The URL can be used to link to this page

2012-01-24 CC Agenda PacketPLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. • AGENDA .................. . MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2012 - 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 3. Approve agenda, with any amendments 4. *Consent Agenda *A. Approve payment of claims 143 -171 *B. Approve Pay Request No. 3 from Minger Construction in the 172 -173 amount of $38,994.04 for the 2011 Lift Station Improvement • Project, City Project No. PW -11 -03 *C. Approve Pay Request No. 1 and Final from Michels Corporation 174 -176 in the amount of $129,487.80 for the 2011 CIPP Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project *D. Approve 2012 Dock Location Map Addendum 177 -187 *E. Adopt Resolution Approving Public Lands Permit for 188 -195 5500 Breezy Road *F. Adopt Resolution Approving Public Lands Permit for 196 -201 4743 Island View Drive *G. Reschedule regular City Council meeting from August 14, 2012, to Thursday, August 16, 2012. (due to Primary Election) 5. Comments and suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the agenda. (Limit to 3 minutes per speaker.) r� PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 6. Public Hearing — Continued from January 10, 2012 202 -210 2012 Langdon Lane Cul -de -sac Improvement Project • A. Consider /Adopt Resolution Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans for 2012 Langdon Lane Cul -de -sac and Storm Sewer Improvement and Including it as a Separate Section of the 2012 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement Project -or- Consider /Adopt Resolution Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans for 2012 Langdon Lane Storm Sewer Improvement and Including it as a Separate Section of the 2012 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement Project 7. Dan Faulkner of Bolton & Menk presenting report on the 2012 Lift Station 211 -216 Improvement Project A. Consider /Adopt Resolution Receiving Report and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for the 2012 Lift Station Improvement Project 8. Review /discussion/action on Resolution Denying Variance for 3070 Highland 217 -258 Boulevard (PC Case No. 11 -13) 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: • A. Review /discussion/action on PC Case No. 11 -10 related to Comprehensive 259 -317 Plan amendment request(s) for certain parcels in vicinity of southwest corner of Commerce and Lynwood Boulevards related to possible Walgreens redevelopment project 10. Approve minutes of January 10, 2012 regular meeting 318 -321 11. Information/Miscellaneous A. Comments /reports from Councilmembers /City Manager B. Reports: Finance — 4a' Qtr. 2011 Investments 322 Finance — Bolton & Menk 4a' Qtr. 2011 Hrs. Billed 323 Fire Commission Agenda - 12/9/11 324 -354 C. Minutes: Planning Commission — 12/6/11 355 -363 D. Correspondence: Met Council— final housing score for 2011 364 -365 Richard Stanek — 911 Emergency Comm. Facility 366 12. Adjourn isThis is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. More current meeting agendas maybe viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: www.cityofnound.com. • COUNCIL BRIEFING January 24, 2012 Upcoming Events Schedule: Don't Forget!! Jan 24 — 6:55 — HRA regular meeting Jan 24 — 7:00 — CC regular meeting Jan 30 — 6:30 — Volunteer Appreciation — Gillespie Center Feb 4 — 6:00 -9:00 — Moonlight Trail Night — Mound Transit Center Feb 14 — 6:30 — HRA regular meeting Feb 14 — 7:00 — CC regular meeting Feb 28 — 6:30 — HRA regular meeting Feb 28 — 7:00 — CC regular meeting _City Hall Closings Feb 20 Presidents' Day City Officials' Absences Ray Salazar Jan 14 -31 Kandis Hanson Feb 24 -Mar 4 Medical Other Meet • Jan 25, 6:30 Feb 2, 5:00 Feb 6, 7:00 Feb 8, 6:30 Feb 29, 7:00 Mar 1, 6:30 0 ings Coming Up Police/Fire Study Meetings Schaefer Richardson Devel Propos Centennial Book Comm Mtg Police/Fire Study Meetings Centennial Book Comm Mtg Police/Fire Study Meetings Mark, Heidi, Kandis, Catherine, Dean, Greg Dave, Ray, Kandis, Sarah, Carlton, Catherine Kandis Mark, Heidi, Kandis, Catherine, Dean, Greg Mark, Kandis Mark, Heidi, Kandis, Catherine, Dean, Greg 110 City of Mound Claims as of 01 -24 -12 I* 10 YEAR BATCH NAME DOLLAR AMOUNT 2011 NOVIIELAN $ 884.09 2011 2011CITYAP2 $ 130,828.43 2012 1ANUBPOSTG $ 300.20 2012 012412CITY $ 167,717.79 TOTAL CLAIMS $ 299,730.51 -143- CITY OF MOUND Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: December 2011 Batch Name NOW I ELAN Payment Computer Dollar Amt $884.09 Posted Refer 2 ELAN CREDIT CARD Ck# 099278 12/21/2011 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -200 Office Supplies OFFICE DEPOT LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES Invoice 1103111 11/3/2011 _ Transaction Date 1/6/2012 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 3 ELAN CREDIT CARD Ck# 099278 12/21/2011 Cash Payment E 101 -42110 -205 Computer Hardware /Soft WAV PEDAL TRANSCRIPTION REPAIR Invoice 111011 11/10/2011 Transaction Date 1/6/2012 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 4 ELAN CREDIT CARD Ck# 099278 12/21/2011 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -210 Operating Supplies DOGIPOT PET STATION Invoice 84233 12/5/2011 Transaction Date 1/6/2012 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 5 ELAN CREDIT CARD Ck# 099278 12/21/2011 Cash Payment E101-41500-434 Conference & Training H. TUMBERG 11 -16 -11 MNGFOA LUNCHEON AND TRAINING Invoice 111611 11/16/2011 Cash Payment E 101 - 41500434 Conference & Training C. PAUSCHE 11 -16 -11 MNGFOA LUNCHEON AND TRAINING Invoice 111611 11/16/2011 _ Transaction Date 1/6/2012 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 6 ELAN CREDIT CARD Ck# 099278 12/21/2011 Cash Payment E 101 - 41920 -440 Other Contractual Servic INET7 11 -19 -11 Invoice 111911 11/19/2011 Transaction Date 1/6/2012 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 7 ELAN CREDIT CARD Ck# 099278 12/21/2011 Cash Payment E101-43100-226 Sign Repair Materials DRILL DOCTOR Invoice 322391092 11/23/2011 Transaction Date 1/6/2012 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 8 ELAN CREDIT CARD Ck# 099278 12/21/2011 Cash Payment E 222 - 42260 -431 Meeting Expense FIRE COMMISSION MEETING LUNCH 11 -16- 11 Invoice 111611 11/16/2011 Transaction Date 1/6/2012 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total -144- 01/10/12 9:24 AM Page 1 $28.41 $28.41 $145.00 $145.00 $496.35 $496.35 $15.00 $15.00 • $30.00 $53.80 $53.80 $49.28 $49.28 $81.25 $81.25 is / A��\ CITY OF MOUND Fund Summary 101 222 609 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: December 2011 10100 Wells Fargo $774.43 $81.25 $28.41 Pre - Written Check $884.09 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $0.00 Total $884.09 • • $884.09 -145- BATCH Total 01/10/12 9:24 AM Page 2 $884.09 CITY OF MOUND Batch Name 2011 CITYAP2 Payments CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: December 2011 User Dollar Amt Computer Dollar Amt $130,828.43 $130,828.43 $0.00 In Balance Refer 16 AECOM, INCORPORATED _ AP Payment E 475 -46386 -300 Professional Srvs SOIL CONTAMINATION WORK 10 -31 -2009 THRU 12 -30 -2011 TRUE VALUE DISTRICT Invoice 37199199 1/11/2012 Transaction Date 1/19/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Refer 81 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTIN _ 01 /19/12 11:48 AM Page 1 $930.00 Total $930.00 AP Payment E 602 -49450 -500 Capital Outlay FA CONSTRUCTION TESTING SVCS 2011 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS PIN 11 -03 Invoice 53514 12/31/2011 Project PW1103 AP Payment E 401 -43101 -500 Capital Outlay FA CONSTRUCTION TESTING SVCS 2011 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS PIN 11 -01, 11 -02, 11 -04 Invoice 53514 12/31/2011 Project PW1101 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total Refer 22 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY - AP Payment E 222 -42260 -101 F T Empl Regular COFFEE, COCOA, CREAMERS Invoice 986700 12/28/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Refer 43 BOLTON AND MENK, INCORPORA _ Total AP Payment E 40143111 -300 Professional Srvs 2012 LANGDON CUL -DE -SAC PROJECT PIN 12 -02 Invoice 0144638 12/31/2011 Project PW1202 AP Payment E 10143100 -300 Professional Srvs 2011 GENERAL ENGINEERING SVC NOV 12 THRU 12 -9 -11 STREETS Invoice 0144638 12/31/2011 AP Payment E 602 -49450 -300 Professional Srvs I & I ANALYSIS; 2011 CIPP PROJECT Invoice 0144639 12/31/2011 AP Payment E 602 -49450 -300 Professional Srvs UPDATE STREET & UTILITY MAPS Invoice 0144640 12/31/2011 Project SA -1 AP Payment G 101 -23247 WALGREENS #11 -10 SEMP WALGREENS SEMPER DEVELOP Invoice 0144641 12/31/2011 AP Payment G 101 -23231 6301 Lynwood #10 -07, Wood 5301 LYNWOOD; WOODLYN RIDGE Invoice 0144641 12/31/2011 AP Payment G 101 -23248 6407 BAY RIDGE RD #11 -12 6407 BAY RIDGE ROAD EXPANSION Invoice 0144641 12/31/2011 AP Payment E 402 -43120 -300 Professional Srvs MSA SYSTEM UPDATE Invoice 0144642 12/31/2011 AP Payment E 602 -49450 -300 Professional Srvs MCES FLOWS SVC NOV 12 THRU 12 -9 -11 Invoice 0144643 12/31/2011 AP Payment E 401 -43101 -300 Professional Srvs 2011 SW ISLAND STREET PROJ PROF ENGINEER SVCS NOV 12 THRU 12 -9 -11 Invoice 0144644 12/31/2011 Project PW1101 AP Payment E 401 -43127 -300 Professional Srvs 2011 HIGHLAND STREET PROJ ENGINEERING SVC NOV 12 THRU 12 -9 -11 Invoice 0144645 12/31/2011 Project PW1102 -146- $458.50 $465.00 $923.50 $113.50 $113.50 $603.50 $617.50 $1,321.50 $465.00 $213.00 $213.00 $71.00 $852.00 $388.00 $8,435.00 $7,836.50 • • ALI Invoice 00000032839 12/31/2011 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Refer 40 CARQUEST OF NAVARRE (PA49 _ AP Payment E 602 -49450 -221 Equipment Parts INTERSTATE BATTERY AND CORES Invoice 6974 - 171481 11122/2011 AP Payment E 101 -43100 -221 Equipment Parts HI POP OIL FILTER HD #605 Invoice 6974 - 168730 10/19/2011 AP Payment E 602 -49450 -230 Shop Materials FINANCE CHARGES Invoice FC2923786 12/31/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Refer 45 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (MINNEG _ Total $630.00 $76.95 $7.68 $5.34 Project SA -2 Total $89.97 AP Payment E 101 -45200 -383 Gas Utilities CITY OF MOUND 01 A 9/12 11:48 AM 12/31/2011 AP Payment Page 2 ELECTRIC CHARGES 11 -17 THRU 12 -20 -11 Invoice 123111 Payments Payment Ie ELECTRIC CHARGES 11 -17 THRU 12 -20-11 •AP Invoice 123111 12/31/2011 Project SA -2 CITY OF MOUND ELECTRIC CHARGES 11 -17 THRU 12 -20 -11 Invoice 123111 12/31/2011 -147- Current Period: December 2011 AP Payment E 675 -49425 -300 Professional Srvs SURFACE WATER MGMT ENGINEERING $358.30 SVCS 11 -12 THRU 12 -9 -11 Invoice 0144646 12/31/2011 AP Payment E 602 -49450 -500 Capital Outlay FA 2010 LIFT STATION PROJECT $5,054.75 ENGINEERING SVC NOV 12 THRU 12 -9-11 Invoice 0144647 12/31/2011 AP Payment E 602 -49450 -500 Capital Outlay FA 2011 LIFT STATIONS PROJECT $3,698.00 ENGINEERING SVC NOV 12 THRU 12 -9 -11 Invoice 0144648 12/31/2011 Project PW1103 AP Payment E 601 -49400 -500 Capital Outlay FA 2012 IVD WATERMAIN LOOP PROJECT $1,844.00 ENGINEERING SVC NOV 12 THRU 12 -9 -11 Invoice 0144649 12/31/2011 Project PW1207 AP Payment E 675 -49425 -300 Professional Srvs 2011 STORM IMPROV PROJ. ENGINEERING $71.00 SVC NOV 12 THRU 12 -9 -11 Invoice 0144650 12/31/2011 Project PW1105 AP Payment E 401 -43112 -300 Professional Srvs 2012 NORTH ISLAND STREET PROJ. $14,377.50 ENGINEERING SVC NOV 12 THRU 12 -9 -11 Invoice 0144651 12/31/2011 Project PW1201 AP Payment E 401 -43127 -300 Professional Srvs 2011 HIGHLANDS STORM WORK $1,024.00 RIDGEWOOD DRAINAGE CHANNEL SVC NOV 12 THRU 12 -9 -11 Invoice 0144652 12/31/2011 Project PW1102 AP Payment E 602 -49450 -300 Professional Srvs EMERGENCY LIFT STATION #P1 REPAIR $433.00 • ENGINEER SVC NOV 12 THRU 12 -9 -11 Invoice 0144653 12/31/2011 AP Payment E 675 -49425 -300 Professional Srvs 2012 STORM DRAIN IMPROV. PROJ $661.00 ENGINEERING SVC NOV 12 THRU 12 -9 -11 Invoice 0144654 12/31/2011 Project PW1205 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $48,537.55 Refer 44 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREN T _ AP Payment E 101 - 42110 -400 Repairs & Maintenance 1 CONNECTION, 4 UNITS (3 MONTHS) 4TH $630.00 ALI Invoice 00000032839 12/31/2011 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Refer 40 CARQUEST OF NAVARRE (PA49 _ AP Payment E 602 -49450 -221 Equipment Parts INTERSTATE BATTERY AND CORES Invoice 6974 - 171481 11122/2011 AP Payment E 101 -43100 -221 Equipment Parts HI POP OIL FILTER HD #605 Invoice 6974 - 168730 10/19/2011 AP Payment E 602 -49450 -230 Shop Materials FINANCE CHARGES Invoice FC2923786 12/31/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Refer 45 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (MINNEG _ Total $630.00 $76.95 $7.68 $5.34 Project SA -2 Total $89.97 AP Payment E 101 -45200 -383 Gas Utilities ELECTRIC CHARGES 11 -17 THRU 12 -20 -11 Invoice 123111 12/31/2011 AP Payment E 101 -41910 -383 Gas Utilities ELECTRIC CHARGES 11 -17 THRU 12 -20 -11 Invoice 123111 12/31/2011 Payment E 602 -49450 -383 Gas Utilities ELECTRIC CHARGES 11 -17 THRU 12 -20-11 •AP Invoice 123111 12/31/2011 Project SA -2 AP Payment E 609 -49750 -383 Gas Utilities ELECTRIC CHARGES 11 -17 THRU 12 -20 -11 Invoice 123111 12/31/2011 -147- $835.26 $1,030.18 $1,174.18 $316.51 CITY OF MOUND CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: December 2011 AP Payment E 22242260 -383 Gas Utilities ELECTRIC CHARGES 11 -17 THRU 12 -20 -11 Invoice 123111 12/31/2011 AP Payment E 101 -42110 -383 Gas Utilities ELECTRIC CHARGES 11 -17 THRU 12 -20 -11 Invoice 123111 12/31/2011 AP Payment E 101 -45200 -383 Gas Utilities DEPOT BLDG ELECTRIC CHARGES 11 -17 THRU 12 -20 -11 Invoice 123111 12/31/2011 _ Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total Refer 1 CENTRAL HYDRAULICS, INCORPO _ AP Payment E 602 - 49450 -400 Repairs & Maintenance REPAIR 3 LEAKING MOTORS Invoice 0020072 12/28/2011 _ Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total Refer 83 EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. _ AP Payment E 350 -47000 -620 Fiscal Agent's Fees CONTINUING DISCLOSURE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 2011 Invoice 62503 1/10/2012 _ Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total Refer 23 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT _ AP Payment E 222 - 42260 -409 Other Equipment Repair ENGINE 29 TESTED DRY VAC AFTER REPAIRS, REPLACE DRAIN VALVES & AC BELT Invoice 59057 12/15/2011 AP Payment E 222 - 42260 -409 Other Equipment Repair LADDER #17 PRIME VALVE STICKS REPAIR AS NEEDED Invoice 59057 12/15/2011 AP Payment E 222 - 42260 -409 Other Equipment Repair ENGINE #40 INSTALL ANGLE U -JOINT Invoice 59056 12/21/2011 AP Payment E 222 - 42260 -409 Other Equipment Repair ENGINE #24 REPAIR DRY VAC, INTAKE RELIEF VALVE, SVCE TRANSMISSION, INSTALL MANIFOLD DRAIN Invoice 59055 12/20/2011 AP Payment E 222- 42260 -409 Other Equipment Repair ENGINE #29 REPAIR & DIAGNOSE, DEAD ENGINE, Invoice 5905759431 12/28/2011 AP Payment E 222 - 42260 -409 Other Equipment Repair RESCUE # 22 REPAIR LEFT FRONT LOWER SPRING PIN, REPLACE MUFFLER, SVCE GENERATOR, REPLACE AIR COMPRESSOR, ALTERNATOR, AC BELTS Invoice 59052\ 1/2/2012 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Refer 25 FIRSTLAB Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total AP Payment E 101 -45200 -305 Medical Services Invoice 00489826 1/10/2012 DOT DRUG SCREENING D. KOSKELA PRE- EMPLOYMENT Transaction Date 1/19/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Refer 2 G & K SERVICES _ AP Payment E 602 -49450 -218 Clothing and Uniforms UNIFORM SVC 12 -26 -11 PIN Invoice 1006514686 12/26/2011 AP Payment E 601 -49400 -218 Clothing and Uniforms UNIFORM SVC 12 -26 -11 PW Invoice 1006514686 12/26/2011 _148_ 01/19/12 11:48 AM Page 3 $665.48 $665.48 $181.19 $4,868.28 $606.11 $606.11 $500.00 $500.00 $2,745.10 $274.60 $31.05 $4,594.01 $2,032.48 $2,690.34 $12,367.58 $39.95 Total $39.95 • • $23.41 • $25.47 CITY OF MOUND 01/19/1211:48 AM Page 4 •CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: December 2011 AP Payment E 101 -43100 -218 Clothing and Uniforms UNIFORM SVC 12 -26 -11 PIN $23.21 Invoice 1006514686 12/26/2011 AP Payment E 602 -49450 -230 Shop Materials SHOP SUPPLIES & MAT SVC 12 -26 -11 PIN $227.86 Invoice 1006514686 12/26/2011 Project SA -2 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $299.95 Refer 17 G & K SERVICES _ AP Payment E 222 - 42260 -460 Janitorial Services MAT SERVICE 12 -26 -11 FIRE DEPT $83.24 Invoice 1006514688 12/26/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $83.24 Refer 25 G & K SERVICES _ AP Payment E 101 -45200 -218 Clothing and Uniforms UNIFORM AND MAT SERVICE 12 -19 -11 $39.79 Invoice 1006503734 12/19/2011 AP Payment E 101 -45200 -210 Operating Supplies SHOP SUPPLIES 12 -19 -11 $56.80 Invoice 1006503734 12/19/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $96.59 Refer 39 GEAR WASH, LLC _ AP Payment E 222 - 42260 -430 Miscellaneous TAX DUE ON 2011 ANNUAL SERVICE PLAN $245.53 FOR FIRE DEPT. Invoice 7269 10/20/2011 •Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $245.53 Refer 21 GORDON, BRIAN _ AP Payment E 401 -43101 -300 Professional Srvs REIMBURSE FOR MOORE & MOORE WATER $240.60 TREATMENT BILL FROM PIN 11 -01 Invoice 7441 9/14/2011 Project PW1101 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $240.60 Refer 3 HAWKINS, INCORPORATED _ AP Payment E 601 -49400 -227 Chemicals CHLORINE CYLINDERS $50.00 Invoice 3295488 12/30/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $50.00 Refer 4 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATIO AP Payment E 602 - 49450 -418 Other Rentals RADIO ADMIN FEE DEC 2011 $160.00 Invoice 111238114 12/31/2011 Project SA -2 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $160.00 Refer 26 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATIO _ AP Payment E 222 -42260 -418 Other Rentals RADIO LEASE, ADMIN & SUPPORT FEE $784.16 DECEMBER 2011 Invoice 111238033 12/31/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $784.16 Refer 46 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATIO _ AP Payment E 101 42110 -418 Other Rentals RADIO LEASE, ADMIN & SUPPORT FEE $1,214.03 Invoice 111238034 12/31/2011 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $1,214.03 •Refer 5 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS OF _ AP Payment E 101 - 41600 -450 Board of Prisoners PER DIEM & PROCESSING FEE DEC 2011 $1,630.48 Invoice 1000010420 12/31/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Account 149 de 20200 Total $1,630.48 CITY OF MOUND A, Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: December 2011 Refer 47 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER _ AP Payment E 355 - 46384 -430 Miscellaneous 2011 TIF ADMIN COSTS Invoice 123111 12/31/2011 AP Payment E 375 - 47200 -430 Miscellaneous 2011 TIF ADMIN COSTS Invoice 123111 12/31/2011 _ Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total Refer 6 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP, I _ AP Payment E 101 -42400 -300 Professional Srvs MOUND MISC PLANNING FEES DEC 2011 Invoice 007 - 001-44 11612012 AP Payment G 101 -23247 WALGREENS #11 -10 SEMP WALGREENS - SEMPER DEVELOP #11 -10 COMP PLAN AMEND Invoice 007 - 005-43 1/6/2012 AP Payment G 101 -23245 4839/4851 SHORELINE #11- 4839/4851 SHORELINE DR #11 -09 Invoice 007 - 005-43 1/6/2012 AP Payment G 101 - 23248 6407 BAY RIDGE RD #11 -12 6407 BAYRIDGE RD #11 -12 LANO Invoice 007 - 005-43 1/6/2012 AP Payment G 101 -23249 3070 HIGHLAND #11 -13 MO 3070 HIGHLAND BLVD VARIANCE #11 -13 MOORE Invoice 007 - 005-43 1/6/2012 _ Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total Refer 7 HOME DEPOT /GECF (PA40 AP Payment E 101 -43100 -226 Sign Repair Materials SIGN SHOP MATERIALS Invoice 4144029 1217/2011 AP Payment E 101- 43100 -226 Sign Repair Materials SIGN SHOP MATERIALS Invoice 4415485 12/7/2011 AP Payment E 601 -49400 -221 Equipment Parts GFI FOR LIGHT POLES Invoice 5131714 12/6/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total Refer 27 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES - AP Payment E 222 - 42260 -202 Duplicating and copying ADDITIONAL COPIES 10 -13 -11 THRU 01 -12- 2012 Invoice 86168584 12/23/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total Refer 20 INFRATECH _ AP Payment E 602 - 49450 -440 Other Contractual Servic GROUTING ON KERRY LANE & ATTEMPT ON NORTHERN RD Invoice PR11918 10/25/2011 AP Payment E 401 -43101 -500 Capital Outlay FA GROUT JOINTS IN AREA #2 & TELEVISE PIN 11 -01 Invoice PR11917 10/24/2011 Project PW1101 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total Refer 84 LEAGUE MN CITIES INSURANCE T _ AP Payment E 101 -42110 -361 General Liability Ins VEHICLE & MOBILE PROPERTY INSURANCE ADDENDUM 2011 POLICY Invoice 38768 12/31/2011 AP Payment G 101 -22802 Festival SPIRIT OF THE LAKES FIREWORKS INSURANCE ADDENDUM 2011 POLICY Invoice 38768 12/31/2011 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Account 150 'le 20200 Total 01/19/12 11:48 AM Page 5 • $1,302.85 $697.02 $1,999.87 $1,303.15 $618.40 $705.50 $62.25 $20.75 $106.20 • $240.40 $45.03 $391.63 $43.28 $43.28 $2,253.90 $2,307.60 $4,561.50 $495.00 $250.00 • $745.00 CITY OF MOUND Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: December 2011 01/19/12 11:48 AM Page 6 Refer 8 LOFFLER COMPANIES, INCORPOR _ AP Payment E 101- 42110 -202 Duplicating and copying COPY OVERAGE BLACK & WHITE 1 -1 -2011 $454.28 THRU 12 -31 -2011 Invoice 1342894 1/312012 PO 23809 AP Payment E 101 -42110 -202 Duplicating and copying COLOR COPY OVERAGE 1 -1 -2011 THRU 12- $498.84 31 -2011 Invoice 1342894 1/3/2012 PO 23809 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $953.12 Refer 9 LOFFLER COMPANIES, INCORPOR _ AP Payment E 101 -42400 -202 Duplicating and copying B &W COPY OVERAGE KONICA MINOLTA $13.47 B200 12 -10 -11 THRU 1 -09 -2012 Invoice 1346076 1/9/2012 AP Payment E 602 -49450 -202 Duplicating and copying B &W COPY OVERAGE KONICA MINOLTA $13.46 B20012 -10 -11 THRU 1 -09 -2012 Invoice 1346076 1/9/2012 Project SA -2 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $26.93 Refer 10 LOFFLER COMPANIES, INCORPOR _ AP Payment E 101 -41910 -202 Duplicating and copying B &W COPY OVERAGE KONICA MINOLTA $113.99 C652 MAIL ROOM DEC 2011 Invoice 1346077 1/9/2011 AP Payment E 101 - 41910 -202 Duplicating and copying COLOR COPY OVERAGE KONICA MINOLTA $18.04 MAIL ROOM DEC 2011 •C652 Invoice 1346077 1/9/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $132.03 Refer 26 LOFFLER COMPANIES, INCORPOR _ AP Payment E 101 - 42110 -202 Duplicating and copying 2011 POLICE DEPT COPIER COPY OVERAGE $142.49 Invoice 193642162 12/23/2011 Transaction Date 1/19/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $142.49 Refer 11 MADDEN, GALANTER, HANSON, L _ AP Payment E 101 -49999 -300 Professional Srvs LABOR RELATIONS SERVICES DECEMBER $583.40 2011 Invoice 123111 1/1/2012 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $583.40 Refer 12 MARLIN'S TRUCKING DELIVERY _ AP Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight DELIVERY 12 -29 -11 $193.20 Invoice 123111 12/29/2011 AP Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight DELIVERY 12 -26 -11 $49.00 Invoice 123111 12/26/2011 AP Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight DELIVERY 12 -22 -11 $228.20 Invoice 123111 12/22/2011 AP Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight DELIVERY 12 -19 -11 $23.80 Invoice 123111 12/19/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $494.20 Refer 13 MERTZ, CRAIG M. LAW OFFICE _ AP Payment E 101 -41600 -304 Legal Fees PROSECUTION SERVICE DEC 2011 $5,248.17 Invoice 0000381 1/5/2012 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $5,248.17 Refer 28 METRO FIRE _ _.151_ CITY OF MOUND 01/19/1211:48 AM Page 7 Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: December 2011 AP Payment E 222 - 42260 -409 Other Equipment Repair SCBA FLOW TEST SERVICE WORK $102.50 Invoice 42908 12/27/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $102.50 Refer 14 MINNESOTA UNEMPLOYMENT INS _ AP Payment E 609 -49750 -140 Unemployment Comp 4TH QTR 2011 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS $298.90 PAID - CHEELEY Invoice 123111 1/10/2012 AP Payment E 101 -45200 -140 Unemployment Comp 4TH QTR 2011 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS $610.20 PAID - J. JOHNSON Invoice 123111 1/10/2012 AP Payment E 101 -49999 -140 Unemployment Comp 4TH QTR 2011 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS $1,538.00 PAID - SCHWALBE Invoice 123111 1/10/2012 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $2,447.10 Refer 82 MOUND, CITY OF _ AP Payment E 609 -49750 -382 Water Utilities WATER -SEWER UTILITIES 12 -2 -11 THRU 1 -3- $46.31 12 Invoice 12312011 1/17/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $46.31 Refer 29 OFFICE DEPOT (FIRE) _ AP Payment E 222 -42260 -219 Safety supplies BATTERIES $36.04 • Invoice 590359545001 12/14/2011 AP Payment E 222 -42260 -200 Office Supplies ENVELOPES $4.08 Invoice 590359545001 12/14/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $40.12 Refer 15 RASMUSSEN, BRENT _ AP Payment E 101 - 42110 -434 Conference & Training FALL 2011 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT $1,671.90 CRIMINOLOGY CLASSES @ MET STATE U Invoice 123111 12/31/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $1,671.90 Refer 18 ST. CLOUD REFRIGERATION, INC _ AP Payment E 609 - 49750 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs REPLACE DRAFT MOTOR & WHEEL ON $719.10 COOLERS 12 -1 THRU 12 -9 -11 Invoice 242931 12/31/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $719.10 Refer 19 STANLEYACCESS TECH LLC _ AP Payment E 60949750401 Building Repairs REPLACE EXTERIOR MOTION DETECTOR $554.29 12 -22 -11 Invoice 0901770084 12/28/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $554.29 Refer 38 STERNE ELECTRIC COMPANY _ AP Payment E 22242260 -401 Building Repairs 50% BALANCE DUE ON FIRE DEPT $3,296.50 LIGHTING REPAIR Invoice 10866 10/25/2011 AP Payment E 22242260401 Building Repairs BALLAST KITS 70 WATT, LAMPS, $2,158.10 • WIRENUTS, REPAIR AND REPLACE FIXTURES AT FIRE STATION Invoice 10921 12/26/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 AccountL152-le 20200 Total $5,454.60 • CITY OF MOUND Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: December 2011 Refer 16 STRETCHER'S AP Payment G 101 -22803 Police Reserves POLICE RESERVES SHIRTS AND NAME TAGS Invoice 1894150 1/3/2012 PO 23801 AP Payment E 101 -42110 -218 Clothing and Uniforms BADGE, 2 TONE FINISH, FULL COLOR SEAL CHIEF MOONEY Invoice 1893725 12/30/2011 AP Payment E 10142110 -210 Operating Supplies TEST REFILL POUCH MARIJUANA NARCO POUCH Invoice 1885940 12/5/2011 PO 23800 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Refer 30 SUN PA7RIOIT NEWSPAPER AP Payment E 101 -41110 -351 Legal Notices Publishing LEGAL ORDINANCE PUBLISHING ORDINANCE #06 -2011 Invoice 1086163 12/31/2011 AP Payment E 101 -41110 -351 Legal Notices Publishing LEGAL ORDINANCE PUBLISHING ORDINANCE #05 -2011 Total Invoice 1086155 12/31/2011 AP Payment E 401 -43111 -351 Legal Notices Publishing LEGAL NOTICE PUBLISHING 2012 STREET PROJECT PW12 -02 Invoice 1086154 12/31/2011 Project PW1202 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12131/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total Refer 31 SUN PATRIOIT NEWSPAPER AP Payment E 609 -49750 -340 Advertising HOLDAY ADVERTISING Invoice 1081803 12/17/2011 AP Payment E 609 -49750 -340 Advertising HOLDAY GREETINGS ADVERTISING 12 -24 -11 Invoice 1082262 12/17/2011 AP Payment E 609 -49750 -340 Advertising DRINK & DRIVE RESPONSIBLY AD Invoice 1084732 12/24/2011 AP Payment E 101 -42110 -350 Printing DRINK & DRIVE RESPONSIBLY Invoice 1084804 12/24/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total Refer 32 T- MOBILE CELL PHONE _ AP Payment E 281 -45210 -321 Telephone & Cells CELL PHONE USAGE 12 -3 -11 THRU 1 -2 -12 Invoice 12312011 12/31/2011 AP Payment G 101 -22816 Personal Cell Phone PERSONAL CELL PHONE USAGE K. HOFF 12 -3 -11 THRU 1 -2 -12 Invoice 12312011 12/31/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total Refer 33 TRUE VALUE MOUND (FIRE) AP Payment E 222- 42260 -210 Operating Supplies SCREWS, NUTS, BOLTS, WASHERS Invoice 089805 12/9/2011 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total Refer 34 VILLAS LOST LAKE HOMEOWNER _ AP Payment •Invoice 123111 AP Payment Invoice 123111 Transaction Date E 281- 45210 -381 Electric Utilities 2011 VILLA DOCKS ELECTRICITY 12/31/2011 E 281 - 45210 -430 Miscellaneous 2011 VILLA DOCKS WATER SERVICE 12/31 /2011 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Account -153- 20200 Total 01 /19/12 11:48 AM Page 8 $41.36 $99.99 $64.97 $206.32 $352.80 $525.67 $51.23 $929.70 $780.00 $109.00 $69.00 $100.00 $1,058.00 $45.41 $22.50 $67.91 $3.12 $3.12 $1,186.21 $162.00 $1,348.21 CITY OF MOUND 01/19/12 11:48 AM Page 9 Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: December 2011 Refer 85 VINOCOPIA, INCORPORATED _ AP Payment E 609 -49750 -255 Misc Merchandise For R BARREL AND STAND $268.00 Invoice 0047486 -IN 11/16/2011 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $268.00 Refer 35 WACONIA DODGE CHRYSLER JEE _ AP Payment E 602 - 49450 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs REPLACED FRONT CRANK SEAL #207107 $209.10 DODGE DAKOTA Invoice 147322 12/20/2011 Project SA -2 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $209.10 Refer 36 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE _ AP Payment E 601 - 49400 -440 Other Contractual Servic LOCATE AFTER HOURS @ 2436 CYPRESS $353.30 LANE DEC 7TH Invoice 2912 1/3/2012 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $353.30 Refer 37 WIDMER CONSTRUCTION, LLC _ AP Payment E 601 - 49400 -440 Other Contractual Servic CLEAN DRAINTILE DITCH BEHIND PUBLIC $2,200.00 WORKS BLDG, BONE YARD AND SUB- STATION ON 12 -30 -11 Invoice 3178 1/10/2012 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $2,200.00 Refer 41 XCEL ENERGY _ • AP Payment E 101 -42115 -381 Electric Utilities FIRE & CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN ELECTRICITY $26.75 12 -8 -11 TO 1 -7 -12 Invoice 404013609 1/9/2012 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $26.75 Refer 42 XCEL ENERGY _ AP Payment E 101 -43100 -381 Electric Utilities STREET LIGHTS CITY HALL 12 -3 -11 THRU 1- $5,375.88 02 -12 Invoice 403144542 1/3/2012 Transaction Date 1/17/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $5,375.88 Refer 48 XCEL ENERGY AP Payment E 101 -43100 -381 Electric Utilities 5341 MAYWOOD RD - 5510 SHORELINE DR $657.99 UNIT LIGHTS 11 -22 THRU 12 -27 -11 Invoice 404373844 1/10/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $657.99 Refer 49 XCEL ENERGY _ AP Payment E 101 -45200 -381 Electric Utilities ELECTRICAL USAGE 11 -26 THRU 12 -25 -11 $195.01 Invoice 405012241 1/13/2012 AP Payment E 101 -45200 -381 Electric Utilities DEPOT BLDG ELECTRICAL USAGE 11 -26 $81.74 THRU 12 -25 -11 Invoice 405012241 1/13/2012 AP Payment E 602 -49450 -381 Electric Utilities ELECTRICAL USAGE 11 -26 THRU 12 -25 -11 $2,315.69 Invoice 405012241 1/13/2012 AP Payment E 601 -49400 -381 Electric Utilities ELECTRICAL USAGE 11 -26 THRU 12 -25 -11 $3,890.33 Invoice 405012241 1/13/2012 • AP Payment E 101 -43100 -381 Electric Utilities ELECTRICAL USAGE 11 -26 THRU 12 -25 -11 $1,558.36 Invoice 405012241 1/13/2012 AP Payment E 609 -49750 -381 Electric Utilities ELECT°'r'A' USAGE 11 -26 THRU 12 -25 -11 $1,272.58 Invoice 405012241 1/13/2012 -154- • 1 - CITY OF MOUND CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: December 2011 AP Payment E 101 -42110 -381 Electric Utilities Invoice 405012241 1/13/2012 AP Payment E 222 -42260 -381 Electric Utilities Invoice 405012241 1/13/2012 AP Payment E 101 -41910 -381 Electric Utilities Invoice 405012241 1/13/2012 AP Payment E 285 -46388 -381 Electric Utilities Invoice 405012241 1/13/2012 ELECTRICAL USAGE 11 -26 THRU 12 -25 -11 ELECTRICAL USAGE 11 -26 THRU 12 -25 -11 ELECTRICAL USAGE 11 -26 THRU 12 -25 -11 ELECTRICAL USAGE 11 -26 THRU 12 -25 -11 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Due 12/31/2011 Accounts Payable 20200 Fund Summary 20200 Accounts Payable 101 GENERAL FUND $33,282.07 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES $21,084.48 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND $1,393.62 285 MOUND HRA $2,134.39 350 MOUND TRANSIT CTR SERIES 2006 $500.00 355 2003 -C G.O. TIF 1 -2 $1,302.85 375 TIF 1 -3 Debt Service $697.02 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS $35,340.93 402 MUNICIPAL ST AID ST CONSTUCT $852.00 • 475 TIF 1 -3 Mound Harbor Renaissan $930.00 601 WATER FUND $8,408.13 602 SEWER FUND $18,884.75 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $4,927.89 675 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND $1,090.30 $130,828.43 Pre - Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $130,828.43 Total $130,828.43 lie -155- Total 01 /19/12 11:48 AM Page 10 $1,181.37 $1,181.37 $834.70 $2,134.39 $14,645.54 CITY OF MOUND Batch Name JANUBPOSTG Payments Refer 3 MOUND POST OFFICE Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -322 Postage Invoice 011812 1/18/2012 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -322 Postage Invoice 011812 1/18/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Fund Summary 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: January 2012 User Dollar Amt $300.20 Computer Dollar Amt $300.20 $0.00 In Balance JANUARY UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE JANUARY UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE Wells Fargo 10100 10100 Wells Fargo $150.10 $150.10 Pre - Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $300.20 Total $300.20 $300.20 -156- 01/18/12 1:12 PM Page 1 $150.10 $150.10 Total $300.20 *I 01 01 CITY OF MOUND t, Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: January 2012 Batch Name 012412CITY User Dollar Amt $167,717.79 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $167,717.79 $0.00 In Balance Refer 1 AMUNDSON, M. LLP _ Cash Payment E 60949750 -256 Tobacco Products For R TOBACCO PRODUCTS Invoice 123882 1/11/2012 _ Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 2 ASPEN EMBROIDERY AND DESIG _ Cash Payment E 10145200 -218 Clothing and Uniforms EMBROIDER LOGO ON PARK DEPT JACKET, D. KOSKELA 1/12/2012 01/19/12 12:03 PM Page 1 $538.60 $538.60 $13.41 Invoice 012412 Wells Far o 10100 Total $13.41 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 9 Refer 41 BANYON DATA SYSTEMS _ Cash Payment E 101 - 41920 -440 Other Contractual Servic FUND ACCTG, UTILITY BILLING & PAYROLL Invoice 71778300 1/13/2012 SUPPORT 2012 Invoice 00147388 1/13/2012 _ Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 4 BELLBOY CORPORATION _ LIQUOR Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR •Invoice 71692400 1/6/2012 Invoice 86266900 1/16/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 71692400 1/6/2012 Invoice 86266900 1/16/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 5 BELLBOY CORPORATION _ Refer 6 BELLBOY CORPORATION Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 71705500 1/9/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 71778300 1/13/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 71778300 1/13/2012 Cash Payment E 609 - 49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 71789700 1/16/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -254 Soft Drinks /Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 86266900 1/16/2012 Cash Payment E609-49750-210 Operating Supplies SUPPLIES, BAGS Invoice 86266900 1/16/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 6 BELLBOY CORPORATION Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -254 Soft Drinks /Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 86262900 1/13/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -255 Misc Merchandise For R MERCHANDISE, FLASK, JIGGERS, CORKSCREWS, PICKS, CUPS Invoice 86235400 1/6/2012 •Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -210 Operating Supplies SUPPLIES, BAGS, SUCKERS Invoice 86235400 1/6/2012 Cash Payment E609-49750-210 Operating Supplies SUPPLIES CREDIT Invoice 86216800 12/30/2011 -157- $2,341.80 $2,341.80 $726.12 $12.75 $738.87 $2,180.05 $312.10 $7.65 $1,605.25 $30.30 $111.95 Total $4,247.30 $98.38 $116.87 $38.30 -$9.80 CITY OF MOUND CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: January 2012 01/19/12 12:03 PM Page 2 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $243.75 Refer 7 BERNICKS BEVERAGES AND VEN Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -254 Soft Drinks /Mix For Resa MIX $7.25 Invoice 41195 1/4/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $588.34 Invoice 41196 1/4/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $595.59 Refer 8 CONCRETE CUTTING AND CORIN _ Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -500 Capital Outlay FA BLOWER, POWERHEAD & TRIMMER TRADE - $275.00 IN CREDITS Invoice 83040 1/6/2012 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -500 Capital Outlay FA BLOWER, STRAIGHT HEADS, GRASS BLADE $1,468.77 & TRIMMERS Invoice 83039 1/6/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,193.77 Refer 9 DAHLHEIMER BEVERAGE LLC _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $344.00 Invoice 1011037 1/16/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $344.00 Refer 10 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $2,880.85 Invoice 633011 1/4/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,582.50 Invoice 633668 1/10/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,463.35 Refer 36 ELLANSON, NICOLE _ Cash Payment G 101 -22803 Police Reserves POLICE RESERVES 2011 EMERGENCY $50.00 CALLOUT -5 Invoice 123111 1/7/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $50.00 Refer 32 EMERYS TREE SERVICE, INCORP _ Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -533 Tree Removal CUT ELM TREE & REMOVE @ WILSHIRE & $790.88 BRIGHTON; REMOVED 2 BASSWOODS @1601 PARADISE LANE Invoice 17042 1/17/2012 Transaction Date 1/1812012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $790.88 Refer 11 FERGUSON WATERWORKS _ Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -220 Repair/Maint Supply MAGNA TRAK 102 LOCATOR W /SOFT CASE $866.49 Invoice S01344970.001 1/3/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $866.49 Refer 21 FIRE CHIEFS, INTNAL ASSOCIATI _ Cash Payment E 222 - 42260 -433 Dues and Subscriptions 2012 MEMBERSHIP DUES INCLUDES GREAT $229.00 LAKES DIVISION & VOL & COMB OFFICERS DUES Invoice 012412 1/17/2012 PO 23360 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $229.00 Refer 42 FIRE DEPTASSOC OF MINNESOT _ -158- 61 01 401 CITY OF MOUND 01/19/12 12:03 PM Page 3 Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: January 2012 Cash Payment E 222 - 42260 -433 Dues and Subscriptions 2012 MEMBERSHIP DUES Invoice 1006536674 1/9/2012 $360.00 Invoice 012412 1/13/2012 PO 23361 MAT SVC & SUPPLIES 1 -9 -12 •Invoice 1006536669 1/9/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $360.00 Refer 66 FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, UN UNIFORM SVC 1 -9 -12 Invoice 1006536675 1/9/2012 Cash Payment E 222 - 42260 -433 Dues and Subscriptions 2012 MEMBERSHIP DUES Invoice 1006547539 1 1/16/2012 $30.00 Invoice 122412 1/5/2012 PO 23358 MAT SVC & SHOP SUPPLIES 1 -2 -12 Invoice 1006525649 1/2/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $30.00 Refer 62 FULLERTON BUILDING CENTER _ UNIFORM SVC 1 -2 -12 Invoice 1006525649 1/2/2012 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -500 Capital Outlay FA PARK SHOP SHELVING Invoice 1006525649 1/2/2012 $551.45 Invoice 2160761 1/5/2012 PO 22857 MAT SVC & SUPPLIES 1 -16 -12 Invoice 1006547545 1/16/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $551.45 Refer 63 FULLERTON BUILDING CENTER _ MAT SVC & SUPPLIES 1 -9 -12 Invoice 1006536673 1/9/2012 Cash Payment E 281 -45210 -525 Other Capital Improveme WOOD SUPPLIES FOR NEW DOCK DECKING $3,075.77 Invoice 2160760 1/5/2012 PO 22856 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -218 Clothing and Uniforms UNIFORM SVC 1 -9 -12 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,075.77 Refer 13 G & K SERVICES Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Cash Payment E 101 - 41910 -460 Janitorial Services MAT SVC & SUPPLIES 1 -9 -12 Invoice 1006536674 1/9/2012 Cash Payment E 609 - 49750 -460 Janitorial Services MAT SVC & SUPPLIES 1 -9 -12 •Invoice 1006536669 1/9/2012 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -210 Operating Supplies MAT SVC & SUPPLIES 1 -9 -12 Invoice 1006536675 1/9/2012 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -218 Clothing and Uniforms UNIFORM SVC 1 -9 -12 Invoice 1006536675 1/9/2012 Cash Payment E 609 - 49750 -460 Janitorial Services MAT SVC & SUPPLIES 1 -16 -12 Invoice 1006547539 1 1/16/2012 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -230 Shop Materials MAT SVC & SHOP SUPPLIES 1 -2 -12 Invoice 1006525649 1/2/2012 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -218 Clothing and Uniforms UNIFORM SVC 1 -2 -12 Invoice 1006525649 1/2/2012 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -218 Clothing and Uniforms UNIFORM SVC 1 -2 -12 Invoice 1006525649 1/2/2012 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -218 Clothing and Uniforms UNIFORM SVC 1 -2 -12 Invoice 1006525649 1/2/2012 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -210 Operating Supplies MAT SVC & SUPPLIES 1 -16 -12 Invoice 1006547545 1/16/2012 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -218 Clothing and Uniforms UNIFORM SVC 1 -16 -12 Invoice 1006547545 1/16/2012 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -230 Shop Materials MAT SVC & SUPPLIES 1 -9 -12 Invoice 1006536673 1/9/2012 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -218 Clothing and Uniforms UNIFORM SVC 1 -9 -12 Invoice 1006536673 1/9/2012 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -218 Clothing and Uniforms UNIFORM SVC 1 -9 -12 Invoice 1006536673 1/9/2012 •Cash Payment E 602 - 49450 -218 Clothing and Uniforms UNIFORM SVC 1 -9 -12 Invoice 1006536673 1/9/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 15 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL _ -159- $174.45 $76.13 $61.67 $44.66 $55.88 $256.65 $23.41 $25.69 $23.21 $56.80 $40.15 $223.13 $23.21 $25.69 $23.41 Total $1,134.14 , CITY OF MOUND CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: January 2012 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -395 Gopher One -Call 2012 ANNUAL FEE Invoice 30818 1/12/2012 Invoice 84513 1/9/2012 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -395 Gopher One -Call 2012 ANNUAL FEE Invoice 30818 1/12/2012 _ Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 16 GRAND PERE WINES, INCORPOR _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 00027937 1/12/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 00027937 1/12/2012 01/19/12 12:03 PM Page 4 $50.00 $50.00 $312.00 $12.00 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $324.00 Refer 17 H & L MESABI AGGREGATE CONS Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -221 Equipment Parts 5/8 X 4 GRADE 8 PLOW BOLT W /NUT $66.49 Invoice 84513 1/9/2012 Transaction Date 1/19/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $66.49 Refer 24 HAGEN, ERIC _ Cash Payment G 101 -22803 Police Reserves POLICE RESERVES 2011 EMERGENCY $10.00 CALLOUT -1 Invoice 12312011 1/7/2012 Transaction Date 1/19/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10.00 Refer 14 HAWKINS, INCORPORATED _ Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -227 Chemicals 150 LB CHLORINE CYLINDER $909.00 Invoice 3297706 1/6/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $909.00 Refer 17 HEALTH PARTNERS, INCORPORA _ Cash Payment E 101 - 41500 -440 Other Contractual Servic FSA RUN -OUT ADMIN - JAN &FEB 2012 - $91.00 2011 BENEFIT YEAR Invoice 39398254 1/9/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $91.00 Refer 18 HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CE _ Cash Payment E 101 - 42110 -434 Conference & Training EMS TRAINING, P. HOOPER FEB 13 -15 2012 $325.00 Invoice 012412 1/11/2012 PO 23807 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $325.00 Refer 18 HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES _ Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -440 Other Contractual Servic 6001 LYNWOOD SIGN RENTAL WATERMAIN $149.63 BREAK Invoice 428325 -001 1/16/2012 Transaction Date 1/19/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $149.63 Refer 19 HOHENSTEINS, INCORPORATED - Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $359.50 Invoice 586380 1/16/2012 *I • Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $359.50 Refer 20 HOME DEPOT /GECF (PA40 • Cash Payment E281-45210-525 Other Capital Improveme STAIN FOR NEW DOCK DECKING, $582.82 BRUSHES, PADS, CLEANER, SCRUB ETC. Invoice 012412 1/4/2012 PO 22858 -160- 0 CITY OF MOUND CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: January 2012 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -220 