1999-11-01AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
MONDAY~ NOVEMBER 1~ 1~) 7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
, ~\,~ "~'%~ THE FOLLOWING AgE ALL DISCUSSION ITEMS.
1. \~i BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA. JIM PROSSER, EHLERS & ASSOCIATES. 3621-3628
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A LOTTERY SYSTEM FOR
THE COMMONS DOCK PROGRAM ............................ 3629-3638
A RESOLUTION FOR THE LO'ITERY SYSTEM ................. 3639-3643
'"~3DCKS FEES;~ '-FOR ~vI~NICIPAL DOCKS ........................ 3644-366?
REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (COMP PLAN IS IN THE ENCLOSED PACKAGE)
A. COMP. PLAN SCHEDULE FOR REVIEW AND ADOPTION ........ 3668-3669
B. POSC MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 1999. . . 3679-3673
C. LETTER FROM COOUNCILMEMBER WEYCKER TO THE
.................. POSC AND PARK DIRECTOR REGARDING THE REX
ALWIN PROPERTY ...................................... 3674
De
RESOLUTION FROM THE POSC REGARDING THE DOWNTOWN
BALLFIELDS AND THE COMP PLAN ..................... , ..... 3675
RESOLUTION FROM POSC REGARDING THE
REX ALWIN PROPERTY AND THE COMP PLAN .................. 3676
SURFACE WATER MANAGMENT PLAN. (PLAN IS IN THE ENCLOSED PACKAGE
WITH THE COMP PLAN).
STORM SEWER RATE STUDY/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. THIS IS INFORMATION
THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU PREVIOUSLY. PLEASE BRING IT WITH YOU FOR THIS
DISCUSSION.
ENCROACHMENT POLICY RECOMMENDATION .................. 3677-3703
3620
MOUND HRA MINUTES - OCTOBER 26, 1999
1.2 BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA.
The City Attorney stated this matter will be considered on November I, 1999, at the
Committee of the Whole Meeting and all materials will be made available for discussion
then. Jim Prosser, the Tax Increment Financing Coordinator, will be present at the
November 1, 1999, meeting to assist with any questions the Councilmembers may have at
that time. The City Attorney stated this is a requirement by normal procedure, although
there will be reporting obligations, guidelines concerning wage goals and job goals, and
developer obligations to meet those goals that come with this agreement. The City Attorney
stated this agreement does not change what the City does in redevelopment work, but it
essentially is conforming to State requirements for redevelopment projects.
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
City of Mound
Jim Prosser, Ehlers and Associates
Business Subsidies
October 6, 1999
Beginning August 1, 1999, state and local governments face new requirements for granting business
subsidies2 These requirements replace the current wage and job goal reporting. The new law will
be codified as Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.993.
The regulation of business subsidies adds new complexities to the development process. Make sure
that you understand the statutory requirements before providing direct or indirect assistance to any
for-profit or non-profit entity. If in doubt, ask questions. Many of these provisions are subject to
interpretation. There appears to be a recognition that the statute contains flaws that should be
addressed next year.
What does the new business subsidy law mean for your community?
The new law applies to any state or local government agency or public entity (including cities,
housing and redevelopment authorities, economic development authorities, counties, townships, and
potentially school districts) with the power to grant business subsidy. It requires that, in addition
to any requirements that may be attached to a particular form of subsidy (e.g. requirements to create
a TIF plan and hold a public hearing), the entity must:
(1) Determine that the subsidy meets s public purpose -- other than increasing the tax base.
Job retention is a public purpose only if job loss is "imminent and demonstrable;"
(2) Establish business subsidy criteria. The entity must establish and hold a public hearing to
adopt the criteria. The only statutory requirement for contents of the criteria is a policy for wages
on jobs created by the subsidies. The statute does not discuss a process for amending the criteria.
This provision seems to impose separate requirements for each potential grantor. If, for example,
a city, a county and a school district were all abating a business' taxes, all three (including the school
district) would need to establish and approve separate criteria.
(3) Enter into a subsidy agreement. The statue requires that the subsidy agreement define,
among other things enumerated in the statute, wage and job goals, the nature of, the amount of,
the reasons for, and the goals for the subsidy. The agreement must also describe what happens if
the recipient fails to fulfill its obligations, and must contain a commitment from the recipient "to
continue operations at the site where the subsidy is used for at least five years after the benefit date".
Failure to meet goals requires partial or full repayment of the assistance with interest.
Again, the subsidy agreement requirement seems to apply to each grantor, which in the case of
abatement could potentially mean the city, the county and the school district.
~Please be aware that we believe this law may even apply to development agreements that
were approved before, but executed (signed) after, August 1, 1999.
This agreement must be signed by the local elected governing body.
(4) Hold a public hearing on the subsidy if it exceeds $100,000 (or, if the grantor is the state
government, $500,000). The statutes contains specific criteria for the notice of hearing. The notice
must be published at least 10 days prior to the hearing.
What is a business subsidy?
The statute is important for both the definition and the specific exclusions. Business subsidy are
defined as "grant, contribution of personal property, real property, infrastructure, the principal
amount of a loan at rates below those commercially available to the recipient, any reduction or
deferral of any tax or any fee, any guarantee of any payment under any loan, lease, or other
obligation, or any preferential use of government facilities given to a business".
