1999-04-27MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1999 7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
*Consem Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and
will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember
or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in
normal sequence.
6:30 P.M.
EXECUTIVE SESSION - WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVE AGENDA.
*CONSENT AGENDA
*A.
*B.
*C.
*D.
*E.
*F.
*G.
PAGE
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 20, 1999 COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE MEETING ..................................... 1336-1337
SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE P & Z CASE #99-09:
(SUGGESTED DATE- MAY 11, 1999) ............................ 1338
REZONING. TO REZONE A PROPERTY FROM R-2 TO R-3
LOCATED AT 2033 COMMERCE BLVD., W.218 FEET OF E. 251 FEET
OF N. 125 FEET OF NE 1/4, SUBJECT TO ROAD, UN-PLATTED
14-117-24, pid/714-117-24 41 0001.
APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL TREE LICENSE FOR RAYS TREE SERVICE .... 1339
APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR 1999 ......... 1340
PAYMENT OF BILLS .................................... 1341-1359
APPROVE MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 1999, REGULAR MEETING.
APPROVE TEMPORARY 3.2 BEER/SET-UP LICENSE AND PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT
FOR MOUND FIRE DEPT. FISH FRY - JUNE 5, 1999.
By ordinance they have to pay $15.00 for Temporary Beer License.
Please waive th fee for the Public Dance Permit.
1334
REQUEST FROM YOUTH BASEBALL FOR USE OF SWENSON PARK AND
PHILBROOK PARK ......................................... 1486-1527
5. CONTINUED DISCUSSION: DEVON COMMON, ROANOKE AREA ....... 1360-1485
6. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
7. PEMBROOK MULTIPLE DOCK CONFIGURATION.
8. SEPARATION AGREEMENT WITH CITY MANAGER.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. March Financial Report as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director ..... 1528-1529
Invitation from the Lake Minnetonka Area Cooperating Cities (LMACC) group to attend
a housing workshop scheduled for Thursday, May 20, 1999, 7:15 a.m. to 9 a.m.,
South Shore Community Center, Shorewood. Topics for discussion at the workshop include
what can be done to maintain existing affordable housing and preservation and development
of affordable and lifecycle housing. The invitation is open to all planning commission
members, city councilmembers, city administrators and managers and other staff. I would
encourage you to attend. We will notice the meeting as a special meeting of the council and/or
planning commission ..................................... 1530-1540
C. Dock & Commons Advisory Commission Minutes of April 15, 1999 ....... 1541-1551
Notice from the Board of Hennepin County Commissioners of the appointment of
Charles Scott Thomas of Minnetrista to fill the vacated seat of Thomas Maple, Jr. for
the term that expires March 8, 2000 ............................ 1552-1553
LMCD - FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER RELATING TO THE PELICAN POINT
VARIANCE REQUEST.
LMCD - CITY OF MOUND VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR SETON BLUFF DOCKS. 100
FEET TO 119 FEET BECAUSE OF WATER DEPTH AND TO NOT DISTURB THE
CATTAILS AND REEDS.
1335
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1999 7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and
will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember
or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in
normal sequence.
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PAGE
2. APPROVE AGENDA.
3. *CONSENT AGENDA
*A.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 20, 1999 COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE MEETING ......................................... 1336-1337
*B.
SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE P & Z CASE 1/99-09:
(SUGGESTED DATE - MAY 11, 1999) ............................... 1338
REZONING. TO REZONE A PROPERTY FROM R-2 TO R-3
LOCATED AT 2033 ~COMMERCE ~LVD. ~FO ALLOW-
CO~[STRUCTION OF TWINHOMESi/STEPHEN S'IDRTZ, 3770 ~
.FNCHANTED LANE, MOUND - W.218 FEET OF E. 251 FEET
OF N. 125 FEET OF NE 1/4, SUBJECT TO ROAD, UNPLATTED
14-117-24, pid//14-117-24 41 0001.
*C. APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL TREE LICENSE FOR RAYS TREE SERVICE ..... 1339
*D. APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR 1999 ........... 1340
*E. PAYMENT OF BILLS ....................................... 1341-1359
4. CONTINUED DISCUSSION: DEVON COMMON, ROANOKE AREA ........ 1360-1485
5. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
REQUEST FROM YOUTH BASEBALL FOR USE OF SWENSON PARK AND PHILBROOK
PARK ....................................................... 1486-1527
1334
REQUEST FROM YOUTH BASEBALL FOR USE OF SWENSON PARK AND
PHILBROOK PARK ......................................... 1486-1527
CONTINUED DISCUSSION: DEVON COMMON, ROANOKE AREA ....... 1360-1485
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
PEMBROOK MULTIPLE DOCK CONFIGURATION.
8. SEPARATION AGREEMENT WITI-I CITY MANAGER.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. March Financial Report as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director ..... 1528o1529
Bo
Invitation from the Lake Minnetonka Area Cooperating Cities (LMACC) group to attend
a housing workshop scheduled for Thursday, May 20, 1999, 7:15 a.m. to 9 a.m.,
South Shore Community Center, Shorewood. Topics for discussion at the workshop include
what can be done to maintain existing affordable housing and preservation and development
of affordable and lifecycle housing. The invitation is open to all planning commission
members, city councilmembers, city administrators and managers and other staff. I would
encourage you to attend. We will notice the meeting as a special meeting of the council and/or
planning commission ..................................... 1530-1540
C. Dock & Commons Advisory Commission Minutes of April 15, 1999 ....... 1541-1551
Do
Notice from the Board of Hennepin County Commissioners of the appointment of
Charles Scott Thomas of Minnetrista to fill the vacated seat of Thomas Maple, Jr. for
the term that expires March 8, 2000 ............................ 1552-1553
Eo
LMCD - FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER RELATING TO THE PELICAN POINT
VARIANCE REQUEST.
Fo
LMCD - CITY OF MOUND VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR SETON BLUFF DOCKS. 100
FEET TO 119 FEET BECAUSE OF WATER DEPTH AND TO NOT DISTURB THE
CATTAILS AND REEDS.
1335
I I I
t I I '1 I
I I
fEET F~OI~ 72~.~
/0
/!
/OO
I
!18 -'
1. Reconfigure the Pembroke multiple dock area to the dimensions outlined on the drawing
provided.
2. Release the minimum funds required to accomplish the changes outlined in the plan.
Direct the City Attorney to draft an agreement between the City of Mound and the neighbor
to the south of Pembroke Park Rodrigo Plaza-Navarrete at 4539 lslandview Drive. This
document will state that Mr. Plaza agrees that the city may freely utilize a portion of the
property in front of the Plaza property for city dockage in either a single or multiple
configuration without contest. In exchange for this, the city will agree that it will not expand
or extend its dockage area beyond the limits shown on the drawing referenced above. The
furthest distance south that this expansion is allowed is 143 feet southwest measured from
the north property line of Pembroke Park.
Mr. Watson will be allowed to utilize one side of the southerly straight dock by either tying
up directly to the dock or angling his lifts provided that his boats and equipment do not
exceed the 143 foot limitation described above. It is understood that once Mr. Watson
leaves the program Or reduces the number of boats from his applications, the unused portion
will revert back to the dock system for general use.
Locate all abutting property owner's site centers to where they have been placed in recent
years and for staffto determine the appropriate numbers to assign. Ifa change is desired a
request will be submitted to the city for the change.
Remove what has come to be known as the Stead site. Mr. Stead will share with the
Lafortune dock for the 1999 boating season. Mr. Stead may access this site through the
Laformne property if necessary.
Remove what has come to be known as the Albrecht site. Mr. Albrecht will be assigned a
vacant site on the Pembroke multiple.
Remove what has come to be known as the Casey site. Ms. Casey will be able to share the
Harrington dock site for the 1999 boating season. If she would like, she may share with
another dock in the area provided she can work out the details.
Mr. Schmidt will remain in his current location centered at the fire lane. This dock location
will be designated for a straight dock only and that the dock/boat complex shall not project
beyond the extended boundary, lines of the fire lane.
The Roanoke commons area, both east and west of the fire lane, but not including the fire
lane, is to be design~ited as class -C- commons.
All of the displaced inland site holders will be assi~ed a permanent location for the 2000
and subsequent boating seasons. Dock sharing, as always, is permitted. The displaced
Roanoke dock site holders will not be removed from the dock program involuntarily.
ADD-ON FOR APRIL 27, 1999 - CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
CONSENT AGENDA:
*F. APPROVE MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 1999, REGULAR MEETING.
*G.
APPROVE TEMPORARY 3.2 BEER/SET-UP LICENSE AND PUBLIC
DANCE PERMIT FOR MOUND FIRE DEPT. FISH FRY - JUNE 5, 1999.
By ordinance they have to pay $15.00 for Temporary Beer License.
Please waive th fee for the Public Dance Permit.
REGULAR AGENDA:
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION - WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION.
INFORMATION & MISCELLANEOUS
Eo
LMCD - FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER RELATING TO THE
PELICAN POINT VARIANCE REQUEST.
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13, 1999
*CONSENT AGENDA
*1.0 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 23, 1999, REGULAR
MEETING.
MOTION
Ahrens, Weycker, unanimously.
*1.1
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 30, 1999. SPECIAL MEETING.
MOTION
Ahrens, Weycker, unanimously.
'1.2
SET EXECUTIVE SESSION TO BE HELD DURING THE COMMITTEE OF
THE WHOLE MEETING, APRIL 20. 1999 TO DISCUSS THE WOODLAND
POINT MATTER.
MOTION
Ahrens, Weycker, unanimously.
'1.3 SET BID OPENING DATE FOR 1999 SEALCOAT PROGRAM. SUGGESTED
DATE: APRIL 28, 1999. 11 A.M.
MOTION
Ahrens, Weycker, unanimously.
'1.4 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT FOR
(HMEP} HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY PROGRAM MONIES.
RESOLUTION g99-27
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT
AGREEMENT FOR (HMEP) HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
EMERGENCY PROGRAM MONIES
Ahrens, Weycker, unanimously.
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13, 1999
The City Council of the City of Mound, I-Iennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session
on Tuesday, April 13, 1999, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road,
in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark
Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr.,
City Attorney John Dean, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, City Engineer John
Cameron, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Dave Moore, Bev
Barkley, Wayne Ehlebracht, Ron Bergquist, Bernie McVey, John & Mar Nelson, Richard &
Cookie Carlson, Tom Stokkes, Richard Oliver, Jim Graham, John Haulton, Jim Ford, and
Mark Hendrickson.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
*CONSENT AGENDA
The City Manager stated he has two items to add.
1. An item for the Regular Agenda which would be a discussion item that deals
with the a variance application to the LMCD from the Pelican Point
Homeowner's Association. The public heating at the LMCD is scheduled for
tomorrow night and the Staff at the LMCD has asked that the Council consider
this variance and provide comments on it.
2. An item for the Consent Agenda setting a Special Council Meeting for
Monday, April 19, 1999, at 7:30 P.M. to discuss the dockage on Devon
Common in the Roanoke Access area.
Councilmember Weycker asked that Item D on the Consent Agenda be removed.
Mayor Meisel stated she has a couple of questions on Items F, G and J on the Consent
Agenda.
MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Brown to approve the Consent Agenda
as amended. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL -APRIL 13, 1999
'1.5 APPROVAL OF LICENSE RENEWALS: GAMES OF SKILL, POOL TABLES.
BOWLING. AMUSEMENT DEVICE, AND RESTAURANT.
MOTION to approve the following licenses to approve the following licenses contingent
upon aH required forms, insurance, etc., being submitted.
GAMES OF SKILL
American Legion Post #398
VFW Post #:5113
POOL TABLES
VFW Post #5113
Lake Minnetonka Bowl
BOWLING
Lake Minnetonka Bowl
AMUSEMENT DEVICE
American Legion Post #398
VFW Post #5113
RESTAURANT
A1 & Alma's
American Legion Post #398
Domino's Pizza #1974
Happy Garden
Hardee's
House of Moy
Lake Minnetonka Bowl
Scotty B's
Subway Sandwiches
VFW Post #5113
Uncharted Grounds
Public Gathering Permits
VIKING BASSMASTERS - OCTOBER 3, 1999 - WEIGH-IN AT MOUND
BAY PARK
MINNETONKA BASS CLASSIC (DENNY NELSON) - JUNE 5, 1999 -
WEIGH-IN AT MOUND BAY PARK
Ahrens, Weycker, unanimously.
3
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13, 1999
'1.6
CASE 99-05: MINOR SUBDIVISION. TO READJUST PROPERTY LINES TO
CREATE TWO PARCELS. MARVIN NELSON, 2025
SHOREWOOD LANE. LOTS 4, 5 & 6. BLOCK 1. SHADYWOOD
POINT 61980. PID//18-117-23 32 0011 & 18-11%23 32 0012.
RESOLUTION # 99-28
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT
2025 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 4-5-6, BLOCK 1,
SHADYWOOD POINT, PID # 18-11%23 32 0011 & 18-11%
23 32 0012, P & Z CASE # 99-05
Ahrens, Weycker, unanimously.
'1.7
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION
Ahrens, Weycker, unanimously.
*1.8
ADD-On: SET SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR MONDAY. APRIL
19. 1999. AT 7:30 P.M. TO DISCUSS THE DOCKAGE ON DEVON COMMON
IN THE ROANOKE AREA - APRIL 19. 1999.
MOTION
Ahrens, Weycker, unanimously.
1.9
PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY 1-2. 1999 AS MARCH FOR PARKS
WEEKEND IN THE CITY OF MOUND.
Councilmember Weycker stated that the Park & Open Space Commission has asked that the
money collected from the pledges for the City of Mound be used to buy trees for the parks in
the City of Mound. The consensus of the Council was that this is an appropriate way to
spend the money.
Weycker moved and Brown seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//98-29
RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING MAY 1
& 2, 1999, AS MARCH FOR PARKS
WEEKEND IN THE CITY OF MOUND
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
4
1.10
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIl., -APRlL 13, 1999
RESOLUTION APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (LOGIS} HEALTH CARE
GROUP (GROUP).
The Mayor asked how much this will cost? The City Manager explained that it does not cost
anything. The City is a member of the LOGIS Health Care Group. It is just a formal
agreement that the city is going to participate in the program. It is part of the health
coverage.
Meisel moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//99-30
RESOLUTION APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS
(LOGIS) HEALTH CARE GROUP (GROUP) BY THE
CITY OF MOUND
The voted was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.11
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE LICENSE AGREEMENT
WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING ELECTRONIC PROPRIETARY
GEOGRAPHICAL DIGITIZED DATA BASE (EPDB) AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT.
The Mayor asked if there is a cost to this? The City Manager explained that originally
there was a $500. charge. The County has merely revised their agreements to reflect some
changes in the technology.
Meisel moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//99-31
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY
REGARDING ELECTRONIC PROPRIETARY
GEOGRAPHICAL DIGITIZED DATE BASE (EPDB) AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO
SIGN THE AGREEMENT
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.12 APPROVAL OF LICENSE RENEWALS: TRANSIENT MERCHANT, TREE
REMOVAL, SET-UP LICENSE, AND PUBLIC GATHERING PERMITS.
The Mayor asked if there have been any problems with the By the Way Snack Shop and boat
traffic in the Seton Channel? The Staff stated there have been no complaints and the Water
Patrol has not had any problems for the 2 years they have been in business.
5
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13, 1999
MOTION by Meisel, seconded by Ahrens to approve the following licenses
contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc., being submitted.
Transient Merchant
By the Way Snack Shop
Tree Removal License
Aaspen Tree Service
Amberwood Tree
Bear Tree Care
Four Season's Tree Service
Ostvig Tree, Inc.
Precision Landscape
Randy's Tress Service
Shorewood Tree Service (Residential)
Set-Up License
A1 & Alma's Supper Club
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.13
PUBLIC HEARING CASE 99-06: MINOR SUBDIVISION, TO READJUST
PROPERTY LINES TO CREATE TWO PARCELS TO CONSTRUCT A
TWINHOME AT 2541 WEXFORD LANE, FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, INC.,
LOTS 1, 2, 3, 14 & 15, BLOCK 7, SETON, PID//24-117-24 11 0019.
1.14
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 99-07: REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TWINHOME LOCATED WITHIN
THE R-2 SINGLE OR TWO FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT AT 2541 WEXFORD
LANE, LOTS 1, 2, 3, 14 & 15, BLOCK 7, SETON, PID//24-117-24 11 0019.
The City Planner explained that these two cases, 99-06 and 99-07, will be explained
together. The Minor Subdivision(1.13) would have to be approved in order for the Council
to consider the Conditional Use Permit (1.14).
The Planner stated the applicant has requested a minor subdivision to split property into two
buildable lots to construct a twin home. The proposal would split the parcel north/south
creating two new lots as shown on the survey. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the subdivision with the following conditions:
Easements for drainage and utility purposes should be required along all
exterior lot lines, ten feet in width adjacent to the three streets and five feet
wide along the south lot line of Parcel B.
6
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13, 1999
Utility services are in-place for both parcels. Parcel A has a sewer service
available on the Longford Road side and water services in both Longford Road
and Wexford Lane.
Parcel B can use the existing services that presently service the house that is
schedule for demolition. The City's record utility plan shows the existing
house was equipped with an individual sewage pump, because it could not be
served by gravity. The proposed structure may have the same situation if
basements are planned. These existing services will need to be replaced from
the right-of-way to the new structure.
A more complete grading plan will need to be furnished at the time of building
permit application.
The Planner further stated that the Staff recommends approval of the request because it is
consistent with the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
The Planner then explained the request for a Conditional Use Permit. He stated this is
consistent with the R-2 Zoning. There are covenants regarding the agreements with the two
property owners that would occupy each side of the unit. These are consistent with other
twin home projects. He reported that the lot area is large enough for 2 and maybe 3 single
family detached homes. If this were done, a Conditional Use Permit would not be needed.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the
twinhome with the following conditions:
A. The existing fencing conform to the codes for fence requirements.
B. All existing buildings be removed prior to construction.
Covenants be established and approved by the City Attorney prior to Council
review for the exterior of the proposed buildings and the landscaping of the
lots.
D. The basement elevation not be lower than 933.5 feet.
E. Any changes in the plan be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to
City Council approval.
F. Applicant adhere to the Tree Preservation Performance Standards.
G. Review by the Building Official of the back-up systems if the basements are to
be served with sanitary sewer.
The Planner also suggested adding the following as a condition of the subdivision section of
the proposed resolution, as follows:
7
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13, 1999
1. C. Park dedication fees be paid as stated in Section 330:120 of the City Code.
The applicant asked if this is one additional park dedication fee. The Planner stated, yes.
Councilmember Hanus asked if this is private dockage or public dockage. The Planner
stated the dock will come off of private lakeshore. Councilmember Hanus stated that his
understanding is that there will be one dock and both parties will share that dock. The
applicant agreed.
Councilmember Hanus then asked the applicant if he had a problem with adding one more
condition to the CUP that would read as follows:
H. Dockage is to be retained as private dockage and to be utilized from private
lakeshore rather than public.
Mr. Stokkes stated he does not have a problem with adding that condition.
The Mayor opened the public heating.
The following persons spoke against the Subdivision and the CUP:
Ron Bergquist, 2540 Wexford Lane
Gordy McVey, 4807 Longford Road
The reasons were as follows:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Increased traffic.
Would rather see two single family dwellings.
Loss of trees.
Loss of their view of the lake.
Don't want a multi-family dwelling in the neighborhood.
Do not want rental units in the neighborhood.
Richard Carlson, 4832 Longford Road, asked about the fences that are currently around this
property. The developer stated those will come down and anything that is put up would have
to conform to the ordinance.
Tom Stokkes, Fine Line Design, informed the Council that one of these units is already pre-
sold and the sale price is in excess of $300,000.
The Mayor closed the public heating.
The Council discussed the tree issue. The Planner stated that Item F in the proposed
resolution will handle this.
Brown moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL -APRIL 13, 1999
RESOLUTION g99-32
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR
SUBDIVISION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A TWINHOME
IN AN R-2 ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 2541
WEXFORD ROAD, LOTS 1, 2, 3, 14 & 15,
SUBJECT TO ROAD, BLOCK 7, SETON, PID//24.
117-24 11 0019, P & Z CASES g99-06 & 99-07
Hanus asked that the following be added to the proposed resolution as discussed
previously:
1. C.
Park dedication fees be paid as stated in Section 330:120 of the City
Code.
Dockage for the properties is to be located on private lakeshore and not
utilize public shoreline.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.15 CASE 99-03:
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
A HARD COVER VARIANCE AND TO VACATE A UTILITY
EASEMENT IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION TO
CONVERT A 1 1,6 STORY DWELLING INTO A 2 STORY AND
ADD AN ADDITION WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE, AT 4844
ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 1 & 2, BLOCK 5, DEVON, PADS
25-117-24 11 0047 & 25-117-24 11 0046
City Planner, Loren Gordon gave the following: BACKGROUND/COMMENTS: George
Ayaz property owner at 4844 Island View Drive has submitted a request for the following:
Vacate 1/2 of Drummond Road adjacent to the property.
Vacate a utility easement area along the front of the property as contained in Doc. #
779757.
Currently Drummond Road is a paper street that has water and sanitary sewer lines within in
it. Between Dexter Lane and Amhurst l_ztne, Drummond runs in the rear of homes located
on the block. All homes on the block front on Island View Drive or Hanover Road. As
there are no homes that "front" on Drummond or and detached garages that could utilize it as
an alley, it does not seem useful to the public for access purposes.
The City Engineer's report dated February 1, 1999, details the utility and easement issues on
the property. Recommendations from this report are included in the following
recommendation.
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNC1L - APRIL 13, 1999
The applicant submitted a request last year for front and side yard variances to remodel the
existing residence. The request to vacate that part of Drummond Road is primarily related to
the need to comply with the hardcover conditions stipulated in the approved resolution//98-
43. The resolution states that hardcover for the property is limited to 40 percent. As
proposed, the property would be over the allowable amount by 412 square feet. With the
incorporation of 1/2 of a vacated Drummond Road, the total property area would be I 0,000
sq. fi. which would allow for 4,000 sq. ft. of hardcover. The site plan and hardcover
calculations submitted with last year's variance request show a total of 3932 sq. ft. of
impervious surface. The new survey dated January 26, 1999, is the same as last year's
survey, except that the driveway has a notch on the north side and is about 5 feet wider.
This new site plan would add approximately 432 sq. ft. of hardcover bringing the total
hardcover after incorporation of the vacated street to 4364 sq. ft. An overage of 364 sq. ft.
Even with street vacation, the January 26th site plan could not be approved.
To move this request along there are a couple of options:
o
If the Planning Commission determined the vacation is in the public's interest, the
hardcover would be limited to what is shown on the original site plan submitted with
the variance request.
The request could' be modified to vacate all of Drummond Road which would then be
incorporated in to the property. This assumes the abutting property owner north of
Drummond does not wish to receive the north 1/2. Total allowable hardcover would
be 4,480 sq. ft.
The third option would be to modify the previously approved resolution to allow the
extra driveway hardcover as shown. This would be a hardcover variance of 364 sq.
ft.
RECOMME~ATION: Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend
Council approval street and utility easement vacations as requested with the following
conditions:
1. Limit the hardcover to 40 percent as stated in Resolution//98-43.
2. Vacate the south half of Drummond Road right-of-way adjacent to Lots I and 2,
Block 15, Devon, retaining a permanent easement for utility and drainage purposes.
3. Vacate the north 10 feet of the easement as originally described in Document No.
890740.
4. Upon recording of vacation documents, a revised survey is to be furnished which
shows all easements and City utilities, including the watermain in the north one half of
unimproved Drummond Road.
The Planning Commission recommended the following:
Approval for a variance for hard cover limits not to exceed 40 percent (4,000
square fee0.
10
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13, 1999
Denial of the vacation request because it provides a "piecemeal" planning
process and that the Island View utility easements be maintained with the three
conditions per the City Engineer's report.
Request that the Council have Staff prepare a recommendation to vacate all of
the unimproved Drummond Road.
City Engineer, John Cameron, reported that he has reviewed the application for street and
easement vacation and have the following comments and recommendations.
The application requests vacation of the south one half of Drummond Road adjacent to the
applicant's property, Lots I and 2, Block 15, Devon. This half of the right-of-way has a
sewer service for Lot 19, Block 16, Devon running thought it. There is a City watermain
located in the north one half of the ROW. Attached is a copy from the City's record plans,
which shows both lines. It does not appear that the Drummond Road right-of-way will ever
be needed for street purposes; therefore we see no public interest in retaining this right-of-
way for street purposes, but utility and drainage easements must be retained.
The application also requests vacation of the easement contained in document No. 779757
which covers the south 20 feet of Lot 2, Block 15, Devon. The existing garage is located
within this easement, however in 1986 the north 10 feet was vacated, we assume because of
the garage. The south 10 feet was retained as a utility easement because a City watermain
runs through this portion of the lot. This 10 foot easement must still be retained; therefore
nothing needs to be done with the easements on the south end of Lot 2. Attached is a copy of
document No. 779757, the original easement and documents No. 1789599 and No. 1798024
containing Resolution 86-117 vacating the north 10 feet of the 20 foot easement. For some
reason, this resolution was recorded twice.
LOt one, Block 15, Devon also has a utility easement across the south 20 feet and is recorded
as document No. 890740. It was originally dedicated for both the watermain and sanitary
sewer main. The addition to the existing house as proposed by the applicant will extend over
the city sanitary sewer main and manhole. This short section of sanitary sewer only serves
this property; therefore arrangements have been made with Public Works to allow removal of
the manhole and a section of the City sewer main when the addition is constructed. With
removal of the city sanitary sewer main, the size of the easement can be reduced from 20
feet to 10 feet. Attached is a copy of document No. 890740
There is one last document No. 1466491 which is for a triangular easement at the southeast
comer of Lot I for the curb radius. The proposed construction will not affect this easement,
thus it can be left in place. Attached is a copy of document No. 1466491.
The City Engineer made the following recommendation regarding the proposed street and
easement vacations. The utility issues have been coordinated with Greg Skinner of Public
Works and he concurs with these recommendations.
11
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13, 1999
Vacate the south half of Drummond Road fight-of-way adjacent to Lots I and 2,
Block 15, Devon, retaining a permanent easement for utility and drainage purposes.
Vacate the north 10 feet of the easement as originally described in Document No.
890740.
Upon recording of vacation documents, a revised survey is to be furnished which
shows all easements and City utilities, including the watemain in the north one half of
unimproved Drummond Road.
Councilmember Hanus suggested adding an item to the proposed resolution which would be
in the NOW, THEREFORE, to read as follows:
1.e. The owner is responsible for removal of any existing sanitary sewer on this parcel as
well as re-hook-up of his private sewer system.
The City Attorney suggested adding this to Item 1.c. to read as follows:
C.
Vacate the north 10 feet of the easement as originally described in document
//890740. The applicant to enter into an arreement providinr for the
removal and re-hook-up of the private sewer system at his expense.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the
public heating.
Councilmember Hanus stated that the Planning Commission also asked that the Council
consider vacating the entire unimproved portion of Drummond Road.
Councilmember Hanus also asked that the following be added to item 1.a. in the proposed
resolution as follows:
1. a. The vacation request for the south 1/2 of Drummond Road be denied, due to
the desire that further steps be taken to investigate the vacation of both
halves of the unimproved portion of Drummond Road. This would not
require that we do that but it would give a reason for the denial.
Hanus stated he would, if this resolution is approved, then offer another motion asking Staff
to investigate this vacation possibility.
The Council discussed possibly vacating the unimproved portion of Drummond Road entirely
but, retaining the utility and drainage easements. The City Attorney explained that the
requirement for vacation is that 51% of the property owners along the unimproved road have
to petition for the vacation. If the City wants to vacate the road that requirement does not
hold true but, it would take a 4/5's vote of the City Council to initiate the process.
The City Engineer stated he felt the owners of property along unimproved Drummond Road
needed to be notified before this process to see if they had any plans for splitting their lots
and locating a home along this road. At present, the homes on these lots front on Hanover
Road.
12
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13, 1999
Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution with the changes above made by
himself and the City Attorney:
RESOLUTION g99-33
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A HARDCOVER
VARIANCE AND VACATE A UTILITY EASEMENT IN
ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION TO
CONVERT A 1 1/2 STORY DWELLING INTO A 2 STORY
AND ADD AN ADDmON WITH AN ATTACHED
GARAGE, AT 4844 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 1 & 2,
BLOCK 5, DEVON, PADS 25-117-24 11 0047 & 25-117-24
11 004iR & Z CASE//99-03
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION made by Hanus seconded by Ahrens directing Staff to investigate the
possibility of vacating the entire unimproved Drummond Road, retaining
drainage and utility easements. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
NORWOOD LANE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT.
The City Engineer explained the background of this proposed improvement which was
discussed in detail at the March 9, 1999, City Council Meeting.
The Mayor opened the public heating.
John Haulton, 4900 Bartlett Blvd. stated he has not intention of splitting his lots and
would like to have his utility assessment deferred until his Lot 7 is subdivided off.
The City Attorney informed Mr. Haulton that even if the Council defers the utility
portion of his assessment, it will continue to accrue interest until it is paid.
The Council discussed deferring the utility portion of the assessment on Mr.
Haulton's parcel until such time as the parcel is subdivided or a building permit is
requested. The also discussed deferring Beverly Barkley's utility assessment under
the condition that it be paid if her vacant parcel is sold and a building permit is
requested. The City Engineer recommended that both the Haulton and Barkley
property have their utility assessments deferred, at this time. The Council agreed this
would be appropriate.
Dave Moore, developer, spoke in favor of the Norwood Lane Improvement Project.
He further stated the twin homes will be in the $150,000 price range and
approximately 1500 square feet each.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
13
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 15, 1999
I-Ianus asked what the impact on the City will be with the deferments? The City
Engineer stated that without the deferments the City share is $12,300 and too that you
would add the age deferment on Lots 12 and 13 at $8,540; and if the utility
deferment is given on Lot 7 that would add another $2,175 for a total of $23,015,
which would add about 10,715. The City pays the entire contract price up front and
is then paid back over 10 years plus 8% interest.
1.16
RESOLUTION AMENDING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR
DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE HARDSHIP FOR
SENIOR CITIZENS.
Hanus moved and Brown seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//99-34
RESOLUTION AMENDING STANDARDS AND
GUIDELINES FOR DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE HARDSHIP FOR
SENIOR CITIZENS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.17
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR THE NORWOOD LANE
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
The City Attorney suggested the following language be inserted in the resolution
adopting the assessment role: ~The entire street assessment on Lot 7 (PID//13-117-
24 44 0033) of $2,095.00 will be assessed now and collected as set forth in this
resolution. The utility assessment ($2,175.00) on Lot 7 will be deferred with interest
accruing until such time as LOt 7 is subdivided from Lots 8 & 9, Block 3.
split or divided from
Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution with the above amendment as
suggested by the City Attorney:
RESOLUTION//99-35
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR
THE NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
14
1.18
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL -APRIL 13, 1999
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT FOR THE
NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
The City Attorney advised the Council that they may be wise to make this award effective
until 31 days from now, in case there is an appeal to the assessment. The City Engineer
stated that the contractor is ready to start next week and if the award is delayed he would not
be able to start until later this Summer and the bids are only good for 60 days and that runs
out on April 25th.
Brown moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g99-36
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT FOR
THE NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
1.19
FURTHER DISCUSSION RE: POSSIBLE CITY OF MOUND
PARTICIPATION IN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CONSOLIDATED POOL, HENNEPIN COUNTY
OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT STAFF.
The following Hennepin County Staff members were present: Mark Hendrickson, Jim Ford
and Jim Graham. They explained the consolidated pool to he City Council. After
considerable discussion on the pros and cons of joining the consolidated pool, the following
action was taken:
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Meisel to join the consolidated pool.
A roll call vote on the original motion was 3 in favor with Hanus and Weycker
voting nay. Motion carried.
Councilmember Weycker stated that she voted no because she would rather have the City
Council keep control over where this money is targeted and She had more questions.
Councilmember Hanus stated he voted no because he had some more questions.
15
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL -APRIL 13, 1999
1.20 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON FENCE/TRELLIS
ISSUE
Assistant Planner, Loren Gordon, reported that the Planning Commission felt that the fence
definition was generally good and was a good fit for most situations. For those situations
that were in the grey zone, they felt staff needed to use a 'common sense approach' for
enforcement. The definition reads as follows. Fence. 'A fence is defined for the purpose
of this Ordinance as any partition, structure, wail or gate erected as a dividing barrier or
enclosure and located aiong the boundary, or within the required yard.'
Loren Gordon explained that he has reviewed a number of City zoning codes and found little
in the way of assistance with a definition for a fence or trellis. All of the communities he
reviewed including Orono, Minnetrista, Shorewood, Bloomington, and Minnetonka, did not
have a fence or trellis definition. They ail have specific standards for height, materiais, and
finish similar to ours. He suggested we continue the discussion on the definition and purpose
of a fence. He will continue to look for additionai information that could help with
discussions before the Planning Commission's meeting on Monday.
Hanus stated that he feels our Staff tends to be taking literal interpretations out of the Code
Book because it's comfortable and they have something to go back and hang their hat on,
which is nice. But, in the real world that cannot aiways be done and some common sense
needs to come into play. He felt that maybe we need to add some materiais into the
definition or the description of what a fence is to clarify some of the specifics.
There was discussion on the regulation of fences and the fact that many municipaiities do not
define fence/trellis.
The City Attorney stated that most municipalities regulate fences but do no define them.
The Planner stated he is most comfortable working without a definition for fence and felt the
Building Officiai would probably agree.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus asked that the Planning
Commission to take appropriate action (hold a public hearing) to consider
removing the definition of a fence from the Zoning Code. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.21 ADD-ON: PELICAN POINT DDOCKAGE.
The City Manager explained that Pelican Point has applied to the LMCD for a 50 foot
variance to ailow them to go from 1000 feet to 150 feet at the north end of the property,
rather than relocating the 16 slips to the south. The LMCD will be holding a public heating
on this tomorrow evening and would like the city's input on this.
16
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13, 1999
MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Hanus to recommend that the LMCD
approve extending the Pelican Point docks out from 100 feet to 150 feet rather
than relocate 16 slips. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS.
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for March 1999.
Letter from Kiki Sonnen, Executive Director, WeCan requesting financial assistance
in relocating their offices from the Westonka Community Center to some other
location. I did not put this on the action part of this agenda because the Council has
previously stated that it did not believe it had a financial obligation to relocate the
community tenants except for the public access studio which .it now controls with
Chanhassen.
Ce
Dock and Commons Advisory Commission Minutes of March 18, 1999.
Memorandum from Jim Strommen, Suburban Rate Authority, on the area code
decision.
Letter from the National League of Cities (NLC) regarding the five federal priorities
of the NLC.
Ge
Summary of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Roundtable held with
City Managers, Administrators and other city officials.
Notice from MCWD regarding a public meeting on the operation of the Gray's Bay
Dam Control Structure. Meeting is scheduled for April 22, 1999, Minnetonka
Community Center, Council Chambers at 6:30 p.m.
Notice from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) regarding
vacancies on the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and on the AMM Board.
Public Hearing Notice from LMCD regarding Pelican Point Homeowner's
Association variance application. Public hearing is scheduled for April 14, 1999,
7:00 p.m., Tonka Bay City Hall.
Notice from the Mound City Days Committee regarding participation in the parade.
Please send in this notice to the Committee if you intend to be in the parade.
