Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2010-08-24
PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community. 0 AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2010 - 7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. In that event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. Page 1. Open meeting 2. Pledge of Allegiance Approve agenda, with any amendments 4. *Consent A eg nda *A. Approve minutes: August 11, 2010 regular meeting 1620 -1622 *B. Approve payment of claims 1623 -1639 *C. Approve amendment to street lighting contract with WSB & 1640 -1642 Associates *D. 2009 Street. Utilitv and Retaining Wall Improvement Proiect (1) Approve Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed, and 1643 Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment on 2009 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement Project (2) Approve Resolution for Hearing on Proposed Assessment for 1644 2009 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement Project *E. 2009 Island View Drive /Dorchester Road Street Improvement, Utilities and Retaining Wall Improvement Project (1) Approve Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed, and 1645 Ordering preparation of Proposed Assessment on 2009 Island View Drive/Dorchester Road Street Improvement, Utilities and Retaining Wall Improvement Project (2) Approve Resolution for Hearing on Proposed Assessment for 1646 2009 Island View Drive/Dorchester Road Street Improvement, Utilities and Retaining Wall Improvement Project *F. Approve Resolution to Approve a Public Lands Permit for 1647 -1652 1601 Paradise Lane PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. • *G. Approve Resolution to Approve a Public Lands Permit for 1653 -1663 2146 Cardinal Lane *H. Approve Resolution Approving the Declaration of Restrictions and 1664 -1678 Covenants for the Site - Specific Wetland Replacement 5. Comments and suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the agenda. (Limit to 3 minutes per speaker.) 6. Pete Willenbring, engineer from WSB, presenting an overview of the MCWD 1679 -1683 wetland and shoreline and streambank stabilization rules amendments approval on July 13, discussing any next steps and related actions 7. Dan Faulkner, Bolton & Menk, with recommendation to Approve Resolution 1684 -1685 Receiving Feasibility Report and Calling for Hearing on the 2011 Street, Utility plus report and Retaining Wall Improvement Project 8. Action on Resolution Approving a Levy not to Exceed $244,407 for the Purpose 1686 of Defraying the Cost of Operation, Pursuant to the Provisions of MSA 469, of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of and for the City of Mound for the Year 2011 40. Action on Resolution Approving the 2011 Preliminary General Fund Budget in 1687 -1689 the Amount of $5,221,540; Setting the Preliminary Levy at $5,407,473; and Approving the Preliminary Overall Budget for 2011 10. John Dean, City Attorney, in joint meeting of the City Council and Planning 1690 -1759 Commission, presenting the Krummenacher vs Minnetonka Supreme Court decision, and its impact to cities as it relates to variances 11. Information/Miscellaneous A. Comments /reports from Councilmembers /City Manager B. Reports: Finance — July 2010 1760 -1762 C. Minutes: None D. Correspondence: None 12. Adjourn Ohis is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. More current meeting agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: www. cito fmound. com. COUNCIL BRIEFING Aug 24, 2010 IOUncomin� Events Schedule: Don't Forget!! May 15 — Oct 30 (Saturday's) 8 -12 :00 — Farmers' Market & More at Mound Transit Center Aug 24 — 6:55 — HRA regular meeting Aug 24 — 7:00 — CC regular meeting (Adopt 2011 Preliminary Budget) Sept 14 — 6:30 — HRA regular meeting Sept 14 — 7:00 — CC regular meeting Oct 9 — 8:00 -12:00 — Recycling Day at Minnetrista Oct 20 —1:30 -4:30 — Flu Shot Clinic at Mound City Hall Oct 31 — Seasonal Hours end Nov 2 — Election Day Nov 7 — Daylight Saving Time ends Nov 18 — 6:00 — Tree Lighting Ceremony Dec 14 — 6:30 — HRA regular meeting Dec 14 — 7:00 — CC regular meeting (Approve Final Budget) Feb 19 — 6:00 -9:00 — Moonlight Trail Night City Hall Closings Sept 6 Labor Day Nov 11 Veteran's Day City Official's Absences d&ug 26 -30 Kandis Hanson Vacation ept 16 -Oct 3 Kandis Hanson Vacation Oct 16 -21 Kandis Hanson City Manager's Conf Dec 18 -Jan2 Kandis Hanson Vacation Notify me please........ Now that we are a panel of four, it is more important than ever that you notify me in advance of an absence. We need to be counting the voters for any votes that require more than a simple majority. Nearing the year end is a `cleanup' time of year for us and we do not know what we will be confronted with. Please keep me informed. Thank you. • MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES • AUGUST 11, 2010 The City Council for the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Wednesday, August 11, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Mayor Mark Hanus; Councilmembers David Osmek, Ray Salazar, and Heidi Gesch Members absent: None Others present: City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Bonnie Ritter, Public Works Superintendent Jim Fackler, Frank Ahrens, Mike McCue, Michelle Cheney, Jason Baker, Vince Forystek, Amanda Schwarze, Consent agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine in nature by the Council. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event if will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. Open meeting Mayor Hanus called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approve agenda MOTION by Salazar, seconded by Gesch to approve the agenda. All voted in favor. Motion • carried. 4. Consent agenda MOTION by Salazar, seconded by Gesch to approve the consent agenda as amended. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion carried. A. Approve minutes of July 27, 2010 regular meeting B. Approve payment of claims in the amount of $715,304.24 C. Approve Pay Request No. 2 from Egan company in the amount of $102,732.10 for the City Street Lighting Project No. PW -09 -07 D. RESOLUTION N0. 10 -52: RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT FOR THE 2011 STREET IMPROVEMENT, UTILITIES AND RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS E1. RESOLUTION NO. 10 -53: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE RELEASE OF TAX FORFEITED PROPERTY, PID NO. 29-117-23-24-0070 E2. RESOLUTION NO. 10 -54: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE RELEASE OF TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY, PID NO. 23- 117 -24-42 -0086 F. RESOLUTION NO. 10 -55: RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT — CALENDAR YEARS 2011 THROUGH 2020 5. Comments and suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the agenda. Vince Forystek, 3131 Inverness, asked about spraying of weeds on the sidewalks in various places in the city. He stated that the areas should be mowed, following by spraying. Kandis • Hanson informed him that the money to support this service was cut from the 2010 budget. -1620- Mound City Council - August 11, 2010 is Forystek stated that he can tell the city how to do things better, and they should be cutting from the top, not the bottom. Hanus asked him to jot his suggestions down and submit them. 6. Action on Public Lands Permit Application submitted by Mike McCue, 4687 Island View Drive Fackler described the permit is to trim the top of a group of three trees in order to increase the applicants view. The application states that trimming will not be low enough to disturb the neighbor's privacy and nothing will be trimmed below the highest point of the neighbor's gazebo. Frank Ahrens 4673 Island View Drive, asked for clarification on what McCue's plans are. McCue stated that these trees are right on the property line and his concern is to preserve privacy for both parties while trimming and shaping the trees to improve his view. Ahrens then provided some pictures and opposed the trimming with the claim that the trimming would take away valuable shade from his yard. Hanus stated that it seems that the pictures submitted by Ahrens were taken from an advantageous angle to Ahrens. Ahrens stated that he has shade that he values and McCue has sun and a view and asked the council to keep it that way. Osmek stated that he thinks McCue's request is reasonable. He knows the property and stated that he thinks Ahrens' impact is minimal. Osmek recommended an addition to the proposed resolution that states that the tree trimming activity shall produce a rounded shape resembling natural tree growth. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution, as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. • RESOLUTION NO. 10 -66: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR 4687 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 7. Discussion /action on Three Rivers Park District 2010 -2011 Winter Trail Activities Permit Fackler stated that this annual permit is the same that the Council decided not to obtain last year. Osmek noted that one of the clauses is that the City agrees to repair all trail surface damage that occurs as a result of winter trail activities and feels that the trail should be left as is during the winter. No action required if permit not pursued. 8. Discussion and feedback regarding July 21, 2010 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District meeting agenda Sarah Smith stated that on July 21" the LMCD held an informal meeting for city officials of LMCD member cities to discuss roles and responsibilities of the LMCD. Several questions resulted and the LMCD is requesting feedback and comments. The Council gave staff direction to compile correspondence to the LMCD from the City rather than each Councilmember submitting their own. 9. Action setting joint Council /Planning Commission meeting MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Salazar to set a joint Council /Planning Commission meeting for August 17, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. for discussion on recent Supreme Court decision. All voted in • favor. Motion carried. -1621- • Mound City Council Minutes — August 11, 2010 10. Information /Miscellaneous A. Comments /reports from Councilmembers /City Manager B. Reports: Engineering Project Satus — Bolton & Menk Harbor Wine & Spirits — July 2010 Fire Commission Meeting Agenda — July 29, 2010 C. Minutes: Planning Commission — August 3, 2010 D. Correspondence: Mediacom letter Minnehaha Creek Watershed District letter regarding approval of MCWD Rule D (Wetland) and Rule F (Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization) Lake Minnetonka Association letter Zachary Hway, CSO, letter of resignation MCDW Minor Plan Amendments 11. Adjourn MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Salazar to adjourn at 8:18 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. • Mayor Mark Hanus Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk • 3 -1622- AUGUST 24, 2010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 081110SUE $172,121.25 AUG I 081710SUE $3,416.10 AUG I 082410SUE $177,958.75 AUG I TOTAL $353,496.10 -1623- 0 n u 0 0 �► CITY OF MOUND CITY OF MOUND *Check Detail Register© August 2010 08/19/10 8:46 AM Page 1 10100 Wells Fargo $3,416.10 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo •101 GENERAL FUND $3,107.01 601 WATER FUND $154.55 602 SEWER FUND $154.54 C� $3,416.10 -1624- Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 Wells Fargo Paid Chk# 035673 8/17/2010 GRADY, DANIEL E 101 -43100 -321 Telephone & Cells $16.09 081710 CELL PHONE HOSLTER E 101 -43100 -321 Telephone & Cells $34.58 081710 CELL PHONE CHARGER Total GRADY, DANIEL $50.67 Paid Chk# 035674 8/17/2010 MOUND POST OFFICE E 602 -49450 -322 Postage $154.54 081710 08 -10 UTILITY BILLINGS E 601 -49400 -322 Postage $154.55 081710 08 -10 UTILITY BILLINGS Total MOUND POST OFFICE $309.09 Paid Chk# 035675 8/17/2010 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA (POLICE) E10142110-212 Motor Fuels $3,056.34 081710 THRU 07 -26 -10 GASOLINE CHARGES )tal SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA (POLICE) $3,056.34 10100 Wells Fargo $3,416.10 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo •101 GENERAL FUND $3,107.01 601 WATER FUND $154.55 602 SEWER FUND $154.54 C� $3,416.10 -1624- CITY OF MOUND 08/19/10 8:46 AM I, *Check Detail Register© Page• CITY OF MOUND August 2010 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo Check Amt Invoice Comment 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 10100 Wells Fargo 601 WATER FUND $281.95 602 SEWER FUND $35.85 Paid Chk# 035665 8/11/2010 BYERS, IRENE R 601 -49400 -36200 Miscellaneous Revenues $54.71 081110 1601 FINCH LANE W/S REFUND Total BYERS, IRENE $54.71 Paid Chk# 035666 8/11/2010 EGAN COMPANIES E 401 -43160 -500 Capital Outlay FA $102,732.10 081110 REQUEST #2 STREET LIGHT PROJECT E 401 -43160 -500 Capital Outlay FA $68,868.53 081110 REQUEST #1 STREET LIGHT PROJECT Total EGAN COMPANIES $171,600.63 Paid Chk# 035667 8/11/2010 EN POINTE TECHNOLOGIES SALES E 101 -41410 -210 Operating Supplies $136.82 92097393 SCANNING WAND Total EN POINTE TECHNOLOGIES SALES $136.82 Paid Chk# 035668 8/11/2010 LAKES AREA REALITY R 601 -49400 -36200 Miscellaneous Revenues $36.43 081110 5881 BEACHWOOD ROAD W/S REFUND Total LAKES AREA REALITY $36.43 Paid Chk# 035669 8/11/2010 PORTA DEL SOL E 101 - 41310 -431 Meeting Expense $16.00 081110 08 -12 -10 CELEBRATE GREAT MOUND LUNCH • Total PORTA DEL SOL $16.00 Paid Chk# 035670 8/11/2010 RAHN, JODI L. E 101 -41310 -305 Medical Services $50.00 081110 07 -31 -10 EYE GLASS REIMBURSEMENT Total RAHN, JODI L. $50.00 Paid Chk# 035671 8/11/2010 UTTERBERG, CAROL R 601 -49400 -36200 Miscellaneous Revenues $190.81 081110 2040 SHOREWOOD LANE W/S REFUND Total UTTERBERG, CAROL $190.81 Paid Chk# 035672 8111/2010 WELCH, BRIAN E 602 - 49450 -434 Conference & Training $35.85 081110 07 -27 -10 MWOA CONFERENCE Total WELCH, BRIAN $35.85 10100 Wells Fargo $172,121.25 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 101 GENERAL FUND $202.82 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS $171,600.63 601 WATER FUND $281.95 602 SEWER FUND $35.85 $172,121.25 -1625- CITY OF MOUND 08/19/10 8:43 AM Page 1 • Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: August 2010 Batch Name 082410SUE User Dollar Amt $177,958.75 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $177,958.75 $0.00 In Balance Refer 82410 ABM EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY, IN Cash Payment E 101 - 43100 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #504 PUMP $474.48 Invoice 0125965 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/17/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $474.48 Refer 82410 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 Cash Payment E 101 -41910 -384 Refuse /Garbage Dispose 08 -10 GARBAGE SERVICE $88.26 Invoice 2231147 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -384 Refuse /Garbage Disposa 08 -10 GARBAGE SERVICE $282.28 Invoice 2232073 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 - 43100 -384 Refuse /Garbage Disposa 08 -10 GARBAGE SERVICE $28.18 Invoice 2233860 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -384 Refuse/Garbage Disposa 08 -10 GARBAGE SERVICE $28.18 Invoice 2233860 -B 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -384 Refuse /Garbage Dispose 08 -10 GARBAGE SERVICE $28.19 Invoice 2233860 -C 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -42110 -384 Refuse /Garbage Disposa 08 -10 GARBAGE SERVICE $85.03 2233857 -A 8/24/2010 •Invoice Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -384 Refuse /Garbage Disposa 08 -10 GARBAGE SERVICE $85.03 Invoice 2233857 -B 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 670- 49500 -460 Janitorial Services 07 -10 CURBSIDE RECYCLING $14,280.21 Invoice 2230490 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/9/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $14,905.36 Refer 82410 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTIN _ Cash Payment E 401 -43160 -300 Professional Srvs CONCRETE TESTING $3,154.80 Invoice 48385 8124/2010 Project PWO907 Transaction Date 8/9/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,154.80 Refer 82410 AMERICAN WATERWORKS ASSO Cash Payment E 601- 49400 -434 Conference & Training 09 -22 -10 CONFERENCE, HANSON, R. $225.00 Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 PO 21846 Cash Payment E 601 - 49400 -434 Conference & Training 09 -22 -10 CONFERENCE, KIVISTO $225.00 Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 PO 21846 Cash Payment E 601 - 49400 -434 Conference & Training 09 -22 -10 CONFERENCE, BERENT $225.00 Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 PO 21846 Transaction Date 8/17/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 82410 APACHE GROUP Cash Payment E 101 - 42110 -460 Janitorial Services PAPER PRODUCTS Invoice 141128 -A 8/24/2010 PO 22908 Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -210 Operating Supplies PAPER PRODUCTS Invoice 141128 -B 8/24/2010 PO 22908 Transaction Date 8/12/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 •Refer 82410 ARCTIC GLACIER PREMIUM ICE Cash Payment E 609 - 49750 -255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice 462021908 -A 8/24/2010 -1626- $675.00 $176.34 $176.35 Total $352.69 $192.00 CITY OF MOUND 08/19/108:43 AM Page 2 I, Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: August 2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight 08 -07 -10 DELIVERY CHARGE $1.00 Invoice 462021908 -B 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $171.96 Invoice 462021508 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 60949750 -265 Freight 08 -03 -10 DELIVERY CHARGE $1.00 Invoice 462021508 -B 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/9/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $365.96 Refer 82410 ASSURED SECURITY Cash Payment E 101 -41910 -220 Repair /Maint Supply DUPLICATE KEYS $57.98 Invoice 59117 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $57.98 Refer 82410 BELLBOY CORPORATION _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $58.75 Invoice 54321200 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight 08 -06 -10 DELIVERY CHARGE $2.55 Invoice 54321200 -B 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,178.60 Invoice 54371400 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight 08 -11 -10 DELIVERY CHARGE $16.40 Invoice 54371400 -B 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $39.95 • Invoice 84033800 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -210 Operating Supplies BAGS $55.75 Invoice 84014500 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $140.74 Invoice 84014500 -B 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -255 Misc Merchandise For R MERCHANDISE $39.45 Invoice 84014500 -C 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/12/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,532.19 Refer 82410 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -210 Operating Supplies COFFEE Invoice 881639 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 - 41110 -431 Meeting Expense COFFEE Invoice 884842 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/12/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 82410 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPP _ Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -220 Repair/Maint Supply LIGHT BULBS Invoice 901208890 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/17/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 82410 CARQUEST OF NAVARRE (P/K9 _ Cash Payment E601-49400-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #806 COM AND TRACTOR BATTERY Invoice 6974 - 132562 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 - 43100 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 140855 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 601 - 49400 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 140855 -B 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 602 - 49450 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MISCELLAENOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 140855 -C 8/24/2010 -1627- $42.95 $80.95 $123.90 $254.64 $254.64 $166.35 - $12.29 - $12.29 • - $12.28 CITY OF MOUND Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: August 2010 Cash Payment E 101 - 43100 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice FC2521481 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 601 - 49400 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice FC2521481 -B 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 602 - 49450 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice FC2521481 -C 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 - 43100 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 143014 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 601 - 49400 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 143014 -B 8/2412010 Cash Payment E 602 - 49450 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 143014 -C 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 - 42110 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #843 SQUAD SUPPLIES Invoice 6974 - 126260 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 - 42110 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #843 SQUAD SUPPLIES Invoice 6974 - 126301 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 - 42110 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #843 SQUAD SUPPLIES Invoice 6974 - 126442 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 - 43100 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs GENERATOR Invoice 6974 - 126793 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 601 - 49400 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs GENERATOR •Invoice 6974 - 126793 -B 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 602 - 49450 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs GENERATOR Invoice 6974 - 126793 -C 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 - 42110 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #843 HD CONNECTOR Invoice 6974 - 132223 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 601 - 49400 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #508 A/C UNIVERSAL DYE Invoice 6974 - 132223 -B 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 601 - 49400 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #806 AUTO CHARGER Invoice 6974 - 132363 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 601- 49400 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #806 FUEL FILTER Invoice 6974 - 132753 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 - 43100 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #195 RETURN AUTO BATTERY Invoice 6974 - 132995 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 - 42400 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #806 RETURN AUTO BATTERY Invoice 6974 - 132995 -B 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 - 43100 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #195 AUTO BATTERY Invoice 6974 - 132786 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 - 42400 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #806 RETURN CM AND TRACTOR BATTERY Invoice 6974 - 132786 -B 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 82410 CENTRAL MCGOWAN, INCORPOR _ Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -230 Shop Materials HIGH PRESSURE CYLINDER Invoice 35022 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -230 Shop Materials HIGH PRESSURE CYLINDER Invoice 35022 -B 8/24/2010 • Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -230 Shop Materials HIGH PRESSURE CYLINDER Invoice 35022 -C 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total -1628- 08/19/10 8:43 AM Page 3 $0.20 $0.20 $0.21 -$1.49 -$1.49 -$1.50 $8.84 $7.42 $17.62 $1.66 $1.66 $1.66 $2.67 $9.61 $38.46 $14.71 - $12.83 - $12.82 $190.22 - $17.00 $377.50 $4.64 $4.64 $4.64 $13.92 CITY OF MOUND 08/19/10 8:43 AM Page 4 I, Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: August 2010 Refer 82410 CHISAGO LAKES DISTRIBUTING C Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $345.99 Invoice 423991 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/17/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $345.99 Refer 82410 COCA COLA BOTTLING - MIDWEST Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -254 Soft Drinks /Mix For Resa MIX $421.45 Invoice 0168059529 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/17/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $421.45 Refer 82410 CONCRETE CUTTING AND CORIN _ Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -220 Repair /Maint Supply STIHL THRUST PLATE $17.90 Invoice 76994 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $17.90 Refer 82410 DAHLHEIMER BEVERAGE LLC _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $192.00 Invoice 88900 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $192.00 Refer 82410 DANIMAL DISTRIBUTING, INCORP _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $113.62 Invoice 7281425 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $113.62 Refer 82410 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,650.10 Invoice 564080 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $0.00 Invoice 564081 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 - 49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,233.15 Invoice 563185 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/9/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,883.25 Refer 82410 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS _ Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -226 Sign Repair Materials PAINT, TRAFFIC $227.80 Invoice 802122391 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $227.80 Refer 82410 EDUCATIONAL PRODUCTIONS Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -208 Instructional Supplies SAFETY, EDUCATIONAL SUPPLIES $47.46 Invoice DET461257 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/12/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $47.46 Refer 82410 EXTREME BEVERAGE Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -254 Soft Drinks /Mix For Resa MIX $179.00 Invoice 867655 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $179.00 Refer 82410 G & K SERVICES _ Cash Payment E 101 - 41910 -460 Janitorial Services 07 -26 -10 MATS $151.87 Invoice 6504730 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 - 49750 -460 Janitorial Services 07 -05 -10 MATS $52.12 Invoice 6471743 8/24/2010 -1629- • 0 � *I CITY OF MOUND is �L Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: August 2010 Cash Payment E 609 - 49750 -460 Janitorial Services 07 -12 -10 MATS Invoice 6482695 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 08 -02 -10 UNIFORMS Invoice 6515589 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 08 -02 -10 UNIFORMS Invoice 6515589 -B 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 08 -02 -10 UNIFORMS Invoice 6515589 -C 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -230 Shop Materials 08 -02 -10 MATS Invoice 6515589 -D 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -230 Shop Materials 08 -02 -10 MATS Invoice 6515589 -E 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -230 Shop Materials 08 -02 -10 MATS Invoice 6515589 -F 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 08 -09 -10 UNIFORMS Invoice 6526559 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 08 -09 -10 UNIFORMS Invoice 6526559 -B 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 08 -09 -10 UNIFORMS Invoice 6526559 -C 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -230 Shop Materials 08 -09 -10 MATS • Invoice 6526559 -D 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -230 Shop Materials 08 -09 -10 MATS Invoice 6526559 -E 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -230 Shop Materials 08 -09 -10 MATS Invoice 6526559 -F 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 - 41910 -460 Janitorial Services 08 -09 -10 MATS Invoice 6526561 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 08 -02 -10 UNIFORMS Invoice 6515592 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -210 Operating Supplies 08 -02 -10 MATS Invoice 6515592 -B 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609- 49750 -460 Janitorial Services 08 -09 -10 MATS Invoice 6526556 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 08 -16 -10 UNIFORMS Invoice 6537507 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -210 Operating Supplies 08 -16 -10 MATS Invoice 6537507 -B 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 08 -09 -10 UNIFORMS Invoice 65265464 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -210 Operating Supplies 08 -09 -10 MATS Invoice 65265464 -B 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609- 49750 -460 Janitorial Services 07 -19 -10 MATS Invoice 6493648 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 82410 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICER 08/19/10 8:43 AM Page 5 $52.12 $20.05 $21.72 $27.08 $35.01 $35.01 $35.01 $20.05 $21.72 $27.08 $43.23 $43.23 $43.23 $131.85 $16.74 $66.68 $55.33 $16.74 $69.89 $20.71 $75.34 $52.12 Total $1,133.93 • Cash Payment E 101 - 41500 -434 Conference & Training 09 -22 -10 GFOA CONFERENCE, PAUSCHE Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 PO 22953 Cash Payment E 101 - 41500 -434 Conference & Training 09 -22 -10 GFOA CONFERENCE, TUMBERG Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 P022953 -1630- $225.00 $225.00 CITY OF MOUND Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: August 2010 Transaction Date 8/19/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 82410 GRIGGS COOPER AND COMPANY Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -254 Soft Drinks /Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 437710 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 437709 8/24/2010 Transaction Date Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 437456 8/24/2010 E 222 -42260 -305 Medical Services Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -254 Soft Drinks /Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 440964 8/24/2010 Transaction Date Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 440963 8/24/2010 E 222 -42260 -210 Operating Supplies Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 440962 8/24/2010 8/12/2010 Cash Payment E 60949750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 440719 8/24/2010 BEER Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 82410 HAWKINS, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 60149400 -227 Chemicals CHLORINE CYLINDER Invoice 3144154 -RI 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 60149400 -227 Chemicals CHLORINE CYLINDER Invoice 3148227 -RI 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/12/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 82410 HEALTH ACTIVATION SERVICES, Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -305 Medical Services HEALTH SURVEILLANCE Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 PO 22912 Transaction Date 8/10/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 82410 HEIMAN FIRE EQUIPMENT _ Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -210 Operating Supplies FIRE EQUIPMENT Invoice 0773543 8/24/2010 PO 22097 Transaction Date 8/12/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 82410 HOHENSTE/NS, INCORPORATED _ Cash Payment E 60949750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 530458 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 82410 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR _ Cash Payment E 60949750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 1884851 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 60949750 -254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 1884478 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 60949750 -254 Soft Drinks /Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 1884477 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 60949750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 1884476 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 1884475 8/24/2010 -1631- Total Total 08/19/10 8:43 AM Page 6 $450.00 $25.60 $1,634.24 $183.74 $59.89 $560.79 $3,207.85 $0.00 $50.00 $3,092.79 Total $3,142.79 $584.00 Total $584.00 $380.00 Total $380.00 $268.00 Total $268.00 $277.65 $0.00 $70.35 $1,613.95 $775.96 • 7 01 -1632- CITY OF MOUND 08/19/108:43 AM Page 7 Payments • CITY OF MOUND Current Period: August 2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $537.50 Invoice 1888686 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $462.39 Invoice 1888685 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT — LIQUOR - $13.32 Invoice 467230 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/12/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,724.48 Refer 82410 JUBILEE FOODS _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -255 Misc Merchandise For R 08 -10 -10 LEMONS /LIMES FOR RESALE $25.00 Invoice 081010 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -42110 -210 Operating Supplies 08 -10 -10 CISD CASE $39.32 Invoice 081010 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $64.32 Refer 82410 KANDIYOHI DEVELOPMENT PART _ Cash Payment E 101 -41910 -300 Professional Srvs STATE EFFICIENCY GRANT PROJECT $160.75 Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -41910 -300 Professional Srvs STATE EFFICIENCY GRANT PROJECT $96.84 Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 285 -46388 -300 Professional Srvs STATE EFFICIENCY GRANT PROJECT $253.80 •Invoice 082410 Cash Payment 8/24/2010 E 609 -49750 -300 Professional Srvs STATE EFFICIENCY GRANT PROJECT $247.25 Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment G 101 -13100 Due From Other Funds STATE EFFICIENCY GRANT PROJECT $466.84 Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -42110 -300 Professional Srvs STATE EFFICIENCY GRANT PROJECT $37.58 Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -300 Professional Srvs STATE EFFICIENCY GRANT PROJECT $37.58 Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -300 Professional Srvs STATE EFFICIENCY GRANT PROJECT $18.59 Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -300 Professional Srvs STATE EFFICIENCY GRANT PROJECT $18.59 Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 675 -49425 -300 Professional Srvs STATE EFFICIENCY GRANT PROJECT $18.59 Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -300 Professional Srvs STATE EFFICIENCY GRANT PROJECT $18.59 Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/18/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,375.00 Refer 82410 LANO EQUIPMENT, INCORPORAT Cash Payment E 101 - 45200 -409 Other Equipment Repair BOBCAT REPLACEMENT CHAIN AND $1,437.58 SPROCKETS Invoice 37853 8/24/2010 PO 22131 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,437.58 Refer 82410 LOFFLER COMPANIES, INCORPOR Cash Payment E 101 -41910 -210 Operating Supplies 07 -14 -10 THRU 08 -13 -10 B/W COPIES $46.82 1150012 -A 8/24/2010 •Invoice Cash Payment E 101 -41910 -210 Operating Supplies 07 -14 -10 THRU 08 -13 -10 COLOR COPIES $5.98 Invoice 1150012 -B 8/24/2010 -1632- CITY OF MOUND Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: August 2010 Cash Payment E 101 -42400 -210 Operating Supplies 07 -10-10 THRU 08 -09 -10 COPIER Invoice 1144438 -B 8/24/2010 MAINTENANCE Invoice 1152845 -A 8/24/2010 MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR _ Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -210 Operating Supplies 07 -10 -10 THRU 08 -09 -10 COPIER Invoice 643470 MAINTNENACE Invoice 1152845 -B 8/24/2010 E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -210 Operating Supplies 07 -10 -10 THRU 08 -09 -10 COPIER Transaction Date 8/9/2010 MAINTENANCE Invoice 1152845 -C 8/2412010 Cash Payment Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -210 Operating Supplies 07 -10 -10 THRU 08 -09 -10 COPIER 8/24/2010 MAINTENANCE Invoice 1152845 -D 8/24/2010 Invoice 24073 Cash Payment E 281 -45210 -210 Operating Supplies 07 -10 -10 THRU 08 -09 -10 COPIER E 609 -49750 -265 Freight MAINTENANCE Invoice 1152845 -E 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Cash Payment E 675 -49425 -210 Operating Supplies 07 -10 -10 THRU 08 -09 -10 COPIER Cash Payment MAINTENANCE Invoice 1152845 -F 8/24/2010 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -41910 -210 Operating Supplies 06 -14 -10 THRU 07 -13 -10 B/W COPIES Invoice 1144438 