The statute specifically excludes certain items from the definition. The following are not business
subsidies:
·
business subsidy of less than $25,000.
·
assistance generally available to all business or to a similar class of business.
·
public improvements to buildings or land owned by state or local government that serve a public
purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or a defined group of businesses at the time
the improvements are made.
·
polluted redevelopment property (M.S. 116J.552)
·
renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing it up to code if not more than 50% of the total
cost.
·
assistance to job training/readiness organizations to assist with those services.
·
housing.
·
pollution control or abatement.
energy conservation.
tax reduction from conformity with federal tax law.
workers and unemployment compensation.
·
benefits derived from regulations.
·
funds from bonds allocated under Chapter 474A.
collaboration between Minnesota higher education institution and a business.
·
soils condition TIF district.
2
·
redevelopment when recipient's investment in the purchase of the site is 70% or more of the current
assessor's estimated market value.
·
general changes in TIF law and other general tax law for a principally technical nature.
Reporting
The statute establishes a set of subsidy reporting Procedures.. The recipient of the assistance is
required to provide information to the grantor for two years after the benefits date or until the goals
are met, whichever is later. The information shall be reported on forms developed by DTED. The
statute creates penalties for failure to provide the appropriate reports.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF MOUND
Business Subsidy Criteria
1.01
1.03
PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is to establish the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's
(hereinafter refereed to as HRA) criteria for granting of business subsidies, as defined
in Minnesota Statutes 116J.993, Subdivision 3, for private development. This criteria
shall be used as a guide in processing and reviewing applications requesting business
subsidies.
The criteria set forth in this document are guidelines only. The HRA reserves the right
in its discretion to approve business subsidies that vary from the criteria stated herein if
the HRA determines that the subsidy nevertheless serves a public purpose.
The HRA may amend this document at any time. Amendments to these criteria are
subject to public hearing requirements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993
through 116J.994.
o
2.01
STATUTORY LIMITATIONS
In accordance with the Business Subsidy Criteria, Business Subsidy requests must comply
with applicable State Statutes. The HRA of Mound's ability to grant business subsidies
is governed by the limitations established in Minnesota Statutes 116J.993 through
116J.994.
3.01
PUBLIC POLICY REOUIREMENT
All business subsidies must meet a public purpose other than increasing the tax base. Job
retention may only be used as a public purpose in cases where job loss is imminent and
demonstrable
4.01
BUSINESS SUBSIDY APPROVAL CRITERIA
All new projects approved by the HRA of Mound should meet the following minimum
approval criteria. However, it should not be presumed that a project meeting these
criteria will automatically be approved. Meeting these criteria creates no contractual
rights on the part of any potential developer.
4.02 The business subsidy shall be provided within applicable state legislative restrictions, debt
limit guidelines, and other appropriate financial requirements and policies.
4.03
The project must be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances, or
required changes to the plan and Ordinances must be under active consideration by the
HRA at the time of approval.
Business subsidies will not be provided to projects that have the financial feasibility to
proceed without the benefit of the subsidy. In effect, business subsidies will not be
provided solely to broaden a developer's profit margins on a project. Prior to
consideration of a business subsidy request, the HRA may undertake an independent
underwriting of the project to help ensure that the request for assistance is valid.
4.05
Prior to approval of a business subsidies financing plan, the developer shall provide any
required market and financial feasibility studies, appraisals, soil boring, information
provided to private lenders for the project, and other information or data that the HRA
or its financial consultants may require in order to proceed with an independent
underwriting.
4.06
Any developer requesting a business subsidy should able to demonstrate past successful
general development capability as well as specific capability in the type and size of
development proposed.
4.07
The developer must retain ownership of the project at least long enough to complete it,
to stabilize its occupancy, to establish the project management, and to initiate repayment
of the business subsidy, if applicable.
4.08. A recipient of a business subsidy must make a commitment to continue operations at the
site where the subsidy is used for at least five years after the benefit date.
4.09 Any business subsidy will be the lowest possible level and least amount of time
necessary, after the recipient maximizes the use of private debt and equity financing first.
4.10
Recipients of any business subsidy will be required to meet wage and job goals
determined by the HRA on a case-by-case basis, giving consideration to the nature of the
development, the purpose of the subsidy, local economic conditions and similar factors.
5. TAX INCREMENT PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA
5.01
All tax increment requests will be evaluated under the general criteria in Section 1 to 4
and the specific criteria in this Section.. Changes in local markets, costs of construction,
and interest rates may cause changes in the amounts of Tax Increment subsidies that a
given project may require at any given time.
5.02 Some criteria, by their very nature, must remain subjective. However, wherever possible
5.03
"benchmark" criteria have been established for review purposes. The fact that a given
proposal meets one or more "benchmark' criteria does not mean that it is entitlecI to
funding under this policy, but rather that the HRA is in a position to proceed with
evaluations of (and comparisons between) various business subsidy requests, using
uniform standards whenever possible.
