development would occur in the Six Mile Creek area overnight. He suggested that discussion on a workable solution between the LMCD and the member cities should take place prior to the next legislative session to invite cooperation. Senator Olson stated that although she was willing not introduce future legislative changes at this time. However, this could possibly change based on the discussions recommended by Representative Smith. Skramstad stated that he believed one of the strengths of the Board was that it communicated and generally voted consistent with the direction of the city council that appointed them. However, this possibly could be improved. -2319- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page17 Representative Smith stated that he served on the LMCD Board around 1985 and 1986 for the City of Mound and he was aware of the role of the Board. Nelson stated that a separate issue he would like to discuss with Senator Olson and Representative Smith was the possible introduction of zebra mussels into Lake Minnetonka. This invasive specie was so severe that the federal government passed unusual legislation on how to deal with ships coming in that possibly carry zebra mussels. Similar legislation has not been done by the State of Minnesota and he believed the LMCD needs to work with the legislature on a comprehensive solution because of the trampoline effect on nearby lakes if zebra mussels were introduced into Lake Minnetonka. He believed that both timing and funding of a more comprehensive plan were issues that merited further discussion. Representative Smith stated that he recalled the City of Mound contributed around $13,000 in the mid 1980's for the purchase of capital equipment and operating expenses for the EWM Harvesting Program. Although the State of Minnesota views Lake Uinnetonka as a state resource for getting the public on it, it does not currently view Lake Minnetonka as a liability for a place to spent state funds to fix the cause. He stated that he was at the recent Mound city council meeting where the power point presentation was presented. Funding from the State of Minnesota was part of the power point presentation and he recommended that discussion needs to take place prior to the next legislative session. Skramstad stated that a resident of Halsteads Bay,.Mr. Jim Blakeway, was in attendance to observe the discussion. He asked Balkeway if he would like to make comments for the Board or for Senator Olson or Representative Smith. Mr. Jim Blakeway stated that he was speaking primarily for himself. However, he believed that his comments would be consistent with approximately 230 voters that live on Halsteads Bay. He expressed his concern that the majority of the residents on Halsteads Bay were not properly represented by the recent legislative change. Residents on Halsteads Bay have concern about water quality and an attempt was made by the LMCD to address this. He expressed concern about voters being able to increase their property values substantially by allowing boats to traverse in Six Mile Creek where they should not be allowed to. He did not think that taxpayers should have to pay for phosphorous clean-up efforts on Halsteads Bay that are primarily created by a few property owners on Six Mile Creek. He believed that the recent legislative change contradicts the testimony received by the LMCD from the experts on the external loading of phosphorous into Halsteads Bay from Six Mile Creek because of prop dredging. Skramstad thanked Senator Olson and Representative Smith on behalf of the Board. WATER STRUCTURES A. Howards Point Marina, consideration of draft Findings of Fact and Order for approval of a new multiple dock land launch ramp license application to back license 38 off-lake Boat Storage Units (BSU's) under LMCD Code Section 2.045. -2320- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page18 Skramstad stated that draft Findings had been prepared by LeFevere as directed by the Board at the 5/2604 Regular Board Meeting. He entertained questions or comments from the Board. MOTION: Foster moved, Valdesuso seconded to approve the Howards Point Marina Findings of Fact and Order to back license 38 off-lake BSU's under LMCD Code Section 2.045. Babcock expressed concern about the motion because the application does not comply with a number of requirements for off-lake storage facilities. These included the facility does not have a special density license, density in this area does not meet standards established by Code, there is no staging included in the plan, it does not meet parking standards, and it was not licensed within 30 days from 12/28/87. Because of these concerns, he stated that he could not approve an application that is prohibited by Code. LeFevere stated that the concerns raised by Babcock would not apply because the requirements are for complying facilities and Howards Point Marina has requested to be grandfathered. VOTE: Ayes (10), Nayes (1, Babcock), Abstained (1, Halvorson); motion carried. Nybeck stated that he included a memo in the handout folders that summarized back licensing fees for Howards Point Marina that they will sent an invoice for. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. Burma left at 10:35 p.m. 2. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers (6/1/04- 6/15/04). Knudsen reviewed the audit of vouchers as submitted. MOTION: Nelson moved, Seuntjens seconded to approve the audit of vouchers as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Review of draft 2005 LMCD Budget. Skramstad asked for an update on this agenda item from Nybeck. Nybeck stated that the draft 2005 LMCD Budget that was reviewed by the Board at the 5/26/04 Regular Meeting was forwarded to the member cities on 5127104. A meeting was scheduled to review the draft budget in the LMCD office on 6./4/04, noting that there were no representatives of the cities Who attended. The member cities were notified that they had until Monday, 6/21104, to -_-. -2321 - Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page19 comment on the draft 2005 LMCD Budget. Final review and approval by the Board is scheduled for Wednesday, 6123104. Babcock questioned whether the Board was comfortable that a quorum would be present at the 6~23~04 Regular Meeting. If not, he suggested that the Board could adopt the 2005 LMCD Budget and direct staff not to send it out until 6124104 to verify whether comments are received by the member cities by the 6/21/04 deadline. MOTION: Babcock moved, Foster seconded to adopt the 2005 LMCD Budget and to direct staff not to send it to the 14 member cities until 6/24/04. Van Hercke stated that the City of Minnetonka had two concerns with the draft 2005 LMCD Budget. First, the city manager expressed concern about comparables used in the Stanton Survey that were not appropriate, especially comparing the Executive Director position with city administrator positions. Second, the city manager stated that he believed the 6.7% increase was too high. VOTE: Ayes (10), Nayes (1, Van Hercke); motion carried. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 3. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Update of 6~3~04 Lake Minnetonka Boat Density Sub-Committee. Skramstad asked for an update from Foster. Foster stated that the sub-committee met in the LMCD office on 6/3/04. The meeting was productive and the next sub-committee meeting is scheduled for 6/17/04. He believed that a written report would be prepared for the 6/23/04 Regular Board Meeting. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 4. SAVE THE LAKE A. Consideration of draft 2004 "Save the Lake" Budget. Skramstad asked for background on this agenda item from Babcock. Babcock stated that he and Nybeck had prepared a draft 2004 "Save the Lake" Budget and he recommended approval of it unless there were questions or comments from the Board. MOTION: Knudsen moved, Valdesuso seconded to approve the 2004 "Save the Lake" Budget as submitted. -2322- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page 20 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Nybeck stated that $2,000 was approved in the 2004 "Save the Lake" Budget for Water Patrol safety equipment. However, the Board has not refined the request for public safety equipment for 2004. He asked the Board how they would like to proceed on this request. The Board discussed this and the consensus of the Board was to review the 2004 Water Patrol request at the 6~23~04 Regular Meeting. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 5. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE Nelson stated that the letter, bound copies of the power point presentation, and the CD of the power point presentation have been sent out to the member cities. Review of the power point presentation has been conducted with the Excelsior and Mound city councils, noting that additional presentations are anticipated. The draft of the text for the zebra mussel video has been sent out for technical review and the taping of the video is scheduled with the TPT on 6/29/04. A meeting has been conducted with MCWD staff on the possibility of their funding for this project. Suerth stated that he would like to have a committee established on how to fund the variety of projects that are anticipated with a more comprehensive zebra mussel program. 6. ADMINISTRATION There was no discussion. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck updated the Board on four items. First, the lake level as of 6/9/04 was 929.85', with the dam discharging at 200 c.f,s. Second, there was a memo in the packet that summarizes mission statements for LMCD committees and the funding process. He recommended that this be discussed by the Board in the near future. Third, there was a memo in the handout folders that discuses the fire boat rescue situation on Lake Uinnetonka and the Code relating to this. He recommended that the Board discuss this in the near future. Fourth, Robert Searles has recently passed away and his family has request that memorial contributions in his name be forwarded to the "Save the Lake" fund. Solicitations received will be forwarded towards the zebra mussel project. 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. -__. -2323- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page 21 9. NEW BUSINESS Knudsen stated that he attended the last MCWD Board of Managers Meeting to discuss Six Mile Creek. The Board of Managers passed a resolution unanimously encouraging a joint resolution amongst the MCWD, the LMCD, the City of Minnetrista, and the MN DNR on how to deal with these tributaries. He stated that he would have a copy of the MCWD resolution included in the packet for the 6/23/04 Regular Board Meeting. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:01 p.m. Tom Skramstad, Chair Jose Valdesuso, Secretary -2324- CALL TO ORDER LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, July 14, 2004 Tonka Bay City Hall ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Skramstad READING OF MINUTES- 6/9/04 LMCD Regular Board Meeting 6/23/04 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) PUBLIC HEARING · Pelican Point HOA, new multiple dock license application to reconfigure the conforming multiple dock facility on Spring Park Bay. 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration 1. WATER STRUCTURES A) Discussion of 7/9/04 staff memo that summarizes expenses incurred to be deducted from the $250 refundable deposits for recently submitted variance applications; B) Ordinance Amendment, first reading of an ordinance relating to the storage of fire and rescue boats on Lake Minnetonka; amending LMCD Code Section 2.02, subd. 6; C) Additional Business; 2. LAKE USE & RECREATION A) Chair update of Lake Minnetonka Boat Density Sub-Committee; B) Additional Business; 3. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers (711/04 - 7/15/04); B) Additional Business; -2325- 4. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A) Minutes from the 6/11/04 EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting (handout); B) Discussion of possible future funding of the EWM Harvesting Program by the MCWD; C) Additional Businessl 5. ADMINISTRATION 6. SAVE THE LAKE 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT -~2326- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERYATION DISTRICT ~18338. M int~etorika .BI,id, Deephaven, MN 55391 (952) 745~0~89 ~E'XE¢,UTIVE:DIRECTOR.NEWSLE~ER Gm§o~J~,S.NYbeck ,July :19, 2004. rarfl th'm u g h. mid:Aug uS~;~ With H'~rV~sting pri~iiesarebased upon impediment:to pub ic bOat Whidh is.consistent with past years. The'LoWer Lake' SOuth option has been implemented in 2004, With theflrst round of harvesting completed, in the LOwer Lake and the majodiY completed in,the UPper,Lake; Hig:h':gi~&~: areas,.wili.be t~aN~sied twice, time permitting The LMCD cohtinues to be.concerned about the.introduCti0n .of other invasive Species into Lake Minnetonka, with an emPhaSis on zebra musselS,. During,the .2004 :boat ng. season,.the LMCD has ncmased the .amoUnt Of-inSpect ons being conducted.at h gh: volume pUblic accesseS during peak'period t mos, on Fridays, Satu~:days~ Sundays and holic~ays frOm late MaY through,~id' AUgUst rAdditi0nal'l~/, the t'MCD has takeninit al steps on a'm(~re compr'ehensive'zebra mUssel program ~nd We are solidit ng aS~istance and cooperation, from the 14,member cities in thiS. offer't: the :cOsts. going ant oready W .si 2004 ,Lake,!Minnetonka Shorelinelnwentory: The Management p an for Lake M nnetonka requires'that'the, LMCD conduct an i'nventory:for water~taff'st6tage0h:Lake Min.h'~tonka every tw0 years. The last year,tha[this: ' Management Plan ~as c~nducted w, as 2~)0;~i::and the project:iS l~eing conducted tl3is sammetl .LMCD stafflbegan C0nd~ting tl~e fieidW0~ for:.thisPr0ject~ih eddy. June!, wii~ the fibi~ork anticipa'ted tb, be.Wrapped up withint~e next 3~ days, After ComPletio'n ef [he,fi~idwork,. LinCD st~ffwiil p'repa~e aRe~orti~f:th s: p~Oject ~t ~um~nari~e~.the key .detail~. A cO:Py bilitl~is,i~O~-shoU d'be a.~ail'abie so~eti~ thiS:fall. : " . 2004 Lake Min'n'etonka:~Water~'.Patm. I. UPdate: Them is :increased WaterPatro presence on Lake Minnetorika by O~t~ fo[.the?fe~h.~d~ecati'vb b~ti~ ~Sa~b.~. :Th~s added P¢~se~:by the S~:~¢S watbr patm'ha~ ~mProv~ for 200~' andb~Ybnd is que~'(ioha.5:j~ 8ua to t~'e. econbmi~"c6aii~ge~..th~t H~;~ke~in.c~u,ty is :f~ci~g. 2004 Lake Minnetonka .... Solar Light Buo¥.Proiect~ In 2002 and 2003, a solar light buoy project was implemented on Lake Minnet0rika This project i'si~ritin~id~' dddng .the 2004'boating season and the solar lightshave been mounted on top of the red and green havlgat onal buoys at a number of high traffic channels :through0ut Lake Minnetonka. §teps have been taken bY L~ICD staff in 2004't° Purchase ~bre dUrable Solar lights and to imProve. ~. -2327- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEWSLETTER, 7119104, PAGE 2 how they are mounted. Feedback from this project in 2002 and 2003 was positive and we believe that this Will continue in 2004. Please. feel free to contact the LMCD office if you would like to provide feedback on this project. 2005 LMOD Budget: In May, staff prepared 'the :draft2005' LMOD BUdget for reView by the Board and the 14 member cities. In accordance with Minnesota State Statute t03B..635, the'Board must on or before July 1 of each year prepare and submit a detailed budgetof~the LMO'D'sneed, for the.next calendar year, to the governing body of each municipality in the LMCD With a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by' each municipality. The LMCD Board reviewed the draft 2005 LMCD Budget at its 5/26/04 and 6/9~04 Regular Board Meetings. A meeting with .officials from the 14 member cities was coordinated in the LMCD office on F.dday, '6/4/04, to receive in put and comments.on the draft 2005 LMCD BUdget:;: .The Board:adopted ith:e','2005 bMOD'B~i-dgetj:witha 6!9~7~".~ evy increase compared to the :2004 L.MCD Budget, :at its 6/9/04 Regu ar Meet rig' and fOrWarded a-cOpy Of it to the 14 member cities befo(e the JU!yl Stdeadline,. The 6.9% 'levy increase tO the 14 member citieS, is the first increase' to the member cities s nee the' 200.! bMOD BUdget ,Web, Page.:. The. LMOD!s':W~bPage: a~lFess is http'//~:l~od 'org -2328- -~_ P.~UL July 12, 2004 Dear Colleagues: Over the past several years we have all come to learn a great deal more about the public health dangers of second-hand smoke. This accumulated body of scientific knOwledge certainly justifies us revisiting our smoking policies on a local, regional, and statewide basis. In fact, within the last few years and in the face of this mounting evidence regarding the harm from second-hand smoke, a handful of Minnesota local governments have considered and implemented smoking ordinances. More recently, a statewide smoking, ban was considered at the State Legislature and many of our own colleagues in surrounding communities have engaged in discussions about the best way to impose .1~al restrictions on smoking. Last week a group of local elected officials met to discuss the ~)ahie of a regional, coordinated effort to restrict smoking. Our meeting brought agreement to share information about various approaches with local officials in the seven-county area. OUr meeting also brought agreement that a regional approach to regulating smoking maker' sense from both a public health and an economic standpoint. With a regional approach, we can set aside the false choice of health versus economics that is presented when one local jurisdiction tries to regulate commerce on its own. The people of our region deserve no less. To that end, we have enclosed for your review some background materials outlining the various approaches taken by other communities here in Minnesota and throughout the country. We have also enclosed a few specific ordinances for your use in discussion in your own communities. -2329.- Whether you are just beginning to wade into this issue, or have already begun deliberations, we ask that you share your thoughts and ideas with us. In addition to the work taking place locally and statewide, we truly believe a regional network and implementation structure will help make this effort a success for everyone. Please do not hesitate to contact one of us if you have a question, or want to participate in a regional discussion. For our residents, visitors, business owners and employees in our communities, we will continue to work to find the best solution to this problem. Sincerely, Randy C. Kelly Mayor of Saint Paul 15 West Kellogg Boulevard 390 City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 651-266-85'10 (Of_rice) Email -- randy.kelly~ci.stpaul.mn.us Scott Benson Minneapolis Councilmember 350 South Fifth Street 307 City Hall Minneapolis, MN 554 612-673-2211 (Office) Email - scott.benson~ci.minneapolis.mn.us · Hennepin Couniy. Commissioner A-2400 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487-0240 612-348-7883 (Office) Email: gail.dorfman~co.hennepin.mn.us Susan Haigh Ramsey County Commissioner Room 220 Court House 15 W. Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 651-266-8364 (Office) Email: Susan. M.Haigh~co.ramsey.mn.us D~ota County Commissioner 1590 HWY 55 Hastings, MN 55033 651-4384428 (Office) Email -- kathleen.gaylord~co.dakota.mn.us -2330- - -2332- - WHEREAS, non-smoking sections in buildings do not eliminate non-smokers' exposure to second-hand smoke (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation IARC Scientific Publications 81:25-41, 1987); and WHEREAS, carcinogens found in Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) are causally related to cancer. It is estimated that every year 3,000 non-smokers in the U.S. die of lung cancer related to ETS (60 deaths in MN). To date, over 50 substances in second-hand smoke have been identified as carcinogens. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, 1999); and WHEREAS, annually between 35,000 and 62,000 non-smokers die in the U.S. (700 to 1,240 deaths in MN) from Ischemic heart disease related to ETS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, 1999); and WHEREAS, each year 9,700 to 18,600 Iow birth weight babies bom in the U.S. (190 to 370 in MN) are causally related to ETS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, 1999); and WHEREAS, annually between 1,900 and 2,700 deaths from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) occur in the U.S. (30 to 50 deaths in MN) related to ETS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, 1999); and WHEREAS, irritants in ETS cause 150,000 cases annually of bronchitis and pneumonia (3,000 cases in MN). Irritants also cause 700,000 cases annually of middle ear infections in children in the U.S (14,000 in MN) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, 1999); and WHEREAS, a review of 2000 children in Olmsted County has shown an average of 17.3% having asthma, which is 2.5 times the national average (study conducted by Dr. Barbara Yawn, Olmsted Medical Center researcher). Asthma that becomes worse due to ETS occurs in 400,000 children annually in the U.S. (8,000 children in MN) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, 1999); and WHEREAS, ETS rapidly diffuses throughout a room. Using indoor air quality standards, ventilation rates would have to be increased more than a thousand- fold to reduce cancer risk associated with ETS. Such ventilation rate would result in a virtual windstorm indoors (Repace, J. "Risk Management and Passive Smoking at Work and at Home," St. Louis University Public Law Review, 13(2): 763-785, 1994); and -2333- ~ , ,J,, ,I, ,,iii A ,t, , . I& WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Healthy People 2010 has as one of its objectives to cut exposure to ETS by non-smokers from 65% in 1994 to 45% in 2010 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Healthy People 2010, Washington D.C., U.S. Department of Health Human Services 2000); and WHEREAS, sitting in a smoke-free section of a restaurant for two hours is like smoking 1% cigarettes (Presentation by Katherine Hammond, PhD, University of California School of Public Health); and WHEREAS, nine out of ten non-smokers are exposed to ETS at least once every 2 to 3 days (Journal of the American Medical Association, January 1998); and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute § 145A.04 establishes the powers and duties of a Board of Health to enforce ordinances related to public health for the territory within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute § 145A.05 authorizes a County Board to adopt ordinances to regulate actual or potential threats to the public health and to define public health nuisances and to provide for their prevention; and WHEREAS, after due public notice a hearing was held on November 13, 2001, by the Olmsted County Board of Commissioners, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 375.51. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Olmsted County Board of Commissioners as the Public Health Board for Olmsted County adopts the "Olmsted County Smoke-free Restaurant Ordinance", as on file in the County Administrator's office, on this 13th day, of November, 2001 Dated: November 13, 2001 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A'FT'EST: Jean Michaels, Chairperson Richard G. Devlin, Clerk-Administrator -2334- -/. RESOLUTION NO. 01-102 The County Board of the County of Olmsted, Minnesota, ordains: SECTION A. Title: This ordinance shall be known and referenced as the Olmsted County Smoke-free Restaurant Ordinance. SECTION B. Jurisdiction: Subd. 1. As provided in MN Statute§145A.05, this ordinance applies throughout all of Olmsted County, including the municipalities therein. Subd. 2. As provided in MN Statute §145A.04, the Community Health Board is authorized to enforce laws, regulations, and ordinances within its jurisdictional area. Subd. 3. Nothing in this ordinance shall prevent other local levels of government, within Olmsted County, from adopting more restrictive measures to protect citizens from second-hand smoke. SECTION C. Definitions: ~ubd. 1. Definitions in this ordinance pertain only to this ordinance. Subd. 2. Bar. "Bar" shall mean any establishment that a) has an on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license issued pursuant to Minn. Statute § Section 340A.403; or an on- sale intoxicating liquor license issued pursuant to Minn. Statute § Section 340A.404; and b) whose sales of beer, malt liquor, and intoxicating liquor is projected for an initial licensee to be - or is demonstrated for an existing licensee to be - more than 50 % (percent) of the total of net sales of food and beverages, after taxes that are served in the bar. These are the sales reported to Federal and/or State Revenue Authorities from the most recent liquor licensing year. However, sales for service to customers in a separately licensed business shall not be included as part of the total net sales for an establishment seeking this "bar" classification. Subd. 3. Establishment. "Establishment" means the portion of a building, including the infrastructure, that is typically reviewed, assessed, inspected, and included as part of the plan review, licensing, and monitoring processes of food and/or beverage facilities by the applicable public health licensing authorities. It also includes, in the case of