Councilmember Brown attended the joint planning commission meeting with
Minnetrista on March 29 at Minnetrista. He may want to comment on the results of
that meeting. Brown commented that it was an extremely productive meeting.
17
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 1.3, 1999
Copy of the survey requested by the City Council on the Roanoke Access. You will
note that there is a change in the numbering of the individual dock sites. This is due
to survey crew using two bench marks noted on the current Dock Location Map.
They were #42052 at the Roanoke Lane aec, aa and #41631 at the point in front of
Lot 14. In order to locate the dock sites as directed by the City Council, (see the
City Council minutes of January 12, 1999 and February 9, 1999), the numbering had
to be adjusted. Questions should be directed to Jim Fackler, Parks Director or John
Cameron, City Engineer.
No
REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 20,
1999, 7:30 p.m.
REMINDER: HRA meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 13, 1999, 7:00 p.m.
We have received a resignation/retirement letter from Judy Bryce, part-time Fire
Department Secretary. She will be leaving at the end of April. Judy has been with
us for nine years in this capacity. We will be having coffee and cake for her on
Friday, April 30, 3 p.m., City Hall.
Notice of SRA (Suburban Rate Authority) Quarterly Meeting, April 21, 1999, 4:30
P.M. at the Roseville Skating Center, City of Roseville Park and Recreation, 2661
Civic Center Drive, Roseville, MN. 0Vlap Attached).
MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Weycker to adjourn at 12:05 A.M. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
18
'DRAFT
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
IN RE: APPLICATION OF PELICAN POINT
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
FINDINGS
On April 14, 1999 at 7:00 p.m., pursuant to due notice, a public hearing was held by the Lake
Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board of Directors at the Tonka Bay City Hall in the
City of Tonka Bay, Minnesota to consider the application for a variance by the Pelican Point
Homeowners Association. The applicant's property is located on Spring Park and Phelps Bays.
The applicant owns 2,857 fees of non-continuous shoreline, 1,386 feet of which is on the main
land and 1,471 feet of which is on a nearby island.
The applicant seeks a dock use area length variance of 50 feet from the 100-foot limitation
provided by LMCD Code to a total length of 150 feet from the shoreline.
The applicant currently maintains a multiple dock facility at its site, which was approved by the
Board on October 26, 1994 for 40 Boat Storage Units. The 40 Boat Storage Units approved are
licensed under existing permits for construction at the northern part of the main land property.
The applicant stated as reasons for requesting the variance a desire to maintain the shoreline
along the southern part of the main land property in an undeveloped state and to expand the
facilities by increasing the number of 32-foot long slips and providing adequate water depth for
maneuvering of larger water crat~ into and out of the slips which open toward the shoreline.
LMCD Code Section 2.02, subd. 1 authorizes the construction and maintenance of dock facilities
for only one restricted watercrat~ for each 50 feet of continuous shoreline. Under this rule, the
number of Boat Storage Units on the main land would be limited to 28. However, the LMCD
Code, at Section 2.02, subd. 5, allows for the transfer of shoreline credit under certain limited
circumstances. The Pelican Point facility was licensed under this provision of the code. One of
the restrictions on the allowance of transfer of shoreline for purposes of calculating density is
that no variances, other than temporary low water variances, may be granted for the construction
of docks at the transferee site (in this case the main land shoreline). LMCD Code Section 2.02,
subd. 5(d).
There is adequate dock use area along the main land shoreline to construct docks for 40 Boat
Storage Units in compliance with the LMCD Code and without a variance. In fact, at the time of
consideration of this variance, the Board had suspended, at the request of the applicant,
consideration of a dock license application which would have solved the shallow water problem
by relocating the 16 slips which open toward the shoreline from the current facility at the
northern part of the property to a new location within the authorized dock use area of the site at
the south end of the main land property.
The Board finds that there is not a hardship within the meaning of LMCD Code Section 1.07
because there is adequate room within the dock use area of the subject site for construction of 40
Boat Storage Units, the maximum number allowed by code, without a variance. Moreover, the
Board finds that the difficulties encountered by the applicant with shallow water are self created,
CLL-161762
LKll0-4
at least in part, because slips are opened toward the shallow water of the shoreline and are
designed to store large water craR at 32-foot long slips. ,,~
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED: that the application of Pelican Point
Homeowners Association for a dock use area length variance for its facilities at the subject site is
hereby denied.
By Order of the Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District this
day of ,1999.
ATTEST:
Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary
Douglas Babcock, Chair
CLL-161762 2
LKII0-4
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. March Financial Report as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director ....... 1528-1529
Invitation from the Lake Minnetonka Area Cooperating Cities (LMACC) group to attend
a housing workshop scheduled for Thursday, May 20, 1999, 7:15 a.m. to 9 a.m.,
South Shore Community Center, Shorewood. Topics for discussion at the workshop include
what can be done to maintain existing affordable housing and preservation and development
of affordable and lifecycle housing. The invitation is open to all planning commission
members, city councilmembers, city administrators and managers and other staff. I would
encourage you to attend. We will notice the meeting as a special meeting of the council and/or
planning commission ......................................... 1530-1540
C. Dock & Commons Advisory Commission Minutes of April 15, 1999 ......... 1541-1551
Do
Notice from the Board of Hennepin County Commissioners of the appointment of
Charles Scott Thomas of Minnetrista to fill the vacated seat of Thomas Maple, Jr. for
the term that expires March 8, 2000 ............................... 1552-1553
1335
MINUTES-COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
APRIL 20, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. at Mound City Hall. Members Present:
Mayor Meisel; Councilmembers Ahrens, Brown, Hanus and Weycker. Also Present: City
Attorney John Dean (arrived 7:55 p.m.) and Ed Shukle, City Manager.
Community Center Information/Discussion
City Manager Ed Shukle reviewed the information sent out on April 16, 1999 on community centers
around the state of Minnesota, Twin Cities metropolitan area and the state of Colorado. He also
presented information from the City of Hopkins on the Hopkins Center for the Arts.
The City Council also discussed what the local committee recently formed is doing regarding the
study of a possible community center in Mound.
After some discussion, it was the consensus to wait for this local committee to approach the City
Council regarding this topic. ~',a:~~~& ~
Mayor Meisel also indicated that a task force has been formed to study the feasibility of locating a
senior center on a tract of land in Minnetrista. A number of community representatives are serving
on this task force including the Mayors of Minnetrista and Mound. More information on this topic
will be available at a later date.
City Manager's Employment At, reement
Mayor Meisel introduced this topic. She indicated that she had sent some information out regarding
performance evaluations that she had received following the Newly Elected Officials Conference
sponsored by the League of Minnesota Cities. She also handed out a sample of an evaluation
method that could be used to evaluate the city manager.
It was noted that the Employment Agreement had been sent out to the Council previously. Shukle
indicated that in the 13 years that he has been City Manager, them has not been a question about the
agreement. In addition, in the past 13 years, there has never been a performance evaluation of the
city manager. He indicated that he suggested performance evaluations but none were done although
the employment agreement has a provision on evaluation.
Councilmember Brown asked that the meeting be closed for an executive session. Mayor Meisel
indicated that the City Manager decides if the meeting is closed or not. Shukle responded by asking
the Council what the nature of the discussion is going to be? He stated that he had some concerns
since he has been hearing several rumors in the community about his status as city manager. Meisel
asked each councilmember how they felt about keeping the meeting open or closed. It appeared that
the balance of the Council could accept either method.
COW Minutes
April 20, 1999
Page 2
The City Manager then indicated that he would agree to a closed meeting and would be absent from
the meeting. He then left the Council Chambers and went into his office. City Attorney Dean then
announced that there would be a closed session to discuss this matter. At that point in time, the tape
recorder was stopped. Following the discussion, the recorder was re-started and City Attorney Dean
announced that the Council had conducted an evaluation of the City Manager and that there would
be a summary of the results of that evaluation to be provided at the next regular meeting of the City
Council which is Tuesday, April 27, 1999. He then indicated that the Council was returning to the
open portion of the Committee of the Whole meeting to entertain any further matters.
The Mayor asked if there was any other business. Councilmember Brown moved that the
Committee of the Whole meeting be continued to Thursday, April 22, 1999, 6:30 p.m., City Hall,
Hanus seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
The City Attorney indicated that he assumed that the Executive Session discussion on Woodland
Point, scheduled for this evening, has also been continued until next Tuesday, April 27, 1999. The
Council indicated that this was correct.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:30 p.m.
ubmitted,
City Manager
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE #99-09
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF REZONING UNPLATTED 14 117 24
FROM R-2 TO R-3,
AT 2033 COMMERCE BLVD
PID # 14-117-24 41 0001
P & Z 99-09
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m.
on Tuesday, May 11, 19_99 to consider the approval of Rezoning a portion of
Unplatted 14 11 7 24 from R-2 to R-3 at 2033 Commerce Blvd.
~ z- ~]---~ ~ "¢ ...... ~ ~ ' ~cl65'7 o= .r'"
~ Z '. 6 ........... ?*:-,:' ':':':':*~ [~ .-~-: .... ,~ o I00 ~ & %~ '
~o o :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
- ~ (Z) ~ ..:.:.:.: :.:,:-:,:.:~,:,:,: :,:,:.:.?:.::::::
b :- 217.6 ...... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~z~ M~ , ..~'~
1 [~/ ,:.:.....,v.-..,, ~,;.... -*.,......
~,~x 60r~ < 5~ ~."' I~ ~l~,f~ ',o [ ~'
/,O) .~¢"¢ ~) (28) zoo
~ a ,~, ~ oo (zg) ~'~,~
the will be
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference tc ~e
given the opportunity to be heard at this
~quis¢~gSe ret y
),il 20, 1999
Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected prope~y on A~
Published in the Laker, April 24, 1999
printed on r¢cycled paper
April 23, 1999
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
TO:
FROM:
SUBEJCT:
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK
ADDITONAL LICENSE APPROVAL
The following license was applied for this week. The license period is April 1, 1999 through
March 31, 2000. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being
submitted.
Tree Removal License
Ray's Tree Service
printed on recycled paper
CITY PERIOD
OF MOUND INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR TNE
2/1/99 TO 1/31/2000
PREMIUM SUMMARY
PROPERTY
INLAND MARINE
LIs. BILITY/E&O
AUTO LIABILITY
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE
CRIM~
WORKER'S COMI~NSA~ON
lg)U-£~ & MACHIN]~Y
~D&D BENEFIT
LIQUOR
F_.M~LOYF~£ DISHONESTY
OPEN ~TI~G LAW
1999
9,0~9
2,319
44,860
14,626
16,044
444
24,733
1,470
3,713
1,414
787
7,529
2,170
40,~8
12,198
17,914
4O3
26,154
1,441
3~0
3,443
1,211
571
TOTALS
119,769
114,382
BILLS
April 27, 1999
Batch 9040
204,355.17
TOTAL BILLS
$ 204,355.17
o oI
o o0° o ,o~o ,o oo ~
,.n ~ ,-.-.-o ~
~ I Z Z
? T T
0000
ZZ~Z
I!
~Z
oo
bJ
,., bo
0
0
. o°
I,-
Z
0
,s'-
LU
0
0
z
..3
!
o
oo oo
o'
I
--I
t~
O~
o~
oo~
~.[-,
Z
Z
bJ
Z
0
~J
o
gg,,,,,,
~, , ?7? ,
~ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Z
z
0
:3:
~Z
X
.-9
0-
!
,.-4
U
~.DZ
o
oo
LU':3
0
0
Z
Z
Ct:
Z
bJ
~J
Z Z Z
0
Z
i
I
'
I
,.go
I
§
!
.J
Z
,Jul
o
oI
z
I
0(5
I,./3 I
,-.I
44
Z
,CD
I
f~
LI.JU
,.n,, ,_,l
u.JZ
I I
I
P~O~.~ ~LBRECHT
FAX NO.
: 612 472 2064
121pr.
22 1999 10:54AM P1
]m'nes & Mary Albrecht
4701 Aberdeen Road
Mound: MN 55364
Phone: 612-472-1571
Fax: 612-472-2064
April 22, 1999
Attn: Tom McCaffrey
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
We would like to register a complaint regarding the Roanoke's Access Common Area,
We have been issued a 1999 Dock Site # 41790. We cannot re, ach hkis site by walking
along the commons due to boat lifts being stored on the commons area.
Yours truly,
Jim Albrecht
Mary Albrecht
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
April 21, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor, City Council
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director
SUBJECT: Dock Sites With No Boats wListed.
Listed below are the counts for dock sites that did not have
a boat registered.
Abutting Non-Abutting Total
1998 14 15 29
1999 28 43 71
When looking at the above figures please keep in mind that
the 1998 number is a year end count. The 1999 number is
early in the year which does not take into account site
holders who have sold their boat and are looking for a new
boat for 1999 or people who have their boat in storage with
the license in the boat and do not supply a copy with the
application.
A dock application, when a boat is listed, must have a copy
of the Minnesota Watercraft License. Individuals without
license copy will pay the dock fee and list "no boat at this
time". Then prior to keeping a boat at their dock they will
submit a copy of their boat license.
So as the boating season gets into the summer months the
number of "no boats" will drop dramatically.
printed on recycled paper
f5 ~6
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
April 21, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor, City Council ~
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director/_~,~ U .
SUBJECT: New Dock Applicants Cout~c 1995 thru 1999.
Below is listed the counts for new dock applicants for the
current 1999 season and the previous four years and how many
were able to get a site.
New Applications Placed
1999 46 8
1998 41 2
1997 44 8
1996 30 9
1995 50 13
printed on recycled paper
1977
NO. 77-13
TO:
SUBJECT:
The Hono~b2.e M~yo= and Ci~;y Council
The City .war. ager
D~oks - Lc~ation~ au4 Per-mits
Fenstad moved and Swenson seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-36
/-11-77 9
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DIRECTOR AND
ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO SUBURBAN RATE
AUTHORITY Director - Leonard L. Kopp
Alternate - Barbara Heyman
The vote was unanimously in favor
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM I
Lovaasen moved and Swenson seconded a motion to removed Item I of the Planning
Commission Recommendations from the table. The vote was unanimously in favor,
so carried and removed.
Fenstad moved and Withhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-37
RESOLUTION DENYING APPLICATION FOR
VARIANCE ON PART OF LOTS Z AND 3. BLOCK
3, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE
PARK
The vote was Swenson nay and all others aye.
ROANOKE ACCESS FOR DOCK PERMITS
Gary Glasgow outlined his ~'equest for docks on the Roanoke Access ;,,,.I
Swenson moved arid Withhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-38
The vote was unanimously in favor
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PARK
COMMISSION AND ALLOW DOCK LOCATIONS
IN THE ROANOKE ACCESS AREA BUT NOT
ON THE POINT
INCREASE NUMBER OF DOCKS ON COMMONS TO 4Z0 it,' 1977
Withhart moved and Swenson seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-39
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PARK
COMMISSION AND INCREASE THE NUMBER
OF DOCK LOCATION PERMITS TO 42-0
Rol{', Call Vote
Fenstad Nay
Swenson Aye
Withhart Aye
Lovaasen Aye
So resolved
LOW WATER DOCI,,L.~
Swenson moved and Withhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-40
The vote was unanimously in favor
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PARK
COMMISSION AND ALLOW DOCK LOCATIONS
IN LOW WATER AREAS TO BE MAINTAINED
IN 1977 FOR A SMALL FEE.
WATER DEPT. EQUIPMENT BIDS
Bid were received from Davies Water Equipment Company for $1,176.00 and from
RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 38
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PARK COMMISSION
AND ALLOW DOCK LOCATIONS IN THE ROANOKE ACCESS
AREA BUT NOT ON THE POINT
WHEREAS, Roanoke access area has previously been restricted to
dock locations unt/l full development indicated this was
practical, and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke access area has now been developed to the
point where dock locations can now be maintained, and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the point of this access not
be included for dock locations
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA:
That dock locations be allowed in the 1% anoke access
area, excluding the point, on the recommendation of
the Park Commission.
Adopted by Counc/1 this llth day of Jan. 1977.
77 - 38
1-11-77
~NUTES OF TI~ MOb~;D A~Vi$ORY PAP~. CO~k~SSION MEETLY6
J~uuary 20, 1977 Eo:~nd City Nell 7: 30 P.M.
Presen~ were: Chairm~n Alan Greene; Cc~-~ssioners Dine
Pat Shay, Hal Larson and joy Fle~ ~m!ng; Dock Inopectcr O~ry Gla~g~; Co~u~cil Ad~scr
; city M~nager Leonard Kopp. Also pr~,sen~
Election of Officers:
No~inations for Chairm~n were Hal L~rson and ~,ane Arneson~ Voti~.E ~.'. done by se.~'rst
ballot and tabulation of votez resulted L~ 4 votes for Larson ~nd 2 voro=.~ for Arnescn.
Diane Arneson was the sole nominee for Vice-~a~-man; the vote wa~ ~uu~uous.
Officers elected for 1977: Chairman - N~l Larsoa
Vice-Chairman - Diane AzmesoQ
Rca~oke Co..~r~ns:
The fcllo'~ng residents were present to question the recent ope ~nin§ o£ ?.o.~noke Access:
Tom & Linde Morrison, 46~9 Islan~ ~iew D~-~ve
Judy Jantcke, 46~5 Island View Dri~
Bernard G. Benz, 4701 Island View Driv~
Frank Uhrens~ 4673 Island View Drive
Steve Erickson, 4705 Island View Drive
Dale Johnson, 4687 Is ~iand View Drive
G!~-sgow ezp!ained that the original ~pprova! of the Dock Location Map !n~:'b~ded the s~!pul~-
tion that Roanoke Access would be opened up. as soon ~ dev~lop..r~nt (su~e2~ ~ud mar.kirk)
was completed.
Bernard Benz eXPressed concern that the City was adding ne~ dock sites ~ He was a. ssured
that the dock sites on Roanoke Access were included in the original Dock Location M~.
Erickson expressed concern that the City and PC are using time and money on docking
that could other~e be used~for sorely needed "green space" and facilities for chilcLr~n
Lu Island Park. Greene responded that many PC hours and much money ba~ been spent
p!ap~ing ~nd development in Island Park but because the residents present at the m~eting
have only lived in the area for a short tir~ they are unaware of this.
Motion was made and seconded by Greens and Puhr to recomm, end that Council postpone t~m
letting of dock permits along the Roanoke Co~ons until such t~r~ as aL1 matte~-s o~ safe
access hav~ been resolved and appropriate s~eguards have been ~mkon where, necezs~ryo
Discussion. ~otion carried.
Motion was made and seconded by Greene and Arneson to form a co~v~dttee of ~o t,c s~v~
members to study the safety factors of Roanoke Access. Suggesbe8 m~-~cr~ would be 2
abutting property owners~ present access dock-site o~mers~ up ~ three off-shor~ dock-
site applicants living in the a~a and 1 PC m~m~0~r serving as chair.vmn: The co~-~dttee
would evaluate the access and m~ke suggestions as to safety of such ~,ccezs. Motion
car~-ied,~ Two of the citizens present offered tc serve on the com~wittee - I~le Johnson
and Bernard B~nm ~
City }~nager:s Report:
Public Hearing on HUD Funds was only att~ud~d by Comncil;
recommended by the PC were approved.
~ h~ ~zud priorities
Park Director's Repo~:
None
F:eser..~: Chai.v..~..:an Hal La::son, Commis$iona:-s Diaua .~n~son, Cathy B~ey, Pat
~'f, L~z'rMne 3a~kscn amd Ed ~hr, ~z-esent in '~he at~ena~ was Gordon Swenson
meeting.,~..___o..:...~-~:.-~'~-:-,~ lengthy -~scuasiom,
item IL! - ~end~_ena to D~ck Oz_~¢e. This w,~Uid ,~e~fre a Publi: Hear~g for a
=h~ge ~ the ~d~z~ce. A~ezd ~t Duck O~'~m~ca vzc~d ~uma~ intact ~ ~
. i=..pu~ befor~ action it e~kc~, Requested that ch~.ges ~ Dc=k L~!~n N~p be b~ough~
or L~pen~g ac'~!on befo=e ~d of
I~em 1~ . Park Cmraw~..s.~'~on Co~mi~-aes:
~:ees, Ed Buhr ~ z~re~ent P. C, ~d has been =~quested ~o ~epo~t ~ M~ch
3~d as ~:o pz~ogress ~o
C~e~, ~ne~cers t~ be ~po~tad ~1 have ~he
member s - ab~g prcF~~ o~er s
memb2r - deck holdei'
.~'~to 3 men::b,~s .. off ~hor~ ~ea residaags'~d/c: d~k h~!de~
P.. C, - H~ Larso,~_
Cernei~e~;- Comn-.itz~,e ~
Recrea~,i~: Comrnif:tee ~
P.C. - Caihv ~a.f~ey
MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 8, 1977 at 7:30 P.M. at
the MOUND COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7-1
Present were: Mayor Tim Lovaasen, Councilmen Robert Polston, Gordon Swenson,
Orval Fenstad and Ben Withhart; City Manager Leonard L. Kopp; and Attorney Curtis
Pearson.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of January 25, 1977 were presented for consideration.
Mr. Kopp corrected the Title of Ordinace 356 by removing the word "Model" [rom
[he title. Swenson moved and Withhart seconded a motion to accept the corrected
minutes. The vote was'unanimously in favor, so carried and accepted.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Items 3
Oswin Pflug
Lots 5, 19 and Part of 6 and 18 and vacated street, Block 1, Shirley Hills Un it A
Request subdivision of land
Swenson moved and Fenstad seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77 -65
The vote was unanimously in favor
RESOLUTION WAIVING REQUIREMENTS OF
CHAPTER 22 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING
THE DIVISION OF PROPERTY AND Al,LOWING
THE DIVISION OF Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14,
15, 18 and 19, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A
(Plat 61990 Parcels 0525 & 0650)
Item 4
Tonka West Properties
McNaughts Addition 9metes and bounds)
Rettuest sign variance
Parcel Z050 Plat 61'770
Tim Heyman, representing Tonka Wes't Properties appeared before the council.
Fenstad moved and Polston seconded a motion
RESOLUqlIONi 7(7~66 RESOLUTION C~RAN:TINfNIA SIGN ,V~A. RIANCE
CONDITIONALLY
Light shall be shielded
Light shall be turned off at 11 P.M. if any
complaints are received.
The vote was Withhart - nay and all others aye, so approved
ROANOKE ACCESS
Dale Johnson was spokesman of the signers of a petition against allowing Roanoke
Access to be used I£or anyone other than abutting property owners. Also speaking
were Steve Erickson, Toin Morrison. Some of the abuting property owners had
as many of 4 boats and all owned at least 2. Councilman Swenson stated this
should be treated as all other commons. Councilman Withhart requested that this
be sent back to tile Park Commission for further study as a new use of tile cox~rnons.
Gounci!rnan Fenstad said that the council should consider density and the over-use
of the lake.
Fenrtad moved and Withhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-67
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 77-38
AND NOT ALLOWING ANY ASSIGNMENT OF
DOCKS ON THE ROANOKE ACCESS AT THIS
TIME.
R~S0LIrrION NO. 77-67
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO HOANOKE
ACCESS
AMENDIN~ RESOLUTION NO. 77-]8
the Council did adopt Resolution No. 77-38 om January 11, 19'
allowing dock locations at the Roanoke Access, and
WHEREAS, the Park Commission has recommended that the Council postpone
the letting of dock permits on Roanoke Access unfit further
recommendations are made regarding safety and safe access,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TEE CITY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY 0F MOUND,
MOUND, MINNESOTA:
The implementation of Resolution No. 77-}8 shall be deferred
until the Park Commission has reported on safety and safe
access. Application for dock permits may be submitted, but
no permits shall be issued until said report is submitted to
this Council.
Adopted by the City Council this 8th 4ay of February, 1977.
M;-"-u'~es of Mo~d Advisory F~-~z:k Commission Me~g 2-X7-77 co~t~xmed
Island Park
Chaired by Bohr ;~4th_ $ohas~n and immediate residants as
mee~ thz l~t rneeling £~ Ma~ (5-15-77} fo: £ina!i~mg o/ ~tm~ mee?~ngo
Sign ~~te~: Chaired b!~ ~¥ w-Ah BoHis and (i!a~§o~, ~ Sr~"_,th as members
Gl&sEow &~ mem'o~ $.
4707 Ialaad View I~ive
470~ Island View Dsive
4?04 Islaud View D~ive
4686 Ista~d View Deive
4746 Iala~d View Delve
472-225~
47Z-4~i0
47Z-54~
The~e be/rig no £~t. he~ ,b~3lmess to discuss, a motic~ wa~ m~,d~ by Buh~ ami
by ~a¥ t~ adjourn. Mmetzk:g adJo~,~,-ecI at ~:45 P. M.
CITY OF
Mound, Mirmesota
PUBLIC ¥~ORKSHOP FOB. SHO~7.I.VE USE PL~NNING
PAFK APEA Cr,~.SSIF!C.~.TiON
For the pu~-pose of the Mound Park Pl&n, public lands have been divided
into the following classifications:
C&ass 0 - No propcsed usage
Class 1 - Playground: Designed primarily for young children urger 12 years of
age, serve an area 3/'8 mile. May include s:~ngs, slides, jur~_le gyms, sand boxes
and small bell field with back stop.
Class 2 - Nei~borhocd Park: Facility for .~1 age groups .~ni~-h provides space
for passive and active recreation. It covAd include such things as picnic sites,
play areas, h.~-na paths and beaches It is desired to serve the residential
neighborhood rather then the cc.mmur~ty at !.~rge and would include the small
beach areas wi'~h a !Lmi%ed a~..ount of shore!."me.
Class 3 - P!a~,~ng Field: ~..~ullts ~nd youth over 12 years. Ten to t~enty acres
opt~m and ser~es an area one to one and cna-half miles. It mould include such
thLugs as tennis courts.-., f0otb;!l fields, i::e rir.i.-.s, baseball and softball fields,
etc. This t~q:e of facility would tncorpo:'u:~e the facilities currently avaLlable.
Cias- A Res.:dent FiShing
, - ~.~e-. Areas of :.'-hore!ine along the lakeshore to
provide space for bz~ fishing. 1~is rill :~ro,-ide fishing opportunity for our
youngsters t~h~u~ our
Class 5 - Nature ~rea: .'-~ees maintained -L~. a nzt-~.r~! or ne~r!y natural state
~at open to .~.e public for such outdoor re~._~eaticn purposes a-~ n~ture study,
co'nser-~ation {duc~-tion: trails: etCo
Class 6 - Oon~m~_-_ity Park: A large co~'.~ni!.y park to provide a ~ide range of
acti-,~ties and serve the City at large. :%.".'~i~ties co~d in~ude such things as
awning bez.~he~ golf course, arche~- rar,~e: c~p sites~ n~ture tra~s, as well
as the co,on playground equipzent.
Class 7 - ~e~ldent Boat Laun~.ing Site: T~.~se will include ~1 pe~anent
launching sit~s scattered fnrou~hout the C._.by. Limlt~ parking or no pafxing
be expectS. Other sit~s &re inco~.o~-at~% Lnto the be~ch areas and will o~y be
cpen~ when ~e b~ches are not ops[~ed. X-.1 sites ~ill be open for winter fish-
ing access.
Class 8 - ~id~nt Perait ~o~ing: ~.reas r.f shoreline used to pro'~_de dcdcing
facilities s:~d in zone ar~sr l~ited lauu ~ing f~.cilities for the adjacent and
Class 9 - S~Ls~L~E Eeach: Areas of ~hor~i:.ne ~.e~tgnat~ for sw%~ing sssoclat~
recreation. ~ese areas nay or may not ha'-~ sw~uing docks and/or life gua~s
cn duty.
PUBLIC WOP_KSHO? FOR SHO? INE USE PL;.NNIiCG - Page 2
SHO~INE CLASSIFICATION
For the purpose of the Hound Park Plsn~ public shoreline has been classified
into five general types:
Type A: Shoreline that is treversab!e only on top, ~ith a bank sloping directly
into the water.
Type B: Shoreline that ~!opes from the a~tting property down to a traversable
spa_ce along the water's edge.
Type C: Shoreline that slopes from the abutting property do~n directly into the
w~ter with no traversable space.
Type D: Shoreline that is traversabls on t:~:e top, ~nd tr~versabie along the
wmber~ s e~ge.
T2~pe E: Shoreline such as harsh and sw~mp~ and is not considered traversable.
SHOP~.!NE ~UMB~?~R~G SYST~
For the pur. oose of '"the Ho'~_nd Park Plzn:. public shoreline has been n~uabered
by dividing the City into 9 general areas, ~ue first n~ber of the five ~i~t
n'~bering syzt~ indicates +~e gener~l ar~ of ~hat location. ~e ~zi~mg
four (A) di~ts represent ~f~e act~ dist~rJe of that locztion, from ~e ata~ing
point of the gener~ area~ (i.e. ~ 2!080 mans arsa 2~ 1,O~O feet from ~e
begir~ng of are~ t~'o - Har~i~on Bas ~h in E ~rrison' s ~y. )
/37&
SU~.R4ARY OF CiTY 0f ~OUND PUBLIC SHOREL~iDS
OOOOO - OO345; Three Points Cove Road Accesses Class 5,8 T~e D,E
Located on the southwest edge of Woodland Pclnt, this natural cove is apprc~-
mately 400 x 800 feet in size and is mostly heavy ~rnl!rush sr.~mpo Docking sites
are located at the road access on the southern side of the cove, and along Dove
L~ue on the easter~x side. The cove is un~.prove~ and shallow. }Io chonge in usage
00345 - 01340; Wa~nhssa Commons, Class A: 6, 8 Type A, D
Located on the west ~dge of ~,oe~iand }'tint, abutting N~urika Commons cn the
north and extending to the water?s e~ge on ~he scutch. The te.~in varies from a
ve~ steep h~ dropping shelly to the ~ter at the nor~ ~e, to a low ~at at
~e lake:s ~ge at its southe~ end. ~is area is appro~ately 2 acres
1,~ feet of l~e front, it is ~rtt~ly d~v~op~d and maintain~ by adjacent
lo~ residents~ I~ has heavy usage as a r~sident dockage ar~a ~nd fishing ~rea.
.... ~o~rno~, ~arLna and f~sh~n~nature
its proposed u~ge is the continuance as
01340 - 02560; Uaurika Commons~ Class 4~ 6~ 8, ~ T~7'z ~ ~
~-~*~~= ~ on the north ~dge of U. ocdla:~d ?oint :.xtend~.g fz~om ~Tau'cuazsz (:cmn:ns
to ~l. 1 Lane. 15~is is alcng: narrow s%r~!: of la~d. The terrain varies from a
very steep hill dro,.~ping sharply to the =s~_:r at the north edge to a low~ ~at
at lake:s edge at its eatern ~_nd. its tct~i area is approximately 2 acres with
1:220 feet of lake front, It is presently: ea-~-i!y used as a resident pe~it
do~king area and fishing area as ~e!l as a -.ublic walkway. Canary Beach is
located appr'~-~imately at its center, at th,.~ end of Cana~y L~-r..~. Its proposed
usage is the continuance of its present uz~e,
01710 - 01850; ~coi!and E~ac.h, Class 9 '~]~7e D
Located on the north edge of F~codland ?oint, appro:cbm~t~Ly in the center
of ~aurika Co~,'~ons~ at the northern end of Janary Lane° Its ~rea is appro.~d~
nate!y 1/2 acre with approxim-ately 1~0 fes'~ of sh~-,re lin~. ~'~ is essentially
a fully developed £wi~ing beach. Its pro~.:,.~,sed u~age is the continuance of its
present usage.
02560 - 02800; Pebble Beach~ Class 2, L.~ i% Type A, D
Located on the shoreline between Hero~'. and P~-radis.~ Lan,~-, its area is
acres with 240 feet of lake front. It is ~;~'esent?.y und-~-velo; ~d with a
dr~p from the i~n~ level to ~e ~ter~s a'ge. it is b~ing use~ ~ a r~.dent
docking area ~nd is p~posed to continu~ ~< '.s use
02~00 - 042~0; ~i!lcw Point, Class .i.~ 5~ ; T~.: D
Located at th~ end of Tn:'ee Points Be'' evard~ it i~ a rt.:ky graveled ridge
formed crigina!!y as zn ice ~.dge at lower ~.ake level and no~ eroding at its tip.
It is solid, rocky., gravel botbzm on a!! s3.~.es, rt is appro:~amtely 3 acres with
1,200 feet of lake £ho~'e. It is pre~ent!y '~etng used as a mature ar~a and fish-
ing area. The first 75 feet on ~he ~'esterly edge (02~00-02&~.'5) is being used as
a limited docking area. !ts proposed usage is the continuan~:~ of its present
usage.
S~Z~ARY OF CITY OF ~,IOUND PUBLIC SHOR~.~2~DS - P~ge 2
04000 - 04040; ~anrise I~nding, Class 2, A, 8 T)~e D
Located on the shore of V, est Arm and abutting Shore~ood L~ne. Its area is
appro. ~ximately 100 feet deep with 40 feet of lakeshore.. It is a low area ~ith
a high, firm lake front. Its proposed usage as a resident pa:wit docking area,
a park and fishing area.
04040 - OY~D60; Breezy Beach Path, Class O, Type D
Located on the shore of ~est Arm and ~butting Shorewood L~ne. It is 100 feet
deep with 20 feet of lakeshore, and is presently a r. ell kept l~ area maintained
by the adjacent property owners. No proposed usage.
04060 - 04120; Eorth Beach Side, Class i, 2, 4, 9 Type D
Loca%ed on the shore of ~est Arm and a~ttin_z Shoro?~ocd L~ne. Its area is
.2 acre and is 152 feet deep r~%th 6D feet of shoreline. It i~ ~ lorn partially
filled- area of land with a high, firm l~.ke front and has a lift station. Its
proposed .~se is for neiE_hborhood park and 5?imming area.
!0000 - IOOA~; Shorewood Access, C!~ss g ~ype D
Located ~t the tip of 5~nad2-~ood '- ~ extension of .=hore~.ood L~ne.
It has 40 fe¢~ of lakeshore. It is presently being used as a permit dock area.
Its proposed usage is the continuance of its presant us~-ge.
i0040 - lOlOO~ South Beach Sid~ iccess, Class 2, 4, 8 Type D
Located na~.r the end of Eaady~ood Point. on th~ north shor~ of Harrison's Bay
and adjacent to Lakeside Lane. Its area i~ .2 acre and is 185 feet deep and has
60 feet of lak~front. It has been filled i:,. to au acceptable level, but otherr~!se
is unimproved. It is presently being use~J ~s a resident docking and boat launch
area. Its proposed usage i~ am a neighbor~-.~.od .Dark, permit dock area and resident
fishing area,
!0100 - 10160; New Pop!zrL~nding, C!~sz ~, t, 8 T~.~e E
Located- on the north shore of H~risc~ s Ezy and adjacen~ to Sl~orewood Lane,
Its area is .2 ~cre and is 2£3 feet deep a~d has 60 feet of lakefront. It is
presently lot and swampy in ~]ch of its lehigh and is essentially unused. It
has potent!si as a neighborhood paf~ pe~ft decking ~res and use for resident
fishing.
10160 - !0220; ~anset Access, Class 7: ";Te D
Located at the astern e.~g~ of Creszzr'. Park. Is appro;~ately !80 feet de~p
and has 60 feet cf lakefront, This road ~,.~ess hss been up~rzded and is used
as a bo~.t launch site.