Following are the evaluation criteria that will be used by the HRA of Mound
All business subsidy requests should optimize the private development potential of
a site.
Be
All business subsidy requests should obtain the highest possible private to public
financial investment rail.. The HRA establishes a benchmark ratio of 3 parts
private to 1 part public funding for manufacturing/warehouse projects. Housing and
retail/commercial projects shall be reviewed on an individual basis.
C. All business subsidy requests should create or retain the highest feasible number of
jobs on the site at the highest feasible wages.
All business subsidy requests should create the highest possible ratio of property
taxes paid before and after redevelopment. Given the different assessment
circumstances in the City, this ratio will vary widely. However, under normal
circumstances, the HRA will expect at least a 1:2 ratio of taxes paid before and
after redevelopment.
Business subsidy requests should normally not be used to support speculative
industrial, commercial, and office projects. In general, speculative projects are
defined as those projects which have letters of intent or pre-leasing for less than
50 % of the available leasable space.
All business subsidy requests will be reviewed to determine the feasibility to
provide the HRA with equity participation in new developments (through a share
of the profits), or to treat the business subsidy as a second mortgage with fixed
payments.
All business subsidy requests involving displacement of low and moderate income
residents should give specific attention to the re-housing needs of those residents.
Normally, this should be done as a part of the business subsidy. Adequate solutions
to these re-housing needs will be required as a matter of public policy.
He
All business subsidy requests will need to meet the "but for" test. Business
subsidies will not be granted unless the need for the HRA's economic participation
is sufficient that, without that assistance the project could not proceed in the manner
as proposed.
Business subsidies will not be used when the developer's credentials, in the sole
judgement of the HRA, are inadequate due to past track record relating to:
completion of projects, general reputation and/or bankruptcy, or other problems or
issues considered relevant by the HRA.
Business subsidies will not be used to support projects that place demands on City
services, or other capital or operating expenditures, that exceed the average City
expenditures for similar facilities. Consideration will be given to the total public
costs that are required to support the project, including offsite facilities costs that
are required.
Business subsidies will not normally be used for projects that would generate
significant environmental problems in the opinion of the local, state, or federal
governments.
4
Section 437:05 Applications for and Issuance of Dock Lic.
Subd. 5. First Time Application for a Non-Abutting Docking
Site.
Application must be filed with the City on or before the
last day of February of each year. Applicants will be
notified of whether they have been awarded a license by the
first day of May. Selection shall be by lottery in
accordance with such process as the City Council shall from
time to time determine by resolution.
$eptember 27, 1999
RESOLIYrlON NO. 99~
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LOTTERY SYSTEM FOR THE
MOUND COMMONS DOCK APPLICATION FOR
NEW APPLICANTS FOR NON ABLrrTING USE
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has, by ordinance, established a lottery for new applicants for non
abutting docking.
WI'IEREAS, the ordinance provides that the lottery will be in accordance with the process
established fi.om time to time by the City Council resolution.
WHEREAS, the City. Council has now received the report and recommendation of staff and the
advisory Dock and Commons Commission regarding such process.
NOW THEREFOtLE, BE IT KESOLVED by the Ci.ty Council of the Cit' of Mound that the
following roles of procedure are adopted:
1. The application must include the required fees, and must have the following information complete
Name, boat size (length and beam), boat license and first and second docking area preference.
2. The application must be received by the City of Mound on or before the last day of February of
each year.
3. The lottery will be conducted by drawing at the regularly schedule Dock and Commons Advisory
Commission meeting in March of the current year. The drawing will determine the Applicants' positions on
the docking wait list.
3. All applicants will be notified of their position on the docking wait list by the first da.v of May.
4. Applicants will be separated into groups based on number of consecutive years they. have applied
as follows. Group 1, four years of more, Group 2, two or three years and Group 3, one year.
5. The lottery drawing will begin with group 1 until all openings are filled or there are no more
applicants remaining in the group. Once all names have been drawn from Group 1, then the drawing will
move to Group 2 and f'mally to Group 3.
6. All attempts will be made to provide the applicant with his/her choice, however, if one is not
available the closest available site will be assigned. The applicant my decline the available doc'king locations
however if it is not a except able location for the applicant they may re apply for the ne.ct boating season and
will gain credit towards the applicabt~ Group.
Attest: City Clerk
Motion made by Goldberg to adopted the Work Rule as is. Motion
carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION: 1999 DOCK APPLICATION FORMS
McCaffrey stated that the only changes that have been made to the
forms is the dates have been changed from 1998 to 1999.
Hanus stated that the "NOTICE" form should read as following.
In order to help reduce congestion of docking areas, dock site
holders are allowed to install one "combined use dock" with an
adjacent dock site holder if the ckoose.
One dock may be installed on two sites.
Both dock holders would pay the same standard fee for their
individual sites.
The design and installation of the dock will need to be
approved by the Dock Inspector.
The site holders may return to their original single dock
configuration anytime throughout the boating season at their
discretion.
Goldberg stated that he felt the changes were improvements. He also
addressed concerns that no one was using this design. McCaffrey
stated that at this time several people are using the design and
have been fol.. several years.