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -41910 -210 Operating Supplies 06 -14 -10 THRU 07 -13 -10 COLOR COPIES Invoice 1144438 -B 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/9/2010 Refer 82410 MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale Invoice 643470 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale Invoice 640695 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/9/2010 Refer 82410 MARLIN'S TRUCKING DELIVERY _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight Invoice 24050 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight Invoice 24073 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight Invoice 24092 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Refer 82410 MCCUE, MICHAEL _ Cash Payment E 401 -43109 -500 Capital Outlay FA Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/17/2010 Refer 82410 MERTZ, CRAIG M. LAW OFFICE _ Wells Fargo BEER BEER 10100 Total Wells Fargo 10100 Total 07 -19 -10 DELIVERY CHARGE 07 -22 -10 DELIVERY CHARGE 07 -28 -10 DELIVERY CHARGE Wells Fargo 10100 Total REPAIR DIRT AROUND BOATHOUSE Project PWO901 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Cash Payment E 101 -41600 -304 Legal Fees 07 -10 PROSECUTION SERVICES Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/18/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 82410 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WASTE Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -388 Waste Disposal -MCIS 09 -10 WASTEWATER Invoice 937896 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/9/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 -1633- 08/19/10 8:43 AM Page 8 $7.62 $6.10 $6.10 $6.10 $1.52 $3.04 $123.21 $44.69 $251.18 $4,992.20 $3,586.70 $8,578.90 $24.70 $473.20 $205.40 $703.30 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $7,987.70 • • Total $7,987.70 $47,189.41 • Total $47,189.41 CITY OF MOUND 08/19/108:43 AM Page 9 • Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: August 2010 Refer 82410 MINNESOTA DEPT TRANSPORTAT _ Cash Payment E 401 -43160 -300 Professional Srvs CONCRETE PLANT INSPECTIONS $59.25 Invoice PA000190961 8/24/2010 Project PW0907 Transaction Date 8/17/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $59.25 Refer 82410 MINNESOTA PLAYGROUND, INCO Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -232 Landscape Material WOOD FIBER FOR PLAY STRUCTURES $1,603.13 Invoice 2010212 8/24/2010 PO 22128 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,603.13 Refer 82410 MINNESOTA PUBLISHING _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -340 Advertising 08 -10 LAKE AREA BUSINESS $99.00 Invoice 12349 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/9/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $99.00 Refer 82410 MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATIO _ Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -124 Fire Pens Contrib 08 -10 FIRE RELIEF $11,466.67 Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/17/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $11,466.67 Refer 82410 MOUND MARKETPLACE LLC Cash Payment E 609 - 49750412 Building Rentals 09 -10 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE $888.25 Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 • Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $888.25 Refer 82410 MOUND, CITY OF _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -382 Water Utilities 07 -01 -10 THRU 08 -03 -10 WATER SEWER $34.42 Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/17/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $34.42 Refer 82410 MUELLER, WILLIAM AND SONS Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -232 Landscape Material 07 -13 -10 CONCRETE SAND $159.20 Invoice 160146 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -232 Landscape Material 07 -15 -10 CONCRETE SAND $67.96 Invoice 160222 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/9/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $227.16 Refer 82410 MULCH STORE, THE Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -232 Landscape Material PLAYGROUND MATERIALS $320.63 Invoice 8090613 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -223 Building Repair Supplies 50/50 BLEND MIX $34.20 Invoice 8089526 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 60149400 -223 Building Repair Supplies 50/50 BLEND MIX $34.20 Invoice 8089526 -B 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -223 Building Repair Supplies 50/50 BLEND MIX $34.20 Invoice 8089526 -C 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/12/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $423.23 Refer 82410 NELSON ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAI _ Cash Payment E 602 - 49450 -400 Repairs & Maintenance REPAIR ON J7 $250.00 Invoice 4008 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/17/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $250.00 Refer 82410 NORTHERN TOOL AND EQUIPMEN -1634- CITY OF MOUND 08/19/10 8:43 AM Page 10 Payments • CITY OF MOUND Current Period: August 2010 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -220 Repair /Maint Supply 400 WATT POWER INVERT $92.28 Invoice 222242640 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -220 Repair /Maint Supply POWER CORD $45.01 Invoice 22211804 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -220 Repair /Maint Supply TILTING CIRCULAR SAW $107.26 Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/12/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $244.55 Refer 82410 OFFICE DEPOT Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -200 Office Supplies DVD WITH SPINDLE $10.56 Invoice 527188551001 8/24/2010 PO 22907 Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -200 Office Supplies FILE FOLDERS $151.07 Invoice 526992863001 8/24/2010 PO 22906 Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -200 Office Supplies PAPER $21.15 Invoice 525980288001 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 60949750 -200 Office Supplies PHONE $64.11 Invoice 528132106001 8/24/2010 PO 22964 Transaction Date 8/12/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $246.89 Refer 82410 PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMPA Cash Payment E 60949750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $130.00 Invoice 8269261 -A 8/24/2010 • Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight 08 -02 -10 DELIVERY CHARGE $4.50 Invoice 8269261 -B 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/9/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $134.50 Refer 82410 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -254 Soft Drinks /Mix For Resa MIX $163.20 Invoice 63499203 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $163.20 Refer 82410 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $96.00 Invoice 2945578 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $396.80 Invoice 2945372 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $93.85 Invoice 2948304 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale CREDIT —WINE - $11.04 Invoice 3442434 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 60949750 -253 Wine For Resale CREDIT —WINE - $82.80 Invoice 3442433 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/12/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $492.81 Refer 82410 QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $4,334.24 Invoice 340558 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $4,704.20 Invoice 343280 8/24/2010 • Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $72.00 Invoice 343239 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $104.00 Invoice 340516 8/24/2010 -1635- CITY OF MOUND 08/19/108:43 AM I� Page 11 • Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: August 2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $9,214.44 Refer 82410 R.C. ELECTRIC, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 101 - 41910 -401 Building Repairs MOTION SWITCHES IN RESTROOMS $270.40 Invoice 2703 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $270.40 Refer 82410 RE ELECTRIC Cash Payment E 281 -45210 -220 Repair /Maint Supply DOCK PEDISTAL $765.00 Invoice 6110.2 8/24/2010 PO 22125 Transaction Date 8/18/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $765.00 Refer 82410 ROTARY CLUB OF MOUND _ Cash Payment E 609 - 49750 -340 Advertising 2010 ROTARY GOLF SCRAMBLE $150.00 SPONSORSHIP Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 PO 22970 Transaction Date 8/17/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $150.00 Refer 82410 STANCHFIELD, RONALD Cash Payment E 281 -45210 -331 Use of personal auto 08 -03 -10 THRU 08 -05 -10 MILEAGE $25.16 REIMBURSEMENT Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 281 -45210 -331 Use of personal auto 07 -12 -10 THRU 07 -27 -10 MILEAGE $56.16 REINBURSEMENT Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/9/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $81.32 Refer 82410 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE _ Cash Payment E 101 -41410 -210 Operating Supplies LABELS $40.77 Invoice 3140506331 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/17/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $40.77 Refer 82410 STA -SAFE LOCKSMITHS COMPAN Cash Payment E 222 - 42260 -402 Building Maintenance CABINET KEY, SERVICE CALL $69.43 Invoice 18342 8/24/2010 PO 22913 Transaction Date 8/12/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $69.43 Refer 82410 STONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT, INC _ Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -500 Capital Outlay FA POWER PLOW $6,860.92 Invoice 15033 -A 8/24/2010 PO 22440 Cash Payment E 281 -45210 -500 Capital Outlay FA POWER PLOW $1,875.00 Invoice 15033 -B 8/24/2010 PO 22440 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $8,735.92 Refer 82410 STRIPE RIGHT, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 285 - 46388 -440 Other Contractual Servic PUBLIC PARKING SIGNS $850.00 Invoice 325 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/18/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $850.00 Refer 82410 SUNBURST CHEMICALS, INC. _ Cash Payment E 101 - 42110 -460 Janitorial Services HAND SOAP $39.74 Invoice 0261422 -A 8/24/2010 P022911 Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -216 Cleaning Supplies HAND SOAP $39.74 Invoice 0261422 -B 8/24/2010 P022911 Transaction Date 8/9/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $79.48 -1636- CITY OF MOUND E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale Payments CITY OF MOUND 8/24/2010 Current Period: August 2010 Refer 82410 TASER INTERNATIONAL E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale Cash Payment E 101 -42110 -219 Safety supplies TASER, BECK Invoice S11213727 8/24/2010 PO 22698 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 82410 TAYLOR, J.J. DISTRIBUTING MINN _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 1415847 8/24/2010 E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 1415846 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 82410 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 771976 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale CREDIT —BEER Invoice 771816 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 603388 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 603386 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 60949750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 603387 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 602585 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 602578 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 602596 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 771985 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/9/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 82410 T- MOBILE CELL PHONE Cash Payment E 281 -45210 -321 Telephone & Cells 07 -03 -10 THRU 08 -02 -10 CELL PHONE Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment G 101 -22816 Personal Cell Phone 07 -03 -10 THRU 08 -02 -10 CELL PHONE Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 82410 TRUE VALUE, MOUND Cash Payment E 22242260 -210 Operating Supplies MASKING TAPE Invoice 73959 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -220 Repair/Maint Supply 07 -10 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -220 Repair /Maint Supply 07 -10 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 60249450 -220 Repair/Maint Supply 07 -10 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 - 43100 -460 Janitorial Services 07 -10 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 -1637- 08/19/10 8:43 AM Page 12 $814.95 Total $814.95 $24.00 $4,695.25 Total $4.71925 $580.00 - $71.00 $7,362.97 $145.05 $0.00 $5,155.75 $134.90 $33.75 $426.00 Total $13,767.42 $45.70 $22.00 Total $67.70 $4.69 $252.58 $2.13 $14.71 $2.24 is *I *I CITY OF MOUND Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: August 2010 Cash Payment E 601 - 49400460 Janitorial Services 07 -10 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 602 - 49450 -460 Janitorial Services 07 -10 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 60249450 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 07 -10 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 60249450 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs 07 -10 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 60249450 -230 Shop Materials 07 -10 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 10143100 -223 Building Repair Supplies 07 -10 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 60149400 -223 Building Repair Supplies 07 -10 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -223 Building Repair Supplies 07 -10 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -322 Postage 07 -10 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 10143100 -230 Shop Materials 07 -10 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 60149400 -230 Shop Materials 07 -10 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES •Invoice 082410 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 - 42110 -210 Operating Supplies SCREWS, NUTS, BOLTS Invoice 73463 8/24/2010 Cash Payment G 101 -22801 Deposits /Escrow BICYCLE Invoice 73442 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 10142110 -460 Janitorial Services HAND SOAP, REFILLS Invoice 73602 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/12/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 82410 WACONIA FORD MERCURY Cash Payment E 10143100404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #404 TURBO ASSEMBLY Invoice FOCS45960 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 82410 WINE COMPANY Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale Invoice 248974 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight Invoice 248974 -B 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/17/2010 Refer 82410 WINE MERCHANTS _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale Invoice 327205 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Refer 82410 WORLD CLASS WINES, INCORPO •Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale Invoice 252169 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight Invoice 252169 -B 8/24/2010 WINE 08 -12 -10 DELIVERY CHARGE Wells Fargo 10100 WINE 08/19/10 8:43 AM Page 13 $2.24 $2.23 $14.48 $0.52 $56.22 $39.17 $39.17 $49.19 $11.14 $34.72 $24.05 $4.75 $90.83 $10.64 Total $655.70 $2,597.60 Total $2,597.60 $312.00 $6.30 Total $318.30 $984.00 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $984.00 WINE $588.00 08 -03 -10 DELIVERY CHARGE -1638- $11.70 I, CITY OF MOUND Transaction Date 8/9/2010 Refer 82410 XCEL ENERGY CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Cash Payment E 101 -42115 -381 Electric Utilities 07 -10 #51- 6002835 -9 Invoice 333815750 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -381 Electric Utilities 08 -10 #51- 4802601 -1 Invoice 333034352 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -381 Electric Utilities 07 -10 #51- 6002836 -0 Invoice 334152183 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/17/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 82410 Z WINES USA LLC Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 9670 -A 8/24/2010 Cash Payment E 609 - 49750 -265 Freight 08 -05 -10 DELIVERY CHARGE Invoice 9670 -B 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/16/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 82410 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE _ Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -220 Repair /Maint Supply FIRST AID SUPPLIES Invoice 54084400 8/24/2010 Transaction Date 8/1712010 Wells Fargo 10100 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 101 GENERAL FUND $32,847.37 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES $13,116.68 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND $2,768.54 285 MOUND HRA $1,103.80 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS $4,214.05 601 WATER FUND $4,419.40 602 SEWER FUND $47,833.98 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $57,353.09 670 RECYCLING FUND $14,280.21 675 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND $21.63 $177,958.75 Pre - Written Check $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $177,958.75 Total $177,958.75 -1639- Total 08/19/10 8:43 AM Page 14 $24.32 $5,559.17 $278.76 Total $5,862.25 $252.00 $7.50 Total $259.50 $62.97 Total $62.97 40 � CJ • ' Engineering ■ Planning ■ Environmental ■ Construction • August 19, 2010 Mr. Carlton Moore City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 -1627 Re: Contract Amendment S.P. #145- 030 -01 ESTEA TOES (03 1) WSB Project No. 01878 -00 Dear Mr. Moore: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 541 -4800 Fax: 763 541 -1700 The following is an explanation of our proposed Contract Amendment for the above - referenced project. Design Work Because the bid amount significantly exceeded the City's previously estimated cost, WSB, together with City • Staff, was requested to review and redesign the project to reduce construction costs in any way possible. The additional services we performed included an investigation into potential alternatives that might be available to reduce the cost, reviewing options that were identified with the City, and modifying the plans accordingly. Plan modifications included: • a. Modifying the wiring design to reduce the amount of wire needed for the project. This involved changing how the plug -in receptacles were wired into the system from on their own circuit to in- line. This design was different than the design originally anticipated by the City. It reduced the flexibility of the system to be able to turn the receptacles on and off separately from the street lights, but resulted in a cost savings of approximately $30,000. The cost for this review and re- design was $10,120. b. Modifying the construction phasing to reduce the number of times the contractor had to mobilize his equipment and change the light fixture to a less expensive style than previously selected. The change in the phasing plan resulted in areas of the street being dark for an extended period of time but, with this and the light fixture modification, a cost savings of $50,000 was secured. WSB's cost associated with providing these services was $4,680. Additional Design Costs: Redesign......................................................... ............................... $10,120 Staging / Light Fixture Modifications ............ ............................... 4,680 Requested Additional Design Fee ................ ............................... $14,800 Minneapolis ■ St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer -1640- K:\ 0167"0\Admio\Const=ti=.AdmmxPay vmhaw -m#a info for Amendment I.dmx Mr. Carlton Moore — Contract Amendment City of Mound August 19, 2010 Page 2 Construction Observation and Administration Significant construction observation work outside the original scope was requested to be performed. Our work plan, which was consistent with the City's RFP, anticipated City staff would undertake day -to -day construction observation and documentation. WSB was to complete the federal documents and manage the contract process. Based on this work plan, WSB would be on site approximately 8 hours per week during construction. Following award of the construction contract and as part of submitting the paperwork for the project to Mn/DOT, it was revealed that, although qualified, the City's observer did not have the needed certifications to legally provide the primary observation duties consistent with the requirements set forth by Mn/DOT for Federal ARRA projects. WSB's project administrator, who has the needed certifications, was then requested to provide these services to insure all federal documentation and observation needs were met. This resulted in the WSB observer spending approximately 16 additional hours per week at the project. Through the end of July, this corresponds to 198 hours of observation time being spent at a cost of $22,272. In addition to provide these services through completion (anticipated in mid - October), provide project closeout documentation, and ensure that when the project is audited, all documentation has been completed, and all the project requirements have been met, we estimate 202 additional hours will be required. This corresponds to a cost of $22,556. Additional Construction Costs: Provided through July ..................................... ............................... $22,272 Additional through October ............................ ............................... $22,556 Included in our proposal ................................. ............................... 05.104) Requested Additional Construction Fee ..... ............................... $29,724 If you have any questions concerning the work plan or fee as discussed herein, please feel free to contact me at 763 - 287 -7183. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Ina ct..G�P�G Charles T. Rickart, PE, PTOE Project Manager -1641- K:`01878-00\Admin\Constrwtion Admin\Pay VowAiwAF.era info for Amendmem 1.do • • • 1�1 • • CONTRACT AMENDMENT Project Name: Mound Street Lighting`ARRA Project Date: August 24, 2010 Contract No.: Original Contract Amount $ Previous Amendment(s) No. thru No. $ Total Funds Encumbered Prior to Change Order $ Description of Work to be Added: SEE ATTACHED 47,052.00 0 47,052.00 The above described work shall be incorporated in the Contract, referenced above, under the same conditions specified in the original Contract as amended unless otherwise specified herein. Any work not so specified shall be performed in accordance with the Contract adopted by the City of Mound, Minnesota. The amount of the Contract shall be increased by $ 44,524.00 The number of calendar days for completion shall b (increas )decreased) by 30 Original Contract Amount $ 47,052.00 Amendment No. 1 $ 44,524.00 Total funds Encumbered $ 91,576.00 Revised Completion Date: October 15, 2010 The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work specified in this Change Order in accordance with the specification, conditions and prices specified herein. WSB & Associates, Inc. Charles T. Rickart, PE, PTOE IM Title: Principal Date: August 24, 2010 APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED: Public Works Director APPROVED: City of Mound City Administrator Page 1 -1642- Date Date KA01878 -00\AdminTaist cflon Adminfty VoucheeCouvxl Anwndmml I.doc CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 10 -_ RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED, AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ON 2009 STREET, UTILITITY AND RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the 2009 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement Project and the construction cost for such improvement is $1,850,000, and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvement amount is $396,000 so that the total cost of the improvement will be $2,246,000. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound: 1. The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the City is hereby declared to be $1,215,300 and the portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $1,030,700. 2. Assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of fifteen (15) years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2011, and shall bear interest at the rate of six (6) percent per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution. 3. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the Consulting Engineer, shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash • valuation, as provided by law, and she shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection. 4. The Clerk shall upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the Council thereof. Adopted by the City Council this 24th day of August, 2010. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Mark Hanus -1643- • CITY OF MOUND • RESOLUTION NO. 10 -_ RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 2009 STREET, UTILITY AND RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the Council on August 24, 2010, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of the 2009 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement Project, AND WHEREAS, the Clerk has notified the Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in her office for public inspection, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 28th day of September, 2010, in the council chambers of city hall, at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and she shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. She shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. is 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City of Mound, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid with 30 days from the adoption of the assessment. The property owner may at any time thereafter, pay to the City of Mound the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 st of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15th or interest will be charged through December 31 st of the succeeding year. Adopted by the City Council this 24th day of August, 2010. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -1644- Mayor Mark Hanus CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 10 _ • RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED, AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ON 2009 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE /DORCHESTER ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT, UTILITIES AND RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the 2009 Island View Drive /Dorchester Road Street Improvement, Utilities and Retaining Wall Improvement Project, and the construction cost for such improvement is $900,000, and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvement amount is $328,000 so that the total cost of the improvement will be $1,228,000. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound: 1. The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the City is hereby declared to be $443,000 and the portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $785,000. 2. Assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of fifteen (15) years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2011, and shall bear interest at the rate of six (6) percent per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution. 3. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the Consulting Engineer, shall forthwith calculate • the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and she shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection. 4. The Clerk shall upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the Council thereof. Adopted by the City Council this 24th day of August, 2010. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Mark Hanus -1645- C, CITY OF MOUND • RESOLUTION NO. 10 -_ RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 2009 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE /DORCHESTER ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT, UTILITIES AND RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the Council on August 24, 2010, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of the 2009 Island View Drive /Dorchester Road Street Improvement, Utilities and Retaining Wall Improvement Project, and WHEREAS, the Clerk has notified the Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in her office for public inspection, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 28th day of September, 2010, in the council chambers of city hall, at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and she shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. She shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the is assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City of Mound, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid with 30 days from the adoption of the assessment. The property owner may at any time thereafter, pay to the City of Mound the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31St of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15th or interest will be charged through December 31St of the succeeding year. Adopted by the City Council this 24th day of August, 2010. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk • -1646- Mayor Mark Hanus . 0 !22 S�h PUBLIC LANDS REPORT TO: Mayor Hanus and City Council FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Superintendent i DATE: August 17, 2010 `i SUBJECT: Public Lands Permit Application APPLICANT: Joel Seltz LOCATION: 1601 Paradise Lane REQUEST: Trim Trees on Public Lands Sec. 62 -11. Special permits for certain structures on public land. (a) Construction on public land. 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, is unlawful unless a special construction on public land permit is issued as provided in this article. Any proposed construction, special use or land alteration shall require the applicant to provide necessary drawings to scale, specifications of materials to be used, proposed costs, and purpose for change. All special permits shall require a survey by a registered land surveyor before a special permit will be issued. Survey shall comply with the city's survey requirements. Copies of such surveys, drawings, specifications of materials, proposed costs and statements of purpose shall be furnished to the city and kept on file in the city offices. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by the Councilmember. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all applicable City departments for review and comment. All written comments received to date have been summarized below: -1647- • U Jim Fackler, Public Works Superintendent: • • Applicant must use a licensed tree contractor • Applicant is responsible for all cost • Staff must meet on site with the tree contractor • • SITE INSPECTION City Officials and Board Members are encouraged to visit the site prior to the meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this permit with conditions noted above. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Is required. ATTACHMENTS: • Public Lands Permit Application received August 16, 2010 • Survey -1648- A. PUBLIC LANDS APPLICATION 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone 952 -472 -0600 Fax 952 - 472 -0620 Date Received 6- -/ 0 Parks and Open Space Commission Date 11% _ City. Council Date 0 1 —10 Docks and Commons Commission Date �_ DISTRIBUTION Building Official Parks Director DNR MCWD Public Works Other Check One ❑ 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 62 -11(a) & (b). ❑ PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT — to allow repairs to an existing structure - City Code Section 62- 11(c). ❑ CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE — to allow an existing encroachment to remain in an "as is" condition - City Code Section 62- 11(g). j LAND ALTERATION — change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. - City Code Section 62- 11(d). e structure or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, ads, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance, which ,ans that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are anted for a limited time and are non- transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the rmit 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 Email S��- Z- SLtiTZ� ND1IC.,CO� Address 1 vo l MWG W, VWMD Phone (H) b Z-' 2-b " W) 1 (W) (M) ABUTTING Address 011n rj pjf PROPERTY LEGAL Lot Block DESC. Subdivision SNI►�W� eb)N PID # Zoning: R1 R1A R2 R3 131 B2 B3 (Circle one) Public Lands Permit Application Page 1 of 2 Revised 312312010 -1649- • 1�1 • �LIC Name Q bgwl,\ (*m Email 2ROPERTY Dock Site # Shoreline Type CONTRACTOR I Named C-Aa-6 Email Address � •y ? a • u 6 w �5 (M) Phone (H) ( ) A FEE OF $200.00 APPLIES IF VALUATION OF PROJECT EXCEEDS $1,000.00 AND NO PUBLIC BENEFIT IS DERIVED. PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS) $ C:'AT- 0}' lkt Iii DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE -St-IM ��A" IM, Applicant's Signature, • Public Lands Permit Application Page 2 of 2 Revised 312312010 -1650- J ,WP tt 'molk- rfta)w Ctiv&, , II.FAIA Q�17 '-kt� 5 W 1 — f - --� -' - -- -- -- - -- — 7. _ _ _ ._. _......_ . .. - ... _.... - - - -- - -i - - - - -- • - -- - - -_ .- - —}- -- ...... - -1 - - - - -- . f. ..pro _.'_. 1 -- -- -- - - - - - 4=,. D� a - b r IS F • _ _ cr ci r- « _ m .m t _... ... ....- . }_._.._.. . -. _.. . — -_._ m - - -- - ' Ln LA b i . .. _ -1651 ._ - • _ -1651 ._ - • CITY OF MOUND • RESOLUTION NO. 10- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR 1601 Paradise Lane WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking a Public Lands Permit for tree trimming on public lands, and WHEREAS, City Code Section 62 -11 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, the City Council considered this request at their meeting of Tuesday, August 24, 2010, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve the Public Lands Permit as submitted by Joel Seltz for 1601 Paradise Lane with the following conditions: 1. Applicant must use a licensed tree contractor. 2. Applicant is responsible for all costs. 3. Staff must meet on site with the tree contractor. • Adopted by the City Council this 24th day of August, 2010. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk • -1652- Mayor Mark Hanus CITY OF MOUND - PARKS DEPARTMENT 5341 Maywaod Road Mound, MN 553" PUBLIC LANDS REPORT TO: Mayor Hanus and City Council FROM: Jim Fackler, Park DATE: August 17, 2010 SUBJECT: Public Lands Permit Application APPLICANT: Bill & Lisa Quirk LOCATION: 2146 Cardinal Lane REQUEST: Landscape on unimproved Cardinal Lane Sec. 62 -11. Special permits for certain structures on public land. (a) Construction on public land. 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, is unlawful unless a special construction on public land permit is issued as provided in this article. Any proposed construction, special use or land alteration shall require the applicant to provide necessary drawings to scale, specifications of materials to be used, proposed costs, and purpose for change. All special permits shall require a survey by a registered land surveyor before a special permit will be issued. Survey shall comply with the city's survey requirements. Copies of such surveys, drawings, specifications of materials, proposed costs and statements of purpose shall be furnished to the city and kept on file in the city offices. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by the Councilmember. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all applicable City departments for review and comment. All written comments received to date have been summarized below: -1653- • L • Jim Fackler, Park Superintendent: • 1. Must not block access to commons dock sites. 2. In the event the City needs to do maintenance work on the right -of -way the City will not replace landscaping, only place black dirt and seed disrupted areas. Sarah Smith, Community Development Director: 1. No filling or grade alteration at or below 931.5 elevation is allowed unless a separate floodplain alteration permit is approved by City Council. 