SU/~m~.I OF CITY OF ~-D~/-~ PUBLIC SHORELA3FDS ~ Pa~e 3
10220 o 10780; Crescent P~rk (East)~. Class 1,2,4.,5,8 Type D
Located on the North shore of F~rrisons Bay and adjacent to Sunset Lan~
on the east and Sumach Lane (extruded) on the west. This is a narrow strip of
land approximately 560 feet long. The western edge is iLl-defined as it becomes
part of the ~_!d life area of (vest) Crescent Psrk. It has heavy usage as a
resident dockage area and fishing area. It~ proposed usage is the continuance as
a neighborhood permit dockLug an~ fishin~n~.ture area.
10780 o 12410; Crescent Park 04est)~ Class 2,4~5:9 T2~e D,E
Located adjacent to (east) Cr~scmnt ?a~k on the east, and platted Crescent
Road on the west. This area is classified as a ~_!dl~e area° It ~s origir~ly
and essentially a D~y devaloped park 20 -~ 30 years aEo, but present~ should be
consider~d unLmprovedo Its potential is as a n~ighborhood p~rk, s~.~LmmLng beach~
~12410 ~ 12450; Threa P~ints Access~. C!~ss 2:4:5 Type D
This is an extention of the Tr~_=e PoLuts Pa~k lOCated immediately north of
~hs lakefront. It is 150 feet by 40 feet -~!deo It is presently a c!eared~ but
n~eva!oped access strip from tb.~ park to t~e !aks. It has the potential cf a
possible picnic area, fis~dng area, s~.~ ~mt~.re area.
~450 ~ 13830; Wiota Co~or~: C!~s 4:6:8 ~ D
Located on the north side of P>-rrisons Bay adj.~_~snt bo Avocet, B!u=,bird~
Canary, Dove~ Eag!e~ Finch and Gull LmueSo Total ~rsa is !~5 acre~ ~th
approximately 1:400 feet of lske front. It is a high nc_.~ro, w strip mostly c!es_~ed
and ham good so ~lid sand bottom over!~ ~r_'~'h a sh~; ~ layer. It is pr~s-ently
used for resid~ts doc ~k~ug mud fis~__Ug~ It~ prnpcs~d usage is as a resident
permit docking a~ea and fis~g area ~ b~ause cf t~ contour of the ~ will
adapt itself well as a nature ~reao
20000 - 20740; Watez%~. Com_~Lons, Class 2~ [i~8 T~.vpe D
Located on the east end of F~rri~-on B~j bet?.m~u Brce~y Road and Tor~ka~ood
P~ado It is appro~_~.,ately 740 feet long zr~ 60 to 180 feet x~rlde. It i~ ~p~rtia~y
deve!o~d and maintained by lc.c==l residents tiao use it as a permit dock area and
resident fis~Ang. It is proposed to be ccnt. inued for this use.
20740 - 20780; Vill~ I~ne Access: C!~ss 4~8 Typs B
: ~ ~pp~xinately 40 x 180 feet
located at the end of Vi ~]/a
and is used as a pa~it dock a_~a.
SU~:ARY OF CITY OF ~.DUR~ ?br~LiC SHO?.E~k~S .- .~age ~
20780 - 20820; Overland Lane Access, Class 4;8 Typ~ B
Located at the end of Over!=_nd Lmue, t!~is area is ,used as a permit dock
20320 o 21080; Ha,-~ison Beach
(1) 20820 o 21080; Access, Class 4:8 Tjq~e D
Located along 'the ~stern edge of Cen~iew Lane as it e~-~er~.s out to
Centerview Be_:ch, ~nis area is p~-~L~ uo~ for resident z~i.~btng and has
permit dockLug are. ac
(2) 21080 - 93980; Fm~rison Beach.. C~s 6:9. Type D~E
Located in Ha_?isons B~y at ~he end of C~ut~zvlew ~aneo It is essent*~ly
fully developed ~dth se~son~l ~,~n~g dock~ par}~ng ar~a: &nd picr_~c area. It
is bour~ed on the east by a ~d~dlife area:
(3) 21280 ,..., 22180; Wi!fi1 ~ A% A~'a% Class 5 ?;f.~ E
~is is a natur~=l cove ~.~ is '~cd ec~l.Asively as a ~ildlife ar~a, nesting
22180 ~ 22730; Matc-rside Co=tons, Class
Located east of Harrison Beach Wi!,LlLf.3 s~ea 'ts ].brton Cb~_unelo This is' a
na_~row .~%.clp of land pres~utly being used as a pe.~-rmLt docl~ng area ~nd fisD~-ng
area as well as a public %~,myo Its prop:sed us~ is as a p~z~.~t docking area:
nature area and reside.ut fi~hLugo
22730 = 227.o0; ~.b~%cn Chan.ue!~ Class 5 Type
.,'.brton Chsnn~l e~:tends norther.~j from ily~;-mod Blvd. ~to ~_sons B~. I%
~ a d~dged ch~-~! s~ w~s o~%~y ?.a~.t~ ac ~,~on A~. It is about
3~ feet long, m-~ is th~.r~,ml2~ ~nt~ by the cc~.g system for Toga Toys
~c~os~ ~e dr~ged cha~mc! ~s ~-od.d '~: ~,os~ the ~1! ~d~ (60 feet) of
~e o~~ p~tted street. ?n~ ~ ha~ be:on~ a ~u~r~aven for ~r fo~l.
It p~_des for rec~eation ~nd close obs~ion/f~ of du~s.
22790 o 23080; Apple Park: Class 5:8 ~..,o.~ D
~ated at the e~,~ of Apple v_=m-~e~ (North P~-~.:) or Apple Park h~s ~roded to two.
s~=_ll ~rtions of lend. The one on the ~-ss'~ is i~ccessible except by .~ter.
e~stern portion has ~.pp. x'o~t~!y 100 feet cf lmk~ front. It is being used as a
resident permit dock-:.,~g ar~ ~nd the propos:;t usa.g,,~ is the s~mSo
',3 7
S~aMAPJ OF CITY OF ;-DUND FUBLiC SHOP ~LANDS - Pa~e ~
23080 - 23255; Fairview Peri,it Doc~_ng Ar~a, Class 2,4~8 Type D
located as an ~xtension of Fairvtew ~Iane, and extending to the west approximately
17~ feet, Th~ srea has 17~ feet of lak~ front ami iS a?proxima~ 80 feet wide,
It ~x~ ets as a ~.~!1 m=futaiued grassy area and is being used for neighborhood
dockage and fishiug. It has the pote~ti~! of being developed into a nei~borhood
pat's/picnic area°
23255 - 23285; Chateau Lane Access, C/ass 4~8 Type D
Located at the er~ of Chateau Lane, this area is used as a resident, dock
~eae
23285 - 23295; 10 foot ~-~de fi~-e lanes
23295 ~ 23395; Arbor I-~e Access: Class 8 Type D
~_sts on Harrisons Bay at the ~nd of ~bor Lmue ~ith appro-~Luately 100 feet
of shoreline° It is ess~utia!ly undeveloped and is used as z neighborhood dockage
area° Prcposed usage is '~h~ continu~uce as a r~sident pe_~,~t docking area°
30000 ~ 3OO~0; No~ood Access, Class 4:8 '-~Te D
Located as an access to Seton L~d~e and an ex, sion of Nor~:ood Lane. It has
feet of lake front and is appro:~.mzte!y 100 feet !ong~ e~tending from Ba_~lett
B!Vdo. it is proposed for '.use as a reside_ut per.-~_t dockiug area°
30C40 - 300.40; Ca_-!son Pa~
Located on Seton Lake: abutting Bart~_~tt Blvdo. It P~s ~u area of o6 acre
a shoreline of 200 feet. It is partia]2y developed and in use as a resident permit
docZ<ing ~rea and ~_sb_ing area. It is' proposed for use as a residen% permit dockiug
arca am.~ neighbori~od parko
30240 = 30280; Irm~od Access, Class 4:8 Type. D
This is a 40 foot wide plotted l~_ne ex%endLng f~om Avon Drive to Emerald ,La_ke~
ar~ in ~'esent use ~ a resid~u$ ~t doc~--ng ~ea. It is ~s~ for ~e as a
resider doc~g ~o
30280 - 30320; Avon Access: C~ss 8 Typed
~an ~ex~emsion of Avon Drive~ east from Avon Park to ~e cb~_unelo It is 40 feet
wide and 225 feet !onE, x..~ith 40 feet of l~d~.e f~.nt. It is pres~.'lr~!y being used as
a ~eLl kept !z~m a~ca maLntoJmed by the adJac~-~nt property o~.m~rs~ It is pre_sently
being used as a r~sid~.t p~.~wit docking ar~ao Proposed ~use is to be a resident
permit doc:<ing area°
/
SU~3~Y OF CITY OF ~)UND PUBLIC ~0PY~DS ~ Page
30320 = 30420; Emerald Channel Permit Deck'nE: Class 8 Type D
Located adjacent to Emerald Drive, this area abutts the road right of wa,v,
is presently being used as a resident permit docking area. Pr~oposed use is to
continue as a resident permit do~cLug area.
30420 - 30884; Wicklow Access, Class 8 Ty~e~..
Located on Seton L~ke between Watarford T~ne and Devon Lane.
pres~ut!y undeveloped ~ is beinE used as a ;resident permit docking area.
use is to continue as a resident pe_rmit dec~g area°
30884 o 30~24; Clare L~_ue
30954 - 30994; Ke~U'~- Lane's. Class 5 ~ype E
Located on the c~b~.~mel co~uscting Seton Lake and Blzck Ls_~e, these ~ad
~-t~usions ~re u~--~-.-~vedo The crea is pres~ut!~v classified as a .w~ld!tfe area°
3099~ - 31670; Ke~.~.~. Cocoons, C!~_ss 4,5:~ Type C,D,E
This area is
Proposed
Located on the ~est sho~m of Black Lake be~;e~u Longford P~ad and C~!ow ~,
~s te~n is low and sw~oyo It is ~v~ ~ is ~ ~ ~ a ~sid~t
~c~g ~ea ~nd ~sid~t fis~g ~ea. ~o~sed ~e ~ ~ ~he s~
31670 - 32370; E~e!sior Com~0ns; Class 2:4:5~8 T~-pe D,E
Looat~ on the west edge of Black L~,e bet~eon G~_I~y P~ad ~ud Cavan P~ado This
access is the pl~tted F~ce!sior Lane,~ and ~outts a d~edged ci ~_~nne!o ~-~s% of
~k~ce!sior Co~mons is ~,~.mpyo It is u~_~.~.~.~ov~ ar~ is being used ~s a resident dockage°
Proposed usage would b~ tb.e s~,
32370 - 32~15; Kells P~ad; Class 2,4:5 Type B,D
Locabed on the above mentioned .~.edged cb~_~_usl on the west shore of Black Lake~
adjac:~nt to Wi!shire Blvdo This area is ~.nL~,~'oved aud is used as a reside~ut fishing
are~ao P~oposed use is to develop L. uto a picnic area and fis.W~ng area°
32415 ~ 33390; Stratford Co~ns~ C!~ss 4~5:8 Type D,E ~
Located on the above ~.en~on~d dredged cheque! on t~e south shore of Black Lake~
To~_is ~ccsss is the platted Str~tfo~i Pozdo The ar~a is ~u~_tmproved and is being
used ~s a resid~nt fishLug area z~ d~p gro~uudso ~'~t~nsive work is needed in this
S~.~F~-_, OF CiTY OF ~L~.~D FJBf,?C g-:0~T._,,_~$S .0 ?age, 7
4CO00 - 40050; Avml. on Accsss; C!=_ss § Type D
L:oatsd as a City e~mnt th_~ Avalon Park (Priv~t~ P~k) to a ]_ift station°
Used as a resident peE~t do.~=..o ar~a.
400~O ~ 40~$0; ?embroke B~ach: Class !:6;9 ~-pa D
Loc~tc=2 as a L-ian~!cr arez on ~s ~..~_st sid~ of M~.=_!p~ Bay ~th 13O f.~et of
la/~e front~ ~uti's De-...~n Co~n on tbs ~.~st -_-.nd r~siasutial property om tbs east°
Has bs~_n f~d: leveled: amd s~_~dcd~ F,a~ a .,-mrm.¢_nE a~-~. off road for
Used fcr Ci~,y maS~t~.ned s~m~r m~L.~_ng b~zch ~_,nd :~.r,_ter ama. ess for ics fimW~ngo
40180 ~ 4428~ Davon Com~ms. ns:
40]80
T,-~::~. '_,r~i-=n. ~ of D-:,vcn Cc~.~,:m~_s f..s .u~' -'- c~.~-s-:~,~ .... < ~.. ........... =~ ~ ~ ~=~_='-:' by the g~,n:n-ai pubLi~:
d'a=; 'Lo '" ....~ , P,'o~m._',: anl ~ .....' " '~ '~:'.
sites
-' - .'"
40?30 --~'4&u; C.!n$s 2 ~:~ T,~q:~ .
:,1.:.,-,~. o'-r~oa of u .... blt enoro-~¢bnsntso As it
-,u..,.~-., Co:,.~:.~._,.:.; is ha::.~ly" '.
,=.~ .... _. .... us~..~ 'cc c~n'~:~.u, as doe'-':: s~tes for shutting
Class 4.:8 Typ..~ B
'"' ' ' ' '""--"":--:'-'"- t:-r.-e-'=~b!e by ':,nc' ge_~.,~rai pub]_ic:
-=. a~c~_~.~. -_c~*. d,'?~'.,',::c..!_ -~... . ~ d ' not _.-~.'.o.,-'-~:~.-.d~d to b._~ ,f,.e~a!o.=-?i~ ir. as much as a
Decision FI~ Char~ f~r
graxlttng of ~nst~c~ton
& ~n~ce Pe~t for
st~ct~s on Public Parks
~ ~d. F~alized on
~-~-76
Wes
No
N~g
Build~n8 ?
(5) / enhance & eh- ~
(courage the use '
as defined' by
the Plan, by the~
General /
CEIVED
COMPLETED
or attaChed
Portion
or F.x~ -~tl n~
'~' Structures
Wes
Yes
Deny
Request
City build or
Maintain
(7) v
Gran~ Permit
renewabls
Deny Request
develop Plan
according to
priorities
Yes(14~
_ city
Grant Permit
m to~r~&
renewable
Note: All permits granted
are for a limited time, are
non-transferable~ and the
structure mnst meet state
building code.
separate (~)
Legal Review
Existing
' -~ as def~hned by the
\Plan, hy the
k General /
No ~ (15Y)es
on Use Plan _
?
Grant Permit up to
3 yrs renewable
but term~ uates
with 'property
transfer
(l~) v
Grant Permit
non-renewable
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Dock InspectOr
1977 Dock Permtt
9 March 1977
The following
resolution is reprinte~r information:
A RESOLUTION RELATIN~ TO ROANOKE
AC CESS \
AMENDING RESOLUTIO~\~O. 77-38
WHEREAS, the Council did adopt Resolution No. 77-38 on January 11,
1977 allowing dock locations ~at the Rcanoke Access and
WHEREAS, the Park Commission bas recommended t%at the Council post-
pone the letting of dock permits oh-~Roanoke Access until
further recommendations are made regarding safety and
salve access,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLV~ BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOUND, MOUND, MInnESOTA:
The implementation of Resolution No. 77-38 shall be de-
ferred until the Park Commission has reported on safety
and safe access. Application for dock permits may be
submitted, but no permits shall be issued until said
report is submitted to this Council.
Adopted by the City Council this 8th day of February, 1977.
The City Council further clarified that their intent was that all
permitted docks in this area, to include abutting property owners
were affected by this resolution.
Sincerely,
Gar y~D. -'Gila s gO~w
Dock Inspector
MINUTES OF MARCIt 14, 1',77
ROANOKE ACCESS COMMITTf:F: Mf'E'! INt;
Location: Dale Johnson residence
Time: 7:30 p. m.
Committee chairman: Ed Buhr
Committee Mt:tubers:
Dick Ambrose
Para Anderson
Bernard Benz
Ga ry Inele
Dale Johnson
::'Bob Swanbe rg
* Not present
"~'~4704 Island View Drive
~4746 Island Vie~, Drive
4707 Island View Drive
~4708 Island View Drive
4~87 Island View Drive
~4086 Islaud View Drive
472-4t.40
472-543A
472-2252
472- 5391
472-- ! 720
472-5331
.Mound citizens present in audience:
Tim Lovaasen, Mayor
Bob Polston, Council person
M:,ggie Ingle
Linda Johnson
Jean Ambrose
Torn and Linda Morrizon
Marv and Judy Janicke
Frank Ahrens
Steve Erickson
General discussions were held regarding Roanoke access and commons
safety and maintenance requirements. It was felt that safety and maintenance
were closely linked to dock density and, therefore, the numbers of
families using the commons. In addition, the following points were
considered during many discussions held when motions we re made:
1. No parking available
2. Steep ac cess
3. Five foot retaining wall at lake end of access
4. Majority of usable commons being 15-30 feet deep
5, Close proximity of access lane and commons to abutting
owners' homes.
Page 2
Roanoke Access Committee Meeting Minutes
March 14, 1977
Motion made by Johnson and seconded by Ambrose that the number of
docks be limited to seven, over and above abuttine pro~e r_lL.y owners,
and that d;ck center spacing be a minimum of 40-~eet, and that
special consideration be given to the point area due to the sandbar
and that, therefore, dock center spacing be increased in excess of
40 feet in that area. Passed unanimously.
?
Motion made by Johnson and seconded by Ambrose that all docks, lt._
boatlifts, and boats, be removed from the Roanoke commons and
access lane by December 15. Passed unanimously.
Motion made by Johnson and seconded by Benz that Roanoke access
be marked but that no signs nor access name be displayed at Island
View Drive. All members voting "Aye" with the exception of Ambrose.
Ingle addressed himself to safety aspects of wooden stairway descending
five foot retaining wall at lake end of access. He expressed his concern
regarding the need to settle the issue quickly and thus prevent delays in
obtaining dock permits. Therefore, he offered to apply for a maintenance
permit and construct a less steep stairway than the existing stairway and
which would also incorporate ahandrail. It was his hope that construction
would be completed before the boating season began.' Committee members
agreed that this would satisfy their safety concerns relative to the
existing stairway.
A brief adjournment was made to tour the Roanoke access and commons
area. The following areas were particularly observed:
1. Reoccuring small areas of soil erosion already existing on the
access lane.
g. Stairway at retaining wall.
3. Pine tree in commons lane in front of Ahrens' property
blocking passage.
4. Steepness of shoreline and non-traversable area (approximately
75' shoreline length) at northeast end of Class "B" commons
served by Roanoke access.
Page 3
Roanoke Access Committee Meeting Minutes
March 14, 1977
i '~.,:Motion made by $ohnson and seconded by Ambrose that dock
permits on commons served by Roanoke access be limited to Mound
residents living within 800' distance traversable by public
thoroughfare from intersection of Roanoke access and Island View
Drive. A map was shown illustrating that this included approximately
an area extending from near I3evr~ l~oad and commons access in
directicn to Pembroke Park and commons accel- i~ th~
direction a. nd reaching inland to homes near Tuxedo Boulevard.
Passed
Motion made by Johnson and seconded by Benz that increased traffic
imposed by opening Roanoke ac,c_..eS.S would create access erosion
,problems and, therefore, the-I~~:t~.r should periodically
inspect access and take immediate action to improve access to
prevent erosion, should it occur. Passed unanimously.
Motion made by Benz and seconded by Buhr that the City of Mound
'be reminded of their responsibility to police Roanoke access and
commons area. Concern was expressed relative to personal injury
or property damage that may be caused due to potential lack of
immediate response by patrolman on duty. Passed unanimously.
Ed Buhr stated that he would present minutes of meeting to the
Park Commission at the March 17, 19'/7 meeting.
Motion made by $ohnson and seconded by Benz to adjourn meeting.
Passed unanimously, Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
I
Minute~ ~hov~ng changes by 1~. C. for being amended, deleted etc. as being entered into
rn{nu~e~ Of P. C. meeting of 3-17-77. dd
MINUTES OF MARCH 14. !~)77
ROANOKE ACCESS COMMiT'I't:it;i MI-"-I:iT INt.;
Location: Dale .lohnson residence
Time: 7:30 p. m.
Committee chairman: Ed Buhr
Committee Nh:tubers:
Dick Arm0rose '
Pant And,-rson
Bernard Benz'
Ga ry Inule
Dale Johnson
::'Bob Swanbe r~
* Not present
471)4 Island View l)riv,.
4746 Island \'it.~ i)ri,e.
4707 Island V~ew Drive
4708 Island V~,:w l)riv~.
4{,87 Island \'i~.xv I)rivt.
4686 Island V~ew D,'~',',:
472-4t.40
472- :3432-
47Z-Zg'S2
472-~391
472-
472-
Mound citizens present in audit, ntt,:
Tim Lovaasen,- Mayor
Bob Polston, Council person
Maggie Ingle.
Linda Johnson
Jean Ambrose
Tom and Linda Morrison
Mary and Judy Janicke
Frank Ahrens
Steve Erickson
General discussions were held regarding Roanoke access and commons
safety and maintenance requirements. It was felt that safety and maintenance
were closely linked to dock density and, therefore, the numbers of
families using the commons. In addition, the following points were
considered during many discussions held when motions were made:
1. No parking available
2. Steep access
3. Five foot retaining wall at lake end of access
4. Majority of usable commons being 15-30 feet deep
5. Close proximity of access lane and commons to abt}tting
owners' homes.
Page Z
Roanoke Access Committee Meeting Minutes
March 14, 1977
Motion made by Johnson and seconded by Ambrose that the' number of
docks be limited to seven, over and above abutting property owners,
and that dock center spacing be a minimum of 40 feet, and that
special consideration be given to the point area due to the sandbar
and that, therefore, dock center spacing be increased in excess of
40 feet in that area. *Passed unanimously. *Note that Benz abstained from voting.
Motion made by Johnson and seconded by Ambrose that all docks,
boatlifts, and boats, be removed from the Roanoke commons and
access lane by December 15. Passed unanimously.
*Motion made by Johnson and seconded by Benz that Roanoke access be marked but that no signs nor access name be displayed at Island
V. iew Drive. All members voting "Aye" with the exception of Ambrose.
~Vlotion defeated, 'deleted from minutes.
Ingle addressed himself to safety aspects of wooden stairway descending
five foot retaining wall at lake end of access. He expressed his concern
regarding the need to settle the issue quickly and thus prevent delays in
obtaining dock permits. Therefore, he offered to apply for a maintenance
permit and construct a less steep stairway than the existing stairway and
which would also incorporate a handrail. It was his hope that construction
would be completed before the boating season beaan. Committee members
agreed that this would satisfy their safety concerns relative to the
existing stairway.
A brief adjournment was made to tour the Roanoke access and commons
area. The following areas were particularly observed:
1. Reoccuring small areas of soil erosion already existing on the
access lane.
2. Stairway at retaining wall.
B. Pine tree in commons lane in front o.f Ahrens' property
blocking passage. --
4. Steepness of shoreline and non-traversable area (approximately
75' shoreline length) at northeast end of Class "B" commons
served by Roanoke access.
Page B
Roanoke Access Committee Meetin.~ M~nures
March 14, 1977
Motion made by Johnson and seconded by Ambrose that dock
permits on commons served by Roanoke access be limited to(Mound
residents living within 800' distance traversable by public
thoroughfare from intersection of Roanoke access and Island View
Drive.)*A map was shown illustrating that this included approximately
an area extending from near Devon Road and commons access in one
direction to Pembroke Park and commons access in the other
direction and reaching inland to homes near Tuxedo Boulevard.
Passed unanimously.*Amended to: "residents served by trte area bounded
Aberdeen on tl~e nortl~ and Devon on tl~e west".
Motion made by Johnson and seconded by Benz that increased traffic
imposed by opening Roanoke access would create access erosion
· problems and, therefore, the~Dock Inspector)~hould periodically
inspect access and take immediate action to improve access to
prevent erosion, should it occur. Passed unanimously.
· Amended to: "Park and Trees Coordinator"
Motion made by Benz and seconded by Buhr that the City of Mound
be reminded of their responsibility to police Roanoke access and
commons area. Concern was expressed relative to personal injury
or property damage that may be caused due to potential lack of
immediate response by patrolman on duty. Passed unanimously.
Ed Buhr stated that he would present minutes of meeting to the
Park Commission at the March 17, 1977 meeting.
Motion made by Johnson and seconded by Benz to adjouru mceting.
Passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
by
AGENDA
NL~ ch 17~
7:30 P. ~&
~eve Ericks~ ~705
T~ ~ Lindm ~cr~is~ 4649
~dy J~i*h 4645
Dick ;~or:~e ~7~4
~2ggle ~gle
~ar7 ~ J2~ b~~
Beard Be~z 4791
~ ~o~scn 4S87
Gordon S ~nson
N~e: The=.~ ~e 9 a'ov~f~g prop~ ov~rs
Cnairmmu La2scn, Cc~-u!ssicusrs B-.hr, Ba~3.ey= LTnc~, Smith, Joknson,
Cnvnc~ Rep, V/it.h.hart, Y¢:z~h C~zr~m, Rep. Fie,~..ing, Dock 7J~sp. Ctasgo~-,
Maeflmg called ~o order by Ch~ L~-s~n ~ 7:35 P. ~L
Ag~ for ~he m~et~g
~e~ 1 - Reports by
~em 6 - Yo~
her request, she ~,'culd be h~ fi=~t ~d :he.~.,~-~ ~o~Id foyer a~ glv-~
~d B~.ey had b~en out ~o }.cob at th~ pr~pe~y ~d s~md ~ it wo~d be ju~ a level~g
off cf app::. !-I/2 f-~t ~ dep?h cf laud. ~d ~his wo~.~ fac~i~a~ ~e P~te~'z ~dd~g
Ore. ce for S~ef.~ Use F-~r~t~ B~t~y ~e a ~i~ seconded by S~i~ '~
~.em I - Co.~.ni¢~ce Ch~d2~_u Repov'; - Ro,.uoke Access - Ed B~' ~n'~.
The ~es ~f ~he ~.oa~ke ~cos~ Cc~.~ee ~/leet~g of 3-I4--77 was'~ r~d by B~r ~d
~,.. nu~mber be l~it,c~ to 7 as statec, ~,c~ed by B~ey. Voice vcta ~
3/~'s ..... , ~-'"' ft
be ~e've2~, h,~'ed feet aweV lc;: $,~n:a of :h~ oe'r~, hc,lCar s. )hrera, 30 f~ ~oo close
..... 'i~ ". ~'f.~: ':" <7: ~: ...... n. ~..~':k .:...,.: r. ' ..... 5 ' :i~; ~.c.~k r
A~m. Wi~h ~e o~clla~.~ -~s it is now ~.:i~en, ouly lhose boa~z r.mgis'~er~ i;~ ~ ~'-
aye o~ Jonson ~ ~, nay by Bubo,
to r~ ~aEel ? ~is ~.o~{ hays
Voice v~ ~imous,
~]'~0~'~
schedulad '~c m=e~ $-~ !-77.
-.
dd /-
CZTY OF MOUh'D
AGENDA
~/OUND ADVlSOI~Y P,~.~Y~ COMlqiSS!OM I~AEET~iNG
Ap~L1 ?. 1977
7:30 P.
Devotad 1:o Commi~ee Meetings
7:30 P. M.
1.
Z.
Conu'nt~ee Meetings
Long Range Plamni.ng Cemmittse
C~leach.v Committee
8:30
1.
2.
Committee Me*.ting.~
l~c~eat".onal Com~.tt~ee
Ce~etary Committee
Hound, Hinnssot~
C0m~rt ~ ~0. Wf-~8
~tt~ch~ is a co~y of the Par~ Co~dsstou ~l~tes.
I~ts ~, 4 and ~, ~lock 2, ¥ooala~ Point - R~tm~ts to
do ~r~ on ~ Cc~ms.
The I~k Comdesioa reoo~mn~ a~r~l of the ~--~oapin~.
The '~tildi~ ~USl~Ctor a~l t~e ~k)ok ~.n~l~to'~ haw ~eo~
ltt~h~l ts · revise~ copy of the Cc~ttee ~pc~t oa
B. ~ docks, bo~t lt~tm~ e'to. be remo've~l From the Commons
C. ~ sta~or~lo~ss~ ~~~a~m~
l~s ~ - ~ Covnotl is inv~t~l to a Tmila Cc~Lssio~ ~et~g m
iln~l l~th ~n t~ 8prt~ Ps~ ¥ills~e ~ at ?~0
The vote was unanimously in favor, so ordained
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Judge Reilly and Gary Pfleger were present as well as many citizens. After a lively
discussion and the reading of the City Managers recommendation not to change the
personnel for the position of the prosecuting attorney the matter rested with no action
from the City Council.
67
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
The Park Commission recommended the the request to do work on the Waurika Commons
in front of Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block Z, Woodland Point be granted. Marge Peterson present.
Withhart moved and Fenstad seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77 - 'i49
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PARK
COMMISSION AND ALLOW LANDSCAPING OF THE
WAURIKA COMMONS IN FRONT OF LOTS 3, 4 and
5, BLOCK 2, WOODLAND POINT WITH THE
STIPULATION THAT AFTER THE LANDSCAPING
IS DONE THE AREA BE RESTORED USING GRASS,
SOD, CHIPS ETC.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
ROANOKE ACCESS
After considerable discussion the Park Commisslon. Committe on Roanoke Access report was]
taken into parts A, C, D,"and F for action; parts B and E. required no action.
Part A
Withhart moved and Polston seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77- 150
RESOLUTION OPENING riOANOKE'ACCESS'FOR' THE
7KBUTT. ING PROPERTY OWNERS AND PR. OVIDING FOR
ADDITION 'OF 7 DOCKS TO,BE SET ASIDE FOR IN-.
LAND 'R. ESIDENTS , . ,": ' '. ',1 ' : '3'.'. ~, , ^
,,~.;' · '~J .,.hl.'~' ' ,'.~,.I.i;-.' ~ . ,!. ; ..'"i~[.~
";~ .j-!.~;~j ,:.
The vote was unanimously in favor
IVart C
Swenson moved and Polston seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77- 151
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PARK COM-
MISSION AND THE STAIRWAY ON THE ACCESS
BE REPAIRED AND A HAND RAIL BE INSTALLED
FOR THIS BOATING SEASON
The vote was unanimously in favor
Part D
Withhart moved and Fenstad seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-152 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PARK COM-
MISSION AND LIMIT THE 'DOCK PERMITS TO
RESIDENTS IN THE AREA BOUNDED BY ABERDEEN
ON THE NORTH, DEVON ON THE WEST AND THE
LAKE ON THE EAST.
The vote was unanimously in favor
Part F (This was not part of the Park Commission Recommendations)
Withhart moved and Swe.s0n seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77 - 153 RESOLUTION RESTRICTING THE ISSUING OF DOCK
PERMITS IN THIS AREA UNTIL THE COMMONS
MARKING POSTS ARE INSTALLED; SUCH WORK
TO BE STARTED IMMEDIATELy
The vote was unanimously in favor
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Item 1 taken up and deferrcd until attorney could write the necessary resolution.
Item 2 was also deferred until the attorney had written the necessary resolution for
Item 1
Item 3
Roy O' Donnell
Lots 4, 5, 6, 26, 27 and 28, Block 5, Shadywood Point
Request to refurbish a non-conforming use dwelling
Mr. O Donnell was present. The matter of a recent fire at this dwelling was brought
up for discussion.
Polston moved and Swenson seconded a motion
BE IT MOVED by the City Council that the extent of damage to the dwelling on Lots
4 - 6 and Z6 - 28, Block 5, Shadywood Point be referred to the staff for investigation;
if the damage is less than 50% no variance will be required.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Item 4
Kenneth E. Hiller
Lots 5 - 7, Block 14, Dreamwood
Request work on non-conforming use dwelling
Mr Hiller was present
Swenson moved and Withhart seconded a motion'
RESOLUTION 77-154
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND DENY REQUEST TO REFURBISH
DWELLING ON Lots 5- 7, Block 14, Dreamwood
Roll Call Vote
Fenstad Nay
Polston Nay
Swenson Aye
Withhart Aye
Lovaasen Nay
Resolution fails
NOTE: Direct staff to outline a structural change.
Lovaasen moved and Fenstad seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-155 RESOLUTION TO ISSUE A BUILDINCf'PERMIT TO
INSULATE, BOARD UP INTERIOR WINDOWS AND
INSTALL A FURNACE: NONE OF WHICH ARE
STRUCTURAL CHANGES.
The vote was Withhart and Swenson Nay and Fenstad, Polston and Lovaasenvoted Aye;
so carried and granted.
Item 5
Werner W. Weisser
Lot 15, Block 3, Shadywood Pt.
Request for addition to non-conforming dwelling
RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 1~0
RESOLUTION OPENING ROANOKE ACCESS FOR. THE
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND PROVIDING
FOR ADDITION OF 7 DOCKS TO BE SET ASIDE FOR
INLAND RESIDENTS
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNE-
SOTA:
That they concur with the Park Commission and
agree to the opening of Roanoke Access for the
abutting property owners and,
That provisions for an additional seven (7) docks
to be see aside for inland residents.
Adopted by Coun. cil this 1Zth day of April, 1977.
RESOLUTION NO. 77- 151
RESOLUTION TO CONDUR WITH THE PARK COMMISSION
AND THE STAIRWAY ON THE ACCESS BE REPAIRED AND
A HAND RAIL BE INSTALLED FOR THIS BOATING SEASON
WHEREAS, Gary Ingle of 4708 Island View Drive has the stairway in
question, and
WHEREAS, Ingle has stated he will build a less steep stairway in-
morporating a handrail, and
WHEREAS, approval will allow residents to utilize the Roanoke Access
this boating season.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA:
That Council concurs with the Park Commission and the
stairway on the access be repa, ired and a hand rail be
installed for this boating season.
Adopted by Council this IZth day of April, 1977.
77-151
4-1Z-77
RESOLUTION NO. 77'- 15Z
RESOLUTION .TO CONCUR WITH THE PARK COMMISSION
AND LIMIT THE DOCK PERMITS TO RESIDENTS IN THE
AREA BOUNDED BY ABERDEEN ON THE NORTH. DEVON
ON THE WEST AND THE LAKE ON THE EAST
WHEi~EAS, dock permits are limited in the i?oanoke Access, areA, and
WHEREAS, it is expedient that the immediate residents of the area be
given priority in obtaining permits in this location
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MOUND, MOUND, Ni]IWNESOTA:
That the Council concurs with ~he Park Commission and
hereby limits the dock permits to residents in the area
bounded b~' Aberdeen on the north, Devon on the west, and
the lake on the east.
Adopted by Council this lZth day of April, 1977.
77-152
4-12-77
RESOLUTION NO. '/7 - 153
RESOLUTION RESTRICTING THE ISSUING OF DOCK
PERMITS IN'THIS AREA UNTIL THE COMMONS MAP. K-
ING POSTS ARE INSTALLED: SUCH WORK TO BE
STARTED IMMEDIATELY
WHEREAS, dock permits are restricted until such tim as Roanoke
Commons has official posts marking area designated
as commons, and
WHEREAS, such work is to start immediately in order to allow said
residents to enjoy the lake/boating season this year
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA:
That the issuing of dock li~enmes in this area be re-
stricted until such time as the commons marking
posts are installed, and
Such work of inst~lling marking posts identifying
Roanoke Access be started immediately.