multi-purpose buildings and rooms and for the purposes of this ordinance, those portions of the building that are.being used for food and/or beverage services during an event. Subd. 4. Other Person in Charge. "Other'Person In Charge" means the agent of the proprietor authorized to perform administrative direction to, and general supervision of, the activities within a public place at any given time. -2335- Subd. 5. Private Club. "Private Club" shall mean an incorporated organization organized under the laws of the state for civic, fraternal, social, or business purposes; for intellectual improvement, for promotion of sports, or for a congressionally chartered veterans' organization, .which: a. a. has more than 50 members; and b. b. has owned or rented a building or space in a building for more than one year that is suitable and adequate for the accommodation of its members; and c. c. is directed by a board of directors, executive committee, or other similar body chosen by the members at a meeting held for that purpose. No member, officer, agent, or employee shall receive any profit from the distribution or sale of beverages to the members of the club, or their guests, beyond a reasonable salary or wage fixed and voted upon each 'year by the governing body; and d. d. does not restrict its membership on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or national origin. Any private club's exemption from the smoke-free provisions of this ordinance does not apply when such organization is established to avoid compliance with this Ordinance. Subd. 6. Proprietor. "Proprietor" shall mean the party, regardless of whether or not the party is owner or lessee of the public place, who ultimately controls, governs, or directs the activities within the public place. The term does not mean the owner of the property, unless the owner ultimately controls, governs, or directs the activities within the public place. The term "proprietor" may apply to a corporation as well as to an individual. Subd. 7. Restaurant. "Restaurant" shall have the meaning specified in Minn. Stat. Section 157.15, Subd.12. "Restaurant" includes those portions of a multi-purpose building that is being used for food and/or beverage services during an event. The term "restaurant" does not include a "bar," as defined in this ordinance. Subd. 8. Smoking. "Smoking" shall mean inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying any lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, weed, other plant substances or other lighted smoking equipment in any manner or in any form. SECTION D. Smoking Prohibited in Restaurants: Subd. 1. Smoking Prohibited. Except as provided in Subd. 2, smoking is prohibited in all indoor areas of any restaurant and its indoor entrance areas, commonly referred to as vestibules, alcoves, and foyers. Subd. 2 Exemptions. The prohibitions of subd.1 do not apply to the following places or situations: a. a. Bars, including those that are immediately adjacent to a restaurant, provided that the following separations are maintained: 1) 1) The bar is separated from the restaurant on all sides by continuous floor-to-ceiling walls, which are interrupted only by closeable doors, that -2336- ~- are continuously closed, except when a person is actively entering or exiting the bar; and 2) 2) The bar ventilation systems are totally separated from the restaurant, with the bar maintaining a negative air pressure in relation to the adjacent restaurant; and 3) 3) Whose revenues from the sale of food in this portion of the restaurant are consistent with the definition in this ordinance; and 4) 4) Consistent with Minnesota Statute § 340A.503, Subd. 4. (b), the bar does not permit entrance or employment of minors at any time; and 5) 5) The bar has a Food and/or Beverage License, that is separate from the restaurant, issued by the appropriate licensing agency. b. b. Restaurants, that are closed to the public while being used for a private function. c. Private clubs, except when they are open to serve food or drink to the public that are not members of the club. Guests accompanied by members are considered the same as members. do d. An event that includes licensed food and/or beverage service in any municipal owned and managed building, when the municipal governing body has declared specific portions of the building to be exempt for the event. Subd. 3. Proprietor's Right to Prohibit Smoking. Nothing in this ordinance prevents the proprietor or other person in charge from prohibiting smoking in their establishment. ~ubd. 4. Compliance with Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act. Irrespective of any exceptions granted under authority of this ordinance, compliance must be maintained with the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, as may be amended from time to time. Subd. 5. Exceptions Based on False Information. Exceptions and/or variances based on false information shall render any exception or variance null and void. SECTION E. Resoonsibilities of Proprietom: Subd. 1. Records required for exemption a. Applicants for food and/or beverage establishments claiming exemption allowed under Section D, Subd. 2 of this ordinance, shall annually provide, in conjunction with their public health administered Food and Beverage License reneWal, a copy of the annual report of food and liquor sales records as provided to State Revenue Authorities from the most recent liquor licensing year. The report shall be submitted with a form supplied by Olmsted County Public Health and the information shall be provided under oath and penalty of perjury. The report and accompanying form shall be the basis for demonstrating whether or not the establishment continues to be eligible for the exemption from the smoke-free requirements of Section D. -2337- Subd. a. Prospective licensees of food and/or beverage establishments seeking to open such an establishment, with an exemption from the smoke-free requirements of Section D in this ordinance, shall provide a notarized affidavit and agreement in conjunction with their application for initial Food and Beverage License administered by Public Health. The affidavit and agreement shall show that their business plan projections indicate that they are eligible for such exemption and that they will convert to a smoke-free status if their records indicate, after six calendar months of operation, that the business is not eligible for continued.exemption from the smoke-free requirements of this Ordinance. 2. Signage. a. Where smoking is allowed in a bar, private club, or a facility in which private functions are conducted, the proprietor, or other person in charge, shall conspicuously post a sign at all entrances to that area or facility stating one of the following: 1) 1) "This entire establishment is a designated smoking area" or 2) 2) "Warning -This area contains tobacco smoke, which causes cancer, heart disease, lung disease, and can harm you, your unbom baby, and children" b. If a bar, private club, or a facility in which private functions are conducted has both smoke-free areas and a designated smoking area, the proprietor or other person in charge shall conspicuously post, in addition to those messages reqUlred by the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, signs at all initial entry points clearly stating "Warning -This area contains tobacco smoke." Co c. The proprietor shall also clearly indicate those areas inside the establishment where smoking is permitted and those that are smoke-free, through the use of signs required in this Subd. 2. The proprietor or other person in charge of a restaurant shall conspicuously post a sign at all entrances to the restaurant stating: "This entire establishment is smoke-free." The sign shall include the universal "no smoking" symbol. The placement and size of lettering for all signs and symbols required under this Ordinance shall be consistent with the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, Minn. Stat. Sections 144. 411 to 144.417, and the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act Rules, Minnesota Rules, Part 4620.0100 to 4620.1450. Subd. 3. The proprietor or other person in charge shall ensure that ashtrays, lighters, and matchbooks are not provided in areas where smoking is prohibited. Subd. 4. The proprietor, or other person in charge, shall ask any person who smokes in an area where smoking is prohibited to refrain from smoking and, if the person does not refrain from smoking after being asked to do so, shall ask the person to leave. If the offending party refuses to leave, the operator shall handle the situation consistent with lawful methods for handling other persons acting in a disorderly manner or as a trespasser. -2338- ' Subd. a. Co 5. Compliance After Adoption: a. The proprietor or other person in charge shall be provided up to 30 (thirty) days after this ordinance is adopted to meet ordinance requirements. b. The Public Health Director is authorized to extend the time for completion, after considering a proprietor's written request for extension - that includes a detailed explanation of need - that the Public Health Director finds to be reasonable. c. Such extension, made at the Director's discretion, shall be limited to no more than 90 (ninety) days. Extensions beyond that authorized in this subdivision shall be according to the authorized appeals process. SECTION F. No Retaliation: No person shall discharge, refuse to hire, refuse to serve or in any manner retaliate against any employee, applicant for employment, or customer because such employee, applicant, or customer makes a report or files a complaint alleging a violation of this ordinance. SECTION G. Violations: Consistent with Minn. Stat. Sections 375.53 and 609.02, violations of this ordinance shall be a petty misdemeanor. SECTION H. Exceptions~ Appeals~ and Resolution of Violation-~: Administration of this ordinance, including guidance for, challenges to, and penalties shall be according to the authorities provided in Minnesota Statute Chapter 145A, other applicable Minnesota law, and the Olmsted County Environmental Services Administrative Ordinance. SECTION I. Severability and Savings Clause: If any section or portion of this ordinance shall be found unconstitutional or otherwise invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that finding shall not serve as an invalidation, or affect the validity or enforceability of any other section or provision of this ordinance. SECTION J. Effective Date: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect January 1,2002 pursuant to Minnesota law. Dated this 13th day of November, 2001. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: Jean Michaels, Chairperson Richard G. Devlin, Clerk-Administrator -2339- ~. , ,JJ,, ,J ,,Ill B ,1 II, h, Article VII. Smoking in Public Places. Sec. 28-62. Findings of fact and statement of purpose. (a) The Duluth City Council finds the following facts to exist: (1) Tobacco smoke is a major contributor to indoor air pollution, and breathing second hand smoke is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in nonsmokers. At special risk are children, elderly people, individuals with cardiovascular disease and individuals with impaired respiratory function, including asthmatics and those with obstructive airway disease. Many of these individuals cannot go into public places with second hand smoke due to their respiratory or allergenic handicap; and (2) Health hazards induced by breathing second hand smoke include, but are not limited to, lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory infection and decreased respiratory function; and (3) The simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space may reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure of nonsmokers to environmental tobacco smoke for which there is no known safe level of exposure. (Ord. No. 9448, 6-12-2000, § 1; Ord. No. 9490, 5-29-2001, § 1.) Sec. 28-63. Definitions. For the purpose of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given them in this Section. (a) Bar. Bar means an establishment that has an onsale 3.2 percent malt liquor license issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sec. 340A.403, as amended from time to time, or an onsale intoxicating liquor license issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sec. 340A.404, as amended from time to time, which does not serve food or which has a limited food menu selection as defined by Minnesota Statutes Sec · 157.16, subd. 3(d)(1), as amended from time to time; (b) Bar/restaurant. Bar/restaurant means an establishmentthat has an onsale 3.2 percent malt liquor license issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sec. 