2. Appropriate sediment and erosion control measured must be maintained on site until such time as vegetation has been established and/or subject area has been properly restored. Applicant to coordinate involved erosion control activities with Planning and Engineering Technician. Ray Hanson — Engineering/Planning Technician: No Comments SITE INSPECTION City Officials and Board Members are encouraged to visit the site prior to the meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this permit with conditions noted above. • CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Is required. • ATTACHMENTS: • Public Lands Permit Application received August 3, 2010 • Drawing • Hennepin County Map • Photographs 2 -1654- Y PUBLIC LANDS APPLICATION 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone 952 - 472 -0600 Fax 952 - 472-0620 • Date Received 0/0 Parks and Open Space Commission Date City Council Date Docks and Commons Commission Date DISTRIBUTION Building Official Parks Director DNR MCWD Public Works Other Check One ❑ 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 62 -11 (a) & (b). ❑ PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT — to allow repairs to,an existing structure - City Code Section 62- 11(c). ❑ CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE — to allow an existing encroachment to remain in an "as is" condition - City Code Section 62- 11(g). ® LAND ALTERATION — change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. - City Code Section 62- 11(d). S The structure or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring 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 Zi 11 �,a L � br. c� �, r k Email q�,; � k I � tAL g -,ek . Lo Address Cc,.-J; - J LC --%#- M 0,,,..,4 m ,.1 55 36Lj Phone (H) (W) eta.- 3$$ -f<85$ (M) ABUTTING Address aly� CGrcr;r•ai �.c,..� Mom. -.d Mn ss3�y r PROPERTY Lot Block LEGAL DESC. Subdivision PID # Zoning: R1 R1A R2 R3 61 B2 133 (Circle one) Public Lands Pennit Application Page 1 of 2 Revised 312312010 -1655- C7 1 4- 4 PUBLIC Name Email PROPERTY Dock Site # Shoreline Type CONTRACTOR Name Gcae•, Email , ce&- Rrce,-- : -K�,C ,��• o. Address 5aV was 96A 6-6. SM:tc OLD 3too.- i n)L, nor) 55437 Phone (H) (W) qto qq -5to - (M) • • A FEE OF $200.00 APPLIES IF VALUATION OF PROJECT EXCEEDS $1,000.00 AND NO PUBLIC BENEFIT IS DERIVED. PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS) $_ 1340D -- DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE Imo' (�.s� See cz4, J -CSI Applicant's Date Public Lands Permit Application Page 2 of 2 Revised 312312010 a o -V7 -1656- Bill and Lisa Quirk Public Lands Application Summary — to be attached 0 We are proposing the changes listed below to enhance the visual appeal of the public land currently used to access the shoreline behind 2146 Cardinal Lane and the adjacent properties. In addition, the changes we are proposing will greatly reduce the amount of street debris and sediment that is currently running into the lake. I have broken down the changes to the public land we wish to make below. The areas listed correspond with the attached lot map. Area 1) We would like to re -grade this area and add dirt removed from 2146 Cardinal lane and then sod. There would be no major changes to the grade. We simply want to fill in the ruts that have developed, add dirt and sod. Sod staples will be used on all the sod pieces and a silt fence will remain until the sod has rooted. Area 2) In this area we would like to ring an existing tree with 6 to 8 inch boulders. These boulders will not impeded foot or vehicle traffic. Hosta from 2146 Cardinal lane would be split to fill this planter. Please note this area already has numerous Day Lilies and some hosta that were existing. Area 3) In this area we would like to continue a planter that currently exists on 2146 Cardinal lane. The planter is to be edged with 6 to 8 inch boulders. These boulders will not impeded foot or vehicle traffic. Perennials have been purchased for this area. In • addition, hosta from 2146 Cardinal lane would be split to fill the balance of the area. Area 4) This area has been graded off, edged with 6 to 8 inch boulders and covered in sand to create a beach like area. There are two 6 x 6 posts approximately 4 feet into city property that we hope to keep and hang hammocks on. Two additional posts are installed next to the house. These posts do not impede foot or vehicle traffic as they are located between two large trees. Area 5) This area has 3 large boulders one course high that reside on city property. They sit only 6 to 8 inchs above grade and do not impede access to the lake. Costs) The total cost of these improvements will be between $1200 - $1500. Additional Notes: 1) We were told by the City of Mound that locating the corner markers would be sufficient for the processing of this application. 2) This application was filled out by Scott Rassier owner and operator of Green andscape due to the Bill Quirks work schedule. I can be reached at 952- 994 -5105 • -1657- 3o+-7 • • A rcq 1 Gx6 -1658- 5240 14 o-F7 \� ©wR . . .. . . ., , .. . . . .\% not A. ?.. � ., w . .. \ \ � \< � � ©wR • h i �f y r" v 4' fx- , pu v • h i �f y r" v fx- , v ' k t f • Hennepin County Property Map Print Page 1 of 1 Hennepin County Property Map - Tax Year: 2010 The data contained on this page is derived from a compilation of records and maps and may contain discrepancies that can only be disclosed by an accurate survey performed by a licensed 1'i land surveyor. The perimeter and area (square footage and acres) are approximates and may contain discrepancies. The Information on this page should be used for reference purposes on ( Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of material herein contained and Is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this Information or Its derivatives. Selected Parcel Data Date Printed: 8/17/2010 9:53:07 AM Parcel ID: 13 -117 -24-31 -0066 Current Parcel Date: 8/3/2010 Owner Name: WILLIAM QUIRK Parcel Address: 2146 CARDINAL LA , MOUND, MN 55364 Property Type: RESIDENTIAL LAK Homestead: NON - HOMESTEAD Area (sgft): 7198 Area (acres): 0.17 A -T -B: ABSTRACT Market Total: $420,000.00 Tax Total: $4,708.82 http:// gis. co .hennepin.mn.us/HCPropertyMap/I 1ss tnr.aspx Sale Price: $259,000.00 Sale Date: 03/2010 Sale Code: 8/17/2010 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 10- • RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR 2146 Cardinal Lane WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking a Public Lands Permit for landscaping on unimproved Cardinal Lane, and WHEREAS, City Code Section 62 -11 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, the City Council considered this request at their meeting of Tuesday, August 24, 2010, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve the Public Lands Permit as submitted by Bill and Lisa Quirk at 2146 Cardinal Lane with the following conditions: 1. Landscaping must not block access to commons dock sites. 2. In the event the City needs to do maintenance work on the right -of -way the City will not replace landscaping, only place black dirt and seed disrupted areas. • 3. No filling or grade alteration at or below 931.5 elevation is allowed unless a separate floodplain alteration permit is approved by the City Council. 4. Appropriate sediment and erosion control measures must be maintained on site until such time as vegetation has been established and /or subject area has been properly restored. Applicant to coordinate involved erosion control activities with Public Works Supervisor. Adopted by the City Council this 24th day of August, 2010. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -1663- Mayor Mark Hanus • 5341 Maywood Road • Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472 -0604 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director Date: August 17, 2010 Re: Declaration and Covenants for Site Specific Wetland Replacement Plan As part of the Villas on Lost Lake project and related approvals, the City and developer were required to create 2.8 acres of new wetland within the Lake Minnetonka subswatershed which included both the construction of 2 new wetlands in Minnetrista and wetland ponding in Lost Lake which was part of the innovative stormwater system designed for the site. During the monitoring process undertaken in 2009 -2010, it was determined that a wetland declaration is needed for the replacement wetland areas adjacent to Lost Lake, therefore, a document has been prepared for consideration and action by the Council. . Requested Action. Approval of the resolution approving the execution of the declaration including all recommended conditions. • -1664- • CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 10- Resolution No. 10- approving the Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Site Specific Wetland Replacement WHEREAS, as part of the Villas on Lost Lake development and related project approvals, the City and Mound Harbor Renaissance Development were required to create 2.8 acres of new wetland within the Lake Minnetonka subswatershed which included the construction of two (2) new wetlands in Minnetrista and wetland ponding adjacent to the Lost Lake townhomes which is part of the innovative stormwater system designed for the site; and WHEREAS, during the monitoring process undertaken in 2009 -2010, it was determined that a wetland declaration is needed for the replacement wetland areas adjacent to Lost Lake in accordance with the wetland permit issued for the project; and WHEREAS, a document has been prepared for consideration and action by the Council and is included as Exhibit A and is recommended for approval by • Staff. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve the Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Site Specific Wetland subject to the following conditions: 1. Final form and content of the Declaration, which shall be in substantially the form as Exhibit A, shall be subject to review and acceptance by the City Attorney. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the Declaration. 3. The City shall be responsible for recording of the Declaration including any and /or all subsequent documents associated with the Declaration at Hennepin County. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember • -1665- The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this 24th day of August 2010 Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk • • Mayor Mark Hanus -1666- • Exhibit A ------------------- - - - - -- (Above Space is Reserved for Recording Information ) ------------------- - - - - -- Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Site Specific Wetland Replacement Replacement Wetland Declarant: City of Mound, a corporate body and politic General Location of Replacement: Public property on west side of Lost Lake District adjacent to Villas on Lost Lake townhome site This Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Site Specific Wetland Replacement Wetland • (Declaration) is made this day of , 2010 by the undersigned Declarant: RECITALS A. The Declarant holds the fee title on the real property described on Exhibit A, attached hereto. B. This real property is the site of a Replacement Wetland, as defined in Minnesota Rules 8420.0110, subp. 40. Exhibit B, attached hereto, includes a graphic which accurately depicts the subject Replacement Wetland. C. The Replacement Wetland is being dedicated in accordance with the City's approvals of the Villas on Lost Lake development project including, but not limited, to the local wetland permit as well as related agency approvals. D. The Replacement Wetland is subject to the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, as amended, Minnesota Statutes section 103G.222 et sea., and all other provisions of law that apply to wetlands. JBD- 273614v1 MU195 -15 -1667- C7 • E. The Local Government Unit (LGU) charged with approval of the Replacement Plan is the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, whose address is 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 F. All references in this instrument to Minnesota Statutes and Rules are to the Statutes and Rules currently in effect and as amended or renumbered in the future. RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS The Declarant makes the following declaration of restrictions and covenants for the Replacement Wetland. These restrictions and covenants shall run with the land, and bind Declarant, and Declarant's heirs, successors, and assigns: 1. The Declarant shall maintain a Replacement Wetland of the size and type specified in the Replacement Plan approved by the LGU and on file at the offices of the LGU. Declarant shall not make any use of the Replacement Wetland that would adversely affect the functions or values of the wetland as specified in the Replacement Plan. 2. Declarant grants to the State of Minnesota and the agents and employees of the State of Minnesota reasonable access to the Replacement Wetland shown on Exhibit B for inspection, monitoring, and enforcement purposes. This Declaration grants no access to or entry on the lands described to the general public. • 3. Declarant represents that they have a fee simple interest in the land on which the Replacement Wetland is located. Declarant represents that they have obtained the consent of all other parties who may have an interest in the land on which the Replacement Wetland is or will be located to the creation of the restrictions and covenants herein, and that, all such parties have agreed in writing to subordinate their interests to these restrictions and covenants. 4. If the Replacement Plan requires the establishment of areas of native vegetative cover (`Buffer Areas"), the term "Replacement Wetland" as used in this Declaration shall also include the Buffer Areas, even if such areas are not wetlands. All provisions of this Declaration that apply to the Replacement Wetland shall, unless otherwise indicated, apply equally to the Buffer Areas. 5. This Declaration may be modified only by joint written approval of the State of Minnesota through the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Such modification may include the release of land contained in the legal description above, if it is determined that non- wetland areas have been encumbered by this Declaration, unless the approved Replacement Plan designates these non - wetland areas for establishment of Buffer Areas. JBD- 273614v1 MU195 -15 2 -1668- 6. This Declaration may be enforced, at law or in equity, by the State of Minnesota. • The State of Minnesota shall be entitled to recover an award of reasonable attorneys fees from Declarant in any action to enforce this Declaration. The right to enforce the terms of this Declaration is not waived or forfeited by any forbearance or failure to act on the part of the State. 7. This Declaration must be recorded against the property identified on Exhibit A and proof of recording submitted to the regulatory authority in order to be valid. Mark Hanus, Mayor Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of • , 2010, by Mark Hanus and Bonnie Ritter, respectively the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Mound, MN (Signature of Notarial Officer) My commission expires: This instrument drafted by: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED (JBD) 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337 -9300 JBD- 273614v1 MU195 -15 -1669- • • Exhibit A — Legal Description That part of the following described land: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 117, Range 24, and that part of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No.170, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and that part of the vacated alley in "Mc Naught's 2nd Addition To Mound, Lake Minnetonka ", all described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter: thence on an assumed bearing of North 02 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds East along the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter 664.53 feet; thence South 89 degrees 40 minutes 35 seconds East 572.01 feet to the point of beginning; thence continue South 89 degrees 40 minutes 35 seconds East 58.66 feet; thence South 02 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds West 149.71 feet; thence South 89 degrees 38 minutes 28 seconds East 100.00 feet; thence North 02 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds East 149.77 feet; thence South 89 degrees 40 minutes 35 seconds East 113.10 feet; thence Southeasterly 490.37 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 1450.37 feet and a central angle of 19 degrees 22 minutes 18 seconds; thence North 19 degrees 41 minutes 43 seconds East, not tangent to last described curve, 0.60 feet; thence South 70 degrees 40 minutes 24 seconds East 16.10 feet to the intersection with the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence Southerly along said East line 621.57 feet to the Southeast corner of said • Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence Westerly 648.84 feet along the South line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter to a point 695.78 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence Northerly 225.19 feet to a point 501.31 feet Easterly of the Southwest corner of Lot 11, Auditor's Subdivision No. 170, as measured along a line drawn from the said Southwest corner of Lot 11 and parallel with the South line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence continue Northerly along last described course 170.00 feet; thence deflect to the left 21 degrees a distance of 169.63 feet to the intersection with the Easterly extension of the centerline of Alley as dedicated in the plat of "McNaught's 2nd Addition to Mound, Lake Minnetonka" thence Westerly along said center line to the intersection with the extension South of the East line of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 170; thence Northerly along said extension to the Southeast corner of said Lot 6; thence Westerly to the Southeast corner of the West 50.00 feet of said Lot 6; thence Northerly along the East line of the West 50.00 feet of said Lot 6 to the North line of the South 10.00 feet of said Lot 6; thence Easterly along said North line to the East line of said Lot 6; thence North 33 degrees 31 minutes 24 seconds East 19.53 feet to the intersection with a line bearing South 02 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 02 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds East 100.00 feet to the point of beginning, is JBD- 273614v1 MU195 -15 4 -1670- JBD- 273614v1 MU195 -15 Exhibit B — Map of Replacement Wetland -1671- • • • Mound Harbor Renaissance Mound and Minnetrista, Minnesota COPY 2009 Annual Monitoring Report I. INTRODUCTION Wetland Replacement monitoring is required for up to five [5] years following the completion of a wetland replacement project to determine if the replacement wetland achieves the goal of mitigating functions and values lost due to project impacts. The replacement wetland should meet both the general and specific requirements as outlined in Section 8420.0550 Subpart 1. of the 2002 Wetland Conservation Act Rules (Appendix A). This report presents observations for the 2009-monitoring year for the Mound Harbor a, Renaissance replacement sites in Mound and Minnetrista, Minnesota. The replacement site for wetland fill impacts associated with the construction of the Renaissance Townhomes development (referred to as the Townhomes Replacement Site henceforth) is located in Section 13, Township 117N, Range 24W, City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Figure 1A). More specifically, this mitigation area is located on -site, and just south of Lost Lake Lane (Figure 1B). • The Mound Harbor Renaissance replacement site for DNR permitted dred within Lost Lake (referred to as the Lost Lake Replacement Site henceforth) is located in Section 21, Township 117, Range 24, City of Minnetrista, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Figure 1A). More specifically, this mitigation area is located to the southeast of Minnetrista City offices and north of the railroad line (Figure 1C). The Townhomes Replacement site visit took place on December 7h, 2009. At that time vegetation was no longer growing and temperatures were in the 30's. Hydrology was assumed to be representative of normal conditions due to the site's location immediately adjacent to Lost Lake, an extension of Lake Minnetonka. The 2009 Lost Lake Replacement site visits took place on April 3`a, June 8a', August 18th and October 20th. Plant community data was primarily visit when vegetation was actively growing. Hydrology was present dugring all site visits. Precipitation data for both replacement sites is provided in Appendix B. II. PROJECT SUMMARY Townhomes Replacement Site A total of 9,630 square feet of new wetland • buffer areas and stormwater treatment rain gardens ()(pVC)6wereconstruc constructed on land the -1673- • Mound Harbor Renaissance Townhomes site (Figure 2) to compensate for 6,803 square feet of wetland fill associated with project development (Appendix Q. Two replacement wetlands were created adjacent to Lost Lake. Replacement Area I was created on -site by excavating 2,903 square feet within upland along the shoreline of Lost Lake. The grades were to range from 928.0 to 929.4 msl. Replacement Area 2 was also created on -site by excavating 6,727 square feet within upland along the shoreline of Lost Lake. The grades were to range from 927.0 to 929.4 msl. Shallow sustained groundwater at the 929.0 msl elevation is predicted to produce the described wetland acreage to a minimum elevation of 930.0 msl. The shallow water and saturated zones of the replacement areas (927.0 to 930.0) were to be seeded with a wet meadow wetland seed mixture. Lost Lake Replacement Site Also associated with the townhomes project was the dredging of 1.40 acres of an adjacent DNR Protected Water (Lost Lake) to provide access from boat slips on the north shore of Lost Lake to Lake Minnetonka. To compensate for the dredging activities a total of 2.80 acres of mitigation was required. The approved replacement plan consisted of 2.46 acres of newly created wetland located in Minnetrista (Figure 3) and the purchase of the remaining 0.34 acres of new wetland credit from a wetland restoration proposed by Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in the City of Shorewood. Buffer averaging 35 -feet in width was planned adjacent to the new wetland in Minnetrista. • Replacement Area I was created by excavating upland adjacent to the north side of an existing wetland. The grades were to range from 935.0 to 938.0 msl. The new wetland was to be seeded with the BWSR Mixture W1 for Native Emergent/Wetland Fringe and a MNDOT 350 mix was proposed for the buffer areas. III. MONITORING BACKGROUND/ SITE HISTORY Townhomes Reulacem_ent_Ste (M ound) 2009 represents the first (0) year the Mound Harbor Renaissance Townhomes Replacement site was monitored. Grading for the project was completed in 2006. The constructed wetlands and upland buffer areas correspond in size and shape as approved in the replacement plan. Wetland type also corresponds to the approved plan. Lost Lake Replacement Site ( Minnetrista) 2009 represents the fourth (4th) year the Mound Harbor Renaissance site was monitored. Grading of the Renaissance replacement wetland was completed in July 2006 and Landform Engineering completed an as -built survey in August, 2006 (Figure 3A). Based on the as- built survey, the area created at or below the proposed new wetland boundary (940.0 msl) is 2.47 acres, 0.01 acres more than proposed. The constructed wetland corresponds to size, shape, and elevations approved in the replacement plan. • Prairie Restorations, Inc. PRI was retained to ( ) complete native seeding establishment and conduct future vegetation management to ensure the development of native plant 2 -1674- communities in the new wetland and buffer areas. In September 2006 PRI sprayed weedy annuals that had emerged after grading and in October 2006 the site was dormant seeded. Observations in 2006 found the entire replacement area consisting of bare ground as grading had only recently been completed. In 2007 vegetation had become established throughout the basin with bare ground representing less than 15 percent of the area. Approximately half of the new wetland area had been inundated during both early and late growing season observations. No herbicide applications occurred during the 2007 growing season since these activities are generally harmful to the development of the plant community the first growing season after seeding. The Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for the replacement wetland and upland buffer areas were recorded with the County in early 2008. Copies were mailed to the Cities of Mound and Minnetrista in January of 2009. IV. METHODS Vegetation and hydrology were documented at fixed photo reference points as shown on Figures 4 and 5. Plant species dominance was estimated based on a meander survey throughout the new wetland area. The location, composition, and extent of plant • communities were described for each replacement area. Hydrology characterizations consisted of aerial coverage estimates during the site visit. Photographs were taken at one to three fixed photo points at each replacement wetland and were referenced to fixed points identified on the wetland replacement plan and labeled accordingly. V. RESULTS Townhomes Replacement Site Replacement Area 1 (Figures 4 and 4B) At the time of the site visit approximately 50% of the wetland was inundated with 6 inches to 1 foot of water. The remainder of the wetland was saturated to inundated with less than 1 inch of water. Vegetation communities are detailed in Figure 4. Replacement Area ;2 (Figures 4B and 4B) At the time of the site visit approximately 80% of the wetland was inundated with 1 inch to 1 foot of water. The remainder of the wetland was saturated to inundated with less than one inch of water. Vegetation communities are detailed in Figure 4B. Much of the upland buffer on the site was mowed; therefore, species dominance could not be accurately documented. However, species noted during the site visit include bluegrass, rye, coneflowers, sunflowers, and goldenrods. • 1675- Lost Lake Replacement Site Replacement Area I (Figures S, SA, and SB) Multiple vegetation management activities took place during the 2009 growing season • and are listed below. June 23, 2009 — Spotty areas of reed canary grass throughout the site was wicked. Dense reed canary grass growth along the south and west edges of the site was wicked to buffer the influx of off -site existing reed canary grass. During the August site visit, a 5 -foot to 10 -foot band of brown reed canary grass was observed along the south and wet edges. August 4, 2009 — Canada goldenrod, Canada thistle, perennial clovers and purple loosestrife on the site were spot sprayed. September 1. 2009 — Canada goldenrod, Canada thistle, and purple loosestrife were spot sprayed. Canada goldenrod and cool season non - native grasses were wicked. At the time of the April site visit approximately 70% of the large, easternmost new wetland was inundated with less than 1 inch of water. The remainder of the replacement wetland was saturated to the surface. Approximately 95% of the westernmost new wetland was inundated with less than 6 inches of water. Vegetation and hydrology were most accurately document during the August site visit (Figure 5). Two main plant communities were observed. Community I consisted of wet meadow dominated by willow herb, spike rushes, and sedges with lesser amounts of reed canary grass (sprayed), giant goldenrod, giant mannagrass, and swamp milkweed. • Approximately 50% of Community 1 was inundated with less than 6 inches of water while the remainder of the area was saturated to the surface. Community 2 consisted of shallow marsh dominated by cattail with lesser amounts of willow shrubs, woolgrass, and spike rush. Approximately 50% of the area was inundated with up to 1 foot of water with less than 1 foot of water throughout the remainder. Buffer Description Buffer averaging 35 feet in width was to be established adjacent to the new wetland. Buffer was un -mowed during the August site visit and consisted primarily of the following species: Species Cover Species Cover Bouteloua curti endula 15 Solida o canadensis 2 Sor hastrum nutans 20 Salix s . 2 El mus track caulus 25 Monarda stulosa 2 Andro 0 on gerardii 15 Verbena stricta 2 Bromus inermis S Oli oneuron ri idum 2 Phalaris arundinacea S Rudbeckia s . 2 Phleum ratense 5 4 VI. MANAGEMENT ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS Townhomes Replacement Site • If not already done, the Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for the wetland \ and upland buffer areas should be recorded with the County. • Buffer signage should be installed (at least in the easternmost portion of the site) and mowing activities within the buffer should cease unless conducted by a vegetation management company and as part of a vegetation management plan. • If necessary, monitoring will continue in 2010 to verify that the new wetland and upland buffer communities continue to develop as proposed. Lost Lake R pl eacement Site • There are no specific vegetation management recommendations at this time. Prairie Restorations will continue with maintenance in 2009 as they determine appropriate, with specific attention to reed canary grass control as occurred in 2009. • If necessary, monitoring will continue in 2010 to verify that the new wetland communities continue to develop as proposed. S -1677- • • • J t 3 3 to r F .t 4. 5,{ V t r. j Z .. � �' 4 sfz I.� Y' f r N• Nx ii- IN 1 � a '.3P ,5 tik is •��� � � < R � �?`� , ni O F in 7 7 i� V 1 • r� 5341 Maywood Road • Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472 -0604 • • MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director Date: August 19, 2010 Re: MCWD Wetland and Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization Bank Rules Adoption Overview / Next Steps Pete Willenbring of WSB & Associates will attend the August 24, 2010 City Council meeting to provide an update following the recent MCWD rules adoption related to wetlands and shoreline and streambank stabilization including discussion related to next steps for the City including possible need to update the 2009 Surface Water Management Plan and related ordinances. A copy of the July 27, 2010 MCWD letter regarding the rules approvals has been included. U: \Smmith \My Documents\ Memorandums \2009\2010 \memomcwdrules.doc -1679- MINNEHAHA CREEK The Minnehaho Creek Watershed District is committed to a leadership role in protecting, improving and managing the surface waters and affiliated groundwater resources within the District, including their relationships to the ;cosystems of which they ore on integral part. We achieve our mission through regulation, capital projects, education, cooperative endeavors, and other programs based on sound science, innovative thinking, on informed and engaged constituency, and the cost effective use of public funds. QUALITY OF WATER July 27, 2010 Kandis Hanson City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 WATERSHED DISTRICT QUALITY OF LIFE Re: Adoption of Wetland and Shoreline / Streambank Rules Dear Ms. Hanson, Thank you for attending the July 8, 2010 Public Hearing for the Wetland Protection and Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization rules. On July 15, 2010, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers reviewed and discussed the comments received during the Public Hearing. Enclosed with this letter is a summary of the comments received and the District's responses to those comments. The Board of Managers adopted the Wetland Protection and Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization rules as revised on July 15, 2010 with an effective implementation date of September 1, 2010. Electronic copies of the final rule language can be found on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District website at www.minnehahacreek.ora. We have appreciated and listened carefully to the input we have received and are confident that the final rules address community concerns while remaining true to our water quality goals. If you have any questions, please contact: James Wisker at Jwisker@Aminnehahacreek.org or 952 -471 -0590 x 206. - 1680 -1- • • • Summary of Comments Submitted During the • July 8, 2010 Public Hearing for the Shoreline and Wetland Rules WETLAND PROTECTION: 1. Request that paragraph 6 (d) (Line 271) be amended to read, "the proposed buffer conditions clearly provide a highs function and value equal to or re eater than would be provided by a buffer of the applicable Applied Buffer Width ..." a. The Board of Managers accepted this revision. 2. Noted that paragraph 7 (a) {Line 305) should reference paragraph 6 (c), not paragraph 6 (d). a. The Board of Managers accepted this revision. 3. Concern that the scope of paragraph 7 (c)-1 (Line 323) may be more onerous than intended with regards to the need to decompact and incorporate organic matter. a. Staff reviewed this language with the commenter and noted that organic matter may be incorporated through the practice of tilling the soil, which addressed the concern. • b. The Board of Managers considered this comment and made no change ange to the e r ule. 4. Concern that future. revisions to the Stormwater Management rule may alter the scope or application of the Wetland Protection rule. Request that the District postpone the adoption of the Wetland Protection rule until the adoption of the Stormwater Management rule. a. The District will draft the Stormwater Management rule in a manner that does not create conflict with the scope of the Wetland Protection rule. District staff does not anticipate substantial change in the regulatory scope of the Stormwater Management Rule, providing reasonable predictability as to the scope of the Wetland Protection Rule. 5. Noted that local municipalities have impervious cover limitations and questioned if the requirement to add a wetland buffer to a lot that increases imperviousness but still meets municipal impervious cover limitations creates a conflict. a. The requirement to establish wetland buffers is based, in part, on findings that increased impervious surface generates increased runoff volumes and rates that contribute to the degradation of overall wetland quality. These impacts can be minimized through the implementation of wetland buffers. • - 1681 -01- b. The Board of Managers considered this comment and made no change to the rule. 6. Any additional requirement beyond those currently required by the Wetland Conservation Act • regulations should not be included in the rule. a. The existing District rule regulates excavation in wetlands more broadly than does the Wetland Conservation Act. The existing restrictions on wetland excavation have been clarified in the revisions. Further, the Board has established a policy of requiring wetland impacts to be mitigated within the watershed. The proposed rule accomplishes this where MCWD is the LGU for WCA. b. The Board of Managers considered this comment and made no change to the rule. 7. Strongly recommend that wetland buffer triggers only be required when a major subdivision project, as defined by local ordinance, is proposed. a. Adoption of this recommendation would produce inconsistent regulation (subject to local definitions of "major subdivision project ") and substantially undermine the District's effectiveness in achieving its wetland - protection goals. b. The Board of Managers considered this comment and made no change to the rule. 8. Recommendations to limit the wetland buffer widths to 50 feet. Other comments indicate a • lack of support for change from the existing maximum of 35 feet. a. Based on peer- reviewed literature, the Board has found that increasing the wetland buffer widths will protect specific function and values including but not limited to, increasing groundwater recharge, reducing pollutant transport from adjacent uplands, reducing conveyance of runoff volumes to wetlands, supporting infiltration and evapotranspiration of runoff, providing critical wildlife habitat for aquatic species (invertebrates, amphibians, birds), providing increased flood storage during high water, reducing erosion and sediment transport, preserving wetland source hydrology and reducing human noise and physical encroachment on wetlands. b. Further, based on previous comments received, the Board of Managers has included substantial flexibility allowing for reductions in wetland buffer widths when conditions warrant. c. The Board of Managers considered this comment and made no change to the rule. 9. Recommend that the District undertake all necessary monitoring and signage activities and • incorporate into the cost of the permitting program. 