Adopted by Council this lZth day of April, 1977.
77-153
4-12-77
82
C.M. 77-121 Island Park Storm Sewer
Engineer William McCombs answered questions on the Island Park Storm Sewer.
~mding for this will come from Block Grant Fund - thinks tieing this project
in with another project for bidding would be difficult as must comply with Federal
provisions. Discussed project--will be reversing the flow of draina~e. Council-
man Polston like to see sewer put in to serve whole area; agninst this funding.
Lovaasen moved and Fenstad seconded a motion to table Island Park Storm Sewer
Project until the Staff can send the Council information on the total plan for
this area. The vote was unanimous except for withhart who voted ag~inst~tabling.
C.M. 77-110 Street Improvement
Petition from residents of Langdon Lane has been received asking for a preliminary
report on street improvement.
Fenstad moved and Swenson seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-184 RE, SOLUTiON TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE
ADEQUACY OF THE PETITION RECEIVED FOR STREET IMPROVE-
MENT OF LANGDON LANE
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Fenstad moved and Polston seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-189 RESOLUTION DIRECTING ENGINEER TO PREPARE A REPORT
ON WHETHER PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT IS FEASIBLE AND
THE ESTIMATED COST - LANGDON LANE STREET IMPROVE-
The vote was unanimously in favor.
CO~9~B AND SUGGESTIONS BY CITIZENS PRESENT
Owen Good asked if anything can be done about Tyrone Lane - wants something to
settle dust.
Notes Put on next A~enda - the discussion and action on formation of a Public
Works Commission
Steve Erickson asked about docks on Roanoke Access
COVER THE CLOCK
Fenstad moved and Swenson seconded a motion to waive requirements of Resolution
77-16 and ignore the time. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Swenson moved and Fenstad second a motion
RESOLUTION 77-186
RESOLUTION APPROVING PERMITTING DOCKS TO BE PUT
IN ON ROANOKE ACCESS AND ORDERING STAIRWAY TO BE
REPAIRED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND THE MARKERS PUT
IN - APPROVE 14 DOCK P~tA~ITS
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Mx. Anderson suggested not x~quiring bids or quotations for any amount under $150,
Mayor requested City Manager make a recommendation on bidding procedures.
C.M. 77-112 Application - Off Sale Beer License
Swenson moved and Fenstad seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-187
RESOLUTION SETTING DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR
OFF SALE BEER LICENSE - BOB'S BAIT SHOP - F~Y 24,
1977 at 8~00 P.M. in the Council Chambers
The vote was unanimously in favor.
RESOLUTION ~APPROVING PERMITTING DOCKS TO
BE PUT IN ON ROANOKE ACCESS & ORDERING STAIP,-
]NAY TO DE KEPA~ED AS SOON AS ~O$SLBLE & THE
MARKERS PUT IN - APPROVE 14 DOCK PERMITS
WHEREAS, Roanoke Access is acknowledged as an established Commons
area, and
WHEREAS, permits are now authorized for issuance to dock applicants
in this area
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA:
That they hereby authorize and approve the permitting of
docks to be installed in the Roanoke Access area, and
That a stairway be repaired as soon as possible, and
That markers designating the commons area be installed
as soon as possible, ,and
That fourteen (14) dock permits be approved.
Adopted by Council this 26th day of April, 1977.
77-186
4-26-77
373
August 1, 1978
Councilmember Fenstad mo.ved the following resolution,
RESOLUTION 78-358
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOI~ENDATION
OF THE PARK COMMISSION REGARDING THE ROANOKE
ACCESS RETAINING WALL
WHEREAS, there is a retaining wall on the Commons at Roanoke Access, and
WHEREAS, said retaining wall was not constructed by the City, and
WHEREAS, during the last heavy rain, said retaining wall experienced heavy
washout, and
WHEREAS, the Park Commission has recommended the wall be removed and the
access sloped through grading and seeded to prevent further erosion.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND,
MOUND, MINNESOTA:
Councll concurs with the reco~endat~on of the Park
Commission as stated above, regarding the Roanoke
Access retaining wall.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
Councilperson Polston, and upon vote being taken thereon, the followlng voted
in favor thereof: Lovaasen, Fenstad, Swenson, Polston and Withhart, the follow-
ing voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolutlon was declared passed
and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his slgnature attested by the City Clerk.
Mayor
est: City Clerk
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
August 1, 1978
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Mound, Hennepln County, Minnesota was held at 5341Maywood Road
in said City on August 1, 1978
Those present were: Mayor Tim Lovaasen, Councilmembers Robert Polston, Benjamin
Withhart, Gordon Swenson, and Orval Fenstad. Also present were City Manager
Leonard L. Kopp, and City Clerk Mary H. Marske.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of June 27, 1978, were presented for consideration.
Swenson moved and Fenstad seconded a motion to accept the minutes of the Council
meeting of June 27, 1978, as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor.
The minutes of the meeting of July 11, 1978, were presented for consideration.
Fenstad moved and Swenson seconded a motion to accept the minutes of the Council
meeting of July 11, 1978, as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor.
The minutes of the meeting of July 18, 1978, were presented for consideration.
Polston moved and Withhart seconded a motion to accept the minutes of the Council
meeting of July 18, 1978, as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
Eagle Lane Access
Fenstad moved and Polston seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 78-356 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
PARK COMMISSION REGARDING THE EAGLE LANE ACCESS.
The vote was four in favor and Lovaasen voting nay.
Clover Circle Partial Closing
Polston moved and Lovaasen seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 78-357 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
PARK COMMISSION REGARDING THE CLOVER CIRCLE PARTIAL
CLOSING WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE OWNER OF LOT 17
APPROVES.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Roanoke Access Retaining Wall
Fenstad moved and Polston seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 78-358 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
PARK COMMISSION REGARDING THE ROANOKE ACCESS RETAINING WALL.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
POSSIBLE STREET CONSTRUCTION ITEMS
No items were presented for discussion at this time.
WETLANDS ORDINANCE
The Council briefly reviewed Council Memorandum 78-242 regarding a wetlands
ordinance. The Council requested the City Manager to submit the proposed ordinance
to H.U.D. and the Dept. of Natural Resources.
l~md, 'Ft/~us so~a
The ~i~y l~8~r
At~ached are oopies of le%%s_~3 frcm ~he Public Work~ Direc'.cr, 2hs Park
¢ocrdinator amd ',he Dcck Ius~®c.~or~-~ei~ s~gges~ing fha; ~his fa[!, al..~~.
docks ~ x~mo~d and replaced ~ex~. spring in ~heir pmoper Iota;ion.
City Council
~..~ MI~I~I~-TO~I~,(~ IHDIAN BURIA~.
5341 MAYWO~30 ROAD ADDRU~ R~.~.Y TO
August 23, 1977
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Kopp~
Public Works Office
Docks on City Commons
The following suggestion bY th~ Public Works Office may appear to
be a bit severe, however, it is the opinien of the Public Works
Director, the Parks Forman and the Dock Inspector that it will serve
as a one season inconvenience only. It is estimated that more than
eighty percent of all docks that are located on City Commons, are
not even close to our ordinance a~s.!t was intended.
Few if any docks are physically located where the markers are, this
alone is the one area we can not correct without the removal of all
docks, that are removable. Some of the responsibility dies with
the previous dock inspector, and some with the permit holders. In
some areas we are suggesting fewer docks, as some areas have docks
too close together to allow the permit holder to use both sides of
the dock. In all but s very few cases the aliEnment of the docks
to one another is so bad that some docks can not be used by the
people who paid for the permit. We are urgently requesting the Park
Commis~ion and the Council approval of a letter being sent to those
permit holders of docks that are removable, no~ piers or structures
other than the common ty0e dock, that is in some cases removed yearly
because of ice damage.
We now have a dock inspector that is totally involved with the docks
and the enforcement of our ordinance. With a properly supervised
system of docks installation and alignment this request should not
have to be repeated at any future time.
The suggested policy for the dock inspector would be to physically
locate each. and every dock marker with the permit holder and indicate
the dock center and termination point in the water. This would
eliminate any error on the permit holders part ss far ss alignment
or location in relation to other adjoining docks. When the dock
construction is complete~ ~he permit holder will call for an inspect-
ion and the inspector will, if the dock meets the minimum require-
ments of the ordinance personally attach the metal permit tag on
the dock, indicating that it is inspected and is now ready for the
permit holders use.
With Council permission we will make.up s form letter indicating
a dead line removal date, such as April 15, 1978 and mail to all
permit holders giving a short explanation of why we are following
this procedure and the penalty for non-complience, this would be
the same as for non-complience with any other part of the ordinance.
Respectfully,
Robert A. Miner
Public Works ,~irector
RA /jcn
$341 MAYWOO0 ROAD
MO4JHO. MINNE$OTA 55,364
ADDRUl REPI.Y TO
August 17, 1977
FROM :'
SUBJECT:
Bob Miner
Don Rotber
Dock Inspections
After making a complete inspection of all docks located on city
commons, I have found many docks that do not conform to the city
ordinance.
Very few are located on centers of markers. Many are off markers
6 to 8 feet causing hardship on the next dock over.
Probably 50 percent do not conform to ordinance in construction;
dock width, board spacing, post height~
I would suggest that all docks be removed this year and before
being issued a permit for 1978 each dock would be inspected by
me. Any dock not 6onforming to our ordinance would not be issued
a permit until it does.
This would cause an inconvenience for this one year only.
Respectfully,
Don Rother
Dock Inspector
DR/jcn
CITY OF MOUND
Mound~ Minnesota
August ~3, 1977
TO:
FROM:
SUB3ECT:
Robert Miner, Public Works Director
Chris Bollis, Park Dept.
Docks on Commons
After looking over the dock situation with the Dock Inspector, I
came to the conclusion that the only way to correct the problem of
misplacement and illegal docks is to h~ve all permit holders remove
their docks completely from public property th~s Fall. That way,
when permits are issued in the Spring, we can physically relocate
each dock in its proper sp~t and insure that it meets 811 require-
ments of the Ordinance..~ ~ ~___~ ~
Chris Bollis
Park Dept.
CB/dd
ON IAK~ MINNETONKA *~-
iNDIAN BURIAL I4OUNDIi
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
December 5, 1977
TELEPHONE
(612}472-1155
TO: ~al Larson, Chairman
Park Commission
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Winter Dock Storage
The Council has requested that the Park Commission make recommenda-
tions as to what areas on Common% winter storage of docks should be
allowed. ."
It was my feeling that they would appreciate a map marked as to the
different areas--very similar to the dock location map.
January 9, 1979
Chateau Access .
PoIston moved and Lovaasen seconded a motion to concur with the recommendation of the
Park Commission regarding the placement and number of docks in Chateau Access.
The vote was unanlmously in favor.
Roanoke Access
Swenson moved and Polston seconded a motion to concur with the recommendation of the
Park Commission regarding the classification of shoreline on Roanoke Access.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Sunrise Landing
Swenson moved and Lovaasen seconded a motion to concur with the recommendation of the
Park Commission regarding dock placement on Sunrlse Landing.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Dock Site 51850
Swenson moved and Lovaasen seconded a motion to concur with the recommendation of the
Park Commission to reclassify Dock S;~e 5;850.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Dock 2260 and 2280
Polston moved and Withhart seconded a motion to concur with the recommendation of the
Park Commission regarding the placement of dock sites 2260 and 2280.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT STUD~
Ulrick moved and Lovaasen seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 79-26 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PROCEED
WITH THE WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT STUDY.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT
Councilmember Swenson raised the issue of cracks in the newly replaced sidewalk on
Shoreline Drive.
PARKING VARIANCE REQUEST
Withhart moved and Swenson seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 79-27 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO DENY THE PARKING VARIANCE
REQUEST.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
NE comments or suggestions were offered at this time.
TABLED ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS
Appointment to the West Hennepln Human Services Board
Withhart moved and Polston seconded a motion
CITY
of MOUND
November 17, 1983
53~1 k/IAYW(~OO ROAO
MOUN~. MINNF_~0TA 55364
(632) 47~-~ 155
Mr. S~even Bohnhoff
4687 Island. View Drive
Mound., MN. 55364
Dear Mr. Bohnhoff:
Recently the City received a complaint about the construction debris
which has been deposited on the City's property from your former boat
house.
I have ~ad a chance ~o investigate the complaint and was amazed at the
way you disregarded the public interest by, in one case, blocking the
Commons; setting up the old door; and pushing the debris out of the site
and onto the Commons.
The City needs to know what your plans are for cleaning up this debris
and removing it from the site. If I don't hear from you, the City will
be forced to hire a contractor to clean up the site and bill you for
this.
At the same time, we will clean up the construction sand which has been
dumped at the top of the access lane. That lane, as has been mentioned
before, is not for private use and the Police have been put on notice
to insure that it is not mlsusued in the future.
I hope I hear from you soon regarding your future plans for the site.
Sincerely,
Jori Elam
City Manager
JE:fc
cc: Chris Bollis
CITS' ()f IOUND
DATE:
October 8, 1992
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Park and Open Space Commission
Jim Fackler, Parks Director~
TREE RESTRICTING TRAVERSAB~LITY ALONG DEVON COMMONS
BETWEEN 4673 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE AND LAKE MINNETONKA
From an on-site inspection, I noted that there is 9 feet of
traversable walking space along Devon Commons at the subject
location where twO evergreen trees obstruct the walkway.
Currently, one needs to duck down and walk along the water side of
the trees to pass this area on public property. To allow easy
passage, the trees need to be trimmed. This can be done easily and
with little affect to the trees.
If this area on Devon Commons were changed from traversable to non-
traversable, it would mean the elimination of 3 non-abutting dock
sites in an area where there is a very limited number of dock sites
available.
JF:pj
printed on recycled paper
..%-/z- ¢2..
VILLAGE OF MOUND
. PARK COMMISSION
LLI
g
~ 9
_J
LLI
8
Ii
12
F 'JTM ~,~1
RC~Z
PHELPS
BAY
18
17
RO ANOK'E
ACCESS
DescripKan: TmlI7N.,
tR24 W., Section'
30 N I/2
Platted By.'
J 50'
Scale: I inch"
0
'"0 m
· 0
o
I I I
! ! I
~'iithin the Village o~ Mound there e~sts approxlr~tely !0~. acres of repub-
lic,1 land, primarily lakesho?e ~rea, ~faich h~s been deeded by various
scrts to ~ individu-~_ls residing in prescribed n~izh~ering areas so that
i~and re,~id~nts as ~ll as others might have access t~ !~k2shore
boat dockLug, fishln~ and other forms of lakeside recreation.
D~_~Lu~ th~ e~vly years of settling
so~.e c~es to ,t~e ...... V~o,,.~,~ ~ "the public
ta-h~ resi~!snts adjacent to such ~e~; hc~r, no cc~ist~nt policy was
~"~':~'~ '~d ~Lui~h dcfin~ ~rshio~ benefaction, ~ur~dicticn er liabi-
__,.~';"'~-~ and *.'~=~gov~ no set pro,am w~ ~zr estab!ish~d for ~Lnten~cs. o~
dzj;o!opment of '~he
SDooc-~ each ccm~¢r~ qualifies itself urger a univac set of standards and
!~Eal stiz~ulo, tions~ sc.us w~uV u:msua! pro'ol~$ have prez~nted themselves
whenavor action h~s been proposed for their -policing, maintenance, or
i:.:p~vc~snt. In some c~es ~o~.ous hava actu~_ly been sold into priw.ts
h~cfG b,:cauze of poor definition as to their p~in~nce to public
L~ years to come the demands upon theso corer, one ~.f_!l increase s_nd thus
~.> ~.,., ·
~.-=== ~oo;3tance ~ ..... ~1 be more ~ld more s_~,--~*-"~c~-_~.~'. For the ViSage
14731
App ~[tx
Pa~.e
to act wim~!y ar~ also att in behalf of .~.~_1 residents ~.thin the corzmnity
a policy m~st be establish~ as to who will ultimately maintain jurisdic-
tion over these lands.
It is beyond the scope or pmmr of this ~dvisox~y Park 0ommissio~ to
mmnda policy at th~ time; howeverj we believe it is our ab!igatian
present the prob!e~s clearly outlined and ~!-~o propose scme .~uFF*es~ions
for policies. Ice have ~listed the prob!e~m we fee! apply to the situa~
~ion in p~rt B of t~bls ~.ppendix "E". ~e have proposed si~ alternative
policies of ham~.lir~ the ca~..~ons in p-~t ¢. These proposed nolicies 'are
n~ to be conclusive, but merely an e!emen'b of fact dra,,~ to3ether f~
e.~tab!ishi~ a maJe. r (and h~pe~,:lly a final) de¢isiono
1. Present ccmmcn~ ~¢ not ~!! accessible by residents ~,ho le~a!ly lay
claim to thei~ use.
Accessibility is pr~w.~rily vested in the adJoi~1~? properby ~*ner ~ho
in ma~- cases maint-~ the core-one or parts thereof.
Dockage and its accessibility is under ouestion because Village
dock-bu'Ll~4 nE policies are not in keeping w~th the ri~..htz of indi-
v!dua.!c la-.~ ci~-L~ to ~he com,,ons.
Page Three
Pro~zLrmity to co~ons is presently taxable as it enhances property ~
values, Residents in proxdmity now lay claim to special use privi-
leges due to taxes paid and theLr personal m~inten'~nce.
Selfish, ur2,itting individuals abuse cow~mons and adjoining properby
to the dis2runtlement of the neighborhood,
Net all commons are usWole t,~ residents of the prospective net~hbcr-
hood. Ir. many cases acc~ssibiiity is discourz~.ed ~¢ adJo!nin~
property ~.~ne.rs.
Present use-area designation is not clear as to %.~a% neigJaborhood
or po~ion thereof is to be used by ~4~at individuals°
~,9~- com~.ons are u=csed because of Lnaccessibi!ity by vL'~ue of
terrain, brush~ trach or. obstr~ctions~
9o Some so designated are~ may not be decirab!e as commorm~
So~ Suggested Approaches to e~tab!ishing a Uniform Policy for Nzintaining
the V* ~ ~ age Co~mons
Private Colons Aoorc~eh
.The Village ~cu!d turn co~.on~ '~.,b!ic land" over to private de-
si:~rmted citizens Froup consistin~ of prcperty ~ors benefitin?
of the area under consideration~
.~ppendix "E"
Page F.,~r
b~ Village stipulate (by pi.~_u or by law) what standards and uses it
sbmll be mLut~tned for,
Village will either do the r, uai~foenance and bill resid~uts by
~pecial assessment, or stipulate ~fr_~t need b~ dc.ne by citizens
cc~ttee and enforce by mazarin_re,
d, ~is would be _~.zled by State ~o~:o~-~ ....
.,.,-~.,..-~.~.,.~. = and _*~"th~' voted on by
rummier-= of the ~'ea, or vot~ on by w~l~ whole
Land would go on tax re!es.
2_° P~ab!ic Co.c-ns ,~,'_~Z_~_~:... ~ch
Village w..~u!d saek a ~_~!in~ ~ Stat~ (or judicial Body) to desig-
nate all ccm~.ons, public or private (neighborheed non-,tarmb!e) as
public land.
bo _~T~is may suit the Co~ervation D-~partme~o as it then would be-
come under State or C~m:.ty jurisdiction.
Five
~-bher rulings on use and mainten-~_uce ;.~,ld be subject to State
a.nd Ccanty boar~ and ~ould s~are State and County f~nds for
maintenance.
d. This Mould be p~ssLng the buck~ but would t-~._ko neighborhood amnoy-
ante off local c~ncil ~nd local officials.
e~ Neig..b:oorhoe~ ~:~ld hzv~ to claim to--ct jurisdiction over
This ~-,~uld b~ land ?ub!~ m~d _cpen to .oub!ic~
Village v.-~al, d secure co,~t rui:ing to de-~"..gnate zl!~ er that land
thereof cc requezted i~.,: ¢it!,~ssm, as a ncighbcrhocd .o~ to be
maintained under the jurisd!c'~.ion of the Park Co~iss±cn and =vail-
able '.-,.o only thcs~ ind!v"..d?-i~ ~-~_th residence in tb~'b co~anity~
Cc~nnity ~..~oul6 be bo-~?,d by nc def~nLite ben, fatting border!ins
mn!ess maLnten~uce be vested in pzrticul~ r2sidents by speci~
assessment. These r~sidents ~!d~ claim to use of p~rks.
~hers ~.~ouid re%e~,e cla~ to use b, mcbscription or cna fe~
basis. ~cense w~ld be ~bja~t to Village ~.uncil ,~der recom-
mendation of Park Co~ission.
°;.
Vl.
l~%ta of Mc~d Indt:a~ tho t:~a of 81,3 a~ of p~llcly-
~oly 60 ac~s =~ ~en~ly d~v~pad ~: a u~le c~l~!on.
p~iI~ r~=r~atio~ ~a~ und~ villas: own=rshtp or con~o!.
Th~o~ ~cas ~e dlvid.:d !n~c a v~ie~y cf rc.~:a~lonal ~pes
de~eri~d ~ov: in Sec,!on IV.
A de~.aiia'd 1t~ of ~h-~se st~e~ in,Iud!rig lo~a~lon, size, ~a~
o~ d~-~lop:e:~, p~os~ u:~, e~., Is the ~ln ~n~en~ o~ :his
m~i~ The r~ion a~a~ have a!~o ba~n n~er~d ~o ~
in fu~'~ raf~?an~=. A ch~ s~r!zir~ ~hls da~a wi~. be
fca. n4 In App~dix A, ~d ma~: or ~awin~ of each in A~pendi)~ A-:.,
IT will. ~_~ no~.~d ihat moat ra.>.-~-atlon s".~es c~ be us~ f~ m~
~han cn~ of ~h~ ~na~Ic~ ~:~ib~ in ~c~ion IV. ~zn more
~han cn~ ~.n~ton l~ lis~ad, ~ effo~ has been made ~o give
of d..~:~eastng f~po~:, f~r prasen~ or p~s~ use.
- 37 o
.... ~ ....~ a ~ of 281 a~:e~ ~o
- 39 -
- 40 -
~ 42 -
not only the institution, but the lcca! public A_I1 benefit from
its recreational value. Tan exemption' m=-y be gr~uted on the
basis ef public use.
E. iD. tchLu~ Financial ~id Pro.ams - :t the present time (19:%9)
fina~ncial aid pro~r~ms are avai!~b!e f~om the Fe~era! Gov~r~ent:
State Govormuent ~-.d He~_ueoin County. They are as fcl!cws:
Federal GoverrJ~nt
a. Ooen ~pzce (}U/0) Land ~c~ai~ition and "eve!cpmento
b~ Urban Eeautific~tion (!U6D),
c, Nei?If~cz~hocd Facilities (~).
d. Land and '-~t~r ConservmtlcnFund (L~-'CON: BOR),
(Dep~rtment of Conservation)°
'State of Minnesota
a. Natural Resource ~-~uud.
b. Older American Act (Title III).
c. Hennepin County.
1) Henuepin County Lake L.~provement Prosram (Me~u~p~u
County Hig~.,Tay D~p~_rtm~nt ).
Ac.
Goverr~nt .mr o.~?am
Op. en Space (~UD) - Dep~rtment of Hcusinm and Urbzn Development
Description
~ue program ~o-¢ides 50/50 matchin~ ,grants to public bcd!es
for ac~.-uiring, develop~L~ ~d ~eser~'~nE open space l~-nd
for (port, anent) public use, thereby providing, recreation,
conse~-ation and scepie are-~s~
Gr~ntz may cover the fo!!~-i.~, activities: acquisition of
title cr other perm~_u~t interests ir. open land for
permanent public open space use for p~'k and recreation pur-
poses, conservation of natural resources, and ~historic
scenic purposes; acquisition of title or other permanent
interests in develo~d land. in built-up areas to be cleared
and used for open space use (inc!ud~ug d~uolition costs) in
areas where open space ca,mot be ~-'"
e: ~e~tz ~ e_y provided t~ough
the use of existin~ undeveloped land; aud~ the develcoment of
open space !and acquired ~unde? this ~o~r~m includir~ ~uch
items as "basic" sanitary f.:.ci!ities~ paths: Wa~s, lan~-
scapin~ and sb~!ters~ but not major itc-m.~ ~ach as doeks~
phi%heaters~ ~.-r~ming poo!s~ golf courses: etc.
C~_antz may be m~de to state, r~olona!, metrooo!itan. ~ici-
p~! or othor public bodies est~biishe6 by s~te !a~4 local
1~ or by Lutersta~ co. act or agreement. ~e applicant
~s'b h~ve ~d~e ~u~xo~_ty to acquire, d~op ar~/~ presto
cpcn spaco !and ~d ~st be p.~ered to receive &nd ~end
Federal funds for '~is p~oose. Gr..ts ~V om~y be ~e where
assist~ce is nee~ed f~ c~r~g ,at a ~fied or offici~!~
coo ~rdinated progr~.m, ~-~ich melts criteria (established by the
a&~ra~o~ o£ ~he ~ust~ ~d N~ ~ce ~e~) for
pro. ion and d~e!~nt of open space ~ p~t of the com~
prehe~ive!y p!~ed ~elopment of the ~. FLusnci~
assts~ce is ~a~ie on 5~ ~+~E ~ut on a re~burse~
basis.
Urban Beautification Program (~JD) H~s!nZ and U~£oan Deve!op~eut
Des cription
This program provides grants to assist !coal progranm of urSan
be--utific~tion and f.~..~rova~e~ of open space and othsP public
land in urb~-n ~.reas.
C-~-ants m.~? be used for park devslcp~men%, such as basic
and c~ita~~ fac~ities, paths -'.nd .~alks, land$c&pin~,
shelters .and recreation e~.?ipm~nt; up?r~.ding and i .mprovcment
of ~biic areas: ~ch as m~lls, s~aares~ a~nd waterfronts~
stree, t im~rovem~:ts m_,ch as !ig. ht~_u~, ben~hes and tree plant-
ing and activities on behalf of the z_-ts, such as facilities
for cutdoor exhibits.
Grants covering up to 90% of the ccst of acbivities m~-y be
apprcved Lu demonstration pr¢-Jects havin? scctal value in
developing an~ demonctr.~tin? Lu !mprove~ methods or materials.
Applicants are limited to states of local public bodies. To
be eligible, local pro~r~ of urban beautification -~nd im-
provement must be significant and effective efforts, invo!v-
ing a~l available public ~ud private resources for be~-utifi-
cation and improvement of op.~n space and other public land ia
the ccsmm~r~ty, and ~st be -'-~.~o~ant to comprehensively
planned development of the locality.
C. Neighborhood FacilD~ies
Description
Gr_ar~s are r~ade to local roublic bod~.os to assist Lu financin~
sp~ic projects for neishborhood f~c~ities ~ as neighbor-
hood and youth centers, h~ stctio~ ~ud other public
facili'~es that pz~o~de s~!~ nnd related s,~-~ces to
neighborhoods, ~e f~cilitl's mm.y be pr~-ided tD~h n~
constraction or t~cugh ac~isition: and reh~nili~tion if
necess~y~ of e~st~ bu~¢~. Under this pro~ two-thUds,
in somm cases t]~ee-fou~ohm: of the c~ts ~e pro'~.ded.
Facilities ~st provide n,~' ser-~_ces or extend or 4=prove
existinK services in a nei~borhood. Ex~st!nE levels of social
se_~-ice in other m~rts oft he loca!itym~st be maintained.
-41 -
Priority is given projects desi~ne~ prtm=rily to benefit !,~
income fami!ie~ o~' to fuz~he? the objectives ef the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964.
2~
To be eligible for asg~tanc'~ under the pro~ram~ a faciiit-y
m~st be necess~y for c~h~ ,~t a ~c~ of he~th~
recreatio~!~ soci~ or si~ cc~:r~ty se~ice ~ the
area; cor~t~nt ~.~_'lh cc~r~nenzive pl~noi~ for de.clop-
merit of the areaS ~ud so located a~ to be g~*~_able for use
by a si~ic~t pop, ion (or mm~B~, in the case of l~ge
urb~m pl~ces) of the ~sab !~,~ or ~sratc ~ncome residents~
';,~ L%WCON (D~caa-~ment af ~e
and Water Cci~ervzticn .u.~d - .
int~:~io?), Eta~.~!n~'~o 0';'. lo-'al a~..d Urban .~ ~airz. - State Pi~ming
A.o:encv )
Descriotien
TP~s program pro,_des ~ant-in-aids to states and their politi-
cal subdi~_siom-" fc~ plapming: a~?~iring, and deve!cpirk~
outdoor recTeaticn are~ ~.~n6 facilities. State ~ local
pr~oosals ~ould first bo made to de~i-~mted state officials
and agencies. Each stoic iz r¢c.~-ed to pr~.p-~e an adequate
ou%doo= recreation p!~-.n as a pre-requisite %0 pal'ticipat~n6
in the gr~-uts-~-atd program. Local projects m~s~ be in
accord ~th the state,_de plan to qualify for assistance.
The pro~'~m is a 50~ m~tching fund grant.
The pro~am also provides ~nds, upon appropriations by
Congress fer acquisition of ~ertaLu Federal outdoor recrea-
tien lends ars for p&ym.e~% into the Trez~y to help offset
capital co, ts of public recreation and fish ~_d wildlife,
enhancem-~nt at Federal water devs!opment prcjsctso
w~.. igibi!ity
2~ States s~ud thcir po!~.tica! subdivisions are eligible f,~-
grant-in-zid ~ssistanc~; des'.'.~..~tsd Federal recrcaticn
agencies are eligible to partlcip~_te Lu the Fcdera! portion
o~ the pro~3.~n~.
Eo State Nzt~! Res,~rce (Of_~ice of Lcc~m and Urban Affairs -
Stat~ Pl~.~ming Agen~~)
Description
An aporopri~ticn heretofcre or hersa_e~er m~d~ from the natural
resources account in the stat~ treasury for local units of
Cove~.~.~ent shzll first be r~.~ised by the co~uty board and
a~- co~.~nty or rc.~icn~! p!~.nn~r.~ cam~_~ssion before funds are
- 49 ~
d.f.etribute4 by the state. State grant-Lu-aid from ~-~ch acc~ant
~y be expende~ for land acquisition and develop_m~nt for
,~reation-~l purposes inc!uding~ but not !~-'.ted to, historic
sites~ archeoio~,, public ac.~ese~ parks, scenic easement~,
camp. gr~our~ls~ ~.*_!d!ife greas, county ~.nd school fore, ts, water
~_mpo'omdment and natural a~,e~ a~d trail~o
The .w~:d.~m stat~ contribution under the Nat'~a! Resource
Fund is l~Jted to 5~ of the total cost of th~ project or
~n~ !cc~ sh~re if Federal f~u~ ~e used ~th a ~-
~m pa~e~ of ~100,~O,~O fez' a~ ~%~du~ project~
No p~_'oject is eligible for state f~uds un/kess it is identified
as a p?_~t of a statistic: c,~-.nty or ~'s~-icDz! recreational plan
~.b~tted to the State P!a~ng A~ncy for r~vi~ an~ approval
as to the priorities listed therein. The political subdivi-
sio~ of ~e State of ~uescta a~e eligible°
iq&
- 50 ~
Older American Acts (Title III)~ Gove~mors Oiti=ens Council
on !.ging
Desc.~!pt::-. m
Authori~,:.s allocations to states to assist them in strengthen-
ing~ en~,endins, establishing or coor~inating state active, ties
~u ag!hE in !ccal co~uities t.~oush m~'bching
P~oj?~t ~reas include co~n!ty pl~'~uuin? or pro,rams by ccun-
,~.
ciO. on_~,~.=~';.~,~ P~c~r~us ~-~ch nro?Ide, s~_ces, ~n~mztion
ab;ut se?riccs~ tr-~in~ of leadership ~ud cpportunitiem for
the ms~uing~! use cf !ei~.~e time for Senior Citizens~
Recre=ticn ~-s.'..s include L.&bra.'~- ~ud r-~adi.~ ss~_ces~ rn&~o
pro~_~a~ cn~ s'b~'~qi'~h~nLu~ of ~enicr Cit?.en~ Club Pro~ranm~
~_igibilit7~
Pub~.¢ or non-p~_~ofit agencies~ org:~.ni~.~tions or ~.~titutions
shall be eliEiblc for proJec'~ ~.~r~.ts.
G. Hs.~epin Cm~nty Lake Improve~-~nt ?rogr-~m (He~m~pin County
~.g~way Dep. zi~men~ )
Description
Activity on the part of !octal gov~nrant in tbs
of !~kes ar~ the acquisition of acc~s to Public Lak--esA The
County w~_tl participate in the cost of land acquisition
public areas and public access ~s ~ell ~s the co~t of
mcnts to the !:--l:e prop. or fo~~ boa',~; na~_'gatic~l ai~s a~nd
rscreation~
The Co'.~y of He-.~r. spiu cc---~iders prcpesais from ~cip~ities
for tS~ L~r~e~ of l~:ss or ~-at~r;~ Lu the ~ci~!ities'
jurisdiction pro~dL~ the fo~c~f_nZ critari~ are mat:
a. ?ae !~3:e cr wat¢~_%~-ay nnst be a Fcblic body of wcter.
b, Adequate u,~'~'estricted public a¢ccs~- ~ust '~e demormtrated
~th ar~.,p!e parkln~
c. ~e ~ab:,~.sslcn of a co ~rprehen~i?~ plan for the lak~ ar~ the
~m~diate area setti~,t~ forth projected costs of acquisition
and i.~rcv_~ment and. relating its recreatiorm! utiiity~
- 52 ~
boat'~g, swL~mzLug, picnicing, etc.~ to the p~m~!ation to
d. A¥).,oval of the plan ar~ pro,'am by the Department of
C?mez~vation, State of l, Rnne~ota,
To '-~c~itate the i~--grcvemef~s~ the C~T',oy will match local
f-~ ~s on the fol!~.%_ng fo_ .~.dL~ a~er state ~d fed~'~l f~uds
)~v¢ be~n solicited~
ao K~uicipai~ties ~%th ~ assessed ,-~!ua%ion ~vez. ~20,000~000 - 50%,
b~ .~hnicip~!ities :.;ith ~-n assessed valuation over ~,5~000,000,
but ur_der ::.20~000,000 - 37~: 0c~ty ~ 62-~
Fnnicipa!ities ~-~ith ~n assesse& va!uztion un,er .%5 ~ 000 ~ 000 - 25%~
County
;_~1 ~-urici.oalities in He~mspin Ccan~,~ are e!i~ible for this
- 53 ~
Rais~n~ Funds tb~o~h ?.~ca~ Park T~ovem~nt ~sociatio=s ~ I~
f~e p~ks ~ M~d h~ve ~o~e ~bout thr~a~h the devotion an~
interest of l~ p~ associatim~s. ~ ~ cases these in~-
vi~2s have solicited fur~ conducted ~ives a~ ca~ai~ for
mon~ to ~ce !oc~ park' d~-~!opment ~d ~rove~t~
in ccop~tion --~:-'~:~_,,.. the pm-k oisn. ~uch ~roups such be eno'ou~-age~
and ~,~pported by the P~rk Agency.
.~ lcc~l ~rovcm. snt association ~ usu~.l~v the best scundi~
board the Pa~k Co~',~ission h~s for kn.~,~ug ~'~.en the time is
for n~ ~"~.~-=~.o or when e~stin~, pa~s ~st be u~ ?~r~_aded.