340A.403, as amended from time to time, or an onsale intoxicating liquor license issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sec. 340A.404, as amended from time to time, and that holds a small, medium or large establishment food license as defined by Minnesota Statutes Sec. 157.16, subd. 3(d)(2)-(4), as amended from time to time; (c) Office. Office means any building, structure or area used by the general public or serving as a place of work at which the principal activities consist of professional, clerical or administrative services. An office includes professional offices, offices in financial institutions, business offices, telemarketing offices and government offices; (d) Other person in charge. Other person in charge has the meaning specified in the Minnesota Clean IndoorAir Act Rules, Minnesota Rules Part 4620.0100, Subpart 10, as amended from time to time; (e) Proprietor. Proprietor has the meaning specified by the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act Rules, Minnesota Rules Part 4620.0100, Subpart 13, as amended from time to time; (f) Public conveyance. Public conveyance means any air, land or water vehicle used for the transportation of persons for compensation, including but not limited to airplanes, trains, buses, boats and taxis; (g). Public place. Public place means any enclosed, indoor area used by the general public, including, but not limited to, restaurants, retail stores, offices and other commercial establishments, public conveyances, bars, hospitals, auditoriums, arenas, meeting rooms and common areas of hotels and motels, but excluding bowling alleys and pool halls until April 1, 2003, and excluding private, enclosed offices occupied exclusively by smokers even though such offices may be visited by nonsmokers; (h) Restaurant. Restaurant means any building, structure or area used as, maintained as, advertised as or held out to the public for food service as defined in Minnesota Rules Part 4625.2401, Subpart 15, which requires licensure under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 157; (i) Retail store. Retail store means that portion of a commercial occupancy used for the transaction of business or the rendering ora service directly to the public, including shops, retail food stores, laundries or laundromats and department stores; (j) Room. Room means any indoor area bordered on all sides by a floor to ceiling wall. The sides must be continuous and solid except for closeable doors for entry and exit; -2340- (k) Smoking. Smoking includes possessing or carrying a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or any other lighted Smoking equipment. (Ord. No. 9448, 6-12-2000, § 1; Ord. No. 9490, 5-29-2001, § 1.) Sec. 28-64. Smoking prohibited in public places; exception. No person shall smoke in any public place 'except: (a) Restaurants that have a currently existing designated smoking area in a separate room, separately ventilated to the outside and constituting not more than 30 percent of the seating floor space and persons under the age of 18 are not permitted to enter or remain, provided that this exception shall cease to be in effect after April 1, 2003; (b) Bars; (c) The bar area of a bar/restaurant, if: (1) The bar area is separately enclosed on all sides by continuous floor-to-ceiling walls, interrupted only by closeable doors; and (2) The bar area is separately ventilated, with negative air pressure in relation to areas of the bar/restaurant where smoking is not permitted; and (3) Minors are not permitted in the bar area at any time; (d) A civic organization, service club, fraternal or patriotic organization or similar private membership organization, when admission to the organization is limited to members and members' guests, provided that this exception shall not apply to any organization established to avoid compliance with this ordinance [Article]; (e) The use of tobacco as part of a recognized religious ritual or activity. (Ord. No. 9448, 6-12-2000, § 1; Ord. No. 9475112-21-2000, § 1; Ord. No. 9490, 5-29-2001, § 1; Ord. No. 9638, 12-15-2003, § 1.) Sec. 28-65. Responsibilities of proprietors. The proprietor or other person in charge of a restaurant subject to Chapter 28, Article VII, shall: (a) Post no smoking signs that comply with the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act Rules, Minnesota Rules Part 4620.0500, as amended from time to time; (b) Ensure that ashtrays, lighters and matchbooks are not provided in areas where smoking is prohibited; (c) Ask any person who smokes in areas where smoking is prohibited to refrain from smoking and, if the person does not refrain from smoking after being asked to do so, ask the person to leave. (Ord. No. 9448, 6-12-2000, § 1; Ord. No. 9490, 5-29-2001, § 1.) Sec. 28-66. Previous exemptions. All previous exemptions are withdrawn effective April 1,2003. (Ord. No. 9448, 6-12-2000, § 1; Ord. No. 9490, 5-29-2001, § 1.) Sec. 28-67. Employees not required to enter bar area. At public places that include both a restaurant and a bar, the owner shall not require nonsmoking employees to enter the bar area as part of the employee's duties without the employee's consent. (Ord. No. 9448, 6-12-2000, § 1.) Sec. 28-68. Retaliation prohibited. No person or employer shall discharge, refuse to hire, penalize, discriminate against or in any manner retaliate against, any employee, applicant for employment or customer because the employee, applicant or customer exercises any right to a smoke free environment afforded by this ordinance[Artic/e] or other law. (Ord. No. 9448, 6-12-2000, § 1; Ord. No. 9490, 5-29-2001, § 1.) Sec. 28-69. Other applicable laws. -2341 - , ,IJ,, J, ,,Ill i ,1, , This ordinance [Article] is intended to complement the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, Minnesota Statute Sec. 144.411 to 144.417, as amended from time to time. Nothing in this ordinance [Article] authorizes smoking in any location where smoking is restricted by other applicable laws. (Ord. No. 9448, 6-12-2000, § I; Ord. No. 9490, 5-29-2001, § 1.) Sec. 28.70. Violation and penalties. (a) Smoking where prohibited. It is a violation of this Article for any person to smoke in an area where smoking is prohibited by this Article; (b) Proprietors. It is a violation of this Article for the proprietor or other person in ch arge of any premises subject to this Article to fail to comply with the requirements of Chapter 28, Article VII, or to retaliate against an employee, applicant for employment or customer, as prohibited by Section 28-68; (c) Private right of action. In addition to the penalties provided in Section 28-70(c), any person injured by a repeated or continuing violation of the Article may bring a civil action against the proprietor or other person in charge of a public place to enjoin further violations. (Ord. No. 9448, 6-12-2000, § 1; Ord. No. 9490, 5-29-2001, § 1; Ord. No. 9611, 7-28-2003, § 28.) Sec. 28-71. Severability. If any portion of this ordinance [Art~cie], or its application to any circumstances, is held invalid, the remaining provisions shall be considered severable, and shall be given effect to the maximum extent possible. (Ord. No. 9448, 6-12-2000, § 1; Ord. No. 9475, 12-21-2000, § 2; Ord. No. 9490, 5-29-2001, § 1.) -2342- ORDINANCE NO. 2004-13 AN ORDINANCE ENACTING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 6 RELATING TO SMOKING Ikl PUBLIC INDOOR WORKPLACES BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Moorhead as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Moorhead City Code is hereby created and enacted to read as follows: CHAPTER 6 SECTION: 6-1-1 Smoking in Public Indoor Workplaces Prohibited 6-1-2 Definition 6-1-3 Penalties For Violation 6-1-1 SMOKING IN PUBLIC INDOOR WORKPLACE PROHIBITED: No person shall smoke, possess or carry a lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe or other tobacco products in a public indoor workplace. The owner or other person in charge of a public indoor workplace subject to the provisions of this section must (i) post signs indicating "no smoking" or containing the international no smoking symbol; (ii)ensure that ash trays, lighters and matchbooks are not provided in areas where smoking is prohibited; and (iii) ask any person violating this section to refrain from smoking, possessing or carrying a 'lighted cigarette cigar, pipe or other tobacco products on the premises, and if the person does not so refrain after being asked to do so, ask the person to leave the premises immediately. DEFINITION: "Indoor Public Workplace" means any enclosed, indoor facility, business or establishment used by the general public, or used as a place of work, including, but not limited to, restaurants, retail stores, offices and other commemial establishments, public conveyances, bars, hospitals, auditoriums, arenas., meeting rooms and common areas of hotels and motels.. 6-1-3 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION: Violation of the provisions of this section is an infraction and the penalty imposed for a first offense of this section shall be a fine of $100.00, for a second offense a fine of $200.00 dollars, and for a third or subsequent offense a fine of $500.00. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect on September 1,2004. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Moorhead the 21st day of June 2004. APPROVED: ATTEST: MARK VOXLAND, Mayor KAYE BUCHHOLZ, City Clerk First Consideration: Second Consideration: Third Consideration: Date of Publication: May 3,2004 May 17,2004 June 21, 2004 -2343- BLOOMINGTON MINNESOTA Bloomington City Council to Hear Smoke-Free Ordinance For Immediate Release Tuesday, June 29, 2004 Contact: Karen Zeleznak Health Administrator City of Bloomington (952) 563-8900 lczeleznak~ci, bloomington.mn.us BLOOMINGTON CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE EXPANDING SMOKE- FREE AREAS IN PUBLIC PLACES AND PLACES OF WORK On Monday, June 28 the Bloomington Advisory Board of Health (ABH) presented a study on smoke-free workplaces to the Bloomington City Council. In February the City Council had requested the ABH to study the issue of smoke-free restaurants and bars and other work places, and provide recommendations to the Council. The ABH study is available on the City's web site at: http://www.~i.b~~~mington.mn.us/cit~ha~~/dept/c~mmserv/pub~hea~/t~pics/sfstud¥re~~mm.htm. Following the ABH presentation and discussion, the City Council, on a 4-3 vote, directed staffto publish a notice for a public hearing on July 19, 2004 for Council consideration of an ordinance expanding smoke-free areas in public places and work places beyond the requirements of the 1975 Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act. The Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act permits designated smoking areas within public places and places of work and does not regulate outdoor areas. COM, MUN ICATIONS Dlvlslol~ 1800 W. OLD .$HAKOPEE ROAD, BLOOMINGTON N~,N 55431-3027 PH 952-563-8713 FAX 952-563-8715 TTY 952-563-8740 -2344- AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EO. UAL OPPORTUfllTIES EMPLOYER 2 The proposed ordinance prohibits smoking in all defined indoor public places and places of work, with the following exceptions: (1) private residences, (2) motor vehicles, (3) designated hotel-motel sleeping rooms, and (4) Indian spiritual and cultural ceremonies (which are also exempt under the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act). Smoking would also be prohibited in outdoor bar and restaurant areas and within 25 feet of entrances, exits, open windows and ventilation intakes of public places and work places. The restriction does not extend to other outdoor sites beyond the existing prohibition of smoking in Bloomington's parks near youth sports activities. The proposed ordinance will be available on the City's web site at www.ci.bloomin~on.mn.us by July 2. Prior to the formal public hearing on the proposed ordinance, an administrative hearing will 'be held by City staffand the Advisory Health Board on July 12 at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. The purpose of the administrative hearing is to answer questions and take comments. The formal public hearing before the Bloomington City Council is scheduled for July 19 at 7:15 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. The City Council will take testimony on the proposed ordinance at that time. 