Hanus suggested to leave program alone and felt that even if only
a few people are usii~g the program it should be left alone.
Goldberg suggested trying to find a way to let people know this
program is out there.
McCaffrey stated he thought with the notice out there, more people
would be interested in the program but stated the people out there
are aware this design in available.
Goldberg asked if there were any complaints he has gotten that may
need to be addressed. McCaffrey stated he has never had anyone
call.
Ahrens asked McCaffrey how does this work. McCaffrey explained if
they each have 30 feet and put it in the middle 15 feet between
each dock if they wanted to. Ahrens stated assuming they are
adjacent to each other and stating the whole idea is to eliminate
the number of docks in a area.
2
HanuS stated on the 1999 Dock License Application the following
changes should take place.
To Share a dock, there is a $30.00 fee for the shared space.
Hanus stated the benefit of this multiple dock system is the
potential of getting more people dockage on the lake. As people
give up the ability to have multiple boats in this multiple system
the by product is more BSU available ih the system for other
people. He suggested adding a check off box to the form that could
be used by abutters or non abutters.
Yes, I am interested in sharing a dock with someone however I
don't know any one. Can the city help me.
Inlander
Yes, I would like to share a dock but I don't know anybody do
you have someone.
Hanus stated to run a list, in the Spring, of people willing to
share and a list of people that want to share and match them up.
This way the city can get more BSU'S on the lake.
Fackler stated that there already is a box on the form stating
"Yes, I would like to share a dock with another Mound resident"
Hanus stated he w6uld like to make the box more visible. Ahrens
stated we are trying to pick up the first time applicants that
don't have a dock and this would be the only way to get into the
s~s~em~_and_~ould be a way of reducing the waiting list.
Hanus asked how many new dock sites come up each year. McCaffrey
stated that in the last three years the average has been 5 ~ a
year. It has been a very limited turn-over. It used to be 10 to 12
but the last three years there have been seven, and with three
spots open this year. The people that are not sharing docks have
been contacted five times. McCaffrey believes the people not
sharing a dock want it that way. They understand they could be
saving sixty to eighty dollars a year but rather have the dock by
themselves.
Funk stated the application would fit well if it was a renewal
application for someone who has a single dock and does not fit are
multiple dock systems. Suggest a separate application for those on
a multiple dock with its own set of rules.
McCaffrey stated that they have looked over this form and feels
that not a lot can be removed.
Goldberg asked over the last couple of years how many people have
applied for a dock site and have been turned down. McCaffrey stated
in the last three years the average Der year has been around forty
two to forty'four.
Goldberg addressed changing to a lottery system rather then having
people come to City Hall on the first working day in January and
waiting in line. Goldberg has concerns about people coming in the
early morning hours and having to wait.
Hanus stated that the way it has been ru~ in the past should be
changed because if you apply for a dock and don't get one and apply
again the next year you should carry precedent to that next year.
At this time the Advisory Commission voiced many concerns about
applicants applying and applying and never becoming any closer to
receiving a dock space.
McCaffrey stated there is not twenty people out of the forty that
are repeats but explained there was one women this year who was
right at the cut off and also just missed the cut off last year.
He explained that at this time it is a first come first served.
Goldberg stated he likes the idea of having a lottery and the idea
of giving people who keep applying a extra priority chance of
receiving a dock. Hanus stated he agrees that the people that are
applying year after year if they are first or last should receive
extra priority.
McCaffrey stated when people call regarding the dock program he
does explain to them that at this time it is a first come first
serve but explains to them that it has been discussed that a
lottery~system or another way of doing the program may happen. He
recommends they call at the end of December regarding any changes
in the program. McCaffrey explained the way the program is set up
now a list is put on the door for nhe applicants to sign.
Goldberg asked if there was any reason we keep doing the program
first come first serve and if not would like to change to the
lottery program.
Ahrens asked if we recommended this to the City Council would it
require a change in ordinance.
Fackler stated he believes it would.
Hanus asked if there was an ordinance that indicates first come
first serve. McCaffrey stated he believe he has never read that.
Goldberg asked staff what they felt about giving repeat people
extra priority or if they felt there was any downside. Hanus
stated there might be problems with people not understanding the
program and felt something should be done in the office on paper
without giving out extra lottery balls. Suggested it could be a
lottery with priority attached to it.
Goldberg stated again how important it is to him to give the people
applying every year a more chance of winning. McCaffrey suggested
putting there name in for every year they have applied giving them
a better chance of there name to be drawn. Goldberg asked it there
was anything in the ordinance.
Fackler stated ordinance 437.05. Applications for and Issuance of
Dock Licenses. This ordinance will require modification and will
need the City Attorney John Dean look into it. Limiting the number
of days giving them until February 28 to sign up.
Ahrens stated Applicants signing up after the February 28th drawing
will still be put on a list in the order they can in.
Fack!er suggested the lottery be picked at the March 1999 Dock and
Commons Advisory Commission meeting.
McCaffrey stated it would have to done in such a way that it is
public information.
Hanus stated that in the application there should be a section
stating when and where the drawing will be held.
Goldberg suggest we r'etro the number of chances to the applicants
that have applied for number of years. Hanus agreed and it should
be put in the language explaining the system.