Such a~s~ciations ge.n~!dj- m~_i.r~ain a mer~r or two on the
Adw, ~_-cc_~~ P~rk
G~ Vc!unte~? Effort3 - Som~ residents have aporcached the Park Comm~ission
for f~_uanci~l aid in nm. teria!s ~.ud equipme~b for ~ach projects as
nei.~hborho~d ~-r~i~ beaches~ neig~Toorhood docks~ sod or grass seed
for park !a~:n~, and picnic tables, that thay w,~Id volunteer, the
the ir. bor for
Joint efforts by volunteer ~oups is encouraged and will generally
not only speed up the particular project, trat will substantially
reduce the costs.
Funds through Sales of Licsnses, ~"m~ging of Fees for Permits -
Char~.ing of fees for p~i~ or licenses ha~ long be~n an accepted
way of iimi"~in~ use of c-~ain public facilities. It c~n also help
defray costs of m~iutatnin~ er policing of such facLlit~s~ Items
such as a dock p~ni%~ p~kin~ fee, etc., as'e typical
4.! $pr!'ng Park Bay v,, _¢....
cn the Yerth, Z~l~ndv!.~ ~ri';~ on the E~x~t
cn the ~z,a~h em~ './est, F~ b~en f~ei~ ].cvelcd, :~d posts
b~-ezi ~'!v~n on rcadzide~.~ it ii:ss no ~!".: ¢~:ipm'sz";..
so~.bal! ficld fc.r ye-~?~r chiliven ol the
who do not zbt.t um~onr. :~e~ is DmJ~sc~bl.e due t ......
4o!4
~o17
~o~0
Br~.~h~on
An area 40 ft, x 200 f~:o deep in
E~t ~ B~gh~on g1~t~, ~uta
by hilb. ~ered ~y L~e ~a ~ No~:h ~d E~t, ~y
E~n~on Bi~d. ~ W~: ;ad a ~,e ~da~Ic~d hi~ ~ th~ 5ou~,
~d ~2. ~ h= ba~ ~rained, ~il~d ~d ~aded, h~ u~!y
3~ a=aa ~ fro x 150 it, !oug Imcludt~il ¢cmmons ~ ~hvood
on [~ ~o~a oi Cock's Bay ~.~ ~auce f~om ~t ~ C~
b~id~a ~e ~ ~na ~:h ~o~:~ ~a ~d be:de:ed ou
~d ~ou~h by ~mld~lal prop~:~y. Ia le~l for ~ou~
d~=~g~h~la fr~ ~u~i~ prop~y. ~ f~. l~a accaseo
~o~3 g=dfo=d Acc~e
om So~:h~ ~! f~o ca ~as: on ~r!gh~ca B~Y-~, am, d 85 f~, on
Noz~h. Ra~i~e=~lal pzop~:t7 ~ Mo~=h ~d Sou~h,
~o~ rcm~ ~ ~p~ e~u!y ~o l~e, h~ gc~d
~ ~e~ ~ a mc~he~, ~o~ po:,m~l~ for f~ly
daval~ ne!g~c~co~ rec~aa~io~, a~ea; 7.61
Mound City Code Section 437:00
Section 437 - Dock Licenses
Section 437:00. Licenses. Docks.
Subd. 1. Docks Defined. For purposes of this Section 437, the term 'dock' means
any wharf, pier, boat ramp, boat slip, mooting buoy, or other structure constructed or
maintained in, upon, or into the water of a lake from publicly owned shoreland.
Subd. 2. License Required. No person shall erect, keep, or maintain a dock on
or abutting upon any public street, road, park, or commons without first securing a
license therefor from the City in accordance with the provisions of this Section 437.
Subd. 3. License Plate Location. One license plate shall be securely fixed to a
Licensed dock. The license shall be on the shoreland end of the dock. License plates
shall be issued by the Dock Inspector after approval of the license application, shall be
maintained by the licensee in its original color, and shall remain the property of the City
of Mound.
Subd. 4. Transfers. Dock licenses are not transferable between licensees. All
licenses shall be issued by the City to a new licensee in accordance with the provisions
of this Section.
Subd. 5. Removal of Docks. Upon expiration of a dock license, the licensee must
completely remove the licensed dock and accessory items from public land. Any dock
or portion thereof not removed by the licensee will be removed by the City or a
designated contractor and all costs of removal will be the responsibility of the last
licensee for that dock site. (ORD. #60-1992 - 12-7-92) (ORD. #66-1993 - 12-27-93)
Section 437:05. Applications for and Issuance of Dock Licenses.
Subd. 1. Separate License Required for Each Dock. Each dock constructed and
abutting a public park, commons, or street shall require a license from the City and a
license plate to be issued by the Dock Inspector, who shall be appointed by the City
Manager. No person shall be issued more than one license in any one calendar year.
Subd. 2. License Application Reqhired. License applications shall be obtained at
the City offices. Such applications shall state completely, the following information and
such other information as is deemed necessary by the City Manager or the Dock
Inspector:
A. Full name of the applicant;
i 12-31-98
Mound City Code Section 437:05, Subd. 2, B.
B. Address - applicant must present proof of residency showing he or she is
a permanent or summer resident of the City of Mound;
C. Preferred location of dock on the dock location map of the City;
D. Boat license number and copy of watercraft license for each boat to be
moored at said dock; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90)
E. Such other information as may be required on the application form.
F. The applicant for a license shall sign as a part of the application an
agreement which shall guarantee that the applicant will remove the dock and all
appurtenances at the expiration of the license. The applicant shall agree that if
they do not remove the dock, the City is authorized to have the dock removed
and the applicant agrees to pay to the City any and all costs incurred by the City
in removing the dock. The applicant also shall agree that if the City removes the
dock, the City is authorized to dispose of any materials or parts which are left on
public lands or in public waters and the applicant shall forfeit any fight or claim
to the materials left on the dock site.
Subd. 3. Two Residents may Share a Dock Subject to the Conditions Contained
Herein. Where dock permits are shared and issued to two residents entitled to permits
of the first and second priority, then the following conditions shall apply:
ae
That duplicate information (including boat licenses) for each of the licensees be
included on the license application;
That each of the licensees retain priority rights to individual dock permits as
vacation occurs in the immediate subdivision shoreline;
That the fee for each licensee shall be one-half the fee plus a shared dock fee as
set by the Council in Section 510:00. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90)
Subd. 4. Application Filing. Applications for licenses shall be fried with the Dock
Inspector at the City offices and he shall recommend to the City Council that the license
be approved or denied. No license will be recommended or authorized until the Dock
Inspector determines that the proposed dock complies substantially with the term of all
City ordinances. The application shall contain a reminder and/or warning to the
applicant that a dock license will not be issued for any dock on public land where the
applicant has a correction order pending concerning a stairway or structure used to access
the dock. The license will not be issued until compliance with the correction order has
been completed or satisfactory arrangements have been made with the Dock Inspector to
complete the corrective measures. (ORD. //62-1993, 4/19/93)
2 12-31-98
Mound City Code Section 437:05, SuM. 5
Subd. 5. Dock Location. No license shall be recommended by the Dock Inspector
until he or she shall have first determined that the proposed dock is suitable for the
specific dock location as identified on the official dock location map.
Subd. 6. Denial of Application. If the applicant has not maintained a previously
licensed dock, the Dock Inspector may recommend to the City Council that any existing
license be revoked, and the applicant's priorities under this Section 437 be forfeited for
the current year and for the next Mating season. A dock license will not be issued for
any dock on public land where the applicant has a correction order pending concerning
a smixway or structure used to access the dock. The license will not be issued until
compliance with the correction order has been completed or satisfactory arrangements
have been made with the Dock Inspector to complete the corrective measures. (ORD.
62-1993, 4/!9/93)
Subd. 7. License Priorities. The following priorities govern the issuance of dock
licenses and other dock locations:
aa. Residents owning private lakeshore within the City which has dockable
lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public lands.
(ORD. 45-1990- 12-29-90)
bb. Dock site holders who combine on a single dock while continuing to apply
for and pay for their separate dock site locations shall each be entitled to return
to such separate dock site upon termination of their participation in the combined
dock facility and notice to the City of such termination. (ORD. 97-1997 - 12-20-
97)
a. First Priority. An abutting owner has first priority for a City designated
location within his or her lot lines extended to the shoreline. Docks shall be
located in accordance with the dock location map. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90)
b. Second Priority. A licensee or, if licensee has not applied for a new
dock license, the shared owner as shown on the permit application for the
preceding year, has second priority when applying for a dock permit for the same
location held by the licensee the: immediately preceding year. Second priority
licensee has no priority of dock locations where a first priority license is in effect.
c. Third Priority. A duly qualified applicant has third priority on locations
vacant after the first and second priority applications have been made within the
prescribed time limit described in this ordinance. Licenses will be issued to such
applicants in the order of application dates. There shall be no third priority
where the first and second priorities are in effect. Residents owning private
lakeshore within the City which has dockable lake frontage shall have the last
priority each year for a dock on public lands.
3 12-31-98
Mound City Code Section 437:05, SuM. 7, d.
d. Administration of Priority. The Dock Inspector shall assign all locations
to the applicants upon compliance with this ordinance and subject to reasonable
conditions and Council approval.
Subd. 8. Application Deadlines. Applications for dock shall be made between
J'anuary 1 and the last day of February of each year. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90)
Subd. 9. Late Applications. All applications received on or after March 1 shall
be subject to additional late fees as set by the Council in Section 510:00 and will be
placed in a third priority category. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) (ORD. #53-1991 -
12-23-91)
Subd. 10. New Residents. There will be no late fee charged to new residents who
apply after the last day of February of the calendar year in which the resident moves to
the City. The regular license fee will be charged and no penalty will attach during that
year. (ORD. 45-1990- 12-29-90)
Section 437:10. Rul'es and Regulations.
Subd. 1. Dock Location Map Definition. There shall be on file in the City Hall
a drawing of the City of Mound that is maintained by the Dock Inspector showing the
approved locations of private docks that may be constructed on or abutting public
shorelands under the consol of the City. Such master plan shall contain the following
information:
A. Lineal footage for purposes of establishing dock locations; (ORD.
45-1990 - 12-29-90)
B. Indication of approved dock location scaled to proximity within the
property markers; (ORD. 45-1990- 12-29-90)
C. Shoreline Types and any restrictions applicable to said locations; (ORD.
45-1990 - 12-29-90) (ORD. #66-1993 - 12-27-93)
D. Minimum spacing between dock locations shall be shown by the dock
location numbering system; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90)
E. Dock location number shall be keyed to listing of licensees and addresses,
and the same number shall apply to the same location each year as far as
possible;
4 12-31-98
Mound City Code Section 43'7:10, Subd. 1, F.
F. Access points, and other relevant information as is necessary to review
dock locations and to allow the City Council and the Dock Inspector to protect
the public lands and public waters; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90)
G. Shoreline areas designated for no winter dock storage. (ORD. 45-1990
- 12-29-90)
H. Repealed (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90)
Subd. 2. Annual Review of Map. Approved dock location maps shall be kept and
maintained by the Dock Inspector and shall be reviewed by the Park and Open Space
Commission at least once a year. The Park Advisory Commission shall review the dock
location map between September 1 and December 31 before each new boating season so
their recommended changes may be referred to and considered by the City Council on
or before lanuary 15. Maps shall contain all approved dock locations as established by
the Council upon the advice and recommendation of the Dock Inspector and Park
Advisory Commission. Final approval of the dock location map and the number of
private dock licenses to be permitted shall be recommended by the Dock Inspector,
reviewed by the Park Commission and approved by the City Council. (ORD. 45-1990
- 12-29-90)
Subd. 3. Dock Inspector to Review Application. The Dock Inspector shall
determine and approve the location of each permit according to the specifications of the
approved dock location map.
Subd. 4. Costs of Erection and Maintenance. Licensed docks shall be erected and
maintained by the licensee at his or her sole expense and liability for same. (ORD.
45-1990 - 12-29-90)
Subd. 5. Suspension of Eligible Location. The City Council may suspend a dock
location where it appears that a location as e~tablished on the dock location map
reasonably interferes with the use of public waters or imposes a hardship on property
owners abutting on public streets or public commons.
Subd. 6. One Dock Per Family:' Apartment Building. No more that one dock
shall be permitted for each resident family. An apartment building or multiple dwelling
owner shall not apply for dock licenses for his renters or lessees. He or she is entitled
to apply for an individual private dock license for himself or herself if he or she is a
resident of the City.
5
12-31-98
Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 7.
Subd. 7. Construction MateriaLs; Use of Car Tires. All private docks shall be
constructed of materials specified by the Building Inspector and the Dock Inspector and
in accordance with all building codes of the City. The standards for the public health,
safety, and general welfare and neither the materials or the workmanship for an approved
licensed private dock shall result in docks being located on public lands which are
unsightly, unsafe or create a public nuisance. No tire or tires shall be hung or attached
on dock posts, dock poles, or on dock hardware of any dock on or abutting public
shorelands under the control of the City. (ORD. //40-1990, 1-29-90)
Subd. 8. Inspections - Notice of Non-Compliance - License Revocation. The
Dock Inspector or such other officer as may be designated by the City Manager or the
City Council, may at any reasonable time inspect or cause to be inspected any dock
erected or maintained upon or abutting upon any public street, road, park, or commons,
and if it shall appear that any such dock has not been constructed or properly maintained
or the area surrounding the dock site is not being maintained in accordance with the
application or the license granted therefore, or with the plans or location approved by the
Council, or shall it appear that such dock is in a condition that no !:roger complies with
the requirements of this ordinance or other ordinances of the City, :he City, by its City
Manager or any other officer designated by the City Manager, shall forthwith notify the
owner thereof in writing specifying the way or ways in which said dock does not comply
with the ordinances of the City, after which said owner shall have ten days to remove
such dock or make the same comply with the terms of the City's ordinances and the
terms of the application and issuance of the license granted to said licensee. In the event
such owner shall fail, neglect, or refuse to remove such dock or make the same comply
with the terms of the City regulations within the period of ten days, the license therefor
shall be revoked by direction of the City Council or the Dock Inspector and by notice in
writing to the licensee, and said notice shall be issued by the City Manager or any other
officer designated by him or her. Any appeal will be made in writing and submitted to
the City Manager by a certified letter or by personal delivery to the City Manager for
his or her consideration. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90)
Subd. 9. Notice of Revocation. All notices herein required shall be in writing by
certified mail, directed to the licensee at the address given in the application.
Subd. 10.
Winter Dock Storage. :Winter dock storage by permit holders:
A. Docks may be left in the water during the winter months providing the
following conditions are met:
(1) The required-dock license for the following year must be applied
for and paid by the tenth day of January.
6 12-31-98
Mound City Code ,Section 437:10, Subd. 10., (2)
(2) Docks may be partially removed, provided that those sections left
in public waters are complete. No poles, posts, stanchions or supports
standing alone shall remain in public waters.
(3) Docks must be brought up to the construction standards outlined
in this Section 437 within 4 weeks after the ice goes out in the spring of
the year (approximately May 15). If the dock does not meet construction
standards, the procedures as specified in SuM. 8 of this Section 437 will
apply. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90)
(4) Docks may not be left in the water or on public land if they
conflict with the following uses as shown on the dock location map:
(a)
Co)
(c)
(d)
Slide area
Snowmobile crossings
Skating rinks
Trails
(e) Road access
(f) Other conditions or circumstances wkich are determined by
the Council to have an adverse affect on adjacent properties.
Docks may be stored on commons during the winter months providing the
conditions set forth in a.4 above are met along with the following
conditions:
(1) Repealed. (ORD 45-1990 - 12-29-90)
(2) Docks may not be stored on commons shown on the dock location
map as having topographical conditions which are too steep, or have
fragile flora or where tree damage may occur due to tree density or where
there is unstable ground.
(3) Docks may be stored only in areas designated for dock permits and
as shown on the dock location map.
(4) All storage shall be done in an or&fly, compact, and unobtrusive
manner.
(5) Docks and associated hardware must be removed from the
commons and/or public lands between June 1st and September 1st of each
year.
(6) Storage shall be restricted to dock materials, dismantled docks, and
dismantled boat lifts.
7 12-31-98
Mound City Code Sect/on 43?: I0, Subd. 10, B., ?.
(7) The Park Commission, City Dock Inspector, and City Council
shall review the dock location map each year and designate areas not
available for winter storage because of the conditions heretofore stated.
(ORD. 45-1990- 12-29-90)
Subd. 11. Removal Deadline. All private docks abutting any public road, street,
park, or commons must be removed from the waters of Lake Minnetonka or other
navigable waters no later than November 1 of the license year unless it is a winter
approved dock location as shown on the master dock map. (ORD #66-1993 - 12-27-93)
Subd. 12. Docking of Non-Owned Watercraft. Docking of boats not owned by the
dock licensee is permitted for a period of up to 48 hours, two times in a calendar year.
Docking of boats not owned by the dock licensee is not permitted for a period in excess
of 48 hours. The City may check with the State of Minnesota to determine if the boat
docked at the licensed dock is owned by the licensee and/or a member of the same
household as the licensee. Any boat registered to someone not a member of the
licensee's household shall not be docked in excess of 48 hours unless a Temporary
Visiting Dockage Permit has been obtained from the City and the fee established by the
City Council in S&:tion 510:35 has been paid. No more than one Temporary Visiting
Dockage Permit may be issued in any calendar year to an individual dock licensee or
visitor. All Temporary Visiting Dockage Permits shall contain the State registration
number of the boat and shall be limited to 21 days. Any violation of this Section 437
by the dock licensee shall result in the loss or revocation of the dock license unless the
City Council shall determine upon evidence submitted by the licensee that there were
mitigating circumstances. The City Council may determine that revocation is too severe
a penalty and may then condition said license so that any future violation will result in
automatic revocation. (ORD. #53-1991, 12-23-91) (ORD. g94-1998 - 1-17-98)
Subd. 13. Licenses Non-Transferable. Dock licenses and permits issued by the City
are personal in nature and may be used only by the licensee or members of their
households. No dock licensed by the City or located on public streets, roads, parks, or
public commons may be rented, leased, or sublet to any person, partnership or
corporation. If a licensee or permit holder rents, leases, sublets, or in any manner
charges of receives consideration for the use of his or her dock, his or her license shall
be revoked.
8 12-31-98
Mound City Code Section 437:15
Section 437:15. Maximum Dimensions, Prohibited Design of Docks. Docks for
which a license is required by this Section 437:15 shall not be less than 24" wide or more than
48" in width with the exception that one 72' x 72' section is allowed on L, T, or U shaped
docks provided that this configuration be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property
and shall not infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall not exceed 24 feet in length except
where necessary to reach a water depth of 48", using Lake Minnetonka elevation levels of
929.40 feet above sea level. Channel docks, where navigation is limited and docks must be
installed parallel to the shoreline, cannot be less than 24' wide or more than 72" in width. The
length shall be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property or not to infringe on an
adjacent dock site. Docks shall be of plank or rail construction. Dock posts shall be of equal
height above the dock boards and shall be at least two rail construction and constructed to
comply to standards and specifications approved by the Dock Inspector. All docks shall be built
or placed with the longitudinal axis thereof perpendicular to the shoreline unless variations
otherwise may be permitted in accordance with the conditions of the area. Docks which are in
existence June 1, 1989, shall be brought into compliance with all provisions of the City Code
when expansion or modification is requested, or replacement of 50% or more of any such dock
that is damaged, destroyed, or deteriorated. (ORD. #38-1989 - 1-2-90) (ORD. 45-1990 -
12-29-90) (ORD.//66-1993 - 12-27-93)
Section 437:16. Exceptions. The City Code may grant exceptions to the provision of
Section 437:15 in instances where the Council finds that the exception is necessitated due to
unusual circumstances; and if granted, would not have a detrimental impact on the public safety
or welfare. The City Council may condition any exception upon such conditions as the Council
shall in its sole discretion, deem appropriate. The exception and any conditions imposed on its
granting will be shown on the dock license. Any violation of the conditions imposed shall result
in the revocation or non-renewal of such license. (ORD. #89-1997 - 10-18-97)
The Council may refer any request for exception to the Dock and Commons Advisory
Commission for review and comment prior to taldng action. (ORD. #89-1997 - 10-18-97)
Section 437:20. Penalties. Any person or persons who shall violate any of the
prohibitions or requirements of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition to
any criminal penalties as above provided, the City Council may remove or cause to be removed
any dock erected without a license a required by this Section 437, or where any license has been
revoked as provided by this Section 437. Removal of unlicensed docks or docks which fail to
comply with the City Code will be at the expense of the owner or licensee. No person convicted
of violating City ordinances relating to docks will be issued a dock license for the present or for
the next boating season, and said person forfeits any priorities set forth in this Section 437.
9 12-31-98
Mound City Code Section 437:25
Section 437:25. License Fee. The annual license fee shall be as set by the Council in
Section 510:00. Residents of the City of Mound 65 years of age or older shall pay 50% of the
required license fee for a dock. (ORD. ~3-1991, 12-23-91)
10
12-31-98
PROCEDURE ~ANUAL - Public Land Permits
Exhibit D
p. I of 18
USE PLAN
for
PUBLIC LANDS
City of Mound
4/19/93
- 11 -
PROCEDURE HANUAL - Public Land Permits
Use Plan for Public Lands
Exhibit
p. 2of18
USE PLAN FOR PUBLIC LANDS
City of Mound
SHORELINE NI~[BERING SYSTEM
For the purpose, of the Mound Park Plan, public shoreline has been numbered by dividing the City into
9 general areas. The fzrst number of the five digit number system indicates the general area of that
location. The remaining four (4) digits represents the actual distance of that location, from the starting
point of the general area (i.e. #21080 means area 2; 1,080 feet from the beginning of area 2 - Harrison
Beach in Harrison's Bay).
PARK AREA CLASSIFICATIONS
For the purpose of the Mound Park Use Plan, public lands have been divided into the following
classification:
CLASS 0 - No proposed usage.
CLASS 1-
Playground: Designed primarily for young children under 12 years of age, ser~e an area
3/8 mile. May include swings, slides, jungle gyms, sand boxes and small ball field with
backstop.
CLASS 2 -
Neighborhood Park: Facility for all age groups which provides space for passive and
active recreation. It could include such things as picnic sites, play areas, hiking paths
and beaches. It is designed to serve the residential neighborhood rather than the
community at large and would include the small beach areas with a limited amount of
shoreline.
CLASS 3 -
Playing Field: Adults and youth over 12 years. Ten to twenty acres optimum and serves
an area one to one and one-half miles. It would include such things as tennis courts,
football fields, ice rinks, baseball and softball fields, etc. This type of facility would
incorporate the facilities currently available.
CLASS 4 -
Resident Fishing Area: Areas of shoreline along the lakeshore to provide space for bank
fishing. This will provide fishing opportunity for our youngsters through our senior
citizens.
CLASS 5 -
Nature Area: Areas maintained in a natural or nearly natural state but open to the public
for such outdoor recreation purposes as nature study, conservation education, trails, etc.
CLASS 6-
rev. 1/25/94
Community Park: A large community park to provide a wide range of activities and
serve the City at large. Activities could include such things as swimming beaches, golf
course, archery range, camp sites, nature trails, as well as the common playground
equipment.
- 12 -
~ROCEDURE HANUAL - Public Land Permits
~se Plan for Public Lands
Exhibit 17 '
p. 4 o fi8
SL~E~LiRY OF CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC SHO~L~S
00000 - 00395 · CLASS 5,8 TYPE D,E
Location:
AVOCET LANE. On the southwest edge of Woodland Point, this natural cove is
approximately 400 x 800 feet in size.
Current Use:
Mostly heavy bulrush swamp. Docking sites are located at the road access on the
southern side of the cove, and along Dove Lane on the eastern side. The cove is
unimproved and shallow.
Proposed Use: No change in usage planned.
00425 - 01140 CLASS 4,6,8 TYPE A,D
Location:
WAWONASSA COMMONS. Located on the west edge of Woodland Point,
abutting Waurika Commons on the north and extending to the water's edge on the
south.
Current Use:
The terrain varies from a very steep hill dropping sharply to the water at the north
edge, to a Iow flat at the lake's edge at its southern end. This area is approximately
2 acres with 1,000 feet of lake front. It is partially developed and maintained by
adjacent local residents. It has heavy usage as a resident dockage area and fishing
Proposed Use:
Its proposed usage is the continuance as a neighborhood marina and fishing/nature
01140 - 02560 CLASS 4,6,8,9 TYPE A,D
Location:
WAURIKA COMMONS. Located on the north edge of Woodland Point extending
from Wawonassa Commons to Gull Lane.
Current Use:
This is a long, narrow strip of land. The terrain varies from a very steep hill
dropping sharply to the water at the north edge to a Iow, flat at lake's edge at its
eastern end. Its total area is approximately 2 acres with 1,220 feet of lake front.
It is presently heavily used as a resident permit docking area and fishing area as well
as a public walkway. Canary Beach is located approximately at its center, at the end
of Canary Lane.
Proposed Use: Continuance of its present usage.
rev. 1/25/94
- ltl-
PROCEDURE HAN~AL - Public T. and Permits
Use Plan for Public Lands
Exhibit
p. 5of18
01710 - 01850
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
02560 - 02800
Location:
CLASS 9 TYPE D
CANARY BEACH. Located on the north edge of Woodland Point, approximately
in the center of Waurika Commons, at the northern end of Canary Lane.
Its area is approximately 1/2 acre with approximately 140 feet of shoreline. It is
essentially a fully developed swimming beach.
Continuance of its present usage.
CLASS 2,4,6 TYPE A,D
PEBBLE BEACH. Located on the shoreline between Heron and Paradise Lane.
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
02800 - 04000
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed use:
04000 - 04040
Location:
Its area is .2 acres with 240 feet of lake fi.ont. It is presently undeveloped with a
sharp drop from the inland level to the water's edge. It is being used as a resident
docking area.
Continue current use.
CLASS 4,5,8, TYPE D
WILLOW POINT. Located at the end of Three Points Blvd.
A rocky graveled ridge formed originally as an ice ridge at lower lake level and now
eroding at its tip. It is solid, rocky, gravel bottom on all sides. It is approximately
3 acres with 1,200 feet of lakeshore. It is presently being used as a nature area and
fishing area. The first 75 feet on the westerly edge (02800 - 02875) is being used
as a limited docking area.
Continuance of its present usage.
CLASS 2,4,8 TYPE D
SUNRISE LANDING. Located on the shore of West Arm and abutting Shorewood
Lane.
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
Approximately 100 feet deep with 40 feet of lakeshore. It is a low area with a high,
firm lake front.
Resident permit docking area, a park and fishing area.
rev. 1/25/94
- 15-
~ROCEDURE HANUAL - Public Land Permits
Use Plan for Public Lands
Exhibit U'
p. 6of18
04040 - 04060
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
04060 - 04120
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
10000 - 10040
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
10040 - 10100
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
CLASS 0 TYPE D
BREEZY BEACH PATH. Located on the shore of West Arm and abutting
Shorewood Lane.
Is 100 feet deep with 20 feet of lakeshore, and is presently a well kept lawn area
maintained by the adjacent property owners.
No proposed usage.
CLASS 1,2,4,9 TYPE D
NORTH BEACHSIDE. Located on the shore of West Arm and abutting Shorewood
Lane.
Its area is .2 acre and is 152 feet deep with 60 feet of shoreline. It is a low partially
filled area of land with a high, firm lake front and has a lift station.
Its proposed use is for neighborhood park and swimming area. Presently used for
2 dock sites.
CLASS 8 TYPE D
SHOREWOOD ACCESS. Located at the tip of Shadywood Point as an extension
of Shorewood Lane.
It has 40 feet of lakeshore. It is presently being used as a permit dock area.
Continuance of its present usage.
CLASS 2,4,8 TYPE D
SOUTH BEACHSIDE ACCESS. Located near the end of Shadywood Point on the
north shore of Harrison's Bay and adjacent to Lakeside Lane.
Its area is .2 acres and is 185 feet deep and has 60 feet of lake front. It has been
filled in to an acceptable level, but otherwise is unimproved. It is presently being
used as a resident docking and boat launch area.
Neighborhood park, permit dock area and resident fishing area.
rev. 1/25/94
16-
PROCEDURE MANUAL - Public Land Permits
~se Plan for Public ~,ands
Exhibit D
p. 7of18
10100 - 10160
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
10160 - 10220
CLASS 2,4,8 TYPE E
NEW POPLAR LANDING. Located on the north shore of Harrison's Bay and
adjacent to Shorewood Lane.
Its area is .2 acres and is 2,*0 feet deep and has 60 feet of lake front. It is presently
low and swampy in much of its length and is essentially unused.
It has potential as a neighborhood park, permit dock area and use for resident
fishing.
CLASS 7 TYPE D
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
10220 - 10780
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
10780 - 12410
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
SUNSET ACCESS. Located at the eastern edge of Crescent Park.
Is approximately 180 feet deep and has 60 feet of lake front. This road access has
been upgraded and is used as a boat launch site.
It has potential as a neighborhood park, permit docking area and use for resident
fishing.
CLASS 1,2,4,5,8 TYPE D
CRESCENT PARK (EAST'}. Located on the North shore of Harrisons Bay and
adjacent to Sunset Landing on the east and Sumach Lane (extended) on the west.
This is a narrow strip of land approximately 560 feet long. The western edge is ill-
defined as it becomes part of the wild life area of (west) Crescent Park. It has
heavy usage as a resident dockage area and fishing area.
Its proposed usage is the continuance as a neighborhood permit dock and fishing
nature area.
CLASS 2,4,5,9 TYPE D,E
CRESCENT PARK (WEST). Located adjacent to (east) Crescent Park on the east,
and platted Crescent Road on the west.
This area is classified as a wildlife area. It was originally and essentially a fully
developed park 20 - 30 years ago, but presently should be considered unimproved.
Its potential is as a neighborhood park, swimming beach, and nature area.
rev. 1/25/94
- 17-
PROCEDURE HANUAL - Public Land Perm/ts
Use Plan for Public Lands
Exhibit D"
p. 8of18
12410 - 12450
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
12450 - 13830
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
20000 - 20740
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
20740 - 20780
Location:
Current use:
Proposed Use:
CLASS 2,4,5 TYPE D
THREE POINTS ACCESS. This is an extension of the Three Points Park located
immediately north of the lake front.
It is 150 feet by 40 feet wide. It is presently a cleared, but undeveloped access strip
fi.om the park to the lake.
It has the potential of a possible picnic area, fishing area, and nature area. Presently
has 1 dock.
CLASS 4,6,8 TYPE D
WIOTA COMMONS. Located on the north side of Harrisons Bay adjacent to
Avocet, Bluebird, Canary, Dove, Eagle, Finch and Gull Lanes.
Total area is 1.5 acres with approximately 1,400 feet of lake front. It is a high
narrow strip mostly cleared and has good solid sand bottom overlaid with a shallow
silt layer. It is presently used for resident docking and fishing.
Its propose~l usage is as a resident permit docking area and fishing area and because
of the contour of the land will adapt itself well as a nature area.
CLASS 2,4,8 TYPE D
WATER BANK COMMONS. Located on the west end of Harrison Bay between
Breezy Road and Tonkawood Road.
It is approximately 740 feet long and 60 to 180 feet wide. It is partially developed
and maintained by local residents who use it as a Permit dock area and resident
fishing.
It is proposed to be continued for this use.
CLASS 4,8 TYPE B
VILLA LANE ACCESS. Located at the end of Villa Lane.
This area is approximately 40 x 180 feet and is used as a permit dock area.
Unimproved.
- 18 -
rev. 6/15/95
~ROCEDURE HANUAL - Public Land Permits
~se Plan for Public LanWs
Exhibit D'
p. ~o£I8
20780 - 20820
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
20820 - 22030
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
22030 - 21280
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
21280 - 22180
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
22180 - 22730
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
rev. 1/25t94
CLASS 4,8 TYPE g
OVERLAND LANE ACCESS. Located at the end of Overland Lane.
Permit dock area.
CLASS 4,8 TYPE D
ACCESS - CENTERVIEW BEACH AREA. Located along the western edge of
Centerview Lane as it extends out to Centerview Beach.
Th.is area is primarily used for resident fishing and has permit docking area.
CLASS 6,9 TYPE D,E
CENTERVIEW BEACH. Located in Harrisons Bay at the end of Centerview Lane.
Essentially fully developed with parking and picnic area. It is bounded on the east
by a wildlife area.
WILDLIFE AREA, CLASS 5 TYPE E
WILDLIFE AREA AT CENTERVIEW BEACH.
This is a natural cove and is used exclusively as a wildlife area, nesting area and
resident fishing area.
CLASS 4,5,8 TYPE D,E
WATERSIDE COMMONS. Located east of Harrison Beach Wildlife area to
Morton Channel.
This is a narrow strip of land presently being used as a permit docking area and
fishing area as well as a public walkway.
Its proposed use is as a permit docking area, nature area and resident fishing.
~ROCEDURE HANUAL - Public Land Perm/~s
~se Plan for Public Lands
Exhibit D'
p. 10 of 18
22730 - 22790
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
22790 - 23080
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
23080 - 23255
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
23255 - 23285
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
23285 - 23295
CLASS 5 TYPE D,E
MORTON CHANNEL. Morton Channel extends northerly from Lynwood Blvd.
into Harrisons Bay. It is a dredge channel and was originally platted as Morton
Avenue.
About 300 feet long, and is thermally polluted by the cooling system for Tonka Toys
machines. The dredge channel has eroded to almost the full width (60 feet) of the
originally platted street. The area has become a winter-haven for water fowl. It
provides for recreation and close observation/feed of ducks.
CLASS 5,8 TYPE D
APPLE PARK. Located at the end of Apple Lane.
This park has eroded to two small portions of land. The one on the west is
inaccessible except by water. The eastern portion has approximately 100 feet of lake
front. It is.being used as a resident permit dock area.
The proposed usage is the same.
CLASS 2,4,8 TYPE D
FAIRVIEW PERMIT DOCKING AREA. Located as an extension of Fairview
Lane, and extending to the west approximately 175 feet.
The area has 175 feet of lake front and is approximately 80 feet wide. It exists as
a well maintained grassy area and is being used for neighborhood dockage and
fishing.
It has the potential of being developed into a neighborhood park/picnic area.
CLASS 4,8 TYPE D
CHATEAU LANE ACCESS. Located at the end of Chateau Lane.
This area is used as a resident dock area.
10 FOOT WIDE FIRE LANES
rev. 1125194
- 20 -
'PROCEDURE HANUAL - Public Land Permits
~se Plan for 'Public Lands
23295 - 23395
Location:
Current use:
Proposed Use:
30000 - 30040
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use: -
30040 - 30240
Location:
Current use:
Proposed Use:
30240 - 30280
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
30280- 30320
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
rev. 1/25/94
Exhibit D'
p. 1I of 18
CLASS 8 TYPE D
ARBOR LANE ACCESS. Exist~ on Harrisons Bay at the end of Arbor Lane.
Approximately 100 feet of shoreline. It is essentially undeveloped and is used as a
neighborhood dockage area.
Continuance as a resident permit docking area.
CLASS 4,8 TYPE D
NORWOOD ACCESS. Located as an access to Seton Lane and an extension of
Norwood Lane.
It has 40 feet of lake front and is approximately 100 feet long, extending from
Bartlett Blvd.
Resident permit docking area.
CARLSO~ PARK. Located on Seton Lake, abutting Bartlett Blvd.
It has an area of .6 acres with a shoreline of 200 feet. It is partially developed and
in use as a resident permit docking area and fishing area.
It is proposed for use as a resident permit docking area and neighborhood park.