'If adopted as proposed, the ordinance would become effective on September 1, 2004. Comments regarding the proposed ordinance may be submitted by e-mail to council~ci.bloomington.mn.us or via U.S. mail to: Mayor and City Council, City of Bloomington, 1800 West Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431. For more information, contact Karen Zeleznak, Health Administrator, 952-563-8900, or kzeleznak~ci.bloomington.mn.us. -2345- ORDINANCE NO. 2004 - AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND PLACES OF WORK The City Council of the City of Bloomington hereby ordains: Section 1. That Chapter 12 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 12 PUBLIC PEACE AND SAFETY ARTICLE il. PROHIBITED CONDUCT Division O. Smokinq Prohibited SEC. 12.79. [RE-SERVED] FINDINGS OF FACT AND PURPOSE. The City Council finds that: Tobacco smoke is a leadin.q cause of disease in nonsmokers and a maior source of indoor air pollution. Secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lun,q cancer, respiratory infections, decreased respiratory function, reproductive problems and other health problems. Secondhand smoke kills an estimated 35,000 to 62,000 Americans each year from heart disease. Secondhand smoke also causes an estimated 3~000 lun.q cancer deaths in America each year. These adverse health effects are well documented and numerous medical and scientific authorities, includin.q the American Medical Association, the Sur.qeon General, the National Institute on Occupational Safety and Health, the National Cancer Institute, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Toxicology Program and the World Health Or.qanization have reco.clnized the deadly effects of exposure to secondhand smoke. (c) There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. Neither the separation of smokers and nonsmokers, nor the introduction of new ventilation systems, can eliminate the health hazards caused by secondhand smoke. (d) Employees in smoky workplaces are at special risk. One study has estimated that workin.q in a smoky settin.q for ei.qht hours is equivalent to smokin.q 16 ciqarettes. Also at special risk are children, elderly people, and those with cardiovascular disease or impaired respiratory function, includin.q people with asthma and those with obstructive airway disease. (e) Obiective evidence does not bear out the fear that elimination of public smoking will harm a community's economy or result in a net loss of iobs in restaurants and bars. On the contrary, many independent economic studies have shown that the elimination of smoking has no material economic impact on a community. These studies are drawn from the experience of hundreds of communities that have successfully eliminated smokin.q in workplaces and public places. The states of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, and New York have adopted laws endinq all smoking in bars, restaurants, and other public places, as have the nations of Ireland, New Zealand and Norway. (f) By reducin.q the exposure of youn.q people to adult smokin.q and unhealthy role modelinq, elimination of smokinq in public places furthers Minnesota's .qoal of reducinq youth smokinq. (.q) There is no le.qal or constitutional "riqht to smoke." Business owners have no leqal or constitutional ri.qht to expose their employees and customers to toxic chemicals, whether in tobacco smoke or otherwise. On the contrary, employers have a common law duty to provide their workers with a workplace that is not unreasonably dan,qerous. -2346- Therefore, the City Council declares that the purpose of this ordinance is to: (1) Protect the public health, safety and welfare by better insuring the ability of citizens to breathe safe and uncontaminated air; (2) Affirm that the right to breathe has priority over the desire to smoke; and (3) Protect vulnerable populations including employees, children, the elderly and those with chronic health conditions. SEC. 12.80. [~] DEFINITIONS. The following words and terms, when used in this Division, shall have the followin.q meaning~ unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: Bar - a portion of an establishment where a person can purchase and consume alcoholic. bevera(~es. -- Office - a build n,q, structure or area used by the genera public or servin,q as a place of work at which principal activities consist of professional, clerical or administrative services. An office includes, but is not limited to, professional offices, offices in financial institutions, business offices, telemarketin.q office,-. and qovemmental offices. ' Other Person in Charge - the agent of the proprietor authorized to perform administratiw direction to and general supervision of the activities within a place of work and public place at any ,qiven time. Place of Work - any enclosed, indoor location at which two or more individuals perform any typ~, of a service for consideration of payment under any type of employment relationship, includ n.q but not limited to an employment relationship with or for a private corporation, partnership, individual, or ~ovemment a.qency This term includes any location where two or more individuals .qratuitousl~ perform · services for which individuals are ordinarily paid. Examples of a place of work include enclosed indoor areas of an office, a public conveyance, a factory, a warehouse, a hote or motel, and other Iocation~ where services are performed under an employment relationship. Enclosed, indoor areas of pdvat~ clubs, and rooms used for private meetin.qs or social functions, are ~places of work" if two or moro. persons acting under an employment relationship provide cleanin.q, caterinq, food or beveraqe service, maintenance '~r other support services in the location. Proprietor - the party, regardless of whether the party is the owner or lessee of the place of work or public place, who ultimately controls, ,qoverns or directs the activities within the place of work or public, place. The term "proprietor' may apply to a corporation as well as an individual. Public Place - any enclosed, indoor area used by the general public or serving as a place of work, includinq, but not limited to, restaurants, retail stores, offices and other commercial establishments, public. conveyances, auditoriums, arenas, meeting rooms, common areas of rental apartment buildin.qs, and educational facilities other than public schools. Restaurant - a food and bevera.qe service establishment, whether the establishment serve~ alcoholic or nonalcoholic bevera.qes Smokin.q - the inhalinq, exhaling or combustion of any cigarette, cigar, pipe or any other li.qhte~ smokin.q equipment. Smokinq includes carrying a lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe or any other lighted smokinq equipment. SEC. 12.81. (a) ,lc) ~] PROHIBITIONS. Except as provided in subsection lc), no person shall smoke in public .places and places of work, including outdoor and bar areas of restaurants. To ensure that tobacco smoke does not enter public places and places of work and that p.ersons enterin.q such places are not exposed involuntarily to tobacco smoke, smokin.q is prohibited within twenty-five I25) feet of entrances, exits, open windows and ventilation intakes of public places and places of work. The prohibitions of this Section do not apply to: /1) Private residences. /2) Motor vehicles. (3) The use of tobacco as part of a traditional Indian spiritual or cultural ceremony. Sleeping rooms of hotels and motels which are rented to ,quests. -2347- SEC. '12.82. [~] RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROPRIETORS. The proprietor or other person in char,qe of a public place or place of work where smokinq is prohibited shall: (a) Post ~nonsmokin,q" si,qns that comply with the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act Rules, Minnesota Rules Part 4620.0500; (b) Ensure that ashtrays, li.qhters and matchbooks are not provided in areas where smokin.q is prohibited; and (c) Ask any person who smokes in an area where smokin,q is prohibited to refrain from smokin.q and, if the person does not refrain from smokinq after beinq asked to do so, ask the person to leave or use any other means which may be appropriate to obtain compliance. SEC. 12.83. [RESERVED] RETALIATION PROHIBITED. No person or employer shall discharqe, refuse to hire, penalize, discriminate against or in any manner retaliate a.qainst any employer, applicant for employment or customer because the employee, applicant or customer exercises any fight to a smoke-free environment provided by this ordinance or other law. SEC. 12.84. [R-ESERV-ED] PRIVATE PROHIBITIONS. Nothing in this Division prevents the proprietor or other person in char.cle of any place, including, without limitation, any residence, motor vehicle or outdoor space, from prohibitin,q smoking in any such place. SEC. 12.85. [RESERVED] OTHER LAWS. This Division is intended to complement the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, Minn. Stat., §§114.411 to 144.17, as amended from time to time. Nothin,q in this Division authorizes smokinq in any location where smokinq is prohibited or restricted by other laws. SEC. 12.86. PENALTY. Violation of any provision of this Division shall be a per'bt misdemeanor. SEC. 12.87. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Division is held invalid, the remainin.q provisions shall be considered severable and shall be given effect to the maximum extent possible. SEC. 12.88. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Division shall become effective on September 1, 2004.. Passed and adopted this __ day of ,, 2004. ATTEST: Mayor Secretary to the Council APPKOVED: City Attorney -2348- League of Mir~nesota Cities 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 281-1200 · (800) 925-1122 Fax: (651) 281-/299 · TDD: (651) 281-1290 www.lmnc, org July 13, 2004 Dear Chief Appointed Officer, The League Board of Directors is asking that you request the Governor and your legislators to immediately resolve the confusion surrounding 2005 LGA amounts by correcting a drafting error from the 2003 legislative session that failed to remove language related to the grandfather provision of the LGA formula. The legislature did not correct this error during the last session and as a result, the Governor has now indicated that the state will certify 2005 LGA amounts based on the uncorrected statute rather than on the intended changes. If this happens, it will alter about 8 - 10% of the 2005 LGA distribution. Over 600 cities will be affected with some cities receiving more and others less; in some instances the differences are quite significant. The Department of Revenue's estimate showing how your city would be affected is on the League's web site. At a special meeting on June 10, 2004, the League Board unanimously adopted a position supporting the administration of the LGA formula as originally intended by the Legislature. The League Board's position also supports a special session to address the LGA technical correction if it is determined that the Legislature's intent from the 2003 special session cannot be followed. This request was conveyed to both the Governor and legislative leadership, but that has so far not yielded results. The Governor could resolve the issue by directing that the 2005 LGA certification follow legislative intent or the matter could be addressed in special session. If neither happens, some legislators are suggesting that they will fix the formula early in the 2005 legislative session, before distribution could occur under the current law. That is not a desirable solution because it creates unnecessary confusion and uncertainty for all cities, regardless of whether they would lose or gain LGA under the Governor's proposal. Since cities must make budget and levy decisions yet this fall, they will be forced to guess what the legislature might do later in their 2005 fiscal year. This may cause some cities to budget for higher than necessary property taxes, cut services, or both. It may cause other cities to plan for more LGA than they will in the end receive should the 2005 Legislature modify the LGA distribution. The League's Board felt that this unnecessary ambiguity will create a guessing game for city officials that should not be a part of the local budget process. By way of background, there is no disagreement that the 2003 special session tax bill inadvertently failed to delete a paragraph dealing with the LGA grandfather. In administering the formula last summer, the Department of Revenue accepted letters from House Tax Chair Ron Abrams (K- Minnetonka) and Senate Tax Chair Larry Pogemiller (DFL-Minneapolis) requesting that the 2004 distribution follow legislative intent with an apparent understanding that the 2004 Legislature would fix the technical problem. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -2349- Ch/efAppointed Officer Page 2 July 13, 2004 During the 2004 legislative session, both the House and Senate tax bills contained that fix: and in committee discussions of the provision, no one testified in opposition to the elimination o£the paragraph. In addition, the House and Senate written summaries of the provision indicated that the deletion of the paragraph was an inadvertent omission from the 2003 tax bill. Despite the non- controversial nature of the provision, the House and Senate never negotiated a final tax bill and therefore, the technical fix did not become law. Please feel free to contact either Gary Carlson (gcarlsonC_~lmnc.org or 651-281-1255) or me (imiller('~,lmnc.org or 651-281-1205) if you have any questions. We would also appreciate hearing the results, of any conversations with the Governor or legislators you may have. SincerelY, Executive Director -2350- . ON THE SUMMER 2004 THE INFORMATION RESOURCE AND ADVOCATE FOR LAKE MINNETONKA LAKESHORE OWNERS AND BUSINESSES. It Is Time for Action on Zebra Mussels Last month's series of articles in the Minneapolis Star Tribune entitled, "Invaded Waters," only scratched the surface on the issue of exotic species invasions. The series documented the inactions, delays and outright apathy of the Federal government in protecting the Great Lakes and other significant river systems in the United States. In Minnesota, it is much the same story - our lakes ab41 rivers are vulnerable. The Lake Minnetonka Association knows Lake Minnetonka is vulnerable to zebra mussels and other invaders. Lacking coordinated, aggressive state and federal protection regulations and programs, local efforts are required to protect Lake Minnetonka. Our recent efforts have focused on the real threats concerning zebra mussels. Zebra mussels are not now in Lake Minnetonka and we want to keep them out. However; we are also frustrated by slow, inadequate action to protect our lake. We have worked for three years to 'light a fire' under local and state agencies to actively protect our lake. The LMA has also taken positive actions by participat- ing in pilot inspection programs and zebra mussel sampling. In our Summer 2001 newsletter; we stated, "The LMA has made it a priority to work on keep- ing zebra mussels out of the lake." Even after three years of waving this flag~ almost nothing has been done to protect our lake! Here is the problem - the agencies charged with protecting Lake Minne- tonka must get serious with meaningful, comprehensive and timely act/on. THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Zebra mussels were discovered in Lake Ossawinnamakee last October. Now nine months later; the DNR is imple- menting a response that falls way short of what is needed to keep zebra mussels contained - they are neither performing treatments to control zebra mussels nor providing full time access inspections. The DN-R has evaluated various treat- ments that could help, but has conclud- ed they should not be tried unless it is certain such treatments would substan- tially rid the lake of zebra mussel. While the DNR has qualified technical experts who have conducted this evaluation and are correct in their technical conclusions, they have not properly evaluated the counterbalancing risks and, in effect, have made a policy decision to risk many other lakes in Minnesota. The LMA is frustrated and angry the MN DNR has decided not to implement aggressive control actions, and we are dumbfounded they are not providing comprehensive inspections for boats leaving the lake. At a minimum, tbe MN DNR should ' inspect all watercraft leaving Lake Ossawinnamakee and connected water- ways to assure zebra mussels do not spread to nearby lakes, eventually to Lake Minnetonka. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT We began working with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and others to provide access inspections, veliger sampling and education pro- grams several years ago. Recently, the LMCD has proposed a more compre- hensive and aggressive program for pre- venting zebra mussds and other exotic species from entering Lake Minnetonka and tributary lakes. The Lake Minnetonka Association is grateful the LMCD is taking this threat seriously and they bare proposed a comprehensive, aggressive program. However; much more is needed. This summer; the LMCD is devoting $27,500 for access inspections. This is a significant increase from the past two years. Howeveg a budget in the hun- dreds of thousands of dollars is required to provide comprehensive inspections. The LMCD's adopted budget for 2005 contains only a small increase for the zebra mussel program, from $5,000 to (continued on next page) s~,M,_2351 $10,000. The LMCD and LMA con- ducted the pilot inspection programs in 2002 and 2003. Now, we must actively ;..~and aggressively work to fully protect · ~ke Minnetonka. We appreciate the fact that the LMCD answers to its 14 mem- ber cities and therefore must bring them 'on board.' However; doing this takes too much time, We hope the member cities would instead demand prompt, aggressive action from the LMCD. The LMA has enjoyed a positive work- ing relationship with the LMCD. We were troubled to learn of the late-session legislation that undercut the LMCD's authority to protect Lake Minnetonka. The LMCD is the logical and appropri- ate local agency to coordinate the local response and implement protection pro- grams for our lake. Without the full sup- port of local government and our state legislators, their task is made nearly impossible. The LMCD should make protecting Lake Minnetonka from zebra mussels its top priority and the 14 member cities and state legislators should fully support the LMCD. '~AKE MINNETONKA . ASSOCIATION The Lake Minnetonka Association is committed to advocating for the protec- tion of Lake Minnetonka. We believe the magnitude of damage caused by a zebra mussel infestation is beyond rational debate. We know that meaningful, aggressive, timely and comprehensive action will be a huge challenge, and we know that every stakeholder must make some tough choices. The Lake Minnetonka Association, fully understanding the political ramifications, proposes these actions: "ON THE LAKE" is a quarterly publication of the Lake Minnetonka Association, EO. Box 248, Excelsior, MN 55331 ISSUE 2004:3 · JULY 2004 ff-*--H. OW TO CONTACT THE LMA .lhone Number: ............. (952) 470-4449 E-Mail: ........... Minnetonka@Mnlakes.org W~b Site: .. 2. · .www. mnlakes.org/Minnetonka The LMA is going to recommit to focusing on the needs, con- cerns and rights of lakeshore owners and lake-related business- es. The Board has adopted a 2004 action plan that calls for a Wayne Nelson re-tooling of our database as the first step to assuring we can connect with lakeshore owners and businesses. This will make us more responsive to your concerns and make us a better advocate and a stronger voice on your behalf. As lakeshore owners and businesses, you too have a role and responsibility in all of this. We ask two things: 1) If you have questions, concerns or desires - let us know. The LlVlg2s contact information appears elsewhere in this newsletter; and 2) Help us as we update our database by sending in your membership or other contribution so we can record your contact information (and add your support). There are several important issues we should all be aware of and concerned about. These are: · Preventing zebra mussels and other exotic species from entering our lake · Lake use and boat density · Development in tributaries and marginal areas · Keeping our lake clean The L/VIA Board has made these our top focus for the remainder of 2004 and has dedicated the majority of your resources to addressing them. We have also clarified our membership policy as part of our attention to serving you. We may discontinue sending this newsletter to nonmembers. For the past three years, we have made it a priority to keep the Lake Minnetonka Community informed through this newsletter. However, due to the large expense as well as our new focus on serving our membership, we are reconsidering this. Again, those of you receiving this newsletter, but have not supported the LMA, can make our job easier by joining today. We hope your summer on the lake is safe and pleasant. 1. Limit public access to a few sdected sites and dose all others. 2. Establish gates and hours of operation. 3. Require private and municipal accesses to provide inspections of every boat entering the lake. 4. Staff public access with qualified inspectors who inspect every boat entering the lake. 5. Pay for the inspections by charging a fee at the accesses. The LMA recognizes all people share the right to use and enjoy Lake Minnetonka. We will work to assure this right is respected, balanced with a shared responsibility to protect our lake. We believe anything short of these tough measures leaves beautiful Lake Minnetonka unprotected, and unneces- sarily vulnerable to present known threats and potential threats from other invasive, destructive or exotic plants and animals. THANK YOU, Dale & Marilyn Simmons J.R. Hartzell Cathie & John Foster J & M Reidhead CONTRIBUTORS Paul Sjolund Deborah Hutchinson & Greg Miller Ginny & Glenn Froberg David Rogers SINCE LAST LMA Yale Smiley gonica Kennard, DDS Rosemary Fruehling Mike Ronald NEWSLETTER! Dean Spatz Kenneth & Nancy Koehnen James & Cathrine Gray Sandra Sevey M/M Richard Spiegel Darryl Lapastrom Scott Hanson E.R. Shadier CAPTAINS ($500 +) Russ Swenson Patrick Lucking & Ellen Bragg Norma Hayer Rich & Debbie Siakel SUSTAINLNG ($150 - $499) William & Susan Trubeck Robert & Brenda MacDonald Robyn Helland Dale & Marilynn Simmons Stephen & Lois Bergerson Thomas Tompson Dan McGlynn Randy HerMes Kathy & John Stuis Jim Blakeway Paul & Belch WasM James Nystrom John Hey John & Arlenne Soranno Edward & Sherry Ann Dayton J. Kimball & Helen Whimey Dick & Marlys Ogle Jon Holt Dean Spatz Ron & Sandy Haberkorn Nan & Bob Woodburn Michael Reichert Marti & Art Honvitz D.C. Stanga Brenda & Terry Lindgren Judy & Mike Wright Carole & John Sayer Tom Hudson. George & Karen Stannard James McBride M/M Charles Zalk Bob & Sally Schneider Bruce Johnson Keith & Val Stuessi Wayne Nunn David & Judy Znschke Steve & Elaine Silus Kevin Kennefick David Sturgeon Jim & Bev Nyce Business ($250) Don Stodola Well Drilling Co. Inc. Gerald Kirsch Gary & Kay Thompson Patricia Olson Edina Realty-Wayzata Rick & Diane Stodola M/M Richard Knapp John Thomas Steve & Elaine Silus Maynard's Restaurant John & Jeanette 'fitsworth Don Knutsen Don Tremblay Rick & Diane Stodola OrganiCare Jay & Sharon Wein Tom & Bonnie Lane Edward or Shawn Tripet Jim & Sharon Walker Packaging Corporation of America Sheldon Weft Richard Lareau William & Susan Trubeck Sheldon Weft Bob & Mary Ritter, realtors Walt Wittmer Carol Larsen Allen Wade Rockvam Boat Yards UP TO $100 Roger & Bev Lindholm Brian Waller BASIC (UP TO $149) Candi Stabeck, realtor David Lundquist Tom & Barbara Warner Win & Barb Adams Wells Fargo Lake Minnetonka Half Dick & Kathi Adams Harold Lyman Peter Wattson Pete & Margie Ankany Marathon ($2,000) Mark Anderson Linda & Michael Maki Stephen Way James & DeDe Barnum Richard Atwood D~ & Mrs. Elmer Martinson J. Kimball & Helen Whimey Kent Battles THANK YOU, Kathryn Bakko Jim & Kathy Mason Elizabeth Wilson Jim & Peggy Beardsley CONTRIBUTORS TO H.M. Baskerville Jr. James McBride Nan & Bob Woodbum John & Sandra Carr THE FIREWORKS! Lynne, Bob & Betty Batzll Richard McConnell Zaal Stephen Cbesla $500+ John Beal Bun McGlynn Robert Zambreno Jim & Peggy Beardsley Tom & Toni McGlyrm Ron & Susan Zemke WayneDan ColbertClymer : Ron$100499 & Sandy Haberkntn MariaGreg &BrittleMitzi Bennis Keith Mllcock Bonnie &/klan Ziskin Delores DuToit .o Jim & Laura Miles David & Judy Zoschke M/M William Ellis Win & Barb Adams Gladys Burfield John Moe Donald & Jen Elmberg Bruce & Martha Atwater Collins & Barbara Cavender Dennis Nelson THANK YOU, Excel Marina Jim Blikeway Scott Colesudrtion Raymond & Dca Nelson CONTRIBUTORS TO THE ' Jean Gray Ed & Bobby Burns Harold & Phyllis Conrad Kent & Lois Norby EXOTIC SPECIES FUND! Stewart & Beth Hanson Dale Christensen & Mary Burns Tom & Mary Ann Dahlquist Ed Oliver $100-499 Diana Haskins Dave & Carol Cole John Davis Nancy Osgood David & Virginia Houck David & Virginia Houck Robert Cummins Fay Dunn John Packard Maynard's Restaurant Don Jacobson Kenneth & Betty Jayne Dahlberg Jim & Melissa Easley Doug & Marcia Jolstad Ned & Sherry Ann Dayton ' Jim & Jean Echtenkamp Robert Pollock Rick & Diane Stodola R. Poole Kevin Kennefick Daniel Durda Camie& Jack Eugster Frank Precapio UP TO $100 Steve & Deb Kind iv'dM William Ellis Robert Evens Dave Raisbeck Jim & Bev Nyce Tom & Bonnie Lane Gerald Fischer Jim & Kathy Mason Dennis Nelson George Owen Thomas Petters Bob & Carol Radunz Guido Rahr Jim Regan Helen Schmidt Bill & Jean Seamans JOIN OR RENEW YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY! We appreciate new or renewing members using this form-thanks! Please complete this form and mail it with your tax-deductible contribution to the Lake Minnetonka Association, RO. Box 248, Excelsior, MN 55331. Make your check payable to the "LMA." Thanks./ Name(s): E-mail: Address: I I City, State, Zip: Phone: 1. I want to support the LMA at the following membership level: [] Basic $50 - $149 [] Sustaining $150 - $499 [] Captain $500+ [] Business $250 2. I want to support the "LMA Exotic Species Fund" .