............. Go~dberg~ questioned how many years the records are on file.
McCaffrey stated by law the City is required to keep them 7 years.
At this time Goldberg asked if there was anything else on the
applications.
Hanus suggested any changes he makes also conflict changes in the
ordinance and a recommendation to Council to change the forms and
amend the ordinance Changes to the following sheets.
CITY OF MOUND DOCK PROGRAM INFORMATION:
a. First Priority.
b Second Priority.
c. Third Priority.
d. Last Priority.
e. Administration of Priority.
RULES AND REGULATIONS:
Subd. 2. Annual Review of MaD.
Ail references to the Park Advisory should say Dock Commission.
gub. 12. Docking of Non-Owned Water craft.
Suggested the first two sentences should remain but everything
after 48 hours, should be moved to Subd. 7. Construction Materials;
Use of Car Tires. Within the same section the sentence the
statement regarding (All docks shall be built or placed with the
longitudinal axis there perpendicular to the shoreline unless
variations otherwise may be permitted in accordance with the
topographical conditions of the area.) Hanus stated it should read.
(All docks shall be built or placed wits the longitudinal axis
there of Parallel to the adjacent lot lines. Variations maybe
permitted as required by the topographical conditions of the area.)
The word perpendicular is indirect conflict with the LMCD rules.
He believe the LMCD rules which over lie our rules say it has to be
parallel to the adjacent lot lines.
Fackler stated he would check with Greg Nybeck but said the LMCD is
dealing with private property o~m~ers when there lot lines extend to
the water.
Ahrens stated it was always intended tha~ abutting property owner
would have there dock in front of there house and non abutt_~
would not.
Ahrens discussed a problem in Avalon Park were set back
requirements had to be met because of private property on both
sides and had to take into account there property lines because
they went out into the lake because that restricted us on the type
of dock that could be used.
........ Hanus stated that there will be problems if we do not adopted the
LMCD rules.
Discussion was made in length regarding the last City Council
Meeting with concerns about set backs, property lines, water space
and dock locations.
Fackler stated your dock site is your water space and abutting
property owner has the first opportunity for the dock site within
the property lines as they extend to the lake.
Hanus stated with one added sentence the problem could be solved.
By adding that, it would be dealt with on a complaint basis.
Fackler addressed his concerns regarding the complaints.
believes complaints will take place with this issue.
He
Goldberg suggested if we did not make any changes and went on the
way we were, we wou~d function fine.
Hanus stated he is still concerned about this issue and will have
to get a ruling on it from the LMCD.
Fackler stated the City has four hundred and fifty sites (450) and
has had one complaint. He questioned if the City changes the whole
system, it could possibly affect other applicants. Why have a rule
if your not going to enforce it.
Comments were made regarding enforcing rules on a complaint bases
and the fairness to all applicants. One objective would be to make
the ordnance fit with the LMCD.
Ahrens stated the applicants dock location must stay within the
property lines.
Funk stated the lines were laid out with the commons in mind and if
these were all private property it could had very well been laid
out differently and where ever they intersect the commons lines
then go parallel to the shore. He stated that is a better
assessment of where the abutters water space is then following the
lot lines.
At this time, diagrams were drawn by some of the Advisory
Commissioners and Staff. There was discussion regarding the common
lot size in Mound and the effect when adjusting of abutting docks
what will be the effect on the non-abutting docks.
Afer a very lengthy discussion regarding Subd.12., Goldberg stated
that first two sentences will remain the same and everything after
the words 48 hours will be moved to Subd.7.
Hanus addressed concerns regarding a article in the Laker Paper and
the dock site which staff issued in front of the Smith site and his
understanding was that the dock was not to be issued this year. He
feels it created a problem because of the curb location of
everyones dock in the area and feels there is not room for this
current site. He stated this issue came up in the last City Council
Meeting September 8, 1998 regarding the Mack, Smith an~ inland
dock. He stated if everyone stayed in there current dock site
there would not be room.
Goldberg asked if the lot lines are extended perpendicular to the
shoreline into the lake would the Mack's dock be encroaching.
Fackler stated the dock would not. Hanus stated at this time they
currently are.
At this time Hanus read an addition he would like to add to Subd.
7. "Docks will be centered on the docksite number assigned. The
dock center is the longitudinal center of the entire dock
complex". That means if you have a L shaped dock the center of your
dock is the center of the entire complex not just the center of the
stick that goes out. If a specific assigned location is not usable
due to terrain, obstructions, etc. staff and the DCAC will:
1. Recommend shifting to a usable location and assign a new
7
location and assign a new location number to match the site.
2. Recommend removal.
basis.
This will be addressed on a complaint
A 10 minute break was taken.
Fack!er stated that if the above statement would be added to Subd.
7. large % of the docks could be required ~o move.
McCaffrey stated that in the eight years of being the dock
inspector for the City of Mound he can only think of one or two
that presented a problem and feels if this ordinance is put into
effect we will have the potential to have the complaints change
from less then three to possible around thirty.
Hanus stated that the problem in the Devon area is what has brought
this light and feels it has not been dealt with by staff.