Repair /Maint Supply invoice 012412 114/2012 PO 22858 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Refer 35 INGBRETSON, JENESSA Cash Payment G 101 -22803 Police Reserves Invoice 123111 117/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Refer 22 JJ TAYLOR. DISTRIBUTING MINN STAIN FOR NEW DOCK DECKING, BRUSHES, PADS, CLEANER, SCRUB ETC. Wells Fargo 10100 POLICE RESERVES 2011 EMERGENCY CALLOUT -1 Wells Fargo 10100 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 1689082 1/9/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER invoice 1689114 1/16/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER CREDIT Invoice 011160 1/13/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -254 Soft Drinks /Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 1689115 1/16/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 23 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR _ •Refer Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 1210109 1/5/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 1210110 1/5/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -254 Soft Drinks /Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 1210111 1/5/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 1210112 1/5/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 1210113 1/5/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 1210114 1/5/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 1210115 1/5/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 1213332 1/11/2012 Cash Payment E 609 - 49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 1213333 1/11/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo Refer 24 JUBILEE FOODS _ 10100 01119/12 12:03 PM Page 5 $194.28 Total $777.10 $10.00 Total $10.00 $672.40 $2,155.30 - $50.00 $40.00 Total $2,817.70 $2,002.40 $1,189.50 $30.25 $29.25 $27.45 $389.24 $1,693.40 $2,354.35 $1,153.83 10100 Total $8,869.67 Cash Payment E 101 -41910 -210 Operating Supplies PAPER PRODUCTS; SUPPLIES CITY HALL Invoice 012412 1/5/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 25 LAKE MANAGEMENT, INC. Total $30.11 $30.11 • Cash Payment E 101 - 45200 -400 Repairs & Maintenance 2012 AQUATIC NUISANCE MGMT PROGRAM $315.00 TREATMENTS DNR PERMIT FEE Invoice 012412 1/5/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells FE -161- 10100 Total $315.00 CITY OF MOUND 01/19/12 12:03 PM Page 6 Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: January 2012 Refer 27 LOFFLER COMPANIES, INCORPOR Cash Payment E 101 -42110 -202 Duplicating and copying 2012 LEASE FOR KONICA MINOLTA C383 $1,955.07 POLICE DEPT COPIER Invoice 0141629 -3 1/21/2012 PO 23810 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,955.07 Refer 28 MARLIN'S TRUCKING DELIVERY _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight DELIVERY SERVICE 1-6-12 $292.60 Invoice 26313 1/6/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight DELIVERY SERVICE 1 -2 -12 $22.40 Invoice 26296 1/2/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight DELIVERY SERVICE 1 -9-12 $32.20 Invoice 26319 1/9/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight DELIVERY SERVICE 1 -12 -12 $221.20 Invoice 26340 1/12/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $568.40 Refer 37 MARTIN, EVAN _ Cash Payment G 101 -22803 Police Reserves POLICE RESERVES 2011 EMERGENCY $10.00 CALLOUT -1 Invoice 123111 117/2012 Transaction Date 1118/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10.00 Refer 29 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WASTE • Cash Payment E 602 - 49450 -388 Waste Disposal -MCIS WASTE WATER SERVICE FEBRUARY 2012 $62,357.48 Invoice 0000978946 1/4/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $62,357.48 Refer 30 MINNESOTA DEPT NATURAL RES _ Cash Payment E 101 - 45200 -400 Repairs & Maintenance 2012 PERMIT FEE TO CONTROL AQUATIC $35.00 VEGITATION Invoice 012412 1/24/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $35.00 Refer 39 MINNESOTA RECREATION AND P _ Cash Payment E 101 - 45200 -433 Dues and Subscriptions CERTIFIED PLAYGROUND SAFETY $595.00 INSPECTION COURSE & EXAM D. KOSKELA APRIL 11 -13 Invoice 012412 1/6/2012 PO 22862 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $595.00 Refer 40 MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSO _ Cash Payment E 601 - 49400 -434 Conference & Training ANNUAL TECHNICAL CONFERENCE MARCH $262.50 6 -8 REGISTRATION FOR R. HANSON. B BERENT & H. STRICKLEN Invoice 012412 1/5/2012 PO 23656 Cash Payment E 602 - 49450 -434 Conference & Training ANNUAL TECHNICAL CONFERENCE MARCH $262.50 6 -8 REGISTRATION FOR R. HANSON. B BERENT & H. STRICKLEN Invoice 012412 1/5/2012 PO 23656 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $525.00 Refer 43 MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LA _ • Cash Payment E 601 - 49400 -470 Water Samples COLIFORM WATER TESTS & MONTHLY $77.50 CHLORINE REPORT Invoice 586587 1/16/2012 -162- CITY OF MOUND 01/19/12 12:03 PM �. -- - - -� Page 7 Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: January 2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $77.50 Refer 64 MINNESOTA, UNIVERSITY OF Cash Payment E 602 - 49450 -434 Conference & Training WATER UTILITY MGMT INSTITUTE MARCH $1,100.00 13 -15 B. BERENT & S. KIVISTO Invoice 122412 1/6/2012 PO 23655 Project SA -2 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,100.00 Refer 65 MINNESOTA, UNIVERSITY OF Cash Payment E 101- 45200 -434 Conference & Training TREE INSPECTOR TRAINING WORKSHOP $170.00 FEB 16 & MAY 24TH Invoice 122412 1/18/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $170.00 Refer 31 MNGFOA Cash Payment E 101- 41500 -433 Dues and Subscriptions 2012 DUES GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS $60.00 ASSOC- C.PAUSCHE Invoice 012412 1/24/2012 Cash Payment E 101 - 41500 -433 Dues and Subscriptions 2012 DUES GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS $60.00 ASSOC- H.TUMBERG Invoice 012412 1/24/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $120.00 • Refer 44 MORRIS, MATTHEW J. _ Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -321 Telephone & Cells PHONE HOLDER & CAR CHARGER $43.62 REIMBURSEMENT, M. MORRIS Invoice 012412 1/12/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $43.62 Refer 45 MOUND MARKETPLACE LLC _ Cash Payment E 609 - 49750 -412 Building Rentals FEBRUARY COMMON AREA MTCE & $1,024.25 INSURANCE LIQUOR STORE Invoice 012412 1/17/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,024.25 Refer 19 NELSON ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAI _ Cash Payment E 602- 49450 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs REMOVE DEBRIS FROM PUMP #2, CLEAN $200.00 VENT HOLE 1 -11 -12 Invoice 5615 1/11/2012 Transaction Date 1/19/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $200.00 Refer 20 NORTH AMERICAN SALT COMPAN Cash Payment E 101 - 43100 -237 Deicing Salt BULK COARSE SALT $3,234.83 Invoice 70784021 1/12/2012 Transaction Date 1/19/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,234.83 Refer 46 OFFICE DEPOT _ Cash Payment E 281 -45210 -200 Office Supplies CALCULATOR SPOOL RIBBONS $2.68 Invoice 592478447001 1/5/2012 PO 22781 Cash Payment E 281 -45210 -200 Office Supplies BANKERS FILE BOXES $17.44 Invoice 592475363001 1/4/2012 PO 22781 •Transaction Date 1/18/2012 - Wells Fargo 10100 Total $20.12 Refer 47 OFFICE DEPOT Cash Payment E 101 -41500 -200 Office Supplies FILE FOLDERS, JACKETS, LABELS, WALL $91.38 CALEP' ^°D Invoice 592146029001 1/3/2012 PO 23950 -163- i, CITY OF MOUND CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: January 2012 01/19/12 12:03 PM Page 8 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $91.38 Refer 48 PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMPA _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $343.00 Invoice 8333957 -IN 1/9/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight FREIGHT $10.50 Invoice 8333957 -IN 1/912012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $353.50 Refer 27 PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMPA _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $778.85 Invoice 8333264 -IN 1/2/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight FREIGHT $10.00 Invoice 8333264 -IN 1/2/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale CREDIT - $88,00 Invoice 8333819 -CM 1/6/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight FREIGHT CREDIT $1.25 Invoice 8333819 -CM 1/6/2012 Transaction Date 1/19/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $699.60 Refer 49 PERMIT WORKS, LLC Cash Payment E 101 - 42400 -440 Other Contractual Servic PERMITS & INSPECTIONS SOFTWARE $1,515.56 SUPPORT 2012 Invoice 1024 1/3/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,515.56 Refer 50 PETERSON, JIM Cash Payment R 601 -49400 -36200 Miscellaneous Revenu REFUND OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING $62.55 2561 WEXFORD Invoice 012412 1/12/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $62.55 Refer 51 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $478.30 Invoice 2179705 1/5/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $623.60 Invoice 2179706 1/5/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,101.90 Refer 52 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $654.85 Invoice 2181991 1/11/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $127.80 Invoice 2181992 1/11/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $782.65 Refer 53 PREMIUM WATERS, INC. _ Cash Payment E 101 - 41310 -430 Miscellaneous 2012 ANNUAL COOLER RENTAL CITY MGR $80.80 ACCT #603679 Invoice 603679 -12 -11 12/31/2011 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $80.80 Refer 54 QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $4,417.27 Invoice 560328 -00 1/11/2012 -164- • 1� u CITY OF MOUND Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: January 2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 560327 -00 1/11/2012 Invoice 191 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR CREDIT Invoice 557621 -00 1/4/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -255 Misc Merchandise For R OLIVES Invoice 557833 -00 1/4/2012 Cash Payment Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 557834 -00 1/4/2012 12/19/2011 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 557834 -00 114/2012 SAFETY TRAINING 2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 38 RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOC OF M _ Invoice 434 Cash Payment G 101 -22803 Police Reserves 2012 MEMBERSHIP DUES Invoice 191 1117/2011 PO 23806 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 55 SAFE ASSURE CONSULTANTS, IN _ Cash Payment E 101 - 41310 -434 Conference & Training SAFETY TRAINING 2012 Invoice 434 12/19/2011 Cash Payment E 101 - 41500 -434 Conference & Training SAFETY TRAINING 2012 •Invoice 434 Cash Payment 12/19/2011 E 101 - 42110 -434 Conference & Training SAFETY TRAINING 2012 Invoice 434 12/19/2011 Cash Payment E 101 - 42400 -434 Conference & Training SAFETY TRAINING 2012 Invoice 434 12/19/2011 Cash Payment E 101 - 43100 -434 Conference & Training SAFETY TRAINING 2012 Invoice 434 12/19/2011 Cash Payment E 101 - 45200 -434 Conference & Training SAFETY TRAINING 2012 Invoice 434 12/19/2011 Cash Payment E 22242260 -434 Conference & Training SAFETY TRAINING 2012 Invoice 434 12/19/2011 Cash Payment E 281 - 45210 -434 Conference & Training SAFETY TRAINING 2012 Invoice 434 12/19/2011 Cash Payment E 601 - 49400 -434 Conference & Training SAFETY TRAINING 2012 Invoice 434 12/19/2011 Cash Payment E 602 - 49450 -434 Conference & Training SAFETY TRAINING 2012 Invoice 434 12/19/2011 Cash Payment E 609- 49750 -434 Conference & Training SAFETY TRAINING 2012 Invoice 434 12/19/2011 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 33 SIMON, STEWART _ Cash Payment G 101 -22803 Police Reserves Invoice 123111 1/7/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 •Refer 56 SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF M _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale Invoice 1679106 1/13/2012 01/19/12 12:03 PM Page 9 $84.00 -$7.80 $42.53 $5,504.80 $704.00 Total $10,744.80 $80.00 Total $80.00 Total POLICE RESERVE 2011 EMERGENCY CALL OUT -10 Wells Fargo 10100 WINE -165- $339.57 $463.04 $2,160.87 $270.11 $655.98 $501.63 $231.52 $154.35 $547.94 $702.29 $308.70 $6,336.00 $100.00 Total $100.00 $120.00 CITY OF MOUND G 101 -22801 Deposits /Escrow .Payments CITY OF MOUND 1/11/2012 Current Period: January 2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 1679106 1/13/2012 Refer 34 SPANJERS, PHILLIP _ Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 57 SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF M POLICE RESERVES 2011 EMERGENCY Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 1673236 1/6/2012 Invoice 123111 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 1673236 1/6/2012 1/18/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 58 SOUTHWEST TRAILS ASSOCIA TIO _ 01119/12 12:03 PM Page 10 $1.15 Total $121.15 $272.86 $2.30 Total $275.16 Cash Payment G 101 -22801 Deposits /Escrow 2012 VOUCHER #1 Invoice 012412 1/11/2012 _ Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 34 SPANJERS, PHILLIP _ Cash Payment G 101 -22803 Police Reserves POLICE RESERVES 2011 EMERGENCY CALLOUT -3 Invoice 123111 1/7/2012 _ Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 21 STONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT, INC _ Cash Payment E 101 - 43100 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs PUMP ASSEMBLY & LABOR FOR 60417, SEAL KIT & PLOW OIL Invoice 21401 1/11/2012 _ Transaction Date 1/19/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 60 SUN PATRIOIT NEWSPAPER _ Cash Payment E 101 -41500 -351 Legal Notices Publishing LEGAL NOTICE PUBLISHING JAN 2012 BUDGET SUMMARY Invoice 1086869 1/7/2012 _ Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 61 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 671029 1/10/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 671034 1/10/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 00771950 1/6/2012 _ Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 3 TRAINING OF OFFICERS, ASSOCI Cash Payment E 101 - 42110 -433 Dues and Subscriptions 2012 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MOUND PD Invoice 012412 1/24/2012 PO 23811 _ Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 67 VERIZON WIRELESS _ Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -321 Telephone & Cells CELL PHONE SERVICE 1-812 THRU 2 -7 -12 Invoice 2683280174 1/2/2012 _ Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 68 VINOCOPIA, INCORPORATED _ -166- $12,376.96 $12,376.96 $30.00 $30.00 $342.40 $342.40 $181.91 $181.91 $3,711.27 $68.85 $38.00 $3,818.12 $175.00 $175.00 $52.04 $52.04 *I 40 1 01 CITY OF MOUND 01/19/12 12:03 PM Page 11 Payments • CITY OF MOUND Current Period: January 2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $120.00 Invoice 0050704 -IN 1/12/2012 $5.00 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 0050704 -IN 1/12/2012 $111.00 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 0050704 -IN 1/12/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $236.00 Refer 69 VINOCOPIA, INCORPORATED _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $189.34 Invoice 0050356 -IN 1/5/2012 $5.00 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 0050356 -IN 1/5/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $194.34 Refer 70 WACONIA FARM AND HOME SUPP _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -210 Operating Supplies BALER TWINE $37.95 Invoice 10335 1/11/2012 PO 23425 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $37.95 Refer 22 WEST END WELDING, INC _ Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -230 Shop Materials EXPANDED ONE END OFF GALVANIZED $100.00 • PIPE Invoice 4098 1/9/2012 Transaction Date 1/19/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $100.00 Refer 23 WIDMER CONSTRUCTION, LLC Cash Payment E 601- 49400 -440 Other Contractual Servic REPAIRED TRACTOR & BA��CKHOLYNWOOD $2,667.50 ON Invoice 3180 1113/2012 Transaction Date 1/19/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,667.50 Refer 71 WINE COMPANY Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE CREDIT $120.00 Invoice 289051 12/30/2011 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $172.00 Invoice 289700 1/12/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight FREIGHT $4.20 Invoice 289700 1112/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $490.67 Invoice 289237 1/5/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight FREIGHT $9'90 Invoice 289237 1/5/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $556.77 Refer 72 WINE MERCHANTS _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $272.00 Invoice 392566 1/6/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $2,233.75 • Invoice 393132 1/11/2012 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,505.75 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Refer 73 WIR7Z BEVERAGE MN BEER _ -167- I, CITY OF MOUND CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: January 2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 844690 1/4/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 847149 1/11/2012 Transaction Date 1118/2012 Wells Fargo Refer 59 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MN WINE SPIRT Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 688668 1/12/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 688669 1/12/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 688670 1/12/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo Refer 74 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MN WINE SPIRT _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 685393 1/5/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 685394 1/5/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo Refer 75 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MN WINE SPIRT _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 685703 1/5/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 685704 1/5/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 685705 1/5/2012 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 685706 1/5/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 Wells Fargo oese, 7R YrFI FAIFRGY Cash Payment E 101 -41910 -381 Electric Utilities Invoice 404267296 1/10/2012 Transaction Date 1/18/2012 10100 10100 10100 10100 01/19/12 12:03 PM Page 12 $5,838.45 $342.95 Total $6,181.40 $1,856.57 $111.90 $968.55 Total $2,937.02 $50.00 $176.00 Total $226.00 Total ELECTRIC CHARGES 5341 MAYWOOD RD Wells Fargo 10100 Total ff •: $39.95 $600.90 $3,051.51 $62.33 $0.25 $0.25 40 1 I, CITY OF MOUND Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: January 2012 10100 Wells Fargo $31,992.70 $902.56 $3,833.06 $5,644.49 $65,242.49 $60,102.49 $167,717.79 Pre - Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $167,717.79 Total $167,717.79 I• I• ME*92 01/19/12 12:03 PM Page 13 City of Mound Claims as of 01 -24 -12 • YEAR BATCH NAME DOLLAR AMOUNT 2011 NOV11ELAN $ 884.09 2011 2011CITYAP2 $ 130,828.43 2012 JANUBPOSTG $ 300.20 0 2012 012412CIT1( $ 167,717.79 TOTAL CLAIMS $ 299,730.51 0 -170- • City of Mound Claims as of 01 -24 -12 0 0 YEAR BATCH NAME DOLLAR AMOUNT 2011 NOV11ELAN $ 884.09 2011 2011CiTYAP2 $ 130,828.43 2012 JANUBPOSTG $ 300.20 2012 012412CITY $ 167,717.79 TOTAL CLAIMS $ 299,730.51 -171- Consulting Engineers & Surveyors 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 ► Chaska, MN 55318 -1172 • Phone (952) 448 -8838 - Fax (952) 448 -8805 www.botton- menk.com January 18, 2012 Ms. Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: 2011 Lift Station Improvements City Project No. PW -11 -03 Pay Request No. 3 Dear Ms. Hanson: Please find enclosed Pay Request No. 3 from Minger Construction, Inc. for work completed on • the 2011 Lift Station Improvement Project from December 3, 2011 through January 6, 2012. We have reviewed the contractor's request, verified quantities and recommend payment in the amount of $38,994.04 to Minger Construction, Inc. Sincerely, BOLTON & ME fN%K, INC. a Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. Mound City Engineer DLF /dlp cc: Carlton Moore, Director of Public Works Catherine Pausche, Director of Finance FAMOUN C 12103114\Pay RequestsUr of Recdn Pay Request 3,1,18,12.doe • DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is -- - -Rl opportunity employer -172- By Name Title Date CHECKED AND APPROVED AS TO QUANTITIES AND AMOUNT: BOLTON & MENK, INC., ENGINEERS, 2638 SHADOW LN, SUITE 200, CHASKA MN 55318 By PROJECT ENGINEER Date // n / a APPROVED FOR PAYMENT: Owner: CITY OF MOUND • BY Title Date Name -173- DATE: 1/612012 _ CONTRACTOR'S PAY REQUEST NO. 3 CONTRACTOR Minger Construction, Inc. 2011 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS OWNER City of Mound CITY PROJECT NO. 11-03 ENGINEER Bolton & Menk, Inc. BMI PROJECT NO. C12.103114 • FOR WORK COMPLETED FROM 12/212011 THROUGH 1/6/2012 $ 213,096.50 TOTAL AMOUNT BID..., ...... 1, .............. ............ . .................... $ 1,290.00 APPROVED ALTERNATE ...... t. $ 214,386-50 CURRENT CONTRACT AMOUNT..... . t ........ I .................... ............. v--. ...................... ........ TOTAL, COMPLETED WORK TO DATE—_..tt,—.. ............ ......... ........... ^< ....................... $ 175,670-51 TOTAL, STORED MATERIALS TO DATE ....... ....... ............. 4 ...... ....... DEDUCTION FOR STORED MATERIALS USED IN WORK COMPLETED.........,.... ...... ............ i ....................... $ TOTAL, COMPLETED WORK & STORED MATERIALS ............ ........... i. ... 41�. . ... ... .-.t .. � .k' i ......... $ 175,670.51 RETAINED PERCENTAGE 5% ........ ......... ........• . ....... ...... ? ........... $ 8.783.53 TOTAL AMOUNT OF OTHER DEDUCTIONS .......................... . .... ............................. ......... NET AMOUNT DUE TO CONTRACTOR TO DATE... ................................ :t ............................................... ........ $ 166,886.98 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID ON PREVIOUS ESTIMATES ............. ...... ......•...... Ii.l.; ... .. vi .... it ..••....• ... .•••...,.. •. t $ 127,892.94 o $ 38,994.04 PAY CONTRACTOR AS ESTIMATE NO. 3...... ........... .......... . ........... .................. ............ Certificate for Payment • 1 hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all items quantities and prices of work and material shown on this Estimate are correct and that all work has been performed in full accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract for this project between the Owner and the undersigned Contractor, and as amended by any authorized changes, and that the foregoing Is a true and correct statement of the amount for the Final Estimate, that the provisions of M. S. 290-92 have been compiled with and that all claims against me by reason of the Contract have been paid or satisfactorily secured. Contractor: Minger Construction, Inc. PO Box 236 2471 Galpin Court, Suite 110 Chanhassen, MN 55317 By Name Title Date CHECKED AND APPROVED AS TO QUANTITIES AND AMOUNT: BOLTON & MENK, INC., ENGINEERS, 2638 SHADOW LN, SUITE 200, CHASKA MN 55318 By PROJECT ENGINEER Date // n / a APPROVED FOR PAYMENT: Owner: CITY OF MOUND • BY Title Date Name -173- Ea C> LTQN & NA E-= N K , 1 Nom® Consulting Engineers & Surveyors 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 - Chaska, MN 55318 -1172 • (D Phone (952) 448 -8838 - Fax (952) 448 -8805 www.bolton- menk.com January 18, 2012 Ms. Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: 2011 CIPP Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Pay Request No. 1 and Final Dear Ms. Hanson: Please find enclosed Pay Request No. 1 and Final from Michels Corporation for work completed on the 2011 CIPP Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project in October and November of 2011. We have reviewed the contractor's request, verified quantities and recommend final payment in • the amount of $129,487.80 to Michels Corporation. This project has been completed in its entirety, therefore no retainage will be held on the project. After payment has been made to Michels Corporation, the City can request the grant money (in the amount of $31,375) that has been allocated to the City by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services through the MCES UI Municipal Grant Program. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this pay request. Sincerely, BOLTON & 1VIEW INC. Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. Mound City Engineer cc: Carlton Moore, Director of Public Works Catherine Pausche, Director of Finance F:\MOUN1C12380771Pay Requests12011 CIPP Pay Request land Final.doc • DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is P^ ----I opportunity employer -174- CORPORATION DRIVING INNOVATION. TRANSFORUING CONSTRUCTION. November 15, 2011 #15323 Ray Hanson - Public Works Supervisor City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472 -0600 rayhansoncifyofmound.com INVOICE NO. 3 1 065 1 Michels Job No. 10224 Re: 2011 CIPP Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation, City of Mound, Minnesota Invoice 1 Original Contract Amount • Change Orders Contract Sum to Date Total Completed to Date Less Amount Retained Total Less Retainage Less Previous Invoice Total Due this Invoice 0 PIEME REM ANY QmsnONS ABOUT nflS INVOICE TO CMEY PRESTON X 2W PO Box 128 1 817 West Main St. I -175 Brownsville, WI 53006 $ 138,910.00 $ 138,910.00 $ C129,487.80�D $ 12,948.78 $ 116,539.02 `A1 $ 116,539.02 920.583.3132 1 www.michels.us Iva 134 Z O a J a Q U z° 8 IL J WTW 2 O. m C C 7C O a U F O (n v a 2 I -176- r� r • • O S o OD rj in 0 0 N n► w 0 0 cq N 0O q ppS tD maOD� 01 0 r r N y N ppN N GO pN O O CN S O o O S S S $ r N M � M 8 S S O EC Yi _O N N N J Q ll a m ti too., 11 N 0 -176- r� r • • Vii\ • CITY OF MOU • • To: Mayor Hanus and City Council Members From: Dock Program Administration Date: 1 /.x/2012 Re: 2012 Dock Location Map Addendum Changes 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 -1687 PH: (952) 472 -0600 FAX: (952) 472 -0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com Below you will find a chart that summarizes the requested Dock Location Map Addendum changes for the 2012 season. All changes were approved unanimously by the Dock Commission. Most of the changes are related to the Dreamwood Settlement Agreement that dictates relocation of all Dreamwood dock sites. Abutt/ Commons N N T e Site # Abuttin Address Proposed Chan e on n am. Lakeside Park Slip 14660A TP Name Change to reflect Park Name n Lakeside Park Slip 14660B TP Name Change to reflect Park Name n Lakeside Park Slip 14660C TP Name Change to reflect Park Name nd Wiota 19237 G4 TP New Site Locations Per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non- Abutter,Strai ht/Sin le ad Wiota 19269 G3 TP 1733 Gull Lane New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Abutter ad Wiota 19302 G2 TP 1729 Gull Lane New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Abutter nd Wiota 19333 G1 TP New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non - Abutter, Straight Dock ad Wiota 19362 175 TP 1724 Finch Lane New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Abutter ad Wiota 19398 F4 TP 1728 Finch Lane New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A• Abutter nd Wiota 19432 F3 TP New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non - Abutter, Open Design nd Wiota 19464 F2 TP New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non - Abutter, Open Design ad Wiota 19518 F1 TP 1717 Finch Lane New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Abutter ad Wiota 19568 E4 TP 1718 Eagle Lane New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Abutter nd Wiota 19617 E3 TP New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non - Abutter, Open Design nd Wiota 19654 E2 TP New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non - Abutter, Open Design ad Wiota 19684 E1 TP 1721 Eagle Lane New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Abutter nd Wiota 19715 D5 TP New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non - Abutter, Straight Dock ad Wiota 19766 D4 TP 1720 Dove Lane New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Abutter nd Wiota 19810 D3 TP New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non - Abutter, Open Design nd Wiota 19848 D2 TP New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non - Abutter, Open Design ad nd Wiota Wiota 19890 D1 19933 C5 TP TP 1729 Dove Lane N( -- . ocations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement Exhibit A; Abutter Ne 1 Sit�LOCations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non - Abutter, Straight Dock Cc DLM File FQV9IYoc9c"600%inHti(aP Changes for 2012 (CC)2.doc ad I Wiota 19982 C4 TP 1732CanaryLn New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Abutter nd Wiota 20025 C3 TP New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non - Abutter, Open nd Wiota 20064 C2 TP New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non - Abutter, Open D ad Wiota 20103 C1 TP 1737 Canary Lane New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Abutter nd Mote 20155 B5 TP New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non - Abutter, Straight Dock a d Wiota 20209 B4 TP 1736 Bluebird Lane New Site Locations r Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Abutter rnd Wiota 20251 B3 TP Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non - Abutter, Open Design New Site Locations r Dream m nd Wiota 20291 B2 TP New Site Locations r Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non - Abutter, Open Design ad Wiota 20327 B1 TP 1749 Bluebird Lane New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Abutter no Wiota 20373 A6 TP New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A• Non - Abutter, Straight Dock ad Wiota 20415 A5 TP 1748 Avocet Lane New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A• Abutter nd Wiota 20449 A4 TP New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non - Abutter, Open Design nd Mote 20487 A3 TP New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A• Non - Abutter, Open Design nd Wiota 20517 A2 TP New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non - Abutter, Straight Dock ad Wiota 20572 Al TP 1749 Avocet Lane New Site Locations per Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Abutter a Peabody 00190 TW 5500 Breezy Rd Removal of dock site; Congestion in Channel; See related Public Lands Permit w/ specific sti ulatic a Waterbank 01022 TW 5500 Breezy Rd Change to abutting site for 5500 Breezy Rd; See related Public Lands Permit w/ specific stipulation n Waterbank 01182 TW New Site # with removal of 01202 n Water,] 01202 TW Remove site at non - renewal due to concave shoreline and severe congestion n Waterbank 01217 TW New Site # with removal of 01202 n North Park 05586 TW One sided dock site due to private property setbacks n Avon 03676 SH One sided dock site due to private property setbacks nd Brighton 05470 WI P Remove at Non - renewal due to access issues. Stairway needed to shoreline. Attached is the entire proposed 2012 Dock Location Map Addendum. • -178- Cc DLM File Filename: Dock Location Map Changes for 2012 (CC)2.doc • CITY OF MOU To: Mayor Hanus and City Council ' From: Katie Hoff — Dock Administrator Jim Fackler — Parks Superintenden Date: 1/19/2012 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 -1687 PH: (952) 472 -0600 FAX: (952) 472 -0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com Re: Dock Location Map Addendum Change Request for 5500 Breezy Road The end of Peabody channel is a narrow, shallow area with limited navigation. Staff has been working on the congestion issue in the channel that includes two private lakeshore owners and one of our abutters. In September staff, along with the three residents, met • with the LMCD. The basic direction from the LMCD was that it would be in all residents best interest to resolve this complex congestion issue privately and not in front of the LMCD board. During the summer of 2011, we had a rare mid - season vacancy of a nearby dock site. As a temporary measure, staff requested our abutter (Nate Bergene) place his boat at the site where it remained for the duration of the boating season. Nate, along with staff support the solution that the current abutting dock site # TWO0190 be removed from our Dock Location Map Addendum and dock site # TWO1022 become the abutting dock site for 5500 Breezy Road. Hand in hand with this request is a submitted Public Lands Permit requesting the current dock structure at site TWO0190 be altered making it unusable for mooring of a watercraft and becoming more of a landing /deck structure used for sitting or fishing. Staff feels this solution best resolves the complex congestion issue in the Peabody channel. It allows the 2 private property owners more navigation room while allowing the abutter at 5500 Breezy Road lake access as required by Ordinance. Staff spoke with both private property owners regarding this proposal and they both were very supportive of it. The Dock Commission heard this matter at the January 19th meeting and it passed • unanimously. Cc Breezy File, DLM File (Bergene).doc -179 - File: Memo to DQCd- Dock Location Map Changes for 5500 Breezy panted on recyc a paper tt :� F 19 I V _ 2012 Dock Location Map FMAITOI Lelmi spin (proposed) • 0 Abu& Land Commons # Non Type Name Type Slip Use Area Site 0 City of Mound Dock Program Quad Quad Name If Abutting Address Misc Information Dock Location Map.xls; 2012; Full with Prpsd Chgs 1 -19 Page 1 Of 5 1/18/2012 0 One sided dockshe (rt aide); Remove sue at non-renawal due to panda property extended IN Ines 1 n D Avocet 2 n D Avocet 1 3 1 n I 0 lAvocet n D Bluebird 8 D Canary 19 nary Lane n D canary 7 n D Dow Lane Mutt Slip 22 x 10 04293A TP 1 8 n D Dow Lane Mult Slip 22 x 8.5 9 n D Dow Lane Mutt Slip 22 x 8.5 04293C TP 1 1 10 n D Dow Lane Mutt Sip 22 x 8.5 1 11 n D Dow Lane Mutt Slip 22 x 8.6 12 n D Dow Lane Mull Slip 22 x 8.6 04293F TP 1 1 13 n D Dow Lane Muh Slip 22 x 8.5 1 14 n D Dow Lane Mutt Slip 22 x 10 04337 TP 1 One sided dockste (rt side); Remow eke at non-renewal 15 n D lDoveLane LMCD Var. If 112 &# 113 dated 726100 & al&00; regarding slip Ierg6 twkilh,'hdly contained', etc. 18 nd I D 18luebird South Slip 18 z B LMCD Var. # 112 &# 113 dated 72600 & &V=; rogndkq alp W9119WIdth. YWIy contained', eto. 17 nd D jBlueblrd South Sip 1 S x 8 LMCD Var. If 112 & # 113 dated 726100 & Sl&00; regarding alp Iarghiwift,'fWly contaked', etc. 18 n A Woodland Rd 31p 20 z 8.6 LMCD Vet. # 112 8 # 113 dated 726100 & 810100; regarding slip IanghVidth•'fully contained, etc• 19 n A Woodland Rd Slip 20 x 8.6 LMCD Var. # 112 & # 113 dated 726100 & 81910P regardi g slip WVh#W d6+,'fully coNaiad% da 20 A Bluebird North Slip 21 x 10 LMCD Var. # 112 & # 113 dated 726N0 & &V=; regarding slip IergtlJwHlh�'fully cataked', eta 21 n A Bluebird North Slp 24 x 10 1 LMCD Var. # 112 & # 113 dated 726100 & tMM70; regarding slip IergU1widlh. fully contained', ate. 22 n A Bluebird Nord Slip 24 x 10 1 LMCD Var. # 112 & # 113 dated 726100 & &9100; regarding slip WnpUJwM, YWIy oonteked', eto. 23 n A Bluebird North Slip 24 x 10 2 LMCD Var. # 112 & # 113 dated 726100 & SON; regarding slip Iang6twidth, YWIy eorftkw, etc. 24 n A Dow Lane Slip 16 x 8 LMCD Var. # 112 &# 113 dried 7 26100 & 8/8100: regarding slip le g6JaAdM,'fuuy con0aYe8, aft. 25 A Dow Lane Slp 20 x 8.5 LMCD Var. # 112 & # 113 dated 726100 & & =; regaNkg alp WVVW M- YWIy contained', ale• 2e n A Dow Una Sip 20 x 8.5 LMCD Var. # 112 &# 113 doled 726100 & 8VW; regan ding elp lergtlYwkllh, Yully coalalned', eta 27 n A Dow Lane Slip 1e x 8 LMCD Var. # 112 & # 113 dated 726100 & 819100; regarding slip IeighViddh. YWy coWaied', etc. 28 n A Eagle Lane Slip 24 x 10 LMCD Var. # 112 &# 113 dated 720100 & 81&00; regarding slip le gthfial n,'fWy contained', etc. 29 A Eagle Lane Slip 24 z 10 LMCD Var. # 112 &# 113 dated 726100 & SM=; regarding slip lwgdVwkl h.'kdly contained', etc. 30 n A Eagle Lane Slip 24 x 10 LMCD Var. # 112 & # 113 dated 72&00 & SI&00; regrading sup lenIlwaddth. YWIy contained', etc. 31 n A Eagle Lane Sip 24 x 10 LMCD Ver. # 112 & # 113 dated 72&W & 81&00; regarding slip leng0WAr6t, YWy cordal ed', aft. 32 D Finch Lane Slip 24 x 10 LMCD Var. # 112 & # 113 dated 726100 & 819100: regarding slip IengOJaridtln,'fully corrleknsd', etc. 33 D Finch Lane Slip 24 x 10 7 1 LMCD Var. # 112 &# 113 dated 726100 & IWWW; regarding slip Ierp6dwMtll, %Ay contained-, eta 34 D Finch Lane Slip 24 x 10 7 1 LMCD Var. # 112 &# 113 dated 72&00 & 819100; regarding alp Ierg6NNM,'fu6y contained', eta 35 n D Finch Lane Slip 24 x 10 7 LMCD Var. # 112 &# 113 dated 726100 & 81&00: regarding slip lergWwM6L'fully contained', etc• 38 n D Gull Lane Slip 24 x 10 7 LMCD Var. # 112 &# 113 dated 72&00 & 819100; regarding slip le gtldwidM,'fWly coniained', etc. 37 D Gull Lane Slip 24 x 10 38 a A Pebble Bch 64 1 Heron tin@ 39 n bble Bch 40 n bble Bch 7 1 41 a bble Bch 1 Paradise Lane 42 n ffD3 bble Bch 3 n bble Bch 1 n is 5 n is 3 46 n D 3 Pis 47 n D 3 Pt. TP 1 48 n D 3 Pte 1 Remove 1 of 2 sites at non•remael due to prWate property se6beom 49 n D Beachskle N 1 3 Remow 1 of 2 sites at nonremeal due to prhade property s!9#alre 5o n D 8wchside N 7 On dockahe due to pdwte property setbacks 51 D Shorewood Ln 60A Name Change ro rONset Pak Nara 62 D Lakeside Park slip 24 x 9 Name Change ro rsfNet Pak Name 53 D Lakeside Pak Slp 24 x 9 54 ra D Lakeside Park Slip 20 x 8 1 Name Change to mfieut Pak Name 55 D Crescent Park 1 1 esttleV@n ne 5e D Crescent Park 1 17 5 it urst ane 67 D Crescerd Park 1779 durst Lane 58 n D Crescent Park 1 TP I 69 a D Crescent Perk 16532 7 1 ursl Lane 60 n D crescent Park 1 1 61 n D Crescent Perk 16596 62 a D crescent Park 66 I hurst Lane 63 n D Crescent Perk 1 TP 1 64 a D Crescent Pak 92 174 i urst Lane e5 a D Crescent Park 6724 7 I urst Lane e6 a D crescent Park 675 17-52-Sumach Lane 67 a D Crescent Park 67 1 7 1 d urst Lane 68 a D Crescent Park 6820 7 umac Lane 69 a D Crescent Park 6 1 7 it urst Lane 70 n D Wren (street) 1 7 7 1 1 D eamwood Settkmrent Agreement; Exhibit A; Noe - Abutter, Sfreight Doak. Single 71 nd D Wbta 19 19 69 3 1 111,5 3 u Lane Dreamwood Seffktment Agnamerd; Exhibh A; Abutter 72 a D wbto 193 2 1 29 ull Lane Dm nu ood S0nkment Apaem red, Exhibit A; Abutter 73 a D Wit. 19333 1 TP 1 Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non - Abutter, Straight Dock 74 n D Wiote 93 2 F5 T 1 724 Inch Lane Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; WON A; Abutter 75 ad D W iota 19398 4 172 Finch Lane Oreemwood Satkenent Agnemanh Exhibit A; Abutter 7e a D Wbra 94 3 1 Dreamwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; NomAbutrer, Open Design 77 nd D Wi0ta 9464 2 1 Oresmaood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non-Abatfer, Open Design 78 I D Wbta 1 518 F 717 Inc Lane Dnamwood Sutfkamet Agn went; ExhlbN A; Abutter 79 a D Wbte 9568 4 17 Sga Lane Dreamwood Settlement Agreement,EahMN A; Abutter 80 8 D Wbta 1 3 1 Dreamwood Setfiem0nt Agrsewunt; ExhM A; Non- AMlttar, Opn Design 81 n D Wits -19664 E2 TP 1 DrOanwood Settlement Agmmeld; WNW A; Non-AbaNar, Open Design ez n D wit. 9 1 e j e tine Dreamaood SettNnent Agreement, ErhkNf A; AbuttOr 3 8 D Wiota Dnamwood SNtkment Agreement; Exhibit A; Non- Abuffer, Sl &W Doak n D Wbts 7 4 1 2 ova Lane Draanmood Settlement Agnetmrd; Exhibit A; Abutter 8 D Wiofa 49810 D3 TP 1 Dreemwood Seffkamal Agra sward; EAteN A; Non - Abutter, OP- 009190 R D Wb1e 1 Dreanwood sotttemalt Agevownt ExhWN A; Non•Abuffer, Open DOSIpn n 8 D D Wiofa Wlala rte Oreanrtd SettkutentApesmOnt; ErhWx A: Abutter –1 7.7 5 Otsamwood SsttkxnenfAp cement; FxhNdf A; Nondbufter, BbMgkf Daek n n D Wbta IM2 C4 anary ane Dreanwood S0lttamed AgrowneM; Efii6N A ;Ab~ a D Wbta 5 1 rownwood seffha ent Agreement; ExbabN A; Non -AbuHw OPn Design D table Dock Location Map.xls; 2012; Full with Prpsd Chgs 1 -19 Page 1 Of 5 1/18/2012 City of Mound Dock Program Abu61 Land Commons Quad Quad RecB Non Type Name Type Slip Use Area Eke # Name g Abutting Address Misc Information 92 nd D jWi0t& 20064 C2 P 1 1 Drustawood Settlement Agreement, ExhBdt A; Non•Abutar, Open Design 93 a D Wiote 20103 C1 IF 1 11 fu7 Canary Lane Dnrprrwood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Abutter 94 n D Wiota 5 Dreenn ood SMttetmnt Agrerrrent, Exhibit A; Non - Abetter, Straight Dock 95 a D W.I. 4 1 1736 Bluebird Lane Dreamwood Setttmnent Agreement; MSrh/bn A; Abutter 96 IiT D Wiora =Tw TV f Drwnwood Settlement Agne ment; 6rhlxh A; Non - Abutter, Open Design Dreamwood Sa tlement Agreement; Exalbh A: Noa- Abutter, Open Design 97 -nF D Well 93 a D Wbte 7 Bluebird Lane Dreamwood Settlement Agresmmnt; Exhibit A; Abutter re nd D Wx1te 20373 A6 Dreamwood Settlement Agrearmrd; Exhhdt A: Non•Abutter, Straight Dock too ad D ifflots IF 1 17415 vocet Lane Dreamwood Settlement Agreement, &htM A; Abutter 101 nT D lWioft TP I Dresna ood Settlement Agreement; Exhibit A; Non-Abuller, Open Design 102 n D Mote 7 Dreetrrwood SettNnrent Agreaemnt; EthMh A; Non•Abutter, Open Design 103 nd D Wiote 20517 A2 1 Drvamwoad Settlawant Agnermrd; WIM A; NanAbufter, Shalght Dock io4 ad D Meta 20572 At 1749 Avocet Lane Dritamwood SattMnent agreamerd; Ezlrlbh A; Abutter 105 a C Peabody 00190 5500 Breezy Road Removal of dock site; channel congestion; Sae related public Landls Permh W stipWatbns 108 n D Waterbank 00752 5500 Breezy Road Abutting she /or SS00 Breezy Road; Bea roleted Publk Lands Psrmh W sDpuladons 107 n D Waterbank 00782 2 too n D Waterbank 109 n D lWaterbank 110 a D lWaterbank Waterside Lane 111 n D Waterbank 00902 -TW- 112 a D Waterbank Waterside Lane 113 a D Waterbank 00962 TW 2 5429 Spruce Road 114 n D Waterbank 115 n D Waterbsnk lie n D Weterbank 01052 IVY 2 117 n D Waterbank lie n D Waterbank 01112 119 n D Waterbank 01142 IVY Z 120 n D Waterbank 2 New She IF with removal0101202 121 n D lWaterbank 2 Remove she of nomrenewel dw to aorroavt ahorohm ernteavere axmpwNon 122 n D lWaterbank 7 TW 2 New She IF with renrovd of 01202 123 a D lWaterbank 01252 IW 2 548 Tonkawood Oa 124 n D Waterbank 2 125 n D Waterbank 01312 1W 2 One aided dock site (left) due to private properly setbacks 120 n D Waterside 01932 -Tw- 127 n D Waterside 02144 128 n D Centermw 02372 One ailed dock site (rt) due to private property setbacks 129 n D Centerview 130 n D Cerderview 131 n D Cemerview 2 132 n D Centerview 0 133 n D Centervlsw 5 134 n D Canterview Mutt Slip 27.5 x 10 02670A 135 n D Cerderview Mult Slip 24 x 8.5 2 136 n D Cervtw isw Mutt Slip 24 x 8.5 137 n D Cerdervive Mutt Slip 24 x 8.5 670 2 138 n D Centervbw Mutt Slip 24 x 8.5 02670E 2 139 n D Centerview Mutt Slip 24 x 8.5 140 n D Centerview Mutt Slip 24 x 8.5 141 n D Centerview Mutt Slip 24 x 8.5 142 n D lCenterAvar Mutt Slip 2478.5 143 n D Centerview Mutt Slip 24 x 8.5 144 n D Cerdervim Mull Slip 24 x 8.5 1451 n D lCenterviewMult Slip 24 x 8.5 02670L 146 n D Ice nterview Mutt Slip 24 x 8.5 02670M 147 n D Centerview Mutt Slip 27.5 x 10 148 a 0 Wateraide Centerview Lane 149 a D Waterside TW 2 2137 Ashland Lane 150 n D Waterside 03811 151 n D Waterside 03851 152 n D Waterside 03871 153 n D Waterside 0 154 j a D Waterside 0 2 2149 Cardinal Lane 155 n D lWaterside 03961 2 156 n D lWaterside 03991 TW 2 157 n D Waterside 04021 TW 2 158 a D Waterside 5 2146 Cardinal Lane 159 n D Waterside 04081 i6o It D waterside 111 161 n D Waterside 04141 2 162 a D Waterside 04171 2 5240 Pike Road 163 a D Morton 05337 TW 2 5226 Lynwood Blvd 164 a D North Park 05496 TW 1 2 IVacant Abutting Lot; 5210 (TBD) Lynwood 165 a D North Park 05556 TW 2 12151 Apple Lane 166 n D North Park 05586 lvv 2 One sided dock she due to prate property setbacks 167 a D Fairview TW 2 2181 Fa lry lew ane 168 a D Fairview 5807 TW 2 21163 Fairview Lane iee n D Fairview Slip 27.5 x 10 058 TW 2 170 Fairview Slip 24 x 8.5 58 171 Fairview Slip 24 x 8.5 5 172 Fahrim Slip 27.5 x 10 2 173 Chateau 174 Arbor 175 tnD Norwood One sided dock ste (left) due to pmrete property setbacks - 17e Carlson Prk Slip 24 x 10 02346A 5H 3 177 Carlson Prk Slip 24 x 8.5 0 178 Carlson Prk Slip 24 x 8.5 3 179 Carlson Prk Sip 24 x 8.5 02345D �Mr -184- 130 CadaonPrk alp 24x8.5 181 m D Cadson Prk Slp 24 x 8.5 182 n I D lCarlson Prk Slip 1 24 x 8.5 02345G 3 Dock Location Map.xls; 2012; Full with Prpsd Chge 1 -19 Page 2 of 5 1/18/2012 Abuel Land Commons Rec # Non Type Name Type Slip Use Area Sale # City of Mound Dock Program Quad Quad manse # Abutting Address Misc Information Dock Location Map.xls; 2012; Full with Prpsd Chgs 1 -19 Page 3 of 5 1/18/2012 183 n D Carlson Prk Slip 24x8.5 184 n D Carlson Prk Slip 24 x 8.5 5 1e5 n D Carlson Prk Slip 24x8.5 5 n D Carlson Prk Slip 24 x e.5 5 7 n D Carlson Prk Slip 24 x 10 as n D Inwood ISO n D Awn DY676 One sided dock site due to private property setbacks 190 n D lEmenald 191 n D lEmerald 192 8 C Longford Rd 03592 NIP 4 148=ongford 08 193 a C Longford Rd 03652 On 0 0a 194 a C Longford Rd P 4 14824 Longford Road 195 a C ILongford Rd 2 IP 4 14820 Longford 08 198 a C I Longford Rd NI 4 14816 Longford Road 197 a C Longford Rd 32 x 12.5 06117A NIP 4 4642 'Idare Road LMCD Variance # 158 dated 311&08; regarding dip lergtl ✓ width, fully conxekled', etc.; Private owned dock 198 8 C Longford Rd 32 x 12.5 1 re Oa LMCD Variance # 158 dalad 311e108; regarding slip Iengtida4dlh, fully contained', etc.; Private owned dock 199 a C Longford Rd 32 x 12.5 4 dare 08 LMCD Variance # 158 dated 3128108; regarding slip lengthlwi th, fully corAakned', etc.; Pdrefe owned dock 200 a C Longford Rd 32 x 12.5 Kildare Road LMCD Variance # 158 dated 3128(08; regarding slip large✓ width, fully contained'. etc.: Pdvafe owned dock 201 a C Longford Rd 32 x 12.5 1 Kildare 0a LMCD Variance # 158 dated 328108; regarding slip leng0ffwidlh, fully contahed', etc.; Private owned dock 202 a C Longford Rd 32 x 12.5 re oa LMCD Variance # 158 dated 32&08; regards g slip IengWwidtil, fully comemd', etc.: Prhate owned dock 203 a C Longford Rd 06419A Kildare Road Privately owned dock complex 204 a C Longford Rd NIP 4 14622 Kildare Road Privately owned dock complex 205 S D Kenmore NIP 4 2530 Black a Lane 205 a D Kenmore a Lane 207 a D Kenmore Black a Lane 208 f n D Kenmore 209 n D Kenmore 210 a D Kenmore Kildare oa 211 n D Kenmore 7 212 n D Kenmore 7 213 a D Kenmore 07326 NIP 4 4619 Kildare Road 214 8 D Kenmore 07356 4 4621 Kildare Road 215 n D Kenmore 07386 NIP 4 216 a D Kenmore 07416 Carlow Road 217 n D Kenmore 07446 N 218 a D Kenmore 47 Carlow Road 219 n D Kenmore 7 NIP 4 One skied dock site (left) due to private property setbacks 220 n D lExcelsior 1 _W 4 One skied dockets (right) due to private property setbacks 221 a D lExcelsior Meyer Property... 