CLASS 4,8 TYPE D
INWOOD ACCESS. This is a 40 foot wide platted lane extending from Avon Drive
to Emerald Lake.
Presently used as a permit docking area.
Resident dock area.
CLASS 8 TYPE D
AVON ACCESS. An extension of Avon Drive, east from Avon Park to the
channel.
Presently being used as a well kept lawn area maintained by the adjacent property
owners. Presently being used as a resident permit docking area.
Resident permit docking area.
- 21 -
tq'v
PROCEDURE NANUAL - Public Land Perm/ts
Use Plan for Public Lands
30320 -30420
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
30420 - 30884
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
30884 - 30924
Location:
Current Use:
30924 - 30954
Location:
Current Use:
30954 - 30994
Location:
Current Use:
30994 - 31670
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
rev. 1/25/94
Exhibit D"
p. 12 of 18
CLASS 8 TYPE D
EMERALD CHANNEL PERMIT DOCKING. Located adjacent to Emerald Drive.
This area abuts the road right of way.
It is presently being used as a resident permit docking area.
Continue as resident permit docking area.
CLASS 8 TYPE C,D,E
WICKLOW ACCESS. Located on Seton Lake between Waterford Lane and Devon
Lane.
This area is presently undeveloped and is being used as a resident permit docking
Continue as a resident permit docking area.
CLASS 5 TYPE E
CLARE LANE. Located on the channel connecting Seton Lake and Black Lake.
Unimproved road extension. Classified as a wildlife area.
CLASS 5 TYPE E
KINGS LANE. Located on the channel connecting Seton Lake and Black Lake.
Unimproved road extension. Classified as a wildlife area.
CLASS 5 TYPE E
KERRY LANE. Located on the channel connecting Seton Lake and Black Lake.
Unimproved road extension. Classified as a wildlife area.
CLASS 4,5,8 TYPE C,D,E
KEN'MARE COMMONS. Located on the west shore of Black Lake between
Longford Road and Carlow Road.
This terrain is low and swampy. It is unimproved and is being used as a resident
docking area and resident fishing area.
Same.
- 22 -
~ROCEDURE HANUAL - Public Land Permits
~se Plan for Public Lands
Exhibit D'
p. 13 of 18
31670 - 32370
Location:
Current Use:
Propose. dUse:
32600 -32670
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
32670-33540
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
40475 - 40625
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
40635 - 40765
Location:
CLASS 2,4,5,8 TYPE D,E
EXCELSIOR COMMONS. Located on the west edge of Black Lake between
Galway Road and Cavan Road. This access is the platted Excelsior Lane.
Abuts a dredged channel. Most of Excelsior Commons is swampy. It is
unimproved and is being used as a resident dockage.
Same.
CLASS 2,4,5,8 TYPE B,D
KELLS ROAD. Located on the above mentioned dredged channel on the west shore
of Black Lake, adjacent to Wilshire Blvd.
This area is unimproved and is used as a resident fishing and docking area.
Develop into a picnic area and fishing area.
CLASS 4,5,8 TYPE D,E
STRATFORD COMMONS. Located on the above mentioned dredged channel on
the south shore of Black Lake. This access is the platted Stratford Road.
Unimproved and is being used as a resident fishing and docking area.
Extensive work is needed in this area.
CLASS 8 TYPE D
AVALON PARK. Located as a City easement through Avalon Park (private park
to a lift station).
Resident permit docking.
CLASS 1,6,9 TYPE D
PEMBROKE BEACH. Located as a triangular area on the west side of Phelps Bay
with 130 feet of lake front. Abuts Devon Common on the west and residential
property on the east.
r~v. 1/25/94
- 25 -
SROCEDURE HANUAL - Public Land Permits
=se Plan for Public Lands
Exhibit D'
p. 14 of iS
Current Use:
Has been filled, leveled, and seeded. IIas a parking area off road for approximately
20 cars and playground equipment. Used as summer swimming beach and winter
motor vehicle access for ice fishing.
Proposed Use: Same.
40765 - 44408 DEVON COMMONS:
4O765 - 41110
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
41110 - 41319
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
41377 - 42117
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
42167 - 42691
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
rev. 1125194
CLASS 4,8 TYPE B,D
This portion of Devon Commons is accessible from Pembroke Park where off-street
parking is provided.
Permit docking area.
Resident fishing and permit docking area.
CLASS 4 TYPE C
Devon Commons.
Not considered traversable by the general public due to the steep bank and heavy
brush growth.
Continue as dock sites for abutting property owners.
CLASS 2,4,8 TYPE B,D
Devon Commons, also known as Speakers Point.
This area is not readily accessible until Roanoke Access is developed and
encroachments rectified.
Resident fishing and permit docking area.
CLASS 4 TYPE C
Devon Commons.
This portion of Devon Commons is heavily used by private encroachments.
As it is Type C shoreline, its proposed usage is to continue as dock sites for abutting
· property owners.
PROCEDURE HANUAL - Public Land Perm/Cs
Use Plan for Public Lands
Exhibit D'
p. 15 of 18
42791 - 43020
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
43080 - 4323S
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
43265 - 43420
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
a.~.408 - 44655
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
5000 - 50205
50205 - 50270
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
rev. 1125194
CLASS 4,89 TYPE B
Devon Commons.
Permit docking area with the exception of the westerly 40 feet. This 40 foot area
is blocked from use by an encroaching boat house.
Improve this area and continue as a resident fishing and permit docking area.
CLASS 4 TYPE C
Devon Commons.
This portion of Devon Commons is not considered traversable by the general public.
The access is not developed and is not recommended to be developed, in as much
as a public stairway would provide access to only one dock.
CLASS 4,8 TYPE B
Devon Co~nmons.
Resident permit docking area.
When the access is developed, tiffs area is proposed to be used as a resident permit
docking area with 30 foot spacing. Parking will not be available in this area.
CLASS 5 TYPE C,D,E
Devon Commons.
Wildlife, wetland and nesting area with a commanding view over a natural cove.
Unused numbering.
CLASS 2,4,8 TYPE D
WATERBURY ACCESS. On the east shore of Cooks Bay at the end of Waterbury
Road.
Resident docking.
Continue as resident permit docking area.
- 25 -
'PROCEDURE HANUAL - Public Land Permits
Use Plan for Public Lands
50270 - 50285
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
50285 - 50300
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
50300 - 50365
Location:
Current Use:
FRANKLIN ACCESS.
Too narrow for dockage.
None.
THAMES ACCESS.
Too narrow for dockage.
None.
Proposed Use:
50365 - 50375
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
50375 - 50745
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
Exhibit D-
p. 16 of I8
Unimproved.
Unimproved.
CLASS 1,6,9 TYPE D
CHESTER PARK BEACH. Adjacent to Tuxedo Blvd. on Cooks Bay.
Sand beacl{ approximately 65 feet wide provides for swimming area. Playground
equipment.
Same.
PENDLETON ACCESS.
Too narrow for usage.
None.
CLASS 2,4,5,8 TYPE D
BRIGHTON COMMONS. Located on Cooks Bay, bounded by Manchester Road
and Tuxedo Blvd. with approximately 320 feet of shoreline.
Resident docking, limited swimming and fishing.
General city park development.
rev. 1/?..5/94
- 26 -
'PROCEDURE HANUAL - Public Land Perm/ts
=se Plan for Public LanWs
Exhibit D"
p. 17 of I8
50745 - 51925
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
51925 - 52025
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
60000 - 6010
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
60610 - 60715
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
60715 - 60815
Location:
Current Use:
CLASS ~1,5,7,8 TYPE D,C
WYCHWOOD COMMONS. Located adjacent to Brighton Commons on the north,
with Manchester Road being the border line. Wychwood Commons is bordered on
the north by Wychwood Beach.
With the exception of approximately 150 feet at the southern end, the terra.in is an
extreme type "C". The area is unimproved and is used for resident docking.
Same.
CLASS 1,6,9 TYPE D
WYCHWOOD BEACH. An area 120 feet long including commons in Wychwood
on East shore of Cooks Bay.
Has good sand beach, is used as a winter access.
Good potenthl for fairly developed neighborhood recreation area.
CLASS 1,3,4,5,6,7,9 TYPE D
MOUND BAY PARK.
Heavy usage by both residents and nonresidents as a general recreation area.
Same.
CLASS 2,4,8 TYPE D
IDLEWOOD ACCESS. Located on the west shore of Cooks Bay, just off High.land
Blvd. and Idlewood Road.
It has a rough access road. It is used at present as a resident permit docking area
and fishing area.
Same.
CLASS 2,4,5,8 TYPE D
TWIN PARK. This park has an area of .4 acre.
Presently undeveloped, is being used as a boat launching and a boat dockage area
by residents.
rev. 1/25194
- 27 -
'PROCEDURE HANUAL - Public Land Permits
Use Plan for Public Lands
Exhibit D..
p. 18 of I~
Proposed Use:
6O815 - 60995
Location:
Current Use:
PmposedUse:
60995- 61170
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
61170 - 61270
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
70000 - 70050
Location:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
Resident permit docking area and resident boat launching and winter access.
CLASS 3,4,6,8 TYPE D
HIGHLAND PARK. This park is an extension at the western end of Highland Blvd.
and widens to 184 feet of lake front on Priest Bay. It has approximately 1.5 acres.
Partially developed and is presently used as a neighborhood playground and for
resident dockage.
Playground, resident permit docking area, and resident fishing area.
CLASS 2,4,5,8 TYPE D
RIDGEWOOD PARK. Located on Ridgewood Road just east of Priest Lane. This
park has an area of .4 acres.
Presently being used as a boat launching and a boat dockage area by residents.
Resident P~rmit docking area and resident boat launch and winter access.
CLASS 5 TYPE E
LAGOON PARK. Located on Pti. est Bay just off Sinclair Road. It has an area of
approximately 2 acres.
Primarily open water to marshy swamp with the exception of the lake front, which
as a narrow ridge of high land and the lake front is approximately 100 feet of clean,
firm sandy bottom. Resident permit docking area.
Neighborhood park and swimming beach.
CLASS 5,9 TYPE A,D
BLUFFS BEACH. Located in the Bluffs on the north shore of Halstead Bay. It is
a hillside with 50 feet of lake front.
Undeveloped.
Neighborhood beach.
rev. 1125194
- 28 -
April 06, 1999
Park and Open Space Commission
c/o City of Mound
6087 Aspen Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear City Council Members,
As long time citizens of Mound we feel compelled to express our opposition to the
possible changes being discussed with regard to Philbrook Park.
This park was one of the key reasons we purchased the home we did. It has proven
to be a wonderful place for our kids and parents to ride a bike, throw a frisbee, fly a
kite, or just enjoy a quiet walk. So many residents from all areas of Mound enjoy
this park for these reasons.
We are strong supporters of all youth sports however, Philbrook Park is not the
answer for a new baseball site.
Thank you for your consideration.
April 7, 1999
To: Park and Open Space Commission
I am writing in regards to the proposed changes to Philbrook Park. This park is highly
used by parents and children. The parents feel comfortable with having their children
play at the playground because it is a very safe place for them. With more traffic and
people at the park, the park will not be as safe for children. If the changes take place,
parents and their children will be less likely to use the park because of the safety
issues. Currently, the traffic level is very Iow which is a big plus for myself, my
husband and the others who use the park. There is no good place for a multitude of
cars to park. Also, if teams from other areas use the new field, they will be unaware of
the children who play at the park and will not use the same precautions for safety as
the parents who use the park. These are big safety concerns for everyone. We
currently live on Lynwood Boulevard and our son is learning how to ride his bike.
Because of the Iow level of traffic, I know having our son learn to ride his bike around
the park is a very safe option for us. I also frequently walk around the park because of
the Iow level of traffic. My son loves to be at the park and to be able to play where he
will not be harassed by older children. Because we frequent the park, parents know
who the other children are and who their parents are. This is a great strength for the
neighborhood park. Philbrook Park is the only park within several miles of our home. I
would have to drive to another park. The nearest playground is located at Grandview
Middle School. This equipment is not suitable for young children due to the size of the
equipment. Also, Grandview hasa rock base whereas Philbrook Park has a sand
base for young children to play in. I strongly recommend the changes do not take
place at Philbrook Park.
Sincerely, ,/"~ , ./ ,~ j,~' ,~.-~f
Richard and W. Joie Rogers
210l Clover Circle
Mound, MN 55364
April 6, 1999
Mr. Jim Fackler
Director of Parks
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Fackler:
I received a letter in the mail last week from the Parks Department indicating that a
request had been made to change the usage of Clover Circle Park, specifically, to allow
youth baseball to be played. As the residents of our neighborhood went through a similar
request a couple of years ago, I would like to express my opinion about such a change in
park status.
First and foremost, Clover Circle Park, is a neighborhood park designed to afford
residents a wide variety.of recreational activities. I would be dismayed if the park
became focused strictly on baseball at the expense of the many other activities that
children and adults now enjoy.
When discussing the development of a baseball field, the issue of fences always comes
up. To me, erecting fencing in the park would take away the "openspace" that the park
originally was designed for. In this day and age, we have too little open space left and
our park is one area that the residents would like to remain open. Requests to build
storage sheds, etc., for equipment would further detract from our setting.
As many young children use the park, the concern of more automobile traffic is valid and
needs to be addressed as well as how parking will be handled in the neighborhood.
Now, having said all this I am not against baseball, apple pie and motherhood. I do feel
that organized sports are best left to be played in non-neighborhood areas where there is
room for the games and the spectators they command. Neighborhood parks like Clover
Circle Park, should be used for children's activities, "pick up" games, and the casual,
daily enjoyment of all City residents.
Sincerely,
Lowell S. Allen
Philbrook Park Development: A Closer Look
Although local residents want what's best for the Mound community as
a whole, there is significant concern about the impact the proposed
development would have on Philbrook Park and the community
immediately surrounding it. The current proposal appears to be all give
and no take on the part of the people who use Philbrook Park. For this
proposal to work, both after the decision is made and years into the
future, all parties need to feel that this is the best option.
Key concerns from the neighborhood include:
The need for new field space has not yet been determined.
Other more suitable areas have not been researched thoroughly.
Existence of other large ball fields in Mound.
Whether the size of the park can accommodate the need for
additional field space. (Parking, traffic, land size, human use
facilities, room for emergency vehicles, pedestrian traffic etc.)
Loss of a quiet, family oriented park and lack of a similar space
nearby.
Increased noise, traffic and garbage in a space not designed to
handle it.
No room to expand the park should the use outgrow its size.
Primary intersection of Lynwood and Southview unable to handle
the increase in vehicular use as it was designed for single lane
traffic, has only one stop sign controlling the intersection.
Concern of increased alcohol use in the park.
Everyone who uses Philbrook park wants to ensure that there is
always a place for organized baseball and softball in Mound, but it's
important that the park has a compromise between the local users of
the park as well as that of the players. Our concern is that no one's
needs will be met by this proposal, and that a better option exists for
all.
==.-~, ;nd Ouen Smace Commissio~ Hinu=es
REQUEST FROM BABE RUTH
PHILBROOK PARK
July 1I, I~96
BASEBALL LEAGUE TO MODIFY THE BASEBALL FIELD AT
We have received a request from the Babe Ruth Baseball League to make modifications to the
baseball field at Philbrook Park, at their expense, and to allow continued use of the field. The
pro,ram is for 13 year o~ds and is a new opportunity for youth participation.
At this time, I feel that the use can continue, but a plan is needed to address specific changes
they are planning. This request also raises concerns about the need for: protective fencing for
players on the bench and for spectators, an overhang on the backstop for foul balls, bathrooms,
a home run fence, and parking. How these improvements and increased usage will affect the
neighborhood should also be considered. Babe Ruth League has already been using the Park, and
to-date I have not seen any mis-use of the area or received any calls from the neighbors.
Bob Shidla, President of Babe Ruth Baseball League was present.
Casey asked if the neighbors were notified. They were not.
Mr. Shidla explained that they plan to install 20 to 30 feet of fencing down each path line, and
asked if maybe they could have the backstop from Swanson Park transferred to this park.
He commented that the length of field is adequate. They plan to expand the infield by cutting
back the grass another 15 to 20 feet, which is back to its original size. This work will be all
volunteered and they wfll pay for the improvements with money from fundraisers.
Ahrens questioned projected use. Shidla stated that they foresee two games per week. The
Secretary indicated that before the new Lions fields were completed, both the men and women
leagues utilized this field on Monday and Wednesday evenings.
Byrnes commented that they should do anything they can to improve this town for the youth,
especially 13 year olds who need organized activities, and we should encourage sports.
Fackler stated that he would like to be notified prior to any work commencing on the field.
Meyer agreed with Byrnes that the City should support their youth. Meyer would like to see the
City help the Baber Ruth Association in restoring the field, and maybe they can include money
in a future parks budget for a new backstop. Fackler commented that the satellites are already
supplied by the City at this park, and there is a drinking fountain.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Meyer to recommend approval of the
request to ma~(e improvements to the bail fie~d at Philbrook Park, subject to the
League working with the Parks Director and subject to the approval of the Parks
Department. Motion carried unanimously.
Minutes - Mound City Counci~ July 23, I~6
1.8
REQUEST FROM BABE RUTH BASEBALL LEAGUE TO
BASEBALL FIELD AT PltILBROOK PARK.
MODIFY THE
City Manager Ed Shukle sta':ed the City had received a request from the Babe Ruth Baseball League
to make modifications to the baseball field at Philbrook Park, at their expense, to allow continued use
of the field. Jim Fackler, Pzrks Director, agreed but requested a plan be presented to him before and
modifications occur. He also stated the Babe Ruth League has used the park for a long period of time
and no mis-use has happenexl.
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by ltanus and carried unanimously to approve the
modifications of Philbrook Park by the Babe Ruth Baseball League at their own
expense and subject to the Parks Department approval.
334
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes ............................... March 13, 1997
Applying for grants was briefly (liscussed.
It was agreed to post-pone the Parks Tour for now.
1997 AGENDA CALENDAR
The Commission agreed to keep the agenda calendar open.
DISCUSS MEETING START TIME (7:00 PM OR 7:30 PM)
It was the consensus of the Commission to change the start time to 7:30 p.m.
The Commission discussed the possibility of meeting in the conference room around a table.
It was determined that when no other public is in attendance, an effort will be made to meet in
the conference room.
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT
The appointment of the all male Dock Commission members was discussed.
PARK DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Fackler reviewed that preliminary plans are being put together by the City Planner for Veteran's
Park. A pathway, sitting area, and plantings are part of the plan. This plan will be presented
at the April meeting for review.
The ice finks are no longer being maintained due to weather.
The ball diamond at Philbrook Park has a pile of agri-lime on it which was provided by the Babe
Ruth league. Fackler reviewed that last year the council approved improvements to this field,
including a fence and field repairs at the expense of this league. The Parks Department crew
will be helping them, as available.
Meyer asked if the Parks Director can look into making the sliding hill at Swenson Park safer,
he noted that there is a big dip at the bottom which is dangerous. Faclder noted that it is not
a recognized sliding hill.
Meyer commented on an article from the paper which talks about a large bond referendum which
was just approved in the City of Prior Lake in order to improve their parks, and a large portion
of that referendum included the coristruction of several outside community skating rinks.
Byrnes noted that the Council suggested the Commission develop some type of survey to solicit
input from citizens and feels short range goals and long range goals need to be developed. She
feels we need things in the parks for junior high kids and adults.
5
Minutes - Mound City Counci~. - April 22, 1997
1.8
DISCUSSION: IMPROVEMENTS TO PHILBROOK PARK BY BABE RUTH
BASEBALL ASSOCIATION.
The City Manager explained that last Summer the Babe Ruth Baseball Association made a
request to the City to make some improvements to Philbrook Park to be able to use it for
additional baseball games. The request went to the Park & Open Space Commission who
recommended approval. The City Council then approved the proposed improvement. Now
Spring is here and the b~.seball group is ready to make the improvements. The neighborhood
is now raising some objections to the improvements. 46 residents signed and submitted a
petition which reads as follows: 'We the undersigned residents of the Brookton Addition have
some serious reservation about plans being made to modify the nature of Philbrook Park to
accommodate Babe Ruth baseball. Since there has been no dialog with residents about these
modifications, by our sigaatures we request that any proposed or planned changes be placed on
hold until a more open agreement has been negotiated between all interested parties. Mound,
216
· Minutes - Mound City Counci~ - April 22, 1997
MN. 4/16/97."
The Park Director stated that th~ Babe Ruth Baseball Association is proposing to enlarge the
infield an extra 15 to 20 feet; installing protective fencing for the player area ( about 20 to 30
feet on the first and third base line; move the player bench back out of the fence area; sometime
putting an overhang on the backstop; and a secured locker behind the backstop to store bases,
etc.) There will not be a pitching mound. They want to keep it open for general use, i.e.
softball or any other play. He reassured the residents that the playground equipment that is there
will not be removed. There will also not be any concession stand. The Babe Ruth Baseball
Association is looking at 3 games a week on this field.
The Council asked that in the future any time the Park & Open Space Commission gets a request
to change or alter a neighborhood park, they involve the neighborhood where the changes are
proposed. The Mayor stated that the people who have called him regarding this change at
Philbrook Park did not know anything about this until the agri-lime was delivered and people
showed up to do the work.
Lorraine Painter, Pres. ¢,f the Babe Ruth Baseball League and Bill Vit, Vice President of the
League were present and gave the history of this request. This would be a transitional field to
accommodate the 13 year olds. They have looked at all the different fields. This park is the
only large park that can accommodate this type of field. The 14 and 15 year olds would not be
using this field because t aeir baselines are 90 feet. They have donations from several service
clubs to cover the costs to improve this field and donated labor to complete the project. They
are now ready to continue working on the project and were quite surprised that there was
opposition.
Ms. Painter gave the following details:
Expanding the size of the infield by 15 feet.
The agri-li me was dumped on the field before the road restrictions went on.
The fencing that has been talked about is limited. It would be a 5 foot high fence
extending '.."rom the backstop about 1/2 way down the first base side and 1/2 way
down the third base side. They have a choice of a heavy weight fence or a
lighter weight fence, which ever would be agreeable.
They would chalk the outfield.
The rules are that the games can't go beyond 2 and one-half hours. They are
estimating 6:00 P.M. to 8:30 P.M. This would be less use than when the softball
people use the field 2 night a week, some for 2 games in one evening.
They would use the field 2 or 3 times a week from May to July.
This site i.,, the only area that has the depth to house this type of field,
There will not be any tournaments played at this site.
The first game is scheduled for the beginning of May.
The following persons spoke against the proposed ballfield improvement for the following
reasons:
2.
3.
4.
Charles Chapman, 2017 Clover Circle
Ade Meeu~vissen, 6170 Red Oak Road
Greg Howard, 6061 Aspen Rd.
Kent Muss,r, 6150 Clover Circle
217
Minutes ~ Mound City Council - April 22, 1997
218
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Tom Berent, 6000 Lynwood Blvd.
Mary McKinley, .~948 Hillcrest Rd.
Walt Neske, 6225 Red Oak Road
Sam Pederson, 6087 Aspen Road
Terry Sincheff, 6077 Aspen Road
Frank Weiland, 6045 Aspen Road
Ruth Schmudlach, 6248 Red Oak Road
Brenda Berent, 6000 Lynwood Blvd.
Katie Howard, 6061 Aspen Road
Duane Norberg, 6015 Aspen Road
Peter Larson, 2080 Clover Circle
Vicki Pederson, 6087 Aspen Road
REASONS:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Multi purl:om park;
Family oriented park;
It's a park not a ballfield;
Parking problems;
Too close to the playground area;
Would cause too much noise;
The park is well used by all ages;-
Safety hazard to others using the park during games;
This is a neighborhood park, not suitable for a baseball field;
This would attract strangers to the area;
The time that they want to use the park is when families use it;
Not in a residential neighborhood;
This is jus: the beginning, then other groups will use the field all the other days
of the week;
The playground equipment would be misused and vandalized;
There has to be a better area to have this field.
Emergency vehicles would not be able to get in with parldng on both sides of the
street.
The people were not notified of this impending improvement so that they could
give their input.
This will have a negative impact on the area.
Fencing arid scoreboard will block view of the park.
Increased ~raffic.
This starte:l out as 2 games per week and now it's 3 games per week.
Once this .;ets established here, there will be all kinds of teams playing on this
field.
Added trash in the park that will need to be cleaned up.
This is not a compatible use for the park.
Where are the Little League teams going to go to play'?.
PETER MEYER, 5748 Sunset Road, resident and member of the POSC, stated that the
POSC voted unanimously to recommend that the Council allow the ballfield
improvements at Clover Circle (?hilbrook Park). He apologized for not notifying the
residents of the UlX:oming improvement, but they did not feel this improvement would
have a negative impact on the park or the neighborhood. This would be a supervised
Minutes - Mound City Counci~ - April 22, 1997
activity for 13 year old boys in the community.
SUGGESTION FROM THE PEOPLE AGAINST THE IMPROVEMENT.
1. Find a more suitable park or school district property for this ballfield
improvement.
The Mayor brought the item back to the Council for discussion.
The Council asked about how many cars would be coming to a game? They also asked if there
would be more than one game a night? They asked if tournaments would be played on this
field?
Ms. Painter stated that sl~e could foresee maybe 12 cars. They would not be playing more than
one game per night during the week. They will not be using the field any weekends in June.
There will not be any tournaments played here.
The Council expressed tie following concerns:
2.
3.
4.
The scheduling of the games played there.
Conflicts Mth other teams using this field.
Limiting the use to 13 year old boys.
The neigh[mrs were not notified when this was brought up and approved a year
ago.
The Council asked that, in the future, when an improvement is contemplated for a park, the
POSC contact the neighbors for their comments and input.
Councilmember Hanus suggested that we should look at the Comp Plan and see if it deals with
this type of SlX)rt.
The Council discussed the fact that a year ago the mens and womens softball teams played at
this park and have since raoved to the WRA park, but there didn't seem to be problems with the
neighbors at that time. There is no change in the use of the park with this field improvement.
Since permission was given to the Babe Ruth League to improve the park, maybe there is a way
to work with them in finding a suitable place for this facility.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Hanus to reverse the Council decision that
was made last JUly to allow the Babe Ruth Baseball League to improve the ball field
at Philbrook Park, but that we, as a City, actively get involved in helping the Babe
Ruth Baseball L~ ague promote and f'md a place for this activity to take place. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Ms. Painter expressed great disappointment in what has happened tonight.
219
City of Mound
Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
May 8, 1997
...Page 4
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT
Weycker stated she received a phone call from Philbrook Park neighbors regarding the speed
limit in the area. The resident was also concerned about the use of the park for uses other than
what should be allowed. Commissioners discussed park uses.
Weycker discussed the iraportance of notifying people when changes will be made in a park.
Commissioners discussed the Seton park dedication.
Motion by Casey, and seconded by Pederson to recommend the City Council obtain
a certified appndsal to determine the fair market value to determine the park
dedication and apply the 10%.
Commissioners discussed the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Casey suggested park acquisition be added to the June agenda.
RECEIvE~ :,::,~ ~ 4 1§9§
211
and Ooen Smace Commission Minutes July 11, 1996
FROM BAB5 RUTH BASEBALL tEAGU~ TO MODIFY THE BASEBAkL FIELD AT
H[LBROOK PARK
We have received a request from the Babe Ruth Baseball League to make modifications to the
baseball field at Philbrook Park, at their expense, and to allow continued use of the field. The
program is for 13 year olds and is a new opportunity for youth participation.
At this time, I feel that the use can continue, but a plan is needed to address specific changes
they are planning. This request also raises concerns about the need for: protective fencing for
players on the bench and for spectators, an overhang on the backstop for foul balls, bathrooms,
a home run fence, and parking. How these improvements and increased usage will affect the
neighborhood should also be considered. Babe Ruth League has already been using the Park, and
to-date I have not seen any mis-use of the area or received any calls from the neighbors.
Bob Shidla, President of Babe Ruth Baseball League was present.
Casey asked if the neighbors were notified. They were not.
Mr. Shidla explained that they plan to install 20 to 30 feet of fencing down each path line, and
asked if maybe they could have the backstop from Swenson Park transferred to this park.
He commented that the length of field is adequate. They plan to expand the infield by cutting
ack the grass another 15 to 20 feet, which is back to its original size. This work will be all
olunteered and they will pay for the improvements with money from fundraisers.
Ahrens questioned projected use. Shidla stated that they foresee tWo games per week. The
Secretary indicated that before the new Lions fields were completed, both the men and women
leagues utilized this field on Monday and Wednesday evenings.
Byrnes commented that they should do anything they can to improve this town for the youth,
especially 13 year olds who need organized activities, and we should encourage sports.
Fackler stated that he would like to be notified prior to any work commencing on the field.
Meyer agreed with Byrnes that the City should support their youth. Meyer would like to see the
City help the Baber Ruth Association in restoring the field, and maybe they can include money
in a future parks budget for a new backstop. Fackler commented that the satellites are already
supplied by the City at this park, and there is a drinking fountain.
MOTION made by Ahrens, se(~onded by Meyer to recommend approval of the
request to make improvements to the ball field at Philbrook Park, subject to the
League working with the Parks Director and subject to the approval of the Parks
Department. Motion carried unanimously.
Minutes - Mound City Counci! July' 23, 1996
1.8
REQUEST FROM BABE RUTH BASEBALL LEAGUE TO MODIFY THE
BASEBALL FIELD AT PHILBROOK PARK.
City Manager Ed Shukle sta':ed the City had received a request from the Babe Ruth Baseball League
to make modifications to the baseball field at Philbrook Park, at their expense, to allow continued use
of the field. Jim Fackler, P~xks Director, agreed but requested a plan be presented to him before and
modifications occur. He also stated the Babe Ruth League has used the park for a long period of time
and no mis-use has happenexl.
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to approve the
modifications of Philbrook Park by the Babe Ruth Baseball League at their own
expense and subject to the Parks Department approval.
334
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes ............................... March 13, 1997
Applying for grants was briefly discussed.
It was agreed to post-pone the Parks Tour for now.
1997 AGENDA CALENDAR
The Commission agreed to keep the agenda calendar open.
DISCUSS MEETING START TIME (7:00 PM OR 7:30 PM3
It was the consensus of the Commission to change the start time to 7:30 p.m.
The Commission discussed the possibility of meeting in the conference room around a table.
It was determined that when no other public is in attendance, an effort will be made to meet in
the conference room.
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT
The appointment of the all male Dock Commission members was discussed.
PARK DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Faclder reviewed that preliminary plans are being put together by the City Planner for Veteran's
Park. A pathway, sitting area, and plantings are part of the plan. This plan will be presented
at the April meeting for review.
The ice rinks are no longer being maintained due to weather.
The ball diamond at Philbrook Park has a pile of agri-lime on it which was provided by the Babe
Ruth league. Fackler reviewed that last year the council approved improvements to this field,
including a fence and field repairs at the expense of this league. The Parks Department crew
will be helping them, as available.
Meyer asked if the Parks Director can look into making the sliding hill at Swenson Park safer,
he noted that there is a big dip at the bottom which is dangerous. Fackler noted that it is not
a recognized sliding hill.
Meyer commented on an article from the paper which talks about a large bond referendum which
was just approved in the City of Prior Lake in order to improve their parks, and a large portion
of that referendum included the c°ristruction of several outside community skating rinks.
Byrnes noted that the Council suggested the Commission develop some type of survey to solicit
input from citizens and feels short range goals and long range goals need to be developed. She
feels we need things in the parks for junior high kids and adults.
Minutes - Mound City Councit. - April 22, 1997
1.8
DISCUSSION: IMPROVEMENTS TO PHILBROOK PARK BY BABE RUTH
BASEBALL ASSOCIATION.
The City Manager explained that last Summer the Babe Ruth Baseball Association made a
request to the City to make some improvements to Philbrook Park to be able to use it for
additional baseball games. The request went to the Park & Open Space Commission who
recommended approval. The City Council then approved the proposed improvement. Now
Spring is here and the baseball group is ready to make the improvements. The neighborhood
is now raising some objections to the improvements. 46 residents signed and submitted a
petition which reads as follows: ~We the undersigned residents of the Brookton Addition have
some serious reservation about plans being made to modify the nature of Philbrook Park to
accommodate Babe Ruth baseball. Since there has been no dialog with residents about these
modifications, by our sigaatures we request that any proposed or planned changes be placed on
hold until a more open a.;reement has been negotiated between all interested parties. Mound,
· Minutes - Mound City Councit, - April 22, 1997
MN. 4/16/97.'
The Park Director stated that the Babe Ruth Baseball Association is proposing to enlarge the
infield an extra 15 to 20 feet; installing protective fencing for the player area ( about 20 to 30
feet on the first and third base line; move the player bench back out of the fence area; sometime
putting an overhang on the backstop; and a secured locker behind the backstop to store bases,
etc.) There will not be a pitching mound. They want to keep it open for general use, i.e.
softball or any other play. He reassured the residents that the playground equipment that is there
will not be removed. There will also not be any concession stand. The Babe Ruth Baseball
Association is looking at 3 games a week on this field.
The Council asked that in the future any time the Park & Open Space Commission gets a request
to change or alter a neighborhood park, they involve the neighborhood where the changes are
proposed. The Mayor stated that the people who have called him regarding this change at
Philbrook Park did not know anything about this until the agri-lime was delivered and people
showed up to do the work.
Lorraine Painter, Pres. of the Babe Ruth Baseball League and Bill Vit, Vice President of the
League were present and gave the history of this request. This would be a transitional field to
accommodate the 13 year olds. They have looked at all the different fields. This park is the
only large park that can accommodate this type of field. The 14 and 15 year olds would not be
using this field because taeir baselines are 90 feet. They have donations from several service
clubs to cover the costs to improve this field and donated labor to complete the project. They
are now ready to continue working on the project and were quite surprised that there was
opposition.
Ms. Painter gave the following details:
Expanding the size of the infield by 15 feet.
The agri-lime was dumped on the field before the road restrictions went on.
The fencing that has been talked about is limited. It would be a 5 foot high fence
extending '~rom the backstop about 1/2 way down the first base side and 1/2 way
down the third base side. They have a choice of a heavy weight fence or a
lighter weight fence, which ever would be agreeable.
They would chalk the outfield.
The rules are that the games can't go beyond 2 and one-half hours. They are
estimating 6:00 P.M. to 8:30 P.M. This would be less use than when the softball
people use the field 2 night a week, some for 2 games in one evening.
They would use the field 2 or 3 times a week from May to July.
This site i.,. the only area that has the depth to house this type of field,
There will not be any tournaments played at this site.
The first game is scheduled for the beginning of May.
The following persons spoke against the proposed ballfield improvement for the following
reasons:
2.
3.
4.
Charles Chapman, 2017 Clover Circle
Ade Meeu,vissen, 6170 Red Oak Road
Greg Howard, 6061 Aspen Rd.
Kent Musser, 6150 Clover Circle
217
Minutes - Mound City Council - April 22, 1997
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Tom Berent, 6000 Lynwood Blvd.
Mary McKinley, 5948 Hillcrest Rd.
Walt Neske, 6225 Red Oak Road
Sara Pederson, 6087 Aspen Road
Terry Sincheff, 6077 Aspen Road
Frank Weiland, 6045 Aspen Road
Ruth Schmudlach, 6248 Red Oak Road
Brenda Bemnt, 6000 Lynwood Blvd.