Fackler stated if staff would be allowed to go down to Devon and
put everyone back into their proper spot it would work and
explained he has measured the location several times. Fackler also
addressed that if a agreement is not made between the neighbors on
Devon commons come this Spring, staff will enforce where the docks
sites are to be installed. At this time, there are three dock sites
encroaching on other dock sites.
Hanus stated that someone must be outside of there water space in
the Devon area or it would have worked.
Fackler stated again there are three boat lifts outside of there
water space. He mention that in 1994 the City received a complaint
from Andrea Ahrens regarding the resolution which required forty
foot spacing and people not complying with the resolution, that is
why everything had to be moved down all the way from Anderson/Smith
to Knutson. So now what is happening is everything is being asked
to move back.
Hanus and Ahrens addressed concerns regarding which dock site has
Smith chosen.
Fackler stated he went to the City Manager regarding the neighbors
of Devon Commons and stated it is up to the neighborhood to come up
with a discussion for the dock locations that they all agree with.
Goldberg stated at this time he would like .to see if the
neighborhood can come to a agreement with the dock locations at
Devon commons and is against passing something else that would add
fuel to the fire.
· !
Hanus stated he feels it should be added because it requires a
action of staff and right now there is no requirement.
Goldberg stated he would like to avoid making changes at this time.
Hanus asked staff how will the issue be resolved if changes are not
made.
Fackler stated that come next year with .the cooperation of the
neighborhood and everyone stay within their water space it will
work.
Hanus stated he does not agree that the original motion is dead
because when he agreed to the motion assuming the docks did not
have to be moved he was referring to dock spaces. He felt it was
a fair assumption to assume somebody would be in their water space
and not outside of it.
Goldberg stated they do not even Know what the motion is.
Hanus agreed and stated if it is to be resolved it has to be done
at the Council level. He also stated he does not believe it is a
dead motion because if everything is done the way we talked about
it should work.
Hanus stated he can wait for now in regards to the addition to
Subd..7.-if everything get resolved between the neighbors and if not
he will bring the issue back.
Goldberg asked if there was any other changes regarding the
remaining dock applications.
Hanus stated on page 23 number 3. last paragraph should read:
"Share fee: To share a dock, there is an additional $30.00 fee for
the shared location."
Fackler stated the Dock Applicants & the Lottery will be put back
on the agenda for October.
Motion was made by Hanus to approve all documents with the
proposed changes, seconded by Ahrens. Motion carried
unanimously.
ADJOURN
Motion was made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to adjourn the
meeting at 9:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
September 27, 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LOTTERY SYSTEM FOR THE
MOUND COMMONS DOCK APPLICATION FOR
NEW APPLICANTS FOR NON ABUTTING USE
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has, by ordinance, establishexi a lottery for new applicants for non
abutting docking.
WHEREAS, the ordinance provides that the lottery will be in accordance with the process
established fi.om time to time by the City Council resolution.
WHEREAS, the City Council has now received tile report and recommendation of staff and the
advisory Dock and Commons Commission regarding such process.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound that the
following rules of procedure are adopted:
1. The application must include the required fees, and must have the following information complete
Name, boat size (length and beam), boat license and first and second docking area preference.
2. The application must be received by the City of Mound on or before the last day of February of
each year.
3. The lottery will be conducted by drawing at the regularly schedule Dock and Commons Advisory
Commission meeting in March of the current year. The drawing will determine the Applicants' positions on
the docking wait list.
3. All applicants will be notified of their position on the docking wait list by the i'n'st day of May.
4. Applicants will be separated into groups based on number of consecutive years they have applied
as follows. Group 1, four years of more, Group 2, two or three years and Group 3, one year.
5. The lottery drawing will begin with group 1 until all openings are filled or there are no more
applicants remaining in the group. Once all names have been drawn from Group l, then the drawing will
move to Group 2 and finally to Group 3.
6. All attempts will be made to provide the applicant with his/her choice, however, if one is not
available the closest available site will be assigned. The applicant my decline the available docking locations
however if it is not a except able location for the applicant they may re apply for the next boating season and
will gain credit towards the applicable Group.
Attest: City Clerk
Page 1 of 1
FLEISINGER
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
Dean, John B. <jdean(~Kennedy-Graven.com>
Fran Clark (E-mail) <fleisinger@msn.com>
Friday, October 15, 1999 6:23 AM
0170271 .doc
September 27, 1999
Fran: Here are my revisions to the resolution on the dock lottery.system.
Please see to it that Jim Fackler gets it. Thanks.
<<0170271.doc>>
10/15/1999
Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission October 21, 1999
REVIEW: PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR LOTTERY SYSTEM FOR NEW
DOCKING APPLICATIONS FOR 2000
Park Director Fackler summarized the resolution establishing lottery system for the Mound
commons dock application for new applicants for non abutting use.
Councilmember Hanus expressed concern that the lottery method is not addressed.
Park Director Fackler stated that names on labels, in a box, drawn at an open meeting,
would be the most simple, direct method.