1682 -- 0 a. The Board of Managers inserted language into the rule requiring the District to provide wetland buffer signage at cost (approx. $3.50). • b. The Board of Managers considered this comment and made no change to the rule. 10. Request that the Board reinstate language from 6 (c) {Line 257} that reads, "The buffer width may be reduced if the total area of the buffer exceeds the area of the wetland it is protecting." Commenter felt that this language provided staff and the Board with the discretion to allow reductions where justified by site conditions. a. District staff performed a Geographic Information Systems analysis to explore how this language would be applied across the District and on specific developments. b. Staff found that 73% of Preserve wetlands and 49% of Manage 1 wetlands would qualify for consideration for buffer reduction. c. Staff found that 62% of the Preserve wetlands under 1 acre were characterized as Preserve because they were listed as being Exceptional for susceptibility to stormwater impacts and Medium or better for vegetative diversity. d. After reviewin g a development/buffer analysis for developments in the District, the P Board determined that paragraph 6 (c) should be removed on the basis that flexibility remained in the rule allowing for reductions in wetland buffer widths such that development would not be unduly restricted. e. The Board of Managers considered this comment and made no change to the rule. - 1683 -03- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 10 -_ • RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR HEARING ON THE 2011 STREET, UTILITY, AND RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the Council adopted August 11, 2010, a report has been prepared by Bolton & Menk with reference to the proposed improvement of Southwest Island Area Aberdeen Road Tuxedo Boulevard west to end Alexander Lane Tuxedo Boulevard to Donald Drive Amhurst Lane Tuxedo Boulevard to Island View Drive Argyle Lane Tuxedo Boulevard to Alexander Lane Canterbury Road Devon Lane west to end Charles Lane Franklin Road to Piper Road Churchill Lane Donald Drive south to end Cumberland Road Devon Lane west to end Dale Road Donald Drive to Glasgow Road Devon Lane Tuxedo Boulevard to Lanark Road Dexter Lane Tuxedo Boulevard to Island View Drive Donald Drive Devon Lane to Brighton Boulevard Drummond Road Roxbury Lane east to end Drummond Road Tuxedo Boulevard west to end Drummond Road Tuxedo Boulevard east to end Dundee Lane Tuxedo Boulevard to Donald Drive Franklin Road Charles Lane to Warner Road Gladstone Lane Franklin Road south to end Glasgow Road Devon Lane to Argyle Lane • Hanover Road Roxbury Lane east to end Hanover Road Tuxedo Boulevard east to end Lanark Road Devon Lane to Argyle Lane Phelps Road Warner Road to Tuxedo Boulevard Piper Road Charles Lane to Tuxedo Boulevard Roxbury Lane Hanover Road to Drummond Road Seabury Road Warner Road east to end Sulgrove Road Warner Road to Tuxedo Boulevard Warner Road Piper Road to Sulgrove Road Waterbury Road Warner Road east to end Waterbury Road Warner Road west to end Windsor Road Tuxedo Boulevard east to end Windsor Road Warner Road east to end Municipal State Aid Segment Ridgewood Road, Idlewood Road, and Highland Blvd from Westedge Blvd to Bartlett Blvd, hereafter known as the 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement Project, and this report was received by the City Council on the 24`h day of August, 2011, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended; and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: • -1684- 1. The Council will consider the 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement Project in accordance • with the report and the assessment of affected properties for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $5,312,000. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 28th -day-of Se temba; -24Q, in th council chambers of city hall at 7:00 p.m. and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hear and improvement as required by law. l � Adopted by the City Council this 24`h day of August, 2010. Mayor Mark Hanus Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk .7 -1685- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 10 -XX • RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $244,407 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF AND FOR THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR 2011 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound is the governing body of the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received a resolution from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of and for the City of Mound, entitled "Resolution Authorizing The Levy of a Special Benefit Levy Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033, Subdivision 6 and Approval of a Budget for Fiscal Year 2011 "; and WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469, must by resolution consent to the proposed tax levy of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Mound. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,. Minnesota, that a special tax be levied upon real and personal property within the City of Mound in the amount not to exceed $244,407, or the maximum amount allowed. • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said levy, not to exceed $244,407, or the maximum amount allowed, is approved by this Council to be used for the operation of the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469, and such proposed special levy shall be certified as a tax levy to the County Auditor of Hennepin County on or before September 15, 2010. The final special levy shall be certified to the County Auditor of Hennepin County by December 28, 2010. Adopted by the City Council this 24th day of August, 2010. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -1686- Mayor Mark Hanus • • • City of Mound 2011 Preliminary Budget Summary 2010 2011 %Increase General Fund Levy $3.73 M $3.73M 0.00 %' Special Levies $1:58 M $1.68 M 6.70 %' (for debt service & fire re lief 8/24/2010 • J44,1hu+ Ale-ritt liar --4 3 1 City of Mound 2011 Preliminary Budget: Summary oe Total % Increase Increase Net Tax Over Net Over Year cavacity Prior Year Levy Prior Year 2006 ' 10,595,954 15.15% < 3,931,834 14.48% 2007 12,054,,713 13.77 %, 4,381,344 11.43 %; 2008 13,231137 9,78 "% : 4,606,881 5.15 °k noon • • nees�ewre .� IN �yoL ��, . .,'.,A.Y9A 1111 ' .`:d A1eL> _` ti ...'_ . x 8/24/2010 • J44,1hu+ Ale-ritt liar --4 3 1 City of Mound 2011 Preliminary Budget Summary General Fund Revenue Sources CITY OF MOUND GENERAL FUND REVENUES YEAR 2011 PRELIMINARY Proceeds Other Revenue 8% from Sale Charges for of Bonds 0 Services 13% ` % Licenses 3% intergovernmental Revenue 2% Property Tax 74% City of Mound 2011 Preliminary Budget Summary General Fund Expenditures CITY OF MOUND GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES YEAR 2011 PRELIMINARY Parks & Recreation 10% Other 1 % General Public orks ^` _' Go 2 13 % 3% Public Safety 53% 8/24/2010 2 • • • • City of Mound • City of Mound 2011 Preliminary Budget Summary Highlights • 0 % General Fund Levy Increase, 2% reduction in expenditures • 25 cent reduction in Gas & Electric Franchise Fees to $2.75 per month each • Cost savings initiatives reflected - Public Works reorganization, lighting retrofits; consolidation of service contracts:.antlA work:c "ontinueS, • 8/24/2010 3 Difference Fuld Revenu Ex22n RSY�3R General $5,222,112 $5,220,379 1,733 Area Fire 1,061,672 1,061,672 0 Debt Service (G.O.) 2,699,043 2,699,043 0 Capital Improvement 7,000 1,500 5,500 Recycling 225,276 221,407 3,869 LlquorStore 2,850,000 2,738,624 111,376 Water TBD 1,579,357 TBD Sewer TBD - 1,701,324 , . TSD • City of Mound 2011 Preliminary Budget Summary Highlights • 0 % General Fund Levy Increase, 2% reduction in expenditures • 25 cent reduction in Gas & Electric Franchise Fees to $2.75 per month each • Cost savings initiatives reflected - Public Works reorganization, lighting retrofits; consolidation of service contracts:.antlA work:c "ontinueS, • 8/24/2010 3 City of Mound 2011 Preliminary Budget Summary Capital Expenditures DEPARTMENT PROPOSED' REQUES T M NT GENERAL FUND 270,981 88,481 AREA FIRE SERVICE FUND 23,200 8,100 WATER FUND 74,000 5,000 SEWER FUND 145,500 7,500 STORM FUND `138,000 . 0 . City of Mound 2011 Preliminary Budget Summary 2009 2010 2011 % INCREASE ACTUAL APPROVED REQUESTED (DECREASE) CITY COUNCIL 80,552 79,991 77,960 •2.5% PROMOTIONS 17,400 71,500 71,500 0.0°x6 CABLE T.V. 45,151 45,230 47,492 5.0% CITY MANAGERICLERK 331,314 327,779 312,053 4.81A ELECTIONS & REGISTRATION 1;059 18,375 2,650 - 85.6%x' ASSESSING 92,868 95,650 95,600 -0.1% FINANCE 314,014. 326,745 335,258 2.6% COMPUTER 45,872 29,800 37,950 27.3% LEGAL 128,488 140,506 131;500 -0:4% POLICE 1,968,437 1,883,189 1,932,171' 2.6% EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 13,925 25,950 8,150` -68.6% PLANNING & INSPECTION 316,924 363,099 310,619 - 14.5 %` STREET 775,863 71455 70,177- 1.9% CITY�IALL BLDG & SRVS. 104,770 11 102 845 110,100 cli�e's`ParkDediCation)_. ,dYl�A94` 8/24/2010 4 r� • C7 4 • • • CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2011 PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,220,379 ; SETTING THE PRELIMINARY LEVY AT $5,407,473 ; AND APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR 2011. BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the following preliminary 2011 General Fund Budget appropriations: City Council 77,960 Cable TV 47,492 City Managers /Clerk 312,053 Promotions 71,500 Elections /Registration 2,650 Assessing 95,600 Finance 335,258 Computer 37,950 Legal 131,500 Police 1,932,171 Emergency Preparedness 8,150 Planning /Inspections 310,619 Street 701,177 City Hall Bldg. & Srvs. 110,100 Parks 479,199 Recreation 2,500 Cemetery 11,100 Contingencies 36,800 Transfers 516,600 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 5,220,379 — xd Pit te, kjeiLka 14e.,m �5 Resolution No. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby direct the County Auditor to levy the following preliminary taxes for collection in 2011: SPECIAL LEVIES HRA Lease Revenue Bonds - Lease Payment 392,789 Bonded Indebtedness - 2001A Judgment Bond 19,200 Fire Relief 78,311 G.O. Improvement 2001 C 60,000 G.O. Improvement 2003A 180,000 G.O. Tax Increment 2003C 45,000 G.O. Improvement 2004A 160,000 G.O. Improvement 2005A 75,000 G.O. Improvement 2006A 58,000 G.O. Improvement 2007A 128,000 G.O. Equipment Certificates 2007C 60,000 G.O. Improvement 2008B 63,000 G.O. Equipment Certificates 2008D 47,000 G.O. Improvement 2009A 136,000 G.O. Equipment Certificates 2009C 33,450 G.O. Equipment Certificates 2010C 25,000 G.O. Tax Increment 2009D Dump Bonds 120,349 Total Special Levies 1,681,099 PRELIMINARY REVENUE LEVY 3,726,374 Preliminary Certified Levy 5,407,473 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the preliminary overall budget for 2011 as follows: GENERAL FUND As per above 5,220,379 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Area Fire Service Fund 1,061,672 Dock Fund 201,061 Transit District Maintenance 53,300 TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 1,316,033 — �?evsod N e Ib88 A e-A ln Cdcm �9 • • • • • Resolution No. ENTERPRISE FUNDS Recycling Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Storm Water Utility Fund TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS SUMMARY General Fund Special Revenue Funds Enterprise Funds TOTAL ALL FUNDS Adopted by the City Council this 24th day of August, 2010. Mayor Mark Hanus Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk — Rcvi5etl C),9e I bE9 AA%e,^dA-, Ism %w�] 221,407 598,624 1,579,357 1,701,324 354,270 4,454,982 5,220,379 1,316,033 4,454,982 10,991,394 • • C7 CITY OF MOUND • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2011 PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,221,540 ; SETTING THE PRELIMINARY LEVY AT $5,407,473 ; AND APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR 2011. BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the following preliminary 2011 General Fund Budget appropriations: City Council 77,960 Cable TV 47,492 City Managers /Clerk 312,053 Promotions 71,500 Elections /Registration 2,650 Assessing 95,600 Finance 335,258 Computer 37,950 Legal 131,500 Police 1,932,171 Emergency Preparedness 8,150 Planning /Inspections 312,630 • Street 701,688 City Hall Bldg. & Srvs. 110,100 Parks 479,238 Recreation 2,500 Park Dedication 0 Cemetery 9,700 Contingencies 36,800 Transfers 516,600 • TOTAL GENERAL FUND 5,221,540 -1687- Resolution No. • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby direct the County Auditor to levy the following preliminary taxes for collection in 2011: SPECIAL LEVIES HRA Lease Revenue Bonds - Lease Payment 392,789 Bonded Indebtedness - 2001A Judgment Bond 19,200 Fire Relief 78,311 G.O. Improvement 2001C 60,000 G.O. Improvement 2003A 180,000 G.O. Tax Increment 2003C 45,000 G.O. Improvement 2004A 160,000 G.O. Improvement 2005A 75,000 G.O. Improvement 2006A 58,000 G.O. Improvement 2007A 128,000 G.O. Equipment Certificates 2007C 60,000 G.O. Improvement 2008B 63,000 G.O. Equipment Certificates 2008D 47,000 G.O. Improvement 2009A 136,000 G.O. Equipment Certificates 2009C 33,450 G.O. Equipment Certificates 2010C 25,000 G.O. Tax Increment 2009D Dump Bonds 120,349 . Total Special Levies 1,681,099 PRELIMINARY REVENUE LEVY 3,726,374 Preliminary Certified Levy 5,407,473 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the preliminary overall budget for 2011 as follows: GENERAL FUND As per above 5,221,540 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Area Fire Service Fund 1,061,672 Dock Fund 204,583 TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 1,266,255 • -1688- • ENTERPRISE FUNDS Resolution No. Recycling Fund 221,407 Liquor Fund 598,624 Water Fund 1,579,357 Sewer Fund 1,701,324 Storm Water Utility Fund 354,270 TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 4,454,982 SUMMARY General Fund 5,221,540 Special Revenue Funds 1,266,255 Enterprise Funds 4,454,982 TOTAL ALL FUNDS 10,942,777 Adopted by the City Council this 24th day of August, 2010. C Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk • Mayor Mark Hanus -1689- MISSION STATEMENT: "The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides, at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishinq communitv." • PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA JOINT WORKSHOP WITH CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 24,2010,7:00 PM, MOUND CITY HALL 1. Joint workshop with City Council to hear presentation from the City Attorney and Staff related to a recent MN Supreme Court decision regarding variances and related discussion • QUESTIONS: Call Jill at 952 - 472 -0607 or Sarah at 952 -072 -0604 • -1690- 5341 Maywood Road • Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472 -0604 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council, Planning Commission, Staff and Consultants From: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director Date: August 18, 2010 Re: Joint City Council / Planning Commission Workshop — June 2010 MN Supreme Court Decision Regarding Variances Summary. As part of the August 24, 2010 regular City Council meeting, the City Council and Planning Commission will hold a joint workshop for the purpose of having a presentation and discussion with the City Attorney and Staff related to a recent MN Supreme Court decision regarding one of the standards in determining undue hardship for variances. For review, a number of documents have been assembled, the majority of which will be discussed and explained as part of the joint workshop. • Memorandum from City Attorney John Dean dated August 18, 2010 regarding this workshop • • Memorandum from City Attorney John Dean dated July 1, 2010 regarding Krummenacher vs. Minnetonka decision • Copy of June 2010 MN Supreme Court Case Krummenacher vs. Minnetonka • Site location map — City of Minnetonka • Background on Krummenacher v Minnetonka with site plan, aerial and photos • Excerpt from Mound Code (129 -39 — variances) • League of Minnesota Cities summary memo • Set of emails from city attorneys around the state indicating what their councils are doing • Copy of Press News article on MN Supreme Court June 2010 decision • Information related to Minnetonka City Council Agenda Item 14B for meeting of August 16, 2010 • City of Minnetonka definition of expansion • Copy of Star Tribune article on DNR challenge of Lakeshore variance • MN Court of Appeals decision (Grew vs Board of Adjustment of Town of Rice) -1691- • Memorandum from HKGI Consultant Rita Trapp re: non - conforming • structures /expansion ■ Excerpt from MS 462.357, subd. 1(e) ■ Excerpt from Mound Code (129 -35 — non - conforming uses) ■ (2) illustrative graphics • Copy of August 24, 2010 special Planning Commission meeting /workshop notice • Page 2 -1692- • • is • Memorandum To: Ma y or Council and Planning Commission From: John Dean Subject: Workshop on Krummenacher decision Date: 8/18/10 In your agenda packets you will find a number of documents from me. Read them if you want, but it's okay with me if you do not read them in advance of the meeting. I will reference the various documents as part of my presentation. If you have a bit of time, you may want to review my July 1 memo; and if you are particularly inquisitive, you may want to read Krummenacher. -1693- MEMORANDUM Date: July 1, 2010 To: Mayor and City Council From: John Dean Subject: New and noteworthy court decision: Krummenacher vs. Minnetonka. On June 24, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided Krummenacher v. Minnetonka. The case not only reversed the decisions of both the District Court and the Court of Appeals which had upheld the action of Minnetonka granting a variance, but it also "declined to follow" a 20 -year old Court of Appeals decision (Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of Moorhead) which had been relied upon by courts and by cities in considering variances for the last 20 years. It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court denied review of Rowell in 1989 when it was decided by the Court of Appeals. FACTS Kummenacher's neighbor, Liebeler, owns a 2.4 acre lot in Minnetonka. In addition to a house and attached garage, the parcel contained a flat- roofed garage that was constructed in the 1940's. The garage was in conformity with the land use regulations in place at the time it was constructed, but as the result of later changes in the regulations it became nonconforming because it now encroaches (33 feet) into the 50 -foot front yard setback. Liebleler applied for and was granted a variance to allow for the addition of a pitched roof and a second -story room over the garage. Minnetonka treated this as an expansion of a nonconformity, and used the variance process to determine if the expansion would be allowed. Kremenacher appealed the decision to District Court, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. DECISION As the case was moving through the court system, most observers believed that the main issue in the case was whether or not cities could permit the expansion of nonconformities through the variance process. As to that issue, the Supreme Court concluded that the use of variances to permit the expansion of nonconformities was authorized by state law. 371002v1 JBD MU220 -1 1 -1694- • • C, • The court next reviewed the standard to be applied in determining whether an "undue hardship" has been established because "the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use" without the variance. The court then made the following observation: The plain language of the statute and our precedent compel us to reject the City's invitation to adopt Rowell's interpretation of "undue hardship." The statute provides that to prove "undue hardship," the variance applicant must show that "the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use" without the variance. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. Not- withstanding this language, the court of appeals concluded that "[t]his provision does not mean that a property owner must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance." Rowell, 446 N.W.2d at 922. The court of appeals essentially rewrote the statute to mean that a municipality may grant a variance when the "property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance." Id. at 922. Although the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard has been used for over 20 years, we simply cannot reconcile that standard with the plain language of the statute. DISCUSSION Briefly stated, the decision shifts the analysis from a determination whether the is applicant has proposed a reasonable use of the property which cannot be done unless a variance is granted to a determination whether there are other reasonable uses of the property which can take place without the need for a variance. If there are, then there is no hardship and a variance should not be granted. • Perhaps a good way to think about the impact of the ruling is to look at two fact situations: 1. Application for a sideyard setback variance to allow for the construction of a single stall garage. There is an existing house without a garage on the site. 2. Application for a sideyard setback variance to allow for the expansion of an existing garage from two to three stalls. Again, the analysis now in not whether the proposal is a reasonable use of the property, but now becomes whether there are other reasonable uses which can take place without the variance. In these two examples, part of the question is whether the existing use is a reasonable use. While it may be possible to argue that a house without a garage is not a reasonable use of land (even though it has already been used that way), it becomes much more difficult to argue that a two stall garage is not a reasonable use, so as to preclude the issuance of a variance for a third stall. In any event, it will be necessary, going forward, 371002A JBD MU220 -1 2 -1695- for all actions approving variances to have specific findings addressing the new reasonable use standard. 0 In addition to the holding described above, the case addressed two other important points: The court did rule that the variance process was a proper method to allow for the expansion of nonconformities. 2. The court in a footnote suggested that because the alteration to the garage (new roof and second floor) did not expand the footprint of the garage, "the scope of the nonconformity was not expanded..." I have heard comments that an effort may be made to introduce legislation next year to nullify the "reasonable use" portion of the decision. Whether that happens, and whether such legislation would be adopted, is anyone's guess at this point. In the interim, it is the law. It will also be interesting to follow Krummenacher to see if Krummenacher or Minnetonka undertake any efforts to have the new roof and second floor removed from the Liebeler garage. I will be supplying you with any updates on the case, and will he happy to discuss this matter further with you if you wish. JBD:jms • • 371002A JBD MU220 -1 3 -1696- • Court of Appeals Beat L. Krummenacher, VS. City of Minnetonka, JoAnne K. Liebeler, STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT Appellant, Respondent, Respondent. A08 -1988 Gildea, J. Took no part, Dietzen, J. Filed: June 24, 2010 Office of Appellate Courts Paul W. Chamberlain, Ryan R. Kuhlmann, Chamberlain Law Firm, Wayzata, Minnesota, for appellant. George C. Hoff, Shelley M. Ryan, Hoff, Barry & Kozar, P.A., Eden Prairie, Minnesota, for respondent City of Minnetonka. James M. Susag, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren Ltd., Bloomington, Minnesota, for respondent JoAnne Liebeler. Susan L. Naughton, St. Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae League of Minnesota Cities. • 1 -1697- SYLLABUS 1. Although Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le(a) (2008), restricts the ability of property owners to expand their nonconforming uses, subdivision le(b) authorizes a municipality to allow an expansion pursuant to ordinance. Because the legislature gave the municipality discretion to authorize the expansion of a nonconforming use, the decision to allow respondent to seek a variance under the ordinance to expand a nonconformity was consistent with Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le. 2. Under Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, to establish the "undue hardship" required for a variance, a variance applicant must establish that "the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use" without the variance. • 3. Because the municipality applied the wrong standard, a remand for reconsideration of respondent's variance application under the correct standard is • appropriate. Reversed and remanded. OPINION GILDEA, Justice. This case involves the decision of respondent City of Minnetonka to grant a variance to respondent JoAnne Liebeler so that she could expand her nonconforming garage. Appellant Beat Krummenacher is Liebeler's neighbor and he challenges the City's decision. The district court upheld the City's variance, and the court of appeals affirmed. See Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 768 N.W.2d 377, 384 (Minn. App. 2009). Because we conclude that the City applied the wrong standard to Liebeler's 2 - • -1698- • variance request, we reverse and remand to the City for reconsideration under the correct standard. Liebeler owns property located in Minnetonka. Krammenacher is Liebeler's neighbor to the west. Liebeler's property consists of a 2.4 -acre lot, which contains a 2,975- square -foot home and an attached two -car garage. The property also contains a detached flat - roofed garage that a previous owner constructed sometime in the 1940s. The City has an ordinance requiring that the detached garage be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the property's boundary line. Minnetonka City Code § 300.10. Liebeler's garage was constructed before this ordinance went into effect, and it does not satisfy the setback requirement. Specifically, the garage is nonconforming because it is set back only 17 feet from the front yard lot line. Because the garage was constructed before the • ordinance became effective, however, the garage is a permissible nonconformity. On March 31, 2008, Liebeler applied for a variance to expand the detached garage by adding a pitched roof and a second -story room above the garage that could be used as a yoga studio and craft room. Liebeler's proposal was to renovate the garage itself, both to fix its leakage problems and improve its appearance, and also to expand the garage by adding a living space above it. Because adding a second story to the garage would result in a vertical expansion of a nonconforming structure, Liebeler was required, under the Minnetonka City Code, to apply for a variance from the City.' See Minnetonka City ' It appears that Liebeler did not attempt to move the garage to a conforming location because the unusual characteristics of the lot made relocation impracticable. Liebeler's lot is L- shaped with only 45 -feet of frontage on the road. Moreover, there is a (Footnote continued on next page.) 0 3 -1699- Code § 300.29.3(g). Liebeler's proposed addition would not alter the footprint of the • garage and would comply with the City zoning requirements for a detached garage with respect to maximum height and size. The City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 15, 2008, to consider Liebeler's request. Both Liebeler and Krummenacher had an opportunity to present their arguments at that hearing. Liebeler explained that she believed that the flat roof was causing leakage problems and that the structure itself needed to be updated. Krummenacher objected to Liebeler's proposed project, explaining that the added height of the garage would obstruct his view to the east. The Planning Commission approved Liebeler's request for the variance. The Planning Commission based its decision on the following findings: (1) the denial of a variance would cause "undue hardship" because of the "topography of the site, width of • the lot, location of the driveway, and existing vegetation"; (2) the preexisting nonconforming setback was a "unique circumstance"; (3) Liebeler's proposal would comply with the "intent of the ordinance" because it satisfied the "zoning ordinance requirements for a detached garage for maximum height and size" and did not alter the footprint of the garage; and (4) the proposal would not alter the "neighborhood character" because it would "visually enhance the exterior of the garage" and because there was (Footnote continued from previous page.) significant slope immediately behind the garage, making it difficult to move the garage back. 4 -1700- r� • another detached garage on a nearby property that was also set back only 17 feet from the road. Krummenacher appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Minnetonka City Council. The City Council held a public hearing on the variance request on June 30, 2008, at which both sides presented their arguments. Amer an examination of the record, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision and findings. The City Council found that Liebeler's "proposal is reasonable and would meet the required standards for a variance." The council listed four requirements and found that the variance satisfied those requirements as follows: (1) Undue Hardship: there is an undue hardship due to the topography of the site, width of the lot, location of the driveway and existing vegetation. • (2) Unique Circumstance: The existing, non - conforming setback is a circumstance that is not common to every similarly zoned property. (3) Intent of the Ordinance: The improvements would not increase the footprint of the garage, and would comply with the zoning ordinance requirements for a detached garage for maximum height and size. (4) Neighborhood Character: The garage improvements would not alter the character of the neighborhood. The improvements would visually enhance the exterior of the garage. There is also a detached garage on the property to the east that is set back 17 feet from [the street]. Krummenacher then brought suit in district court challenging, among other things, the City's finding of undue hardship. Krummenacher served discovery requests asking for additional documents from the City, but the City objected to providing more than the City's record on the grounds that the case was properly subject to record review. The court declined to order the City to produce the additional documents, and affirmed the 0 5 -1701- City's decision to grant the variance to Liebeler, concluding that the City's decision was • not "arbitrary and capricious." Krummenacher appealed to the court of appeals. On appeal, he raised three issues. First, he argued that Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le(a) (2008), prohibits the City from granting a variance to allow the expansion of a nonconforming use. Krummenacher, 768 N.W.2d at 380 -81. Second, he argued that the City's approval of the variance request was "arbitrary and capricious" because Liebeler had failed to meet the "undue hardship" standard of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. See Krummenacher, 768 N.W.2d at 382 -84. Last, he argued that the district court erred in refusing to compel additional discovery by the City. See id. at 384. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision in all respects. We granted Krummenacher's petition for review. On appeal to our court, 0 Krummenacher advances the same three arguments he made to the court of appeals? If We turn first to Klwmnenacher's argument that Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le, prohibits a municipality from granting a variance that allows for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Section 462.357, subdivision le, provides in relevant part: (a) Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, 2 On January 26, 2010, Liebeler filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that we should dismiss the case on the grounds that construction of the expanded garage has been completed, rendering Krummenacher's claims moot. The motion to dismiss is denied. 0 -1702- • • replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion .... (b) A municipality may, by ordinance, permit an expansion or impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfare, or safety. (Emphasis added.) Krummenacher argues that because the plain language of paragraph (a) of subdivision le prohibits the expansion of any nonconformity, the City's decision allowing Liebeler to expand her nonconforming garage must be reversed. The City argues that subdivision le(a) restricts the ability of property owners to expand nonconforming uses, but that under subdivision Ie(b), a municipality is permitted to allow an expansion pursuant to ordinance. The construction of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo. Clark v • Lindquist, 683 N.W.2d 784, 785 (Minn. 2004) a To interpret a statute, we first assess 3 In its brief, the City cites the 2009 version of section 462.357, subdivision le(a) which reads: Except as otherwise provided by law, any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion ... . Minn. Stat. § 462.357 (Supp. 2009) (new language in italics). The "except as otherwise provided" language in this version of subdivision le(a), however, did not become effective until May 22, 2009, which was after the City granted the variance. See Act of May 21, 2009, ch. 149, § 4, 2009 Minn. Laws 2025, 2028. We therefore do not rely on this version of the statute. We apply the 2008 version of subdivision le, the version of the statute in effect when the variance was granted. 4 Liebeler did not propose to expand the footprint of her garage, and it is undisputed that even as remodeled the garage would still be 17 feet from the yard line. In other (Footnote continued on next page.) • 7 -1703- "whether the statute's language, on its face, is clear or ambiguous." Am. Family Ins. • Group v. Schroedl, 616 N. W.2d 273, 277 (Minn. 2000). If the law is "clear and free from all ambiguity," the plain meaning controls and is not "disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit." Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2008); Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 537 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. 1995) ("Where the intention of the legislature is clearly manifested by plain unambiguous language ... no construction is necessary or permitted. "). The legislature has also stated that it intends the entire statute to be effective. Minn. Stat. § 645.16 ("Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions. "). This case is about a structure that does not conform with local land use restrictions. We have recognized that a local zoning ordinance "may constitutionally prohibit the creation of uses which are nonconforming." County of Freeborn v. Claussen, • 295 Minn. 96, 99, 203 N. W.2d 323, 325 (1972). As to "existing nonconforming uses," however, these "must either be permitted to remain or be eliminated by use of eminent domain" Id. But a local government "is not required" to permit the expansion of such nonconformities. Id. Subdivision le is consistent with these principles. We read the subdivision in its entirety and give effect to both paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). Minn. Stat. § 645.16; (Footnote continued from previous page.) words, the scope of the nonconformity would not be expanded if Liebeler's request were granted. The City nevertheless concedes that the variance sought an "expansion" for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le, and we treat it as such for purposes of this opinion. 8 0 -1704- • see also In re Kenney, 374 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. 