Katie Hov, ard, 6061 Aspen Road
Duane Norberg, 6015 Aspen Road
Peter Lateen, 2080 Clover Circle
Vicki Pederson, 6087 Aspen Road
REASONS:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Multi pu~ose park;
Family oriented park;
It's a park not a ballfield;
Parking problems;
Too close to the playground area;
Would cau se too much noise;
The park is well used by all ages;
Safety haz;~rd to others using the park during games;
This is a neighborhood park, not suitable for a baseball field;
This would attract strangers to the area;
The time that they want to use the park is when families use it;
Not in a residential neighborhood;
This is jus: the beginning, then other groups will use the field all the other days
of the week;
The playground equipment would be misused and vandalized;
There has to be a better area to have this field.
Emergency vehicles would not be able to get in with parking on both sides of the
street.
The people were not notified of this impending improvement so that they could
give their input.
This will have a negative impact on the area.
Fencing and scoreboard will block view of the park.
Increased ~raffic.
This starte:l out as 2 games per week and now it's 3 games per week.
Once this .;ets established here, there will be all kinds of teams playing on this
field.
Added tra~ h in the park that will need to be cleaned up.
This is no! a compatible use for the park.
Where are the Little League teams going to go to play?
PETER MEYER, 5748 Sunset Road, resident and member of the POSC, stated that the
POSC voted unanimously to recommend that the Council allow the ballfield
improvements at Clover Circle (Philbrook Park). He apologized for not notifying the
residents of the ulx:oming improvement, but they did not feel this improvement would
have a negative impact on the park or the neighborhood. This would be a supervised
]/---~ 218
Minutes - Mound City Counci~ - April 22, 1997
activity for 13 year old boys in the community.
SUGGESTION FROM ~I'HE PEOPLE AGAINST THE IMPROVEMENT.
1. Find arnore suitable park or school district property for this ballfield
improvement.
The Mayor brought the item back to the Council for discussion.
The Council asked about how many cars would be coming to a game? They also asked if there
would be more than one game a night? They asked if tournaments would be played on this
field?
Ms. Painter stated that she could foresee maybe 12 cars. They would not be playing more than
one game per night during the week. They will not be using the field any weekends in June.
There will not be any tournaments played here.
The Council expressed tt e following concerns:
2.
3.
4.
The scheduling of the games played there.
Conflicts with other teams using this field.
Limiting the use to 13 year old boys.
The neighbors were not notified when this was brought up and approved a year
ago.
The Council asked that, in the future, when an improvement is contemplated for a park, the
POSC contact the neighbors for their comments and input.
Councilmember Hanus suggested that we should look at the Comp Plan and see if it deals with
this type of sport.
The Council discussed the fact that a year ago the mens and womens softball teams played at
this park and have since raoved to the WRA park, but there didn't seem to be problems with the
neighbors at that time. There is no change in the use of the park with this field improvement.
Since permission was given to the Babe Ruth League to improve the park, maybe there is a way
to work with them in finding a suitable place for this facility.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Hanus to reverse the Council decision that
was made last JUly to allow the Babe Ruth Baseball League to improve the ball field
at Philbrook Park, but that we, as a City, actively get involved in helping the Babe
Ruth Baseball L~ague promote and find a place for this activity to take place. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Ms. Painter expressed great disappointment in what has happened tonight.
219 l~
City of Mound
Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
May 8, 1997
. Page 4
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT
Weycker stated she received a phone call from Philbrook Park neighbors regarding the speed
limit in the area. The resident was also concerned about the use of the park for uses other than
what should be allowed. Commissioners discussed park uses.
Weycker discussed the importance of notifying people when changes will be made in a park.
Commissioners discussed the Seton park dedication.
Motion by Casey, and seconded by Pederson to recommend the City Council obtain
a certified appndsal to determine the fair market value to determine the park
dedication and apply the 10%.
Commissioners discussed the motion.
Motion carried u nanlmously.
Casey suggested park acquisition be added to the June agenda.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
March 30, 1999
Dear Park Neighbor,
The city has received a request from the Youth Baseball League for possible changes and use of
the baseball fields at Swensen and Philbrook Parks.
This request will be heard at the Park and Open Space Commission meeting April 8, 1999 at
7:30 p.m. The meeting will be held at Mound Cit7 Hall, 5341 Maywood Road.
Any changes recommended by the Park and Open Space Commission will be heard at the City.
Council level at a time yet to be determined. All parties will be notified of the date that this will
go to the City Council.
Sincerely, //-
J~Fackler
/~..--"'Parks Director
prlnted on recycled paper
/070
.)
15
COMMON
v
THOMAS [ CATHY TURNE.~
553Z BARTELTT BLVO
MOUN0 MN 55364
85 14-117-~_4 31 0007
DAVID C & LYNELLE D CONWAY
2124 SOUTHVIEW LA
M4] UN O MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0013
CITY OF MOUN0
5341 MAYWOO0 RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0008
CLARENCE J ~ OEBRA K HEITZ
2112 CLOVER CIR
MOUND MINN 55364
85 14-,117-24 31 0014
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYW000 RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0018
PETER LARSON
5080 CLOVER
M~UND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0019
GRE'SORY S PEDE,~SON
60~7 ASPEN RD
MOUN~) MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0022
FRANK & BETTY WEILANO
6045 ASPEN RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0029
JETHRO F PHILBROCK
6064 ASPEN ROAO
MCUNO MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0032
JEAN M FREDERICK [
TIMOTHY T ROSENBERGER
2008 CLOVER CIR
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-26 31 0036
'KENT A MUSSER
6150 CLOVER CIR
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0033
DR ROBERT LA FAVOR
6100 WILLOW LANE
MOUND MINN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0037
ADRIAN H MEUWISSEN
6172 REO OAK RD
MOUND MINN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0040
LOWELL S ALLEN
21 01 CLOVER CIR
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0041
MARSHALL J WATTERS
2127 FOREST LANE
MOUND MINN 55364
85 14-1 17-24 31 0048
EDWARD B RICHTER
61 32 LYNWOOD BLVD
MOUND MINN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0049
MICHAEL J ~ AMY J BEAUCHAMP
6116 LYNWOO0 BLVD
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0052
B&RBARA J FISCHER
2125 SOUTHVIEW LANE
MCUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0053
CHARLES J CHAPMAN JR
2017 CLOVER CIRCLE
NOUN0 MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0056
BROOKTON IMPROVEMENT ASSN
C/O VICKIE PEDERSON
6087 ASPEN Rd
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0058
CATHERINE LYNNE CLAIRE
2143 DIAMOND LA
MOUND MN 55364 I~''/t.~Y
85 14-117-24 31 0005
MARTIN PAUL MILLER
6058 LYNWOOO BLVD
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0009
LOREN R ~ CARYL M SCHMIDT
2100 CLOVER CIRCLE
MOUND MN 55384
85 14-117-24 31 0016
LAWRENCE J BEER
6030 HILLCREST RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0020
T L SINCHEFF
6077 ASPEN RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0030
CHARLES V CARLSON
2200 COMMERCE OLVO
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0034
F GENE & INYCE K HOLTMEYER
6118 CLOVER CIR
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0038
J D & M L RINGSTROM
6190 RED OAK RD
MOUND MINN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0042
T C SWANSON & C M PREISS
2147 FOREST LA
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0050
RUSSELL O FALNESS
6100 LYNWCO0 BLVO
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0054
MARK E MUTH
2146 FOREST LA
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0059
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOO RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0006
JUOC C & CE3RA M-L LUESSE
2144 SOUTHVIEW LA
MOUNO MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0010
KRYSTYNA LCKA I-OEMARS
2123 DIA~ONO LA
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0017
RICHARD & JUCY VEGCE
6046 HILLCREST ~V
MOUNO MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0021
GREGORY S HGWAR3
6061 ASPEN R~
MOUN~ M~q 55~64
85 14-117-24 31 0031
DOUGLAS J R~OEWAL0
6090 ASPEN RO
MOUND M~ 55~64
85 14-117-24 31 0035
PAUL H BRCWN
6134 CLDVER CIR
MOUNC MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0039
MELVIN R & JOAN M LAURENCE
6191 REO OAK ~D
MOUNO MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0043
B E URICH ~ V N URICH
2167 FDR-_-ST LA
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0051
THOMAS J RD[LAND
2145 SOUTHVIEW LANE
MOUND MN 55364
85 14-117-24 31 0055
SCOTT C COLE £ JOAN L COLE
2166 FOREST LA
MOUN~ MN 55364
85 14 -117-24 32 0001
R G THOMPSON
4508 G;~AND AV~
MPLS MN 55409
ROBERT M CgBURN
4971 LESLIE RD
MOUND MN 55364
BART
4844 MANCHESI'~R RD
MCUN0 MN 55364
--_
NASSAN AF~HAR
4848 MONMOUTH RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0187
GREGORY ~ KAREN SYCKS
4983 LESLIE RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0177
SHELLY & BEAN ZIMMERSCHIEO
4~64 MCNMOUTH RO
MOUN0 MN 55364
85 24-117-24 43 0089
ROBERT C&AIG
3017 BRIGHTON BLYD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 44 0021
MELODY M gLSEN
4873 CUMBERLAND RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 44 0022
JCN 0 & EVELYN K BERGLUN0
4859 CUMBE~LANE RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 44 0143
DOUGLAS L FETTER
3025 DUNOEF LANE
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 44 0145
B KUKL!NSK~ & R E HCW~LL
4955 DONALD OR
MCUNO MN 55364
85 24~117-24 44 0163
GEORGE E MILLER
3018 BRIGHTON BLVD
MOUND MINN 55364
85 24-117-24 44 0197
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOC RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 44 0164
CITY OF MCUND
5341 MAYWggD R0
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 44 0212
JOUNI V PA~S3NEN
4~25 CUM~EEL~NO ROAD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 44 0223
AARON C & JENNIFER M SMITH
4839 CUMBERLAND RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 44 g227
GR2GORY JAMES PETRIC~
4356 DONALD DR
MOUNO MN 55364
85 24 117 24 41 0200
DAVID C & DIXIE L ZAWADA
4983 AFTON RD
MOUND MN 55364
24-117-7_4 41 0153
JrlYCE L MA'DER
2939 DEVON LA
MOUNO MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0159
RUSSELL E JOHNSON
2935 DEVON LA
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0172
CITY OF MOUND
5545 SHORELINE BLVD
MOUND ~N 55364
8-5 24-117-24 41 0173
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOO RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0178
GAIL L SAND
4882 LESLrE RO
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0184
STEVEN H MILLER
4866 MONMOUTH RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 43 0090
ROBERT O CRAIG
3017 BRIGHTON BLVD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 43 0094
BRUCE A MCCOM8
3005 BRIGHTON BLVD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 44 0093
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOO0 DR
MOUND MINN 55364
85 24-117-24 44 0102
JULIA O SPANGRUD
3026 DUNDEE LA
MOUND MN 55364
,SS 24-117-24 44 0146
HANS ~ MELINDA MILLER
3018 CHURCHILL LA
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 44 0162
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWO00 ROAD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-1 17-24 44 0182
STEVE A & JOANN M SUNDOUIST
3q33 DUNDEE LANE
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 44 0185
R K & E M ANDERSEN
3001 BRIGHTON BLVO
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 44 0213
RICKY M & JOANNE N BENGSTON
3005 DEVON LA
MO UN,D MN 55364
85 24-117-24 44 0222
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD RD
MOUND MN 55364
TOTAL LABELS BATCH 502 00076
MOUND MN 55364
MOUNO .'~r~ 5 i
85 ?¢-117-2~ ~1 0015
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD RO
MOUND MN 55364
85 2~-117-2& &l0016
4815 MGNMGUTH RO
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0022
GARY M SNYDER
4876 LESLIE RO
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0025
ALLEEN L ~UTTERF[ELO
4862 LESLIE ROAD
MOUND MINN 55_~64
85 24-117-24 41 0030
RICHARD D KOPP
4825 BRUNSWICK RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-1 17-24 41 0031
HUGH W MC VAY
4837 BRUNSWICK
MOUNO MN 5~364
85 24-117-24 41 0034
RUSSELL E SAATCFF
4372 MONMOUTH RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-2~ 41 0039
DAVIO L VAN 3YXE
4830 MONMOUTH LANE
MOUND MZNN 55364
85 2~-117-24 41 0097
RALPH BRAEGELMANN
4912 MONMOUTH ROAD
MOUND MINN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0098
DAVIO UM~EHCCKER
4895 CO RC 19
MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359
85 24-117-24 41 0101
CHARLES S E DAWN O DAVIS
4918 MONMOUTH RO
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0102
JOAN C3NKEY
2371 MA~LBCR3 LANE
MOUNO MINN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0105
CURTIS O FREDRICK$ON
4925 MONMOUTH RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0106
JOHN W ~ MICHELE L HCLL~WAY
4943 MONMOUTH R9
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0109
MICHAEL ~ TAMARA MESENBOURG
4918 LESLIE RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0110
DOUGLAS C & JOY L ANDERSON
4912 LESLIE R)
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0118
DAVID L ~ JOAN M KOEHNEN
4959 LESLIE RO
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0127
CITY OF MCUN9
5341 MAYW0OO ROAD
MCUNO MINN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0131
CONWAY G REESE
4958 LESLIE RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0132
DEEB[E K THA2ALSCN HEITZ
4963 AFTON ROAD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0004
WAYNE P BRABANT
2919 DEVON DRIVE
MOUND MINN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0013
CITY OF MOUNg
53 41 MAYWOOO RD
MOUNO MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0017
D W & J K ERICKSON
4827 MONMOUTH RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0005
SANORA K OEGROAT
2925 DEVON LA
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0014
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0021
TRACY L & MARK A WALSTROM
4872 LESLIE RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0026
PAUL S NASH ~ MARY B NASH
4556 LESLIE RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0029
ERIC C & JILL M KRANTZ
2931 BRADFORD LA
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0032
SHIVAUN M BURNS
4,561 BRUNSWICK RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0040
OEAN P & SHIRLEY M EIDEM
4818 MONMCUTH RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0033
MICHAEL O PETERSON
2868 MARLBORO LA
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0096
OAMON R & LILY M HARDINA
2861 MARLBORO LA
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0099
JULIE A SANDBERG
4937 BRUNSWICK RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0100
STEPHEN & SUZANNE SCHMIOT
2936 HIGHLAND BLVO
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0103
HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND
FOR SALE TO ADJACENT
PROPERTY OWNER ONLY
24-117-24 41 0104
STEVEN E MADOOCK
4915 MONMOUTH RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0107
RONALO F ~ ROSERTA J POTAS
2190 SHADYWOO0 RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
85 24-117-24 41 0108
CHRIST0PHER J STAUNER
4936 LESLIE RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0111
GEORGE E LARSON
4906 LESLIE ROAD
MOUND MINN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0112
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWO00 RD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0129
RICHARD L & DARLENE M DURKIN
4982 LESLIE eD
MOUND MN 55364
85 24-117-24 41 0130
ORVILLE & HAZEL NEAL
4970 LESLIE RD
MOUND MN 55364
MINUTES - I~ound Park and Open Space C-.ornm{ss(on J~'~ ~, '~t~
DISCUSS: YOUTH BASEBALL LEAGUE USE OF SWENSON AND PHILBROOK
PARKS
Park Director Fackler reported on a request to the City in July, 1996 which was passed
at the Park Commission level and at the City Council level for modification of fields to
Babe Ruth League specifications. In 1997 a motion passed to reverse that decision.
Now, a new request has been made to add safety improvements to Philbrook and
Swenson Parks.
Bob Dorfner, Board Member for Little League, Girls Softball, and Open Spaces for the
School District, pointed out that there are really no City parks in Mound, all are really
neighborhood parks. Mr. Dorfner is asking to put up sideline fences, move benches
behind the sideline fences, and add some additional safety items to help reduce risk to
kids that are playing ball there.
Chair Meyer opened the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m.
3
MINUTES - Mound Park and Open Space Commission April 8, 1999
Adrian Meuwissen, 6170 Red Oak Road, stated he has lived by Philbrook Park for 45
years. The citizens there originally gave this park to the City. For two years there was
a softball league there and that was a disaster.
Tom Berent, 6000 Lynwood Boulevard, stated that he is against the use of Philbrook Park
as a baseball field. Mr. Berent has been involved in Little League for many years.
However, the people that live around Philbrook are very community minded, and are for
the kids, but have concerns about traffic among other things. When the Womens
League Softball team was there, the traffic was terrible. Even with no parking signs on
one side, the were ignored and the streets were blocked. Mr. Berent is also concerned
about litter, and safety problems, stating that the playground equipment is very close to
the ball field. Mr. Berent stated that fences are an eyesore for the people that live around
there, and a storage locker will build into a storage shed, and so there's more and more
equipment that will ardve. There are fields that are more suitable, as this public park is
heavily used, and the baseball would curtail use of the public park, for the exclusive use
by one group.
Julie Anderson, 2221 Southview Lane, stated Philbrook Park is very unique, is a good
walking park, and good for small children. If the ball clubs come in, none of these uses
can be continued since there will be more traffic, foul ball dangers, and lots of teenagers.
It will no longer be a family park.
Frank Weiland, 4065 Aspen Road, presented a letter to be entered into the record from
Lowell Allen, of 2101 Clover Circle, in general against allowing the ball clubs into
Philbrook Park. It also asked if the president of the Babe Ruth Baseball League was
denied use of the ball fields at the high school, as he had heard.
Chair Meyer answered that the school may sell the property where these sports fields are
located. This is the problem with those areas.
Mr. Weiland then read a list of reasons why Philbrook Park should not be used for a ball
field. Generally, it is a public park used by all ages and turning it into a ball field will not
be conducive to the current feel of the park. It is being well used as it is.
Doug Anderson, 4912 Leslie Road, stated that he has foul ball problems in his front yard
from the field at Swenson however, the "not in my neighborhood" attitude has really
affected him. Mr. Anderson believes the improvements and ball clubs could work at
Philbrook with enough qualification. Mr. Anderson stated he came to the meeting to
speak against the improvements, but has since changed his mind. One of his major
issues is parking, as there is not enough currently. Mr. Anderson suggested that
coaches take an active part in making parking work. Safety issues also are a concern.
Once all the safety items are put in place, kids come and use it contrary to their proper
use. The last concern brought up is how often there will be games at Philbrook park.
Stacy Bigelow, 5951 Lynwood Boulevard, presented some concerns of the neighborhood
and presented a handout of these concerns.
4
Walter Neske, 6225 Road O .k Road, stated safety concems as the streets around
Philbrook Park are not built to handle the additional traffic.
Robert Blake, 5932 Lynwood Boulevard, stated that not every kid participates in
organized sports and like to use Philbrook as a quite park just to hang out. He stated
they need a place to go to be unorganized sometimes.
Tracy Walstrom, 4872 Leslie Road, stated she agrees that safety upgrades are needed,
but neither of these parks can handle the additional traffic. Emergency vehicles will
never have access if an event is going on. Ms. Walstrom stated she supports safety
upgrades, but not for changing the use of the parks to be exclusive to ball clubs.
Chades Chapman, 2017 Clover Circle, does not believe Philbrook Park is the right place
to have baseball on a formal basis. Mr. Chapman would like the City Council to ask the
school board to keep the much needed space available. Mr. Chapman is against any
improvements to the park.
Mary McKinley, 5948 Hillcrest Road, stated she is opposed to the improvements also.
Ms. McKinley sees this as paving the way for changing the uses of the park completely.
Shelly Young, 5159 Lynwood Boulevard, stated she is also opposed to the
improvements. Ms. YoUng stated that she loves the park as it is. Traffic would be very
congested if there were organized ball games there. It is a playground, not a ball park.
Judd Luesse, 2144 Southview Lane, stated he is also against improvements to Philbrook
Park. Mr. Luesse is concerned about an adult baseball team playing at that park
because any well hit ball would land outside the park. Mr. LUesse would like to see
many more ball fields in Mound, but stated that Philbrook Park does not have the space
to accommodate ball in an organized fashion.
Greg Howard, 6061 Aspen Road, stated he has a lot of objections to the park being used
for more than it is being used for currently. Mr. Howard asked what the definition is of
the backstop that is there now, if these safety improvements would change the use. Mr.
Howard also stated that the current backstop is an eyesore, so if it is not for organized
playing, then why not take it down. Mr. Howard also indicated concern that more use
of the park would cause more noise also and asked what the purpose is of trying to put
a skating dnk there.
Duane Norberg, 6015 Aspen Road, stated the park is used by multi-families all summer
for a wide variety of activities. When the unorganized groups are there, the parking is
much better. Mr. Norberg stated that emergency vehicles could not get through when
there is an organized event. Mr. Norberg does not see the improvements as minor, and
once these small changes are made, much larger ones will follow. Also, the high school
has open space to the north that might be able to be used. Mr. Norberg would like to
keep Philbrook Park as it is.
5
MINUTES - Mound Park and Open Space Commission A.oril 8, 1999
Chair Meyer then noted that the open space to the north of the high school is in
Minnetrista and that discussion on this space is in process as far as he knows.
Carol Norberg, 6015 Aspen Road, stated that she believes people have moved into and
stayed in the neighborhood around Philbrook because of the park, just as it is. Ms.
Norberg would not like to see any changes to Philbrook Park.
Sarah Peterson, 6087 Aspen Road, does not support the improvements to the park. Ms.
Peterson also presented copies of additional letters from neighbors that could not be at
the meeting tonight that object to changes to Philbrook Park.
Peter Larson, 2080 Clover Circle, stated his front window faces the park, and opposes
any changes to the park. Mr. Larson believes that any additional fences will limit the
openness of the park.
Dave Laube, 6000 Aspen Road, is also opposed to the improvements, as he believes
there are other places available. Mr. Laube believes that even if the improvements are
made, there would still be battles for use of the park.
Commissioner Cooper stated her belief that the safety improvements are directly related
to the use of the park and she is against the improvements for that reason.
Greg Howard, 6061 Aspen Road, would like more clarification regarding usage and
would like Mr. Dorfner to clarify how often the park would be used for organized ball
games.
Various comments from the floor at this time included:
· The park has not been used as a practice field in the past.
· How do you sign up for usage of the park, and when some kids are there
playing an
unorganized game, do they get kicked out in favor of the leagues.
· The improvements requested will make the park unsafe for the current users.
Bob Dorfner then clarified that neither park is reserved for leagues only. The safety
features that are needed for anyone at all that plays there would included the sideline
safety fences and an overhang on the existing backstop. Mr. Dorfner cited the worst
safety hazard is having the benches inside the fence. Regarding parking and traffic, the
problem seems to already exist, and there are no areas available in Mound that can be
converted into ball fields, so existing ones need to be used, and should be as safe as
possible.
Commissioner Domholt asked how many additional games would be held at Swenson
Park as a direct result of the safety improvements being added.
Mr. Dorfner stated possibly one game per week.
6
MINUTES - Mound Park and Open Space Commission April 8, 1999
Commissioner Domholt then 'stated that he believes Philbrook Park is being used for
exactly what Mound wants parks to be used for, and has been used for those purposes
for many years.
Commissioner Weycker asked if there was another field available for these leagues.
Mr. Dorfner replied that the league requires two fields, and the league currently has only
one field for their use.
Commissioner Weycker asked if the Minnetrista City Council has been approached.
Mr. Dorfner stated he has not approached them as yet.
Commissioner Casey asked how many nights a week the organized ball clubs may use
these fields.
Mr. Dorfner stated possibly three games per week, and practices if the field is open.
Commissioner Casey then asked what the costs would be for these safety improvements.
Mr. Dorfner stated that there would be no cost to the City since the ball leagues will pay.
Mr. Dorfner also assured the Commission that no matter the improvements, adult leagues
cannot play there because there is simply not enough space for the minimum
requirements for them.
Commissioner Casey asked what the season is for the youth leagues.
Mr. Dorfner answered that it goes generally from mid-May to mid-July.
Commissioner Casey asked if the ball leagues that make these improvements would then
expect favoritism for use of the park.
Mr. Dorfner stated that they would still have to schedule field availability, as everyone
else does.
Chair Meyer then stated that the comments are quite repetitive at this point, and then
recapped the fact that more parks are needed in Mound. It is nice to have a private
park, but there are other needs that are also not being met.
Adrian Meuwissen, 6170 Red Oak Road, questioned why Mound is taking on the
responsibility for providing ball fields for all the surrounding communities.
Judd Luesse, 2144 Southview Lane, questioned why these leagues have permission to
use these fields now, when they're not safe.
7
MINUTES - Mound Park and Open Space Commission Apdl 8, 1gO0
Doug Anderson, 4912 Leslie Road, stated that the ball leagues should be commended
for wanting the field to be safe for all users. Usage of the parks is a whole different
issue, and not related to wanting the fields to be safe for anyone. Safety for all, paid for
by someone else, sounds like a good idea.
Tim Piepkorn, School Distdct and Community Education Services, stated that there is a
contract with the City, which extends to scheduling for practices of Little League. Fields
are booked up Monday through Thursday evenings, every week, and this does not cover
all the requests submitted. On paper, the practices at these two fields have been going
on for four years, so if the residents have lived with it, then the safety needs to be there
to cover the kids practicing.
Commissioner Casey asked if each team that signs up get equal time for practice.
Mr. Piepkom stated that he does not make sure of this, as he goes by requests. First
come, first served, although he does try to keep an eye on quantity and to not let one
group get too much time at the expense of another.
John Holloway, 4943 Monmouth Road, stated that if all the safety issues were addressed,
he would like to see the Little Leagues play at Swenson Park.
Hearing no more public input, Chair Meyer closed the Public Hearing at 10:00
p.m.
Chair Meyer tabled discussion of youth baseball league used of Swenson and
Philbrook Parks at 10:00 p.m.
Motion made by Beise, seconded by Weycker, to continue the meeting for 30
minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Domholt asked if the request tonight was an all or nothing deal, or if the
two parks could be considered separately.
Mr. Dorfner stated that whatever he can get would be worked with. He believes
Swenson Park is the safest of the two.
Chair Meyer then asked the Commissioners for their feelings on the requests.
Commissioner Domholt stated he is for the improvements at Swenson Park, and thanked
Mr. Dorfner for offering to make the safety improvements. Philbrook Park is too small,
and it seems the park is being utilized to it's optimum right now.
Commissioner Casey stated he agrees with Domholt, but would like the safety issues
addressed at Philbrook Park, especially if there was a way to restrict the usage to keep
the neighborhood park environment.
8
MINUTES - Mound Park and Open Space Commission Apdl 8, lggg
Commissioner Beise stated Ile was for the improvements at Swenson Park, with the
exception of the storage box. However, he is against the improvements at Philbrook
Park since that park appears to be designed for family and neighborhood non-organized
events. Beise stated that he does not believe Philbrook Park should be listed in the
district as a bookable field.
Commissioner Cooper stated that Swenson Park is a better park for the improvements.
She was concerned that these fields would be designated specifically for these leagues,
but this is not the case. All players could still use the field, so all players would be safer.
She is for the improvements at Swenson Park, but not at Philbrook Park.
Commissioner Weycker stated she is for the improvements at both parks. If the
backstop is there at all, then it should be safe. If it is not going to be as safe as
possible, then maybe the entire backstop should be taken down. Weycker stated she
is also concerned about the proximity of the basketball court to the ball fields.
Chair Meyer stated he is for the improvements at both Swenson Park and Philbrook Park,
although Swenson Park is definitely the better site for it. More facilities are needed, and
if there is one existing, it should be as safe as possible.
Commissioner Weycker reiterated that it is nearly impossible to separate the use issues
from the safety improvement issues.
Motion made by Casey to do the safety improvements and direct Staff to
address the usage and parking issues at both parks. Motion died for lack of
second.
Commissioner Domholt pointed out that to improve means to make it better. These
improvements will not make Philbrook Park better for the residents and current users.
Taking the current backstop down because it is not safe may make it better for current
users.
Motion made by Casey to split the parks and approve the improvements on
a separate basis. Motion died for lack of second.
Commissioner Cooper asked if the improvements were not made to Philbrook Park,
would the leagues still play there.
Mr. Dorfner replied that the coaches could still schedule practices there, especially if
there was nowhere else for them to go to practice.
Some public comments were made to this to the effect that they didn't mind the
practices, but they still do not want any additional fencing at Philbrook.
Commissioner Weycker stated that the existing backstop and fences there do not keep
the players safe, even when they are just there for practice.
9
MINUTES - Mound Park and Open Space Commission April 8, 1999
Chair Meyer stated that rega~'dless of what the usage is, if there is a ball diamOnd it
should be made as safe as possible.
Some public comments were made at this point that it would then be better to take down
the existing backstop and fences than add to them for any reason.
Motion made by Meyer, seconded by Casey to approve the Safety
Improvements at Swenson Park as proposed. Motion carried 5/0/1 (Domholt
abstained).
Chair Meyer again tabled the discussion at 10:30 p.m. Motion made by
Casey, seconded by Meyer to continue the meeting for an additional 30
minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion made by Casey, seconded by Weycker to approve the Safety
Improvements as proposed for Philbrook Park. Motion denied 2/4 (Meyer
and Casey in favor).
Motion made by Beise, seconded by Meyer to make improvement to
Philbrook Park by removing the benches that are there, as they are a safety
hazard. Motion denied 3/3 (Weycker, Cooper, Domholt opposed)
Motion made by Casey, seconded by Weycker to recommend Staff be
directed to work out the parking problems, safety issues, and fairness of
usage issues at Philbrook Park, as it pertains to current usage of the park.
Motion carried unanimously.
10
,1999 Please help us by signing
~ We need your support to,keep Philbrook Park the
it is with no changes to the ballfield or the park
................... we need .t~o let our. city.~know how we feel, and love
DATE NAME :ADDRESS
28
1999 . Please help us by .si.gning!:
We need your support to keep Philbrook Park~ the same as
. It is~.with .no .changes. to the ballfield~or the park.itself.
.We need .to let our.city know how we feel, and love our parK,
DATE NAME ADDRESS
ZZ ........................
2~ ............... ......
2~ ............
-----"~ ?)ease h~lp us by signing
We need your support to keep Philbrook Park tt~e s~me ~s
we need to let our city know how we feel, and love our park
~DATE ~NAME ADDRESS :
~ 13 ....... ...........
. . ~ ....... ~ ................... f.. ............ ~ ........,~ ...................... ~ ........... ~ ..............
9~9-9072 UERSATIL
108 P02/03 APR 27 '99 11:17
I0
V
POLE '.
I0 ~IPE LANE5 ..~
9~9-9072 UERS~TIL 108 POJxO~ APR ~? '99 11:18
LINE
/!
lO
i0~
!18
(~HG~ELIN¢ -
lip TO ;~'~l12d Z0/4E
.~OK ~AIL/it6&T~ 4)N Ll~'r¢
A N ~¢ SN1 ALL TO LJ
IH~
FROM
: ALBRECHT
James and Mary Albrecht
4701AberdeenR. oad
Mound, M lq55364
Phone:472-1571
Fax: 472-2064
April 27, 1999
FAX
NO. :
612
472 2064
Apr. 27 1999 10:06AM P1
Mayor Pat Meisel
City of Motmd
Mound, MN 5536,4
Dear Madam Mayor:
I am writing this letter in hopes that a resolution to the commons area can be reached by taking into
account several points that I have outlined and why I think the commons area privilege cut into the very
core of individual basic rights.
At the beginning of the council meeting on April 19th you asked us all to rise and affirm the Pledge of
Allegiance. I need not remind anyone of the importance of these words; however, I do feel it is important
for all of us to listen to what we say. In particular, the last sentence that states: "For Liberty and Justice
for All." Public offices are designed to represem these rights. I heard time and time again that the
Council has to make a decision and be firm. Well I thought they did make a decision back in January.
That was one of the first orders of business to rescind that decision. Why was this all brought up yet
again? When is this all going to end?
You are asking why was it changed 21 or so years ago. I think I can answer this by reiterating the
statement: "For Liberty and/lustice for All." The Commons has been there since 1911 and when they
discovered the access they cleaned up the access area and made the commons usable. The commons is
public property. The people who live along the commons area have a lake view fxom their homes. They
do not ,o .w~. lake shore. Should the City of Mound make a gift to these people of the commons area by
making the commons a Class C?
We have applied for the dock in the Roanoke Commons area because it is so convenient for us. We just
live right over the Roanoke hill. We wanted a private dock so om:two boys (ages 14 and 12) can go down
to our dock and fish. If we were put on a multiple dock that is not possible. Also, we have friends in the
area with boats that would like to come and visit us by boat occasionally. If we have a private dock they
can do that. If we are on a multiple dock they could not.
Our boat is ready to go in the water. We would like to finish putting our dock in. We currently have a
license or permit or whatever it's called from the City of Mound. We would request that Jim Faeckler
meet with us on a weekend, the sooner the better, to be there in person as we put our dock in so it can be
determined that we are putting it in at the correct angle. Furthermore, if Mr. Mack wants to put his dock
right next to ours so he can see his children swimming that's fine. We don't have a problem with that Also,
if the people that live down there had a big family get together and needed our dock to park their friends
boats for a day, they would be welcome to do that. We would just like to see everyone get along and be
nice to one another. Life is too short for all this bull.
Jim and Mary Albrecht
Dear Members of the City Council,
I mn concerned about the manner in which the City Council is managing the public's access to commons
property and use of docks. There have been an increasing number of Council discussions and votes to
remove docks and reduce the number of existing docks. Review of the Council's actions suggests that
instead of taking steps to provide dock space on the commons for those citizens waiting for lake access, the
Council has entered into discussions to remove docks which are located behind the houses of lakeview
landowners, at the expense of those who are not fortunate enough to own properly adjacent to the lake. My
specific concerns with the Council's recent actions, including tonight's proposal to remove my dock from
beltind Councilperson Al[rens's house, include the following:
1. Although there are approximately 40 Mound citizens waiting to receive use of dock space on commons
property, the Council has spent an inordinate amount of time trying to remove docks from behind file
homes of lakeview residents like Councilperson Alzrens, consistent with Ms. Ahrens's personal agenda. I
think the City Council's efforts are better spent on belmlf of the majority of Mound citizens working to
increase the number of docks available on commons property.
2. It appears the City Council may have allowed a conflict of interest held by a member of the City's Dock
Committee - Mr, Ahrens - to compromise the effective management of public access to the lake and public
docks. The Dock Committee does not seem to be providing independent, well-reasoned recommendations
to file City Council concerning the best use of commons property for all Mound citizens. Has the
Committee performed a study that explains why the removal of my dock is best for the Mound citizem3'?
Likewise, what recommendations--based upon thorough studies-has it provided to the City Council that cm~
be timely implemented to expand public dock access in neighborhoods like mine? (Pan of improving
public access to Lake Minnetonka for Mound citizens is to make Mound City docks convenient to access
for all citizens of Mound. This can best be done by having more docks closer to the homes of individuals
who wish to use them-where there are neighborhoods of people they can walk down to their docks.) I am
concerned that the City Council's actions concerning public access to docks may result in whole or in pan
from the fact tlmt the Council allows Councilperson Ahrens's husband to serve on the Dock Committee.
The Ahrens' desire is to remove public access docks from behind their lakeview property and that of
similarly situated lakeview landowners. Those Mound residents who own property adjacent to the
lakefront are not a majority of Mound citizenry and their desire to remove docks from behind their property
is not representative of the best interests of all Mound residents.
3. All homeowners abutting the Roanoke co~mnons area, bought their homes with full knowledge of the
rights and use of the commons area. I do not feel that I should be discriminated against by having my dock
repositioned tlu~ee blocks away from ~ny home because the abutting ho~neowners now feel that they should
have private lakeshore.