222 a D lExcelslor 1 0 4731 Carlow Road 223 a D Excelsior 09065 anon Lane 224 n D Excelsior 225 n D Excelsior 91 5 I 4 6 a D Excelsior 15 55 NIP 4 2648 Shannon Lane 7 n D Excelsior 09185 s a D Excelsior 09215 NIP Shannon Lane 229 n D Excelsior 230 n D Excelsior 09275 NIP _7 231 a D Fxceor W 5 anon are 232 n D lExcelsior 233 n D Excelsior 09365 I 234 in D Excelsior 09395 —47 235. a D Excelsior —09425 7 2 Shannon Lane 238 n D Excelsior 09465 I 237 n D Excelsior NIP 4 238 n D Excelsior NIP 4 239 a D Excelsior 545 1 0 avan 0a 24o a D Excelsior 5 47 Wilshire V 241 n D Excelsior 0 5 1 4 242 n D Kelis 48 4 243 a D Stratford Lane 9 5 enblg Oad 244 8 D Stratford Lane 3 1 4 en Ig Oa 245 a D Stratford Lane 10429 8 Denbigh Road 24e a D Stratford Lane 10489 4 Denbigh Road 247 a D Stratford Lane 1 4 4578 Denbigh Oa 248 a D Stratford Lane 105 N 4 574 Denbigh Oa 249 n D Stratford Lane 11077 Not Shareable Site 250 a D Stratford Lane 1 4 7 Denbigh 08 251 a D Stretford Lane 111 4 Denbigh 08 252 n B Avalon Prk Slip 35.5 x 10 03970A 5 Skeholders Agreement (dated 415104); regarding electrical power for complex 253 n B Avalon Prk Slip 32 x 8.5 70 EI 5 Skeholders Agreement (dated 415104); regarding electrical power for complex 254 n B Avalon Prk Slip 32x8.5 03970 EI 5 Skeholders Agreement (dated 415104); regarding electrical power for complex 255 n B Avalon Prk Slip 32 x 8.5 97 D 5 Skeholders Agreement (dated 415104); regarding electrical power for complex 256 n B Avalon Prk Slip 32 x 8.5 03970E P 5 Skeholders Agreement (dated 415104); regarding electrical power for complex 257 n B - Avelon Prk Slip 35.5 x 10 97OF IP 5 Skeholders Agreement (dated 415104); regarding electrical power for complex 258 n B Avalon Prk Slip 75 sq ft 039701 EIP 5 Skeholders Agreement (dated 4/5104); regarding electrical power for complex 259 n B Avalon Prk Slip 75 sq It 03970J P 5 Skeholders Agreement (dated 415104); regarding electrical power for complex 280 n B Avalon Prk Slip 75 sq ft 03970K EIP 5 Skeholders Agreement (dated 4/5/04); regarding electrical power for complex 261 n B Schevan Prk slip 27.5 x 10 5 44A P 5 2e2 n B Schenan Prk Slip 24 x 8.5 05644B IP 1 5 263 n B Schervan Prk Slip 24 x 8.5 644C I 5 284 n B Schensm Prk Slip 24 x 8.5 85 n B Schenan Prk Slip 24 x 8.5 n B ISchenan Prk Slip 24 x 10 05644F IP 5 n 8 IScherven Prk Slip 27.5 x 10 5 268 n B Schenvan Prk Slip 18 x 8 05644H or 269 n B Schervan Prk Slip 18 x 8 I 'temp site until rwn•renewal 270 a B Devon 4 "1 ieW Drive I iew 271 a B Devon 05742 5 nve 272 8 e Devon 1 4547 san tew rive 273 a 8 Devon 05851 slana view Linve Dock Location Map.xls; 2012; Full with Prpsd Chgs 1 -19 Page 3 of 5 1/18/2012 Abutu Land Commons Roo# Non Type Name Type Slip Use Area site # City of Mound Dock Program Quad Quad Nana t Abutting Address Misc Information 274 a c I Dawn IP 5 14559 sland View rive 275 a C Devon 5 5 I 5 577 an lew nve 276 a C Devon 06002 IP 5 14601 Islan law me 277 a C Dawn 5 9 sland View rive 278 a C Down Island View Drive 279 a c Down 06152 EIP 5 462 5 Island View Drive 280 a C Down 7 EIP 5 s and lew rive 281 a C Dawn 5 4645 Istan View me 282 a I c lDevon 06465 LIF I b 404 Island View Drive 283 1 a 1 c ID ewn EIP 5 4657 Island View Drive 2a4 a c jDewn 06656 1 5 Island View me 285 a c Devon 5 Island View nve 2se a c Dawn 6 15 I sari Mew nve 287 n D Devon One Sided, one boat, straight dock only (14 6 rxelane). See Roanoke decision passed 4!27/99 288 a C Devon 5 Is a lew nve 289 a C Down 5 s a View 290 8 C Down 5 s 8 View rive 291 a C Down 5 8 View Drive 292 a c Down 5 a View nve 293 a c Down 7 7 5 7 Island View nve 294 8 C Down 7 5 Island View nve 295 a C Down 7 Island View nve 296 a C Down Island View Drive 297 a c Devon 7 5 Island View me 29e a C Dawn an View Drive 299 a c Down 74 EIP 1 5 14763 Island View Drive 3oo a C Down 1 07452 5 14767 Island View Drive 301 a B Down OT527 EIP 1 5 14771 Island View Drive 302 a B Down 7 5 island View me 303 n B Down Mutt Slip 27.6 x 10 7 5 5 304 n B Down Mutt Slip 24 x 8.5 07652B 3os n B jDavon Mutt Slip 24 x 8.5 07652C 306 n B Devon Muh slip 24 x as 307 n B Down Mutt Slip 24 x 8.s 7 308 n B DownMue Slip 27.5xto 7 3o9 a B Down 7 1 slan lew e 310 a e Dawn 07 son law ve 311 a B Dawn 0 88 4815 sari View nve 312 a c Down 07 5 s and lew nve 313 a C Down 801 11480 s an iew rive 314 a C Down 073 S a ieW nve 315 n B Amhurst Muh Slip 27.5 x 10 318 n B jArnhund Mutt Slip 24x8.5 317 n B Amhurst Mutt Slip 24 x 8.5 318 a C Amhurst Mutt Slip 1 27.600 10 13 Island View Drive 319 a C Down EIP 6 14849 Island View Drive 320 a C Devon 08273 EIP an ew Drive 321 a C Down -08338 5 4857 Island View me 322 a C Down 0 5 WWTsTand View Drive 323 a C Down s and View Drive 324 a c jDe von 08563 5 Island View Drive 325 a c Devon 5 s an View nve a c Dawn s an View Drive 327 a c jDevon 08688 IP 1 5 4917 Island View Drive 328 a c jDevon 08728 EIP 1 5 14921 island View Drive 329 a c IDewn 5 14926 Stan Vlaw nve 330 a C jDavon 08866 LIP 5 4931 Islan ViewDdve 331 a C Dawn 4937 Island View nve 332 8 C Dawn 1 1 sari IBW rive 333 a C Dawn 0 0 I 5 4W5 San View nve 334 a C Down 94 9 Island IBW nve 335 a C Down 09 I 5 Island View nve 336 a C Dawn 9240 5 4 6 San View rive 337 n D Waterbury Slip 24 x 8.5 674A 1 6 338 n D Waterbury Slip 24 x 8.5 0 6 339 n D Waterbury Slip 24x8.5 00 7 WIP 6 340 1 n D lWaterbury Slip 24 x 8.5 00674 341 a D 113righton Blvd 04125 Brighton Blvd Metal Stake placed; 4109 342 n D Brighton Blvd 155 343 n D 18rightn Blvd 04185 344 a D jBrightn Blvd 04215 VWF 6 3025 Brighton Blvd 345 a D Brighton Blvd 45 P 6 .3021 Birighton Blvd 346 a D Brighton Blvd 04 75 WIP 1 6 13ol Brighton Blvd 347 a D Brighton Blvd 04305 MIR 6 3013 Brighton Blvd Metal Stake placed; 4/09 348 n D Brighton Blvd 04336 WIP 6 349 a D Brighton Blvd 04365 W 6 3005 Brighton Blvd 350 n D Brighton Blvd 04395 1 6 351 a D Brighton Blvd WIP 6 3001-Brighton Blvd Metal Stake placed; 4109 352 nd D Brighton D4462 6 353 =a D Brighton 04482 6 494 Manchester RoaEl 354 ad D Brighton 04512 2971 Cambridge Road 355 nd D Brighton 54 356 nd D Brighton 04572 357 ad D Brighton 04602 V71V 57 Cambridge Road 3sB nd D Brighton 04632 Mabel Stake placed; 4/09 359 ad c Brighton 04705 TWS Cambridge Lane 360 ad C Brighton 04785 am ge one 361 a c Brighton 2017M—bridge Lane 362 a C Brighton o `�7 �_bn ge one 383 a C Brighton 9 G mtm ge Lane 36a - --aT c l8righton 105040 1 0 jzwjT-C-a-m-6Ra-gS`an—e Dock Location Map.xls; 2012; Full with Prpsd Chgs 1 -19 Page 4 of 5 1/18/2012 4 Ir- L City of Mound Dock Program AbLdv Land Commons Quad Quad Rec # Non Type Name Type Slip Use Area Elte 0 Name # Abutting Address Misc Information 3e5 ad c 18righton 05110 WPI 6 2893 Cambridge Lane 368 8 C Brighton 5 5 am n ge ane 367 ad c Brighton 5 Cambridge Lane 8 a c Brighton 5 WIP 6 266 Cambridge Lane ad C Brighton am ge ane 0 nd A Brighton 05470 Remove at Nomreuewal due to assess Issues. Stairmy needed to sA rafMe. 371 aF c Brighton 05498 6 51 Cambridge Lane 372 ad C Brighton am ge Lane 373 a c Brighton 5 ng ton v 374 --n-a— D jarightm 375 a D Lost Lake 03949 5446 Bardeft Blvd 376 n D Lost Lake 377 n D Lost Lake 04009 L 378 n D Lost Lake 379 8 D Lost Lake Lost 08 380 n D Lost Lake 7 381 a D Lost Lake OSt a e Oa 382 It D Lost Lake 04159 383 8 D Lost Lek. Villas Slip 30 x 14 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 310105; regarding Vile slip IerptlNviMh, hilly contained', etc. 384 8 D Lost Lake Was Slip 30 x 14 LMCD Variance At 139 dated 319106; regarding Vile slip Ierghkvk er, Tully contained', etc. 385 a D Lost Lake Viles Slip 30 x 14 7 TO LMCD Variance # 139 dated 314105; regarding Vile alip lengWwNth, Yully oonlehed', arc. see a D Lost Lake Was Slip 30 x 14 LMCD Variance It 130 dated 31005; regarding Vale slip IergUJaAMh,'fully oontakred', dc. 387 a D Lost lake Villas Slip 30 z 14 06006-05-30 LL 7 TBD LMCD Variance # 130 dated 314106; regarding Vile slip IergthAvi ler, Tully exlntadned', etc. 388 a D Lost take Vila. Slip 26 x 14 LMCD Variance # 130 dated 314106; regarding Vile slip lengedwkhh. Uly cortahed', eta. 389 8 1 D Lost Lake Villas Slip 26 x 14 7- LMCD Variance # 139 dated 314105; regarding Vile slip le g6Jwklth, YWly centaked', etc. 390 a D JLW Lake Was 26 x 14 L LMCD Variance # 139 dated 31M., regarding Vile dip I.rg6JwidM, Tully cortakted', aft. 391 8 D Lost Lake Villas 26 x 14 L LMCD Variance # 139 dated 3MM; regarding Vila dip fe g6YaMth, Yully contained', ate. 392 a D Lost Lake Villas 26 x 14 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 310146; regarding Vile dip krgtlJaMM, Tully cortekned', etc. 393 8 D Lost Lake Was, 26 x 14 7 LMCD Variance # 139 dated SIM; regarding Vile slip largttwidlh. Tully contained', etc. 394 8 D Lost Lake Was Islip 26 x 14 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 319105; ragerdkg Vile slip Isrg6VwMTh, Tully oonlekned', dc. 395 8 D Lost Lake Vile. 26 x 14 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 318105; regarding Vila slip Iength1wi lh, Yuly containel', etc. 39e a D Lost Lake Villas 26 x 14 6 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 31&05; regarding Vila slip IergtlYaMth,'fWly contained', ate. 397 a D Lost Lake Villas 26 x 14 -15 -2 LMCD Variance tl 139 dated 319105; regarding Vile slip IenghlWidlh, YWIy contained', ate. 398 a D Lost Lake Villas 26 x 14 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 314106; regarding Vila slip lw ghvMlh, Tully contained', aft. 399 a D Lost Lake Villas 26 x 14 LL 1 7 JTBD LMCD Variance # 139 dated 319105; regarding Villa slip lengh4widle, Tiny contained'. etc. 400 a D Le Villas Slip 28 x 14 06112-18-26 7 LMCD Variance tl 139 dated 31005; regarding Ville slip IengWisider, Yully oontakred', etc. 401 a D e Villas Slip 26 x 14 0 1 - 2 7 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 314105; regarding V91e slip IengOVwMer, fully centained', etc. 402 a D e Villas Slip 30 x 14 061 2- - L 7 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 319/05; regarding Villa slip lengttatd8l, fully contained'. etc. 403 a D e Villas Slip 30 x 14 06112-21-30 L 7 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 319105; regarding We slip IengiYwWlh.'fully contained', etc. 404 a D e Villas Slip 30 x 14 06112-22-30 LL 7 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 319105; regarding Vile slip lergh%vidth, Tully contained', etc. 405 a D e Villas Slip 30 x 14 06112-23-30 7 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 319146; regarding Vile slip IengWwidth, fully contained', etc. 406 a D e Villas Slip 30 x 14 06112-24-30 7 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 31&05; regarding VYIe slip le gtlYatdth, Tully contained', etc. 407 8 D e Villas Slip 30 x 14 D L 7 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 314105; regarding Vile slip Ieng6twHth, Tully contained', etc. a D Lost Lake Villas Slip 30 x 14 0 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 31005; regarding Vila slip IerngdOwidth, Tully contained', etc. a D Lost Lake Villas Slip 30 x 14 06112-27 - 7 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 319105; regarding Ville slip Iergthhviden, Tully contained', etc. 0 8 D Lost Lake Villes Slip 30 x 14 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 310/05; regarding Villa slip Ierq&AvMep,'fully contained', etc. 411 a D Lost Lake Villas Slip 30 x 14 1 -2 7 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 3/9105; regarding Villa Nip lengtlphpMap, 'Fully contained', etc. 412 8 D Lost Lake Villas Slip 30 x 14 LMCD Variance # 130 dated 319/05; regarding Vile elip Iergth%vidth, Yully contained, ate. 413 a D ILot Lake Villas Slip 30 x 14 -30 LL 7 TBD LMCD Variance # 139 dated 319105; regarding Vile slip Iengthf width, fully contained, etc. 414 a D Lost Lake Villas Slip 26 x 14 1 -3 - 6 L 7 TBD LMCD Variance # 139 dated 31005; regarding Vile slip lerptltwidth. Tully contak ed', etc. 415 8 D Lost Lake Villas Slip 26 x 14 06112-33-26 L To LMCD Variance It 139 dated 319105; regarding Vile slip IergdVaMlh, YWy contained', etc. Me a D Lost Lake Was Slip 26 x 14 061 1 - L TO LMCD Variance It 139 dated 31005; regarding Vile slip WVh%vHM, Tully contained', etc. 417 a D Lost Lake Villas Slip 26 x 14 06112-35-26 7 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 31005; regarding Vile slip ke gWvddth, YWly oontatn.d', etc. Me a D Lost Lake Villes Slip 26 x 14 06112-36-26 7 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 3111/05; regarding Vile ale Iergthi Mth, Tully cenlekped', etc. 410 a D Lost Lake Villas Slip 26 x 14 06112-37-26 LMCD Variance # 139 dated 319105; regarding Vila slip lergtltwidth, Tully conlekned', etc. 420 n D Idleam0 421 n D Wlewood 8 422 n D Twin Park Slip 27.6 x 10 A 8 423 n D Twin Park Slip 24 x 8.6 8 424 n D Twin Park Slip 24 x 8.5 0 425 n D Twin Park Slip 27.5 x 10 18 428 n D Highland Prk Slip 27.5 x 10 8 427 n D Highland Prk Slip 24 z 8.5 03962B 8 428 n D Highland Prk Sip 24 x8.5 0 2 429 n D Highland Prk Slip 24 x8.5 0 8 430 n D Highland Prk Slip 24 x 8.5 03 431 n D Hghland Prk Slip 27.5 x 10 396 432 n D Highland Prk Slip 75 sq ft 0 6 433 n D Highland Prk Slip 75 sq ft 03962H 8 434 a D Highland Prk 5 ITH 8 5967 Ridgewood Road 435 a D Highland Prk 0 9 8 5975 Ridgewood Road 43e n D lRidgewood 04963 8 437 n D jftldgewood 04988 438 n D iRidg.d 05013 lH 8 439 n D lRidgewood 050 8 440 n D Ridgewood 050 3 TH 8 441 n D Ridgewood 05088 TH 442 n D Lagoon Prk 06012 443 n D Lagoon Prk 60 444 n 0 Lagoon Prk 07130 445 1 n D Lagoon Prk 107155 448 n D Island-Buoy Buoy Site to be eliminated at mn•rmewal • -187- Dock Location Map.xls; 2012; Full with Prpsd Chgs 1 -19 Page 5 Of 5 1/18/2012 CITY OF MOUND — PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Public Lands Permit Application Report TO: Mayor Hanus & Council Members FROM: Jim Fackler, Public Works Supe ' ten Katie Hoff, Docks Administrator DATE: January 20, 2012 SUBJECT: Public Lands Permit Application APPLICANT: Nate Bergene LOCATION: 5500 Breezy Road REQUEST: City Code Section 62 -11 regulates use of public lands in the City of Mound and states that 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. The applicant Nate Bergene, is requesting a Public Lands Permit, contingent on approval of the requested Dock Location Map Addendum change, to place a landing upland from the shoreline along Peabody Channel. This platform is to be used only for viewing, fishing or other activities but cannot to be used for docking of watercraft. This request was heard at the Dock and Commons Commission meeting on Thursday, January 19 and was approved unanimously. 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: Public Works Superintendent 1. Landings up to 32 square feet are allowed for residential properties in shoreland areas. 2. No clear cutting; selective cutting only subject to approval by Public Work Superintendent with activities to be consistent with the City Code including Mound's shoreland regulations. 3. No filling or grade alteration at or below the 931.5 elevation is allowed unless a separate floodplain alteration permit is approved by City Council. A grading permit will be required for the annual movement of more than ten (10) cubic yards in shore impact zones. Applicant to work with Planning and Engineering Technician Ray Hanson regarding both, if applicable. sm • • • . Dock Administrator 1. This Public Lands Permit Application is contingent upon the approval of the Dock Location Map Addendum change request. 2. Particular stipulations of this Public Lands Permit: If a watercraft is ever moored to the elevated structure then the abutting site (TWO 1022) would change to a non - abutting site on the Dock Location Map Addendum. This would mean upon an ownership change from the current owner the home at 5500 Breezy would no longer be an abutting home site and no dock site will follow the home. It would be the current and any future owners responsibility to inform future buyers of this Public Lands Permit and its specific stipulations. SITE INSPECTION City Officials are encouraged to visit the site prior to the meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this permit (if requested Dock Location Map Addendum change is also approved) with conditions noted above including, but not limited to comments from Staff and construction of the proposed landing to meet the requirements of the building code and zoning ordinance. • CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Required. ATTACHMENTS: • Public Lands Permit Application dated January 12, 2012 • Plat Location • Photographs Attachment — Excerpt from City Code (Stairways/Lifts and Landings) C. Stairways, lifts, and landings. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways and lifts must meet all of the following design requirements: 1. Stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for commercial properties, public open -space recreational properties, and planned development areas. 2. Landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots must not exceed 32 square feet in area. Landings larger than 32 square feet may be used for commercial properties, public open space recreational properties, and planned development areas. 3. Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. 4. Stairways, lifts, and landings may be either constructed above the ground on • posts or pilings, or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion. I 5. Stairways, lifts, and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water assuming summer, leaf -on conditions, whenever practical. • 6. Facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas; provided that they comply with the dimensional and performance standards of subsections (d)(2)c.1 through 5 of this section in addition to the requirements of Minn. Rules ch. 1340. • • -190- i G i i 7 i I i I i J PUBLIC LANDS APPLICATION 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone 852 - 472 -0800 Fax 952 - 472 -0820 Date Received l l fl t o ]boctS r, Co}�iYl1�Y1S Date City Council Date Commission i oy- i2)41td DISTRIBUTION Building Official Parks Director _ DNR MCWD Public Works Other cneolc Drys 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). 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 tvne or nrint leal66 Public Lands Permit Application Page 1 of 2 Revised 121912011 -191- - -ytnw-,� ��r�i�•'+.`�• APPLICANT Name i Email \j Address J. Y Q h. SSNP Phone (H) (W) qsa q41-• &51 a (M) (la) -43 %-7so ABUTTING Address 5 600 P�,&F g LA -RDdL& I i t 10 I1 in (Y . im n . PROPERTY �J Block LEGAL Lot �� DESC. Subdivision I.O, S 1 �?OA L A �-- CYOC��i'S �5+ I m S; of P I D # J� -117 — 24 - o� 3 ' DDa Zoning: R1 R1A R2 R3 131 B2 B3 (Circle one) Public Lands Permit Application Page 1 of 2 Revised 121912011 -191- PUBLIC Name Email PROPERTY Dock Site # Shoreline Type- a!;s CONTRACTOR Name Email Address-51u, - Phone (H) ' (W) (q63) i4l � Kla (M) t 12 � 37 -7NO 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) $ �� DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE: Current channel dock structure would be elevated by applicant to a height (determined by staff) making the structure incapable of being a dock for the mooring of watercraft but rather becoming more of a landing or deck structure. The current portion of the perpendicular -to -shore section will be removed to make It flush with the parallel -to -shore section. *Particular stipulations of this Public Lands Permit: If a watercraft is ever moored to the elevated structure then the abutting site (TW01022) would change to a non - abutting site on the Dock Location Map Addendum. This would mean upon an ownership change from the current owner the home at 5500 Breezy would no longer be an abutting home site and no dock site will follow the home. It would be the current and any future owners responsibility to inform future buyers of this Public Lands Permit and it's specific stipulations. Applicant's S Public Lands Permit Application Page 2 of 2 -192- Date J /2— • 11 • L • Hennepin t;ouniy rroperty ivlap - - - - �i rwa,I ,akt 6M owners Hennepifom nty Property Locator aZoo m Out Pan/ Move ®Identify a Clear Map 0 Parcel - City County IF a Overview 19 Legend / sus 55es ✓`� i H ) Click For Tax Info. /f \ 5373 f_ J l 5436 C:ic ) „pt k For Birds Eve 5444 .. 5454. r ) Show Other Mao Features ADDRESS: a5{ PID: 1311724230021 House: 5500 *0 5441 Street Name: BREEZY RD SsDO \ Unit: City: MOUND _ 5447 Zip: 55364 I OWNER /TAXPAYER: Owner: NATHAN BERGENE Taxpayer: NATHAN BERGENE 5500 BREEZY RD l MOUND MN 55364 1050 \,5, 544s TAX DISTRICT: 2020 55i4 tf School #: 277 5504 - Sewer #: Ssio Watershed S: 3 PARCEL: About the ppiieation Parcels updated on: 01/06/2012 Area (Acres) 0.18 Area: (So. Feet) 7874 Welcome to Hen pin County's Property Locator. To begin using the application Torrens /Abstract: ABSTRACT either search by PID, Address, Additon or Twp -Rng -Sec) using the "Quick Search" Addition Name*. LAKE SIDE PARK A L commands or si ply navigate to the desired location using the "Map Tools ". For CROCKERS 1ST DIV Help more detailed In ormation dick on the Help Buttonl Lot e: Block 7f: 001 Although exten ve effort has been made to produce error free and complete data, Metes & Bounds LOTS 32 AND 33 all geographic I formation has limitations due to the scale, resolution, date and interpretation the original source materials. You should consult available data TAX DATA: (2011 PAYABLE) documentatio (inetadata) for these oarticular data to determine their limitations Copyright ® 2012 Hennepin County, 11nnesota I www.Hennepin.us Accessibility Policvl Contact Henn Pin CoUntyl Security /Privacy Statement T►' 01- '�- � cc 5� }� 40 `x,`C �3►r�z�� I u;00�9Q O qq� -193- http: / /gis.co. hennepin. mn .us /IICPropertyMap/Locator.aspx 1/12/2012 CITY OF MOUND • RESOLUTION NO. 12 -_ RESOLUTION APPROVING A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR 5500 Breezy Road WHEREAS, the applicant, Nate Bergene, owner of 5500 Breezy Road, is seeking a Public Lands Permit for a landing along Peabody Channel on city controlled property, PID # 13 -117- 24 -23 -0053 adjacent to his property. 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, details regarding the request are contained in the Public Lands Permit Report dated January 19, 2012; and WHEREAS, based on its review, Staff recommended approval of the Public Lands Permit subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, the Dock and Commons Commission considered this request at their meeting of Thursday, January 19, 2012; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered this request at their meeting of Tuesday,January 24, 2012. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve the Public Lands Permit as submitted by Nate Bergene, 5500 Breezy Road with the following conditions: • 1) Must meet all conditions as described in staffs report for the applicants Public Lands Permit dated January 12, 2012 which include staff comments and recommendations. 2) No clear cutting; selective cutting only subject to approval by Public Work Superintendent with activities to be consistent with the City Code including Mound's shore land regulations. 3) There is to be no mooring of watercraft to the structure. If a watercraft is moored to the structure then the abutting site (TW01022) would change to a non - abutting site on the Dock Location Map Addendum. This would mean upon an ownership change from the current owner the home at 5500 Breezy would no longer be an abutting home site and no dock site will follow the home. It would be the current and any future owners responsibility to inform future buyers of this Resolution, Public Lands Permit and its specific stipulations. Adopted by the City Council this 24TH day of January 2012. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -195- Mayor Mark Hanus CITY OF MOUND — PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 PUBLIC LANDS REPORT TO: Mayor Hanus and City Council FROM: Jim Fackler, Public Works Katie Hoff, Dock Program DATE: January 20, 2012 SUBJECT: Rip Rap Application of 4743 Island View Dr, Devon Common APPLICANT: Dan and Carla Dyer REQUEST: Dan and Carla Dyer, who own property at 4743 Island View Drive are requesting a Public Lands Permit to install rip rap along 501n. ft of Devon Common shoreline adjacent to their property. This request was heard at the January 19, 2012 Dock and Commons Commission meeting was approved unanimously. City Code Section 62 -11 regulates use of public lands in the City of Mound and states that 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. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all applicable City departments for review and comment. Comments are summarized below: Public Works Superintendent 1. Rip rap must meet all Minnehaha Creek Watershed (MCWD) permit requirements and the City of Mound must make application to the MCWD for all land under their control. 2. Utility locates are required and applicant shall be responsible for identifying survey irons, as needed. 3. Rip rap rock must meet City of Mound standard of fieldstone material. 4. Applicant is responsible for all costs which contain permit fees, contractor charges and repair if final construction work does not meet standards set forth by the MCWD or the City of Mound. 5. City staff must meet on site with the contractor prior to construction. SITE INSPECTION City Officials are encouraged to visit the site prior to the meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this permit with conditions noted above. -196- • • • • r 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone 952 - 472 -0600 Fax 952 -472 -0620 DISTRIBUTION Check One PUBLIC LANDS APPLICATION -bCC W -e Commission Date Building Official DNR Public Works Date Received ---F -3 I ;z City Council Date Parks Director MCWD Other ❑ CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT — new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND - City Code Section 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). The structure or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, Weds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance, which eans 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 tune or nrint leaibly APPLICANT Name O R O -D J e R Email Address 'A-A 4'b Phone (H) (W) 1 (6'!) 2S 45 .24 (M) ABUTTING Address 'A' -Iq 3 PROPERTY Lot Block LEGAL DESC. Subdivision PID # 3 G - I VI - 2-1 -13, 00 5 Zoning: R1 R1A R2 R3 B1 B2 B3 (Circle one) Public Lands Permit Application Page 1 of 2 Revised 412512011 -197- PUBLIC Name Email PROPERTY Dock Site # Shoreline Type CONTRACTOR Name ��,n��,ot L. '�f -- `- Email S1 Spm,An 3 L Address 31 S 3 '��► d.MA Phone (H) M-413 - AI It R (m)(61% 1SV y 3-7y 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) $ 3Soo, oo DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE R ►p �o.,p �Si..Y•�. Applicant's Signature Cia,,� d S,,�W CONCEPT LANDSCAPING 3153 PRIEST W 'MOUND, MN -55 Public Lands Permit Application Page 2 of 2 Revised 412512011 �T -11 ID Date—/z--T-t( • • Hennepin County Property Map Pnnt rage i or i Hennepin County Property Map - Tax Year: 2011 • 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 [arid 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 only. 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. 35 40 1 40 I 40 1 40 t 40 ', 473.7 40 40 47309 4Q4724.0 4714 $5 �► � N VER RD s5 • r� 64n��n Selected Parcel Data Parcel ID: 30- 117 -23 -22 -0056 Owner Name: D ] DYER & C S DYER Parcel Address: 4743 ISLAND VIEW DR, MOUND, MN 55364 Property Type: RESIDENTIAL LAK Homestead: HOMESTEAD Area (sgft): 7446 Area (acres): 0.17 A -T -B: TORRENS Market Total: $867,000.00 Tax Total: $11,823.72 -199- http: / /gis.co. hennepin. nm.us /HCPropertyMap/Locator.aspx 471 4725 4717 0 4 (52) 1 50 47 Date Printed: 12/7/201111:42:28 AM Current Parcel Date: 12/3/2011 Sale Price: $632,500.00 Sale Date: 04/2007 Sale Code: WARRANTY DEED 12/7/2011 � \ \� ^� 7� \\ \� � \ % V :N CITY OF MOUND • RESOLUTION NO. 12 -_ RESOLUTION APPROVING A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR 4743 Island View Drive WHEREAS, the applicant, Dan Dyer, owner of 4743 Island View Drive, is seeking a Public Lands Permit to undertake an 50 Lnft rip rap application along Devon Common adjacent to his property. 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, details regarding the request are contained in the Public Lands Permit Report dated January 10, 2012; and WHEREAS, based on its review, Staff recommended approval of the Public Lands Permit subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered this request at their meeting of Tuesday, January 24, 2012. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve the Public Lands Permit as submitted by Dan Dyer, 4743 Island View Drive with the • following conditions: 1) Rip Rap Must meet all Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regulations 2) City of Mound must make application the MCWD. 3) Utility locates are required. 4) Applicant is responsible for locate of property irons as needed. 5) Rip Rap to meet City of Mound standard of material of field stone. 6) Applicant is responsible for all cost of the rip rap including permit fees, contractor charges and repair if final construction work does not meet standards set forth by the MCWD or the City of Mound. 7) City staff must meet on site with the contractor prior to construction. Adopted by the City Council this 24TH day of January 2012. • Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -201- Mayor Mark Hanus 5341 Maywood Road M i Crty of Mound ound, MN 55364 (952) 472 -3190 Public Works Department • MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Carlton Moore, Director of Public Works Date: January 24,2012 Subject Langdon Lane Cul- de-sac and storm sewer At its January 10, 2012 meeting the City Council continued the public hearing on the Langdon Lane Cul-de -sac proposed street improvements and tabled action on the resolution ordering the improvement. There are two resolutions attached for your consideration. One of them orders the improvement of the Langdon Lane Cul-de -sac along with the storm sewer. The second orders the improvement on the storm sewer only and leaves Langdon Lane as is. • is -202- • • z a w x H z w w 0 a a V M� U W A a U W z a z 0 a z d a N O h D Z O AA AL c;m �: LL V -203- k U Z Y Z W 6 0 m y N 06 N_ O` cm LLJ C C N U -LU4- • • • L w o z w Z � -d L, 4 m cn - - Li > j d U 0 a W Zoe aA�8 OOOMN.I� z a N o o_j o Z a n- :2 Ug UJ N W of of �1-W� J a a Ogw 1 � Z � — O 4- U o O Z 1 1 I g N � � W 0] m W U 1i 1 I I D 1 1 U Z i z - mvi w 3 Q YN z o Zm �� i i I W W< N a ¢ I 3S w N Z C 01 Z U C O Z W w- Z m I � OI LL O w I Z J N O O z J� Ym LO 0 o I o J J al 4 x E O W o r x� o U') O' i 'h .,,' -rt'i• 4ayt' '' N o0 o O - cj ci �a U Oz O�L^ -LU4- • • • • L 0 O O V V O ct •Pao ct �4 O O N O 0 -1 tiA W os U O u O O cl ct U ell N 0 O Cld O H Cd W ct c1d 3 0 Cd c� Cd N U CA O b,A W a� 0 U :M ■ o3 Cd A4 c� u Cd O a� C� • �U+ O cn U 00 M 00 N O O A O ct r;l W -205- 0 O u a� a� 0 O �O a m ,O U V1 0 ern Al N EM-40 0 O .O U O U Z ZT d w � +, 3 U c" a� �+ Z P� N = 0 U 0 �m N O N O t�A o3 W a� U ■ 00 C4� 00 M ' �1V � V � V � o � Q O +� H � W N Q cl� M `C? 'IT 00 -..0 `O 00 t Goq cd Cld M u N a� a a M . O � O N� � � O -206- R U Z Y= 0 Z T N IHPq SC, c II cm N V • 4MR) INC M Cr) OQ rqoq •�, cci U V Vl ct T -207— W U Z a Z� WN ca �c w Z cn n= U J 0 m w th V (° cd .� U O � ;moo Cd 96y o U U U O � �y U V � N r-a r.--a N O o N ° 0 an Q x cj o o a CA cliN � U a a U N N U p d M 00 Cd C� -208- 91 U Z Y� ZT d S�2 CM c, Z= �n II c Cl CITY OF MOUND • RESOLUTION NO. 12 -_ RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS FOR 2012 LANGDON LANE CUL -DE -SAC AND STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT AND INCLUDING IT AS A SEPARATE SECTION OF THE 2012 STREET, UTILITY AND RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 13th day of December, 2011, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed 2012 Langdon Lane Cul -de -sac and Storm Sewer Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on January 10, 2012, and continued to January 24, 2012, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, 1. The 2012 Langdon Lane Cul -de -sac and Storm Sewer Improvement Project is found to be necessary, cost - effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report. 2. Such improvements are hereby ordered as proposed. 3. Bolton & Menk, Inc. is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement and include it as a separate section of the 2012 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement Project. • 4. The City Council declares its official intent to reimburse itself for the cost of the improvement from the proceeds of the tax - exempt bond. Adopted by the City Council this 24"' day of January, 2012. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk • Mayor Mark Hanus -209 - 1 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 12 -_ • RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS FOR 2012 LANGDON LANE STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT AND INCLUDING IT AS A SEPARATE SECTION OF THE 2012 STREET, UTILITY AND RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 13th day of December, 2011, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed 2012 Langdon Lane Cul -de -sac and Storm Sewer Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on January 10, 2012, and continued to January 24, 2012, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, 1. The 2012 Langdon Lane Storm Sewer Improvement Project is found to be necessary, cost - effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report. 2. Such improvements are hereby ordered as proposed. 3. Bolton & Menk, Inc. is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement and include it as a separate section of the 2012 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement Project. 4. The City Council declares its official intent to reimburse itself for the cost of the improvement • from the proceeds of the tax - exempt bond. Adopted by the City Council this 24th day of January, 2012. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Mark Hanus -210 - 1 • • • mt ,� January 18, 2012 BC'D I_'1"UN &. M E-= 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 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Engineering Report 2012 Lift Station Improvements City Project No. PW -12 -03 Dear Mayor and City Council Members. NC® The approved 2012 -2016 CIP includes reconstruction of a sanitary sewer lift station in 2012. This report recommends a specific station and determines the estimated cost and feasibility of the station reconstruction. BACKGROUND The City of Mound's existing sanitary sewer system contains 30 lift stations of varying ages and operational capability. In addition, while significant improvements have been made to the existing sewer collection system over the past few years through the annual "cured in place pipe" (CIPP) lining projects, more needs to be done to lessen the amount of Inflow and Infiltration (I &I) into the city's system. Many of the lift stations are experiencing various operational problems, including but not limited to: extensive maintenance, lack of pumping and storage capacity, and potential station backups during rainfall events. In order to properly analyze these conditions, an Inflow/Infiltration Reduction and Lift Station Reconstruction Plan, dated June 2007, was prepared and received by the Council at the June 12, 2007 meeting. This plan was intended to coordinate I &I mitigation efforts with lift station replacement to the extent practicable and serve as a guide for these city improvements over a 10 -year period. The proposed 2012 Lift Station Improvement Project is the sixth year of the lift station reconstruction plan. Beginning in 2007 with the reconstruction of three lift stations, followed by two in 2008, three in 2009, four in 2010 /11, and one in 2011, a total of thirteen lift stations will have been replaced with the completion of the 2011 project. PROPOSED PROJECT The attached map indicates the location of Station K1 at 4643 Carlow Road, the station proposed for the 2012 project. This station is within the 2012 street reconstruction project. The City utilities on Carlow Road are proposed to be reconstructed with the street project, Carlow Road provides the sole access to the neighborhood east and north of the station. With the necessary coordination of udlity reconstruction and DESJGNING fop a AMER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is ar.M-1 opportunity employer 0 Mayor and Council Members January 18, 2012 Page 2 maintaining access, it is recommended that Station K1 be done in 2012 and included in the 2012 street reconstruction project. The lift station was originally constructed in the early 1960's as a wet well /dry well station. The current pumps in the station are 18 years old and are very near the end of their expected life. The wet well has inadequate storage for proper operation of the pumps and the gravity sewers are used to supplement storage. The steel structure is corroded and requires replacement. Proposed improvements include: construction of a new precast concrete wet well containing two submersible pumps; a separate manhole adjacent to the wet well to house the gate valves and check valves; a new control panel with SCADA equipment to allow monitoring of the station operation from the City Hall and Public Works facilities; an on -site emergency backup generator; an emergency warning system consisting of an alarm and strobe light. The existing station is located in the boulevard on the south side of Carlow Road between house addresses 4637 and 4653. There is not adequate space at the location to reconstruct the lift station along with the valve manhole and generator. It is therefore proposed to shift the station location west 450 feet to the curve on Carlow Road. This location provides adequate public right of way on the north side of the street for the proposed station and also provides more separation from residences. This also allows the existing station to provide sanitary sewer service while the new station is under construction. • The new station location requires reversing the flow in the gravity sewer on Carlow Road which entails the removal and replacement of the existing sewer main. This main is already scheduled for replacement as part of the 2012 street reconstruction project, so there is basically no added cost for this work. It addition, the scheduled force main replacement (as part of the 2012 street reconstruction project) will be reduced by about 450 feet which will be a cost savings. • The surface structures at the existing lift station will be removed and the structure will be filled and abandoned. ESTIMATED COSTS The proposed project is feasible from a technical standpoint. In addition, the project is necessary to provide lift station service as free as possible from maintenance and back up issues, and the proposed improvements represent cost effective means for doing so. The following table summarizes the estimated project costs and the costs of the equipment which will be purchased by the City directly from the vendors. Detailed project cost tabulation is included in the Appendix. Imnrovemeut Estimagd Construction Fatima Indirect Costs City Purchased Total Estimated Cwt w/ 5 °lo 2i S %1 Equipment Cost Pr 1W,Cost Contigeucv Carlow Road (LS K 1) $228,818 $57,205 $50,500 $336,523 The allowance for indirect project costs includes, but is not limited to engineering, surveying, geotechnical, administrative, fiscal and legal costs. Easement acquisition costs, if required, are not included. Funding for the proposed lift station improvements will be from the utility bond sale, with repayment through the Sewer Fund. • FA MOUN\C121044131Corrspondence\2012 -0 1 -18 Council Ltr, EngineeringReport.doc -212- Mayor and Council Members January 18, 2012 • Page 3 0 r� The possible project schedule, if approved, would be to start construction in May. Some of the equipment requires up to three months for delivery which results in substantial completion of the project by fall. We request the Council accept this Engineering Report and authorize preparation of final plans and specifications to be included with 2012 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement Project. Respectfully Submitted, BOLTON & MENK, INC. Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. City Engineer Enclosures F:\MOUN\CI2104413\Cormpondence12012-01-18—CounciI Ltr, Engineering Reportdoc -213- MOUND LIFT STATION K1 • PROJECT COST ESTIMATE January 10 2012 ITEM APPROX. UNIT NO ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 2 REMOVE PIPE 300 LF $10.00 $3,000.00 3 REMOVE SEWER MANHOLE 1 EA $1,000.00 $1,000.00 4 REMOVE L.S. CONTROL PANEL 1 EA $1,000.00 $1,000.00 5 ABANDON LIFT STATION 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 6 CONSTRUCT TEMPORARY 8" SEWER BYPASS 55 LF $35.00 $1,925.00 7 CONSTRUCT TEMPORARY 4" FORCEMAIN BYPASS 50 LF $25.00 $1,250.00 8 8" CLEANOUT 1 EA $200.00 $200.00 9 8" DIP SEWER 40 LF $60.00 $2,400.00 10 4" DIP FORCEMAIN 10 LF $45.00 $450.00 11 4" GATE VALVE 1 EA $1,000.00 $1,000.00 12 FITTINGS 100 LB $6.00 $600.00 13 DEWATERING 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 14 TRENCH ROCK 20 TON $30.00 $600.00 15 SEWAGE PUMP TRUCK 4 HR $200.00 $800.00 16 LIFT STATION & VALVE MH CONSTRUCTION 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00 17 CONTROL PANEL AND ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION 1 LS $79,000.00 $79,000.00 18 GRADING 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 19 MODULAR CONCRETE BLOCK RETAINING WALL 100 SF $26.00 $2,600.00 20 FLOWABLE FILL 7 CY $200.00 $1,400.00 21 8" CONCRETE PAD 550 SF $15.00 $8,250.00 22 BOLLARD GUARD POST 5 EA $400.00 $2,000.00 23 SOD 70 SY $6.00 $420.00 24 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET WITH SEED 200 SY $3.00 $600.00 25 SILT FENCE 110 LF $5.00 $550.00 25 LANDSCAPING ALLOWANCE 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 • SUBTOTAL $207,545.00 MOBILIZATION - 5% $10,377.25 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $217,922.25 CONTINGENCY - 5% $10,896.11 CONSTRUCTION COST PLUS CONTINGENCY $228,818.36 ENGINEERING ADMINISTRATIVE FISCAL, LEGAL & MISC. FEES - 25%. $57,204.59 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $286,022.95 PUMPING EQUIPMENT $23,000.00 GENERATOR $22,500.00 ELECTRICAL SERVICE (XCEL) $5,000.00 TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST $50,500.00 FAMOUMC121044MExcell[104413 Lift Station Cost Estimetes.xis)LS Kt TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST WITH EQUIPMENT $336,522.95 -215- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 12-_ • RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE 2012 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, City Engineer, Bolton & Menk, has prepared a report with estimated costs and feasibility of the 2012 Lift Station Improvement Project (Carlow Road - LS K1); and WHEREAS, the Council received and reviewed this report on January 24, 2012, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to receive this feasibility report, to order preparation of plans and specifications to be included with the 2012 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement Project. Adopted by the City Council this 24"' day of January, 2012. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Mark Hanus -216- • • 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 • (952) 472 -0604 • :7 Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director Date: January 12, 2012 Re: Request to defer action on 3070 Highland Boulevard variance application At its December 13, 2012 meeting, the Council, on split vote, directed Staff to prepare a resolution of denial to be brought back to the next Council meeting for consideration. So as to allow for additional time, which was requested by the property owner, to prepare additional information following the Dec. 13th meeting and Council member absences , the Council, at its January 10, 2012 meeting, tabled action on the resolution to the January 24, 2012 meeting. A draft resolution based on the December 13, 2011 meeting related to the matter has been included for Council action. Additionally, information provided by the applicant who has requested further consideration by the Council is also included. -217- CITY OF MOUND • RESOLUTION # 12- A RESOLUTION TO DENY VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PROPERTY AT 3070 HIGHLAND BOULEVARD PLANNING CASE # 11 -13 PID NO. 23-117-24-43-0001 WHEREAS, on November 23, 2011, a variance application was submitted by Kwadow -Boadi on behalf of owners, William and Alison Moore, to construct an addition at 3070 Highland Boulevard; WHEREAS, the subject property fronts Highland Boulevard on the north side and Lake Minnetonka on the south side. The proposal involves construction of an addition to connect the existing detached garage, located in the northwest corner of the subject site, to the existing house; WHEREAS, per code, there are separate setback requirements for principal and accessory structures; and WHEREAS, once the existing detached garage and house are connected by the proposed addition, the existing garage becomes an integral part of the principal structure and a 30' front setback applies which creates the need for a variance approval as described below: • Required Setback Existina / Requested Setback 30 FT 8.4 FT ; and WHEREAS, details regarding the application are contained in Planning Report and Executive Summary No. 11 -13 and the supporting materials that were submitted with the application; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 129 -39 (a) contains the criteria for granting variances in the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, the variance application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its December 6, 2011 meeting who voted, eight in favor and one opposed, to recommend Council approval, subject to conditions, as recommended by Staff; and WHEREAS, at its December 13, 2011 meeting, the Council voted three in favor and two opposed to direct Staff to prepare a resolution to deny the application based on the Council's discussion to be brought back to the January 10, 2012 meeting; and WHEREAS, the requested variance is not appropriate given that the Council would not approve a new construction project if it were similarly proposed for the following • reasons: -218- 1. The amount of variance has not been minimized as there is space on the • property to reconfigure the accessory structures and reduce the amount of variance needed. 2. The amount of accessory structure space far exceeds any typical norm in either the neighborhood or the city as a whole for a single - family home. Development of accessory structure areas that exceed typical norms by this much should take place within city standards rather than through a variance. 3. The requested front yard setback is less than one -third (1/3) of the required setback resulting in a very large variance; and WHEREAS, on December 23, 2011, the City executed a 60 -day extension to allow for additional time to act on the application and to allow the owner adequate time to prepare additional information to be brought back to the Council. Therefore, the City's new deadline for action is on or around March 22, 2012; and WHEREAS, at its January 10, 2012 meeting, the Council voted three in favor and none opposed to table the matter to the January 24, 2012 meeting; and WHEREAS, at its January 24, 2012 meeting, the City Council received additional information from the applicant, considered the resolution and voted in favor; opposed to deny the variance request and hereby makes the following findings based on the information it received at its meetings of December 10, 2011 and January 24, 2012 Council meetings: 1. Approval of the variance is precedent- setting as there are many detached • accessory structures in the City that could become attached to principal structures. 2. Approval will encourage and provide a path for other property owners to circumvent the code by employing a staged building plan allowing them to ultimately build a non - conforming building that would otherwise not be approved under the code. 3. There are options other than a variance that could be considered to build a conforming project. 4. A variance would not have been granted if this were new construction based on the reasons stated above. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. This variance application is hereby denied for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: • Attest: City Clerk - to be inserted - Mark Hanus, Mayor -219- ; INr iL December 23, 2011 Bill and Alison Moore 3070 Highland Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 Kwadwo Boadi- Aboagye 6830 Cardinal Cove Drive' Minnetrista, MN 55364 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD • MOUND, MN 55364 -1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com This letter is in regard to the variance request that was submitted on November 23, 2011 for the property at 3070 Highland Boulevard that expires on or around January 22, 2012. As provided by Minnesota Statutes 15.99, please be advised that the City of Mound is executing an extension as allowed by Minnesota Statutes 15.99, for an additional (60) days related to the City's timelines for approval or denial of the requested variance. The City's extension for action on the resolution expires on or around March 22, 2012. The purpose for the extension is to allow for additional time for Staff to prepare a resolution of denial; and to provide you with additional time to seek an opportunity to bring additional information to the City Council. if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (952) 472-0604 or by email at sarahsmith0citvofmound.com. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Si rely71th _, Community Development Director -220 - @PffhW--yC"PWr • • W1 L' NNAMI PRESERVING THE HISTORY OF WOODEN BOATING IN AMERICA The City of Mound C/O Mound City Council 5341 Maywood Dr. Mound, MN 55364 To the members of the Mound City Council, RECT JAN 92012 I am writing in support of the home improvement project by William & Alison Moore of 3070 Highland Blvd. It is my understanding that Mr. Moore is interested in connecting his house to his detached garage; however, such a structure would require a variance from the existing city code. My residence, 3056 Highland Blvd., is immediately to the East and abuts the Moore's property. Given the location of the proposed addition, my property is the only residence which has a direct view of the project. • I can attest that such a variance, if granted, would have no meaningful effect on my property. The proposed project matches the exterior layout of the house, and would be an attractive complement to the existing building. I am fully in support of the town granting such variance. • It is my opinion as a resident of this neighborhood that such a variance would in no way alter the essential character of this community. r i Sincerely, f ; F. Todd Warner 3056 Highland Blvd. 2642 COMMERCE BOULEVARD, MOUND, MINNESOTA - 221-64 - TEL. 952-495-0007 - WWW.MAHOGANYBAY.NET In Defense of VARIANCE REQUEST 3070 Highland Blvd, Mound City of Mound, MN Planning Case 11 -13 -222- • • • History Background The house at 3070 Highland Blvd. was originally built in 1920. Sometime prior to 1995, the house was significantly expanded. The original building, garage and stonework mostly remain intact. The house is located in The Highlands area of Mound, off Bartlett Blvd. There are 85 feet of frontage along Highland Blvd, and the house is between 3056 Highland owned by Mr. F. Todd Warner and a Town of Mound Right of Way used for access to water lift stations as well as town docks. Since 1995, the house has had three owners, including sale transaction in 2008 and 2011. William & Alison Moore purchased 3070 Highland Blvd. in May 2011. As we all know, Minnesota winters can be grueling. Minneapolis' downtown Skyway system is the prime example of architectural methods used in this climate to avoid the elements. Relatively new to the region, the Moores wish to avoid the Minnesota winter elements in a feasible manner, especially on their own property. Consequently, they engaged the Infinite Group to design a breezeway /mudroom to connect the kitchen's pantry to the detached garage (herein referred to as the "Connector"). Project The detached, side - loaded garage is located 18 feet from the principle structure and 8.4 feet from the street - side property line. It is approximately 280 square feet in area. 4 � 4 - t --------------------------------- -.�L r'+ r r`~ y` :+ - - - The Connector is not particularly visible outside of the property due to the location of the project between the house and the garage, and the placement of an existing privacy fence. The Connector would start to the left of the double windows, and end well before the comer of the house. • -223- Picture B. The Connector would fit between the two post lights, and the roof will fit below the peak windows. -224- • • • • • Picture C. From the street, the connection would not even be visible. The Connector would begin to the Picture D. View from the access road on the West. -225- this picture. W � �� L•� �' u•_� � fj, t '�',�t � r �; `', `� t ',�"�'»�w�� ' z � � � r a Y ��y'? _ ' �R �� ,1��' e r. .. .. i ?�i t � ., !� � , '��'`� �; e e .�.,, �� r s e � �'x .� � ' k s, a� ' ��s The R -1 Zoning District - Single Family Residential - has certain setback requirements. The principal • building front yard set back of 30 feet. Further, the code states that detached accessory buildings shall meet the same front yard setback requirements. However, the code makes specific exceptions for Lakeshore lots and more specifically as it relates to side - loaded garages on such lots. For detached garages on lakeshore, a minimum eight foot setback is required if the garage door(s) open to the side lot line (vs. 20 feet for front loaded). The majority of lakeside lots on Cooks Bay, Priest Bay, Harrison Bay, and Langdon Lake are R -1 Zones. As it currently stands, the existing garage is a conforming accessory building. The principal structure is a conforming building. A new Connector attaching both structures would make the detached garage non- conforming to the front setback rules even though the property with and without the Connector would look exactly the same from the street. As such, based on the City rules, we have sought variance for the Connector. The City Planning Staff was supportive of the variance and recommended approval to the City's Planning Commission. The City Planning Commission voted 8 -1 in favor of approving the variance, and it was placed in the City Council's consent agenda for the following week. At the request of Mayor Mark Hanus and Councilman David Osmek, the variance approval was pulled from the consent agenda for discussion and ultimately remanded back to the Staff for denial by a vote of 3- 2. In all due respect to the Council members, I believe they arbitrarily voted against approval on grounds inconsistent with the Minnesota court actions, the State's new statutes and guidance from League of Minnesota Cities. I plan to layout why I think a variance is acceptable, and address some of the concerns specifically • highlighted in the December IP meeting. Granting a Variance as per The League of Minnesota Cities Variance — Exception to literal application of zoning ordinance Standards for Granting a Variance The standards for granting variances by boards of adjustment for cities or townships are spelled out in Minnesota Statutes. "Many cities have ordinances that are drafted to provide a solid baseline... while leaving room for appropriate exemptions." Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control, but not adherent to the strict letter of the code. Boards must make decisions that are subjective yet with the obligation of being objective. In Paper v. Atkin County Planning Commission (MN Appeals C2- 00- 1333), the court noted that "case law distinguishes between zoning matters which are legislative in nature and those which are quasi-judicial (variances and special use permits)." Because of the far reaching nature of the Krummenacher decision, the League of Minnesota Cities provided guidance cities on how to react to variance requests and variance criteria. Subsequent to their guidance, the Minnesota State Legislation amended the statutes to clear up the ambiguous language that raised the bar for variance approval. Nevertheless, the League's guidance is still appropriate and applicable to our discussion. They suggested that during the post- Krummenacher variance -less period, cities build flexibility into the code to allow "variance- like" approvals to items such as setbacks when they are consistent with neighborhood attributes; provided that, such re- examination of the zoning code should -227- come if a city is in a position where it "routinely grants" such variances. The State Legislation made that guidance moot, but the appropriateness of such distinction between ordinances and variances is still • applicable. Considering this was the first variance case considered by the staff under the post- Krummenacher Rules, it will be helpful to discuss the background and subsequent results of the case. Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, June 24, 2010 Opinion and Subsequent Legislative Action The case revolves around the use of the term "undue hardship" and its subsequent definition, meaning the property in question cannot be put to "reasonable use." The Court of Appeals relied on the decision of Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of Moorhead (1989). The court in that case interpreted "undue hardship" as the property would be used in any reasonable manner otherwise not permitted. In other words, hardship was defined as "any reasonable use." Although she specifically notes that Rowell standard has been used "over 20 years," MN Supreme Court Chief Justice Gildea in her opinion rejected that interpretation stating that the definition should be for "a reasonable use." That is starkly different than "any reasonable use." Gildea's new standard made a clear distinction between "practical difficulties" and "undue hardship" and would suggest that a variance should not granted unless there was no other reasonable use besides the request — a nearly insurmountable hurdle. However, Chief Justice Gildea was not negative on the variance process itself. She specifically noted in her opinion that if "undue hardship" was not defined as it was in the statute, the opinion would likely have been different. "A flexible variance standard allows municipalities to make modest adjustments to the detailed application of a regulatory scheme when zoning ordinances impose significant burdens on an individual, and relief can be fashioned without harm to neighbors, the community, or the overall purposes of the ordinance." The term and definition of "practical difficulties" is less rigorous. Gildea identifies several factors under • "practical difficulties" standard should be considered including, how substantial the variation is in relation to the requirement, - whether the variance will effect a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood, - whether it will be a substantial detriment to neighboring properties, - whether the difficulty could be alleviated by a feasible method other than a variance, - whether the landowner created the need for the variance, and finally, - whether allowing the variance will serve the interest of justice She states in the opinion, "inevitably and necessarily there is a tension between zoning ordinances and property rights, as courts balance the right of citizens to the enjoyment if 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." [emphasis added] On May 5s', 2011, Governor Dayton signed into law an amendment of the Statutes that restore municipal variance authority in response to the Krummenacher case. The new law renamed the variance standard, eliminating the "undue hardship" language criticized by Chief Justice Gildea, and replaced it with the more lenient "practical difficulties." Consequently, the new rules reinstate the original Rowell interpretation for a variance of 1. reasonableness, 2. uniqueness and 3. essential character. According to The League of Minnesota Cities, cities in evaluating variance requests under the new law should adopt findings addressing the following questions: 1. Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinances? 2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? 3. Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? 4. Are the unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? 5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? -228- F I i !• 3070 Highland Blvd. Variance Request in Light of the Application of the New "Practical Difficulty" Standards. The League of Minnesota Cities, a non -profit organization of municipalities of which Mound is a member and derives its variance application from, states that, "a variance may be granted if enforcement of a zoning ordinance provision as applied to a particular piece of property would cause the landowner "practical difficulties" based on the statutory three- factor test based on Minn. Stat. 462.357. 1. Reasonable? The first factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. According to the League's FAQ reflecting the 2011 law change, this factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular way, but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. The focus of the first factor is what does the applicant wish to do and is the request reasonable. They specifically note that functional and aesthetic concerns are appropriate considerations. In this case, the request is to build a Connector from the heated garage to the heated primary building. The average low temperature in the Twin Cities area is less than 12 degrees for each of the months December, January and February. We can easily go days or even weeks where the ongoing temperature remains below zero. The Twin Cities has the coldest average temperature of any major metropolitan area in the nation. The current homeowners are new to the region, and it is hardly an unreasonable request to protect themselves from the climate. 2a. Essential Character of the Locality • A second factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Under this factor, the League considers whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. They note specifically the following example, "when thinking about the variance for an encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will look closer to a lot line." [emphasis added] In this case, the variance will have de minimis change to optics from the lot line. Whether the property is conforming or a variance is mostly a case of semantics. The property with and without a variance will look no different from the street, no different from the West and South, and only modest change from the East. Additionally, the existing structure is completely in -line with the other garages in the neighborhood, which are primarily detached, front - loaded garages. In this case, the project for which the variance is requested is neither out of scale, out of place, nor disruptive of the area around it. 2b. Effect on Neighbors Chief Justice Gildea specifically noted in her Krummenacher opinion that a variance relief should, "be fashioned without harm to neighbors." F. Todd Warner, owner of 3056 Highland Blvd, mailed a letter to the town (and included by the Staff) in support of the variance. Additionally, the homeowners have included in this package a letter from Michael Hogan, owner of 3073 Highland Blvd, supporting the variance. 3a. Circumstances Not Caused by the Landowner. It is not in any dispute that these are not circumstances created by the Landowner. The property has • changed hands at least twice since the properties were built. -229- 3b. Uniqueness The third and final factor is uniqueness which according to the League generally relates to the physical • characteristics of the particular property (i.e., the land and buildings, not the personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner). When considering the variance for a setback requirement, physical uniqueness includes topography, size or shape of lot, size or shape of existing buildings, as well as placement of existing structures on lot. Although variances are for specific properties rather than a precedent setting feature, the Board should quantify the question of how and why is the property different from others. The City of Mound has a number of residential zoning districts with different setback restrictions. 3070 Highland Blvd is located in the R -1 District. Within the R -1 District, the code makes a separate distinction regarding lakefront lots. Among those properties, there are 64 detached garages that rely on the detached accessory structure setback rules, and six (6) of those properties also have an attached garage on -site (see Exhibit A). Of those structures, the setback rules differentiate between side - loaded versus front - loaded garages. There are a total of 19 side - loaded, detached garages on R -1 lakeshore lots (see Exhibit B)., Not all detached garages hope to be attached someday. In fact, many detached garages serve a specific purpose accomplished by the fact that they separate structures. For instance, there are a number of detached garages in both the R -1 and the R -IA zoning district (whose setback requirements are different from R -1) which could be connected to the primary residence without a variance, but have not done so. From my examination of all the detached garages in the zoning district, the seemingly primary reason for a detached structure is large distances between the primary residence and the street (and thus the garage), large elevation changes between the house and the street, or both. Picture - 2888 Highland Blvd where the detached garage has a significant elevation change and distance from the primary structure X1111 • • Of the 19 side - loaded garages, seven (7) have large distances between the house and the garage. Another • four (4) have significant elevation changes between the garage and the principal property. Of the eight (8) remaining, at least five (5) would be a significant detriment to neighboring properties, and only one (1) of those eight properties is next to a public right of way - 3070 Highland Blvd. Total Lots —390 With Detached 60 Side - Loaded 19 Less Distance => 12 Less Elevation => 8 Less Proximity => 3 Next to ROW I See Exhibit C for all 19 properties. The variance request for 3070 Highland is unique in that it is one of the few detached garage properties with a small distance between principal structure and the detached garage and/or level property. It is the only property in such a situation that is next to a public right of way, and thus no effect on an immediate neighbor. The variance is also unique in that the project would have no visible features from the street. • Finally, the project is unique in that the project's heating source is located in the garage. The garage's radiant heat would be extended from the garage's existing system into the new Connector. As per the League of Minnesota Cities, physical uniqueness is created when one property is "not like any other," when it comes to topography, shape of lot, shape of existing building and placement of those buildings on the lot. Practical Difficulties Based on the reasonableness of the request, the uniqueness and the fact that it doesn't alter the essential character, the variance fits the definition of practical difficulties. Additionally, the variance does not alter the spirit of the code or the town's general plan. The purposes of zoning ordinances is to formally codify land use policies for a city and to distinguish between different types of uses which may be incompatible. When a zoning ordinance is formulated, it usually reflects the fact that people find certain types of activities conflicting and/or it preserves certain aesthetic ideals or preserve public safety. Sec. 129 -1 (Intent and purpose) of the City of Mound Code states, This chapter [zoning] is adopted for the purpose of. (1) Protecting the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare. (2) Promoting orderly development of the residential... areas. (3) Conserving the natural and scenic beauty and attractiveness of the city. (4) Conserving and developing natural resources. • (5) Providing for the compatibility of different land uses and the most appropriate use of land throughout the city. -231- Concerns from the Previous Meeting Variance versus Change the Code "There are a lot of detached garages. If this is the direction we want to go, I would suggest we change the code." Mayor Hanus, Mound City Council Meeting, December 13, 2011. Variances are exceptions to literal application of zoning ordinance. They allow a structure to be altered in a manner not allowed under ordinance. On the other hand, law is established in statute or ordinance. The League of Minnesota Cities discussed the differences in what they refer to as the Pyramid of Discretion. M�"�1<` t d �r ', ors' '° �:..��. Source: League of Minnesota Cities, Land Use Law & Logistics; LMC Conf. 611612011 The Pyramid distinguishes between creating law, applying law and administrating law and the quantity of people it affects. Boards should distinguish between zoning matters that are legislative and those which are quasi-judicial (variances and special use permits). In 2011 Legislative Issues, the League recommends that a city reexamine the existing code when the city repeatedly grants a variance. They note, "if a city routinely grants variances, this may be an indicator that it may want to reexamine its zoning code," and consider amending ordinance to change a rule. Connecting a detached garage is not a common variance request. In the 10 -year collective memory of the Commission Staff, there has not been a single variance request of this sort. Consequently, it would be a mistake to focus on changing the ordinance versus granting the variance request. To the extent that the granting this request would suddenly drive a demand for connecting detached structures (albeit an unreasonable assumption), maintaining a variance process will allow the staff to review each situation on its own merits. However, if the council were to change the ordinance, it would strip the staff and Planning Commission from reviewing and scrutinizing prospective applications. -232- • • Granting the Variance is Too Precedent Setting • Unlike a court ruling, the granting of a variance is not a precedent setting event. A variance is a city ruling that only applies to a specific property. • Even though a variance is not a precedent, granting of the variance with certain characteristics or conditions could qualify and specify the variance as to not allow an exaggerated interpretation by another applicant. Conditions limiting square footage, limiting the distance of the variance - required project, or specifying no neighboring private property would surely squash even a lenient interpretation of the variance. Each subsequent variance request will need to meet its own standards of 1. Reasonableness, 2. Uniqueness, and 3. Character. To the extent that variance request meets those standards, it deserves a variance regardless of any variance that came before it. As noted above, if such requests become common practice, the Council, at that time, should consider examining the actual code. Clearly, the Council and the Staff have the right to impose conditions when granting variances. HR52 notes that, "a condition imposed must be directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance." One member noted in the last meeting that a potential relief of our variance would be to, "lop off one car stall' and thus gain 22 feet eliminating the need for a variance. Such an idea is hardly a proportional response to the request to add a 270 square foot Connector. INCRI -234- Also No attoh, side, Big Big Less Bay Road House Detached FL Attached non - conform Distance Elevation Dist & ©ev ROW Cock's Bay Highland BNd 3040 1 1 1 • Cook's Bay Highland Blvd 3036 1 1 1 Cook's Bay Highland Blvd 3032 1 1 1 Cook's Bay Highland Blvd 3026 1 1 1 Cook's Bey Highland Blvd 3020 1 1 1 Cook's Bay Highland Blvd 3018 1 1 1 Cook's Bay Highland Blvd 2986 1 1 1 Cook's Bay Highland Blvd 2976 1 1 Cook's Bay Highland BNd 2896 1 1 Cook's Bay Highland Blvd 2888 / 1 1 Cook's Bay Highland Blvd 2880 1 1 1 Cook's Bay Highland Blvd 2872 1 1 Cook's Bay Barllatt Blvd 5823 1 1 Cook's Bay Batlett BNd 580/ 1 1 1 Cook's Bay Bartlett Blvd 5561 1 1 1 Cook's Bay Bartlett Blvd 5553 1 t 1 Cook's Bay Bartlett Blvd 5501 1 1 1 1 Cook's Bay Emerald Dr. 5145 1 1 Cook's Bay Emerald Dr. 5139 1 1 1 Cook's Bay WishlreBlvd 2625 1 1 Cook's Bay Charles La 3201 1 1 Cook's Bay Charles La 3207 1 1 1 Cook's Bay Gladstone Lane 3231 1 1 1 Cooks Bay Gladstone Lane 3237 1 1 1 Cooks Bay Gladstone Lane 3247 1 1 1 Cook's Bay Warner La 3325 1 1 Cook's Bay Warner La 3359 1 1 Codes Bay Warner La 3387 1 1 Cooks Bay Tuxedo Blvd 5012 1 1 Dutch Lake Aspen Rd 6064 1 1 Dutch Lake Aspen Rd 8090 1 1 Dutch Lake Aspen Rd 6216 1 1 Emraid/Saton Lake Driftwood La 2352 1 1 Emerald /Soon Lake Driftwood La 2324 1 1 Emerald /Smon Lake Drt wood La 2308 1 1 Emerad/Seton Lake Avon Dr 2516 1 1 Emraid/Sdon Lake Avon Dr 2424 1 1 Hanisons Bay Noble La 2138 1 1 Hanisans Bay Overland La 2132 1 Hanisons Bay Ashland La 2137 1 1 Hanisons Bay Cardinal La 2145 1 1 HardsonslJemdngs Bay Three Points Blvd 5316 1 1 1 Harrisons/Jennings Bay Shorewood La 1871 1 1 1 HanisonslJennings Bay Lakeside La 1909 1 1 Harrlsons/Jnnings Bay Lakeside La 1920 1 1 Hanisons/Jennings Bay Lakeside La 1989 1 1 HarrisonslJennings Bay Shorewood La 2018 1 1 1 HanisonslJrhhln9s Bay Shorewood La 2008 1 1 1 • HanisonslJnnings Bay Shorewood La 1960 1 1 1 HardsonsWennings Bay Shorewood La 1920 1 1 1 Lake Langdon Beachwood Rd 5910 1 1 1 Lake Langdon Beachwood Rd 6016 1 1 1 Lake Langdon Westedge Av 2808 1 1 1 Lake Langdon Westedge Av 2600 1 1 1 Lake Langdon Westedge Av 6200 1 1 priest Bay Sindair Rd 8189 1 1 1 Priest Bay Sinclair Rd 11195 1 1 1 Priest Bay Sinclair Rd 6199 1 1 1 Priest Bay Ridgewood Rd 5991 1 1 1 Priest Bay Ridgewood Rd 8001 1 1 1 Priest Bay Ridgewood Rd 6009 1 1 1 Priest Bay Ridgewood Rd 6049 1 1 Priest Bay Halstead La 6841 1 1 -234- T- o • mi I• I* if O r r is ad J d W 2:1 L- r r r r r r o x O '5 CL O w 0) C r r r r 00 m N W _M N r r r r r r r m V C m N a r r r r r r r r r r r l- r r r r r r N .0 N 0 O t10 O CO to O M M M M r r (p N r r 0 0 M M 0 to to to r N N r M O 0 M to 0 0 0 N N to to to to to M M N to N r r to 0 N N N to 3 O 2 .p m m m >> J J m rN+ 'O .p .0 •p -p Q Q m m > > >> Q N N J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 'O m m m CO a C C d 0 0 0 0 0 0 pm tm C Cz =zz ca 3 3v v ca to rn m a� a3i a3i .c -c m l rnrnmmmmE (> -L - La0ia0iNN X 2immcoMui 8"FE cnU)coco >1 >%>e m m m m mmmm tnm�tn rnrnrnrn c c c c c c c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m m N N N N C C C C m m m m m m m m m C C C C C m m m m O N to N M 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 f0/1 J J m J O O O O O O O O O E C Y Y Y Y O O O O O O O O O m m m m m m m m M 000000000xmmXX -235 --' N M 0 v z 07 r O T- EXHBITS Shorewood La -236- ID • • s all -r r m 1• b• 4 Vy fe, P ` T Aid Nr� rt, 5 r: � a f � r,ri ✓t S I y w 'x Ali it t . . ,y /// ~�<�� . . �� t2 / � /� . � . � � \� \ � . .� � � . ` � � � �� } R � .. « \.. a �\` / � . :� � / } , « ®��d \�\ } .§ «.� , . \ � ° � ©� } s { • Mound City Council Town of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 To whom it may concern: I am writing in support of the home improvement project by William Moore of 3070 Highland Blvd. It is my understanding that Mr. Moore is interested in connecting his primary structure to that of his detached garage; however, such a structure would require a variance from the Town of Mound's City Planning Office. My residence, 3073 Highland Blvd., is immediately across the street from Mr. Moore's driveway. I can attest that such a variance, if granted, would have no meaningful effect on my property, nor • would it obstruct or demean my view. In fact, it is unlikely that I will even see the connecting structure from my own property. It is my opinion as a resident of this neighborhood that such a variance would in no way alter the essential character of this community. Sincerely, Michael Hogan 3073 Highland Blv • -243- loll of CONNECTING & INNOVATING MINNESOTA SINCE 1913 CITIES 2011 Variance Legislation The changes, which are now in effect, may require some cities to change ordinances or statutory cross - references. After a long and contentious session working to restore city variance authority, the final version of HF 52 supported by the League and allies was passed unanimously by the Legislature. On May 5, Gov. Dayton signed 2011 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 19, amending Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subdivision 6 to restore municipal variance authority in response to Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. June 24, 2010). The law also provides consistent statutory language between Minnesota Statutes, chapter 462 and the county variance authority of Minnesota Statutes, section 394.27, subdivision 7. • In Krummenacher, the Minnesota Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the statutory 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 a reasonable use in the absence of the variance. The new law changes that factor back to the "reasonable manner" understanding that had been used by some lower courts prior to the Krummenacher ruling. The new law was effective on May 6, the day following the governor's approval. Presumably it applies to pending applications, as the general rule is that cities are to apply the law at the time of the decision, rather than at the time of application. Learn More Read more about variances in: Land Use Variances: Frequently Asked Questions The new law renames the municipal variance standard from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise retains the familiar three- factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was already in the county statutes: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan." In addition, the new law clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. • LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 1dc TTATTVERSITYAVE. WEST PHONE: (651) 281 -1200 FAX- (651) 281 -1298 INSURANCE TRUST - 244 -u L, MN S5103 -2044 TOLL FREE: (800) 92S -1122 WEB:wwWLMC.ORG • In evaluating variance requests under the new law, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions: • Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? • Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? • Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? • Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? Some cities may have ordinance provisions that codified the old statutory language, or that have their own set of standards. For those cities, the question may be whether you have to first amend your zoning code before processing variances under the new standard. A credible argument can be made that that the statutory language pre -empts inconsistent local ordinance provisions. Under a pre - emption theory, cities could apply the new law immediately without necessarily amending their ordinance first. In any regard, it would be best practice for cities to revisit their ordinance provisions and consider adopting language that mirrors the new statute. Attached are a collection of sample documents reflecting the 2011 variance legislation. The attached samples include a draft ordinance, application form, and findings of fact template. While the attached materials may contain provisions that could serve as models in drafting your own documents, your city attorney would need to review prior to council action to tailor to your city's needs. Your city may have different ordinance requirements that need to be accommodated. • If you have questions about how your city should approach variances under this new statute, you should discuss it with your city attorney or contact Jed Burkett, LMC land use attorney, at jburkett @lmc.org or (651) 281 -1247, or Tom Grundhoefer, LMC general counsel, at tgrundho @lmc.org or (651) 281 -1266. Jed Burkett 06/11 0 -245-2 o ® L.,EAGUE of CONNECTING & INNOVATING MINNESOTA SINCE. 1913 CITIES VARIANCES Frequently Asked Questions (Reflects 2011 law change) What is a variance? A variance is a way that a city may allow an exception to part of a zoning ordinance. It is a permitted departure from strict enforcement of the ordinance as applied to a particular piece of property. A variance is generally for a dimensional standard (such as setbacks or height limits). A variance allows the landowner to break a dimensional zoning rule that would otherwise apply. Who grants a variance? Minnesota law provides that requests for variances are heard by a body called the board of adjustment and appeals; in many smaller communities, the planning commission or even the city council may serve that function. A variance decision is generally appealable to the city council. For more information, see Minn. Stat. § 462.357. When can a variance be granted? A variance may be granted if enforcement of a zoning ordinance provision as applied to a particular piece of property would cause the landowner "practical difficulties." For the variance to be granted, the applicant must satisfy the statutory three- factor test for practical difficulties. If the applicant does not meet all three factors of the statutory test, then a variance should not be granted. Also, variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. For more information, see Minn. Stat. & 462.357. What kind of authority is the city exercising? A city exercises so- called "quasi-judicial" authority when considering a variance application. This means that the city's role is limited to applying the legal standard of practical difficulties to the facts presented by the application. The city acts like a judge in evaluating the facts against the legal standard. If the applicant meets the standard, then the variance may be granted. In contrast, when the city writes the rules in zoning ordinance, the city is exercising "legislative" authority and has much broader discretion. What is practical difficulties? Practical difficulties is a legal standard set forth in law that cities must apply the when considering applications for variances. It is a three - factor test and applies to all requests for variances. To constitute practical difficulties, all three factors of the test must be satisfied. For more information, see Minn. Stat. § 462.357. This material is provided as general information and Is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHONE: (651) 281-1200 rAx:(651)281 -1298 INSURANCE TRUST - 246- MN55 103 -2044 TOLLrREE:(800)925 -1122 WEB:WWW.LMC.ORG • • • What are the practical difficulties factors? The first factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is for a building too close to a lot line, or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable. The second factor is that the landowner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property, that is, to the land, and not personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner. When considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular piece of property, such as sloping topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees. The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Under this factor consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. For example, when thinking about the variance for an encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will look closer to a lot line and if that fits in with the character of the area. Are there are other factors a city should consider? Yes. State statute provides variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the • general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. So, in addition to the three - factor practical difficulties test, a city evaluating a variance application should make findings as to (1) whether or not the variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance, and (2) whether or not the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. C, What about economic considerations? Sometimes landowners insist that they deserve a variance because they have already incurred substantial costs or argue they will not receive expected revenue without the variance. State statute specifically notes that economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties. Rather, practical difficulties exists only when the three statutory factors are met. What about undue hardship? "Undue hardship" was the name of the three - factor test prior to a May 2011 change of law. Effective May 6, 2011 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 19, amended Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6 to restore municipal variance authority in response to Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. June 24, 2010). In Krummenacher, the Minnesota Supreme Court interpreted the statutory definition of "undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use" prong of the "undue hardship" test was not whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is a reasonable use in the absence of the variance. -247- What did the 2011 law change? • The 2011 law changed the first factor back to the "reasonable manner" understanding that had been used by some lower courts prior to the Krummenacher ruling. The 2011 law renamed the municipal variance standard from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise retained the familiar three- factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. The 2011 law also provides that: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan." Can a city grant a use variance? Sometimes a landowner will seek a variance to allow a particular use of their property that would otherwise not be permissible under the zoning ordinance. Such variances are often termed "use variances" as opposed to "area variances" from dimensional standards. Use variances are not generally allowed in Minnesota —state law prohibits a city from permitting by variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for the zoning district where the property is located. For more information, see Minn. Stat. & 462.357. Is a public hearing required? Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied, but many practitioners and attorneys agree that the best practice is to hold public hearings on all variance requests. A public hearing allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors. What is the role of neighborhood opinion? Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While • city officials may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the statutory practical difficulties factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help the city in addressing these factors, but unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not form a legitimate basis for a variance decision. If neighborhood opinion is a significant basis for the variance decision, the decision could be overturned by a court. What is the role of past practice? While past practice may be instructive, it cannot replace the need for analysis of all three of the practical difficulties factors for each and every variance request. In evaluating a variance request, cities are not generally bound by decisions made for prior variance requests. If a city finds that it is issuing many variances to a particular zoning standard, the city should consider the possibility of amending the ordinance to change the standard. When should a variance decision be made? A written request for a variance is subject to Minnesota's 60 -day rule and must be approved or denied within 60 days of the time it is submitted to the city. A city may extend the time period for an additional 60 days, but only if it does so in writing before expiration of the initial 60 -day period. Under the 60 -day rule, failure to approve or deny a request within the statutory time period is deemed an approval. For more information, see Minn. Stat. & 15.99. • -248- • How should a city document a variance decision? Whatever the decision, a city should create a record that will support it. In the case of a variance denial, the 60 -day rule requires that the reasons for the denial be put in writing. Even when the variance is approved, the city should consider a written statement explaining the decision. The written statement should explain the variance decision, address each of the three practical difficulties factors and list the relevant facts and conclusions as to each factor. Can meeting minutes adequately document a variance decision? If a variance is denied, the 60 -day rule requires a written statement of the reasons for denial be provided to the applicant within the statutory time period. While meeting minutes may document the reasons for denial, usually a separate written statement will need to be provided to the applicant in order to meet the statutory deadline. A separate written statement is advisable even for a variance approval, although meeting minutes could serve as adequate documentation, provided they include detail about the decision factors and not just a record indicating an approval motion passed. Can a city attach conditions to a variance? By law, a city may impose a condition when it grants a variance so long as the condition is directly related and bears a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed an otherwise applicable height limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the affect of excess height. For more information, see Minn. Stat. S 462.357. What happens to the variance once granted? • A variance once issued is a property right that "runs with the land" so it attaches to and benefits the land and is not limited to a particular landowner. A variance is typically filed with the county recorder. Even if the property is sold to another person, the variance applies. Jed Burkett 2011/06 -249- This information sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 952 - 472 -0607. • General Zoning Information Sheet R -1 Zoning District — Single Family Residential PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS — Lot Area, Lot Width, and Setback Requirements Minimum Lot Area .................. ............................... .........................10,000 Square Feet MinimumLot Width .......................................................... ............................... 60 Feet FrontYard Setback ........................................................ ............................... 30 Feet SideYard Setback ........................................................... .............................10 Feet RearYard Setback ........................................................... .............................15 Feet MinimumLot Depth ........................................................... .............................80 Feet Lakeshore / Ordinary High Water Setback ............................. .............................50 Feet Minimum Floor Area Requirement ............................ ............................840 Square Feet *Minimum lot frontage on an improved public street shall be 60 feet, except that lots fronting on a cul -de -sac shall be 60 feet at the front building setback line. Applicable side or rear yard setbacks apply to lot lines abutting fire lanes, alleys or unimproved street right -of -ways. Building Height. The vertical distance to be measured from the average grade of a building line to the top, to • the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. No building hereafter erected shall exceed two and one half (2 -1/2) stories or thirty -five (35) feet in height. LOTS OF RECORD, Special Provisions Corner Lots Lot width Minimum side yard setback 40 - 50 feet 10 feet 50 — 80 feet 20 feet 81 feet or more 30 feet Side Yard Requirements — The required side yard setback shall be a minimum of 10 feet Lot width Minimum setback on 1 side yard 40 — 79 feet 6 feet 80 —100 feet 8 feet 101 feet or more 10 feet Front Yard — Except as regulated in Section 350.440, Subd. 6 of the City Code, the front yard setback shall be based on the lot depth as follows: Lot depth Minimum front yard setback 60 feet or less 20 feet 61 — 80 feet 24 feet 81 feet or more 30 feet -250-' • • HARDCOVER REQUIREMENTS Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. On existing lots of record *, imperious coverage may be permitted by a maximum of 40 percent providing that techniques are utilized as identified in Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.6.1. Impervious cover is any surface imperious or resistant to the free flow of water or surface moisture, including all buildings, driveways and parking areas whether paved or not, tennis courts, sidewalks, patios and swimming pools. Open decks (1/4" minimum opening between boards) shall not be counted in imperious cover calculations. DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (GARAGES /SHEDS) — Lot Coveraae and Setback Reaullrements An accessory building shall be considered to be an integral part of the principal structure unless it is five (5) feet or more from the principal structure or use and providing that the structure exceeds 120 square feet. Area and Size Reauirements (see hardcover requirements on page 1) A. Accessory buildings shall not exceed a total gross floor area of 3,000 square feet or 15% of the total lot area whichever is less. B. Each individual accessory building shall not exceed 1,200 square feet of gross floor area. C. The total number of accessory buildings for lots measuring 10,000 square feet or less shall be two (2). On lots exceeding 10,000 square feet, accessory buildings shall be limited to a total of three (3). 2. Front Yard Setback. All accessory buildings shall meet thte same front yard setback requirements as the principal building, except for lakeshore and through lots. For detached garages on a lakeshore or through lots, a minimum twenty (20) foot front yard setback is required if the garage door(s) open to the • street; an eight (8) foot front yard setback is required if the garage door(s) open to the side lot line. 3. Side Yard Setback. A detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of the side lot line in the rear yard with a minimum of a six (6) foot setback in side yard location. On through and lakeshore lots, a detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of the side lot line in the front yard. Whenever a garage is designed with the doors facing a side lot line, the minimum distance between the doors and the side lot line shall be twenty (20) feet. • 4. Rear Setback. A detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of the rear lot line. 5. Lakeshore Setback. Detached accessory buildings must maintain a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water. DECKS See separate deck handout for more information. Front and Sides .......................... ...........................Same as Accessory Building Setbacks Rear................................................................................. .............................10 feet ELEVATION Ordinary High Water Flood Elevation Lowest Floor Elevation REQUIREMENTS LAKE MINNETONKA 929.4 MCWD 931.5 933 CITY 931 DUTCH LAKE 939.2 940 942 LAKE LANGDON 932.1 935 937 -251 -6 5341 Maywood Road • Mound, MN 55364 City of Mound (952) 472 -0604 Planningand Building EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: December 7, 2011 SUBJECT: Variance — connection /addition between detached garage and house OWNER: Bill and Allison Moore PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 11-13 LOCATION: 3070 Highland Boulevard ZONING: R -1 Single Family Residential REQUEST At its December 6, 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a variance • application from Bill and Allison Moore to construct a conforming addition to connect the existing detached accessory garage to the existing house at 3070 Highland Boulevard. VARIANCE REVIEW PROCEDURE City Code Section 129-39 (a) contains the criteria for granting variances in the City of Mound. Mound Ordinance No. 03 -2011 became effective on October 23, 2011 and included new regulations related to variances following modifications to Minnesota State Statutes that were adopted by the legislature earlier this year in response to the 2010 MN Supreme Court decision, sometimes referred to as the "Krummenocher case-,, which made the granting variances very difficult and stated that a City could only grant a variance when an applicant had demonstrated that the property could not be put to any reasonable use without it. Generally speaking, the 2011 ordinance amendments related to variances are summarized as follows: 1) inclusion of new definitions for "Practical Difficulties" and "Unique ",, 2) Removal of the definition for "Undue Hardship "; and 3) Revision of the City's current regulations regarding variance approval for consistency with the 2011 legislation which included removal and /or modification of the variance standards previously contained in Mound's code. • t -252- • A copy of Ordinance No. 03 -11 is on file with the City and will be provided upon request. TIMELINE FOR AGENCY ACTION State Statute requires approval and /or denial of land use applications within 60 days per MSS 15.99 unless the City executes an extension. Additionally, the provisions of MSS 15.99 also allow an applicant to extend the decision timeline. The variance application was submitted and deemed to be complete on or around November 23, 2011. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all applicable City departments and agencies for review and comment. DISCUSSION • The subject property fronts Highland Boulevard on the north side and Lake Minnetonka on the south side. The proposal involves construction of a conforming addition to connect the existing, detached, side - loaded garage accessory structure located in the NW corner of the subject site to the existing house. Staff's review is that both structures are conforming to setbacks. As the proposed project includes connecting the existing detached garage to the existing house, consistency with the principal structure setbacks for a "Lot of Record" in the R -1 District is required. Please see below. • Front 30 FT Side 10 FT Rear 15 FT from rear lot line or 50 FT from 929.4 ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of lake Minnetonka or 10 FT from top of bluff, whichever is most restrictive. C7 A front setback of 8 feet and side setback of 4 feet is allowed for side loaded garages on lakeside and through lots As stated above, the side setbacks required for the project are 10 FT. The proposed addition would be located 14'S" from the west side lot line. The proposed setback to the east line is between 50-60 feet. The existing front setback (detached garage) and rear setback (house), as a result of the project, are not changed by the proposed addition. However, the setbacks for a principal structure become applicable which includes a front setback of 30-FT. The "new" setback for the attached structure is 8.4 FT which is the current front setback for the existing detached garage. • The abutting property on the west side of the subject property is a 20 -foot parkway (paved) which provides access to the City's lift station and docks. -26- A variance was previously issued for the property in 1995 to recognize a number • of existing nonconforming setbacks and construction of a conforming deck. it is mentioned in the resolution that a 30 -foot setback was required on the west side due to a platted right of way. Members are advised that the City Code was changed a number of years ago and now allows that unimproved street frontages, in residential districts, having a width exceeding 15 feet, to be considered side yards or rear yards, as appropriate, with a minimum required setback of 10 -feet. This provision is similar to the setbacks allowed for fire lanes and alleys. The zoning regulations define an Improved public street to mean a public right of way or private right of way approved pursuant to the requirements of the City, containing a bituminous or concrete surfaced roadway. Staff applied the 10 -foot standard, as allowed for unimproved street frontages, due to the limited function and use of the ROW which is primarily for utility maintenance and for dock/lake access. • Hardcover on the subject site, based on information on the submitted survey, is below the allowed 40 percent maximum and it shown on the submitted survey. It appears hardcover, with the project, may only slightly be affected, as much of the involved project area is currently impervious. SITE INSPECTION Council members are encouraged to visit the site prior to the meeting. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION Discussion at the meeting included an overview of the project. Staff explained that there are alternate setbacks for detached, side loaded garages and principal structures and that the proposed addition is conforming. However, the setbacks change when the structures are connected and the principal structure setbacks apply. Staff informed the Planning Commission that it applied the 10 -foot setback, as allowed for unimproved street frontages, as opposed to a standard 30 -ft front setback, as the ROW functions as an access road. Based on its review, the Planning Commission voted eight in favor and one opposed (Retterath) to recommend Council approval of the requested variance application as recommended by Staff. A draft resolution based on the Planning Commission's recommendation has been included for Council action. • -254- • RESOLUTION # 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND APPROVING VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3070 HIGHLAND BOULEVARD PSZ CASE 11 -13 WHEREAS, the applicants, William and Allision Moore, have submitted a variance request to construct an addition at 3070 Highland Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the subject property fronts Highland Boulevard on the north side and Lake Minnetonka on the south side. The proposal involves construction of a conforming addition to connect the existing, detached, side - loaded accessory structure, located in the northwest comer of the subject site, to the existing house; WHEREAS, per code, there are separate setback requirements for principal and accessory structures; and • WHEREAS, the proposed addition to be constructed is conforming to setbacks however at the time the existing detached, side loaded garage and house are connected, a 30- foot front setback for the "new" structure now applies therefore variance approval is required which is described below: Reauired Setback Existina / RegueMed Setback 30 FT 8.4 FT ;and WHEREAS, details regarding the application are contained in Executive Summary No. 11 -13 and the supporting materials that were submitted by the applicant; and WHEREAS, Staff recommended approval of the variance subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 129 -39 (a) contains the criteria for granting variances in the City of Mound. WHEREAS, the variance application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at Its December 6, 2011 meeting who voted eight in favor and one opposed to recommend Council approval as recommended by Staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby approve the variance application to connect the existing detached accessory structure to the house as requested with the following conditions: • -255- 1. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land • use request. 2. No future approval of any development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this action in the event the expansion permit application is approved. 3. Applicant shall submit all required information upon submittal of the building permit application. 4. Applicant shall ensure that runoff from the roof does not drain on to neighbors property. 5. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all local or public agency permits including, but not limited to, the submittal of all required information prior to building permit issuance. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the resolution with Hennepin County. The applicant is advised that the resolution will not be released for recording until all conditions have been met. 7. No building permit will be issued until evidence of recording of the resolution at Hennepin County is provided. 8. No building permits will be issued until. any and/or all fees associated with the land use application have been paid unless an escrow deposit of sufficient . amount is on file with the City. 9. Effective September 1, 2011, new Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) rules related to wetlands, floodplain, erosion control and others are in effect. These rules are now under the jurisdiction of the MCWD as regulatory authority and permitting was officially turned back to the District by the Mound City Council on August 23, 2011. Applicant is directed to contact the MCWD related to the new regulations and applicable permits that may be needed to undertake the proposed project. Evidence from the MCWD in the form of a permit or waiver must be provided before release of any future building permit. 10. All new construction shall take place at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. The minimum required elevation for Lake Minnetonka is 933.0. 11. No materials shall be stockpiled in the 50-FT lakeshore setback or 100 -year floodplain area(s). • 51-1 • As part of its approval of the variance, the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact based on the record: 1. The criteria included City Code Section 129 -39 (a) are met. 2. The proposed connection /addition is conforming to setbacks. 3. The abutting property on the west side is a platted, 20 -foot parkway which serves as an access road. 4. The existing location of the garage and house are not changing with the exception of the proposed addition to connect the structures. Rather, the applicable setbacks change because the code has alternate setbacks for side loaded, detached accessory structures which does not extend to principal structures with attached side - loaded garages. The expansion permit is hereby approved for the following legally described property: - To Be Inserted - The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: • Adopted by the City Council this 13'h day of December, 2011 Attest: City Clerk • Mark Hanus, Mayor -257- • • Executive Summary Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ®® TO: Mound City Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Rita Trapp, Consulting City Planner DATE: January 19, 2012 SUBJECT: PC Case 11 -10, Downtown Mound Lynwood/Commerce Blvd Comprehensive Plan Amendment REQUEST SUMMARY A Comprehensive Plan Amendment has been requested for the area to the southwest of the intersection of Lynwood Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard. The amendment is being sought to facilitate the redevelopment of a portion of the site into a Walgreens retail drug store and a 1,000 square foot freestanding retail establishment. The redevelopment will also involve property transfers to modify the amount of right -of -way around the Dakota Rail Regional Trail located immediately south of the proposed redevelopment areas and behind the Lynwood Boulevard apartment parcels. These property transfers also require a Comprehensive Plan change. A summary of the properties involved is provided below: PID Number Property Address Acres Current Comp Plan Proposed Comp Plan 14- 117 -24 -34 -0050 Address 0.06* Park Pedestrian Mixed -Use Unassigned District 14- 117 -2444 -0033 5631 Lynwood 0.31 High Density Residential Pedestrian Mixed -Use Blvd District 14- 117 -24 -44 -0034 5665 Lynwood 0.34 High Density Residential Pedestrian Mixed -Use Blvd District 14 -117 -2444 -0035 5701 Lynwood 0.39 High Density Residential Pedestrian Mixed -Use Blvd District 14- 117 -24-44 -0064 2281 Commerce 0.06* Pedestrian Mixed -Use Park Blvd I I District *This reflects the approximate portion of the parcel being reguided. Both parcels are larger in size. REVIEW PROCESS Minnesota State Statute 462.355 requires that the Planning Commission conduct a noticed public hearing on any comprehensive plan amendment. The notification procedures were satisfied for the Planning Commission public hearing on December 6, 2011. The same statute requires that a resolution to amend a Comprehensive Plan must be approved by a two- thirds vote of all the members, which in Mound is 4 out of 5 City Council Members. The proposed amendment must then be sent to the Metropolitan Council for review and determination that it is in accordance with the regional system plans. In addition to the Planning 123 No -259 - d Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 p. 2 #11 -10 Downtown Mound Lynwood /Commerce Blvd CP Amendment January 19, 2012 • Commission report, the required Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment Form has been included for your review and reference. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment at their December 6, 2011 meeting. Comments received in the public hearing are provided in the attached Planning Commission minutes. In its review the Planning Commission requested clarification on the ownership status of the various parcels involved in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Currently the applicant has purchase agreements for all parcels involved except the portion of the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) parcel involved in the property transfer. Staff has received consent from all owners, including the HCRRA, for the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Once replatting and redevelopment has occurred, it is Staff's understanding that both the apartment building and 1,000 square foot retail establishment will be sold to other parties. As is customary for Walgreens, the site with the Walgreens Store will be owned by another party and leased by Walgreens. Concerns were raised at the Planning Commission meeting about the reguiding of the apartment building at 5701 Lynwood Boulevard from High Density Residential to Pedestrian Mixed Use District. The inclusion of this parcel in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was at the • recommendation of Staff so as to not leave one parcel in the area as High Density Residential. Community members expressed, however, that the reguiding would make it easier for the property to be rezoned to commercial at some future date. As the redevelopment project can continue with or without the inclusion of this property, the City Council may want to consider whether the property at 5701 Lynwood Boulevard should or should not be included as part of the reguiding of this area. A few attendees also suggested that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment should not be considered until full details of the redevelopment proposal are available. At this time the applicant has provided only a concept of the redevelopment plans. The applicant would like to ensure their ability to move forward with the project before beginning detailed plans. This consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment prior to other development applications is normal and customary in the City of Mound. Questions were also raised about whether the proposed redevelopment was in keeping with the land use goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan and listed in the Planning Report. Staff clarified that the goals are district based not parcel based so while mixed use is encouraged overall it may not occur on a specific site. The proposed redevelopment does maintain commercial activity in Downtown as is desired rather than seeing it dispersed into new areas of the community. Staff also notes that specific site design issues, such as building facade design and landscaping, will be addressed as part of the development review process. • 123 Nc 260 -rd Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 p. 3 #11 -10 Downtown Mound Lynwood /Commerce Blvd CPAmendment • January 19, 2012 A related concern was raised about whether the community should be expanding its Pedestrian Mixed Use District into the neighboring residential areas. Planning Commissioners did note that Mound Marketplace extends further west then this proposed project. The Planning Commission voted 6 -2 to recommend City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment with the conditions recommended by Staff. Chair Ward recused himself from the case. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS A draft Traffic Impact Study has been recently completed by the applicant and shared with the City of Mound and Hennepin County. The study was prepared by Wenck Associates, Inc., a respected firm for traffic analysis. The analysis was conducted to evaluate the impacts of the proposed development at the intersections and access points in and around the development. Hennepin County's preliminary review of the draft Traffic Impact Study yielded two concerns: 1) the placement of the pick -up window being too close to Commerce Boulevard and 2) the potential conflicts should the small, freestanding retail building have a drive - through in the future. The applicant has already indicated to Staff that the concept will be revised with regard to the location of the pick -up window. The applicant also indicated that the freestanding retail building was not intended to have a drive - through window. At this time, Staff has reviewed the draft Traffic Impact Study only for the purposes of evaluating the assumptions used in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment with regards to trip generation. Further analysis of the Traffic Impact Study will occur as part of the development review process. In its preparation of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Staff used "Specialty Retail Center" and "High Density Residential" to reflect the general land uses that could occur in the Pedestrian Mixed Use District. In its evaluation of the specific development project, the Traffic Impact Study used the more intense "Pharmacy/Drug Store with Drive - Through" for the proposed Walgreens Store and "Fast Food Restaurant without Drive - Through" for the small, freestanding establishment. With the new information available, Staff has updated the attached Comprehensive Plan Amendment Form to be reflective of these possible more intense traffic generation rates. The trip generation rates in Question 13 are now shown as a range which includes both Staff's initial general land use category calculations and the trip generation resulting from the specific uses proposed. City Staff still concludes that the transportation system can accommodate the proposed increased trips. RECOMMENDATION Based on the affirmative recommendation of the Planning Commission, Staff has prepared a draft resolution for your consideration. Please note that the resolution approves the amendment • contingent upon the approval of the Metropolitan Council. Minnesota State Statute 462.355 123 No-261 -,rd Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 p. 4 #11 -10 Downtown Mound Lynwood /Commerce Blvd CPAmendment • January 19, 2012 requires that a resolution to amend a comprehensive plan must be approved by a two - thirds vote of all the members, which for Mound is 4 out of 5 City Council Members. OVERVIEW OF FUTURE REQUESTS. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment is the first of many steps needed in order for the proposed redevelopment to occur. The properties involved in the proposed redevelopment and in the property transfer with HCCRA will need to be rezoned. A preliminary and final plat will be needed to reconfigure the lots as appropriate to create a site for Walgreens and the approximate 1,000 square foot freestanding retail establishment along the trail. Site layout and design will be addressed through a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development. There is a public alley behind the Commerce Boulevard properties that will need to be vacated. Review and approval for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will also be needed. Applications have not been submitted yet for any of these future actions. • • 123 No-262--d Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 • • CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES AS GUIDED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the applicant, Semper Development, has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to facilitate a redevelopment project; and WHEREAS, the properties are located near the southwest corner of the intersection of Lynwood Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard in Downtown Mound; and WHEREAS, the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would reguide the following properties as follows; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 462, Section 355, Subdivision 2 of the Minnesota State Statutes, the Planning Commission held an official public hearing on December 6, 2011 to allow formal public comment on the proposed comprehensive plan amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the matter at its January 24, 2012 meeting and recommended approval of the aforementioned comprehensive plan amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound that the Land Use Plan amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as described above are adopted with the following conditions: 0 1. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request. -263- 1 Current Comp Proposed Comp PID Number Property Address Acres Plan Plan 14- 117 -24 -34 -0050 Address Unassigned 0.06 Park Pedestrian Mixed - Use District 14- 117 -24-44 -0033 5631 Lynwood Blvd 0.31 High Density Pedestrian Mixed - Residential Use District High Density Pedestrian Mixed - 14- 117 -24-44 -0034 5665 Lynwood Blvd 0.34 Residential Use District 14- 117 -24-44 -0035 5701 Lynwood Blvd 0.39 High Density Pedestrian Mixed - Residential Use District 14- 117 -24 -44 -0064 2281 Commerce Blvd 0.06 Pedestrian Mixed- Use District Park WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 462, Section 355, Subdivision 2 of the Minnesota State Statutes, the Planning Commission held an official public hearing on December 6, 2011 to allow formal public comment on the proposed comprehensive plan amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the matter at its January 24, 2012 meeting and recommended approval of the aforementioned comprehensive plan amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound that the Land Use Plan amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as described above are adopted with the following conditions: 0 1. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request. -263- 1 2. No future approval of any rezoning or land use application is included as part of this action. • 3. No future approval of any development plans and /or building permits is included as part of this action. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this approval is subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council Adopted by the City Council this 24th day of January, 2012. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -264- Mayor Mark Hanus • • MINUTE EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 2011 ROLL CALL Those present: Chair Stephen Ward; Commissioners: Jeffrey Bergquist, Douglas Gawtry, Kelli Gillispie, David Goode, George Linkert, Kelvin Retterath, Pete Wiechert, and Council member Ray Salazar. Absent: none. Staff present: Community Development Director Sarah Smith, Consultant Planner Rita Trapp, and Planning Secretary Jill Norlander. Others present included: Pam Myers, Chanhassen; John Kohler; Semper, Minneapolis; Bill Moore, 3070 Highland Blvd; Ken Perbix, Watertown; Jon Mille, Minnetrista; Mil & Johann Chemin, 6039 Beachwood Rd; Mark Hanus, 4446 Denbigh Rd (was present for the start of the meeting but left in advance of the Commission's discussion of the Planning Cases); Scott Picha, 2273 Cottonwood La; Gerry Dodds, 6144 Beachwood Rd; Kelly beininger, 5966 Chestnut Rd; Dorothy Netka, 2100 Old School Rd; Michael Netka, Minnetrista; John Tombus, 1736 Baywood Shores Dr; Tom LaVoie, 4363 Wilshire Blvd; Bob & Rose McGlinshky, 1951 Lakeside La; Marnie Barnhart, 2223 Langdon La; Bruce Dodds 3021 Dickens La. BOARD OF APPEALS • A. Public Hearing — Comprehensive plan amendment in area of Lynwood Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard for Walgreens development Chair Ward recused himself from this item due to family involvement in one of the properties involved. Rita Trapp, consultant planner, introduced the Comprehensive Plan amendment request. The amendment is being sought to facilitate the redevelopment of a portion of the site into a Walgreens retail drug store and a 1,000 square foot small freestanding retail establishment. The redevelopment involves property transfers to change the amount of right of way around the Dakota Rail Regional Trail located south of the proposed redevelopment areas and behind the Lynwood boulevard apartment parcels. These property transfers also require a Comp Plan change. The three (3) apartment parcels are proposed to be re- guided as Pedestrian District. Commissioner Retterath asked if similar land swaps have been done previously in Mound. Smith responded that land swaps in the downtown were done for projects in the Transit District including working with Hennepin Co. Regional Rail. • Gillispie confirmed with staff that the apartment buildings will be conforming under the Comp Plan re- guiding. -265- Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2011 Trapp directed the Commission's attention to the letter submitted by Vernon and • Beverly Paine (5709 Lynwood Boulevard). John Kohler of Semper Development presented the plan. Hennepin County was pleased at the extra 20 feet resulting from the land swap adjacent to the trail. The current plan for the small building on the south edge of the property is anticipated to be a bistro type service for the users of the trail. The easement on the western edge adjacent to 5709 Lynwood Boulevard is being reviewed by their attorneys to determine what it is and what can be done. Gawtry asked why they are seeking a comp plan change for the westerly property. Trapp said that it made sense to extend the change but not change the zoning so another business couldn't come in and change it to retail without a zoning change. It would protect it as a multi - family zoned parcel. Salazar asked about specifics for the bistro. Kohler could only say that there has been significant interest. Salazar also mentioned that the City has a 50 -seat minimum for a liquor license. Linked wanted to know if Walgreens thought to offer more pads like the bistro pad since the Pedestrian District goal in the comp plan is to celebrate the pedestrian. Gawtry asked why they weren't taking both apartment buildings. Kohler said that • leaving one offers a significant buffer to the single family area to the west. Acting Chair Salazar opened the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. Johann Chemin (6039 Beachwood) raised the following concerns - reusability of the building if Walgreens moves out - questioned whether the building was architecturally interesting - why no integration of habitations (business down, apartments up) - future of the mural painting - need for another parking lot - parking lot too big - pollution and drainage - trees disappearing - car traffic means additional danger to bicyclists - curb appeal of chain store by bike path - impact on the families of apartment complex - big chain competing with smaller stores - why not move into the former Snyder's building in Navarre. Scott Picha (2273 Cottonwood Lane) asked if Walgreens was going to be responsible for care of the parking lot, sidewalk, and lights. He also asked Walgreens was moving from the existing building and what the City is going to do to ensure that Walgreens • maintain the site as it should be? -266- Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2011 • Tom Casey (2854 Cambridge Lane) challenged the Planning Commission to follow the Comprehensive Plan. Policy has to do with compatibility with the existing plan. He suggested the developer come in with all the details and applications at one time. He believes that the five land use policies cited in the Planning Report were not being met. He advised the Commission not to rush, to vote down the amendment as requested, and ask the developer to come in with a complete plan. Tom LaVoie (6549 Bartlett Boulevard) encouraged Walgreens to stay in Mound. He likes what he sees and likes the concept approach taken by Staff. Salazar closed the public hearing at 8:09. Staff commented that the Planning Commission may wish to keep the hearing open to allow for additional comments and responses. MOTION BY Salazar, second by Linked, to reopen the public hearing at 8:11. MOTION was unanimously carried. Trapp indicated that high density residential is compatible with the Pedestrian District. and that site and development issues (i.e. environmental, tree replacement, etc) will be addressed at the next step of the development process. • Kohler commented that there aren't many Walgreens buildings that are empty but they are very reusable. Their proposal includes spaces for 54 cars which is a number well under the city parking requirements for a building that size not to mention the bistro building; Walgreen's would be responsible for the maintenance for their site ( building, sidewalks, light, parking lot, etc.) Salazar asked about the concept that was mentioned earlier, of incorporating apartments above the retail. Kohler commented that the building height is equivalent to two (2) stories in appearance and that apartments above do not work well for Walgreens. Linkert asked if any other locations were considered. Kohler indicated other locations were considered but couldn't offer more specifics. Johann Chemin mentioned the 54 car lot and fulfilling the need for trail parking which we don't need. He also asked about how high Walgreens needs to be, the loss of the mural and why they need to be in Mound and not Navarre. Salazar commented that he does not want the Walgreens development to go to Navarre. Chemin stated he is concerned that Walgreens will be a detriment for our small • businesses. Gillispie stated that Walgreens is known nationwide to do lots of research before moving -267- Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2011 into a community. They have one of top business models in the country. Chemin commented that he is disappointed that Walgreens didn't send a representative • to answer specific questions. Salazar commented that tonight's meeting is a big picture and that representatives will likely be here as specific plans are considered. Gawtry commented that the building blends in with the design of the rest of Mound. Scott Picha commented about Mound's wasted taxpayer's money: - Lost Lake was dredged before anything had begun and needs to be dredged again - $200,000 was spent on street lights - Streets are not plowed properly - Many businesses were torn down with nothing in their place Tom LaVoie complimented the city for the planning and change that has happened over the years and believes it was money well spent and that the City is intelligent and has spent wisely, including the use of federal monies. Mound should be honored to have Walgreens consider Mound. Tom Casey stated that the mixed use definition by Semper is farfetched and that the five (5) goals from comp plan are not met. Salazar reminded all that we are looking at the big picture tonight. • Casey stated that proposal is not all existing commercial ( #2); also, commercial use is expanding. Gawtry commented Walgreens was advised by Staff to submit the comp plan amendment at this time. Smith stated that Staffs review of the requested amendments finds them consistent with the comp plan policies. Trapp commented that we look at the policies district wide, not parcel specific. Gawtry commented that the district is the whole area. Gillispie commented that the western apartment building is staying. Trapp stated that the Walgreens proposal will combine the subject parcels into three (3) parcels. Gillispie asked if Walgreens does long -term leases. Kohler stated that there will be three (3) different owners. • Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2011 • Salazar asked about #4 on page 5 and if they don't automatically have a right to do anything with the apartment building that remains. Smith stated that the apartment building is not proposed to be rezoned and that all necessary approvals related to a future development would be required. Casey commented that refusal to allow rezoning in the future would be difficult because the zoning is consistent with the guidance in the comp plan. He also commented on the request's inconsistency with the comp plan policies (page 4 of the Staff Report) #3 redevelopment of older business areas; this is an not older area #4 not a mix of businesses #5 not mixed use; it's just another commercial Bruce Dodds (3021 Dickens Lane) commented that 54 parking spaces is just enough to start and that Walgreens, CVS and others wanted the hardware store parcel. He also stated that a new building would look nice and tidy up the area and that the apartment building currently is already buffering the residential. Chemin asked if the Planning Commission were to approve the request, when the next meeting would be. Smith stated that the Council date for review of the requested amendments is not set • yet but possible dates are the 1St or 2nd Council meetings in January which are January 10th and January 24th. Smith also commented that the request review at the Council level does not include a public hearing. Kohler commented that full submittal for rezoning, plat, etc. most likely would come in January. Chemin stated that he wants the Planning Commission to give Semper clear direction. The public hearing was closed at 8:52 p.m. Gillispie stated by recommending approval to Council, we are taking a clear step for Mound and that she supports the amendment. Retterath commented that he is on the fence; the apartment seems like an orphan; the edge of residential is being encroached upon; is fearful of parking not being adequate in the future and tearing apartment building down. Salazar said that that including apartments above the Walgreens would mean more parking spaces. Wiechert commented about condos and /or apartments and mixed use and that there's a lot of vacancy in areas east of Mound. • commented that the inclusion of the apartment building in the re guiding is Trapp co p 9 9 9 -269- Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2011 optional; it will not affect the ability of Walgreens to develop and that redevelopment of the current parcel configuration probably will not happen given the lack of parking • among other features. Linkert commented that it is urban and does not celebrate the pedestrian and is not mixed use (retail main level with office and residential above) as stated in the comprehensive plan. He also asked if a 54 car lot is adequate and whether this is the right spot for them. Gillispie commented that the concept of retail below with residential above is not working well in many suburbs. Goode stated that he agrees that Walgreens will be a strength for downtown and will promote the growth of other businesses. Architectural /visual dynamics will have to be dealt with. Bergquist stated that the comp plan basically is concept for Mound and that Walgreens is trying to accommodate everyone involved. Linkert feels the proposal takes away from the spirit of the pedestrian district, making it difficult to park once and complete all his errands easily on foot. He also commented on the loss of several businesses and the apartment building for the convenience of a drive thru window. Gillispie stated the existing businesses have been looking to stay in Mound and one has • already relocated within the City. Retterath commented on the physical point of view including the green area which is lacking and not friendly to the trail. He suggested leaving the apartment building alone. MOTION by Gillispie, second by Wiechert, to recommend City Council approval of the comp plan amendment request subject to Staff recommendation (pages 4 and 5 of the Staff Report). Voting in favor: Salazar, Gillispie, Good, Bergquist, Wiechert and Gawtry. Voting against: Linked and Retterath. MOTION carried. • -270- • • Metropoliltaa Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment Submittal Form SECTION 1: PROCESS OVERVIEW _, 11�h!