1985) ("A statute will be construed so as to give effect to all of its parts. "). In paragraph (a), the legislature, with certain. exceptions not relevant here, prohibits a municipality from ordering the removal of nonconformities.5 Further, the legislature has given property owners the right to repair or replace a nonconformity so long as they do not expand the nonconformity. In other words, as long as the property owner does not expand the nonconformity, she does not need municipal approval to take corrective or remedial action on the nonconformity. But under paragraph (b), if the property owner seeks to expand the nonconformity, the municipality may, by ordinance, permit the expansion. Consistent with the authority, the legislature granted to it in paragraph (b) of subdivision le, the City has an ordinance that addresses the expansion of • nonconformities. See Minnetonka City Code § 300.29(g)(1). This ordinance provides that "an expansion of any non - conforming use may not be done without first obtaining a variance" Id. Liebeler's proposed addition to her detached garage required a variance because she proposed to "occup[y] space within a non - conforming area that was previously not occupied ... vertically." Id. Krummenacher argues that because state law is superior to municipal law, the City cannot grant a variance pursuant to its own ordinance if that variance violates state law. 5 The statute allows the municipality to require a nonconformity to be discontinued when it "is discontinued for a period of more than one year," or "is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the properly is damaged." Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le(a)(1) and (2). 0 9 -1705- See Denney v. City of Duluth, 295 Minn. 22, 26, 202 N.W.2d 892, 894 (1972) ( "It is • fundamental that a municipality's power to regulate land use by zoning exists by virtue of authority delegated to it by the state. "). But Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le(b), grants the City the discretion to permit the expansion of a nonconformity by ordinance. The City provided a mechanism for expansion in section 300.29(g)(1), through a variance application, and Krummenacher makes no argument that Liebeler's request for a variance did not satisfy that section of the City Code. Because the legislature gave the City discretion to authorize the expansion of Liebeler's nonconforming garage, we hold that the City's decision to allow Liebeler to seek a variance under the ordinance to expand a nonconformity was consistent with Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le. I1. • We turn next to Krummenacher's argument that the City's decision must be set aside because it was arbitrary and capricious. Municipalities have "broad discretionary power" in considering whether to grant or deny a variance. VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503, 508 (Minn. 1983). We review such decisions "to determine whether the municipality "was within its jurisdiction, was not mistaken as to the applicable law, and did not act arbitrarily, oppressively, or unreasonably, and to determine whether the evidence could reasonably support or justify the determination.,' In re Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d 323, 332 (Minn. 2008) (internal quotation omitted). 10 • -1706- • A. Krummenacher argues that the City's decision was arbitrary and capricious because the City did not apply the proper standard to determine whether Liebeler demonstrated "undue hardship" as defined in Minn. Stat. §462.357, subd. 6. This provision allows a city to grant a variance "from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration." Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. Minnesota Statutes § 462.357, subd. 6, provides a definition of "undue hardship," and that definition requires that three factors be met. Specifically, the statute defines "undue hardship" as meaning, • the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Id.6 To receive a variance, the applicant must show that he or she meets all of the three statutory requirements of the "undue hardship" test. Id. In addition to satisfying the "undue hardship" requirement, the statute allows municipalities to grant variances only 6 The Minnetonka City Code has almost identical provisions. Minnetonka City Code § 300.07.1(a) ( "A variance may be granted from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and when it is demonstrated that such actions would be consistent with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. Undue hardship means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by this ordinance, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood "). is 11 -1707- "when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of • the ordinance." Id. Krummenacher argues that Liebeler's application does not meet any of the requirements for "undue hardship." The first factor a variance applicant must establish to satisfy the statute's definition of "undue hardship" is that "the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6; see also Minnetonka City Code § 300.07.1(a). Krummenacher argues that based on the plain and unambiguous language of the statute, a municipality may grant a variance only when the property cannot be put to any reasonable use without it. According to Krummenacher, Liebeler had a reasonable use for her garage without the addition of a yoga studio and craft room —its current use as a storage space for vehicles. Krummenacher argues therefore that the City did not have the statutory authority to grant • the variance. The court of appeals rejected this argument, relying on its decision in Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of Moorhead, 446 N. W.2d 917 (Minn. App. 1989), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 1989). The court in that case interpretbd the "undue hardship" section of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, as requiring a variance applicant to show that the "property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited. by the ordinance." Id. at 922. The City urges that we should embrace the interpretation of "undue hardship" from Rowell, and it appears from the record that the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard is the standard the City used in evaluating Liebeler's request for a variance. The City 12 • -1708- • determined that the expansion of the garage was a reasonable use of the property and that the request met the other requirements of the statute. Specifically, as reflected in the City Council Resolution, the City found that "the proposal is reasonable" and with respect to "undue hardship," that "[t]here is an undue hardship due to the topography of the site, width of the lot, location of the driveway and existing vegetation." The plain language of the statute and our precedent compel us to reject the City's invitation to adopt Rowell's interpretation of "undue hardship." The statute provides that _ to prove "undue hardship," the variance applicant must show that "the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use" without the variance. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. Notwithstanding this language, the court of appeals concluded that "[t]his provision does not mean that a property owner must show the land cannot be put to any • reasonable use without the variance." Rowell, 446 N.W.2d at 922. The court of appeals essentially rewrote the statute to mean that a municipality may grant a variance when the "property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance." Id. at 922. Although the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard has been used for over 20 years, we simply cannot reconcile that standard with the plain language of the statute. The Rowell standard is also inconsistent with our precedent. In support of the application of a "reasonable manner" standard for determining "undue hardship," Rowell cites Curry v. Young, 285 Minn. 387, 173 N.W.2d 410 (1969), for the proposition that a variance is "required where a setback requirement would force a property owner to build a much smaller structure." Id. at 922. The version of Minn. Stat. § 462.357 in effect 0 13 -1709- when Curry was decided did not contain the definition of "undue hardship" that is in the • current version of the statute. See Minn. Stat. § 462.357 (1969). Moreover, while we discussed in Curry the dimensions of a structure that could theoretically be built to comply with the statutory requirements, we based our determination that the variance was properly granted on the municipality's ordinance. That ordinance required a showing of "particular hardship," and we concluded that the standard was met because the "Plaintiffs' lot, in the absence of a variance, would be unusable for any purpose." Curry, 285 Minn. at 388 -89, 396, 173 N.W.2d at 411, 415. The standard we applied in Curry is more rigorous than the "reasonable manner" standard adopted in Rowell, and appears consistent with the plain language of the first part of the "undue hardship" definition that is in the current statute. See Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. In addition, in formulating the "reasonable manner" standard, the court in Rowell • appears to have relied on the "practical difficulties" standard.' See Rowell, 446 N.W.2d at 922. But we have made a clear distinction between the "practical difficulties" standard and the "undue hardship" standard. See Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d at 328 -31. As we explained in Stadsvold, the "practical difficulties" standard applies to review of county decisions to grant area variances, while the "undue hardship" standard applies to all 7 In support of the application of this standard, the court of appeals cited Merriam Park Community Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 297 Minn. 285, 289 -90, 210 N.W.2d 416, 419 (1973), overruled on other grounds by Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865, 868 n.4 (Minn. 1979). As in Curry, the version of Minn. Stat. § 462.357 in effect when Merriam Park was decided did not contain the definition of "undue hardship" that is in the current version of the statute. See 297 Minn. at 289 -90, 210 N.W.2d at 418 -19 (quoting statute). 14 -1710- • • • municipal decisions to grant variances. Id. at 327 -28 cot n.2. Compare Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, with Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7 (2008).8 In Stadsvold, we interpreted Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7, which sets forth the statutory standard for county variances. This statute contains both the "practical difficulties" standard and a "particular hardship" standard. Specifically, section 394.27 authorizes a county to grant variances from "the terms of any official control" but only when the property owner would face "practical difficulties or particular hardship" in meeting "the strict letter of any official control." Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7.9 We distinguished the "less rigorous `practical difficulties' " standard that applies to area variance applications from the more rigorous "particular hardship" standard that applies to use variance applications. Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d at 330 -31.10 8 While Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, and Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7, both set forth standards for granting variances, section 462.357, subdivision 6, applies to municipalities and section 394.27, subdivision 7, applies to counties. 9 The same dichotomy of language at issue in Stadsvold existed in the predecessor to the municipal zoning statute, section 462.357. Until 1965, section 462.22 (enacted in 1929, repealed in 1965) granted municipalities the power to vary or modify the application of a zoning regulation where there were "practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship" in complying with the strict letter of the regulation. Minn. Stat. § 462.22 (1961). In 1965, the legislature replaced Minn. Stat. § 462.22 with Minn. Stat. § 462.357. Act of May 22, 1965, c. 670, § 7, 1965 Minn. Laws 995, 1000 -03. The new statute replaced the "practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship" standard with the current single "undue hardship" standard. Id. "Undue hardship" was undefined in the statute until 1982, when the legislature, borrowing the definition of "hardship" from the county variance statute, Minn. Stat. § 394.27, added the current definition of "undue hardship" to the statute. Act of Mar. 22, 1982, ch. 507, § 22, 1982 Minn. Laws 592, 593. 10 As we discussed in Stadsvold, "[t]here are two types of variances: use variances and area variances. `A use variance permits a use or development of land other than that (Footnote continued on next page.) • IS -1711- Adopting the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard would be inconsistent with the distinction we made in Stadsvold between the "practical difficulties" and "hardship" standards. The legislature defined the "hardship" standard in the county statute the same way it defined the "undue hardship" standard in the municipal statute.11 Because the Iegislature used the same language in both the county and city variance statutes when defining "hardship," our analysis in Stadsvold requires us to conclude that the "undue hardship" standard in Minn. Stat. § 462.537, subd. 6, is more demanding than the "Practical difficulties" standard the court of appeals appears to have relied on in Rowell, 446 N.W.2d at 922. Moreover, with respect to the "practical difficulties" standard, we identified in Stadsvold several factors the county should consider in assessing whether that standard was met: • (1) how substantial the variation is in relation to the requirement; (2) the effect the variance would have on government services; (3) whether the variance will effect a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or will be a substantial detriment to neighboring properties; (4) whether the practical difficulty can be alleviated by a feasible method other than a variance; (5) how the practical difficulty occurred, including (Footnote continued from previous page.) prescribed by zoning regulations.' ... An area variance controls `lot restrictions such as area, height, setback, density and parking requirements.' " 754 N.W.2d at 329 (quoting In re Appeal ofKenney, 374 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. 1985)). 11 " `Hardship' as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7. 16 -1712- • whether the landowner created the need for the variance; and (6) whether, in light of all of the above factors, allowing the variance will serve the interests of justice. 754 N.W.2d at 331 (footnote omitted). Rowell's interpretation of the "undue hardship" standard, requiring only that the proposed use be "reasonable," would render the "undue hardship" standard in section 462.357 less stringent than the "practical difficulties" standard and much less stringent than the "particular hardship" standard in the county variance statute, which the "undue hardship" standard appears to parallel. See Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d at 331. In short, our analysis in Stadsvold simply does not leave room for the Rowell "reasonable manner" Standard. 12 • 12 The City argues that, even if Rowell was based on an erroneous reading of the text of section 462.357, subdivision 6, the standard in Rowell has been used by municipalities for many years in determining whether to grant a variance. See, e.g., Mohler. v. City of St. Louis Park, 643 N.W.2d 623, 631 (Minn. App. 2002); Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie, 610 N.W.2d 697, 701 (Minn. App. 2000); Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, 529 N.W.2d 488, 492 (Minn. App. 1995). The City suggests that, because the legislature has amended section 462.357 many times since Rowell and has not disturbed the court of appeals' interpretation of the "undue hardship" standard, we should treat the legislature as having ratified the Rowell standard. But the legislature has provided that "[wjhen a court of last resort has construed the language of a law, the legislature in subsequent laws on the same subject matter intends the same construction to be placed upon such language." Minn. Stat. § 645.17(4) (2008). The court of appeals is not "a court of last resort." See Anderson-.Iohanningmeier v. Mid - Minnesota Women's Or., Inc., 673 N.W.2d 270, 276 (Minn. 2002) (stating that the court of appeals is not the court of last resort with respect to statutory construction). Nor does the denial of a petition for review give a court of appeals decision more precedential value than a court of appeals decision from which no review was sought. Murphy v. Milbank Mut. Ins. Co., 388 N.W.2d 732, 739 (Minn. 1986). We therefore reject the City's argument that the legislature has ratified the Rowell standard. • 17 -1713- We recognize that the standard we apply today, while followed elsewhere, is not • the universal rule. 13 For example, in Simplex Technologies, Inc. v. Town of Newington, 766 A.2d 713 (N.H. 2001), the New Hampshire Supreme Court provided a thorough and insightful review of the development of Iand use variance law, and its practical construction in modern times. The New Hampshire statute did not contain a specific definition of "unnecessary hardship," like our statute does, and the court concluded that its prior definition of the statutory term "unnecessary hardship" "ha[d] become too restrictive in light of the constitutional protections by which it must be tempered." Id. at 717. The New Hampshire Supreme Court framed the issue in the following terms: Inevitably and necessarily there is a tension between zoning ordinances and property rights, as courts balance the right of citizens to the enjoyment of 13 While most jurisdictions use the phrase "unnecessary hardship" rather than "undue • hardship" as the applicable standard, many jurisdictions appear to require that the variance applicant establish real hardship if the variance is denied rather than simply requiring that the applicant show the reasonableness of the proposed use. See, e.g., Larsen v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Pittsburgh, 672 A.2d 286, 290 -92 (Pa. 1996) (holding that the "mere desire to provide more room for a family member's enjoyment" is insufficient to constitute "unnecessary hardship" under the statute and requiring applicants to show that, if the variance request is denied, the property will be "practically useless "); OK Properties v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Warwick, 601 A.2d 953, 955 (R.I. 1992) ("The court has determined that unnecessary hardship exists when restricting the property to the permitted uses within the zoning ordinance will deprive the property owner of all beneficial use of the property and that granting a variance becomes necessary to avoid an indirect confiscation of the property. "); Cochran v. Fairfax County Board of Zoning Appeals, 594 S.E.2d 571, 577 (Va. 2004) ( "[T]he [Board of Zoning Appeals] has no authority to grant a variance unless the effect of the zoning ordinance, as applied to the piece of property under consideration, would, in the absence of a variance, interfere with all reasonable beneficial uses of the property, taken as a whole. ") (internal quotation marks omitted); 3 Anderson's Law of Zoning § 20.16 (Kenneth H. Young ed., 4th ed., 1996) (describing different states' approaches to the "unnecessary hardship" standard and suggesting that most states give the term a fairly restrictive construction). 18 0 -1714- • private property with the right of municipalities to restrict property use. In this balancing process, constitutional property rights must be respected and protected from unreasonable zoning restrictions. Id. at 716 -17. In light of these considerations, the New Hampshire Supreme Court said that "unnecessary hardship" would, in the future, be established when a landowner showed that (1) a zoning restriction as applied interferes with a reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment; (2) no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property; and (3) the variance would not injure the public or private rights of others. Id. at 717.1 Had the Minnesota Legislature not defined "undue hardship" in Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, we might consider the approach articulated in Simplex.'s A flexible • variance standard allows municipalities to make modest adjustments to the detailed application of a regulatory scheme when a zoning ordinance imposes significant burdens on an individual, and relief can be fashioned without harm to the neighbors, the community, or the overall purposes of the ordinance. See David W. Owens, The Zoning Variance: Reappraisal and Recommendations for Reform of a Much Maligned Tool, 29 Colum. I Envtl. L. 279, 317 (2004) ("If the variance power is to be used both as a 14 These standards were subsequently codified. See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 674:33 (Supp. 2009). is The factors set forth in Simplex are not dissimilar to the factors we embraced in Stadsvold in construing "practical difficulties." See 754 N.W.2d at 331 (discussing factors for consideration under the "practical difficulties" standard). • 19 -1715- constitutional safeguard and as a tool for flexibility, zoning enabling acts and local • ordinances should be amended to delineate these two purposes and set different standards for each. The failure to make such a distinction underlies much of the past controversy regarding variances. Courts and commentators have traditionally viewed the variances as the former a very limited tool for avoidance of constitutional infirmity in extraordinary cases. Most variance petitions, and consequently most board of adjustment decision - making, have viewed the variances as the latter —a tool to provide flexible implementation rather than constitutional infirmity. "). We recognize that the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard represents a longstanding interpretation of the undue hardship standard in Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, and that Minnesota municipalities have been granting variances under the "reasonable manner" standard for many years. We also recognize that our decision will • result in a restriction on a municipality's authority to grant variances as compared with the "reasonable manner" standard. But whatever value we may find in a more flexible standard, particularly with regard to area variances, we cannot ignore the plain language of the statute. See State v. Peck, 773 N.W.2d 768, 773 (Minn. 2009) ( "We have no opportunity to ignore part of the legislature's definition. "). We are unable to interpret the statutory language to mean anything other than what the text clearly says —that to obtain a municipal variance, an applicant must establish that "the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. Therefore, unless and until the legislature takes action to provide a more flexible variance standard for municipalities, we are constrained by the 20 0 -1716- 0 language of the statute to hold that a municipality does not have the authority to grant a variance unless the applicant can show that her property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. Based on the plain language of the statute, and our precedent interpreting language similar to "undue hardship" in the context of a local government's authority to grant variances, we reject the "reasonable manner" standard from Rowell. We hold that the City inaccurately applied the first factor in the. "undue hardship" definition of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. Our resolution of this issue makes it unnecessary for us to resolve the other issues Krummenacher raises on appeal. GO Having concluded that the City applied the law incorrectly, we must address the • remedy. In cases where a variance has been denied, the general rule is that "[i]f the zoning authority's decision is arbitrary and capricious, the standard remedy is that the court orders the permit to be issued." Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d at 332; see also In re Livingood, 594 N.W.2d 889, 895 (Minn. 1999). But there is an exception to this general Me "when the zoning authority's decision is premature and not necessarily arbitrary." Stadsvold, 752 N.W.2d at 333 (internal quotation omitted). For example, in Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton, where it was unclear whether the zoning authority had applied the relevant statutory provisions, we remanded to the zoning authority for "renewed consideration" under the appropriate standard. 513 N.W.2d 460, 463 (Minn. 1994). • 21 -1717- a Similarly, in Stadsvold, we remanded a variance application to the county board because the board applied the wrong standard: The Board, using an "adequate hardship" standard, did not consider practical difficulties. The Stadsvolds argue the Board's decision was therefore arbitrary and capricious. The Board did not have the benefit of our holding in this case regarding "practical difficulties." We cannot tell whether the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, remand is required to allow the Board to consider the Stadsvolds' variance application in light of our holding that applications for area variances are to be considered using the "practical difficulties" standard in Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7. Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d at 332. Our precedent therefore supports the conclusion that a property owner is entitled to have his or her variance application heard under the correct legal standard, which supports a remand in this case. A remand is particularly appropriate in this case because a property owner seeking to utilize her property should not be penalized due to the City's application of the wrong legal standard. We reverse and remand the matter to the City for renewed consideration of Liebeler's variance request in light of our rejection of the "reasonable manner" standard from Rowell. Reversed and remanded. M TZEN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 22 -1718- C, • Krummenacher v Minnetonka Background PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1M wN.B M1 dft— --d I I—W bI — C' 'I PI.—I. BOW, 174 Site Survey *58.87 Before After Aerial -1720- �11 101 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357 Subd. le 0 Nonconformities (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but= including expansion, ... (b) Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. A municipality may, by ordinance, permit an expansion or impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, • welfare, or safety. This subdivision does not prohibit a municipality from enforcing an ordinance that applies to adults -only bookstores, adults -only theaters, or similar adults -only businesses, as defined by ordinance. • -1721- MOUND CITY CODE Sec. 129 -39. Variances. (a) Criteria. A variance to the provisions of this chapter may be issued to provide relief to the landowner in those zones where this chapter imposes undue hardship Fii =to the property owner in the use of his land. No use variances may be issue . A variance may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist: (1) Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of this chapter have no control. (2) The literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same -1722- • • CJ district under the terns of this chapter. (3) The special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. (4) Granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. (5) The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. (6) The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this chapter or to property in the same zone. (b) Procedure. (1) 'The person applying for a variance shall fill out and submit to the planning staff a variance request form. A site plan with a certificate of survey must be attached at a scale large enough for clarity showing the following information: a. Location and dimensions of 1. Lot; 2. Building; 3. Driveways; and 4. Off - street parking spaces. b. Distance between: 1. Building and front, side, and rear lot lines; 2. Principal building and accessory buildings; 3. Principal building and principal buildings on adjacent lots. C. The location of signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. -1722- • • CJ • d. Any additional information as may be reasonably required by the planning staff and applicable sections of this zoning chapter. (2) The planning staff shall refer the application to the Planning Commission for review. (3) The Planning Commission must take action on the application within 90 days after receiving the application. If it recommends for the variance, it may impose conditions it considers necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and such conditions may include a time limit for the use to exist or operate (4) Upon receiving the recommendation of the Planning Commission or within 60 days after referral of the application for a variance to the Planning Commission, if no recommendation has been transmitted, the Council may place the request on the agenda. The Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances peculiar and unique to the individual premises, or property, under consideration, and may grant such a variance only when the applicant therefore has demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the zoning district in which such a variance is requested (c) The Council may impose any reasonable condition in the granting of such variances in order to insure compliance with this chapter, or to protect adjacent property. (Code 1987, § 350.530; Ord. No. 61 -1993, § 350.530,2-23-1994) • State law reference — Variances, Minn. Stats. § 462.357, subd. 6(2). • -1723- State Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets Variance Authority Page 1 of 2 • L�ACVE of ,VN ESOTA CITIES State Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets Variance Authority The court ruling holds cities to a much stricter standard, which considerably limits variance opportunities. (Published Ju121, 2010) The Minnesota Supreme Court recently issued a decision that changed the longstanding interpretation of the statutory standard for granting zoning variances. In the case of Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, the Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the definition of "undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use" prong of the "undue hardship" test is not whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is reasonable use in the absence of the variance. This is a much stricter standard, which considerably limits variance opportunities. The decision The City of Minnetonka issued a variance to a residential property owner permitting the expansion of a legal, non - conforming garage. The city, relying on a 1989 Court of Appeals decision, concluded that the grant of the variance was reasonable. The city's decision was challenged by an adjacent property owner. Both the District Court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed that the city's decision was appropriate. On June 24 the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and found the • city's decision impermissible. The Supreme Court examined the statutory definition of "undue hardship" in Minnesota Stataft, section 462.357, and concluded that city authority to issue a variance is limited to those very rare cases where the property cannot be put to "a reasonable use" without the variance. This establishes a high threshold for both the city and the property owner when considering variance requests. The Supreme Court reviewed the parallel county authority that allows for a variance in situations of "practical difficulties" or "hardship." The Supreme Court found that the city authority was more limited because it did not contain the "practical difficulties" provision. The court explicitly recognized that it was changing a longstanding standard that cities have relied on in considering variance requests. In particular, the court specifically rejected a 1989 Court of Appeals interpretation of the phrase "undue hardship," which allowed for the grant of a variance in circumstances where the "property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance." The Supreme Court stated that "unless and until the Legislature takes action to provide a more flexible variance standard for municipalities, we are constrained by the language of the statute to hold that a municipality does not have the authority to grant a variance unless the applicant can show that her property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance." Impact of the decision Because of the far - reaching nature of the decision, there are probably at least four responses that cities should think about—at least until a legislative correction can be achieved: . The city should re- evaluate the criteria that it has historically used in deciding whether or not to grant • http://www.imc.org/page/l/Varianceruling.jsp -1724- 8/3/2010 State Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets Variance Authority Page 2 of 2 a variance. The Supreme Court's decision limits a city's discretion. The ruling limits the authority to circumstances where the property owner can demonstrate that there is not a reasonable use of the . property absent the variance grant. • In circumstances where the city council believes the grant of a variance is appropriate, the city should take great care to make detailed finding describing why the grant of the variance is necessary to provide the property owner with a reasonable use of his or her property. What constitutes a reasonable use of property is not defined and may differ depending on the unique circumstances of the property and attributes of various communities. • If a city routinely grants variances, this may be an indicator that it may want to re- examine its zoning code to ensure that standards, setbacks, uses, and other requirements are consistent with the city council's current vision for the community. In short, the court's decision should act as an encouragement to cities to review their land use practices. • Cities may want to build greater flexibility into their existing conditional use permit, planned unit development, and setback regulations to explicitly afford greater latitude to allow "variance -like" approvals under the zoning code. For instance, a city might establish alterative setback requirements to allow for construction that is consistent with neighborhood attributes. Legislative action The restrictive court decision has caused a number of League members to call for a legislative response. The decision, its impact, and a possible legislative response will be discussed in the League's Improving Service Delivery Policy Committee this summer. It is anticipated that the League will support a legislative change to provide cities with greater flexibility— perhaps something similar to the county • authority. 1I 11 u Read the current issue of the Cities Bulletin Your LMC Resource Contact Tom Gruudhoefer General Counsel (651) 281 -1266 or (800) 925 -1122 tgrundho @lmc.org Copyright 02010 League of Minnesota Cities, 145 University Ave. W, Saint Paul, MN 55103 -2044 1 Phone: (651) 281-12001 Toll -Free: (800) 925 -1122 hq://www.Imc.org/page/l/Varianceruling.jsp -1725- 8/3/2010 Page 1 of 1 Dean, John B. From: ALUTTERMAN @duluthmn.gov • Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 4:07 PM To: City Attorneys Subject: Re: [city-attys] Discussion of Krummenacher variance decision The Duluth Board of Zoning Appeals had their first post - Krummenacher meeting last week and denied two variance requests that probably would have been granted pre - Krummenacher. The applicants wanted to enlarge 1 car garages to two car garages and needed variances from setback requirements. People were not happy. M. Alison Lutterman Deputy City Attorney Office of the City Attomey 410 City Hall 411 West First Street Duluth, MN 55802 (218) 730 -5490 fax (218) 730 =5918 The information contained in this e-mail and any attached files is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above, and constitutes an ATTORNEY- CLIENT COMMUNICATION which is privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this -mail is not the intended recipient, you are requested to refrain from reading this e-mail or examining any attachments to the e-mail. Please notify the person sending the message of the mistaken delivery Immediately. >>> "Grundhoefer, Tom" <TGrundho @lmc.org> 8/2/2010 4 :01 PM >>> • Some of you may not have seen the discussion of the Krummenacher variance decision that appeared in our July 21, 2010 Cities Bulletin. http://www.Imc.org/pagell/v-ariancerullniq.