Councilmember Hanus also expressed concern about the grouping, as almost everyone
will be in the high priority group right away.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated that upon examination, there were not as many duplicate
people as were originally thought, and the groups as defined will likely work well.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Burma, to recommend approval of the
resolution establishing lottery system for the Mound commons dock
application for new applicants for non abutting use, and to recommend
approval of the ordinance change. Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSS' MULTIPLE SLIP DOCKS
a. Multiple slip dock objectives and transition
To be discussed at November meeting.
b. Boat size limitations on multiple slip docks
To be discussed at November meeting.
c. Personal Water Craft on multiple slip docks
Mr. Mike Savage, 3125 Highland Boulevard, questioned ifa Sea-Doo is allowed at multiple
dock sites. Specifically, Highland End site.
Commissioner Burma summarized how the personal water craft issue was accepted at
Avalon Park, the pilot program. Abutters have not indicated a problem with the single craft
which is on this dock. Burma's.assessment is that the pilot program was a success, and
each area should be looked at individually to determine specific needs.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated no complaints have been received about the personal
water craft, and Mr. Savage has requested the ability to keep this craft on the Highland End
dock throughout the last year.
Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
October 21, 1999
Acting Chair Goldberg stated his concern is that over use of these craft may become a
problem.
Councilmember Hanus agreed that heavy use may create problems in a given area.
Granting the right is easy, taking it away after the fact is near impossible, so caution is
advisable.
Commissioner Ahrens suggested having rules in place to stop abusing the right to keep
these water craft on the docks, if need should arise.
Councilmember Hanus stated enforcement would be unlikely on any rules made.
Park Director Fackler stated that no complaints have been received as yet regarding
personal water craft. If it becomes an issue, and application for dock site does not have
to be renewed. Also, Fackler suggested not addressing the issue on any site until there
is a request for a specific site.
Commissioner Eurich agreed that a request by request basis for sites would be a logical
way to proceed, rather than over regulating right off the bat.
Acting Chair Goldberg suggested determining the maximum number of personal watercraft
which could work at Highland End site, and add them on a trial basis for the next season.
Park Director Fackler stated that the priority would be first come, first served on these
secondary sites so someone already using a site would not lose it until they do not renew
their dock site.
Councilmember Hanus stressed his concern to take it very slowly, giving out these
privileges with extreme caution since they nearly cannot be reversed.
Park Director Fackler stated the next step needs to be to change the ordinance to cover
the addition of these secondary sites.
Consensus was reached that Avalon has worked out well and will be permanent, and
Highland End will begin on a trial basis next year.
Councilmember Hanus stressed that any change to any dock should be noticed to any and
all citizens who are affected at each site.
Commissioner Burma pointed out that in the original motion, this privilege is extended only
to primary dock holders. This needs to be stated in writing in any ordinance amendment.
Acting Chair Goldberg reiterated that the LMCD rules would cover behavior. Also, site by
site upon request is the agreed upon method for proceeding. No additional cost should be
incurred on any dock, and when the 2000 Dock Location Map changes are discussed,
Avalon will have permanent secondary craft sites, and Highland End will be started on a
trial basis.
Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission October 21, 1999
Motion made by Goldberg, seconded by Eurich, to expand the May 20, 1999
motion, which reads: "to allow for second crafts with a maximum size of 75
square foot, including any protrusions such as motors, or any lift devices
used in this space, with Council dock revisions, approve of a fee of $50.00
along with the applicable LMCD fees, and that staff direct applicants through
the lottery system." Additiona!ly, personal water craft sites are to be held only
by primary dock holders at a designated site; lifts are not allowed for boats,
but are mandatory for personal water craft. Canopies, however, are not
allowed. Motion carried unanimously. -
10:00 p.m. Motion made by Burma, seconded by Goldberg to extend the
meeting for an additional 5 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
d. Boat lifts at multiple slip docks
To be discussed at November meeting.
7. REVIEW: YEAR 2000 DOCK FORMS
To be discussed at November meeting.
8. DISCUSS: 2000 DOCK LOCATION MAP CHANGES
To be discussed at November meeting.
9. DISCUSS: DCAC REPRESENTATIVE FOR PEMBROKE DOCK
CONFIGURATION
Commissioner Burma stated he was the other representative for Pembroke Dock.
10:05 p.m. Motion made by Burma, seconded by Ahrens to extend the
meeting to 10:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
10. DISCUSS:NOVEMBER DCAC AGENDA
Some
items to be included on the November agenda are:
1. Review: Existing Multiple Slip Dock Locations
2. Discuss: Multiple Slip Docks
a. Multiple slip dock objectives and transition
b. Boat size
c. Boat lifts at multiple slip docks
3. Review: Year 2000 Dock Forms
4. Discuss: 2000 Dock Location Map Changes
5. Discuss: Fairview and Devon Lane Access Multiple Docks
6. Public Meeting: Personal Water Craft at Avalon and Highland End
7. New multiple slip dock locations
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Memorandum
To:
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
l~om:
Date:
Subject:
Fran Clark, City Clerk/Acting City Manager
October 21, 1999
DOCK FEES FOR MUNICIPAL DOCKS
Attached is information on other Lake Minnetonka communities who rent out docks.