$ 3. Other or Additional ............................................ $ The LMA is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. [mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 7G73 ....................... -~ -2353- su! Six Mile Creek, Halsted's Bay and Lake Minnetonka all threatened- again By Jim Blakeway, LMA Member, Halsted's Bay Consider this - if there were a few people who owned land adjacent to a large wetland with a creek flowing through this wetland and into Lake Minnetonka, is it reasonable for those individuals to be able to use a boat to access Lake Minnetonka through this wetland and creek? What if the very shallow creek, 2 feet or less in normal water level years, had a mud bottom that was loaded with a century of settled out phosphorous (thousands of pounds) that was easily re-suspended into the water which then floated into Lake Minnetonka? These questions are at the core of the issue surrounding devel- opment along Six Mile Creek - a tributary to Halsted's Bay. Simply, should developers and property owners along the tribu- taries leading into Lake Minnetonka be allowed to build boat- ing facilities and operate boats in these tributaries which will increase boating use in Lake Minnetonka, damage important wet- lands and diminish water quality? I think not. Recent high water levels have made navigation in Six Mile Creek seem plausible. However, the water levels ,/,--,-normally do l%t permit navigation, at ;ast not without great difficulty. ' Indeed, in most years, especially in the summertime, navigation is not possi- ble, at least not without much diffi- culty and the likelihood of doing much ecologic damage. We know that development pressure on and near Lake Minnetonka is intense. Indeed, the prospect of a water connection to Lake Minnetonka, along with the urban sprawl that is occurring region-wide, has made it economically attractive to subdivide and develop lands along Six Mile Creek and wetland, despite the challenges imposed by Mother Nature. In fact, the Upland Farms development, about I mile upstream from Halsted's Bay, has considered including a marina to pro- vide boating access to Lake Minnetonka. I expect more proper- ties will be developed along the Creek and also want access to Lake Minnetonka. After all, Lake Minnetonka access substan- tially raises the economic viability of these developments. ,a-~ This is a bad idea. . About four years ago, Upland Farms, a development along Six Mile Creek's vast wetland and located a mile upstream from Lake Minnetonka, proposed building a marina so the property owners could have boats and gain access to Halstead Bay and Lake Minnetonka. Six Mile Creek enters Lake Minnetonka at Halstead Bay. Halstead Bay is noted as the most polluted Bay of Lake Minnetonka. The pollution is caused from a century of farm fertilizer and the creek that has carried this fertilizer into Halstead Bay. In a very real sense, these western-most bays of Lake Minnetonka set the tone for water quality in the entire lake. In an attempt to prevent damage from boaters on SIX Mile Creek, several agencies and municipal governments tried to enact restrictions or controls. The City of Minnetrista, the MN DNR and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District all initially took a 'hands off' approach. The LMCD took on this issue and heard testimony from engineers, hydrologists, biologists, scien- tists, PhDs, etc. for three years. In the end, they voted to restrict usage in all the tributary areas of Lake Minnetonka to electric trolling motors only. This was a compromise between those who thought there should be no boats in the Creek and a few property owners along the Creek who thought they should be able to continue using the Creek without restrictions. This three-year process has been painstaking, slow and frustrating. As a practical matter, the LMCD omi- nance is not really enforceable, but I suppose it represented the best possi- ble balance among conflicting inter- ests, but it also exposed vulnerabilities in our system that is suppose to pro- tect our lake. Nonetheless, I had hoped this would prove to provide at least some lasting protection. I was mistaken and disappointed. Senator Gen and Representative Steve Smith cosponsored legislation that took away the LMCD's regulatory jurisdiction in these tributary areas. They cosponsored this legislation and attached it to another bill. Smith introduced this language on May 13, less than one week before it was passed! His amendment was not even included in the "Bill Summary," so it doesn't appear that most legislators even knew the implications of this provision. In addition, none of the affected parties - LMCD, MCWD, City of Minnetrista, lakeshore owners and users, or Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) - had any opportunity to comment on the legislation nor were any even made aware of it. The LMCD's three years of work has been cast aside. Sen. Olson and Rep. Smith have stated that there wasn't time to (SIX MILE CREEK continued on page 5) -'""- 2354- - Threat to Six Mile Creek, Halsted's Bay and Lake 'Minnetonka (continued from page 4) 'consult. I have learned this was in the works for at least several weeks prior to introduction. I also wonder, what was the rush? Sen. Olson responds by stating that one of the individuals selling his property for $2.5 million would have his property value affect- ed by being restricted to electric motors when in the creek. Olson/Smith also emphasize that the LMCD is made up of non- elected individuals who essentially create law. This is true but the LMCD's enabling law allows for this authority, plus the city coun- cils and mayors have control over their LMCD appointment. As of now, there are no restrictions on Six Mile Creek or any tributaries to Lake Minnetonka. As of June 14th, boats were entering and exiting Six Mile Creek at speed, legally stirring up the phosphorous-laden mud, which is washed into Lake Minnetonka. The citizens who live on Halsted's Bay and other affected bays would like to have dean water and many are willing to pay their fair share to help. They are not interested in paying mil- lions in extra cleanup money so that a few can increase their property values and operate boats in an area where there shouldn't be power boats, gas or electric. My greatest disappointment and frustration is that those we have entrusted to protect our lake have failed us, either through inaction or their authority has been undercut. Also, a story like this fuels the growing cynicism of our elected representatives. Indeed, I wonder how we can be represented when there is no dialog. Now is the time to decide whether we are willing to accept boating in sensitive wetland, phosphorous-laden and shallow areas. Further; who is qualified to decide? If it's the science that decides, the answer is no to boating in the tributaries. If it's the property owners and users of Lake Minnetonka, the answer is no. If it's the politics????? Lake Minnetonka Association Cleans Up! Mike Mason, LMA Board Vice President On Saturday June 19th, the Lake Minnetofik~a Association (LMA) com- pleted the third gnnual Lake . Minnetonka Underwater Clean-up. This event was started by the LMA three years ago as a fun way to draw some attention to keeping trash out of our lake. The event has grown from 30 SCUBA divers in the first year, to over 70 divers and 1 Kayak this year. Once again, voluminous trash as well as treasure was brought up from the depths of Lake Minnetonka. Some of the items brought up by the divers included: A firer extinguisher, chairs, parts of boats, anchors, bottles, cans, a large chain that possibly came off from an old steam-boat, a mast and sail, several cell phones, glasses, and a bong (if you don't know, don't ask). It was interesting that a fireman found the fire extinguisher and a police officer found the bong A number of sponsors helped to make this year's event bigger and better then ever. Maynard's Restaurant was the host site and provided lunch for all divers and volunteers. Crystal Pierz Marine provided 4 pontoon boats for divers as well as boats from the Lake Minnetonka Power Squadron. Several area Dive shops and other business provided door prizes for the divers. A list of all sponsors appears at the end of this article. The LMA offers a big "Thank You" to all Sponsors! Plans for next years Lake Clean-up are already underway and will include a shoreline clean-up as well as the SCUBA event! · Air Down There Diving · Ameripride Services · Caribou Coffee · Crystal Pierz Marine, Inc. · Maynard's Restaurant · Minnetonka Power Squadron · SCUBA Daddy's · See Ya! Dive Shop · Underwater Schools of America · University of Lake Minnetonka Thanks to the Wells Fargo Lake Minnetonka Half Marathon The Wells Fargo Half Marathon contributed $2,000 to the LMA from the proceeds of their Half Marathon. This year, there were 977 participants in the marathon. The winning time was 1:16:46. Thanks again this year! ON THE LAKE ACCEPTS ADVERTISING The LMA newsletter, On the Lake, accepts advertising. For advertising rates and policies, contact the LMA at (952) 4704449. su,_ 2355-'~ 5 Winter Storage Indoor Storage includes 10 services/ Fall haul-out Winterizing the engine Trailer storage* *Trailer not required Heated battery storage Changing the grease in standard lower unit (I/0 and outboard) Comprehensive service review Spring launch Battery charge Engine start and lake test Spring clean up AND Gas discounts (2oo4 & 2oos)! S~~l Sign up by August 14, 2004 and receive $100.00 olT of our 2004-2005 list price for winter storage! Pontoon Rentals Too many friends for your own boat ? Rent a pontoon/ Mid-Week Pontoon Special includes the regular 24' pontoon boat, 25 HP motor, 6 gallons of gas, life jackets, anchor and map. Call for details! $99 Valid Monday--Friday, excludes holidays and holiday weekends. 952-471-95t5 www. rockvamboatyards.c:om NIN '~O!slooX3 BOI 'ON l!tU~d (]lYd ~l~SOd 'S'fl 980 J.14OBdNON zzgl,-t~SS NIN punot,N JO)~J~J~.~l. Ul. UJp~ ~..O punolAl luep!seB ~,ue~no JO e~nqs P3 t,68gl, ol jaquJe~ I"ll'II"TTt'" IlT'"il'II'"I"I'"II"II'"I'I' TI'I -2356- Lg~c~s NI41 bO!SleOX3 89ig xo8 'O'd NOI.LYIOOSS¥ Y)INOI3NNIIN City of Mound Expenses - Senior Center One Year City Budget: Cash $3,750 Public Works: Parks: Snow Removal Others Mowing Labor Equipment Labor Equipment Material Labor Equipment $370 $6oo $8O $t50 $40 $96O $2,400 Total: $8,350 Gino 07/15/2004 -2357- CenterPoinL Enorov Minnegasco 800 LaSalle Avenue PO Box 59038 Minneapolis, MN 55459-0038 July 14, 2004 Ms. Bonnie Ritter City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd Mound, MN 55364-1627 Dear Ms. Ritter: I am writing to inform you that CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco filed a rate case today with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC). A rate case is the regulatory process that public utilities must follow to formally change rates and services for their customers. The rate case we filed - our first since 1995 -- will affect the rates paid by all of our more than 745,000 customers. The process for changing our rates will take about one year, with interim (temporary) rates implemented on October 1, 2004 and final rates implemented in the summer of 2005. For your information, I enclosed our Rate Case Fact Sheet that further explains the rate case process, the factors behind it, and its impact on our customers. Please contact me if you have any questions or would like additional information about the rate case. You may also visit our Web site at minneagasco. CenterPointEnergy.com. Sincerely, Arne Hendrickson Local Government Relations 612-321-5375 Fax: 612-321-5137 Enclosure -2358- Rate case fact sheet CenterPoint. Energy Minnegasco Quick facts · Revenue increase request: $21.77 million annually, or 1.8 percent · Average residential customer increase request: $38/year, or 4.1 percent annually · Interim rates for all customer types effective October 2004 CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco's rate case will help recover increased costs, including pipeline relocation and reconstruction for street and highway projects. On July 14, 2004, CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco filed a request with the Minnesota Pubhc Utilities Commission (IV_PUC) for new natural gas distribution rates. This is the company's first rate case since 1995. The filing will increase the company's annual revenues by $21.77 million or 1.8 percent. The average residential customer will receive a 4.1 percent increase, or $38 per year. Interim (temporary) rates begin October 1, 2004. Public hearings on the filing begin in the fall. A final decision from the MPUC is expected in May 2005, with final rates taking effect during the summer of 2005. Rate case basics A rate case is the regulatory process that public utilities (natural gas, electric and telephone) must follow to formally change base rates for their customers. Rates are regulated by the MPUC, and proposed changes to base rates must first go through a 10-month review process before receiving a final decision by regulators. Rate case schedule July 14, 2004 Rate case filed with MPUC October 1, 2004 Interim rates begin Late fall 2004 Public hearings January 2005 Rate case hearings before MPUC May 2005 MPUC final decision expected Summer 2005 Final rates implemented -2359- , ,J,, J, ,,il J, ,1, . II, Interim rates are an approved percentage increase on all customer bills that are effective about two months after a rate filing. These temporary rates are collected without changes to rate design. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco is allowed to charge interim rates to recover the company's higher cost of providing utihty distribution service, while regulators use subsequent months to determine final rates. Interim rates will take effect on October 1, 2004, and stay in effect until the MPUC issues a final decision and final rates are implemented. If the final rates are less than interim rates, customers will be refunded the difference with interest. If final rates are higher than interim rates, customers will not be required to make up the differencel Public hearings providing opportunities for customers and others to provide input about the rate case will be scheduled for late fall. We will notify customers about the timing and location of the hearings through a news release, bill insert and on our Web site. An administrative law judge will oversee the hearings, and other parties (interveners) such as the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Commerce, will comment on our request. Why rate case is needed The rate case filing is necessary for CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco to recover the increased costs of providing utiliW distribution service, and to improve the stability of our customers' bills. Our current rates do not allow us to recover the increased costs for two reasons: our costs have increased and average customer demand, or sales, has decreased. These increased costs include pipeline relocation and reconstruction for street and tfighway projects, carrying costs and customer debts related to higher natural gas costs, and other operating costs. Decreased average customer demand results from conservation improvements, energy efficiency, and improved building construction. Redesign of a utility's rate structure is traditional]y considered in a rate case. Our last rate case was filed in 1995. Since then, wholesale gas costs have become increasingly variable, causing customer bills to fluctuate more than in previous years. This filing proposes a new rate structure to improve the stability of customers' bills, and better match rates with the costs of serving each type of customer. Your energy dollar DistribUtion Understanding rate design The largest portion of a customer's bill, .about 80 percent, is for the wholesale cost of natural gas. CenterPoint Energy Mirmegasco passes this cost directly to customers with no mark-up. The remaining 20 percent of the bill is the company's cost of distributing natural gas to customers. Natural gas distribution costs are recovered two ways: Basic Charge: Partially covers the cost of those services we provide every month, regardless of how much gas a customer uses. These fixed costs include maintenance of gas service lines and regulators; gas meters; meter reading; billing; maintaining facilities; vehicles; and equipment. Delivet~ Charge: Recovers the cost of delivering natural gas not recovered through the Basic Charge. These costs include taxes, salaries, depreciation, interest, and other operating expenses. The Delivery Charge is a per therm charge and the total amount changes with customers' use. Under the current rate structure, residential customers are charged a $5 monthly Basic Charge and a Delivery Charge of $. 12857 per therm. Under the proposed rate structure, residential customers will be charged a monthly Basic Charge of $16 and a Delivery Charge of $.03833 per therm. This structure will provide some measure of stability for most customers because their winter bills will decrease and summer bills will increase, with less seasonal fluctuation. Our fate request is to recover the higher costs of providing reliable and safe natural gas distribution service. The company has not requested an increase in its distribution rates for nine years; meanwhile, our costs have increased. Changes in wholesale natural gas costs (increases and decreases) are recovered through monthly changes in rates on customers' bills, and are passed through without mark- up. Customers pay only the wholesale cost of natural gas incurred by the company to acquire the gas, plus the distribution cost to serve customers. -2360- How the rate case affects customer bills The rate filing will seek to increase the compsz~y's revenues by $21.77 million annually, or 1.8 percent of revenue -- adding about $38 to an average residential customer's armual bill, an increase of 4.1 percent. Annual Bill Average residential customer (1039 therms) $964.00 $926.00 $60,00 $192.00 [~i Basic charges · Delivery charges · Cost of gas ,, 2003-2004 Proposed [leafing Season How these new rates affect individual monthly bills will vary based upon the amount of natural gas used by each customer and changes in the monthly cost of gas. We proposed to increase the residential customer monthly Basic Charge and decrease the Delivery Charge for two reasons: First, a higher Basic Charge will improve the stability of a customer's bill because less of the bill will be affected by weather-related natural gas use. Second, the majority of our dehvery costs are fixed costs and do not vary according to. the amount of natural gas delivered. The increase in the monthly Basic Charge enables us to recover our fixed delivery costs on a more consistent and predictable basis. Historically, only a small amount of the fixed delivery costs were collected through the monthly Basic Charge. The net effect of a higher Basic Charge and a lower Delivery Charge is a 4.1 percent annual increase for an average residential customer. If you are a No Surprise Bill® (NSB) customer, your bill amount win not change during the 2003-2004 program year, which ends with the November 2004 bill. Quotes for the 2004-2005 program year will include interim rates. If final rates are lower than interim rates, customers who enroll and remain on the program for 12 months will receive a refund with interest at the end of the program year. If you are enrolled in the Budget Plan, your quotes were calculated prior to the rate case filing and include estimated interim rates. The annual mid-year review in February 2005 will allow customer Budget Plan amounts to be adjusted up or down based on approved interim rates, actual weather conditions and changes in wholesale gas costs. CustOmerType (usag~ in therm'~s) Residential Commercial/industrial up to 1,500/yr (Firm A) 1,500 to 5,000/yr (Firm B) 5,000 or more/yr (Firm C) Small Volume Dual Fuel up to 120,000/yr (A) 120,000 or more/yr (B) Large Volume DUal Fuel Average monthly usage 87 66 239 1,150 4083 15,458 109,275 Average monthly bill $77 $63 $210 $971 $2,682 $9,950 $65,844 Note: Northern rate area. Figures are rounded to the nearest whole number. :-Average monthly 'bi'Il $§0 $65, $2~ $956 $2,623 $9,742 $65,120 Average monthly bill + $3 + $2 + $4 -$15 -$59 -$208 -$724 For more information 612-372-4727 1-800-245-2377 minnegasco. CenterPointEnerg¥.com Natural gas remains your best energy value Natural gas is an excellent, energy value -- a clean, efficient and affordable fuel for home heating, water heat&rig, and providing fuel to industry. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, natural gas will cost less to use in 2004 than any other home energy source -- about two-thirds less than using electricity and also less than propane, heating oil and kerosene. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco's rates historically are among the lowest in the nation. CenterPoint Energy helps provide best energy value At CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco, we have the expertise and the experience to buy natural gas at the lowest reasonable prices in order to provide you with the best energy value: · Because of the volume of gas we buy, we can negotiate lower-priced supply contracts with multiple suppliers. · We work with about 20 of ~e largest suppliers in the U.S. and Canada. · We are exploring additional pipeline opportunities to open up new supply options. · Our supply portfoho includes contracts with varying terms and conditions whenever possible. We also buy as much summer gas at fixed prices as we can be certain to sell during the heating season. How to learn more Public hearings will be scheduled and overseen by an administrative law judge. Customers and others are given the opportunity to comment on our rate request at the public hearings. Other regulatory agencies that generally comment include the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Commerce. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco representatives will attend each hearing to present the details of the request. Public notice of the hearing dates and locations will be pubhshed in local newspapers in the company's service area and listed on our Web site at mirmegasco. CenterPointEnergy. com. Interested persons may visit the Department of Commerce to examine the filing. They are located at 85 Seventh Place East, Suite 500, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, or contact by telephone at 651-296-4026 or TDD/TTY: 651-296-2860. CenterPoinL Energy Minnegasco Metropolitan Council July 7, 2004 Ms. Kandis Hanson CitY .Manager City Of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd Mound, MN 55364-1687 Dear Ms. Hanson: The Metropolitan Council's preliminary April 1, 2003 estimates of population and numbers of households are shown below for your community. Population 9,630 2003 Estimate Households4,071 Persons Per 2.37 Household The estimates are based on demographic information from the 2000 U.S. Census. Annual updates are calculated using residential Construction data and other local information sources. The Council's estimation process relies on the valuable information provided to us by local government staff members. Thank you very much for your assistance this year. The population and. household estimates supply data for many purposes including planning, budgetary, analysisi: and as factors in funding determination for grant programs. The finalized estimates are :used in the Minnesota Department. of Revenue's formulas for calculating local government aid (LGA).distributions. Aisc, estimated population plays an important role in local street aid allocations determined by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN/DOT) for communities with. at least 5,000 residents. The Council's development monitoring activities are supported by 'analysis of population and household trends and of the accompanying information used in the estimation process. No replY to this letter is necessary.. If, however, you have comments regarding the estimates please direct them to my attention, by July 20, 2004. Written comments can be sent to my e-mail address, katby.iohnson~,metc.state.mn.us, or to the street address listed below. My telephone number is (65!) 602-.I 332. Sincerely, Kathy Johnson Planning Analyst Metropolitan Council Me,rs ..Park Centre . 230 EastFifth Street St. Paul, Mi-nnesota 551-01 www.metrocouncll.org Metro Info Line 602-1888 230 East Fifth Street * St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 * (651)602-1000 * Fax 602-1550 · TTY291-0904 - .~,, Equ,_ 2363 .-.2364 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0