*sp You are currently subscribed to city -attys as: alutterman @duluthmn.gov To unsubscribe send an e-mail to leave- 170714 - 18893. fcOfcd65964759bcddla4fd491927f6: You are currently subscribed to city -attys as: jdean @kennedy - graven.com To unsubscribe send an e-mail to leave- 170715 - 577. fde9264cf376fffe2ee4ddf4a988880d @] 8/12/2010 -1726- • • Message Dean, John B. From: Thomson, James J. Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 2:12 PM To: Dean, John B. Subject: FW: Variances Follow Up Flag: Follow up Due By: Thursday, July 22, 201012:00 AM Flag Status: Flagged Here you go. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Thomson, James J. Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:47 PM To: Municipal Subject: Variances Page 1 of 2 Here is a summary of the meeting that I attended last week at the League concerning the variance issue in light of the Supreme Court decision in Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka. The two major topics that were discussed were potential legislative fixes and what to do with variance applications in the meantime. Legislative Fixes. The consensus concerning potential legislative fixes was to amend the municipal variance standard in Section 462.357, Subdivision 6 to read similar to the county variance standard in Section 394.27. That county provision allows counties to grant variances based on a showing of either "practical difficulties" or "particular hardship." The county statute defines "particular hardship" identical to the "undue hardship" definition in Section 462.357, subd. 6. The statute does not define "practical difficulties," but there have been several appellate court decisions on that issue. There was discussion about a broader legislative approach, such as adopting a provision similar to the one in Section 462.357, Subdivision le that authorizes cities to allow expansions of nonconforming uses. There, the only statutory standard imposed on cities is the general "protect the public health, welfare or safety" standard. That type of legislative fix would not impose a uniform standard on all cities. The legislative representative from the League was leery of such a proposal because of the other potential issues that it could raise, particularly related to the sensitive topic of shoreland regulations. Although not discussed during the meeting, another potential option is to change the statute to read similar to the variance standard for subdivisions in Section 462.358, Subdivision 6, which allows variances for an "unusual hardship" as defined in the city's subdivision regulations. Pending and Future Applications The options that were discussed were: 1. Because many variance applications relate to setback issues, one city is in the process of adopting an "alternative setback line" provision. The provision would state, as an example, that the • sideyard setback is 10 feet except in situations where a structure intrudes into the setback. The 8/5/2010 -1727- Message Page 2 of 2 "alternative setback line" would be the setback of the existing building. 2. Amend the zoning ordinance by adding a definition of "a reasonable use." Presumably, • the definition would include factors that are less strenuous than "any" reasonable use, which, contrary to some of the statements made by the Supreme Court, is not the language in the statute. 3. Same type of approach as #2, except rather than changing the ordinance, allow the planning commission or city council to make findings that articulate on a case -by -case basis the reasons for concluding that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. 4. Use CUPs or PUDs as alternatives to variances. 5. Regarding expansion of non - conforming uses, which were the facts in Krummenacher, Minnetonka will probably be amending its code to allow expansions by obtaining an "expansion permit" in situations where the existing non - conformity is not being increased or enlarged. The standard for obtaining an expansion permit will probably be something similar to the Rowell standard that the Supreme Court rejected or the "practical difficulties" standard in the county statute. The League is going to try to put together a "best practices" guide for cities to use during the interim period until the legislature convenes. The guide will probably be general, and the bottom line will be: "consult your city attorney." Let me know if any of you have any additional thoughts on this topic. If so, I'd be happy to forward them to the League. 8/5/2010 -1728- • • Dean, John B. • From: rodney.peterson @kmtel.com Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 201012:47 PM To: City Attorneys Subject: Re: [city -attys] Discussion of Krummenacher variance decision Team Mates: Even the little town of Hayfield, MN had to deny a request for a varience for a garage because of this decision on Krummenacher. Respectfully, Rod - - - -- Original Message Follows - - - -- From: <ALUTTERMAN @duluthmn.gov> To: "City Attorneys" <city- attys @listserv.lmc.org> Subject: Re: [city- attys] Discussion of Krummenacher variance decision Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:06:52 -0500 • The Duluth Board of Zoning Appeals had their first post - Krummenacher • meeting last week and denied two variance requests that probably would • have been granted pre- Krummenacher. The applicants wanted to enlarge • 1 car garages to two car garages and needed variances from setback • requirements. People were not happy. • M. Alison Lutterman • Deputy City Attorney • Office of the City Attorney • 410 City Hall • 411 West First Street • Duluth, MN 55802 • (218) 730 -5490 • • fax (218) 730 -5918 > The information contained in this e-mail and any attached files is • intended for the use of the individual or entity named above, and • constitutes an ATTORNEY- CLIENT COMMUNICATION which is privileged and • exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of • this -mail is not the intended recipient, you are requested to refrain • from reading this e-mail or examining any attachments to the e-mail. • Please notify the person sending the message of the mistaken delivery • immediately. > >>> "Grundhoefer, Tom" <TGrundho @lmc.org> 8/2/2010 4:01 PM • Some of you may not have seen the discussion of the Krummenacher • variance decision that appeared in our July 21, 2010 Cities Bulletin. > http: / /www.lmc.org /page /l /varianceruling.jsp > - -- You are currently subscribed to city -attys as: > alutterman @duluthmn.gov To unsubscribe send an e-mail to > leave- 170714 - 18893. fcOfcd65964759bcddla4fd491927f63 @listse > rv.lmc.org > - -- > You are currently subscribed to city -attys as: • rodney.peterson @kmtel.com To unsubscribe send an e-mail to • leave- 170715- 32399. 7143b3c23169789dld83178002a9bO7f @listse • rv.lmc.org • You are currently subscribed to city -attys as: jdean @kennedy - graven.com To unsubscribe send an e-mail to leave- 170757 - 577. fde9264cf376fffe2ee4ddf4a988880d @listserv.lmc.org -1729- Page 1 of 1 Dean, John B. From: KANDKLAWMANKATO @aol.com • Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 20101:39 PM To: City Attorneys Subject: [city -attys] (no subject) August 3, 2010 Hello to all: The City of North Mankato also had to deal with this at their July meeting. Pretty simple request for side yard variance to expand a garage. Likely would have been granted in the past but I recommended against it based on Krummenacher. Explained to both Planning Commission and City Council that they had little flexibility in granting variances. Property already had a three stall garage. No way the property was not able to be used "as is ". Council members asked what would happen if they simply ignored the Supreme Court ruling and granted a variance request not in keeping with the new standard? All I could tell them was I had to advise they follow the law but ff no one appealed the decision to the District Court (which seldom happens) their decision would stand. Michael H. Kennedy, North Mankato City Attorney Michael H. Kennedy KENNEDY & KENNEDY 99 Navaho Avenue, Suite 104 P.O. Box 3223 • Mankato, MN 56002-3223 Phone: 507- 345.4582 Toll Free: 1 -M&441 -0128 Fax: 507345 -1010 E -mail: kendldawmankato@sol.com E-MAIL CONFIDENTIAUTY NOTICE: The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. You are currently subscribed to city -attys as: jdean @kennedy- graven.com To unsubscribe send an e-mail to leave- 170762- 577. fde9264cf376fffe2ee4ddf4a988880d @listserv.lmc.org 8/12/2010 -1730- • • • Press & News > Regional Headlines > Supreme Court ruling makes granting variances m... Page 1 of 3 SEARCH:..._._ el im Reonal Headlines rw.re.r ��.. .�., -.. �... as awe an eur e"rwil Print 1 ( E mar I Comment (1 comment(s ***Rate 10 RSS j ® � era. •.rre�w. �D�� � �N� Share I Text Size al [ a 1pinaM r _..,._,_ _......., _.,_....__..__ ., 11116111 P11110116 1NF0NUT[ON Sunreme Court ruling makes arantina Im Most Most Most Commented Popular Emailed Osseo splits vote to terminate employment agreement with city administrator Withers Champlin bank robbed in the early morning Aug. 4 STMA 10AAA wins championship Delano area calendar Family vacations at World horseshoe tournament http : / /www.pressnews.com/articles /2010 /08 /19 /r nal headlines /l supremecourtvariance... 8/19/2010 1731- — variances more difficult for cities 11155112LIFATIA „. ............... _ ........ .... ...... _ .......... ........ ..................._....._....� by Amanda Schwarze and Susan Van Cleaf Daily Headlines Published: Thursday, August 5, 20101:45 PM CDT E -mail Local headlines A Minnesota Supreme Court ruling will likely make it more difficult for delivered m your tnsox! people seeking some leniency with city codes. YOUf Hometown: For example, a homeowner might find that, under state law, his city is not our Ho wn: able to grant him a side yard setback variance so he can add a second or Albertville third stall to his garage. Champlin Corcoran The ruling will be a challenge to any city that has older sections where Dayton property owners want to add new additions to buildings or where new Delano Franklin Township businesses want to locate, said Delano City Attorney Mark Johnson. Greenfield Basically, these cities are "trying to reconcile the old and the new.” Y. � g Hanover Hassan Township Independence City Attomey Bob Voss called the state Supreme Court's Independence ruling a "high standard" for obtaining a variance. The ruling revolves around Loretto �' how cities should define the "undue hardship" standard that is required for Maple Grove granting a property owner a variance. He is looking at Independence's city Medina Osseo codes to see what the ruling means for that city. Rockford Rogers City Attorney Johnson said cities might have to change their zoning regulations to allow for smaller setbacks from lot lines in small lots. Cities Minn Local Cities: also might want to took at conditional use permits to help give property Afton owners some flexibility in how they use their property. Albany s' Apple valley In its June 24 Minnesota Supreme Court said the city of Minnetonka used Avon the wrong standard for defining undue hardship for a property owner Baytown Township requesting a variance. The Court's interpretation of the state statute is Big Lake stricter than an interpretation many cities had used for about 20 years. Big Lake Township Blaine Bloomington In the case Krummenacher v. Minnetonka, Beat Krummenacher objected to Brooklyn Center the city of Minnetonka granting a variance to his neighbor JoAnne Liebeler. Brooklyn Park She had requested a variance that would allow her to add a pitched roof Buffalo and second -story room to her existing detached, flat - roofed garage. . Burnsville Cologne Columbia Heights A variance allows a person to deviate from city code if city officials that strictly adhering to the code would result in an undue hardship for that person. If someone wanted to build an additional bedroom onto a home, for example, and city code requires a five -foot rear -yard f setback from the property line but the addition would encroach into that 11014"Y f setback zone, a variance would be needed for the addition. _Y A"MI� State statute 462.357 subdivision 6 notes that undue hardship "means the in be to reasonable use if used under property question cannot put a conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due �,� �„� to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. AUGUST 2090 ; Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if - Su M�Tu W Th �LS] reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance." t ? 3 5 8 7 ' In the 1989 case Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of Moorhead, the court of 8 9 10 11 12 ii 13 :14 j appeals interpreted the undue hardship portion of the statute to mean that a 15 16 17 18 19 p 20 Li' city can grant a variance when it is demonstrated that the "property owner 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by f 29 30 31 the ordinance." Im Most Most Most Commented Popular Emailed Osseo splits vote to terminate employment agreement with city administrator Withers Champlin bank robbed in the early morning Aug. 4 STMA 10AAA wins championship Delano area calendar Family vacations at World horseshoe tournament http : / /www.pressnews.com/articles /2010 /08 /19 /r nal headlines /l supremecourtvariance... 8/19/2010 1731- — Press & News > Regional Headlines > Supreme Court ruling makes granting variances m... Page 2 of 3 for Today councilors in the state used that interpretation of undue hardship. More Calendar N The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with that interpretation and ruled that city officials must adhere to a strict reading of the statute. The ruling notes, "The statue provides that to prove 'undue hardship,' the variance applicant must show that the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use' without the variance." --- - -� "Although the Roswell 'reasonable manner' standard has been used for 101111f over 20 years, we simply cannot reconcile that standard with the plain language of the statute," the ruling noted. High School "It's a pretty tight standard," Tom Grundhoefer, general counsel with the League of Minnesota Cities, said of the Supreme Court's ruling. He said that now it must be demonstrated that a variance applicant does not have a reasonable use of their property without a variance. He said that by using this standard, cities would be prohibited from granting variances in most cases. Grundhoefer said that the ruling would make it difficult for people to obtain a variance to do things such as building a garage into a setback or constructing a deck that will intrude into a setback. The Supreme Court ruling notes that the "decision will result in a restriction on a municipality s authority to grant variances" and that "whatever value we may find in a more flexible standard, particularly with regard to area variances, we cannot ignore the plain language of the statute." The ruling goes on to note, "Therefore, unless and until the legislature takes action to provide a more flexible variance standard for municipalities, we are constrained by the language of the statute ..." Grundhoefer said that the League of Minnesota Cities will likely advocate for a change to the statute. He said that members of the League's staff have met with some city attorneys to begin discussions about what kind of language they would like to see replace the current language. Share this Article ti slinRt ©±to -i i« R_itiewntuantear a Kistop Program: Helping out 1 pair of Fun at the Dayton Heritage Days parade shoes at a time Article Rating .......... ....................... .............. .............. ................................................... ...._ .......................... ..._............ _..................................................................... Current Rating: 0 of 0 Rate File;...... votesl Select Rating:.' ............ Reader Comments The following are comment; from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of pressrews.com. Mamdouh wrote on Aug 9, 2010 4:50 AM: " I just read that article about the Supreme Court fourth women on yahoo news Hoping to read more from the achievement of this governmental sector Thanks and congratulations Submit a Comment We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site. Name: Email: (optional) Comments: In Local Insurance Choices insurancedeals4u.com An alliance of independent agents shopping on your behalf Super Cheap Car Insurance uslnsurance-Online.com Get Super Cheap Car Insurance Quotes in Less than 60 Seconds! Liberty Mutual Insurance www.ub"Mutual.com /Auto Get An Auto Quote In 10 Minutes See How Much You Could Be Saving Better Than News Feeds TradePressPR.com Directly contact over 1500 targeted trade journal editors WHEN YOU GO OUT OF TOWN, IT RATHER STAY HOME WITH EV6RMING THAT SMELLS LIKE YOU AN GO TO A DRAFTY KENNEL W" Dods THAT W#.W TO BULLY ML • • Image Verification: (Case sensitive) http : / /www.pressnews.com/articles /2010 /08/19 /rpm -nal headlines /l supremecourtvariance... 8/19/2010 1732- — • City Council Agenda Item #14B Meeting of August 16, 2010 Brief Description Ordinance amending city code 300.29 and 710.005 regarding expansion of non - conforming uses. Recommendation Adopt the ordinance Introduction Nearly half of the variance requests reviewed by the planning commission over the last five years have been associated with expansion of existing, non - conforming uses: Based on this experience and on the recent Minnesota Supreme Court ruling regarding variances, staff is recommending an amendment to the non - conforming use ordinance.. The amendment would provide a new mechanism for the review of expansions of existing, non- conforming uses — the expansion permit. Conforming vs. Non - Conforming Uses Properties that comply with all ordinance standards are considered conforming uses. Properties that are non- conforming are defined as "any land use, structure, physical form of development, lot of record or sign legally established before adoption of the zoning ordinance or its subsequent amendments that would not be permitted by, or is • not in full compliance with, the regulations of the current ordinance." Deviations from Ordinance Requirements 7 Any property owner may request that the .city allow a deviation from current zoning ordinance regulations. State statute and the city's zoning ordinance outline the process for review and :approvaildeninl of such deviations„ Conforming Uses:: State statute grants citles the authority to approve variances, or deviations, from zoning ordinance regulations. By' statute, a variance may be. granted in instances where strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and when It is demonstrated that such actions would be consistent with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. (Stat §462.357 Subd. 6(2)), 'Undue hardship" is defined as "the property in question cannot be put to a reasonabie use If used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.° The Minnetonka Zoning Ordinance mirrors state statute. An owner of a conforming use who wishes to deviate from current zoning :ordinance regulations may apply for a variance. -1733- Meeting of August 16, 2010 Page 2 Subject: Non - Conforming Use Ordinance • • Non - Conforming Uses: In 2004, the Minnesota Legislature adopted a law addressing non - conforming uses. The law allows nor- conforming uses to be replaced but not expanded unless a city;adopts an ordinance specifically allowing expansions. The law does not establish the specific ordinance language or process by which cities may allow expansions of non - conforming uses. Complying with the 2004 Jaw, Minnetonka adopted non - conforming use ordinance amendments in 2007 that allow non-conforming uses to be expanded by variance. The city chose to use the variance process because it gave the city the most control while still having flexibility. Variance Statute and its interpretation For over 20 years, cities throughout Minnesota relied upon the Minnesota Court of Appeals interpretation of state law in their review of variance requests. The Court of Appeals interpretation was that "undue hardship" did not mean that an applicant must show that the applicant's property could not be put to Au reasonable use without a variance. Rather, an applicant had to show that the applicant mould like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance. This interpretation afforded cities a significant amount of discretion in the approval or denial of variances. On June: 24, 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court overturned this long- standing Interpretation by the Minnesota Court of Appeals and, in doing so„ overturned the 21 - year old standard governing the granting of variances; The Supreme Court ruled that, • based on the specific language of the Statute 462.357, a city does not have the authority to grant a variance unless an applicant can show that their propertycannot,be put to any reasonable use wrihout the vaMnce. The Supreme Court's June 2010 ruling impacts both` conforming and non- conforming uses: Conforming Uses; . property owner who has an existing, conforming use- essentially has reasonable use of their property. cased on the court's ruling it is highly unlikely that the city can legally Issue a variance. As noted in the Court's recent opinion, "unless and until the legislature takes action to provide a more flexible variance standard" the language of the statute . severely restricts the city's ability to grant variances. The text of the statute must be changed if cities are to again have the level of discretion with respect. to variances, they had prior to the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision, To with other . communities, the city of Minnetonka will be working with the League of Minnesota Cities to propose such a change during the next legislative session. • -1734- Meeting of August 16, 2010 Page 3 • Subject: Non- Conforming Use Ordinance • • • Non - Conforming Uses: A property owner who has, and is using /occupying, an existing and non- conforming use also has reasonable use of their property. Based on the court's .ruling it is highly unlikely that the city can legally issue a variance. However, in drafting and adopting the 2007 amendments to the non- conforming use ordinance it was the city's decision to require a variance for expansion of a non- conforming. use. As such, the city could amend the non - conforming use ordinance and replace the variance process with a different process and, in doing so, allow the city to consider reasonable expansion of existing, non - conforming uses. Proposed Non - Conforming Use Ordinance Amendment Nearly half of the variance requests reviewed by the planning commission in the last five years have been associated with expansion of non - conforming uses. These variance requests for expansion have been one of two types: those which increase the existing non - conformity FIG 1; or (2) those which maintain the non - conformity.— FIG 2. lines FIGURE 1 Proposed addition encroaches further into required setback. It increases the existing, non - conformity -1735- Tines 14requtred setnacks . ^ • — — . — . � t FIGURE 2 Proposed addition does NOT encroach further into required setback. It maintains the existing non - conformity. Meeting of August 16, 2010 Page 4 Subject: Non - Conforming Use Ordinance _ Under the proposed ordinance, expansion of existing non - conforming uses as illustrated on the preceding page would be allowed by one of two mechanisms: (1) a variance; or (2) an expansion permit. • Variance: ,A property owner proposing an expansion that would intrude into one or more setbacks beyond the distance of the existing structure or would exceed the height or size limitations established by code by a distance or amount greater than the existing non- conformity must apply for a variance. The standard used to review such variance would be the very rigorous standard recently outlined by the Minnesota Supreme Court.. • Expansion Pernnit: A property owner proposing an expansion that would NOT intrude into one or more setbacks beyond the distance of the existing structure or would NOT exceed the height or size limitations by a distance or amount greater than the existing non- Conformity must apply for an expansion permit The standards used to review an expansion permit are modeled after the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling, the standard which communities have used for over 20 years, and those which the city intended when the amendments were adopted in 2007. While staff cannot anticipate all of the many scenarios which may be impacted by the proposed ordinance amendment, the following FIGs 1 and 2 and others on page A22 • contain various examples of proposed expansions and outline how the proposed ordinance would be applied lines � —regWred sel6edcs t • — • .•• — • .... proposed addition FIGURE 1 Proposed addition encroaches further into required setback. It increases the existing, non- conformity VARIANCE REQUIRED -1736- tines ........ �-- required setsetbacks f i FIGURE'2 Proposed addition does NOT encroach further • into required setback. It maintains the existing non- ronfom►ity. EXPANSION PERMIT REQUIRED • • Meeting of August 16, 2010 Subject: Non - conforming Use Ordinance Page 5 vmt ON =CONFp ORIDtIi1AN AMENDM ���� a Ys- ds.ucmws � , sLy ..ro,.a #$ *aww+`a� PROPOSED�ANS#i 1~ EXiSTINt3 ON=C 11FORIIIIING USE Expansion would Expansion would NOT Increase Non - Conformity increase Non - Conformity Permit Required Variance Expansion Permit Review Process Planning commission authority, planning commission authority, subject to appeal to city council subject to appeal to city council As per standard outlined in As per standards outlined in Ml y MN Supreme Court Ruling. Court of Appeals Ruling. An applicant must show that: An applicant must show that their . the proposed use is Review Standard property cannot be put to any reasonable; reasonable use without the variance • there are unique circumstances inherent to the property; and • the expansion would: not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.. Votes Required 0 votes: to approve 4'votes to approve 5 votes to reverse decision 5 votes to reverse .decision Summary :Comments The proposed amendment to the non- conforming use ordinance would allow the city to consider ;reasonable expansion of existing, non- conforming uses when those expansions did not increase the existing non - conformity. The ordinance would further' provide the city with the discretion to approve or deny such expansion requests. Essentially, the proposed amendment would afford the city some of the flexibility it assumed it had prior to the Minnesota Supreme !Court's June 2010 ruling. The proposed ordinance would not Impact or apply to existing, conforming uses. As such, even with this ordinance amendment in place, further study, discussion, and legislative action will be necessary if cities are to again have the level of discretion with respect to variances they had prior to the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision. -1737- Meeting of August 16, 2010 Page 6 Subject: Non- Conforming Use Ordinance • Planning Commission. Recommendation The planning commission considered the proposed ordinance revision on August 5, 2010. The commission had lengthy discussion regarding the definition of "non- conforming use" and how the proposed ordinance would apply if:' ('i) the city had acquired right: of -way creating a non - conforming setback to a structure; or (2) a structure had previously been granted a variance. (See pages A24 -A31.) The commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance as presented to them. However, since that meeting end as a result of planning commission discussion, staff has since modified the language to clarify the right -of -way acquisition and variance situations. The definition section of'the ordinance now clearly states that: (1) A non - conforming use DOES include any property that became non- conforming because of other governmental action, such as a court order or a taking by a governmental body under eminent domain or negotiated sale. This is intended to give the right of expansion and the right of replacement to properties adversely affected by government action`. This will minimize the amount of money that governmental agencies must pay when acquiring property such as right -of -way. (2) A non- conforming use DOES NOT Include a property that was allowed . to deviate from this ordinance by an approved variance. That is the current situation.. if • these properties are re- classified as being non - conforming in order to.give them the right to expand, alien they are subject to all of the limitations on non- conforming uses. These include the requirements that they cannot be used if abandoned for more than one year, cannot be rebuilt after a disaster if a building permit is not obtained within 180 days, and cannot expand without city approval. Although a property with a. variance will not be entitled to get an expansion permit, staff is reluctant to .change the rules without notice to the owners of the many properties with variances. Staff Recommendation Adopt the ordinance on pages A7 A9 of this report which amends City Code §§ 300.29 and 710.005 regarding expansion of non- conforming uses. Submitted through: John Gunyou, City Manager Geralyn Barone, Assistant City Manager Desyl Peterson, City Attorney Julie Wischnack, A1CP, Community Development Director Loren Gordon, AICP, City Planner Originator. Susan Thomas, Principal Planner -1738- • • MINNETONKA CODE • • d) 'Expansion," "enlargement," or "intensification" means any increase in a dimension, size, area, volume, or height, any increase in the area of use, any placement of a structure or part thereof where none existed before, any addition of a site feature such as a deck, patio, fence, driveway, parking area, or swimming pool, any improvement that would allow the land to be more intensely developed, any move of operations to a new location on the property, or any increase in intensity of use based on a review of the original nature, function or purpose of the non - conforming use, the hours of operation, traffic, parking, noise, exterior storage, signs, exterior lighting, types of operations, types of goods or services offered, odors, area of operation, number of employees, and other factors deemed relevant by the city. -1739- State is sending a message with lakeshore lawsuit I StarTribune.com StarTrIbune.com State is sending a message with Lakeshore lawsuit In the rare challenge, DNR sues a township for giving permission too build house 14 feet from a lake. By JIM SPENCER, Star Tribune Last update: August 4, 2010. 11;03 PM As more homes creep closer to Minnesota's environmentally sensitive lake-shore, the state Department of Natural Resources is pushing back by suing a western Minnesota township that allowed a property owner to build a house 14 feet from Ida Lake The rare move could signal a new statewide emphasis, on controlling building on waterfront land. "This is a shot across the bow on the part of DNR," said Brad Karkkamen, an environmental law expert at the University of Minnesota. Karkkainen said the new suit against Cormorant Township will send a message to localities that are allowing more buildings s- often expansive vacation homes -- that exceed state standards for size and distance from the water's edge and create polluting stormwater runoff. "The importance of the Pagel of 3 suit," he said, "is in setting. a policy precedent that DNR will use state resources to prosecute." The DNR may have been emboldened to act by a June 24 state Supreme Court decision that narrowed the definition of when variances are allowed. DNR legal actions against localities are rare perhaps only one a year — said :Kent. Lokkesmoe„ director of the agency's waters division. But they are usually<meant to have an impact beyond an individual community. "We don't sue local. governments very often," L.okkesmoe explained. "When you do sue, these [local. governments] talk to each other." The DNR suit, filed July 6,, came less than two, weeks after a Star 'Tribune series revealed that many municipalities in the state routinely gmntvariances on lakefront development. In some places, the newspaper found, variance approval rates rise to nearly 90 percent. The Cormorant suit, filed by the state attorney general's office on behalf of the DNR, questions why the township in northwest Minnesota's Becker County agreed to let Richard Hanson build near the lake's edge a house roughly five times larger than a 576 - square -foot family cabin. State law n ,aTLAN xrrr SAVE #O 64% UV Plus, get 3 FREE Gifts Print Powered By iii I Fort-maiDynamles"� http:/ iwww. startribune. comA ocaU99996704. htm1? elrKArksLckD8EQDUoaEygyP40:DW, .'. 8/5/2010 -1740- • • • • State is sending a message with lakeshore lawsuit I StarTribune.com StarTribune.com allows replacement buildings only the size of the. older structures at their original sites. In Hanson's case, the law required that a home larger than 576 square feet be built 100 feet from the lake. But like many local governing bodies, Cormorant's Board of Supervisors exempted a lakefront property owner from the rules, even though planning officials advised against it. Cormorant Supervisor Steve Sorenson said that most property owners who apply for variances get them. Sorenson, who. has held office far 12 years, estimated that during his tenure the township approved 70 to 80 percent of variance requests from lakeshore property owners. Since 2007, the township's lawyer said, Cormorant has granted 12 of 17 or 71 percent of variance requests. The Star Tribune; found an 88 percent variance approval rate from 2005 to 2010 in Cass and Crow Wing counties in north central Minnesota. DNR!s %Lokkesmoe said 80 percent approval rates "seem high," but added that variance requests must be judged individually:. What is a hardship? The state's suit challenges Cormorant's u�tiRtu►tt"� �c1rr Page 2 of 3 GET THE i.ATES1" NEWS. application of the "undue hardship" rule that is supposed to govern who qualifies for a variance. Lake conservation advocates believe loose, inconsistent interpretation of the hardship rule has led to the widespread approval of variances that :collectively endanger the states' lakes. On June 24,, the Minnesota Supreme Court tightened the undue hardship rule in landmark fashion by saying variances can be issued only if property owners have absolutely no other "reasonable." way to legally use their land. "Using that standard, a lot of those lakefront variances won't stand up," Karkkainen said. In the Cormorant case, the state charged that "Whe variance was unjustified because, among other things, the applicant did not demonstrate undue hardship and Cormorant Township failed to create any record demonstrating that Hanson met the required standards...." Hanson had room,to build his new home with a legal 100 -foot setback; Instead, the township let him build entirely in what is supposed to be a .restricted area. "I have a client who thought he was doing . exactly what be was supposed to do," said Hanson's lawyer, Charles R.amstad. "He was told he needed a variance, and he got one. SAVE up 6 ,Plus get 3 FREE G fis Print Powered By ail FormatDynamics" http:// www. startribune, corndlocaII99996704. html? e,lr= KArksLekD8EQDUoaEygyP40 :DW... 8/5 /2010 -1741- State is sending a message with lakeshore lawsuit I StarTribune.com page 3 of 3 StarTribunexom Once the town approved the variance at a May 11 meeting, Hanson had a.contractor pour concrete footings for his new house. The footings are now 144 feet from Ida Lake, well inside the environmental impact zone that scientists say could seriously pollute and otherwise hurt Ida. Lake's public waters. Ramstad refused to say how much Hanson spent on the concrete, but he called the expanse "significant." Kristi Hastings, a Fergus Falls lawyer hired by the township, declined to discuss the details of the township's actions. But the suit says the board knew that Hanson bad room to build 100 feet from the lake and didn't make him do so. The state wants the variance ruled illegal and Hanson's footings dug out. Hastings and Ramstad hope to meet with state lawyers to settle the case. With or without a court hearing, the DNR.suit in Cormorant leaves localities across the state with a new message, Ka kkainan said: "Variances are not a matter of convenience for property owners." Jim Spencer • 612- 673 -4029 • Print Powered By WF rmatDynarni • http : / /www.startribune. corn/ local/99996704. htnil? elrKArksLckD8p-QDUoaEygyP4O;DW... 815/2010 -1742- is C7 This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A09 -1573 Gary Grew, petitioner, Respondent, VS. Board of Adjustment of Town of Rice Lake, Appellant. Filed August 3, 2010 Affirmed Stauber, Judge St. Louis County District Court File No. 69DU -CV -08 -1233 Charles H. Andresen, Kimberly J. Maki, Andresen & Butterworth, P.A., Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent) Kenneth H. Bayliss, Dyan J. Ebert, Quinlivan & Hughes, P.A., St. Cloud, Minnesota (for appellant) Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Stauber, Judge. UNPUBLISHED OPINION STAUBER, Judge On appeal from the district court's order requiring appellant- township to grant respondent's variance application, appellant argues that the district court erred in concluding that the township's decision to deny respondent's variance application was arbitrary and -1743- ' variance application was arbitrary • capricious. Because the decision to deny respondents pp trary and capricious, we affirm. FACTS Respondent Gary Grew is the owner of a parcel of land located in Rice Lake Township. The property was originally part of a five -acre parcel of land owned by respondent's brother Jon Grew. Because he was going through a divorce, Jon Crew needed to sell the parcel. Consequently, the brothers discussed the possibility of entering into an agreement whereby Jon Grew would divide the five -acre parcel into two equal parcels of land and then transfer one of the parcels, the vacant parcel, to respondent. In exchange, respondent would clean up the property and remodel the house located on the residue property to prepare it for sale. Based on their discussions, Salo Engineering was hired to complete a survey of the • property that was necessary to facilitate the subdivision. The initial draft survey showed that the property consisted of 4.97 acres, not five acres as believed by respondent and his brother. The draft survey also showed that the two proposed subdivided parcels each consisted of slightly less than 2.5 acres. The township zoning ordinance, however, requires 2.5 acres of area to be a buildable lot in the applicable zone. After the initial draft survey was completed, respondent brought the survey to the township's zoning administrator Martin Paavola for approval. According to respondent, Paavola told him that he "need[ed] to see ... 