I have had my dock at this location for 13 years. There has never been a safety issue, nor have I heard of
any injuries associated with the Roakoke access. With the above in mind, I strongly urge you to vote to
keep public property, public, and not to move my dock. Should the City Council choose to take away
public access, and Roanoke dock sites, I will be forced to seek further councel.
T ou~(~~7 fir time. ,
4704 Island View Drivi~
Mound, MN 55364
Cc:The Laker.
April 27, 1999
Mrs. Pat Meisel
Mound City Mayor
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Pat,
I am writing with concerns about the ongoing Commons Dock issue at Roanoke
Commons. I have been following much of the correspondence about this in the Laker,
as well as talking to one of the parties, Jim & Mary Albrecht. I know the Albrecht
family very well, and I know that they are very nice, generous and honest people. I also
know that they have been very cordial and flexible during this entire ordeal which has
been going on for them since last year. This is the second year that they have paid for
the use of the commons docks in this area, following the letter of the law, and so far
they have not been able to use it. Is this fair? Is it good government?
· I 'find it appalling that this issue has gone on as long as it has, with a few "abutters" who
seem to think that they should have private use of property which belongs to the city. If
this property belongs to the City of Mound Commons program, and it was that way
when these people purchased their property, then they should accept the fact that they
are not owners (or taxpayers) of this lakeshore, and do not have exclusive rights to it.
My understanding is that one of these parties has been in violation of the law by putting
their boatlift on city property, and then complains about people tresspassing when being
forced (by to location of the boat lift) to walk around it to get to the commons dock that
they legally paid for the use of. Is this right?
If this "commons" area is changed so it cannot be used as it was intended by Mound law,
I am extremely concerned about the precedent that this decision would set. Many
people, yourself included, have been working very hard for years to make Mound a
better place, and it is in "the People's" (including yours and mine) interest to see this
through. If these "select few abutters" get their selfish way, then Mound will be on a
path in the opposite direction of what we want. Setting a precedent here would likely
open up multiple future skirmishes like this one. We have to look at the big picture.
Is it right to allow the selfish interests of a few property owners to take away the use of
the common docks which belong to the city, and therefore the people of Mound? I find
it difficult to believe that fair-minded people would allow this to happen. I believe that
you are a fair-minded person, and that you will look at the whole picture and do what is
right.
Sincerely, //'~/~ ~-- ,f~") / ^
Madlyn Hostetler f /.~'~'~///~ 0//~. ~"~.,':c/~;,/~,)
6168 Sinclair Court./
Mound 472-5063
· ,3isplay Documen£ 54 of 56
Minnesota Statutes 1998 Display Document 54 of 56
Chapter Title: CRIMn- nL CODE
Section: 609.605
Text:
609.605 TrespasS.
Subdivision 1. Misdemeanor. (a) The followin~ terms
have the meanings given them for purposes of this section.
(i) "Premises" means real property and any appurte~8/~
building or structure.
(ii) "Dwelling" means the building or part of a building
used by an individual as a place of residence on either a
full-time or a part-time basis. A dwelling may be part of a
multidwelling or multipurpose building, or a manufactured home
as defined in section 168.011, subdivision 8.
(iii) "Construction site" means the site of the
construction, alteration, painting, or repair of a building or
structure.
(iv) "Owner or lawful possessor," as used in paragraph (b),
clause (9), means the person on whose behalf a building or
dwelling is being constructed, altered, painted, or repaired and
the general contractor or subcontractor engaged in that work.
(v) ,,posted," as used in clause (9), means the placement of
a sign at least 11 inches square in a conspicuous place on the
exterior of the building that is under construction, alteration,
or repair, and additional sigl~$ in at least two conspicuous
places for each ten acres being protected. The sign must carry
an appropriate notice and the name of the person 9iv%n~ the
notice, followed by the word "owner" if the person 9xvxng the
notice iS the holder of legal title to the land on which the
C0~s%ruction site is located or by the word "occupant" if the
pers0~ giving the notice is not the holder of legal title but is
a lawful oCCUpant of the land.
(vi) n~siness lice~See," as used in paragraph {b), clause
(9), includes ~ reprgsentatiVe Of a building trades labor or
ma/lagement organization'
(vii) "Building" has ~he mea~n~ given in section ~09.581,
subdivision 2.
......' 'l 999... Plesse help us by signing
) ~ .we n'eea ;0"r ~ort"i;'k;;P.'Philbi;;k P;.rk ih; sam'; ;~
it is with no changes to the bgllfield or the pgrk itself
we need to let Our City know how we feel, and love Our' park
~ DATE ~ NAME ] ADDRESS
~' ~.~ ~ . . ~ xx, , ~ ,
1999 Please help us by signing
We need your support to keep Philbrook Park the
.. it is with no. ch~nge~ to the b~llfield, or the. p~rk
we need to let our city know how we feel, and love our
DATE ~NA~E ~ ~ADDRESS
241
30!
1999 Please help us by signing
We need your support to I<eep Phill~rook Park the
same
as
It.is with no changes to the ballfield or the park itself
we need to let our city know how we feel, and love our park
DATE NAME ADDRESS
7~
13
1~
19 ~
20~
21
22
~3
24
25
26
27
: ALBRECHT
James and Mary Albrecht
4701 Aberdeen Road
Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-1571
Fax: 472-2064
April 27, 1999
FAX NO.
; 612 472 20~4
Apr. 2? 1999 10:06AM P1
Mayor Pat Meisel
city of Mound
Mound, MN 5536~
Dear Madam Mayor:
I am writing this letter in hopes that a resolution to thc commons area can be reached by taking into
account several points that I have outlined and why I think the commons area privilege cut into the very
core of individual basic rights.
At the beginning of the council meeting on April 19'~ you asked us all to rise and affirm the Pledge of
Allegiance. I need not remind anyone of the importance of these words; however, I do feel it is important
for all of us to listen to what we say. In particular, the last sentence that states: "For Liberty and Justice
for All." Public offices are designed to represent these rights. I heard time and time again that the
Council has to make a decision and be firm. Well, I thought they did make a decision back in January.
That was one of the first orders of business to rescind that decision. Why was this all brought up yet
again? When is this all going to end?
You are asking why was it changed 21 or so years ago. I think I can answer this by reiterating the
statement: "For Liberty and Justice for All." The Commons has been there since 1911 and when they
discovered the access they cleaned up the access area and made the commons usable. The commons is
public property. The people who live along the commons area have a lake view from their homes. They
do not own lake shore. Should the City of Mound make a gift to these people of the commons area by
making the commons a Class C?
We have applied for the dock in the Roanoke Commons area because it is so convcniem for us. We just
live right over the Roanoke hill. We wanted a private dock so our two boys (ages 14 and 12) can go down
to our dock and fish. If we were put on a multiple dock that is not possible. Also, we have friends in the
area with boats that would like to come and visit us by boat occasionally. If we have a private dock they
can do that. If we are on a multiple dock they could not.
Our boat is ready to go in the water. We would like to finish putting our dock in. We currently have a
license or permit or whatever it's called from the City of Mound. We would request that Jim Faeckler
meet with us on a weekend, the Sachet the better, to be there in person as we put our dock in so it can be
determined that we are putting it in at the correct angle. Furthermore, if Mr. Mack wants to put his dock
right next to ours so he can see his children swimming that's fine. We don't have a problem with that Aisc,
if the people that live down there had a big family get together and needed our dock to park their friends
boats for a day, they would be welcome to do that. We would just Dike to see everyone get along and be
nice to one another. Life is too short for all this bull.
Jim and Mary Albrecht
Minnesota Statutes Display Document 54 of 56
Page 1 of 2
Minnesota Statutes 1998 Display Document 54 of 56
Chapter Title: CRIMINAL CODE
Section: 609.605
Text: []
609.605 Trespass[].
Subdivision 1. Misdemeanor. (a) The followin9 terms
have the meanings given them for purposes of this section.
(i) "Premises" means real property and any appurtenant
building or structure.
(ii) "Dwelling" means the building or part of a building
used by an individual as a place of residence on either a
full-time or a part-time basis. A dwelling may be part of a
multidwelling or multipurpose building, or a manufactured home
as defined in section 168.011, subdivision 8.
(iii) "Construction site" means the site of the
construction, alteration, painting, or repair of a building or
structure.
(iv) "Owner or lawful possessor," as used in paragraph (b),
clause (9), means the person on whose behalf a building or
dwelling is being constructed, altered, painted, or repaired and
the general contractor or subcontractor engaged in that work.
(v) "Posted," as used in clause (9), means the placement of
a sign at least 11 inches square in a conspicuous place on the
exterior of the building that is under construction, alteration,
or repair, and additional signs in at least two conspicuous
places for each ten acres being protected. The sign must carry
an appropriate notice and the name of the person giving the
notice, followed by the word "owner" if the person giving the
notice is the holder of legal title to the land on which the
construction site is located or by the word "occupant" if the
person giving the notice is not the holder of legal title but is
a lawful occupant of the land.
(vi) "Business licensee," as used in paragraph (b), clause
(9), includes a representative of a building trades labor or
management organization.
(vii) "Building" has the meaning given in section 609.581,
subdivision 2.
(b) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if the person
nally:
ermits domestic animals or fowls under the actor's
~ontrol to go on the land of another within a city;
http://www.revisor.leg.sta.../Ascend%26M%3D54%26K%3D609.605%26R%3DY%26U%3D 4/21/99
Minnesota Statutes Display Document 54 of 56 Page 2 of 2
/2) interferes unlawfully with a monument, sign, or pointer
erected or marked to designate a point of a boundary, line or a
political subdivision, or of a tract of land;
(3) []trespasses[] on the premises of anothera~ without
claim of right, refuses to depart from the premmses on demand of
the lawful possessor;
(4) occupies or enters the dwelling or locked or posted
building of another, without claim of right or consent of the
owner or the consent of one who has the right to give consent,
except in an emergency situation;
(5) enters the premises of another with intent to take or
injure any fruit, fruit trees, or vegetables growing on the
premises, without the permission of the owner or occupant;
(6) enters or is found on the premises of a public or
private cemetery without authorization during hours the cemetery
is posted as closed to the public;
(7) returns to the property of another with the intent to
abuse, disturb, or cause distress in or threaten another, after
being told to leave the property and not to return, if the actor
is without claim of right to the property or consent of one with
authority to consent;
(8) returns to the property of another within 30 days after
being told to leave the property and not to return, if the actor
is without claim of right to the property or consent of one with
authority to consent; or
(9) enters the locked or posted construction site of
another without the consent of the owner or lawful possessor,
unless the person is a business licensee.
Subd. 2. Gross misdemeanor. Whoever []trespasses[] upon
the grounds of a facility providing emergency shelter services
for battered women, as defined under section 611A.31,
subdivision 3, or of a facility providing transitional housing
for battered women and their children, without claim of right or
consent of one who has right to give consent, and refuses to
depart from the grounds of the facility on demand of one who has
right to give consent, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Subd. 3. Repealed, 1993 c 326 art 2 s 34
Subd. 4. ~Trespasses on school property.
...More
~scend%26M%3D54%26K%3D609.605%26R%3DY%26U%3D 4/21/99
949-90?2 UERSATIL
ii
I I
108 P02/03 APR 27 '99 11:17
V
IH~ P/¢TAN~.E
If
i00
108 P03/03 APR 2? '99 11:18
POLE
Ho.using Needs of the Lake Area Citie~
South Shore Community center in 5horewood*
Thursday, May 20, ~999
7:30- 9:00 AM
(Continental Breakfast Served at 7:15 a.m.)
A Workshop for: city council and planning commission members, city administrators
and staff in the Lake Minnetonka Area cities.
Workshop P~esentations:
· Lake Minnetonka Area Cooperating Cities Sub-Regional Housing Study
- 5cart Richards, Northwest Associated Consultants
· Overview of Affordable Housing ]~ssues: affordable housing as an economic and
community development issue
- Tom Fulton, Family Housing Fund
·Keys to Successful Affordable Housing: a 'more than housing' approach
-~oe Errigo, CommonBond Communities
Facilitated By: Nancy Reeves, Nancy Reeves and Associates Housing Consultants
Topics for ~oup Discussion: · What can be done to maintain existing affordable housing?
· Top ten things cities can do to support the preservation and development of
affordable and lifecycle housing?
· Where can we go from here? Next steps toward a cooperative approach.
To begin to set a direction of cooperative efforts among Lake Area
Cities, it is important for a majority ot: each city council to attend.
Please I~VP your city adminisl~ator by May 12t~.
~,~outh Sho~e Community Center is located at ~735 Country Club Road in Shor~wood
Follow County Road 19 to where it curves new Smithtown Crossing Shopping Center. At the
curve, go south onto Country Club Road (if coming from the east, turn left onto Country Club
I~oad). Go about ½ block on Country Club Road and turn left at the drive to Shorewood City
Hall (directly behind Amoco/Oasis market). Keeping to the left, drive through the parking lot
to South Shore Community Center.
Or~jonized by tl~e lake l~ioaetonko ~rea [OOl~.rating titles ~[(} lolxjrOUl~:
~'irn Norm, City of Shorewood (474-3236), Joe Lynch, City of Long Lake (473-6961), and Dave Fri$chmo#, City' of
Wayzata (404-5308}; in collaboration w~th Andrea Brennan, Zn~er~oi~h Otrtreach and Community Partners
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
APRIL 15, 1999
Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Orvin Burma, and Greg Eurich, and Council
Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector
Tom McCaffrey and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Absent were: Commissioners Frank Ahrens and Mark Goldberg
Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Chair Funk announced that Kenmore Commons will not be considered in the discussion
for multiple slip dock locations because of feedback from the public at the meeting on
Saturday.
Commissioner Hanus added that the neighbors did indicate that they are willing to try to
relieve the setback problems in some other way, sometime in the future.
1. MINUTES
Motion was made by Burma, seconded by Hanus, to approve the minutes of
the March 18, 1999 DCAC meeting as amended: Page 4, Paragraph 3, Change
to read: Council Representative Hanus stressed the importance of presenting
the information in such a way to insure people that these plans are not
absolutes and that we want their thoughts and ideas. Motion carried
unanimously.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Agenda approved as amended: Switch numbers 5 & 6; Add item 6B:
ENCROACHMENTS STATUS REPORT
=
DISCUSS: ADDITIONAL MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK LOCATIONS AT CARLSON
PARK AND HIGHLAND END PARK
Chair Funk stated that the feedback resulting from the public meeting held on Saturday,
April 3 indicated there were some issues at Highland End that still had to be worked out,
but generally favorable. Though turnout for Carlson Park was fairly small, the feedback
received was also generally favorable.
Chair Funk opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Bill Voss, 2608 Kildare Road stated he is an abutting dock holder at Kenmore Common.
Mr. Voss expressed disappointment in the voluntary way that the City is approaching the
multiple slip dock at that location. If the LMCD has problems with the site, Mr. Voss feels
the City should be more proactive and do something about it. The Kenmore Commons
docks are not in good shape, and improvement in any way is necessary. Mr. Voss
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 15, 1999
requested that the Kenmore site be revisited and the City take a more proactive approach
to get something done.
Commissioner Hanus asked if Mr. Voss is suggesting that the City make it happen, with
neighborhood input of course, but still make it happen.
Mr. Voss stated yes, he believes a strong, decisive approach is needed, especially in this
situation as people are hesitant to speak up, afraid of offending their neighbors, etc.
Chair Funk reiterated that the issue at Kenmore is not dead, but as only two sites were
originally going to be done this year, the opposition to Kenmore made the decision of which
two areas to proceed with very easy to make. He noted that Kenmore can be considered
again after Carlson and Highland End are complete. Funk asked for discussion on the
Carlson site.
Dave Gorman, 2440 Chateau, stated he is in favor of the multiple dock. Mr. Gorman asked
how the City would go about eliminating a boat at Carlson. He explained the multiple dock
has space for 12 boats and 13 are there now. Mr. Gorman also asked if the dock
approach would be gated.
Park Director Fackler stated that the approach would be gated. Regarding the number of
boats, that decision has not been made yet, but chances are that a sharer on a current
dock would probably have to find another site.
Mary Goode, Bartlett Boulevard, corrected some statements she had made at the meeting
on Saturday, which were taken note of by the affected Commissioners and Staff.
Mr. Gorman asked if there would be any additional cost to dock holders when the multiple
docks went in.
Commissioner Hanus stated that there would be no fees in addition to what is being paid
now,
John Rogers, 2430 Lost Lake Road, stated he is in support of the multiple dock at Carlson
Park. He is the sharer at Carlson and knows that he may then have to move, but is still in
favor because it will improve the area. Mr. Rogers stated he would like to stay in the
system and get a spot on Lost Lake but currently no one is willing to share. Mr. Rogers
pointed out that there are several docks that have no boats, but the holders are still
unwilling to allow a boat on their dock.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 15, 1999
Andy Beran, 5075 Windsor, stated he also shares a dock, but is still in favor of the multiple
slip docks. Mr. Beran stated he has a lift and a canopy, and has heard that the lift will be
okay to use, but the canopy is not.
Park Director Fackler explained that the use of lifts has not been ruled out as long as it fits
in a space, but the canopy may not be able to be used.
Commissioner Burma asked if Mr. Beran would still be in favor of the multiple dock even
if he cannot have his lift and/or canopy.
Mr. Beran stated he would prefer to keep the lift, but if not he would still be in favor of the
multiple dock.
Pat McGrath, 2400 Chateau Lane, stated he has shared a dock at Carlson for years, and
is concerned about how the decision will be made, who will stay, and who will have to go.
Chair Funk stated that they are going to keep people in the system that are now in it, so
if you are in the system now you have priority over anyone new.
Mr. McGrath questioned how the City will determine who gets which site.
Park Director Fackler stated that he would assign them, basically, in the same order as
they are now, or the users of the multiple dock could work it out for themselves if they wish.
All the docks will be basically the same size and space.
Mr. McGrath asked if"no fishing" signs would be put up.
Park Director Fackler stated that the sign would probably indicate that it was a "member
only" dock and the gate will help keep the general public off the dock. "No fishing" signs
will not be put up because the users of the docks are allowed to fish there.
Commissioner Hanus stated that on County Road 19, it has been evidenced that the gate
does help.
Chair Funk stated that a decision on Carlson and Highland End will be made tonight, if
possible, as time is running out to start these projects.
Bruce Cawlings, 4986 Bartlett, thinks the multiple dock is an excellent idea and will improve
the area greatly.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 15, 1999
Chair Funk asked if anyone else wanted to speak regarding Carlson site. Hearing none,
he then asked for discussion regarding Highland End site.
Mike Savage, 3125 Highland, indicated he was unable to attend the April 3 meeting, and
has some questions. He stated he has one boat and a sea-doo and asked if he can have
a spot for both of them with the new dock.
Commissioner Hanus asked if the sea-doo was currently being kept tied to his dock.
Mr. Savage replied that it was. Also, he wondered about the quality of the dock, if it is
manufactured by a private vendor, and if it will be taken out every year as kids use the hill
for sledding and snowmobiling. Mr. Savage stated he would be strongly in favor of this
dock being removed every year. He asked if there is a provision for someone who has a
space on a dock, but does not use it, and if there were going to be hours for the docks
since they technically are City property.
Commissioner Hanus answered that some discussion had taken place on Saturday
regarding having a small craft on some of the shallow waters around the docks. There is
potential for it, but no firm decision has been made.
Park Director Fackler stated that manufacturing companies will be approached for quotes
for the docks. The City looks for a reputable company. He advised that the current
company is very good, takes care of moving the docks in and out, and gives a guaranteed
price for a certain time span if the City signs a contract with them for this service. Also, the
dock would be open at all times for users that have keys to the gate.
Commissioner Hanus remarked that if the quality or aesthetics are in question, anyone can
get the sites of existing docks from City Hall and take a look at them.
Chair Funk stated that in regard to a provision to remove people who have a dock, but d°
not use it or keep a boat there, this subject has not been discussed at all but may need to
be put on a future agenda.
Commissioner Hanus agreed that it should be looked into. He commented that people that
are not using their docks should not be in the system. Hanus also stated that the dock at
Highland End would have to be removed every year, and the City proposes to store it on
site, in the brushy area, to keep the sliders safe.
Bobby VanDell, 3117 Highland Boulevard, stated he was very much in favor of the multiple
dock. However, he presented information from John and Effie Patterson, who could not
be in attendance. They had sent a design that they favor, and had stated that if not this
4
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 15, 1999
design, they would not be in favor of the multiple dock. Mr. VanDell also pointed out that
there are currently three people who want larger boats and asked if the multiple dock would
accommodate them.
Park Director Fackler presented the drawing submitted by the Pattersons and stated that
it would not work well because the dock extends out and the boats are moored parallel to
the shore, which makes the closer slips problematic when the water level drops.
Pat Sullivan, 5960 Ridgewood Road, stated he is in favor of the multiple dock, but would
need an end space to accommodate his larger boat.
Paul Schultz, 5769 Ridgewood Road, stated he prefers the City's dock plan, and it seems
it will be able to handle all the boats. Mr. Schultz also brought up an issue with the
floodlight that shines on the boats. He advised that two to three years ago, the floodlight
was removed and replaced with a regular street light, which no longer shines at the boats,
but shines into his windows. Also, there is a fee for this light that made sense when it was
a floodlight, but it is no longer a security for the boats. Mr. Schultz stated he would like to
see the light removed or moved closer to the boats.
Mr. Savage addressed this issue, stating that when the light was installed it was also for
the neighborhood kids, to provide light when they went sliding and skating after school in
the winter. Mr. Savage suggested that something could be put on the light to keep it from
shining into Mr. Schultz's house.
Commissioner Funk stated that he would like to keep the focus of the meeting tonight on
multiple docks. The issue with the light can be put on the next agenda, when discussing
encroachments.
David Mangen, 5975 Ridgewood Road, stated he would like to see the multiple dock
installed to improve the area, but being an abutter he would like to keep his own separate
dock.
Mr. Schultz stated that, as an abutter, he would keep his own separate dock, but likes the
multiple plan for the improvement it would bring to the area.
Park Director Fackler addressed some concerns from others about wanting spaces for
larger boats. Fackler stated that, as much as the City may want to, it cannot do everything
for everyone. The vast majority of the boats will work with the current plan and those are
the boats that need to be used to make plans. Also, adding or moving the docks at a later
date is very difficult and decisions need to be made before installation.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 15, 1999
Hearing no further public input, Chair Funk closed the Public Hearing at 8:55
p.m.
Chair Funk stated that there seems to be a lot of support for the multiple dock at Carlson,
with some concern for the one boat that will lose space there.
Mr. Rogers stated he would be happy to be removed from Carlson if he could get a spot
at Lost Lake.
Commissioner Hanus stated that there is a very short time limit here, and suggested
finding out if there is any space on Lost Lake where Mr. Rogers keep his boat, possibly
where someone is keeping a dock without a boat.
Mr. Rogers stated he has discussed sharing with his neighbors at Lost Lake and many of
them seem quite misinformed about many policies regarding the dock program.
Commissioner Burma suggested that Stafffind out who is not using their docks, and inform
them that it does not go with the house, as they may be keeping the dock and paying the
fee with that assumption. Also, it should be explained that there are other people who
would like to use the dock for their boat. Perhaps, Staff could also contact the person that
Mr. Rogers talked to and let him know what the correct policy is, and that it is okay to share
a dock.
Commissioner Hanus asked how confident Staff is that a spot can be found for Mr. Rogers
if he has to vacate at Carlson.
Park Director Fackler stated that there may actually be a spot at Carlson that has not been
used for the last couple of years which Mr. Rogers may be able to get.
Commissioner Burma suggested that Mr. Wolfe could put his canoe on the inside of the
multiple dock, and it wouldn't hurt to ask.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated he believes that Mr. Wolfe wants to get a larger boat to
put in his spot.
Commissioner Eurich asked about the issue of the boat lift, if that needed to be decided
before voting on the multiple dock.
Commissioner Hanus stated that the issue has not been addressed specifically, but simply
put, if it fits, use it. If not, it cannot be used. Also, the proposed configuration at Carlson
had been changed from two access points to only one access point.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 15, 1999
Motion made by Burma, seconded by Hanus, to initiate installation of the
Multiple Dock at Carlson, and direct Staff to look into finding a space for Mr.
Rogers. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion made by Funk, seconded by Hanus, to initiate installation of the
Multiple Dock at Highland End, and direct Staff to make sure docks can be
stored on site. Motion carried unanimously.
4. DISCUSS: LMCD RULES GOVERNING SET BACK
Greg Nybeck, LMCD Representative, summarized the regulations regarding the length of
the docks, setbacks, and any other regulations that affect Mound in general. Mr. Nybeck
suggested examining the policy regarding bigger boats, as the LMCD has seen several
problems that stem from putting bigger and bigger boats on docks.
Commissioner Hanus questioned the double side setback requirements. He noted that
Mound's docks are licensed Commercial, but they look, and are used, as private docks.
Mr. Nybeck stated that the Code would need to be changed to address those issues, and
suggested contacting the LMCD to begin the process.
Chair Funk asked if the grandfather clause covers the docks or the sites.
Mr. Nybeck stated that it would depend on density. If the actual density did not change at
a site, then new docks would be covered under the clause. Adding density would change
that.
Park Director Fackler stated that all of the new multiple dock configurations would be taken
to Mr. Nybeck before beginning the job to make sure everything is going to conform to the
LMCD regulations.
10:00 p.m. Motion made by Funk, seconded by Eurich, to extend the meeting
for 15 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Voss asked how the situation is at Kenmore Commons in regard to LMCD setback
regulations.
Park Director Fackler explained the layout there and that the setbacks are not clear right
now.
7
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 15, 1999
Mr. Nybeck suggested that, possibly in June, he could accompany Staff on a visit to
questionable sites, such as Kenmore Common, and make some recommendations.
Mr. Voss again stated strongly that he would like to see Kenmore Commons under
consideration for improvements.
Commissioner Hanus stated that it is too late this year to consider Kenmore, but it can
definitely be discussed again for next year.
5. DISCUSS: ADDITION OF SECOND WATERCRAFT PROPOSAL
Commissioner Hanus began by asking the citizens present if they were in favor of a'
second watercraft at their dock, and they indicated yes, they are. Hanus then asked what
they thought would happen if a complex could only accommodate two personal watercraft
and more wanted a spot, would that be a big negative to having any.
Carolyn Schmidt, stated she currently has two slips. One is used for a boat at all times and
one has a personal watercraft in it, at Avalon.
Park Director Fackler stated that the information needed now is what is acceptable to the
users, and if there would be additional cost.
Paul Glenn, 4600 Cumberland, stated he went into the multiple dock system last year and
they had discussed personal watercraft at that time. It was decided that there was room
for four, and if someone wanted those spaces the users would work it out between them.
Ms. Schmidt stated that last year, when the multiple dock was agreed to at Avalon, it was
with the understanding that they could put personal watercraft there as long as all users
agreed.
Commissioner Burma stated that since each multiple dock has its own configuration, they
are going to have to be addressed individually.
Commissioner Hanus answered that the overall policy needs to be directed before any
individual sites can be decided.
Commissioner Burma suggested that each dock be decided by the users, as long as there
is no additional expense to the City.
10:15 p.m. Motion made by Funk, seconded by Burma to extend the meeting
for 45 minutes. Motion passed unanimously.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 15, 1999
Commissioner Hanus stated that if, at some point, the personal watercraft becomes a
problem, they could be taken out of the system at that time.
Commissioner Eurich stated he is hesitant to make a commitment to add personal
watercraft to Avalon without first creating an overall policy.
Commissioner Burma stated that the issue would have to depend on interest at each
individual site.
Commissioner Hanus anSwered that regardless of the situation at individual sites, a policy
is still needed to provide guidelines.
Chair Funk stated he would not like to deny the watercraft at Avalon for lack of a general
policy.
Commissioner Burma suggested making a one year acceptance of four personal watercraft
at the Avalon site, and use that year to make a general policy.
Park Director Fackler stated that Staffwould need some direction to begin writing a policy,
such as definition of a personal watercraft and fees for keeping one at a multiple dock.
Commissioner Hanus stated that no vote could be taken on Avalon tonight if Commissioner
Burma abstains because his watercraft is in the dock complex under discussion. A quorum
would not be available.
Commissioner Burma stated that he did not feel the need to step down, as it is not just his
watercraft in question, but a temporary policy for the Avalon site in general. But, if the
other Commissioners felt he was too involved, he would defer to their wishes.
Commissioner Eurich stated he would rather get a general policy written before making any
decisions on individual site, Avalon included.
Chair Funk asked what would be involved in putting the personal watercraft on the dock.
Park Director Fackler stated that the dock locations would have to be added to the system,
a fee, if any, would have to be established, and a policy would need to be written.
Commissioner Hanus stated he feels that this discussion is moving much too quickly to
make any kind of a motion for the Avalon site. He suggested it needs more discussion and
it needs to be a priority.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 15, 1999
Commissioner Burma pointed out that this issue came to the DCAC in April last year and
it wasn't even put on the agenda until July. Also, there was no information in the packet
regarding this agenda item tonight.
Park Director Fackler stated that the surveys which were sent out were going to be used
for a lot of the information, but did not come back in time.
Commissioner Burma answered that he was very frustrated that the background
information was not distributed, such as past meeting minutes and past written requests
from the users of the Avalon site.
Commissioner Hanus stated that the DCAC should probably not deal with any more
multiple projects until this issue is straightened out. All the background data should be
included with next month's packets and the discussion at next month's meeting should be
a very high priority.
Chair Funk stated that at this time the rest of the agenda items, as well as the continued
discussion of the personal watercraft issue, would be forwarded to next month's meeting.
6. REVIEW: PROCEDURE MANUAL
Forward to the May DCAC Agenda
6B. ENCROACHMENTS STATUS REPORT
Forward to the May DCAC Agenda
7. DISCUSS: MAY DCAC AGENDA
See above.
8. FYI
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
F)
LMCD INFORMATION
POSC MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
A VISION FOR LOST LAKE
COPIES OF RETURN SURVEYS
MONTHLY EVENTS CALENDAR
REPORTS
]0
/55O
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 15, 1999
10.
A) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
No report at this time.
B) PARK DIRECTOR
No report at this time.
C) DOCK INSPECTOR
No report at this time.
ADJOURN
Motion made by Burma, seconded by Eurich, to adjourn the meeting at 10:45
p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
]!
KAY MITCHELL
CLERK TO THE BO~D
BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A-2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 50467-O240
PHONE
348-5433
April 21, 1999
TO: Various Municipalities
RE: HENNEPIN COUNTY APPOINTMENT TO MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED
DISTRICT BOARD
Enclosed please find a copy of an extract from the minutes of the
April 20, 1999 meeting of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners.
Please note, that Charles Scott Thomas of Minnetrista was appointed
to fill the vacated seat of Thomas Maple, Jr. for an unexpired term
of March 8, 2000.
Yours truly,
Encl.
Tuesday, April 20, 1999
Applications had been solicited to fill one vacancy on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board.
Applicants had been interviewed at the April 13th committee meetings and the selection progressed to
today's Board meeting.
Applications had been received from Thomas Casey, Thomas Croskey, Jr., Patrick Maloney, Warren
McNeil, Anthony Pini, Charles Thomas, Scott Tweet arid Donald Wallgren.
A'vote was taken on the vacancy and Charles S Thomas of Minnetrista was unanimously appointed.
ATTEST: ~ ~d'~~~,~
Clerk of thi County Board
Locate all abutting property owner's site centers to where they have been placed in recent
years and for staff to determine the appropriate numbers to assign. If a change is desired a
request will be submitted to the city for the change.
Remove what has come to be known as the Stead site. Mr. Stead will share with the
Lafortune dock for the 1999 boating season. Mr. Stead may access this site through the
Lafortune property if necessary.
Remove what has come to be known as the Albrecht site. Mr. Albrecht will be assigned a
vacant site on the Pembroke multiple.
Remove what has come to be known as the Casey site. Ms. Casey will be able to share the
Harrington dock site for the 1999 boating season. If she would like, she may share with
another dock in the area provided she can work out the details.
Mr. Schmidt will remain in his current location centered at the fire lane. This dock location
will be designated for a straight dock only and that the dock/boat complex shall not project
beyond the extended boundary lines of the fire lane.
The Roanoke commons area, both east and west of the fire lane, but not including the fire
lane, is to be designated as class -C- commons.
All of the displaced inland site holders will be assigned a permanent location for the 2000
and subsequent boating seasons. Dock sharing, as always, is permitted. The displaced
Roanoke dock site holders will not be removed from the dock program involuntarily.
April 27, 1999
Mrs. Pat Meisel
Mound City Mayor
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Pat,
I am writing with concerns about the ongoing Commons Dock issue at Roanoke
Commons. I have been following much of the correspondence about this in the Laker,
as well as talking to one of the parties, Jim & Mary Albrecht. I know the Albrecht
family very well, and I know that they are very nice, generous and honest people. I also
know that they have been very cordial and flexible during this entire ordeal which has
been going on for them since last year. This is the second year that they have paid for
the use of the commons docks in this area, following the letter of the law, and so far
they have not been able to use it. Is this fair? Is it good government?
I find it appalling that this issue has gone on as long as it has, with a few "abutters" who
seem to think that they should have private use of property which belongs to the city. If
this property belongs to the City of Mound Commons program, and it was that way
when these people purchased their property, then they should accept the fact that they
are not owners (or taxpayers) of this lakeshore, and do not have exclusive rights to it.
My understanding is that one of these parties has been in violation of the law by putting
their boatlift on city property, and then complains about people tresspassing when being
forced (by to location of the boat lift) to walk around it to get to the commons dock that
they legally paid for the use of. Is this right?
If this "commons" area is changed so it cannot be used as it was intended by Mound law,
I am extremely concerned about the precedent that this decision would set. Many
people, yourself included, have been working very hard for years to make Mound a
better place, and it is in "the People's" (including yours and mine) interest to see this
through. If these "select few abutters" get their selfish way, then Mound will be on a
path in the opposite direction of what we want. Setting a precedent here would likely
open up multiple future skirmishes like this one. We have to look at the big picture.
Is it right to allow the selfish interests of a few property owners to take away the use of
the common docks which belong to the city, and therefore the people of Mound? I find
it difficult to believe that fair-minded people would allow this to happen. I believe that
you are a fair-minded person, and that you will look at the whole picture and do what is
right.
Sincerely, /~ .~," ..,/7
Marilyn Hostetler [,...,'//r////~
6168 Sinclair Court
Mound 472-5063 (
Reconfigure the Pembroke multiple dock area to the dimensions outlined on the drawing
provided.
Release the minimum funds required to accomplish the changes outlined in the plan.
Direct the City Attorney to draft an agreement between the City of Mound and the neighbor
to the south of Pembroke Park Rodrigo Plaza-Navarrete at 4539 Islandview Drive. This
document ~vill state that Mr. Plaza agrees that the city may freely utilize a portion of the
property in front of the Plaza property for city dockage in either a single or multiple
configuration without contest. In exchange for this, the city will agree that it will not expand
or extend its dockage area beyond the limits shown on the drawing referenced above. The
furthest distance south that this expansion is allowed is 143 feet southwest measured from
the north property line of Pembroke Park.
Mr. Watson will be allowed to utilize one side of the southerly straight dock by either tying
up directly to the dock or angling his lifts provided that his boats and equipment do not
exceed the 143 foot limitation described above. It is understood that once Mr. Watson
leaves the program or reduces the number of boats from his applications, the unused portion
will revert back to the dock system for general use.