_ Jtv•_ C�_ �etrocounciL __orinning!L_P__1LPI Sect:. if Action Date of Action ® Acted upon by the planning commission. December 6, 2011 ® Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review January The City of Mound followed the requirements of MSS 462.355 in the notification of th ommission Public Hearing on December 6, 2011. The notification was published on November 26, A was sent on November 23, 2011 to property owners within 350 feet according to Hennepin linty records. The notice was posted on the City Hall bulletin board on November 22, 2011. Additionally, copies o e r st forwarded to involved agencies for review and comment. This included both Hennepin County Regional : i th d Three Rivers Park District. The City of Mound is requesting a waiver to the 60 -day review and. 0, t period for adjacent units of government as it believes this is a minor comprehensive plan amendmnt. The co me a 11 affected property is approximately 1. 16 acres. As identified in this form, the amendment will not si c . ..change to the City's forecasts or TAZ allocations. The proposed amendment area is located more than 0.5 mile, Barest adjacent governmental unit, the City of ® No, none required. ❑ Yes. Indicate the type of review and approximate date of completion. If completed, include a • summary of the findings below: -271- May 2011 z t Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment Submittal Form High Density Residential (R3) 1.04 0 7 to 20 units 0 units 0 20 Higb Density Residential 12 to 20 units /acre 12 to 20 units/acre + , „aj 0 -1.04 0 units 3 to 11 ugm Pedestrian District 0.06 1.10 7 to 20 units /acre at 7 to 20 units /a 19.10 Destination District 50% residential 50% residents Park 0.06 0.06 Linear District". 29 10 Medium Density Residential 45 25 0 20 Higb Density Residential 29 + , „aj 0 -1.04 -1.04 Pedestrian District 18 18 1.10 19.10 Destination District 25 12 0 12 Linear District". 29 10 0 * Developable means land planned for urban residenft,.developmeft-2,Ihfill, or redevelopment for the 2011 -2020 timeframe. ** Amendment acres from the municipality's resporMVAYWuestion #10 above. ® No. Not a community with CA Rlboundaries or project site is not within CA / MNRRA boundaries. ❑ Yes. Describe below hove �; ' at�Area guidelines and MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan policies are being ad sse rwl' this amendment. - ;e / L- May 2011 4 ,t Metropolitan ConucU Comprehensive Plan Amendment Submittal Form ® No, existing local and regional road networks can accommodate increase. ❑ Yes, improvements are needed. Describe improvements and who will pay for them below: A range has been provided in the post - amendment trip generation calculation to reflect on the low end the general trip generation rates for the land use categories proposed and on the high end the trip generation for the proposed gPfic redevelopment project which is to include a Walgreens, a small 1,000 square foot eating establishment and t2, continuance of a 15 -unit apartment building. The roadways surrounding the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment can `accommodate the proposed traffic. Additional review of traffic impacts of the proposed development will occur durlxthe design review process. s�o ❑ Not applicable. No direct access to a Principal or "'A" Minor ❑ No. Explain: ® Yes. Describe below: Both Lynwood Boulevard (CR 15) and Commerce Boulevard (CR development will need to meet Hennepin County's guidelines1_fttr4 redevelopment of the site will enable the reconfiguration of fife prc oints on one of the roadways. w ❑ Yes. ® No. ® No, not cu ❑ Yes. List e improvem If Yes, served by transit or will not affect transit. � -Minor Expanders in this location. Any future irlg. Access spacing will likely be improved as a a potential reduction in the number of access ig routes, describe changes, and identify proposed /necessary transit facility (e.g. shelters, park & rides, etc) below: If No, explain why not. If Yes, describe below (e_ 3: and van pooling, flexible work hours, mixed land al uses that discourage vehicle trips and promote wking, biking, ridesharing, and transit): May 2011 5 December 6, 2011 Fax: Sarah Smith to distribute to Planning Commissioners And Walgreen's developer/legal staff Re: Mound Advisory Planning Commission meeting 7:00 pm on 12 -6 -11 5.A. Public Hearing — review of comprehensive plan amendment request, etc., possible WALGREENS redevelopment To Planning Commissioners: Please be advised that there is an issue with an EASEMENT between my east property line and the current apartments. Please refer to CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. Preliminary Set Not for Construction plans: 1. As shown on CEI's plan, it appears there is egress onto my property by the current apartments owners. There is an easement I'm very concerned about than needs review by legal counsel. 2. It appears for the remaining apartment building, the parking spaces will not be sufficient for emergency vehicles to navigate. Suggestion: Please consider that the "screening" proposed on the east side of remaining apartment building be moved to the east side of my property line area along the remaining apartment building instead. This may help with the access to both the remaining apartment building and the proposed Walgreens. This would leave my driveway as an independent access to our home at 5709 Lynwood Blvd. Verlon and Beverly Paine 5709 Lynwood Blvd Mound, MN 55364 952.472.0796 -274- C • • U • January 17, 2012 To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members, City of Mound From: Tom Casey, 2854 Cambridge Lane, Mound, MN 55364. Telephone: (952) 472 -1099. Re: January 24, 2012 Agenda - Walgreens' Application to Amend Comprehensive Plan FACTS Walgreens has requested that the Mound City Council amend its 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the most important step to approve its proposal to: 1. Rip down all of the present buildings on the southwest corner of Lynwood Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. (from John's Variety and Pets northward to Lynwood Blvd.); 2. Rip down one 15 -unit apartment building at 5665 Lynwood Blvd., displacing people;* 3. Have the right to rip down a second 15 -unit apartment building at 5701 Lynwood Blvd. to expand its commercial activities in the future, which would displace another people;* 4. Build a large Walgreens store (with a 54 -car parking lot and drive - through window) on the southwest comer of Lynwood Blvd. and Commerce Blvd.; • 5. Abandon its present building in downtown Mound, its present home — and the former home of Thrifty White Pharmacy for decades; and 6. Create another empty building in Mound for an indefinite period of time, similar to the empty Snyders building in Navarre, which Walgreens bought out a few years ago. [ *Note: It is the City of Mound's obligation to determine exactly how many people will be displaced, assuming present occupancy rates, before the City Council votes on this issue.] The process to adopt the City of Mound's 2030 Comprehensive Plan formally began on July 10, 2007 when the City of Mound posted a notice of a "public informational meeting" to be held by the Mound Planning Commission on July 20, 2007. Mound's citizens were asked, "What do the city's residents want Mound to look like in the year 2030 ?" (The Laker, July 14, 2007.) After an effort of over 2-1/2 years — and lots of tax dollars spent — the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council in March, 2010, less than 2 years ago. These are important facts to keep in mind when considering whether the 2030 Comprehensive Plan should amended. LEGAL ISSUE The main legal question is whether or not Walgreens' application to amend the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan satisfies the legal criteria? My conclusion is no, as explained below. • City Planner Rita Trapp's Planning Report, dated November 28, 2011, states on page 34: -275- Tom Casey to Mound City Council January 17, 2012 "... the goals and policies are used in evaluating ideas and proposals • that may result in changes to the Comprehensive Plan ..." [Emphasis added.] It is my assertion, that the Walgreens' proposal is incompatible with the following goals and policies: Incompatibility: Comprehensive Plan - Land Use "GOALS AND POLICIES. As land use decisions of property owners can be every - changing, the plan should be dynamic enough to respond to the needs of the community. This is not to say that the plan should accommodate every request. The goals and polices of the Land Use Plan should be used to ensure that, as request for Comprehensive Plan changes are considered, the community's overall vision is not compromised." [Comp. Plan, page 4.1. Emphasis added.] [Comment: In other words, it is the needs of the community that come first and, thus not every development proposal should be approved. Furthermore, Mound's vision should not be compromised. Mound's Vision is stated in the Comp. Plan, page 3.1: "Located on the western shores of Lake Minnetonka, Mound is a full- service community that recognizes and appreciates its unique setting. Its strong . neighborhoods, quality schools, walkability and lake access make it a desirable place for residents of all ages. In the heart of the community, Downtown is easily accessible with places for people to live, shop, work, and gather. Our commitment to preserving the natural environment ensures everyone can enjoy the community's four lakes and numerous wetlands, varied topography, open spaces and parks." [Emphasis added.] Walgreens' proposal will compromise the Vision of Mound by: (1) making downtown more attractive to cars (e.g. another parking lot and drive - through window) and, consequently, less desirable for pedestrians; and (2) making Mound less desirable for residents by allowing Walgreens to displace people from two 15 -unit residential apartment buildings.] Walgreens' proposal will also violate the following land use goals and policies: "Policies: "... 2. Promote land use pattern changes that are compatible and transitional with existing development patterns." [Comp. Plan, page 4.2, paragraph 2. Emphasis added.] [Comment: Walgreens' proposal is not compatible with existing residential development to the west: either (1) the apartment building; or (2) if the apartment building is torn • Page 2 of 7 -276- Tom Casey to Mound City Council January 17, 2012 • down by Walgreens, then the single - family building to the west of the apartment building. In either event, Walgreens would be a very abrupt change from commercial to residential land uses.] "3. Encourage improvement and development of existin commercial areas to enhance available services, provide employment opportunities and expand the tax base." [Comp. Plan, page 4.2, paragraph 3. Emphasis added.] [Comment: To the contrary, Walgreens proposal is not within existing commercial areas. It would not expand the tax base; it would displace current taxpaying properties.] 4. Support the redevelopment of older business areas through close coordination with the business community and by undertaking public action when feasible, including but not limited to, HRA activities, tax increment financing, and the provisions of public improvements." [Comp. Plan, page 4.2, paragraph 4. Emphasis added.] [Comment: Contrary to this language, Walgreens' proposal does not redevelop an older business area but, instead, displaces residents from up to 30 apartments to expand the commercial district, in spite of so much empty or underutilized developable land in downtown Mound.] is 115. Promote a mix of downtown business including retail, offices, entertainment and services. Maintain the downtown and its periphery as the focus of Mound's commercial activity." [Comp. Plan, page 4.2, paragraph 5. Emphasis added.] [Comment: Walgreens would add nothing to the mix of downtown businesses. Instead, it would displace other businesses and decrease the mix of businesses.] "6. Support the continued operation and enhancement of the community's employment centers but discourage the expansion of these areas into adjacent residential neighborhoods." [Comp. Plan, page 4.2, paragraph 6. Emphasis added.] [Comment: Walgreens would expand its operations and be able to convert two residential apartment buildings into commercial operations.] "... 9. Support the development of mixed use areas with housing, retail, office, entertainment and institutional uses which can take advantage of regional investments in transportation such as roadways, transit and trails." [Comp. Plan, page 4.2, paragraph 9. Emphasis added.] [Comment: Walgreens' proposal has no mixed use elements.] • Page 3 of 7 -277- Tom Casey to Mound City Council January 17, 2012 "FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. The future land use plan, shown in Figure 4.2, • builds on the community's previous planning efforts. The community continues to be focused on maintaining a predominantly single family residential character while encouraging multi - family housing, commercial services, and mixed use areas in downtown, along major corridors and at major nodes." [Comp. Plan, page 4.4.] [Comment: Mound's "Future Land Use" plan (Figure 4.2) guides the two apartment buildings as "High Density Residential" and guides the present commercial buildings — along with the lot behind - as "Pedestrian District." The Comp. Plan defines "Pedestrian District" on page 4.4 as "A mixed use area at the core of downtown. It is an intense downtown area with a mix of retail, office, and attached residential housing uses. Other buildings with a pedestrian orientation include public, multi -unit residential, entertainment, retail commercial and office. Resident development is intended to be medium to high density. The pedestrian district incorporates traditional downtown planning techniques to encourage a higher standard for development. "] Finally, the Comprehensive Plan states on pages 4.6 to 4.7: "The redevelopment of this area [Pedestrian District] is being guided by an effort called `Mound Visions.' Mound Visions began in 1991 when the City began to explore ways to strengthen its downtown business community ..." "The Mound Visions plan establishes five basic themes for redevelopment • P P to ensure a connected fabric: "... Concentrated Development —Downtown development will grow IM, not out. Multi -level buildings with structured parking will house uninterrupted retail on the ground level with office and living above, creating an environment that is walkable, lively and dynamic." [Emphasis added.] [Comment: Again, this language of the Comprehensive Plan is incompatible with Walgreens' proposal] Incompatibility: Comprehensive Plan — Housing "Affordable Housing. A portion of Mound's residents ... will have a critical need for affordable housing over the next 20 years ... The Metropolitan Council has allocated a need of 68 affordable housing units for Mound between now and the year 2020 ..." [Comp. Plan, page 4.13. Emphasis added.] [Comment: Walgreens proposal would allow them to remove 30 affordable housing • Page 4 of 7 -278- Tom Casey to Mound City Council January 17, 2012 • units when Mound needs just the opposite — 68 more affordable housing units.] "Goal. Promote and encourage the provision of life -cycle housing opportunities for all residents, supporting creative multi - family housing while emphasizing the construction and maintenance of high quality single family dwelling units." [Comp. Plan, pages 3.2 and 4.15. Emphasis added.] [Comment: Contrary to this goal, Walgreens would be allowed to remove 30 affordable housing units, just when our economic predicament requires more affordable housing options. To repeat, the Metropolitan Council has stated that Mound needs 68 additional housing units by 2020.1 "Housing Policies: "1. Encourage a mixture of life -cycle housing types to provide for all stages of life while maintaining a predominately single family housing base throughout the city." [Comp. Plan, pages 3.2 and 4.15. Emphasis added.] [Comment: To state again, Walgreens proposal would allow them to remove 30 affordable housing units, when Mound needs just the opposite — 68 more affordable housing units.] • 11... 6. Promote and support the development of new affordable housing units to meet the community's share of the regional affordable housing needs as well as the community's affordable housing goals." [Comp. Plan, pages 3.2 and 4.15. Emphasis added.] [Comment: Again, contrary to this policy, Walgreens would be allowed to remove two affordable 15 -unit apartment buildings, just when our economic predicament requires more housing options. The Met. Council has stated that Mound needs 68 additional affordable housing units by 2020.] "HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM. [Comp. Plan, page 10.61 "As a developed community, Mound's housing implementation program is primarily focused on three priority areas: • Promoting and supporting property owners' capacities to reinvest in and maintain the community's existing housing stock in a safe, sound, and attractive condition; • Optimizing existing opportunities to add new housing types in redevelopment areas, particular in future downtown mixed -use districts, to meet a broader range of lifecycle and affordability needs ..." • Page 5 of 7 -279- Tom Casey to Mound City Council January 17, 2012 [Comment: Contrary to these paragraphs, Walgreens' proposal will not maintain the • community's existing housing stock and will not add housing in downtown mixed use districts.] Incompatibility: Comprehensive Plan — Transportation "Transportation Goal: Ensure the development of a transportation system that provides convenient and effective multi -modal connections within Mound and to adjacent municipalities, the remainder of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and greater Minnesota." [Comp. Plan, page 3.3.] "Transportation Policies: "... 4. Transit /Alternative modes of Transportation — To prevent and reduce congestion on roadways, the City should promote expansion of alternate and/or integrated transportation methods, including transit, park & ride facilities, carpooling, bikin and walking ." [Comp. Plan., page 3.4. Emphasis added.] [Comment: Walgreens proposes a 54 -car parking lot and a drive - through window. Instead of encouraging biking or walking, Walgreens' plan encourages more use of cars to go from one place to another in downtown Mound and elsewhere.] SUMMARY • Walgreens ignores the fact that Mound taxpayers paid big bucks to move out some existing businesses and clear land for future development. Most of this land remains vacant and far too many empty commercial buildings already exist. Walgreens should take advantage of these opportunities, instead of displacing existing businesses and removing up to 30 affordable housing units for Mound's citizens. Mound taxpayers also paid big bucks — and our citizens and City Council worked for over 2 -1/2 years - to complete our 2030 Comprehensive Plan in March, 2010. This plan is our community's plan for what we want Mound to look like in the year 2030. There is no reason to amend the Comp. Plan so soon — and without justification. Walgreens' proposal conflicts with Mound's 2030 Comprehensive Plan in many important ways: 1. Development should be encouraged in existing commercial areas and discouraged to expand in residential areas; 2. Downtown should be a mix of retail, office, entertainment, institutional, and residential uses; 3. "Downtown development will grow up, not out. Multi -level buildings with structured parking will house uninterrupted retail on the ground level with office and living above, creating an environment that is walkable, lively and dynamic." • Page 6 of 7 :1 Tom Casey to Mound City Council January 17, 2012 • 4. Mound will need to maintain its existing housing stock and add 68 more affordable housing units between now and the year 2020. I want to emphasize that I am not against Walgreens. It's just that Walgreens has provided no justification why a viable pharmacy can't exist in the areas REgLently planned and zoned for commercial uses. In fact, Thrifty White Pharmacy did just fine at the present location for a long time — until Walgreens bought them out about 1 year ago. Please vote "NO" on Walgreens' plan to displace current businesses and residents. Thereafter, the City Council will have the opportunity to explore, with public input, other existing commercial land that suits Walgreens' needs — without compromising our community's vision. Please place this letter in the City Council packet for its January 20 meeting and include it as part of the public record. THANK YOU for your kind consideration. • Page 7 of 7 -281- Dear City Council members, Here are some reasons why the current Walgreens proposal should be rejected and a new proposal • requested from you during the City Council meeting of January 24th 2012. 1. Waste of tax Ravers, ' money The Harbor district was bought by tax payers to accommodate new businesses. Currently, no property tax is being paid on it since this is city property. If there is a location where a new business is to settle, it's there: • Empty lot so easy to develop • New tax income if the land is purchased • Easy to fit in a drive through • Ample parking space across the trail • Proximity with the trail 2. Seems backwards to kick out several families and several businesses out of Mound for no gain • Walgreens is already in Mound. • 9 families will have to move out of our city • 2 major vibrant businesses will also have to relocate (if they can, and potentially out of Mound) 3. Architectural issues • The building is not appealing and neither fits into the Vision for Mound, nor with the City Manager's view of a Lanesboro feel. A Planning Commissioner who is also an architect agrees on that. Imagine the building as it is proposed and ask yourself: a. If a woman: would I want to hang around in downtown Mound, or go to a more charming place (Excelsior for instance)? b. If a man: would I tell my wife: "Hey Honey, let us hang out in downtown Mound. The architecture is so quaint and different from all other suburbs." 4. Need for a definite plan from Se=ers developement Some would like to brush all concerns off saying that Sempers development is only a draft: [This is a visual at "10,000 feet" a "Big Picture" an "Overview ". It is NOT the Final set of plans J Would you sign a contract for a house remodeling with a company that would only provide you with a vague idea of what the final result would be? 5. Total inadequacy with the Vision For Mound Comvrehensive plan (voted March 2010) Dissected by George Matthew Linkert, [Comprehensive Plan #1 • Urban form - Downtown will have an urban environment that celebrates the pedestrian and accommodates the automobile. Human -scale street, sidewalk, and parking spaces will be created to be functional, interesting, dynamic and lasting. [George Matthew Linkert • - NW Main entrance is about as far as one can get from True Value, Mound Market and the trail. The pedestrian is required to walk 60' at least! Trail users will have to walk across drive thru and parking lot.] [Comprehensive Plan #2 Concentrated Development - Downtown development will grow-up not out. Multi -level building with structured parking will house uninterrupted retail on the ground level with office and living above, creating an environment that is walkable, lively and dynamic. [George Matthew Linkert - Clearly the Walgreens proposal does none of this. Single level building means no space for upper level offices or retail. Drive thru lane severely disrupts sidewalk traffic on Commerce. I think it's clear that any development on this corner demands better parking arrangements, including some of what Walgreens is proposing. But better street parking should also be discussed.] [Johann Chemin- Danielson - It is possible to have mixed -use. If apartments are on top: • Those can be rented (instead of sold) • There will be more people willing to rent than buy in this economy. • More revenue for the city (more tax payers) • More revenue for Walgreens. Also Walgreens is already planning on being landlords (since one building will remain, so no big changes in the plan.] • [Comprehensive Plan #3 Downtown will be a multi- faceted destination including retail, office, housing and civic uses woven into the context of transit, recreation and environmental integrity. [George Matthew Linkert - Fortunately Walgreens already fulfills this point in its current location! The proposal unfortunately takes away from the bigger picture here, in the loss of some retail spaces.] [Comprehensive Plan #4 Linkages - Pedestrian, bike., boat and bus linkages will be crated or strengthened within downtown and between downtown and surrounding neighborhoods and the broader region. [George Matthew Linkert - The proposal adds little to this point except offer one tiny 1000 sq ft building next to the trail as a destination for trail users and a bike rack. Unfortunately the proposal will interrupt pedestrians and add auto traffic to on Commerce.] [Comprehensive Plan #5 Place Appropriate - Downtown is situated in a rich and beautiful natural environment. Future development will be creatively integrated with it to give people a holistic appreciation of the downtown and improve the integrity of ecological systems. [George Matthew Linkert - This seems very subjective and hard to measure, but I will say this. The proposed Walgreens fails to invite • its customers to seek other opportunities downtown. It puts barriers up to any other downtown -283- destination a resident of Mound might like to explore. Also, we already have a Walgreens on this intersection, so the proposal seems redundant... at best.] [Johann Chemin - Danielson • - Apart from the small building by the trail, there is no integration with the natural environment: • More asphalt • Loss of greenery from the trail (canopy when you enter Mound from the west) -> loss of bike appeal • The current design is not an invitation for people to visit downtown Mound. • Potential hazard (blind spot) due to the conflict of the drive - through, the trail and the small retail building by the trail.] 6. Too much parking space requested (54 cars) • Creates more parking in a city already saturated with parking (see picture below) • 54-car parking is more than twice the number of families visiting Jubilee at any time -284- • • • • It would become a complete drive - through city, not one where you want to stay and enjoy. Thanks for your attention. Sincerely, Johann Chemin- Danielson 6039 Beachwood Road Mound, MN 952 - 472 -6493 ; 14%r iL December 15, 2011 John Kohler, AIA Semper Development 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Mr. Kohler, 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD • MOUND, MN 55364 -1687 PH: (952) 472 -0600 FAX! (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofffiound.com This letter is in regard to the comprehensive plan amendment request(s) that was received from Semper Development on October 25, 2011 related to certain parcels on Commerce and Lynwood Boulevards in Mound, MN that expires on or around December 23, 2011. As provided by Minnesota Statutes 15.99, please be advised that the City of Mound is executing an extension(s) for an additional (60) days related to the City's timelines for approval or denial of the comprehensive plan amendment request(s). The purpose for the extension is to allow • for adequate time to forward the request(s) on to the City Council for preliminary action, including but not limited to, the preparation of any and /or all reports and document(s) associated with the proposed request(s) following the Planning Commission public hearing that was held on Tuesday, December 6, 2011 as well as to allow for additional time to formally submit the comprehensive plan request(s) to the Metropolitan Council for final action. The City's extension for action on the comprehensive plan amendment request(s) will expire on or around February 21, 2012. if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (952) 472 -0604 or by email at sarahsmith citvof nound.com. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Sincere Sarah I Smith Community Development Director C: Peter Goshgarian, Lakestone Management LLP J. Michael Noonan, HCRRA • 19 prk9ed - —ydedpqW PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ®8 • • TO: Mound Planning Commission, Council and Staff FROM: Rita Trapp, HKGi Consultant Planner DATE: November 28, 2011 MEETING DATE: December 6, 2011 APPLICANTS: Semper Development REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CASE NUMBERS: 11 -10 LOCATION: Southwest corner of Lynwood Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard OVERVIEW. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment has been requested for the area to the southwest of the intersection of Lynwood Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard. The amendment is being sought to facilitate the redevelopment of a portion of the site into a Walgreens retail drug store and a 1,000 square foot small freestanding retail establishment. The redevelopment will also involve property transfers to modify the amount of right -of -way around the Dakota Rail Regional Trail located immediately south of the proposed redevelopment areas and behind the Lynwood Boulevard apartment parcels. These property transfers also require a Comprehensive Plan change. A summary of the properties involved and the requested changes is provided below: PID Number Property Address Acres Current Comp Plan Proposed Comp Plan 14- 117 -24 -34 -0050 Address 0.06* Park Pedestrian Mixed -Use Unassigned District 14- 117 -24-44 -0033 5631 Lynwood 0.31 High Density Residential Pedestrian Mixed -Use Blvd District 14- 117 -24-44 -0034 5665 Lynwood 0.34 High Density Residential Pedestrian Mixed -Use Blvd District 14- 117 -2444 -0035 5701 Lynwood 0.39 High Density Residential Pedestrian Mixed -Use Blvd District 14- 117 -24 -44 -0064 2281 Commerce 0.06* Pedestrian Mixed -Use Park 1 Blvd District *This reflects the approximate portion of the parcel being reguided. Both parcels are larger in size. PUBLIC HEARING. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The required notification procedures in accordance with MSS 462.355 have been satisfied. The notice of the public hearing was also mailed to property owners within 350 FT, according to Hennepin County tax records, on November 23, 2011 and posted on the City Hall bulletin board on November 22, 2011. 123 No -287Jd Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 p. 2 #11 -10 Downtown Mound Lynwood/Commerce Blvd CPAmendment November 28, 2011 REVIEW PROCESS. Date of completeness for the amendment request is October 25, 2011. State Statute 15.99 requires approval and/or denial of land use applications within 60 days unless the City executes an extension or the applicant provides a written extension. The review process for a comprehensive plan amendment extends beyond the Planning Commission and City Council to include the Metropolitan Council. Generally, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment also requires a 60 -day review and comment period for adjacent governmental units and affected school districts. However, the Metropolitan Council has determined that comprehensive plan amendments which meet the following criteria are not required to include this 60 -day review: 1) An amendment which involves a site of 40 acres or less, which is the case for this request. 2) An amendment such as this one which does not change the community's growth forecasts for 2010 -2030 or TAZ allocations. 3) An amendment which involves an area that is located such that no adjacent governmental unit falls within the City of Mound's defined distance of 350 feet for public hearing notice. • The review of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment focuses on evaluating whether the proposed land use achieves the community's vision and goals for the area. It also should be based on whether the local and regional transportation and utility infrastructure can accommodate the • proposed change. While comments on the proposed concept are encouraged to assist the developer in their design development, evaluation of specific project details will be forthcoming in future land use applications. BACKGROUND. The applicant, Semper Development, has submitted a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the properties near the southwest corner of Lynwood Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard. The applicant is seeking to redevelop the properties into a Walgreens and an approximately 1,000 square foot freestanding retail establishment. The redevelopment will involve the removal of the existing buildings along Commerce Boulevard, as well as one of the two 15 -unit apartment buildings on Lynwood Boulevard. Staff has received consent from the apartment building property owner for the reguiding of his parcels. Using the guidelines from the Mound Environmental Appearance Model, the redevelopment is proposed to include a 15,400 square foot Walgreens store at the corner of Lynwood and Commerce Boulevards with parking behind. A small, approximately 1,000 square foot commercial building is proposed south of the Walgreens along Commerce Boulevard adjacent to the Dakota Rail Regional Trail. This establishment is proposed to be platted as a separate parcel for use as a small retail establishment to serve the trail, such as a cafe or bistro. 123 Nc. 2887d Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 p. 3 #11 -10 Downtown Mound Lynwood /Commerce Blvd CP Amendment • November 28, 2011 As shown on the included preliminary concept plan, the main entrance of the Walgreens is proposed to be located on the northwest corner of the building to accommodate both pedestrian and automobile users. There is a small pick -up window proposed on the south side of the building. The orientation of the building was influenced by both the City's design standards and the access spacing desired by Hennepin County. A preliminary elevation has been included for illustrative purposes. The proposed redevelopment also provides an opportunity for the right -of -way around the Dakota Regional Rail Trail to be addressed. Currently the right -of -way narrows adjacent to Commerce Boulevard. The redevelopment of this area will enable an approximately 0.06 acre property transfer between the applicant and the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCCRA) to increase the amount of right -of -way for the trail along Commerce. The proposed property transfers necessitate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. ANALYSIS. The applicant has requested the reguiding of approximately 1.10 acres to Pedestrian District and 0.06 acres area to Park. In determining whether the proposed land use change is appropriate, consideration should be given as to whether the change is in keeping with the vision for the greater community. In Chapter Three of the Comprehensive Plan, Mound's is Vision is described as follows: Located on the western shores of Lake Minnetonka, Mound is a full- service community that recognizes and appreciates its unique setting. Its strong neighborhoods, quality schools, walkability and lake access make it a desirable place for residents of all ages. In the heart of the community, downtown is easily accessible with places for people to live, shop, work and gather. Our commitment to preserving the natural environment ensures everyone can enjoy the community s four lakes and numerous wetlands, varied topography, open spaces and parks. Chapter Three of the Comprehensive Plan also outlines a set of goals and policies for the areas of land use, housing, parks, open space and recreation and transportation. In addition to serving as the basis for the creation of the Comprehensive Plan, the goals and policies are to be used in evaluating ideas and proposals that may result in changes to the Comprehensive Plan. To assist in the review of the proposed land use change, the following five land use policies were identified as being relevant to the evaluation: 1. Promote land use pattern changes that are compatible and transitional with existing development patterns. 2. Encourage improvement and redevelopment of existing commercial areas to enhance available services, provide employment opportunities and expand the tax base. • 123 Nc289-rd Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 p. 4 #11 -10 Downtown Mound Lynwood /Commerce Blvd CP Amendment • November 28, 2011 3. Support the redevelopment of older business areas through close coordination with the business community and by undertaking public action when feasible, including but not limited to, HRA activities, tax increment financing, and the provision of public improvements. 4. Promote a mix of downtown businesses including retail, offices, entertainment and services. Maintain the downtown and its periphery as the focus of Mound's commercial activity. 5. Support the development of mixed use areas with housing, retail, office, entertainment and institutional uses which can take advantage of regional investments in transportation, such as major roadways, transit and trails. Generally Staff believes the proposed land use changes are appropriate. in addition to reviewing the proposed change for potential land use implications, Staff did review potential impacts to utility and infrastructure systems. The attached Comprehensive Plan Submittal Form and related maps, which are required by the Metropolitan Council, outlines the evaluation of the proposed land use change. Staff s analysis found that the proposed change does not have a significant impact on public utilities and infrastructure. The most notable change can be found in the potential traffic generation rates identified in question 13. For this site, the estimated average daily trips for the current land use plan are 161, while the trips for the • proposed land use plan would be 341. Staff believes this increase can be accommodated and does not require changes in the TAZ Analysis from the Comprehensive Plan. AFFECTED AGENCY REVIEW. Copies of the request were forwarded to involved agencies for review and comment. The applicant has also been in contact with a number of affected agencies in regards to this application. Hennepin County Transportation has assisted in determining the location of the proposed accesses on Lynwood Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard. Discussions with the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCCRA) led to the proposed land swap that is being included with this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Staff has received confirmation from Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) of their consent for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request for the proposed land exchange areas with Semper Development. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW. Copies of the request were forwarded to all City departments for review and comment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend conditional approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment subject to the following: 1. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request. • 123 Na.. 2.9.0.-,d Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 P. 5 #11 -10 Downtown Mound Lynwood /Commerce Blvd CPAmendment . November 28, 2011 2. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall be rescinded if a rezoning, preliminary plat and related land use applications are not applied for within a year of the approval date. 3. No future approval of any rezoning or land use application is included as part of this action. 4. No future approval of any development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this action. 5. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall not become effective until after it is approved by the Metropolitan Council. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW. It is anticipated that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, including the recommendation from the December 6, 2011, Planning Commission meeting, will be presented at an upcoming City Council meeting to be held at a meeting in January. At this time, possible dates are Tuesday, January 10, 2012 or Tuesday, January 24, 2012. However, these dates are tentative and therefore subject to change. OVERVIEW OF FUTURE REQUESTS. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment is the first of many steps needed in order for the proposed redevelopment to occur. The properties involved in the proposed redevelopment and in the property transfer with HCCRA will need to be rezoned. A preliminary and final plat will be needed to reconfigure the lots as appropriate to create a site for • Walgreens and the approximate 1,000 square foot freestanding retail establishment along the trail. Site layout and design will be addressed through a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development. There is a public alley behind the Commerce Boulevard properties that will need to be vacated. Review and approval for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will also be needed. Applications have not been submitted yet for any of these future actions. • 123 No,--291--d Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 SEMPER DEVELOPMENT October 25, 2011 Sarah J. Smith Community Development Director City of Mound Minnesota 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan — Southwest Corner of Commerce and Lynwood. Dear Sarah, Please accept this letter as our request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for the following lots and additional, adjacent, Hennepin County Rail Road property as noted on the attached existing land survey. We would like to amend the classifications for these properties from R3 to Pedestrian District. These properties are described as Parcels A, B, and C on the attached ALTA survey in addition to any property that may be added to this project from the adjacent Hennepin County Rail Road property. The exact description of the Rail Road Property is to be determined at a later time. It would include the property between Parcels A and C and the north side of the existing Paved Bicycle Trail to the south. Thank you for your help on this request. Please call me with any questions or requests for additional information. 'y� Sincerely, John Kohler, AIA Minnesota Colorado 80 South Eighth Strmr _292_ 8000 Fast Prentice Avenue IDS Center, Suite 1275 Suite C-3 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 p. 612.332.1500 / f. 612.332.2428 p. 303.825.7800 1 f. 303.825.7801 0 • • l • 1 S • u rp o`.'o�'0000 zz 8 �w 0 0 0000 0_ B �� N of oO a Z I^ W vgvgvvvvSF �Z �N sg W7 2 tni W Z` L�L W p u rO � �,�' {@„ YoN � Y� G i aaev_a_vvv Oa o TW'OI II z YA is 5 � ¢oK AIO coo Z �n� °ms$ U IU U� S C 6 1 \:.i Sss��6�d # + LJ yy Ph ai5 let g 16 Elf SAGE_ i� %F g °f� sit a °Ib i €: e BNi� 6 06� iSEe a 5 :t fill, z Z ,113111 LL Y u V! tat! Z `ds 3y ��RSyi C 4 z S i 6 2 g� 1yyy�iS Qt jig � i;J'$A a 5 :t fill, z Z ,113111 LL Y u V! tat! Z `ds 3y ��RSyi C 4 z S i 6 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT — SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COMMERCE AND LYNWOOD, MOUND, MN. We are proposing to redevelop the southwest corner of Commerce and Lynwood. Our proposal is for a new retail /commercial development with a total square foot area of approximately 15, 400 square feet. Our development is anchored by a new Walgreens Pharmacy to be located on the hard corner and a possible second building of approximately 1,000 square feet located on Commerce Boulevard adjacent to the existing trail system. Vehicle access to the site would come from both Commerce and Lynwood. The access driveways would be located as far away from the intersection as practical. Our concept site plan provides parking for 54 cars on site. The present commercial structures have minimal on site parking. The Walgreens Pharmacy will have a pick -up window for the pharmacy. This window as well as the service door will be located on the south side of the proposed building. The building entry is located in the northwest corner of the building in a location that serves both the pedestrian and automobile customers. A bike rack will also be provided near the front entry for bicycle riders and trail users. Bicycle parking will also be provided adjacent to the smaller building located adjacent to the bike trail to encourage riders to visit this development and adjacent retailers. • The proposed time line for this project is based upon approval of the entitlement phase of • the development in February or March of this year and a construction start in the spring. The Walgreens portion of the construction including all of the parking areas and landscaping would be completed late in 2012 or early in 2013. A preliminary Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Exterior Elevation sheet have been attached to this project description. These plans and elevations will be further developed as the project moves ahead and additional reviews take place. • -294- 0 0 0 VA193mgWOMM9 SNMN"M lsojqnossv ■ §� ' , � ■�h |�■ | |� � U § 77l -y7 AAO ± .