2.5" acres on the survey. Respondent relayed Paavola's comments to the surveyor, who then issued a completed certified survey depicting the two parcels as being 2.5 acre -lots. Respondent subsequently 2 -1744- • • submitted the revised survey to Paavola for review. Paavola, however, never provided any feedback or comment to respondent regarding the revised survey. Based on the agreement with his brother, respondent invested $30,000 in the property, which included remodeling the existing house and removing a great deal of garbage and debris from the property. When the remodeling and clean-up was completed, respondent's brother subdivided the property into two parcels pursuant to the Salo survey. He then transferred the undeveloped Parcel 1 to respondent, and sold Parcel 2, which contained the house, to Travis Hamernick. Shortly thereafter, Hamernick decided to sell Parcel 2. An appraisal performed in conjunction with the sale of the house determined that both Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 were non - conforming because both were slightly less than 2.5 acres in size. To avoid litigation • on the issue, respondent transferred 2,435 square feet of his lot to Hamernick to ensure the conformity of Hamernick's lot. Although respondent's lot was non - conforming by virtue of Jon Grew's initial subdivision, the transfer of land to Hamernick exacerbated the non - conformity slightly, resulting in a residue parcel of 2.4 acres. Because he sought to build a single - family residence on Parcel 1, respondent consulted again with Paavola and filed a variance application with appellant Board of Adjustment of Town of Rice Lake (the board). The variance application stated that "Parcel 1 is non - conforming by I/a acre." The application also stated that "sewer and water [are] available," meaning that public health and sanitation was not an issue, and there would be no need for a well or septic system. • 3 -1745- A public hearing was held on respondents variance application in January 2008. 0 At the hearing, the board's chairman clarified that respondent's application was for only a .10 acre variance, rather than the one - quarter -acre variance requested in the application. The chairman also noted that to qualify for a variance, respondent must show a hardship unique to the property and not created by the landowner. The chairman further noted that economic considerations do not constitute a hardship. Testifying in opposition to the variance was a neighboring landowner, Carolyn Roberts. Roberts stated that she opposed the variance because she wanted country living and privacy, which she believed could be affected by the granting of respondent's request for a variance. Roberts also claimed that she was concerned about the value of her property if a home and other structures were built on respondent's property. After hearing Roberts's testimony, the board focused on the theory that respondent . created the non - conformity. By creating the non - conformity, the board indicated that respondent created the hardship. Therefore, the board voted to deny respondent's variance application. Respondent appealed the board's decision to the district court. Following a bench trial, the district court determined that the board's action in denying respondent's variance application was arbitrary and capricious because the board erroneously applied a "hardship" standard rather than the appropriate "practical difficulties" standard. The district court also determined that the board's action was arbitrary and capricious "even under a hardship analysis." The district court then granted respondent's request for an order compelling the board to grant the lot size variance. This appeal followed. 4 -1746- • C� DECISION "When reviewing a zoning determination, appellate courts review directly the municipality's determination without any regard for the district court's conclusions." Citizens for a Balanced City v. Plymouth Congregational Church, 672 N.W.2d 13, 19, (Minn. App. 2003). This court independently reviews the record to examine whether the municipality's decision was "unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious." Trisko v. City of Waite Park, 566 N.W.2d 349, 352 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Sept. 25, 1997) (reversing denial of conditional use permit as unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious). A municipal body's action is not arbitrary "when it bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose of the ordinances" Clear Channel Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 675 N.W.2d 343, 346 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. May 18, • 2004). Because zoning laws are a restriction on private property, the burden of proof for • those challenging approval of an application is higher than the burden of proof for those challenging the denial of one. Sagstetter v. City of Saint Paul, 529 N.W.2d 488, 492 (Minn. App. 1995). Additionally, decisions to approve an application receive greater deference than those to deny one. Schwardt v. County of Watonwan, 656 N.W.2d 383, 389 n.4 (Minn. 2003). The board argues that under the Rice Lake Township's Zoning Ordinance, the proper standard to be applied to respondent's variance request is the hardship standard. The interpretation of statutes and ordinances presents a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Cummings v. Koehnen, 568 N.W.2d 418,420 (Minn. 1997). 5 -1747- "There are two types of variances: use variances and area variances. In re 0 Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d 323, 329 (Minn. 2008). "A use variance permits a use or development of land other than that prescribed by zoning regulations." In re Appeal of Kenney, 374 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. 1985). An area variance controls "lot restrictions such as area, height, setback, density, and parking requirements." Id "[tJWike use variances, area variances do not change the character of the zoned district." Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d at 329 (quotation omitted). Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6 (2006), establishes the scope of a municipality's authority to grant variances. According to Minnesota law, a local municipality must evaluate variance requests to determine whether the strict enforcement of an ordinance without the requested variance would cause a property owner to suffer an undue hardship. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2). • The statutory standard for county variances is different than the standard for municipal variances. See Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7 (2006). Specifically, the statute governing a county's power to grant variances provides: Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control in cases when there are practical difficulties or particular hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of any official control, and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7. Our supreme court has considered the appropriate standard to be applied to an applicant's request for a variance under Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7. Stadsvold, 754 6 • -1748- • N. W.2d at 327. In Stadsvold, the landowners applied for a variance with the county board of adjustment. Id. at 326. The board denied the variance on the basis that the landowners showed "no adequate hardship unique to the property." Id. On appeal, the supreme court considered the difference between the two standards contemplated in Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7: the "particular hardship" standard, and the "practical difficulties" standard. Id. at 328. The court then looked to other states with statutes containing language similar to section 394.27, subdivision 7, and noted that "[g]iven that we have recognized the different effects of use and area variances," the reasoning of the states "applying a lesser standard to area variance requests" is persuasive. Id. at 331. Thus, the court held that "area variances shall be permitted by a county zoning authority when the applicant makes a showing only of `practical difficulties' under Minn. Stat. • § 394.27, subd. 7, whereas an applicant for a use variance must establish particular hardship as set forth in the statute." Id. (cautioning that the adoption of a less rigorous standard for area variances is not to say that area variances should be automatic or easy to obtain). Relying on Stadsvold, the district court here concluded that the board applied the wrong standard to respondent's request for an area variance. The district court held that, under Stadsvold, the proper standard to be applied to respondent's area variance request was the practical difficulties standard. The board contends Stadsvold is not applicable because Stadsvold concerned the application for a variance with a county board of adjustment, while the variance application here was with a municipality. The board argues that unlike the county • 7 -1749- differentiates between the practical • ordinance contemplated m Stadsvold, which p difficulties standard and the particular hardship standard, Rice Lake Township's ordinance, which the board claims resembles Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, contemplates only the particular hardship standard. Thus, the board argues that because the Rice Lake Township ordinance includes a more stringent standard requiring the establishment of a hardship, the district court erroneously concluded that the board was required to apply the "practical difficulties" standard contemplated in Stadsvold. The ordinance at issue here is a municipal ordinance. It provides: (a) The Board of Adjustment may authorize a variance from the terms of this Ordinance which will not be contrary to public interest, where owing to special conditions a practical difficulty or particular hardship would be created by carrying out the strict letter of the Ordinance, and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the spirit and intent of this • Ordinance and with the Town's land use or comprehensive plan, if any. (b) " Hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means that the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the conditions allowed by this Ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this Ordinance. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. (d) It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate sufficient hardship to sustain the need for a variance. Absent a showing of hardship as provided in Minnesota Statutes and 8 -1750- • i this Ordinance, the Board of Adjustment shall not approve any variance. Town of Rice Lake, Minn., Zoning Ordinance (RLZO) #22 art. VII, § 6.02(D)(2) (1998) (emphasis added). Respondent argues that the practical difficulties standard is appropriate here because the variance at issue is an area variance, and the applicable municipal ordinance resembles section 394.27, subdivision 7, by containing language referencing both the practical difficulties standard and the undue hardship standard. We disagree. We acknowledge that the ordinance at issue contains language referencing both the practical difficulties standard and the undue hardship standard. But the Minnesota Supreme Court recently held that "the `undue hardship standard' applies to all municipal decisions to igrant variances." Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, _ N.W.2d _, 2010 WL 2517702, at 7 (Minn. June 24, 2010) (emphasis added). Although the court recognized that the more stringent undue hardship standard restricts a municipality's authority to grant variances, the court was "unable to interpret [Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6] to mean anything other than what the text clearly says." Id. at *9. Therefore, based on Krummenacher, the district court erred by concluding that the practical difficulties standard was the appropriate standard to be applied to respondent's variance application. Respondent also contends that the board's decision to deny the variance was unreasonable under the hardship standard. We, as did the district court, agree. The three requirements for granting a variance under the hardship standard are (1) lack of reasonable use without the variance; (2) unique circumstances not shared by neighboring is 9 -1751- properties and not created by the landowner; and (3) maintenance of the essential • character of the locality, despite the variance. RZLO #22 art. VII, § 6.02(D)(2)(b); Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park, 643 N.W.2d 623, 631 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. July 16, 2002). A variance is permitted only if an applicant demonstrates that all three factors are met. Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie, 610 N.W.2d 697, 701 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. July 25, 2000). Reasonable Use Respondent argues that if the variance is not granted, he will suffer a hardship due to the lack of reasonable use for his property. We agree. If the variance is not granted, respondent will not be able to build on his property. This, indeed, constitutes a hardship. In fact, Paavola, acknowledged at the hearing that while he was representing the township, he agreed that respondent "would suffer a hardship without a variance on [the] • property" because the inability to build on the lot would render the 2.4 acre lot useless. Thus, respondent has demonstrated that this factor is met. Unique Circumstances The board argues that the unique circumstances presented here were created by respondent. Thus, the board argues that its decision is reasonable because respondent cannot satisfy this factor. We disagree. The record reflects that respondent's brother was the owner of the lot when it was surveyed and divided by his conveyances. Moreover, respondent's brother benefited from the inaccuracy in the survey because he was able to subdivide the original lot, and then sell the lot with the house to Hamernick, and convey the other lot to 10 0 -1752- • respondent as compensation for his services rendered. The record further reflects that respondent believed he was acting in accordance with the local ordinances to ensure that he would be able to build on the residue lot. Respondent and his brother had the lot surveyed, and respondent brought the survey to the township's zoning administrator for approval. When he was told that the lot was non - conforming, respondent went back to the surveyor, who revised the survey. Respondent then went back to Paavola and showed him the revised survey. When Paavola did not provide any comment to respondent regarding the survey, respondent's brother proceeded with the plan to subdivide the lot. Although respondent was involved in creating the minor or de minimis non - conformity, respondent believed he was acting in accordance with the local mandates. And Paavola testified at the hearing that the non - conformity was created by the surveyor, not • respondent. Therefore, respondent has demonstrated unique circumstances not shared by neighboring properties and not created by the landowner. Essential Character of the Neighborhood/Locality The board also argues that the evidence before it established that the variance would alter the essential character of the locality. We disagree. The only evidence to support the board's argument is a neighboring landowner's claim that she purchased her lot for the "country living" and privacy, and her concern that if the variance was granted, it would adversely affect her privacy and the value of her home. But the ordinance requires a lot size of 2.5 acres in order to build a single - family dwelling on the lot. An approval of respondent's variance request would permit respondent to build a single- 0 11 -1753- lot family dwelling on a 2.4 acre lot. A 0.1 acre venation m o size would not change the • essential character of the locality. Finally, the board stated that it could not consider economic factors in making its determination. But the Rice Lake Township's ordinance provides that "[ ecconomic considerations alone shall not constitute a hardship." RLZO #22 art. VII, § 6.02(D)(2)(b). It does not say that economic factors cannot be considered at all. Consideration of the economic factors weighs in favor of respondent because, without a variance, respondent would not be able to build on the lot, making the lot essentially worthless. Based on our review of the applicable hardship factors, respondent has demonstrated that all of the hardship factors are satisfied. Therefore, we conclude that the board's decision to deny respondent's variance application was arbitrary and • capricious. Affirmed. 12 • -1754- • Hoisington Koegler Group Inc TO: Mound City Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Rita Trapp, Consulting City Planner DATE: August 17, 2010 SUBJECT: Nonconforming Structure Expansion HK aL Over the past few months Staff has been undertaking a review of the existing non - conforming structure regulations to clarify what structural modifications are allowed under the current city code. Historically, the City has relied on the variance process to evaluate the appropriateness of development proposals involving the expansion of non - conforming structures. However, the recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision, Krummenacher v. Minnetonka has made the granting of variances difficult as the ruling clarifies that a City's may only grant a variance when the applicant has demonstrated that the property cannot be put to any reasonable use without it. At the upcoming Joint City Council & Planning Commission meeting, Staff' will be seeking clarification on the intent of the City Code regarding non - conforming structures. To assist with that discussion, portions of Minnesota State Statutes 462.357 regarding non - conformities and City Code Section 129 -35 have been included. In addition, the packet provides two examples of the types of non - conforming structure improvements that are generally requested. The main discussion items Staff would like to focus on are: 1) Defining what is an "expansion." As shown in the illustrations, there are two general types of non - conforming structure improvement requests. The first are "horizontal" improvements which maintain the setback line established by the existing non - conforming portion of the structure. The second are "vertical" improvements which build on top of an existing non - conforming portion of the structure. Clarification is needed on whether these are considered expansions or if they are allowed by right because they are within the existing "box" of established setback lines. 2) How should expansions be regulated? If either of these types of improvements are determined to be expansions, then we need to decide how they should be regulated. Options would include: a) By variance — the current process of requiring a variance could be maintained. Please note that the recent standard set by the Minnesota Supreme Court makes variances difficult to grant. b) By right — the City Code could be clarified to just allow these types of expansions and require a building permit. c) By some other permitting process. Minnesota Statutes give cities the right to impose reasonable • regulations in permitting an expansion of a non - conformity. Other Minnesota communities are exploring mechanisms such as expansion permits. Mound could explore some similar type of process. -1755- Mound City Code • 129 -35. Non - conforming uses. (a) Any structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived may be continued at the size and in a manner of operation existing upon such date, but may be expanded or intensified only in compliance with the provisions of this section. (b) Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement of a structure, unless such activities constitute an expansion or intensification of the nonconformity. (c) When any nonconforming use of any structure or land in any district has been changed to a conforming use, and has been so used for more than 12 months, it shall not thereafter revert to its prior nonconforming use. (d) Whenever a nonconforming structure shall have been damaged by fire, flood, explosion, earthquake, war, riot, or act of God, it may be reconstructed and used as before if it be reconstructed not later than 12 months after such calamity, unless the damage to the building or structure is 50 percent or more of its fair market value as shown on the assessor's records at the time of damage, in which case it may not be reconstructed unless a building permit has been applied for within 180 days after the date of damage, and construction is completed not more than one year after the date of damage. (e) Whenever a nonconforming use of a structure or land is discontinued for a period of more than 12 months, any future use of said structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. (f) A nonconforming use of a structure or parcel of land may be changed to a similar nonconforming use or to a more restrictive nonconforming use (as determined by the Planning Commission). Some nonconforming uses are permitted by conditional use permits. Once a structure or parcel of land has been placed in similar nonconforming use or in a more restrictive nonconforming use, and has been so used for a period of more than 12 months, it shall not return to the prior nonconforming use. 0 (g) With the approval of the City Council, alterations may be made to a building containing nonconforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units. (h) Nonconforming principal and accessory structures may be expanded, enlarged, or modified, or conforming structures may be added provided that the use of the parcel is conforming to district regulations, and; provided that, the expansion, enlargement, or modification meets the current zoning regulations and no other nonconformities are created. • -1756- • • v /I C� � U �3 b u, • 0 U U /I. vn a 0 a� �n N U W � U O -1757- l+" W O U �1 O a� 0 3 4 a� a, o -1758- • 0 � U -1758- • 0 Y 4 yy� NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING MOUND PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that the Mound Planning Commission will hold a special meeting on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 at 7PM at Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN. This meeting will be part of the Mound City Council meeting for the purpose of having a joint workshop /special meeting with the City Council which is to be included as an item on City Council's meeting agenda to hear a presentation from the City Attorney and Staff following a recent Supreme Court decision regarding variances and related discussion. The joint City Council and Planning Commission workshop /special meeting is open to the public. All interested persons are invited to attend. Posted: August 17, 2010 -1759- GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non - Business Licenses /Permit Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Street Lighting Fee Franchise Fees G.O. Equipment Certificates Charges to Other Dpts Park Dedication Fees Other Revenue TOTAL REVENUE FIRE FUND DOCK FUND MOUND HRA WATER FUND SEWER FUND LIQUOR FUND RECYCLING FUND STORM WATER UTILITY INVESTMENTS (Net of Exp) CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT July 2010 58.33% July 2010 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 3,861,424 762,031 2,023,437 (1,837,987) 52.40% 18,100 725 18,025 (75) 99.59% 99,000 12,696 71,857 (27,143) 72.58% 122,060 18,030 33,030 (89,030) 27.06% 89,400 946 63,370 (26,030) 70.88% 55,000 5,071 35,336 (19,664) 64.25% 216,000 23,868 133,302 (82,698) 61.71% 397,000 82,252 212,663 (184,337) 53.57% 105,625 - - (105,625) 0.00% 12,000 - 2,527 (9,473) 21.06% - - - - 0.00% 354,270 8,129 84,698 (269,572) 23.91% 5,329,879 913,748 2,678,245 (2,651,634) 50.25% 1,052,805 77,737 672,515 (380,290) 63.88% 155,140 596 174,943 19,803 112.76% - - - - #DIV 10! 1,200,000 217,014 727,742 (472,258) 60.65% 1,439,250 122,146 803,691 (635,559) 55.84% 3,003,000 307,437 1,540,391 (1,462,609) 51.30% 231,700 15,673 120,528 (111,172) 52.02% 229,488 19,284 136,332 (93,156) 59.41% 251 3,351 3,351 -1760- 16 � 0 � 0 GENERALFUND Council Promotions City Manager /Clerk Elections Finance Assessing Legal City Hall Building & Srvcs Computer Police MEMO: Police Reimb. Emergency Prepardeness Planning /Inspections Streets Parks Park Dedication Fees Cemetery Recreation Transfers Cable TV Contingencies CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT July 2010 58.33% July 2010 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED 79,991 71,500 327,779 18,375 326,745 95,650 140,506 102,845 29,800 1,883,189 (75,000) 25,950 363,099 714,551 536,882 11,239 5,000 518,600 45,230 31,700 4,032 38,217 0 40,000 35,449 182,865 404 2,417 40,714 181,761 92,799 92,879 9,474 59,353 6,309 62,488 1,800 23,476 189,437 1,047,018 2,985 22,166 39,923 176,157 58,194 403,170 81,196 334,795 0 11,380 0 954 0 300 42,704 298,931 11,361 22,633 2.084 8.463 41,774 47.78% 31,500 55.94% 144,914 55.79% 15,958 13.15% 144,984 55.63% 2,771 97.10% 81,153 42.24% 40,357 60.76% 6,324 78.78% 836,171 55.60% (75,000) 0.00% 3,784 85.42% 186,942 48.51% 311,381 56.42% 202,087 62.36% - 11,380 #DIV /01 10,285 8.49% 4,700 6.00% 219,669 57.64% 22,597 50.04% 23.237 26.70% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 5,328,631 618,865 3,009,423 2,319,208 56.48% Area Fire Service Fund 1,052,807 91,488 597,378 455,429 56.74% Dock Fund 174,001 11,808 60,062 113,939 34.52% HRA Fund 40,250 2,190 22,228 18,022 55.22% Capital Projects 1,672 19,304 - 114,942 116,614 TIF 1 -2 Downtown Mound - 0 0 0 TIF 1 -3 MHR - 1,675 -1,799 1,799 Water Fund 1,698,603 95,550 850,564 848,039 50.07% Sewer Fund 1,645,388 129,383 940,376 705,012 57.15% Liquor Fund 604,849 65,805 320,959 283,890 53.06% Recycling Fund 240,943 17,091 117,337 123,606 48.70% Storm Water Utility 346,012 17,677 179,344 166,668 51.83% -1761- City of Mound Cashlinvestments Balances by Fund At the End of July 2010 FUND NAME $ Amount • General Fund 1,724,060 Park Dedication Fees 7,670 Area Fire Protection Services 321,395 Dock 360,248 Mound HRA 15,591 G.O. Equip. Certf. 2004 - C 25,110 G.O. Equip. Certf. 2005 - C (36,639) G.O. Equip. Certf. 2006 - C 7,143 G.O. Equip. Certf. 2007 - C (9,487) G.O. Equip. Certf. 2008 - D (12,712) G.O. Equip. Certf. 2009 - C 15,242 Mound Transit Center Series 2006 109,348 G.O. Bonds 2001 - C 82,757 Commerce Place TIF 42 G.O. Bonds 2003 - C TIF 1 -2 595,650 G.O. Bonds 2001 - A 26,361 G.O. Bonds 2003 - A 241,483 G.O. Bonds 2004 - A (85,680) G.O. Bonds 2005 - A 378,900 G.O. Bonds 2006 - A 371,779 G.O. Bonds 2007 - A 398,450 G.O. Bonds 2008 - B 299,612 G.O. Bonds 2009 - A 1,678 Taxable G.O. TIF Bonds 2008 A 230,925 HRA Lease Rev Bonds (78,834) Capital Improvement 1,204,942 • MSA (9,193 Sealcoat 124,862 Parking Deck - Downtown TIF 1 -2 63,910 Downtown TIF 1 -3 MHR 154,794 HRA Public Safety Bldg - Water 647,575 Sewer 1,151,497 Liquor Store (499,178) Recycling (30,714) Storm Water (692,817) Total Cash 7,105,770 (66,942) 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 dedicatedireserved resources, etc. Only some 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 close 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. -1762- Feasibility Report for 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements City of Mound, Minnesota 1 Al YOFM Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2638 Shadow Lane Suite 200 Chaska, MN 55318 August 24, 2010 • BO L-TON 8L M F= N K , Consulting Engineers & Surveyors 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 • Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Phone (952),448-8838 • Fax (952) 448 -8805 www.bolton - menk.com August 24, 2010 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: 2011 Street, Utility, and Retaining Wall Improvements Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: NC® As requested, we have prepared a Feasibility Report for the improvements of various City streets, utilities and retaining walls. We have included the proposed method of financing and maps showing the locations of the proposed improvements. I will be available to discuss this report at the August 24th Council Meeting. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC. — O`i/'-C.-.Y , f ' Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. City Engineer DF /skk DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. 11 I Feasibility Report for 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements City of Mound, Minnesota I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. wL Daniel L. Faulkner Date: August 24, 2010 Registration No. 19956 11 11 11 Fl I I TABLE OF CONTENTS I. FORWARD ........................................................................................................ ..............................1 II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: .......................................................................... 3 III. INTRODUCTION: ........................................................................................................................... 4 IV. LOCATION: .................................................................................................................................... 4 V. EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... ............................... .... ..............................6 ........ ............................... V1. IMPROVEMENTS: ......................................................................................................................... 6 VII. EASEMENTS: ................................................................................................................................. 9 VIII. ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: ............................................................................................................. 9 IX. PROJECT FINANCING: ............................................................................................................... 10 X. TYPICAL ASSESSMENT: ............................................................................................................ I I XI. PROJECT SCHEDULE: ................................................................................................................ 13 APPENDIX A — Island Park Area Tables APPENDIX B — Highlands Area Tables APPENDIX C — Maps Feasibility Report 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements tCity of Mound I. FORWARD ' This study has been prepared to evaluate the feasibility of the 2011 portion of the Street Reconstruction Program implemented in 2003 and continuing through 2013. The Street ' Reconstruction Program was established to rate the condition of existing streets in order to establish a plan that would minimize long term roadway replacement costs and preserve the integrity of the City's infrastructure through routine maintenance. The ' preparation of this report reviews the feasibility of adhering to the programs' intent of cost effectively meeting the maintenance and preservation goals of the City of Mound for the 2011 portion of the Program. Various criteria are used to evaluate each roadway section and existing infrastructure to determine the recommended construction required. The criteria used for rehabilitation work includes but is not limited to the following general evaluation considerations: A. Areas that have been the subject of resident concerns or complaints are reviewed ' for the feasibility of repairing the problem. B. Excessive pavement cracking and locations of total pavement failure (potholes, ' settlements, etc.), which signify subgrade failure and an increased rate of deterioration. C. Cracked, broken, settled or heaved curb and gutter are noted for replacement to ' prevent drainage into the subgrade that promotes more extensive deterioration of the pavement. D. Areas experiencing poor drainage are evaluated to see if pavement and curb drainage patterns can be modified to correct the drainage issues or if storm sewer modifications are required. ' E. Sanitary sewer lines are televised and structures are inspected and evaluated to determine if routine maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement is necessary. Additional consideration is given to locations of sanitary sewer that are ' experiencing high levels of inflow and infiltration (I &I) that lead to increased sewer costs for the City of Mound. Locations that necessitate maintenance are reviewed for repair options. ' F. The location and frequency of watermain breaks and repairs are investigated to determine if replacement is necessary to eliminate sudden water disruptions and ' avoid roadway patches and damage associated with the repairs. Adding potential watermain loops to streets without watermain was also evaluated to improve the operation of the water system and water quality for the homeowners. ' © Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2010, All Rights Reserved 012.101482 Page 1 August 24, 2010 Feasibility Report 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements City of Mound After the above evaluation has been completed, the following general practices are followed for the street improvements: A. Roadways subject to watermain or storm sewer replacement are generally specified for reconstruction as the trenching operation required for this work would generally remove a majority of the roadway. B. Roadways that have significant cracking, pavement failures, or subgrade failures observed by roadway heaving and settlements as described above are designated for reconstruction. C. Roadways experiencing only surface cracking or minor deterioration are scheduled for milling and overlaying to rehabilitate the roadway surface, along with any necessary curb replacement to bring it back to a "new" condition. The findings from the above evaluations were used in determining the feasibility for the 2011 Street Improvement Project. The following recommendations meet the goals of the Street Rehabilitation Program by preserving and maintaining the infrastructure of the City of Mound in a cost effective manner. © Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2010, All Rights Reserved u C12.101482 Page 2 August 24, 2010 ' Feasibility Report 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements City of Mound II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Conclusions drawn from studies and investigations are: A. The proposed street, retaining wall, and utility improvements are feasible from an engineering standpoint. B. If the recommended replacement of watermain is not constructed, the potential for watermain breaks under newly improved streets will continue to increase. C. If the recommended streets are not reconstructed at this time, significant maintenance work will be required particularly in areas that have settlement, significant cracking, and poor drainage. D. Temporary construction easements and/or additional permanent right -of -way may be required in areas where retaining walls are being repaired; utility replacement is near the right of way; or there is major reconstruction of existing roadways. Based on these conclusions we recommend: A. Island Park Area: 1. The proposed street improvements be completed at an estimated total street project cost of $2,660,000. 