*S.ftrw . \; }�j �f \ ® \ �� }� ��| do. _L 1! 4Z -29-5- .aD-tq'u313w H1K nw°]r vao67Wl1r'm+1101r ��w WIr- CY(n'U M! 3111E Y 41i,QM t3l1I trrt 'anm t3•anwoo lttt mw -ou/ 'Semoossy sri�aoivnn 1l.1° iQ.780N1', �•.�Q_ iFi 3�S4i i C "' i !� • • f�E� � �g t` �• �q�8 • t Ot 8 ! 1 -1. 1. Ill It a a� I� ittt fill [ CCC ss O E M 00 ITII - - --- �+ -- m sn men • a, eac4v� -� i ro y al j - In l -------- -- - - - -- ' I F• c a a !y -41 -- Ij V,l �R 4z Vs ° a j i -296- • • J � a -296- • • tmetropolitan Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment Submittal Form Comprehensive Plan Amendment Submittal Form complete the following nformation. When completing this form electronically, fields in grey need your input. Please 9 • Use the Tab key to quickly navigate to each field. Question 37 on the last page of this form is for MUSA Expansions or Changes only and does not contain grey fields, but is directly editable. The form for Question 37 is also available in Excel format. http://www.metrocouncii.ora/planning/assistance/resources.htm This form is available in electronic format on the Metropolitan Council's website: http / /www metrocouncil org /planning /assistance /resources,htm. AMENDMENT NAME Downtown Mound Lynwood/Commerce Blvd Amendment Local governmental unit: Contact name: of Mound Sarah Smith Contact title: Community Development Director _ Address: 5341 Maywood Road City, State, Zip: Telephone number: FAX number: Email address: Date of preparation: Mound, MN 55364 952 -472 -0604 952- 472 -0620 — sarahsmith @cityofn November 28, 2011 Three changes: 1) change from High Density Residential to Pedestrian District. 2) Change ® 2a. Land use change: from Park to Pedestrian District 3) Change from Pedestrian District to Park ❑ 2b. MUSA expansion or change: ❑ 2c. Text Change: ❑ 2d. Other: Affected area, in acres: 1.16 Number of housing units in CPA area, if any: 30 units 0 .; May 2011 • • At Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment Submittal Form SECTION 1: PROCESS OVERVIEW http�[L_vM rnCtrocouiIcil. orgJ�lanni_n_g(LPH!LPHSec`L.pclf Action Date of Action ® Acted upon by the planning commission. ® Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review December 6, 2011 (pending) January 10, 2012 (pending) Notification of adjacent governmental units and affected school districts were not needed as the comprehensive plan amendment is minor in nature. The combined size of all affected property is 1.16. The amendment will not make a significant change to the City's forecasts or Metropolitan Council system components. The parcels are located more than 0.5 miles from the nearest adjacent governmental unit, the City of Minnetrista. The City only requires public notirce of parcels which are within 350 feet of the subject parcels. ® The Council's review(s) did not identify any issues or conditions. ❑ The Council's review(s) identified the following issues /conditions: :x�uerco�eli std +� _ ® No, none required. ❑ Yes. Indicate the type of review and approximate date of completion. If completed, include a summary of the findings below: May 2011 -299- Pq It Metropolitan Couneil Comprehensive Plan Amendment Submittal Form • SECTION 2: FORECASTS http,1jwy4w rTiet_roc�u_n_cii__org(�Ian in.g[LPH1�PHSect_Z,��df ® No, no change in community -level forecasts. This plan amendment enables development that is already assumed in current, approved forecasts. ❑ Yes. Identify the net changes to community-level forecasts in the table below: Population Households Employment SECTION 3: LAND USE httG lNww.metrocou0— .orc 1annin� /_Lf?H[LP_H_Sect3 .j?df .e j.° 1 9 stzpp * �k ��F`3c9 v'�.ru�s'€'M+ i�.� A _ p e ;• �� P�..a ,'fir a .,ems ® No wetlands on the site. ❑ No, no impacts to wetlands located on the site. ❑ Yes. Describe the type of wetland(s), potential impacts, and mitigation plans below: ❑ Not applicable. No land use changes proposed. May 2011 3 • C7 tMetropoUt811 Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment Submittal Form ** Amendment acres from the municipality's response to Question #10 above. ® No. Not a community with CA / MNRRA boundaries or project site is not within CA / MNRRA boundaries. ❑ Yes. Describe below how Critical Area guidelines and MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan policies are being addressed with this amendment. SECTION 4: TRANSPORTATION htt) www.rietrocouncil.or tannin LPH/ -. HSect4.�i f 1 Estimated average daily traffic 161 341 Estimated peak hour traffic 15 AM /17 PM 48 AM/39 PM -301- May 2011 4 Access I ❑ Not applicable. No direct access to a Principal or "A" Minor Arterial. ❑ No. Explain: ® Yes. Describe below: Both Lynwood Boulevard (CR 15) and Commerce Boulevard (CR 110) are A -Minor Expanders in this location. Any future development will need to meet Hennepin County's guidelines for access spacing. Access spacing will likely be improved as a redevelopment of the site will enable the reconfiguration of the property and a potential reduction in the number of access ❑ Yes. ® No. If Yes, explain below: ;;ansit and Lather :Modes of Transportation pop f�iy t Y'a �'�• ?�'_$ i.0 }h3 't t:y�.k „k, ^,b- fix- Aa �k ti' r 'i �3' 1 }t %"�v �.g d,. }..SA - yy,�ft.:� 3. "i �, b � � t s ,..� � ; w ? f j t` WS a J � ,, .,hf ,S 41p t,"yi ". °kx ab�. A.,�"R. ,i.. �+,�_4 "� X ;k� ��C f o 4.? ". R :s2 J t is �v sra ® No, not currently served by transit or will not affect transit. ❑ Yes. List existing routes, describe changes, and identify proposed /necessary transit facility improvements (e.g. shelters, park & rides, etc) below: ® Yes. ❑ No. If No, explain why not. If Yes, describe below (e.g. car and van pooling, flexible work hours, mixed land uses that discourage vehicle trips and promote walking, biking, ridesharing, and transit): -302- May 2011 Z Not applicable. Site is not within airport compatibility area or search area. ❑ No. The site is within airport compatibility area or search area, but no impacts. Explain below: ❑ Yes. The CPA site is within an airport compatibility area or search area, and experiences off - airport impacts related to the following: • ❑ Aircraft Noise. Describe whether the community has adopted land use compatibility guidelines, including preventive and corrective noise abatement and /or mitigation measures being applied. ❑ Airport Safety Zoning. Indicate whether the community participates on a joint airport/community zoning board, has an approved airport zoning ordinance, and how those requirements relate to the proposal. ❑ Airport Infrastructure. Describe how the proposal affects or is affected by the provision of services or facilities to the airport (e.g. roads, utilities, police /fire, etc.). ❑ Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) • ❑ Privately Owned / Community Treatment System ❑ Local / Municipal Owned Wastewater Treatment Plant ® Regional Wastewater Treatment -303- May 2011 6 4t Met.ropoUtan Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment Submittal Form mgd = million gallons per day ® Yes. ❑ No. Explain response below: The local wastewater system has the ability to accommodate the proposed land uses. The amendment will not make a significant change to wastewater flows. ® Yes. ❑ No. Explain response below: In 2007 the City adopted an Inflow/Infiltration Reduction and Life Station Reconstruction Plan which includes a 10 -year impelmentation plan with sewer pipe lining and lift station replacement. All of Mound's wastewater is treated at the Metropolitan Council Environmental Service's Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant. The proposed amendment is not anticipated to significantly change the volume of wastewater flow out of the communitv so no flows will need to be diverted. ❑ Yes. Enclose a copy of the inter - community agreement with the amendment submittal. ® No. Check one of the following and describe: ❑ Runoff will not receive treatment. Describe below: -304- May 2011 41� Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment Submittal Form • ❑ Runoff will be treated off -site. Identify off -site treatment facility below: ® Yes. Describe type and level of on -site pollutant removal treatment/mitigation plans below: All future development will need to follow the regulations and best management practices of the City's Grading, Soil Erosion, Sedimentation Control and Stormwater Management regulations and Local Surfce Management Plan. Approvals may also be needed from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. C, ® Yes. Year adopted: 2010 ❑ No. Explain below: ® Yes. Year adopted: 2002 ❑ No. Explain below: ® Yes. Year adopted: 2007 ❑ No. ❑ Yes. Provide the water supply plan amendment as an attachment to describe necessary facilities improvements or changes. ® No increase or decrease in projected water use from the water supply plan. ® Yes. ❑ No. •If Yes, indicate the name of the regional park, reserve, or trail and describe potential impacts and mitigations plans below: KI�11 May 2011 8 It MC Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment Submittal Form The Dakota Rail Regional Trail is located immediately south of the amendment area. A 0.12 acre portion of the amendment involves the right -of -way for the trail itself. In an effort to increase the amount of right -of -way around the trail immediately adjacent to Commerce Boulevard, Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCCRA) has indicated that a 0.06 acre • property transfer could occur which would take property located to the west to be transferred to the property owner in exchange for a portion of property adjacent to Commerce Boulevard. This property exchange will provide a more consistent right- of -wav width along the trail, thereby supporting the long -term use of the trail corridor. ® Yes. Year adopted: 2010 ❑ No. -306- • • May 2011 9 • • ItMetropoRtan Council 'L Comprehensive Plan Amendment Submittal Form SECTION 7: IMPLEMENTATION htW-_/1w_AY—.rmetroc until_._ gig/pamn.ni /LPH/L11HScct7_pdf ® Yes. ❑ No. If Yes, describe proposed changes and timeline for making those changes below: Rezoning will need to occur for most of the properties included in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The apartment building located on 5701 Lynwood Blvd is intended to stay so it is intended to remained zoned High Density Residential (HDR). The 5665 and 5631 Lynwood Blvd parcels are part of the proposed redevelopment so they will be rezoned to Pedestrian Planned Unit Development District (PED -PUD). Similarly the portion of the existing Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority ( HCCRA) involved in the property transfer will be rezoned PED -PUD. The portion of the 2281 Commerce Blvd parcel to be transferred to the HCCRA will become right- of- way.The rezoning process will commence if and when a ® Yes. ❑ No. If Yes, identify applicable ordinances below: Article VII of the Zoning Ordinance contains wetland protection provisions. Article VII of the Zoning Ordinance contains the City's Shoreland Protection regulations, including bluffs. The tress preservation regulations are in Section 129 -317 of the Zoning Ordinance. DON'T FORGET! - --- a Curr�►t 4" El Prised . 13 cover ( CCS } -307- May 2011 10 F tn 41 0 0 Ul CL 0 4(IL) irn o o U) 10 L U 0 0 o LA U Z "E 0 ,0— U 0 O .,D,o �.2 U > Cr 0 L- 0 4-r 41 0 (U E CL 111 c0 0 (V (V 01 0 > M My E th E 0 u o0 0 th J* 2 1-4 I-f Tq kA ol u v C C au 4W yj u •go. IL E 16 0 :p c o FA tn 41 0 0 Ul CL 0 4(IL) irn o o U) 10 L U 0 0 o LA U Z "E 0 ,0— U 0 O .,D,o �.2 U > Cr 0 L- 0 4-r 41 0 (U E CL 111 c0 0 (V (V 01 0 > M My E th E 0 u o0 0 th J* 2 1-4 I-f Tq kA c O m v O J v as 'o L IL t s c a _ 3 c 3 c c N i co J W N a 0 a a� L L L I C Z f C t U L R i [I Z C cC G i 5 C C Z C a) N C J .O N N O CL O L i C i t W N N W } Q T� t Q Q C V L • G 1 k a) V) c cc J C N .X W C 4 t t 4 4 C R Q 7 Le L R Q u t c c c c } c 'c c 10 I• 10 00 :DZ o 0:5 Z LLJ r L' yq Lw rf r i ( ^iM'lhtin 1 :.r W Z W >- � y ii R V) Q Z 1.1 $4 w 0 < (A V) } F- as ` w ci p.]7w iii y 1� i HI, 0 j ': f y31t aajj T gg i w � sett r..IV Z v � Jr Z s. s Y 3 I 3 _ i..�;�.a; � 1111 c Y ' W C z G 1 ssij 3f at t 1 C p Z 0 F- S ME Ar fi- tk f s r v a 1 i J � "' -315- ' WIZ Z Z Z w a D V)V,Jw C9 w�N i €t r w— LL € pw ! i / as U 1 s€ a Z LLjLLJ w:2LLJ F- N 5 } F1 (� k. WIT Z. Un J r W y z < .:L 1 U, P l t-- d .,...ca'.' 1 -- t` j ryls ryi` AL - L �4 n G n 1 ,l __ } O > loll, -316- 01 01 •I • NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE CITY OF MOUND NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:00 PM, or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, December 6, 2011, to hold a public hearing to consider a request from Semper Development for amendments to the Mound Comprehensive Plan for the following properties: PID Number Property Address Acres Current Comp Plan Proposed Comp Plan 14- 117 -24 -34 -0050 Address Unassigned 9.35* Park Pedestrian Mixed -Use District 14 -117 -24-44 -0033 5631 Lynwood Blvd 0.31 High Density Residential Pedestrian Mixed -Use District 14- 117 -24-44 -0034 5665 Lynwood Blvd 0.34 High Density Residential Pedestrian Mixed -Use District 14- 117 -24-44 -0035 5701 Lynwood Blvd 0.39 High Density Residential Pedestrian Mixed -Use District 14- 117 -24-44 -0064 2281 Commerce Blvd 0.13* Pedestrian Mixed -Use District Park *The proposed amendment only involves a portion of the total site. The requested plan amendments are related to a possible Walgreens redevelopment project at the corner of Commerce and Lynwood Boulevards which involves some of the • above - mentioned parcels. • Information regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments is available to the public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting By: Jill Norlander Planning and Building Inspections Published in the Laker on November 26, 2011 -317- MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 10, 2012 • The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 10, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers of city hall. Members present: Mayor Mark Hanus; Councilmembers Ray Salazar and Heidi Gesch Members absent: Councilmembers Kelli Gillispie and Dave Osmek Others present: City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Bonnie Ritter, Community Development Director Sarah Smith, Public Works Director Carlton Moore, Assistant City Engineer Sheila Krohse, City Planner Rita Trapp, Clint Bucher, Joseph Nee, Greg LaVere, Michael Wood, Kevin Babler, Ken Perbix, Phlip Baumel, Wayne Davis, Blaze Fugina, Ben Bunn, Vallory Schoenecker, Calle Peterson 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 it 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 Gesch, seconded by Salazar to approve the agenda. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4. Consent agenda Hanus requested the removal of Items 4B and 4Q for discussion. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Salazar to approve the consent agenda as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. A. Approve minutes of December 13, 2011 regular meeting B. (removed) C. RESOLUTION NO. 12 -01: RESOLUTION APPOINTING DAVID OSMEK AS ACTING MAYOR FOR 2012 D. RESOLUTION NO. 12 -02: RESOLUTION APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBERS AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES E. RESOLUTION NO. 12 -03: RESOLUTION APPOINTING FINANCE DIRECTOR CATHERINE PAUSCHE AS ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 2012 F. RESOLUTION NO. 12 -04: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER AS THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 2012 G. RESOLUTION NO. 12-06: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY CLERK H. RESOLUTION NO. 12 -06: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY TREASURERIFINANCE DIRECTOR -318- Mound City Council Minutes — January 10, 2012 I. RESOLUTION NO. 12 -07: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES • FOR 2012 J. RESOLUTION NO. 12 -08: RESOLUTION APPIONTING PUBLIC WORKS SUPERINTENDENT JIM FACKLER AS ASSISTANT WEED INSPECTOR FOR 2012 K. Action approving request for commercial kennel permit by Mound Police Department L. RESOLUTION NO. 12-09: RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING ELECTRONIC PROPRIETARY GEOGRPHICAL DIGITIZED DATA BASE (EPDB) M. RESOLUTION NO. 12 -10: RESOLUTION MAKING A SELECTION NOT TO WAIVE THE STATUTORY TORT LIMITS FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE PURPOSES N. Confirm Open Book meeting by Hennepin County Assessors for May 2, 2012 from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. at City Hall O. Approve Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo — Knights of Columbus for 1/14/12, 3/31/12, and 11/17/12. P. RESOLUTION NO. 12-11: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE 2012 CITY OF MOUND PAY EQUITY REPORT Q. (removed) R. Approve Commission appointments (all three -year terms): A. Parks and Open Space Commission: Todd Peterson and Derek Goddard B. Docks & Commons Commission: Rodney Beystrom and Jim Funk C. Planning Commission: Jeff Bergquist, Kelvin Retterath, and Cynthia Penner 4B. Approve Payment of claims Hanus indicated that he requested that this be removed from the consent agenda because he has a claim included for dues for the Mayors' Association. • MOTION by Salazar, seconded by Gesch to approve payment of claims in the amount of $696,651.48. The following voted in favor: Salazar and Gesch. The following voted against: None. Hanus abstained from voting. Motion carried. 40. Subdivision Exemption and Variances for properties at 4839 and 4851 Shoreline Drive Hanus stated that he has suggested amendments for the resolution presented, and would also like to direct staff to offer language that would clean up the grey area in our present code regarding subdivision exemptions with variances. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Gesch to adopt the subdivision exemption resolution as amended, and to adopt the variance resolutions for 4839 and 4851 Shoreline Drive as presented. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 12 -12: RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR PROPERTIES AT 4839 AND 4851 SHORELINE DRIVE RESOLUTION NO. 12 -13: RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FOR 4839 SHORELINE DRIVE RESOLUTION NO. 12 -14: RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE FOR 4851 SHORELINE DRIVE . 5. Comments and suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the agenda. -319- Mound City Council Minutes — January 10, 2012 Clint Bucher, representing the V.F.W. expressed gratitude to the City for allowing them to hold their meetings at the Mound Depot. He stated that it's the Post's 110th anniversary and they are • the second oldest post in the Nation. The Post obtained a flag from Congressman Eric Paulsen that flew over the capitol, and would like to give it to the City to hang in the Mound Depot. Kandis Hanson referred him to Public Works Superintendent Jim Fackler in regards to where the flag will be placed. 6. Public Hearing - 2012 Lanadon Lane Cul-de -sac Improvement Project Assistant City Engineer Sheila Krohse reviewed the engineer's report on the proposed project, along with the estimates on construction costs and proposed assessments. During the 2004 street project, Langdon Lane was improved, but the cul -de -sac was not completed. Instead two driveways were installed to accommodate lots 8 and 6, at the request of the property owners at that time. It is also being proposed at this time to relocate the storm sewer to the north end of Lot 8. Mayor Hanus opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Michael Wood, 2270 Langdon Lane, stated that he owns two of the three lots on the proposed assessment roll, and stated that the cul -de -sac had been a point of discussion for some time. He purchased the lots in 2009 and constructed a home on the lot with a driveway, and when he asked about where he would put the driveway on the other lot and if it would be tied in with the existing street or there would be a cul -de -sac in the future, he was told that it was a point of discussion but no decisions had been made at that time. He never stated that he wanted a cul- de -sac, but just inquired on the topic. He stated that what is there is relatively new pavement • and suggested waiting until the next street project for the whole area instead of doing it now. Hanus stated that the benefit to do it now is because the street doesn't meet the current code regarding emergency vehicle traffic, etc. He stated it's in the best interest of the City to improve it. Wood stated that he doesn't think his properties will receive benefit that totals $13,000, and neither did his appraiser. He asked the Council to keep the street the way it is until another street project is done in that area. Greg Lavere, 2259 Langdon Lane, stated he's the owner of lot 8, and would like to see the storm sewer moved as proposed because he would like to build a garage in that location. As far as the cul -de -sac goes, he doesn't know why he would be responsible for the assessment when he doesn't feel he's receiving that much benefit. Hanus stated that he has sympathy for the current owners, but the people they bought from created this situation. Philip Baumel, 2239 Langdon Lane, stated he's the owner of lot 9 and asked if he would be impacted by the cul -de -sac or the storm sewer and Carlton Moore stated that he wouldn't, but there is an issue regarding his garage encroaching onto lot 8, but that issue is between the property owners and not the City. Baumel asked if his chain link fence would be affected and he was told that it would not. • -320- Mound City Council Minutes — January 10, 2012 Wayne Davis, 2248 Langdon Lane, owner of lot 5, asked if the power pole would have to be • relocated in front of his property, and was told that it would be moved, but would remain in public right of way. Mayor Hanus asked for further comment and received none. MOTION by Salazar, seconded by Gesch to continue the public hearing until January 24, 2012, when a full council was expected to be in attendance, and to table action on the proposed resolution to order the improvement and preparation of plans for the Langdon Lane Cul -de -sac and storm sewer. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 7. Table action on Resolution Denying Variance for 3070 Highland Blvd. to January 4 2012. MOTION by Gesch, seconded by Salazar to table action on a resolution denying the variance for 3070 Highland Blvd, to January 24, 2012. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 8. Information /Miscellaneous A. Comments /reports from Councilmembers /City Manager 9. Ad*ourn MOTION by Gesch, seconded by Salazar to adjourn at 7:41 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. • Mayor Mark Hanus Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk • -321- 2 cm o � � &9 o B % -322- 0 0 0 k k $ � C 0 0 § to c ci $ $ G k $ $ J � to _ ■ e ■ 2 0 © 8 Co G © ■ w e o 0 C § e % 2 - k © W $ $ C14 @ - S 2 a� @ # In d d d � . cm C4 c C ® $ � § § § IL � � � z V ? . � LL. ® c m 2 k ° CL $ $ 2 J 2 ° � 2 m m § m U 0 = = = B $ $ $ E a 0. a � � � _ o o $ ■ ■ a a 2 £ k k k v v § 2 ■ w w z a n ® & ■ ■ o o § § ■ ■ ■ ■ « « « U Q U � cc a � E 2 0 � a a § 2 a U. } = I § § § ' E m m m o 0 0 c § § B q v | # | C? 9 $ -322- 0 0 0 City of Mound BMI Engineering Hours YTD as of 12/31/11 Nil N1111111 �l�illi��lin • C32.103673 Mound /Wiota Dock Surveying Services 32.00 2,616.01 Escrows Escrow Accounts - Billed to property owners C12.038996 Mound /Development Reviews 15.00 2,005.50 Escrows Escrow Accounts - Billed to property owners 47.00 4,621.51 C12.037921 Mound /General Engineering 392.00 31,390.50 101 General Fund/Taxes C32.038243 Mound /Update Street & Utility Maps (1/4) 9.50 917.88 101 Streets (1 /4)/Taxes 012.100590 Mound /GIS Updates (1/4) 17.00 1,197.13 101 Streets(1 /4)/Taxes 418.50 33,505.50 012,040420 Mound /Island View Drive Reconstruction 53.00 5,055.00 401 Capital Projects Fund /Bonding C32.100303 Mound /2009 Street Reconstruction 114.00 10,378.50 401 Capital Projects Fund /Bonding C12.101221 Mound /Street Light Replacement 8.00 1,044.50 401 Federal Grants /City Match /MSA C12.101482 Mound /SW Island Area 5,418.50 454,629.22 401 Capital Projects Fund /Bonding C12.101514 Mound /Ridgewood /ldlewood /Highland 3,151.00 277,059.25 427 Capital Projects Fund /Bonding 012.102990 Mound /Manchester Site & Lynwood Site 178.00 19,678.50 401 Capital Projects Fund /Bonding C12.103970 Mound /2012 Street /Utility /Retaining Wall 988.00 88 503.50 401 Capital Projects Fund/Bonding_ 9,910.50 856,348.47 C32.039425 Mound /MSA System Update 100.00 14,092.00 427 Municipal State Aid for Streets (MSA Funds) C32.103581 Mound /2011 Crack Seal Coat Project 70.50 7,434.50 427 Capital Projects Fund /Bonding/MSA 170.50 21,526.50 012.103254 Mound /Watermain Loop Island View 34.50 4,466.50 601 Water Fees C12.038004 Mound /Water System Modeling 23.50 2,504.00 601 Water Fees 012.038243 Mound /Update Street & Utility Maps (1/4) 9.50 917.88 601 Water Fees (1/4) C12.038388 Mound /Water Supply Emergency Consery 4.50 639.00 601 Water Fees C12.040166 Mound /Wellhead Protection Plan 1.50 213.00 601 Water Fees C12.100590 Mound /GIS Updates (1/4) 17.00 1,197.13 601 Water Fees (1/4) 90.50 9,937.50 C12.103114 Mound /2011 Lift Station Reconstruction 514.00 58,982.50 602 Sewer Fees C12.038077 • Mound /l & I Analysis Report 178.00 20,135.50 602 Sewer Fees 012.038243 Mound /Update Street & Utility Maps (1/4) 9.50 917.88 602 Sewer Fees (1/4) 012.039286 Mound /SWPPP Update 23.00 2,510.00 602 Sewer Fees C12.100481 Mound /2009 Lift Station Reconstruction 11.50 989.50 602 Sewer Fees C12.100590 Mound /GIS Updates (1/4) 17.00 1,197.13 602 Sewer Fees (1/4) 012.100601 Mound /MCES Flows /City Charges 46.00 5,069.50 602 Sewer Fees C12.102014 Mound /2010 Lift Station Reconstruction 651.00 78,637.10 602 Sewer Fees 012.104116 Mound /Emergency Forcemain Repair LS P1 53.00 5,204.00 602 Sewer Fees C12.102702 Mound /Lift Station Maintenance Plan 9.00 1,104.00 602 Sewer Fees 1,512.00 174,747.10 C12.103438 Mound /2011 Storm Drainage Improvements 76.50 8,804.50 675 Storm Water Fees C12.037929 Mound /WCA Administration 11.50 1,148.50 675 Storm Water Fees C12.038243 Mound /Update Street & Utility Maps (1/4) 9.50 917.88 675 Storm Water Fees (1/4) 012.040097 Mound /2008 Storm Drainage Improvements 6.50 788.00 675 Storm Water Fees C12.100590 Mound /GIS Updates (1/4) 17.00 1,197.13 675 Storm Water Fees (1/4) 012.100871 Mound /2009 Drainage Improvement Project 2.00 176.00 675 Storm Water Fees C12.101697 Mound /2010 Drainage Improvements 3.00 426.00 675 Storm Water Fees C12.101909 Mound /Surface Water Management 166.00 19,837.80 675 Storm Water Fees 012.102876 Mound /Storm Sewer Outfalis & Ponds 85.00 7,348.84 675 Storm Water Fees C12.104035 Mound /Ridgewood Dickens Drainage Channel 39.5 4301 675 Storm Water Fees C12.104174 Mound /2012 Storm Drainage Improvements 13.00 1,547.50 675 Storm Water Fees 429.50 46,493.14 C7 12/31/11 YTD Total 12,578.50 1,147,179.72 -323- Mound Fire Department Fire Commission Meeting -W6r —shvp • Friday December 9, 2011 11:00 a.m. — 1:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. General Fire Commission Topics • 2012 Fire Commission meeting schedule - DRAFT • Mound Fire Relief Pension Plan Study Results — Brief Review or Overview • Pension Plan Study Changes, Recommendations, and Final Details 2. MFD Financial, Budgets, and General Information • Fire Department Reserve — Update and Discussion • 2011 and 2012 Budget Challenges and Priorities • 2012 Budget — FINAL DRAFT • 2012 Budget Considerations and Budget Options • 2012 MFD Rates "Approval or Adoption of Hourly Rates" 3. Mound Fire Budget - Revenue Options (follow up from 11/16/11 meeting) • • Defining the Purpose (or scope) for Billing Customers for Services • Review of recent Fire Department Call Type History Data and Breakdown • Billing Only for Specific Emergency Responses or Services — Revenue $$ • Estimated $$ or Potential Revenue to be Generated by Billing for Services • Finalizing the process for either increasing or adding existing fees for services and improving the system for billing (I.e. adopting consistent policies among cities, deciding and agreeing on who does billing, and where the money goes) 4. Adjourn '�e-tJ M& )�-O -324- n U • • C7 Key Milestones, Priorities, Schedule and Target Dates 1. Revise the MVFD Relief Association Bylaws to reflect the required changes, per State Statutes and Minnesota State Auditor. January 20, 2012 2. Add new provisions to MVFD Relief Bylaws to allow fundamental rules changes to support today's needs (I.e. allow a break in service with strict and comprehensive rehiring policies and rules). January 20, 2012 3. Add a "Return to Duty" provision to the Bylaws January 20, 2012 4. Complete Pension Fund 2 year actuarial valuation January 31, 2012 5. Present to Mound Council for review to gain approval of the "Proposed" Financial Requirements and Pension Plan Improvements: February 2012 6. Upon approval of Mound City Council, proceed with MVFD Relief Assn. membership vote of Bylaw and Pension Plan Changes: March 2012 7. Implement Basic Pension Plan changes - Phase #1 March 2012 8. Implement Enhanced Pension Plan changes Phase #2 January - March 2013 Important Discussion Topics... ❑ Completion of all Bylaw changes related to State Auditor and State of Minnesota Legislative and Statute (Law changes). ❑ Completion of the normal December 31, 2011 MFD Relief Fund Actuarial Valuation and determination of the current funding levels and/or unfunded Liability. ❑ Having the MFD Budget Funds available to make all of the recommended pension plan changes — Phase I and Phase II • Determination of the Pension Plan changes implementation timetable, based upon fire department budget. • Voting to approve the Pension Plan changes and confirming financial support of the plan (by all parties) -325- • Retirement planning for employers August 8, 2011 Mr. Greg Pederson, Chief Mound Fire Department 2415 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Re: Summary of Cost of Pension Plan Changes Dear Greg, Attached are the actuarial costs of the Pension Plan Changes summarized in our July 28, 2011 letter to you. We plan to review this information with you at your meeting on Monday, August 22. The major implication of the attached is that the base package of benefit changes can be added at an additional cost of just $2,000 annually. This is primarily due to the impact of the change in actuarial assumptions and the definition of the accrued benefit. Another interesting implication is that the current 20 year maximum on years of service can be • increased to 26 at an additional cost of, coincidentally, $26,000 annually. Due to an anomaly in the statutory method of amortization, the 26 year maximum has a lower annual contribution than the 25 year maximum but for a longer period. That means that the base package of benefits plus an increase in the service maximum to 26 can be achieved for less than the $30,000 annual increase in cost that the City representatives said was feasible. The total annual increase would be $28,000, based on the December 31, 2009, actuarial report. We look forward to reviewing this information, plus some additional supporting materials, with you on August 22. Prior to the meeting, please let us know if you have any questions or would like additional information. Sincerely, Mark D. Meyer, JD, FSA Consulting Actuary Cc: Sandi Bruns — Van Iwaarden Associates VAN IWAARDEN ASSOCIATES 840 LUMBER EXCHANGE BUILDING TEN SOUTH FIFTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55402 -1010 • 612.596.5960 loll flee: 888.596.5960 fr 611596.5999 WWW.VANIWAARDEN.COM -326- • MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT PENSION PLAN BENEFIT STUDY • DESCRIPTION OF BASE PACKAGE AND ASSUMPTIONS Race Dackmae Benefits 1. Removal of $3,000 funeral benefit which is no longer payable from the Special Fund. 2. Level benefit accrual of $30.25 per year of service with a 20 year service cap. 3. Lump sum option of $5,585 per year of service with a 20 year service cap. 4. Members with 10 years of service on 1/1/2012 have the option of receiving monthly payments at retirement, all other members will receive a lump sum at retirement. 5. Vesting of 60% after 10 years of service grading up by 4% per year to 100% after 20 years of service. 6. Allow rehires to maintain their pre - termination service. 7. Spouse will receive 75% of the member's accrued benefit without regard to vesting payable at death. 8. Annuity form of payment is life only for single members and 75% to survivor for married members. Base Package _._ Assumptions 1. 5% interest 2. 1971 Group Annuity Mortality Table 3. Turnover based on 50% of the SOA 2003 Basic Age Turnover and 50% of PERA Police and Fire Sample rates are: Rate 20 0 11.74% 25 10.88% 30 7.05% 35 5.12% 40 4.13% 45 3.56% 50 0.00% 4. Assumed there are no rehires 5. Assumed there were no minor children at the time of death 6. Retirement rates a. 50% after age 50 and 20 years of service b. 5% for each year from 20 to 30 and age 50 c. 100% after age 50 and 30 years of service d. 100% at age 65 regardless of service 7. Payment form: assumed 50% lump sums and 50% annuities for those members eligible for annuity 8. Assumed all members are married and wives are 3 years younger Benefit Study for August, 2011 Meeting.xls PreparF$27 -n Iwaarden 8/8/2011 11 MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT PENSION PLAN BENEFIT STUDY 3,755 3,755 C. Unfunded actuarial accrued liability 634 $30.25 per D. Amortization payment 1. Amortization period 10 year of service 2. Payment 12/31/2009 Valuation up to 20 years Base Package A. Actuarial accrued liability fAAL) 1. Active members $1,326 $1,472 2. Vested terminated members 329 337 3. Retired members 2,472 2,510 4. Spouses receiving benefits M2 2a S. Total actuarial accrued liability 4,389 4,590 3,755 3,755 C. Unfunded actuarial accrued liability 634 835 D. Amortization payment 1. Amortization period 10 11 2. Payment 78 96 E. Normal cost 92 76 F. Annual contribution Dayable: 1. Preliminary contribution (D. + E.) $170 $172 2. Admin expense (previous year x 1.035) 7 7 3. Annual contribution (1.+ 2.) 177 179 4. Estimated State Aid (81) (81) 5. Estimated municipal contribution 96 98 G. Funded ratio 86% 82% Benefit Study for August, 2011 Meeting.xis Preparf-328_n iwaarden 8/8/2011 • I 1 • • • -329- 0 N N w l4 0 N C '226 e0 3 c LD a 2 a N X rn c O N w m Z U� gcl d= M LL qEj ICO C r-� LAIm.NiN� N.V-I N GJ xE 4 fo +� .1 C N-1 Ln N N N � M fo L C 1� N w, LA Ln t0 0 N 4C1 - N f6 eJ U {� c H C �LA � 01 N N � � C ,� U rC+ * Ln �tGN Ln OOO N w :R rl i to V c v o •• rn m CL a to `c�0�A E pE�L I:WL aa Lui Z � -329- 0 N N w l4 0 N C '226 e0 3 c LD a 2 a N X rn c O N w m Z U� gcl d= M LL 0 °o S �O O O O T N; O O M .-1 'i OD 14 m T N 1-4 O O G Z C N N 4 t°D O-4 O -4 M `O N O O Z O C NANO N O co O O aZ o O O = N Ln N O N '� O, OD MA •p a M L e I -� L z e �c v O N $' L O 0 Ct uj O O L a m z o '� m UA z $ ° in cc o CL c D_ Q O N m 1pp0�� i z L �j Ln e Z� o Cl g ° o pQer = m H a N�N� (� 1� cn g C O d CL �• 3 tND C .•i � L 'O N N 0.' ON O y G3 c CJ 4 C) o "' � o� o.0 2 C) ° �c �c 3 m Obi cco O C ^ C N y) c O �° a� a°J Q C �N � �+•3 C •7 O IIIQJJJ cbq C_�b cb ccg & o° �E E >, $ c sr �Sv► • c ;8 8� �n +- t - :5 Mt - 5 ILI8 cn m}ycc •� Luau mco r0 > N ST E GJ d Mn �• cr � & j " -330 < A }cd 9 r IE 8 � M 4 v: L; MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION, INC. PENSION PLAN 4 • December 31, 2009 Actuarial Valuatdon 1. Value of assets on December 31, 2007 2. Contributions for the two years ending December 31, 2009 a. Paid during 2008 b. Paid during 2009 c. Total contributions 3. Benefits paid during the two years ending December 31, 2009 4. Estimated expenses (non - investment) paid from plan assets to December 31, 2009 5. Investment earnings for the year net of investment expenses 6. Asset value on December 31, 2009 (sum of 1. thru 5.) 7. Approximate rate of return • • -331- $4,036,613 216,339 209,389 425,728 (458,028) (16,938) (232,284) 3,755,091 -5.8% e. MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION, INC. PENSION PLAN December 31, 2009 Actuarial Valuation A. [lab/ /W aain or/oss 1. Expected actuarial accrued liability (AAL) a. AAL as of January 1, 2008 4,352,116 b. Normal cost 2008 90,735 c. Normal cost 2009 90,735 d. Benefit payments 2008 (226,395) e. Benefit payments 2009 (231,633) f. Interest to December 31, 2009 on a. through e. 437,019 g. Expected AAL on December 31, 2009 (sum of a. through f.) 4,512,578 2. Actual AAL on December 31, 2009 3,755,091 a. Before any assumption, method or plan changes 4,389,143 b. After assumption, method changes, but before plan changes 4,389,143 c. After assumption, method and plan changes 4,389,143 3. Difference from the expected AAL 656,240 a. (Gain) or loss due to plan experience diff from that expected (2a. - le.) (123,435) b. Due to changes in actuarial assumptions and methods (2b. - 2a.) 0 c. Due to plan changes 0 d. Total (a. + b. + c.) (123,435) 0. Asset aain or loss 1. Expected value of assets a. Value of assets January 1, 2008 4,036,613 b. Benefit payments (458,028) c. Contributions 425,728 d. Interest to December 31, 2009 on a., b. and c. 407,017 e. Expected assets on December 31, 2009 (sum of a. through d.) 4,411,331 2. Actual assets on December 31, 2009 a. Before any assumption or method changes 3,755,091 b. After assumption and method changes 3,755,091 3. Difference from the expected assets a. (Gain) or loss due to plan exp dill from expected (le. - 2a.) 656,240 b. Due to changes in actuarial assumptions & methods (2a. - 2b.) 0 c. Total (a. + b.) 656,240 C. Chafes /n the unfunded actuar/a/accrved liability 1. Unfunded AAL on December 31, 2007 (A. 1.a. - B. 1.a.) 315,503 2. Expected unfunded AAL on December 31, 2009 (A. i.e. - BA.e.) 101,247 3. Changes a. Actuarial (gain) or loss (A.3.a. + B.3.a.) 532,805 b. Changes in actuarial methods and assumptions (A.3.b. + B.3.b.) 0 c. Changes in plan provisions (A.3.c.) 0 d. Total change 532,805 4. Unfunded AAL on December 31, 2009 634,052 -332- 5 • • • • MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION, INC. PENSION PLAN December 31, 2009 Actuarial Valuation Accrued Benefit Liabilities beneft lAPVAB) 2QL7 �4Q2 A. w..w.s1WMW& value ofaccumulaW glen 1. Vested benefits a. Participants currently receiving payments $2,746,179 $2,734,009 b. Other inactive participants 308,368 329,285 c. Active employees 233,366 3,287,913 269.899 3,333,193 d. Total 2. Nonvested benefits 1,064.203 3. Total 4,352,116 4,389,143 4. Net assets available for benefits (market value) 4,036,613 3,755,091 5. Funded ratio a. Based on vested benefits (4. _ id.) 123% 113% b. Based on total accumulated benefits (4. _ 3.) 93% 86% • • a ActuaAW methods and assuamgdons The actuarial method we have used to determine the APVAB is the accrued benefit cost method. The significant assumptions used to determine the APVAB include the following: Expected investment return Life expectancy of participants Average assumed retirement age -333- December 31 2007 5.00% 1971 GAM Age 53 and 20 years December 31 2009 5.00% 1971 GAM Age 53 and 20 years 6 MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION, INC. PENSION PLAN 3 December 31, 2009 Actuarial Valuation • ANAM/[v MALI 207 2009 A. Actrrarra/NOW 1. Active members $1,297,569 $1,325,849 2. Vested terminated members 308,368 329,285 3. Retired members 2,520,453 2,472,347 4. Spouses receiving benefits 225,726 261,662 5. Children receiving benefits 0 0 6. Disabled members receiving benefits 0 0 7. Total actuarial accrued liability 4,352,116 4,389,143 0. A22 /fund as eta 4,036,613 3,755,091 C Vnfundedactuania /accrued / /abi //tv 315,503 634,052 D. creditforsuro /us 0 0 E. Amorft-aGion mayment 1. Amortization period 11 10 2. Payment 36,174 78,203 F Norma /cost 90,735 91,621 G. Anua/ c0ndn 11ffW osvab /e; 20008, 2009 2010 1. Preliminary contribution 1 (D. + E. + F.) 126,909 169,824 2. Administrative expense (previous year x 1.035) 16.537 6.834 3. Annual contribution (1.+ 2.) 143,446 176,658 4. Estimated State Aid (106,839) (137,500) 5. Estimated municipal contribution (3. +4., not less than zero) $36,607 $39,158 H Key economic assumvt/ons 1. Discount rate for obligations 5.00% 5.00% -334- • • • TO: Kandis Hanson, City Manager FROM: Greg Pederson, Fire Chief 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 Main: 952.472.3555 Fax: 952.472.3775 www rnoundfirexDrn December 8, 2011 SUBJECT: 2012 Mound Fire Department Budget (Revised FINAL 12/08/11) On July 20, 2011 the Mound Fire Commission met for our regularly scheduled quarterly meeting. At the meeting the group discussed and accepted the 2012 proposed Mound fire department budget which reflected a .44% percent increase over the 2011 budget. Additional work on the budget resulted in minor reductions in line items which established the current Final 2012 Fire Department budget. This final proposed budget now reflects a.19 % • overall increase over the 2011 budget. The 2011 and 2012 year budgets were both discussed at the Fire Commission meeting as we attempt to meet immediate department needs, look ahead, and consider various other revenue generating options. Current priority projects discussed include: • The purchase of 28 sets of Turnout Gear (bunker gear) through the Hennepin County Fire Chiefs Association Joint Powers Agreement. The details and justification are provided in a separate memorandum (I will use some fire department reserve funds for this purchase) • The potential sale of several old vehicles in 2011 and replacement as needed. • Potential substantial budget savings as a result of refinancing of the Public Safety Facility Debt (Bonds) in October 2011. See note below. • The Fire Commission has scheduled separate workshops for November 2011 to brainstorm and talk about feasible ways to generate revenue. Some ideas might include the possibility of billing insurance companies and/or individuals for fire responses, special services, or unusual circumstances. The acknowledgment of our future (major) Budget and Financial items and commitments should be considered as we plan ahead. The key items discussed were: • Completion of the Fire Relief Pension Pan Study: analyze study data, costs; implement changes or improvements if financially feasible, must be fair, provide options, and be • reasonable. $$ Cost is key to implementation phase. • Consider new and creative financial options in preparation of the 2012 Budget to meet or support specific financial projects: _335 -mg pension plan fund increases, aerial ladder 1 truck replacement, reinstatement of full time administrative assistant, and refinancing of • Public Safety Facility Debt (Bonds). • Complete Fire and Rescue Shared Services Grant Project with Minnetrista, St. Boni Fire and Mound Fire: evaluate study results and implement necessary changes to improve fire protection services to Minnetrista and other cities. • Evaluate and restructure many aspects of the department staffing plan including: redistribution of Officer and firefighter pay including salaries, hourly pay, utilization of Duty Officer or Duty Crew Programs and possibly assigned shift work. Reinstate Full - Time Administrative Assistant and begin the implementation of officer's succession plan by focusing on the 2012 Training Plan to develop our young talented group of Officers candidates through training and experience. • Continue to make progress on the Apparatus Replacement and Efficiency Plan Project: address the 1981 Sutphen Aerial Ladder Truck replacement needs and consolidate old apparatus /fleet by selling off old apparatus. The above listed topics are very important and should be considered and discussed as part of our budgeting process for the future. Other financial considerations and potential cost savings measures for 2012 are: 2012 Capital Equipment Purchases: • There is no capital dollars allocated for additional or new spending in this budget for 2012. • The existing Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) lease to own contract for 24 • previously leased units continues through year 2012 and then ends, which is an annual cost of $17,200. The $17,200 savings will be apparent beginning in 2013, at which time we might need to designate the funds toward other needs. • Replacement of 1981 Sutphen Ladder Truck, and all related including replacement options and finances will be discussed at November 2011 Fire Commission meeting. Simply put, this project is on hold due to very tight budgets and financial limitations. • We still have unfunded Capital Equipment expenditures from 2011 and several items from previous years have been put on hold (ongoing delay). 2012 Staffing Items for Consideration: Careful consideration of reorganizing or restructuring the firefighter staff hours and response based upon a reconfigured plan, which may change some staff to part time duty officers, and reallocate firefighter wages or salary. Implementation of a duty officer or duty crew program on certain types of emergency calls (will be small $$ savings or no savings at all). The Fire and Rescue Shared Services Study results may have an impact on the direction we take. 2012 Potential Savings (and beyond): • We anticipate that we will save approximately $10,000 - $15,000 in debt service (interest) on the Fire Department Public Safety Facility bonds upon refinancing the Bonds in October • 2011. This savings will be achieved every year for the next 12 years. WOW! -336- I* I• ez 13 W a W 0 z w W X w F- ou. G m O O N I• —337— 13 d = rn N M. We C \ r C m N CL O O o) � r N r r N W o a T- m c O A m A f�� a b d �j � rj �tj O O C ` � O C� 0 'S ON4 4! oV0 O C 7 u' v O m ER (a 69 d3 b9 C141 N N Q e d � r O N 07 h' O r CO O) O Cl 0 ti I N i (D CD N C W C v Cfl O Iq CD ., i > 0 ao p O o b', W c t i v �€ N W N Wj ter v� (a to t ter ens � N V Y z m W s' w p� W a o O o O 0 o 0 o t o o Cyr. rR;; Y O 3 r d p y o o Crj r O to co CA Ln ice" O o H C o m m 3 to rn O �" _, UJ N r co In N CD M ~ to M `� « E N t!} EA to ow M N N N c LL W r- ad W Cy M r- (D d C +_ 3 d N Y r p N K' m 00 m 0 U E +w cp r r0� C y U G. V O �`• W r N V (D a s o Lei CL m 5 =(D 'c LT (DO ? O c) m ii a w a V —337— I V v O � N Ln O W �Lm N O V Q k� :, V co 4-+ O a Ln Ln O O N O �p cn O Ln p N 101 O O O O O Ln Ln Ln Ln L • -338- _ Ln N o Lu�nl p N r-I � LA p `n O M 00 M p n p N Ln Ln O O N O �p cn O Ln p N 101 O O O O O Ln Ln Ln Ln L • -338- _ 10 Mound Fire Department December 8, 2011 1" NAL 2012 Budget and Expenses - Breakdown Categorv/Descriution 2012 Budget $ Amount Percent *Budget Total 2012 $1,063,688.00 100% • Operating Expenses $ 635,063.00 59.70% • Pension Contribution — Relief Assn. $ 143,625.00 13.50% • Building Rental, Lease, Debt Service $ 285,000.00 26.80% *Operating Expenses (from above) $ 6351,063.00 59.70% • • Salaries for all Staff (all inclusive) $ 372,518.00 35.02% • Operations and Supplies $ 188,190.00 17.69 % • Capital Outlay $ 74,355.00 6.99% Salaries for Staff Information: • Firefighter response hours 11,000 — 12,000 per year @ $8.50 per hour = $88,000.00 • Duty Crew or Duty Officer Pay (in lieu of firefighter response pay) = $15,000.00 • Firefighter in- house training hours 3000 - 3300 per year @ $4 per hour = $12,600.00 • Firefighter station maintenance hours 1500 per year @ $10 per hour = $15,000.00 • Fire Officer Pay (refer to separate list for officer pay details) = $26,700 • Firefighter meetings, PR events, other hours 1600 per year @ $0 per hour = $0 • December 8 2011 -339- C� A •P.1 Pk Fil O 0 O v N e PC 0 N O N O � N e "C e 0 U � 0 � M N M � O O O -4 O N C N roD el) N M O C C.3 r4 '-+ � O N as .0 W� ^+I 1 n V b N O V� 0 60!) N O bR fA a fi3 69 .--� 4 M c fs9 6s C O 69 y O C N e 0 U � � 0 � M M M O O O O -4 O O C O O N M O C W5 O vi 6R 1 n ." b N N V� � 60!) O bR fA N fi3 69 .--� 4 M fie fs9 6s 69 � � 0 � M M M O O O O -4 O O C O in �O N M 00 00 n W5 69 vi 6R 1 n ." b N N V� � 60!) 6A bR fA O fi3 69 .--� 4 M C �o 69 69 69 y C M M O � � tf ; w "t1 M O O O O O O -4 e4 C 0 - M in �O N M 00 00 n W5 69 6q 6R en N N r� r N Q N C C C o O O O O N �4 -4 ON r�l n o N in o n 1 n ." M N 6R V� � 60!) r N Q N C C C o O O O CO 00 In lc o o CD M n ." M N 6A bR fA 69 fi3 69 69 6R y c A a� M� W '404 o C O an 0 -340- O N 00 b� Z?, Mw N hC *I *I 01 • • E E W mV C 406 A O 7 �7 m O CN t! p0O cmO N m • 00b! OinOw to m��pp S Q 0) N Q A M C M Ip N � c0 r N O r N N N N i 0 V C O w C O U O SO fAO NI�7� Pte'), •�-l�O OOfAO_ tA000 M! `CC< OiOVn Of0 CN CCO pp� rQ co O� a� co N m NQ �pp►O } N N O Ono N O N S N N 4000 444944 6S4949 40401,49, 40 F! OOx m0 V* 80* o pp�E 1�1QQp� ,; 80 Nm ODhSHI 03�0� OD 1017 N N q � m p O�N�N 8` in U Oin A -M N Of N� p < vn 1�-�a 0` f+lN N g� CD 1Z LO V) OD O OD N N f0 A id N O PC n n N N � ipps NN SA�pS pN S'O� pp OyyOQ ape OtOO� 10►f00 pN p m 0� pN QQO mS� p in ad h Ir V N aN N SOD N - I..: N N N N r 4p'/Md b fa N to A N N SNO pN SOO p p 88p 1 N N N C7 $$O9 Nrz vi g S s2.4 v S *S N � � s p l9 p �p O � ' m LO r r N NN N SOp1 40 N pN8 o N S O9 O� S 96 N ag Ego * AO144 6m N c!: ONr SMO� mN 8 CD S ep-M N OC.; N NaDN N m N N Q v N - O Opp Ip 98 88 O {pr� pO �' gS �f0� Opp AA AO� N 49 40710 An SVOO N c0 tOOp OP70 r COj�C O AM S r OIff 4* O N S NN- O p O pp O pN O O CO, S O Sp O �S�pp C7 CD }b. O pOpD Pa f00 p Ae�+Op1 �N�10 N q OD �O�S D L Nt�NW. AID StpN N O 1N S�`�'� to N N N N N M OS N S°° O °o NN °oo �p�n cj N iv°u�, m� O O S c��'cn pN O pr�i ` S O S N � N Ui W �u�pp7 app tff ' t0 �p N �N N N N N N So N UP N . Sp°p 17S So O+f NPV r OSOo N 00 N co ca ww N 40 h P70 1+f a00 fD O ONN � V� —ODO cq M I 01 OD" Or N C4 C6 8 °o SnfO S OD S N NN MfA ACD NN PN O oN°D OD r. P` wC4 N Saga Oi cA ASV c0 OD N N POD s ca LO b Na° m U m N FLU N (A N m U S O S O d S S S sgU F Z g 0 ALI o m�p 0` N o p N° Oo N aD p 0 0 h N N O C% A e- Of O LQ p�0 �O� i 0 V C O w C O U O SO fAO NI�7� Pte'), •�-l�O OOfAO_ tA000 M! `CC< OiOVn Of0 CN CCO pp� rQ co O� a� co N m NQ �pp►O } N N O Ono N O N S N N 4000 444944 6S4949 40401,49, 40 pTp {V A W m a r �o 'V OOx m0 1, SNOA o pp�E 1�1QQp� pp�O OmN t7 Nm ODhSHI 03�0� OD OO�p N,R N N q � O�N�N U Oin A -M N Of M p < vn 1�-�a aN ODN WO CD 1Z LO V) OD O OD N N f0 A id N O PC n n N � ipps N to ape pN p pN pN pN p h N N N N - I..: N N N N pTp {V A W m a r �o S�� 1, a�m� 1�1QQp� t7 Nm ODhSHI pp O N N S U r A -M N Of Q�� aTT ^lV 1�-�a IIVV N N N ipps to ape pN p pN pN pN p ONE' - I..: PfN�O r 4p'/Md b 40 r r A N N N N N g ` s2.4 S *S N s o s� ' LO 40 N A N N N 6m N c!: SMO� Sm 8 CD S A SOO •'. NaDN m !!4077 m 08(V4 t��N0 Q v N - Opp Ip 100100 N O n A N 49 N Mp N O S O p O S pN O S �S�p NaEN� �S�pp C7 BO�Op O O pOpD Pa f00 Ae�+Op1 �N�10 N q OD �O�S D L Nt�NW. AID StpN N O 1N S�`�'� NN N S O O O S O pN O O S O A �p ��pj ��p c0� of N�aO� C=x �u�pp7 app tff ' t0 �p t�pq R �N n CD OAS �SO UP N . N1n Af� 17S Y O+f NPV r N N N N 40 49 S 8 8 °o S S �p h ACD ED oN°D OD r. P` wC4 N Saga Oi cA ASV c0 OD N N POD s b N N N (A N N S O S O S S S O S g 0 S 0 o m�p 0` N o p N° Oo N aD p 0 0 h N N O C% A e- Of O LQ p�0 �O� �} N N� NNE NN OD Gi r A� 00 O (V N N N M 1491 N N N V v a c -C r pTp {V A W m a r �o -342- 01 • • IV LO N O et CO N N o �nl� 'CO d' CO co Go It v Co 1- N N 00 N0 U N CA co V CA v- O qT V � 0 CA Ch � CO N ~ N N — � U V- NSA NU CO co CA N�_ Cf) NNM NCO T- CO d O ODN N LO No U v-- co et co aD Z tirn rn� uj N N LO F1 m a Cl) CD 0) N N E J CO M CO I� N F- z w CD CO Lu O VaL Y rnN d � M W Z cO 1� ao N [I- Q N �- CA CC O chT- N wCD Q QOM m U H W CO N e- D I-w _N �� m dN M CO O cn QW D m v a m I� 0 zjQ pa OQ� F- w Z Z z o z m�0 -342- 01 • • I* 10 • -343- COU') 0m� c 0 q LO T-- p to O) N N t� f� pI N d' C'O 1 00 O 1- N N 0 N t- In ti0Oti 11 c oD co V) qt � CO M N 00 O LO O OI O ti L 00 O O p Il_ N N O co N Tn m 0 co O 0 e- n I- r- O 0000 I r- It N r 1 0 N LO N O v CO N N 00 to to ti CO et M O O I CO 00 ''N `" d od �� N z =) U N CA 00 v 0) c O LLq w m � ' U OM VOCG N O N N � LO O � U LLJ N oa emu- CO T- cNO0)cM Cy M� NNM T- V- �I .47 1 O G N O N N � WU Qui 2 U N Qm o z OQ O� a c WO0 zz �zz O�� _ coco2 H -343- -344- • • r, v �0)N cwpV�0c0 tLO0000 LO r N d U CD Z o 0 0 0( 0 � N N ti O Z I- It N V r O N U") U ¢U W O x x x x x LL z OD w p ( c oo cc c00o ccoo Y YQ 00 00 ao 06 ao U titi ti �r�� ti ti Z u.l �0 m HU W W a- F- co O O 2 U F- LL Z U a pg�2 x z co N U U x Q Y p C N Z0 U) r- Z� ko o N W O F- oa W F— < z a ON LU --� p LU W� H zz ��= O �- m O U LL m N 22 cn co -344- • • r, 0 • W U Z g Q m Z D U- W U .w W U W QLL W Q • N 0 co N ti N 000 W M N co O Z Q m CC) tD W m LLJ W 0 co W o W W Lf) Z D U. 0 W Q U W W F- 1- W N T- o o Q Q N N � J W U Z m W F.. U o CL d. CO N O O N O r r r r N r O -345- Cl) N W M • Q .� (A ? D Z Q m W Z W w O Z W w W m LLJ W 0 N w Z g Q m W o W W W W o W W Z D U. 0 W Q U W W F- 1- W N T- o o Q Q N N � J W U Z m W F.. U o CL d. -345- -346- l� u 121812oi 1 222.42260 e,e� nEppRT>wIENT 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACT1 °PPM W UESTED Emegm 120,423 126,990 119,732 121,246 127,502 127,513 5% • 101 FULL TIME SALARIES 4,951 4,951 4,951 0% 3,475 3,937 2,457 103 SALARIES. TEMP. 0 0 p 4,180 0 0 118 SEVERANCE 208,388 216,704 141,825 151,826 143,825 1% 124 FIRE RELIEF PENSION 129,800 3,800 6,800 5,800 22,000 28,700 28,700 21% 170 OFFICERS PAY 9,590 9,730 12,800 12,600 12,800 0% 180 DRILL PAY 11,400 13,283 16,000 15,000 15,000 0% 185 MAINTENANCE PAY 14,023 12,189 95,804 98,933 108,718 101,750 104,000 103,000 1% 190 MONTHLY SALARIES 28,805 31,054 32,780 32.894 57G 27,713 28,911 121 FICAIPERA 18,593 18,269 16,242 16,224 16,224 0% 131 HOSP/DENTAL 17,911 548 614 634 578 606 606 5% 134 LIFE INS.IDISABIUTY INS 4,912 5,059 4,943 4,850 5,100 6,101 57G 135 POST RETIREMENT 8,892 16,500 28,130 28,130 TO% 151 WORKERS /UNEMP COMP INS 12,090 12,104 1,903 3,068 1,882 2,400 1,800 1,800 .25% 200 OFFICE SUPPLIES 780 780 7% COPY MACHINE & FEES 765 458 629 840 202 1,110 998 1,867 600 600 800 0% 205 COMPUTER SOFTWARE 800 0% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES 944 400 1,088 800 800 • 208 22,289 35,782 18,175 17,000 21,000 20,000 1!% 210 OPERATING SUPPLIES 7,756 6,706 7,821 8,400 9,000 9,000 7% Y12 MOTOR FUELS 800 600 600 -25% 218 CLEANING SUPPLIES 1,152 170 40 1,628 1,565 1,800 1,500 1,500 1,600 0% 217 FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES 8,884 14,682 9,879 8,800 2,400 2,400 •78% 219 SAFETY SUPPLIES 3,558 4,960 11:982 5,000 3,800 3,600 .2e% 300 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,082 3,614 4,132 3,500 3,600 3, s% 301 AUDIT /FINANCIAL 3,054 6,457 2,084 3,200 3,000 3,0000 0 8% 305 MEDICAL SERVICES SUPPORT & OVERHEAD 13,814 14,505 14,505 14,500 14,500 14,500 0% 307 ADMIN -346- l� u 121812oi 1 • • EN RUARTINENT 2009 2010 2011 2� 01�� 2�OSE>Z 2008 9� 6PPS4=(F�Q CODE 6SISm 6� 5,298 3,315 4,750 4,750 4,760 0% 308 13UILDINGIFIRE INSPECTIONS 4,324 5,100 5,100 4,370 4,529 6,647 4,800 $21 TELEPHONE 566 720 800 600 -17% 837 858 322 POSTAGE 3,713 4,400 6,300 4,800 6% 6,808 1,812 325 PAGERS - FIRE DEPT. 460 400 400 0% 6 188 77 331 USE OF PERSONAL AUTO 600 600 800 0% 454 195 0 350 PRINTING 19,078 20,000 20.000 20,E 0% 18,533 18,784 361 GEN. LIABILITY INS. 13,640 11,000 12,800 12.000 6% 12,829 13,964 381 ELECTRICITY 4,358 7,200 6,300 6.300 43% 8,383 6,250 383 GAS 884 900 800 800 41% 1,354 1,161 384 GARBAGE 644 3,000 2,600 2,500 -17% 2,852 23,989 401 BUILDING REPAIRS 2.500 3,600 3,800 44% 402 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 6,944 7.822 3,530 19,866 19,800 4% 38,011 37,414 23,434 21,000 409 OTHER EQUIP. REPAIR 304,255 271,827 285,000 '4% 290,844 291,778 301,649 412 BUILDING RENTAL 12,592 12,600 11,400 10,200 -19% 13,721 12,403 418 RENTALS/RADIO 114 2,000 800 600 -70% 585 357 430 MISCELLANEOUS 360 360 360 0% 170 438 525 431 MEETING EXPENSES 4,000 4,800 4,800 20% 433 DUES It SUBSCRIPTIONS 4,818 4,155 4,115 18,000 18.000 42% 15,897 12,343 21,226 20,400 434 CONFERENCES d, SCHOOLS 1,800 9,000 8,400 36T% OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,360 364 1,114 2,400 -20% 440 2,312 2,184 1,848 3,000 2,400 460 JANITORIAL SERVICES 6,160 8,000 6,000 -"% 16,808 278,798 6 500 CAPITAL OUTLAY p 18,846 18,000 18,000 6% 680 FIRE TRUCK REPLACEMENT FUND 0 0 17,100 17,100 4% CAPITAL LEASE. SCBA EQUIP 18,167 18,167 17,077 18,261 um 0% 625 sar t oMatoad aMO" RPW&" Q Ij4 93255 611 2009C GO EgUIP Cart. Interest 1084,269 0.19% 2010 Tanker Pun"r 6 2010 Tat" tot "" Duty 078-24 1372-4 + 1. 1061 TOTAL $ TOTAL EXCL CAPITAL EXP/RESERVE 1.0 -347- 12/Bf2011 !�' F z W IL uj W G z a Q z z M W O M v w000o000 000O000Oo0oo000000000000000oo0o0 �000000000000000000000000000000000000000 iuitriui000a0aQCtriuiuitritr wQ00CCuitriWimiuiuieiuiui96uiuiN c0aa00 ��ti NN��FCDCO�� 'M0�01�CltpO)OfOfNNNtOfO�� -CD ODa0000DODODC000d0a0p O a C fRto( ltoV? AMfl M fd tR(RNM c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ChNO�Oi� Oi�0 0* t-coeF�uioD� W000MN00Wt- 0NiWW3C51Oi0 cm �0 11100.0 C>I� CM to —N NM I,-: ll 1110-- tp- V P%7 NPW—OMM ci 11/././OMr%r%OR� MMW -M a a u)O �tANMt0.0T- r M W tOC>N c•M00C VC1NOt0�ORCR 11D 't Ma cocom 1 0N��ppWW 11/ rC �e-� ��NNNMNMChM�d' ��' ��d'�CfltOCOtOf��0� 0 o v NtR tf! tH Vl tl9r tf! fA fR fA Vl fA 99 fR 0 03 to tH Vr ff! Vr fN Oi fR dl fA tf! dl tR Ci t!! t/} tf! V! V! tR M 40 N = o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q v v la1a v 0 O MCC1011/.O�C.- OCCCtritpl�CV 1100 110�C COCCCCCOOCCCCGtCilff O 111 a- 1�.000MNNd frAM�vM.D1[JMNMM.OM011/ODvv 0110 MtMO r-tOtL 00 GO Q�OOtOM000N f�tDe- 11Dtplpll')tOtOWW aNrQ � ��M��. P% Irl:aq O�t�N1100MG Of- OMMOtpCf NM C)M.OM110 !>1n 66vi"i6Wi tOt01�1�111 .0.DOf0)000r'�a- DNt01Macg6c/NK10)MI,: NNNMM�Q �p IA � V-�NN efMMt7MSt� a O 111 c it ff! 64 I. 6% ti,* 49- fA 01 to V! rf! to iR V') CA " tI! tIfWaW M to tR d9 V} to vi to iA tf} fA us tH Ei16% 1 tR CA 1 61% 1 6%0). N 4c O o 0 0 M Cl 0 0 OoOO./000 MWCUi�a0 CD 0 CD Lo M co 3 tp 0) 0 Im W N 0 0C1tMtO0I-g t 1W le In C) 0 0f 10, to V} V! fA Vl V& tf! 6* to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clow WMtAWWIW11111D0000000O0aaQUIJMlpW W OLo W W wCo0011.0 vi 6 vi vi 6 ui 6 ui ui (6 (6 C6 (6 C6 (6 (6 (6 (d (6 (d (6 (6 6 0(6(6tir-1-�f`r.:110116 M110111Ci 3Mvi N N O = to ff? tf! Vrr fA tf} V! ui tR fA V! fA (A fA to fg fA v} CR R fA E} ! ! A f f t} to Vl tE! O O O O C O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Cl O N O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O ./ coWWC 1�CC7CCCV 000VAC �r-tCN� V r-� 1n Cl WLor cONN.Or- co W M �Wcq Q Q1r� NNtO� W NtlDOft0�1�0 MtA11D .- �f`�� .000tp�COC) WNtONtn 0�11DNN tp I�1-00 a V oI.- WN Nu)N ONI.- .00 VNNNN cnenMM� O d to Wi` 64 EA 0. 693 ER Nrr Cfrr 40 V! t/} 6e 6m Vi 6a. tf! O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .O C C C N o C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C ci C C W) to w en Mm00amco M NN MNCCtr!11oQd:"tclIR W CM 0 P 0t Cl MM � m Of0 ON COM M �lNNOtDN M 011 le - 1A O 0)V- tO O) �M1'-0) ca e �� IT N NNNNNN NW01*-t-W MtGOv-�M MM V V 1W le It 01-OM It 1Wu)in 09 o.144 V! tR VA N olk Willie. V! 01.0 tH t!! V� MIt tpC01�11DOfO�NM tAtQP.00fO�r Q0tC1l. 110tIC) Nma0 f.-W00 cqM V' ti �tif`0M0M 111 WWwwo�Cno�w 0 IMC 01 Of 00 O O O OO O O O O O O O O O O NNNNNNNNNNNNN F, 110 O 3e II V c c O a c d N r N O II mM G v c Q. • C7 l0 c m c LL v m 9 7 [1 m E E LLLL m O � p O m • Mound Fire Department Section: Revision: 1 -A Administration Policies and Procedures Pages: 2 Charging or Billing Customers for Fire Number: XXXXX Related Procedure: Department Services XYZ.01 Form SWP- XYZ.01 Scope: this policy relates and applies to both specific and unusual circumstances that require a fire department emergency or non - emergency response, and is determined to be either excessive use of fire department services, a misuse of staff time, or unjustifiable use of equipment or other resources. This policy is adopted by, and applies to all fire protection cities that the Mound Fire Department serves including: the cities of Mound, Minnetrista, Spring Park, Minnetonka Beach, and Shorewood. Purpose: to establish a policy that improves department efficiency, reduces wasted resources, and recovers unwarranted expenses due to extreme circumstances, human error, non - functional equipment, or other preventable events or actions. This process is not intended to be a fine, citation, or a tax. The primary objective of this policy is to create and foster an environment of responsibility related to the misuse of fire • department and community resources. General: the Mound Fire Department will promptly respond to any and all emergency and non - emergency calls as dispatched by the Hennepin County Sherriff 9 -11 Dispatch Center. This includes all types of emergencies and non - emergencies as defined by the dispatch center policies and Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Event Codes. Definitions: CAD Event Codes: Unwarranted or Excessive Use of Services: Billable Services: Fire Alarm and False Alarms: Duty Officer: Company or Crew: • Hourly Rates: -349- 9 Policy and Procedure: • 1. The fire department administration will establish and maintain operating policy standards which clearly identify the specific event types and unusual circumstances that justify this policy "Billing for Services" process be implemented (refer to list). 2. The fire department administration and city councilors will establish rates and/or fees to cover the basic costs related to the fire department response activity. These rates or fees will be reviewed annually and updated as required. 3. Upon arrival at an emergency or non - emergency call, the fire department Incident Commander will investigate and determine whether the event type or incident justifies "Billing for Services ". 4. The fire department Incident Commander will be responsible for collecting all relevant incident information and completing all necessary documentation. All relevant billing information will be gathered including: company name, responsible party name, mailing address, phone number(s), and the details pertaining to the events leading up to the incident. 5. The Mound Fire Department Administrative Assistant will administer all of the "Billing for Services" documentation, invoicing and financial tracking. 6. All proceeds generated from the "Billing for Services" process will be deposited into • the Mound Fire Department General Account to be utilized for, and support of the general fire department operations. Billing Rates, Rules, Options and Philosophy: 1. Free, with no billing for services on some of the event or incident types (Le. fire alarms or local taxpaying resident). 2. Cover Direct Costs only, with no overhead included (I.e. based on number of firefighters responding to call, apparatus fuel, supplies used (may not be legal in some cases). 3. Cover all costs including overhead that is based upon a predetermined hourly rate which is dependent upon firefighter crew staffing numbers, apparatus utilized, and amount of time spent at incident. X111 is G • r� FALSE ALARMS 2009 - 2011 YTD TOTALS 2011 Billable Mound Minnetrista Minnetonka Beach Spring Park Shorewood Total 2011(11- 30 -11) False Alarms 18 16 3 15 0 52 Legitimate Alarmq 34 5 1 6 20 0 65 Total 1 52 21 1 9 35 0 117 2011 Billable 2010 Billable Mound Minnetrista Minnetonka Beach Spring Park Shorewood Total 2010 False Alarms 26 11 15 13 0 65 Legitimate AIarm4 21 2 1 4 4 0 31 Total 1 47 13 1 19 17 0 96 2010 Billable 2009 Billable -351- 1: \admin \History Response Data \Fire Alarm -False Alarm \2009 -2011 False Alarms ►11 P16-a 2t3 rf3 Mound Minnetrista Minnetonka Beach Spring Park Shorewood Total 2009 False Alarms 20 13 13 21 1 68 Legitimate Alarms 21 2 1 0 4 0 27 Total 41 15 1 13 25 1 95 2009 Billable -351- 1: \admin \History Response Data \Fire Alarm -False Alarm \2009 -2011 False Alarms ►11 P16-a 2t3 rf3 Mound Fire Department Gas and Electric Calls 2008 -2010 Mound Electric 2010 2009 2008 Total 3 yr Average Calls Hours Calls Hours Calls Hours Calls Hours Calls Hours 36 735 16 336 38 441 90 1512 30 504 Gas 17 295 28 535 18 323 63 1153 21 384 Total 53 10301 871 S6 764 153 2665 51 888 Minnetrista Electric 11 1 209 6 196 5 106 22 511 7 170 Gas 1 32 2 33 2 43 5 108 2 36 Total 12 24118 229 7 149 27 619 9 206 Spring Park Electric 1 22 1 16 2 52 4 90 1 30 Gas 1 17 3 52 4 113 8 182 3 61 Total 2 391, 4 68 6 16S 12 272 4 91 Minnetonka Beach Electric 1 2 49 2 25 2 39 6 113 2 38 Gas 0 on 3 44 2 27 5 71 2 24 Total 2 491 S 691 4 661 11 184 4 61 Shorewood Electric 1 2 68 2 91 1 9 5 168 2 56 Gas 0 0 1 24 0 0 1 24 0 8 Total 2 68 3 1151 1 9 6 192 2 64 Totall All Cities Electric 52 1083 27 664 48 647 127 2394 42 798 Gas 19 344 37 688 26 506 82 1538 27 513 Total 71 14271 64 1352 74 11531 209 39321 70 1,311 Mound Minnetrista Spring Park Minnetonka Beach Shorewood s yr s yr Elec Gas Total 30 21 51 7 2 9 1 3 4 2 2 4 2 0 2 -352- • • Billing for Services Categories and Priorities: (for discussion) • 1. Fire Alarms and specifically False Fire Alarms ( Commercial and Residential) • False Alarms due to repeat offenders, often with system problems 3 S-b • False Alarms due to unmaintained or obsolete systems • False Alarms due to human error '710 SOU 2. Natural Gas Leaks and Hit Gas Lines • Contractor carelessness or failure to do proper utilities locates • Homeowner/Resident carelessness or failure to do proper utilities locates 3. Personal Injury Accidents — Specialty Type Rescue (resident or non - resident) • Ice or Cold Water Rescue, snowmobiler or fisherman through the ice k ,}.01 ' `�_ • Water Rescue, boat accident, jet ski accident W 1) • Car Crash with Auto Extraction — nonresident only • Self Inflicted EMS Rescue 4. Structure Fires • Business Fires (except churches) • Multiunit Housing Fires — Apartment Complexes • Houses, Condo's, or Townhomes • Garages, Barns, out buildings • 5. Vehicle Fires (resident or non - resident) • Personal Vehicles - Automobiles, Cars, Trucks • Commercial Vehicles • Snowmobiles, Motorcycles FORM SWP XXX.01 GSP 120811 • -353- I MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT Serving the Cities of Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista Mound Shorewood Spring Park Fire Alarm Activation Report Date of Alarm: • Name of Business: Address: Alarm Zone: Cause: 0 Accidental 0 Service Person 0 Smoke /Heat Detector 0 Weather Related Comments: Person Receiving Form: (print) Fire Officer: (print) Alarm Floor: 0 Construction 0 Pull Station 0 Waterflow Alarm 0 Unknown Notification of Fire Watch A FIRE WATCH IS REQUIRED. A Fire Watch shall be posted anytime a building fire protection system or systems are temporarily out of order. At the discretion of a fire officer, a fire watch shall be posted requiring one or more responsible parties to walk said building throughout every 30 minutes for the purposes of identifying and controlling fire hazards, detecting early signs of unwanted fire, raising an alarm of fire, and notifying the fire department to respond. It is recommended that this responsible party document the date, time, and areas observed as part of their Fire Watch duties. The fire alarm company shall be notified to service system. Date: Fire Watch Person(s): (Print Name(s) Clearly) Signature: (Signature(s) Required) False Alarm: 0 Yes 0 No White - Fire Department Yellow — Property Representative -354- IP-1 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6.2011 ROLL CALL Those present: Chair Stephen Ward; Commissioners: Jeffrey Bergquist, Douglas Gawtry, Kelli Gillispie, David Goode, George Linkert, Kelvin Retterath, Pete Wiechert, and Council member Ray Salazar. Absent: none. Staff present: Community Development Director Sarah Smith, Consultant Planner Rita Trapp, and Planning Secretary Jill Norlander. Others present included: Pam Myers, Chanhassen; John Kohler; Semper, Minneapolis; Bill Moore, 3070 Highland Blvd; Ken Perbix, Watertown; Jon Mille, Minnetrista; Mil & Johann Chemin, 6039 Beachwood Rd; Mark Hanus, 4446 Denbigh Rd (was present for the start of the meeting but left in advance of the Commission's discussion of the Planning Cases); Scott Picha, 2273 Cottonwood La; Gerry Dodds, 6144 Beachwood Rd; Kelly Deininger, 5966 Chestnut Rd; Dorothy Netka, 2100 Old School Rd; Michael Netka, Minnetrista; John Tombus, 1736 Baywood Shores Dr; Tom LaVoie, 4363 Wilshire Blvd; Bob & Rose McGlinshky, 1951 Lakeside La; Marnie Barnhart, 2223 Langdon La; Bruce Dodds 3021 Dickens La. APPROVE AGENDA WITH ANY AMENDMENTS • Commissioner Linkert asked to add one item to Old /New Business. MOTION by Ward, second by Linkert, to approve the amended agenda. MOTION carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 15, 2011 MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Bergquist, second by Wiechert, to table action on the November minutes to the January 3, 2012 meeting as recommended by Staff. MOTION carried unanimously. BOARD OF APPEALS A. Public Hearing — Comprehensive plan amendment in area of Lynwood Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard for Walgreens development Chair Ward recused himself from this item due to family involvement in one of the properties involved. Rita Trapp, consultant planner, introduced the Comprehensive Plan amendment request. The amendment is being sought to facilitate the redevelopment of a portion of the site into a Walgreens retail drug store and a 1,000 square foot small freestanding retail establishment. The redevelopment involves property transfers to change the • amount of right of way around the Dakota Rail Regional Trail located south of the proposed redevelopment areas and behind the Lynwood boulevard apartment parcels. -355- Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2011 These property transfers also require a Comp Plan change. The three (3) apartment parcels are proposed to be re- guided as Pedestrian District. • Commissioner Retterath asked if similar land swaps have been done previously in Mound. Smith responded that land swaps in the downtown were done for projects in the Transit District including working with Hennepin Co. Regional Rail. Gillispie confirmed with staff that the apartment buildings will be conforming under the Comp Plan re- guiding. Trapp directed the Commission's attention to the letter submitted by Vernon and Beverly Paine (5709 Lynwood Boulevard). John Kohler of Semper Development presented the plan. Hennepin County was pleased at the extra 20 feet resulting from the land swap adjacent to the trail. The current plan for the small building on the south edge of the property is anticipated to be a bistro type service for the users of the trail. The easement on the western edge adjacent to 5709 Lynwood Boulevard is being reviewed by their attorneys to determine what it is and what can be done. Gawtry asked why they are seeking a comp plan change for the westerly property. Trapp said that it made sense to extend the change but not change the zoning so • another business couldn't come in and change it to retail without a zoning change. It would protect it as a multi - family zoned parcel. Salazar asked about specifics for the bistro. Kohler could only say that there has been significant interest. Salazar also mentioned that the City has a 50 -seat minimum for a liquor license. Linked wanted to know if Walgreens thought to offer more pads like the bistro pad since the Pedestrian District goal in the comp plan is to celebrate the pedestrian. Gawtry asked why they weren't taking both apartment buildings. Kohler said that leaving one offers a significant buffer to the single family area to the west. Acting Chair Salazar opened the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. Johann Chemin (6039 Beachwood) raised the following concerns - reusability of the building if Walgreens moves out - questioned whether the building was architecturally interesting - why no integration of habitations (business down, apartments up) - future of the mural painting - need for another parking lot - parking lot too big • - pollution and drainage -356- Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2011 • - trees disappearing - car traffic means additional danger to bicyclists - curb appeal of chain store by bike path - impact on the families of apartment complex - big chain competing with smaller stores - why not move into the former Snyder's building in Navarre. Scott Picha (2273 Cottonwood Lane) asked if Walgreens was going to be responsible for care of the parking lot, sidewalk, and lights. He also asked Walgreens was moving from the existing building and what the City is going to do to ensure that Walgreens maintain the site as it should be? Tom Casey (2854 Cambridge Lane) challenged the Planning Commission to follow the Comprehensive Plan. Policy has to do with compatibility with the existing plan. He suggested the developer come in with all the details and applications at one time. He believes that the five land use policies cited in the Planning Report were not being met. He advised the Commission not to rush, to vote down the amendment as requested, and ask the developer to come in with a complete plan. Tom LaVoie (6549 Bartlett Boulevard) encouraged Walgreens to stay in Mound. He likes what he sees and likes the concept approach taken by Staff. Salazar closed the public hearing at 8:09. Staff commented that the Planning • Commission may wish to keep the hearing open to allow for additional comments and responses. MOTION BY Salazar, second by Linkert, to reopen the public hearing at 8:11. MOTION was unanimously carried. Trapp indicated that high density residential is compatible with the Pedestrian District. and that site and development issues (i.e. environmental, tree replacement, etc) will be addressed at the next step of the development process. Kohler commented that there aren't many Walgreens buildings that are empty but they are very reusable. Their proposal includes spaces for 54 cars which is a number well under the city parking requirements for a building that size not to mention the bistro building; Walgreen's would be responsible for the maintenance for their site ( building, sidewalks, light, parking lot, etc.) Salazar asked about the concept that was mentioned earlier, of incorporating apartments above the retail. Kohler commented that the building height is equivalent to two (2) stories in appearance and that apartments above do not work well for Walgreens. Linked asked if any other locations were considered. Kohler indicated other locations • were considered but couldn't offer more specifics. -357- Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2011 Johann Chemin mentioned the 54 car lot and fulfilling the need for trail parking which we don't need. He also asked about how high Walgreens needs to be, the loss of the is mural and why they need to be in Mound and not Navarre. Salazar commented that he does not want the Walgreens development to go to Navarre. Chemin stated he is concerned that Walgreens will be a detriment for our small businesses. Gillispie stated that Walgreens is known nationwide to do lots of research before moving into a community. They have one of top business models in the country. Chemin commented that he is disappointed that Walgreens didn't send a representative to answer specific questions. Salazar commented that tonight's meeting is a big picture and that representatives will likely be here as specific plans are considered. Gawtry commented that the building blends in with the design of the rest of Mound. Scott Picha commented about Mound's wasted taxpayer's money: - Lost Lake was dredged before anything had begun and needs to be dredged again - $200,000 was spent on street lights • - Streets are not plowed properly - Many businesses were torn down with nothing in their place Tom LaVoie complimented the city for the planning and change that has happened over the years and believes it was money well spent and that the City is intelligent and has spent wisely, including the use of federal monies. Mound should be honored to have Walgreens consider Mound. Tom Casey stated that the mixed use definition by Semper is farfetched and that the five (5) goals from comp plan are not met. Salazar reminded all that we are looking at the big picture tonight. Casey stated that proposal is not all existing commercial ( #2); also, commercial use is expanding. Gawtry commented Walgreens was advised by Staff to submit the comp plan amendment at this time. Smith stated that Staffs review of the requested amendments finds them consistent with the comp plan policies. Trapp commented that we look at the policies district wide, not parcel specific. • -358- Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2011 Gawtry commented that the district is the whole area. • Gillispie commented that the western apartment building is staying. Trapp stated that the Walgreens proposal will combine the subject parcels into three (3) parcels. Gillispie asked if Walgreens does long -term leases. Kohler stated that there will be three (3) different owners. Salazar asked about #4 on page 5 and if they don't automatically have a right to do anything with the apartment building that remains. Smith stated that the apartment building is not proposed to be rezoned and that all necessary approvals related to a future development would be required. Casey commented that refusal to allow rezoning in the future would be difficult because the zoning is consistent with the guidance in the comp plan. He also commented on the request's inconsistency with the comp plan policies (page 4 of the Staff Report) #3 redevelopment of older business areas; this is an not older area #4 not a mix of businesses • #5 not mixed use; it's just another commercial Bruce Dodds (3021 Dickens Lane) commented that 54 parking spaces is just enough to start and that Walgreens, CVS and others wanted the hardware store parcel. He also stated that a new building would look nice and tidy up the area and that the apartment building currently is already buffering the residential. Chemin asked if the Planning Commission were to approve the request, when the next meeting would be. Smith stated that the Council date for review of the requested amendments is not set yet but possible dates are the 1St or 2nd Council meetings in January which are January 10th and January 24th. Smith also commented that the request review at the Council level does not include a public hearing. Kohler commented that full submittal for rezoning, plat, etc. most likely would come in January. Chemin stated that he wants the Planning Commission to give Semper clear direction. The public hearing was closed at 8:52 p.m. • Gillispie stated by recommending approval to Council, we are taking a clear step for Mound and that she supports the amendment. -359- Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2011 Retterath commented that he is on the fence; the apartment seems like an orphan; the edge of residential is being encroached upon; is fearful of parking not being adequate in • the future and tearing apartment building down. Salazar said that that including apartments above the Walgreens would mean more parking spaces. Wiechert commented about condos and /or apartments and mixed use and that there's a lot of vacancy in areas east of Mound. Trapp commented that the inclusion of the apartment building in the reguiding is optional; it will not affect the ability of Walgreens to develop and that redevelopment of the current parcel configuration probably will not happen given the lack of parking among other features. Linkert commented that it is urban and does not celebrate the pedestrian and is not mixed use (retail main level with office and residential above) as stated in the comprehensive plan. He also asked if a 54 car lot is adequate and whether this is the right spot for them. Gillispie commented that the concept of retail below with residential above is not working well in many suburbs. Goode stated that he agrees that Walgreens will be a strength for downtown and will • promote the growth of other businesses. Architectural /visual dynamics will have to be dealt with. Bergquist stated that the comp plan basically is concept for Mound and that Walgreens is trying to accommodate everyone involved. Linkert feels the proposal takes away from the spirit of the pedestrian district, making it difficult to park once and complete all his errands easily on foot. He also commented on the loss of several businesses and the apartment building for the convenience of a drive thru window. Gillispie stated the existing businesses have been looking to stay in Mound and one has already relocated within the City. Retterath commented on the physical point of view including the green area which is lacking and not friendly to the trail. He suggested leaving the apartment building alone. MOTION by Gillispie, second by Wiechert, to recommend City Council approval of the comp plan amendment request subject to Staff recommendation (pages 4 and 5 of the Staff Report). Voting in favor: Salazar, Gillispie, Good, Bergquist, Wiechert and Gawtry. Voting against: Linkert and Retterath. MOTION carried. r 1 U -360- Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2011 B. PC Case No. 11-12 — Expansion Permit • 6407 Bay Ridge Road Owners: Gary and Teri Lano Commissioner Retterath recused himself because of a personal relationship with the applicant's contractor. Smith introduced the expansion permit request. The applicant proposes to construct a four season porch /deck on top of an existing lower level screened lakeside porch, which was constructed with a bluff variance in 1999. There was mention of the submitted hardcover calculation sheet in the Staff Report including additional information requested by Staff. New information supplied by the applicant shows existing hardcover to be 33.6 percent. Staff recommended approval of the request with conditions as outlined in the Staff Report. Discussion Linkert asked if hardcover was over would that change staff recommendation. Smith stated that it would need to be determined whether hardcover was a conforming or nonconforming condition and further responded that we would encourage the applicant to reduce hardcover. Bob Boyer (3435 Co Rd 101, Minnetonka) remarked that the owner has done a good job with the bluff. • MOTION by Salazar, second by Gawtry, to recommend City Council approval as recommended by Staff. MOTION carried unanimously C. PC Case No. 11-09 & 14— Subdivision Exemption /Variance 4849 and 4851 Shoreline Drive Owners: Bob McGlinsky and Norman Domholt Trapp introduced the case. Both buildings are occupied by National Power Chair. The property line goes through the building on 4851 Shoreline. This proposal will correct this issue. The variances for 4839 Shoreline address lot size, width and west side setback. The variances for 4951 Shoreline address east and west lot setback. Linked questioned alley ownership. Trapp responded that it was private having been vacated previously. Retterath asked about access between buildings and if the City has interest in it being maintained. Callie Ostlie (14419 Waters Edge Trail, Prior Lake) commented that the deed was recorded but Hennepin County wouldn't finalize until Mound approves. The purpose for the request is to make property insurable and salable. • Gillispie asked about the drive between the buildings. -361- Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2011 Bob McGlinsky (1951 Lakeside Lane) stated there is access off Shoreline and Bartlett for both buildings. 0 Trapp stated it is in best interest to convert hardcover to green if there is opportunity to do so. Retterath asked about utility issues. Smith stated that the application materials were routed to involved departments however no comments were received on this item. MOTION by Retterath, second by Linkert, to recommend approval, as recommended by Staff, with the condition that utility issues are adequately addressed including the need for easement(s), if needed. MOTION carried unanimously D. PC Case No. 11 -13 —Variance 3070 Highland Boulevard Owners: Bill and Allison Moore Smith introduced the application. The owners propose to construct a conforming addition to connect the existing detached garage near the street to the existing house. As they exist separately, the house is conforming and the garage is conforming. However, when the house and garage are connected the house /garage falls under principle dwelling setbacks and becomes non - conforming. There is an existing access road on the west side of the property. Staff stated that a 10 -foot setback on the west • side is applicable, as allowed for unimproved street frontages exceeding 15 feet, as opposed to the standard 30 -foot front setback requirement, as it functions as an access. Linkert asked if this was a road on the west would change the staff recommendation? Smith said that, because the conditions on site are unique, the recommendation would not change. The new variance amendments were also discussed including review of the new definitions for "unique" and "practical difficulty ". Retterath was concerned about setting a precedent and that we are allowing the special setbacks for detached garage to a principal structure. William Moore (3070 Highland Boulevard) indicated that the hardcover doesn't change significantly. MOTION by Linkert, second by Bergquist, to recommend City Council approval with staff recommendations. MOTION carried. Voting yes: Bergquist, Gawtry, Gillispie, Goode, Linkert, Ward, Wiechert, Salazar. Voting no: Retterath. Findings of Fact from Commissioner Retterath: this situation is not unique as there are many detached garages that owners would like to attach to houses; it opens up can of • worms; it's not about setbacks at all. -362- Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2011 • OLD / NEW BUSINESS A. Staff / Council Liaison Report — Smith commented on the upcoming volunteer recognition dinner. Also commented t hat retail definition and 2 "d hand store ordinance will be on 12/13/11 City Council agenda. B. Next Regular Monthly Meeting — Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 713M C. Linked handed out Curbside Chat for the Commission members to look over. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Goode, seconded by Bergquist, to adjourn at 10:34 p.m. MOTION carried unanimously. Attest, Planning Secretary • • -363- Chair Stephen Ward ITMetropolitan Council 0 December 20, 2011 Dear Local Official: Enclosed is the final housing performance score for your community for 2011 determined pursuant to the Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance. The score is determined by both information provided to us by your community in our annual survey and data gathered from other sources. This 2011 score will then be used in Livable Communities Act grant funding prioritization and decision making following adoption of the 2012 LCA Fund Distribution Plan. Please email me at guy. peterson(a)-metc. state. mn.us if you have any questions. Thank you for your efforts in helping us compile this information. Sincerely, • Guy Peterson Director, Community Development Division Enclosure • www.metrocouncil.org 390 Robert Street North o St. Paul. MN 55101 -1805 -364- 602 -1000 • Fax (651) 602 -1550 • TTY (651) 291 -0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer • Final Housing Performance Score — 2011 • Name of City/Township Mound Criteria —100 points possible 1. 2. 44 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. g. 9. a. b. 10. D Total Final Score Final Score 2010 44 -365 - n:\ commdev\ livcomm \lca \peterson\2011\housing performance \final housing performance scoresheet2011.docx Mayor Mark Hanus 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Hanus, As one of the 36 communities that receive police /fire dispatch service from the Sheriffs Office, I am pleased to inform you of an important development that occurred last week On Tuesday, December 13, the Sheriff s Office received final approval of the schematic design for our new 911 Emergency Communications Facility. The replacement of this 64 year old facility is critical to ensure ongoing reliability for public safety communications in Hennepin County. We will be breaking ground on this project in the latter half of 2012 with occupancy expected in 2014. This $33.75 million facility will be built on existing county property adjacent to the Adult Correctional Facility in Plymouth. The funding was approved as part of the Hennepin County 2012 Capital Improvement plan, and includes $4.7 million of state funding received this year. Thank you for the partnership the city of Mound provided on this project by adopting a resolution of support earlier this year. That resolution, adopted by 35 Hennepin County cities, demonstrated to our representatives at the State Capitol and to our county board that this is a critical regional project. • We will continue to provide you updates on the new 911 Emergency Communications Facility as appropriate. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Sandra Westerman on my staff at 612.543.0694 or call me directly anytime. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard W. Stanek Hennepin County Sheriff cc: Kandis Hanson, Fire Chief Greg Pederson, Interim Police Chief Dean Mooney • -366-