2. The utilities including watermain and storm sewer be reconstructed at an estimated total project cost of $337,000. 3. The proposed retaining walls be reconstructed at an estimated total project cost of $605,000. B. Highlands Area: 1. The proposed street improvements be completed at an estimated total street project cost of $1,015,000. 2. The utilities including watermain and storm sewer be reconstructed at an estimated total project cost of $675,000. 3. The proposed retaining walls be reconstructed at an estimated total project cost of $20,000. C. All projects be included in construction bonds acquired by the City. D. The project be assessed in accordance with the City's Street Construction and Reconstruction Policies. © Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2010, All Rights Reserved C12.101482 Page 3 August 24, 2010 Feasibility Report 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements City of Mound III. INTRODUCTION: On August 10, 2010, the Mound City Council ordered the preparation of an engineering Feasibility Report for the proposed 2011 Street Improvement Project. The purpose of this report is to determine in a preliminary manner, the feasibility of reconstructing existing streets within the proposed project area, reconstructing existing retaining walls within the project area as necessary, and improving utility infrastructure in coordination with the street improvement project. IV. LOCATION: City of Mound staff along with Bolton & Menk performed an area wide evaluation of the existing streets and retaining walls in the areas proposed for improvements in the 2011 construction season. The type of proposed street improvements was determined from the existing pavement condition and location of proposed utility improvements. Typically, streets with poor pavement condition or underlying utilities scheduled for improvement would be reconstructed from curb to curb and streets that do not have underlying utilities scheduled for repair and are not in need of full reconstruction would be milled and overlaid. However, in the 2011 project area, all the streets were determined to be too deteriorated for mill and overlay to be a cost effective maintenance solution. Therefore complete reconstruction of the bituminous streets in the entire project area, complete reconstruction of curb and gutter in the Highland project area and spot repair of curb and gutter in the Island project area was considered for this report. The retaining walls that are in poor condition will also be reconstructed as part of this project. The following summarizes the street and utilities proposed as part of the 2011 Street Improvement Project. A. Street Reconstruction Island Park Area (East Project Area): • Cumberland Road Devon Lane to the west end • Donald Drive Devon Lane to Brighton Boulevard • Churchill Lane Donald Drive to the south end • Dale Road Donald Drive to Devon Lane • Dundee Lane Donald Drive to Tuxedo Boulevard • Alexander Lane Donald Drive to Tuxedo Boulevard • Argyle Lane Alexander Lane to Tuxedo Boulevard • Glasgow Road Dale Road to Argyle Road • Canterbury Road Devon Lane to west end • Lanark Road Devon Lane to Argyle Road • Aberdeen Road Tuxedo Boulevard to west end • Roxbury Lane Drummond Road to Hanover Road • Dexter Lane Drummond Road to Tuxedo Boulevard • Dexter Lane Island View Drive to Drummond Road • Amhurst Land Island View Drive to Tuxedo Boulevard • Hanover Road Roxbury Lane to Devon Lane • Drummond Road Roxbury Lane to Devon Lane © Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2010, All Rights Reserved 012.101482 Page 4 August 24, 2010 Feasibility Report 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements Citv of Mound • Devon Lane Tuxedo Boulevard to Lanark Road West Island Park Area: • Piper Road • Charles Lane • Franklin Road • Gladstone Lane • Warner Road • Hanover Road • Drummond Road • Drummond Road • Windsor Road • Windsor Road • Windsor Cul -De -Sac • Waterbury Road • Waterbury Road • Waterbury Road • Phelps Road • Seabury Road • Sulgrove Road 2. The Highlands Area Tuxedo Boulevard to Charles Lane Piper Road to Franklin Road Charles Lane to Warner Road Franklin Road to south end Piper Road to Sulgrove Road Tuxedo Boulevard to east end Tuxedo Boulevard to east end Tuxedo Boulevard to west end Warner Road east end Tuxedo Boulevard east to Cul -de -Sac Deleted From this Project due to good condition Warner Road to west end Warner Road to east end Tuxedo Boulevard to east end Warner Road to Tuxedo Boulevard Warner Road to east end Warner Road to Tuxedo Boulevard • Ridgewood Road Westedge Boulevard /CR 44 to Idlewood Road • Idlewood Road Ridgewood Road to Highland Boulevard • Highland Boulevard Idlewood Road to Bartlett Boulevard/CR 110 B. Watermain • Hanover Road Tuxedo Boulevard to east end • Canterbury Road Devon Lane to west end • Ridgewood Road Westedge Boulevard /CR 44 to Idlewood Road • Idlewood Road Ridgewood Road to Highland Boulevard • Highland Boulevard Idlewood Road to Bartlett Boulevard/CR 110. C. Storm Sewer • Donald Drive • Dundee Lane • Argyle Lane • Devon Lane • Dexter Lane • Waterbury Road • Warner Road • Piper Road Various locations South end South end South end Various locations At Tuxedo Boulevard North of Waterbury Road Various locations Location maps for all proposed improvements are in Appendix C of this report. © Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2010, All Rights Reserved C12.101482 Page 5 August 24, 2010 Feasibility Report 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements City of Mound V. kv A EXISTING CONDITIONS: The existing sub -grade soils around this area of the city are typically clayey loams with moderate to high susceptibility to freeze -thaw and shrink- swell. The existing streets and storm sewer were constructed in the late 1970s with the street widths ranging from 13 feet to 28 feet measured from the face of curb. The original street sections were typically 3.5 inches of bituminous base and 1.5 inches of bituminous wear course with no aggregate base. The streets were also typically constructed with concrete curb and gutter. Many of the existing retaining walls adjacent to the project are constructed of a natural limestone flagstone and range in height from 1 foot to 7 feet. Walls that have failing portions, large cracks, are unsightly, are leaning or have excessive vegetation growth between the stones will be replaced as part of the street project. A majority of the watermain and sanitary sewer were constructed in the 1960s, with the sanitary sewer constructed of vitrified clay tile and most of the watermain constructed of cast iron pipe. The watermain in the Island Park area has experienced very few breaks and has required only minimal maintenance as it has aged. The watermain in the Highlands Area has experienced breaks over the years and is in need of reconstruction. The sanitary sewer mains in both of the project areas will be televised by city staff to determine if there are any segments that require complete replacement. Inflow and infiltration (I &I) into the sanitary sewer has been a city concern for some time. It has been determined that the best solution, when spot repairs are not needed, is cured in place pipe (CIPP) lining of the existing sanitary sewer to be done under a separate project. IMPROVEMENTS: A. Streets: The proposed reconstruction in the Island Park area will include the removal of all existing bituminous and excavating down to the sub -grade along with the removal and replacement of curb and gutter where required. The sub -grade under the streets will be corrected if needed and the street will be rebuilt with a layer of geo- textile fabric, 8 inches of Class 5 aggregate base, and 3 -1/2 inches of bituminous pavement, which is the City's current standard section. Based on our preliminary condition survey, it was determined that only a portion of the concrete curb and gutter would be reconstructed as needed. Concrete driveway aprons will be added where none currently exist and will be replaced where necessary due to utility, drainage or retaining wall improvements or where the existing curb and gutter is not the standard "drive- over" type. Because the streets in the Highland area are MSA (Municipal State Aid) roads, the required pavement design was completed based on soils and traffic counts. In this area, the street construction will include removal of the existing bituminous and excavating down to the subgrade along with the complete reconstruction of the concrete curb and gutter. In order to meet the required MSA standards, the street will be reconstructed with a © Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2010, All Rights Reserved Page 6 012.101482 August 24, 2010 ' Feasibility Report 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements Citv of Mound layer of geo- textile fabric, 12 inches of Class 5 aggregate base and 4 -1/2 inches of bituminous pavement. A portion of Ridgewood Road (from Westedge Boulevard/CR 44 to Priest Lane) will also require an additional 12 inches of stabilizing aggregate under the section detailed above. It should be noted that the streets in this part of the project are all 27 feet wide, face of curb to face of curb, and currently there is parking allowed along one side of the street on Idlewood Road and Highland Boulevard and also along portions of Ridgewood Road. According to the MSA standards, a street must be at least 32 feet wide, face of curb to face of curb, for parking to be allowed on one side of the street. If the City wishes to use MSA funds for these street improvements and to continue to allow parking along one side of these streets, an approval from the MnDOT Variance Committee will be required, as there is not sufficient room to widen the road to meet the MSA requirement. The City will also have to seek variances for other MSA design criteria that will not be met with regards to horizontal curvature of the road and sight distances that cannot be corrected due to the existing topography of the area. The locations of the street improvements are shown on the attached Figure No. 2 in Appendix C. B. Watermain: Watermain improvements will be made in some areas of the 2011 Street Improvement Project to create looping connections that will eliminate dead end lines and improve water quality and fire flow. In the Island Park Area, new ductile iron watermain will be constructed along Hanover Road from Tuxedo Boulevard to the east end. This new watermain will be connected to the existing watermain along Hanover Road on the east end and to the watermain at Tuxedo Boulevard to create a watermain loop to improve water quality. Another option was evaluated for the Hanover Road watermain consisting of extending it to connect to the watermain on Drummond Road to the south to create a loop. This option would require the City to acquire easements and due to the difficult topography in the area, this is not a feasible option. A similar watermain loop will be constructed along Canterbury Road from Devon Lane to the west end. The remaining watermain in the Island Park Area has had very few breaks and has required only minimal maintenance so it will not be reconstructed at this time. All the existing watermain in the Highlands Area; along Ridgewood Road, Idlewood Road and Highland Boulevard; is proposed to be replaced with new ductile iron pipe as part of this project. All watermain repairs are proposed to be financed by the City's Watermain Utility Fund and are not included in the street assessment. © Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2010, All Rights Reserved C12.101482 Page 7 August 24, 2010 Feasibility Report 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements City of Mound C. Storm Sewer: In several locations throughout the project existing pipe sizes may be increased and additional inlets may be added to help drain low spots and overloaded areas. All existing inlet castings in the project areas will be upgraded with high velocity grates and all the catch basins will also be reconstructed to accommodate the new grates. Figure No. 3 in Appendix C, attached to this report, illustrates the proposed storm sewer improvements. All storm sewer construction is proposed to be financed by the City's Storm Water Utility Fund and is not included in the street assessments. D. Retaining Wall Replacement: Retaining walls adjacent to streets included in the 2011 Street Improvement Project will be reconstructed as needed to meet the current City standard. Nearly all walls range in height from 1 foot to 7 feet and are typically very close to the back of curb. Wall replacement and evaluation criteria include: the extent of failing wall area; the number of large cracks; and excessive vegetative growth between stones. Many of the walls are currently made of limestone flagstone. The new walls will be constructed of modular block in accordance with current City standards and are proposed to be funded by the Retaining Wall Reconstruction Fund and are not included in the street assessments. 0 Bollon & Menk, Inc. 2010, All Rights Reserved Page 8 C12.101482 August 24, 2010 Feasibility Report 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements Citv of Mound VII. EASEMENTS: The existing street right -of -way ranges from 15 feet to 50 feet. Easements may be required in locations where there are significant repairs to the street section and where utilities scheduled for replacement are close to the existing right of way. The exact locations of the right -of -way and any easements needed will be determined during final design. Easement costs are not included in the 2011 Street Improvement Project estimates. VIII. ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: The costs associated with the 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement Project are outlined below. Itemized costs and maps for the areas are included in appendices of this report. Island Park Area: Total Estimated Assessable Street Cost: $2,582,000 Total Estimated Utility Cost (incl. associated street cost): $415,000 Total Estimated Retaining Wall Cost: $605,000 Total Estimated Improvement Project Cost. $3,602,000 Highlands Area: Total Estimated Assessable Street Cost: $426,000 Total Estimated Extra Depth Cost: $201,000 Total Estimated Utility Cost (incl. associated street cost): $1,063,000 Total Estimated Retaining Wall Cost: $20,000 Total Estimated Improvement Project Cost. $1,710,000 All the above project costs include 30% soft costs for engineering, financing, administration, etc. The street costs are split into the assessable portion of the street cost and the non - assessable portion of the street cost. In the Highlands area, the assessable portion of the street cost is equivalent to the estimated cost to construct the streets to the City Standards (3 -1/2 inches of bituminous over 8 inches of aggregate base) instead of the thicker section that is required because it is an Municipal State Aid (MSA) street. Therefore the estimated "extra depth" of bituminous, aggregate base and stabilizing aggregate has been separated from the assessable cost and will be a cost paid for by the City/MSA funds. These above stated estimates do not include the costs for any easements that may be required for construction. 0 Bolton & Menk, Inc. 1010, All Rights Reserved C12.101482 Page 9 August 24, 2010 Feasibility Report 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements City of Mound IX. PROJECT FINANCING: The street project will be assessed according to the City's Street Construction and Reconstruction Policies. This policy states that two- thirds (2/3) of the assessable street costs for the project will be assessed to benefiting properties and the remaining one -third (1/3) shall be paid by the City. Public improvement bonds will finance all project elements with the associated street assessments levied over a period of time, which will be determined by the City Council (typically a 15 year period). The streets in the Highlands area are also eligible for MSA funding since this is a City designated and State approved MSA route. The City is allowed to designate a maximum of twenty (20) percent of its local street mileage as MSA routes, in accordance with State Aid Rules. These routes then generate "needs" which translates into MSA funds, along with Mound's proportionate population to all other MSA cities, and these funds are then placed in the City' MSA account. The City can request funds from their available MSA account to pay for any portion of the eligible street costs, regardless of any amount assessed. It is recommended that City MSA funds be used to pay the non - assessed portion of the street costs. Any remaining non -MSA eligible project costs would be included in the public improvement bonds, and paid through the general levy. Island Park Area: Amount Assessed to Benefiting Properties (2/3) _ $1,721,000 Amount Paid by the City (1/3) = $861 000 Total Estimated Assessable Street Costs = $2,582,000 Retaining Wall Reconstruction: Amount Paid from Retaining Wall Reconstruction Fund = $605,000 Utility Improvements: Amount Paid from respective Utilitv Funds = $415,000 Estimated Total Project Costs = $3,602,000 Hikhlands Area: x Amount Assessed to Benefiting Properties (2/3) _ $284,000 Amount Paid by the City (1/3) = $142,000 Total Estimated Assessable Street Costs = $426,000 *Does not include Extra Depth Cost of $201,000 paid by the City Retaining Wall Reconstruction: Amount Paid from Retaining Wall Reconstruction Fund = $20,000 Utility Improvements: Amount Paid from respective Utility Funds = ..$1,063,000 Estimated Total Project Costs = $1,710,000 © Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2010, All Rights Reserved Page 10 C12.101482 August 24, 2010 Feasibility Report 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements Citv of Mound X. TYPICAL ASSESSMENT: The assessment for the one commercial property within the project area will be determined by the Combination Method and assessments for residential lots will be determined by the Unit Method as described in the City of Mound's Street Construction and Reconstruction Policies. The total amount assessed to the benefiting properties will also be reduced by the Utility Street Cost. The Utility Street Cost is determined by estimating the cost of repairing a street back to the standard city section due to the utility replacement if the street was not to be fully reconstructed for this project. The Street Utility Cost is paid from the applicable Utility Fund. Island Park Area: The commercial portion of the assessment amount for the Island Park area will be assessed to the one (1) commercial property according to the Combination Method, as specified in the City's Street Construction and Reconstruction Assessment Policies. The assessable project cost for the commercial area is the proportional amount of the total assessable street improvement costs as follows: Total Assessable Street Cost: $2,582,000 Total Amount to be Assessed (2/3) $1,721,000 Total Length of all Streets Improved: 17,850 LF Cost Per Lineal Foot of Street Improved: $96.43 Cost Per Frontage Foot ($95.98/2): $48.21 Total Commercial Front Footage 152 LF Approximate Commercial Assessment $7,350 ($47.99 x 152 LF) Because there is only one commercial property in the 2011 project area, the total ' assessable commercial project cost is assessed to that property as shown on Page 3 in Appendix A. i The remaining assessable street costs will be distributed among the benefitting residential property owners by the Unit Method. The Island Park area includes a total of 274.5 equivalent residential units (ERUs). The assessable portion of the street cost is divided by the number of ERUs to determine the assessment. The number of ERUs used for the Island Park area does not include the 6 lots that are adjacent to Sulgrove Road on the south side, as these lots are in the Minnetrista city limits. Total Amount to be Assessed (2/3) = $1,721,000 Amount Assessed to Commercial Units= $7,350 Amount Assessed to Residential Units = $1,713,650 Total Benefiting ERUs = 274.5 Estimated Per Unit Assessment = $1,713,650/274.5 = $6,250 © Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2010, All Rights Reserved Page 11 C12.101482 August 24, 2010 Feasibility Report 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements City of Mound Highlands Area: Because there are no commercial properties in the Highlands area, the assessable street costs will be distributed among the beneftting residential property owners by the Unit Method. This project area includes a total of 63.33 equivalent residential units (ERUs). The assessable portion divided by the number of ERUs determines the assessment. Total Assessable Street Cost: $426,000 Total Amount to be Assessed (2/3) _ $284,000 Total Benefiting ERUs = 63.33 Estimated Per Unit Assessment = $284,000 / 63.33 = $4,480 Some potential exceptions to the typical single unit assessment are: multifamily homes with more than two dwelling units will be assessed three- quarters (3/4) of a typical assessment per unit, corner lots with multiple City streets that only have improvements on one or two sides of the lot will only be charged one -half (1/2), one -third (1/3), or two - thirds (2/3) of a typical assessment depending on how many streets the lot fronts. Also, new concrete curb and gutter, where none previously existed, and new /replaced concrete driveway aprons, if not removed for any City utility or drainage improvement purpose, are to be fully assessed to the individual benefiting property per City Policy. © Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2010, All Rights Reserved 012.101482 Page 12 August 24, 2010 n I I I I I I I I CIS �I Feasibility Report 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements City of Mound XI. PROJECT SCHEDULE: August 24, 2010 October 12, 2010 November 2010 -March 2011 March, 2011 April, 2011 May, 2011 May, 2011 November, 2011 June, 2012 Summer, 2012 Council receives report and calls for Public Hearing Council holds Public Improvement Hearing and orders project Plans and Specifications prepared Council approves Final Plans and sets Bid Date Bids are opened Council Awards Contract Construction Begins Substantial Completion of Project Final Completion of Project Council holds Assessment Hearing © Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2010, All Rights Reserved 012.101482 Page 13 August 24, 2010 11 l�� 7 0 J u ill� � Appendix A 1 n u I I ' Feasilibility Report 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements City of Mound PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ISLAND PARK AREA Item Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost REMOVALS REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY $1.90 44,394 $84,349.44 COMMON EXCAVATION CY $10.50 12,045 $126,471.20 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION CY $10.50 3,709 $38,945.06 REMOVE CURB & GUTTER LF $2.60 16,245 $42,237.00 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING EACH $780.00 64 $49,920.00 NEW CONSTRUCTION BITUMINOUS WEAR SY $5.75 44,394 $255,268.06 BITUMINOUS NON -WEAR TON $55.50 5,128 $284,579.49 AGGREGATE BASE CL 5 TON $16.00 24,371 $389,941.35 STABILIZING AGGREGATE TON $24.00 7,418 $178,034.56 GEO- FABRIC SY $2.00 56,198 $112,395.56 CURB & GUTTER LF $11.50 19,615 $225,572.50 TOPSOIL BORROW CY $20.00 719 $14,384.33 SODDING SY $2.75 6,538 $17,980.42 DRIVEWAYS /SIDEWALK LS $75,053.00 1 $75,053.00 CLEAR & GRUB TREE TREE $350.00 30 $10,500.00 SILT FENCE LF $1.75 1,734 $3,034.50 LANDSCAPING LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 IRRIGATION /INVISIBLE FENCE REPAIR LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 FIELD OFFICE LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 SUBTOTAL $1,948,666.46 MOBILIZATION (5 %) $97,433.32 TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET CONSTRUCTION COST $2,046,099.79 ENGINEERING, LEGAL & ADMIN (30 %) 1 $613,829.94 TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET PROJECT COSTS $2,659,929.72 ASSESSMENT ALLOCATION DEDUCT STREET CONSTRUCTION OVER UTILITIES $78,131.18 TOTAL STREET PROJECT COST LESS DEDUCTS $2,581,798.55 ASSESSABLE STREET COST (213 OF TOTAL) $1,721,199.03 CITY COSTS TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET COST LESS ASSESSABLE COST PROJECT $938,730.69 TOTAL ESTIMATED UTILITY COST (PROJECT)l $336,468.54 TOTAL ESTIMATED RETAINING WALL COST (PROJECT) $605,175.48 TOTAL ESTIMATED CITY COST (PROJECT) $1,880,374.71 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST. $3,609,573.74 Bolton Menk, Inc. 2010 All Rights Reserved Page 1 of 3 C12.101482 August 24, 2010 Feasibility Report 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements City of Mound ISLAND PARK AREA - ESTIMATED RETAINING WALL COSTS STREET HOUSE NUMBER HEIGHT (FT) LENGTH (FT) AREA (SF) UNIT PRICE FOR REM. & INSTALL TOTAL COST 5200 7 140 980 $29.00 $58,420.00 5220 5 45 225 $29.00 $6,525.02 SULGROVE 5230 3 79 237 $29.00 $6,873.00 5251 3 125 375 $29.00 $10,875.00 3425 3.5 50 175 $29.00 $5,075.00 5224 3 15 45 $29.00 $1,305.00 SEABURY 5232 -5238 4 38 152 $29.00 $4,408.00 5235 -3340 3.5 90 315 $29.00 $9135.00 3331 2 25 50 $29.00 $1,450.00 PHELPS 5211 3 33 99 $29.00 $2,871.00 5227 6 105 630 $29.00 $18270.00 5235 3 40 120 $29.00 $3,480.00 WATERBURY 5116 5 60 300 $29.00 $8,700.00 5142 5.5 90 495 $29.00 $14,355.00 5110 4.5 65 293 $29.00 $8,482.50 5124 2 33 66 $29.00 $1914.00 WINDSOR 5125 2.5 84 210 $29.00 $6,090.00 5147 6 176 1056 $29.00 $30,624.00 5144 3 38 114 $29.00 $3306.00 5109 3 36 108 $29.00 $3132.00 DRUMMOND 5116 5 57 285 129.00 $8,265.00 5135 2.5 43 108 $29.00 $3,117.50 4866 3 48 144 $29.00 $4176.00 HANOVER 4833 2 110 220 $29.00 $6,380,00 4872 2.5 58 145 $29.00 $4,205.00 ROXBURY 3212 1 70 70 $29.00 $2,030.00 4932 2 27 54 $29.00 $1,566.00 AMHURST 3213 3 120 360 $29.00 $10,440.00 TUXEDO 3214 4 176 704 $29.00 $20,416.00 5218 5.5 75 413 $29.00 $11,962.50 PIPER 5254 1.5 40 60 $29.00 $1,740.00 5309 2 63 126 $29.00 $3,654.00 5313 2 45 90 $29.00 $2,610.00 5317 2.5 35 88 $29.00 $2,537.50 CHARLES 3207 1.5 30 45 $29.00 $1305.00 3243 2.5 20 50 $29.00 $1,450.00 WARNER 3246 3.5 76 266 $29.00 $7,714.00 5229 4 107 428 $29.00 $12,412.00 3340 -5239 5 160 800 $29.00 $23,200.00 WATERBURY 3359 4 100 400 $29.00 $11600.00 4823 3 60 180 $29.00 $5,220.00 DONALD 3037 4 54 216 $29.00 $6,264.00 ALEXANDER 4842 4 122 488 $29.00 $14,152.00 48594839 4 85 340 $29.00 $9,860.00 4873 2 155 310 $29.00 $8,990.00 CUMBERLAND 3231 3 26 78 $29.00 $2,262.00 ROXBURY 4884 2.5 200 500 $29.00 $14,500.00 DEXTER 3207 3 46 138 $29.00 $4.002.00 AMHURST 4844 -3225 4 200 800 $29.00 $23,200.00 3086 -3080 2 50 100 $29.00 $2,900.00 DUNDEE 3038 1 25 25 $29.00 $725.00 3090 3 83 249 $29.00 $7,221.00 3107 1 15 15 $29.00 $435.00 ALEXANDER 3107 1.5 30 45 $29.00 $1,305.00 4855 2 53 106 $29.00 $3,074.00 ARGYLE 4832 2.5 56 140 $29.00 $4,060.00 CANTERBURY 4852 3 114 342 $29.00 $9,918.00 GLASGOW 4860 4 53 212 $29.00 $6,148.00 4825 3 35 105 $29.00 $3,045.00 TOTAL WALL COST 15288 $443,352.00 CONTINGENCIES 5% $22167.60 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $465,519.60 ENGINEERING LEGAL, & ADMIN 30% $139,655.88 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $605,175.48 Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2010, All Rights Reserved Page 2 of 3 C12.101482 August 24, 2010 Q e M M (- O 00 00 O O N N 6s 60� r � Lu O F 0 z w w LLI :D vwi L1QQ° F Q V) 0 � Q O " Qz¢o w F p 0 Q L, O ., F-Ww[-4 O � CY Q cn - Q a U O U w O CC w W M O N H O U F� O H � a a O pq a a W W Q � �a w w O Fd I- z� Q 7 a a Q H Z W A W CG E= z w w Q F- Q F O H N O W q Co �- N O N N U � m Q v a� Z m y d t 0] M Q o O M N N d V C Y C N C O 0 m F w w a Q U W O a U Q W Q o Q� a° M O N H O U F� O H � a a O pq a a W W Q � �a w w O Fd I- z� Q 7 a a Q H Z W A W CG E= z w w Q F- Q F O H N O W q Co �- N O N N U � m Q v a� Z m y d t 0] M Q o O M N N d V C Y C N C O 0 m 1 l it Ll n u 0 L � Appendix B i� 1 n n �7 11 [J Feasilibility Report 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements City of Mound PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE HIGHLANDS AREA Item Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost REMOVALS REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY $1.90 11,307 $21,482.67 COMMON EXCAVATION CY $10.50 5,813 $61,032.22 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION CY $10.50 933 $9,794.40 REMOVE CURB & GUTTER LF $2.60 8,480 $22,048.00 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING EACH $780.00 23 $17,940.00 NEW CONSTRUCTION BITUMINOUS WEAR SY $5.75 8,664 $49,817.82 BITUMINOUS NON -WEAR TON $55.50 1,959 $108,717.84 AGGREGATE BASE CL 5 TON $16.00 12,178 $194,845.20 STABILIZING AGGREGATE TON $24.00 1,866 $44,774.40 GEO- FABRIC SY $2.00 14,133 $28,266.67 CURB & GUTTER LF $11.50 8,480 $97,520.00 TOPSOIL BORROW CY $20.00 311 $6,218.67 SODDING SY $2.75 2,827 $7,773.33 DRIVEWAYS /SIDEWALK LS $24,116.00 1 $24,116.00 CLEAR & GRUB TREE TREE $350.00 16 $5,600.00 SILT FENCE LF $1.75 2,100 $3,675.00 LANDSCAPING LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 IRRIGATION /INVISIBLE FENCE REPAIR LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 FIELD OFFICE LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 SUBTOTAL $743,622.21 MOBILIZATION (5 %) $37,181.11 TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET CONSTRUCTION COST $780,803.32 ENGINEERING, LEGAL & ADMIN (30% ) $234,241.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET PROJECT COST $1,015,044.32 ASSESSMENT ALLOCATION DEDUCT EXTRA DEPTH STREET SECTION COST (PROJECT) $201,535.07 DEDUCT STREET CONSTRUCTION OVER UTILITIES COST (PROJECT) $387,902.44 TOTAL STREET PROJECT COST LESS DEDUCTS $425,606.82 ASSESSABLE STREET COST (2/3 OF TOTAL) $283,737.88 CITY COSTS TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET COST LESS ASSESSABLE COST (PROJECT) $731,306.44 TOTAL ESTIMATED UTILITY COST PROJECT $674,764.27 TOTAL ESTIMATED RETAINING WALL COST (PROJECT) $19,713.33 TOTAL ESTIMATED CITY COST (PROJECT) $1,425,784.05 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST. $1,709,521.92 Bolton Menk, Inc. 2010 All Rights Reserved Page 1 of 3 C12.101514 August 24, 2010 Feasibility Report 2011 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements City of Mound HIGHLANDS AREA - ESTIMATED RETAINING WALL COSTS STREET HOUSE NUMBER HEIGHT (FT) LENGTH (FT) AREA (SF) UNIT PRICE FOR REM. & INSTALL TOTAL COST IDLEWOOD RD 2997 1.5 116 174 $29.00 $5,046.00 HIGHLAND BLVD 2960 2 70 140 $29.00 $4,060.00 HIGHLAND BLVD 2870 4 46 184 $29.00 $5,336.00 TOTAL WALL COST 498 $14,442.00 CONTINGENCIES (5% ) $722.10 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $15,164.10 ENGINEERING, LEGAL, & ADMIN (30 %) $4,549.23 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $19,713.33 Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2010, All Rights Reserved C12.101514 Page 2 of 3 August 24, 2010 E- z� w � .a > vi a� H_ 0 E-- U ¢ M Z o F U co O U a aa�u o0 wA°� �zM a EIJ ca a wx<w a x w ¢ a a� z L d1 Q O O N U C Y C N C O O m )n o �- N C) _ r � _N N U 7 D) 3 Q Cl) I N CD f0 d n J J 1 0 u Appendix C 1 1 u 1 VI NOA30 VI NOA30 0 -J U F- o a bZ A o O 0� CD cli w II II II II t i —0i N V) w Z V) W oc LO) LO) 0 x I L Z vi 831A(l 0 X q3lX3p �3" 111HOar)HO z vi mnexo8l NI a la V) Z-- of '31 D I ONVIHOIH C> at'le aH WN8VM 0M0 HOIH A ?Y- 3NVI :3NOIS(Ffl9 PIS Yl 11014 xz Yi VI NMI VI OOOM-132VH ■ SNI +0 LL 0 w O_ Z) 0 Z) z < 0 Z Ld 00 V) Q LLJ V) � < (n F: Li X F— V) 0 z Z 2.5 vi I 0 z Z 3 z uj (A --c Z-. Z w z 0 L) c z 0 0 m V 91 ? SN cV 1 "Lo C14 N E3 x N 3 " F- z 1 N ' ! w w o V) 3 ! !. z o� azo !W # # ! ! # m 9 i i HYry ! a O ! ! 3 g� o� H # _! 1 !! i a ip i i Z Z =o �o i# O o� "I" � Q Q , # i # i " i ! # LL of Li o ! O p O' w a N n- v) # # # # %Y q . # 1 1 } Q ! N LLJ w q o f i w wi V) o w �\ i E E W U 2:9 i N w i # 3 a B (V ! M � � r z i i I II I = 410 Z t H 3 i � C z e ~ „ y z # W _ m z 1 0 LLl C R R Ln Z a� r o R s N s 4 i U m N = » N o J ° � Om # ! R s LL, i N F- CV# w # F- ! B i ON NaY # # # # # # "3N to h i B B rl 1lOH i # �# # ; 3i C# # N '+' 2 m I W H # F # i II II w p LLJ 00 �0 F- V) LLJ B ! 3 B # # # Vl MOM # # # SOH B & # # Vl NMVIHVO B i i B # o , V1 OOOM13zVH B B 3N� N •A a # R O N lV a 9 R " m - R � SN3H010 1 o U tgo z H 2 1 I i p I F B i F Ie Q Q i Q Q I i IE i Q I VI N30M E R I f Q Vl NMV1xV0 B Q cn 4 Vl OOOM13ZVH f l 3Nn CO Q ,8 _ It m sN3)1 3 o d i i A m = == m m == r m === m m Vl N OA3u z 9 w w o w � o Q o <� w „) on m z5 aL) , ! 9 Q ! p 3 > p v $ Q Z i !I O ry U m 00 W W 0 ! ! 0 z _Q a- Li Li f LL- Ckf x 0 w m N w 0 m 0M 0M ILv~) 0-V) , F 6 p I I ! LLJ ��� _ p a $ . " q 6 ~ U Q N N 1 ! ! G Q ! ! ! Q , o o I 1 Q ! I t o F € t cn j� i ! ! Z I $ Z �s $ i w ! � i j V x s $ B �y i KI ' O c o W ¢ l • " � Z Z S S z S i� i U 2� Q X11 z s Q M r C O Z Q Q " _ Q LC) 1 € 0a Nav I I I i HO / F I I ! N3 I — " p Vl ilOH Q a o Q ! I , 1 I i p I F B i F Ie Q Q i Q Q I i IE i Q I VI N30M E R I f Q Vl NMV1xV0 B Q cn 4 Vl OOOM13ZVH f l 3Nn CO Q ,8 _ It m sN3)1 3 o d i i A m = == m m == r m === m m A l l 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 � i E 1; 1 A L> H i ■ N H9 Mpg i i i ; a s aH�H 1 h A 1 E y N 3 I A 1 1 1 1 ■ i 1 i A ; IA 1 : A� 1■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 } � 6 1 ■ u ti ■1 g 1 vi MH 1 c � g 1 ; } i t s g i g ■ i F! i g A e A ' a i ■ 1 1 F R __ 1 1 1 g g °s s 11 I �-Z— A i _ 1 A ■ 1 S 1 v1 N3am i i 1 �aNaFE�W i V/ A A i 1 1 R 11 i i i 1 1 A 1 i A 1 6 i i 1 1 1 vl NMv1Nvo i 11 I i 11 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 1 1 W i I a 1- 1 i 1 A i A ; ; i 1 �} i ■ - g 1 R g vl aooMr�zvH 1 1 ! 3Nn - g ' s � R ■ SN3WJ10 c A 1 ;; A 1 i 1 I & ■ g A g� rc E 1. i t 1 1 A 1� I �■ � g■ g g R� : _ 3 g A A 1 A g I ■11. 1 1 1 �1 0 �R i� X40 2� 85 +t O U I� m� m = m� m m m m m m m m m m g r vl NOA30 I 1 yl ■ z v¢ 7~ 3 1 1 ! i s I } i } w w Z o z ° 1 ! } } i !} 1 I } } ! i ■ 1 0 H LLJ Q i i } ■ a Z w LLJ n z 1 } } e 1 N I riv p a � > LLI V) ■ i 1 s Q w t 1 I 0 z o a z U) 1; g ; i g =, 1 } 1 1 9 LL. O O J J q g ■ 1 I l G x R 1 1 1' 4 } Z = cn g A 6 g g ! i rc I 6 ! v a Z 1� 4 A Z Cj ■ } - g 1 LLJ 1 i — "aIHDIaa \ i 1 } Z 1 \ Z� 5 3� i n N W' in g x g g s OI - g t ■ s ■ l O/ `" � U ■ z a e s I I— Z g gz R S OR __ ■ 1 1 a � 1 1 A l l 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 � i E 1; 1 A L> H i ■ N H9 Mpg i i i ; a s aH�H 1 h A 1 E y N 3 I A 1 1 1 1 ■ i 1 i A ; IA 1 : A� 1■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 } � 6 1 ■ u ti ■1 g 1 vi MH 1 c � g 1 ; } i t s g i g ■ i F! i g A e A ' a i ■ 1 1 F R __ 1 1 1 g g °s s 11 I �-Z— A i _ 1 A ■ 1 S 1 v1 N3am i i 1 �aNaFE�W i V/ A A i 1 1 R 11 i i i 1 1 A 1 i A 1 6 i i 1 1 1 vl NMv1Nvo i 11 I i 11 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 1 1 W i I a 1- 1 i 1 A i A ; ; i 1 �} i ■ - g 1 R g vl aooMr�zvH 1 1 ! 3Nn - g ' s � R ■ SN3WJ10 c A 1 ;; A 1 i 1 I & ■ g A g� rc E 1. i t 1 1 A 1� I �■ � g■ g g R� : _ 3 g A A 1 A g I ■11. 1 1 1 �1 0 �R i� X40 2� 85 +t O U I� m� m = m� m m m m m m m m m m g r