Also attached is a plan that was a plan that was developed in 1987 which you may find
interesting.
We will need to make a decision before the end of November. This will enable the Dock &
Commons Advisory Commission to review this information at it's November 18th Meeting
and have a recommendation to the Council for the November 23rd City Council Meeting.
I am giving this to you now as an information item. Please bring it with you to the ovember
1st COW Meeting.
I will be putting this item on the November 1 st Committee of the Whole Meeting for
discussion. We need to have something decided before the 2000 Budget is adopted and
before the dock applications are sent out for 2000 in December, 1999.
The November 1st COW Meeting is going to be a whopper.
printed on recycled paper
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
July 15, 1999
7. DISCUSS: THE YEAR 2000 DOCK FEES
Park Director Fackler reported that staff recommends not increasing the fees for the year
2000 for the City of Mound Dock Program,
Councilmember Hanus questioned whether the Dock Fund balance was marked for any
large expenses.
Park Director Fackler stated that there is nothing major that stands out. Some standard
projects, but nothing unexpected. Maintaining some older rip rap is the only project that
may get fairly expensive.
Councilmember Hanus suggested examining any future projects regarding costs before
a decision is made on where to direct these funds.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY'WOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Dock and Commons Advisory C~ommission
Jim Fackler, Parks Director
July 8, 1999
Year 2000 Dock Fees
Staff recommendations is not to increase the fees for the year 2000 City of Mound Dock
Program.
Thank you.
Jim
printed on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-O620
Memorandum
To'.
From:
Date:
Subject:
Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
Gino Businaro, Finance Director
July 8, 1999
Dock Fund Balance
Dock Fund balance dated January 1, 1999
Revenue January 1, 1999 thru June 30, 1999
Expenses January 1, 1999 thru June 30, 1999
Balance as of June 30, 1999
$ 237,018.
$ 67,137
$ 48,115.
$ 256,O40.
printed on recycJe~ paper
Mound City Code
CHAPTER ¥
Fg~¥~q, CHARGES AND RATES
SECTION 510- FEES, BUSINESS LICENSES &xlI) PERMITS
Section S10:00. December 31st Expirations.
Subd. Related Code Conditions
No. Section Type of License and Terms
Late D(x:k License
Application
1 437:25
On or After March 1st
Section 510:(30
Amount
$20.00
2 437:25
**Add an additional $10 to late dock license
applications received on or after April 1,
and add an additional $10 per month for
each consecutive month thereafter.
Straight Docks
L, T Docks
U, or Special Size Docks
Sail Boat Mooring
Annual
Annual
Annual
cremporary Boat Docking Fee - See Section 510:35)
Application for shared dockage will have
$30.00 added to the regular fee charged, to
cover the addkional administrative work.
Senior citizens (65 or order) pay 1/2 the
base permit fee for the type of dock they
desire, i.e. $75.00, $100.00, or $117.50.
Senior citizens (65 or older) sharing a
dock.with a non-senior pay 1/4 the base
permit-fee for the type of dock they desire,
i.e. $37.50, $50.00, or $58.75.
$150.00
$200.00
$235.00
$150.00
-1- 12-30-96
Mound City Code
Subd. Related Code
No. Section
Type of License
Conditions
and Terms
Section 510:00, Subd. 3.
Amount
2
cout'd
The non-senior sharing a dock with a senior
pays 3/4 of the base permit fee for the type
of dock they de~-'e, i.e. $112.50, $150.00,
or $176.25.
(ORD. ~3-1991, 12-23-91)
3 405:00 Arcades
Any additional charges made by the L.M.C.D.
(Lake Minnetonka Conservation District) will
be added to the regular dock fees.
Annual $100.00
Per Machine
(ORD. 80-!996 - 12-10-96)
-2-
12-30-96
Mound City Code
Section 510:15. Apnq 1st Expirations.
Subd. Related Code
No. Section Type of License
Conditions
and Terms
Amount
1 435:35 Commercial Boat
2 436:25 Commercial Dock
3 488:05 Tree Surgeon
Annual, First Boat
Annual, Additional
Boat
$15.00
$10.t30 each
Base License Fee:
New Application $200.00
Annual renewal $150.00
Annual, per dock,
slip or buoy on
water $ 5.00
Annual, per dock,
slip or buoy on
land $ 2.00
Variance application $15.00
Late application $ 20.00
Annual $ 30.00
(ORD. 80-1996 - 12-10-96)
-5-
12-30-96
1999 DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND, 5341 MAYW00D ROAD, MOUND, MN 55364
DEAR MOUND RESIDENT: Please complete and return BY FEBRUARY 28, 1999, {must be
postmarked by a U.S. Post Office by February 28, 1999). Applications received on March 1,
1998 and before April 1 are subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and are placed in the
third (3rd) priority category. Application renewals for non-abutting residents not received
BY MARCH 31st will not retain a second (2nd) priority status, and will be placed in a third
(3rd) priority category. Residents abutting the commons who have not submitted their renewal
application BY FEBRUARY 28, 1999 will be subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and will be
placed in a third (3rd) priority category if fee is not paid by March 31.
To share a dock, there is an additional $30.00 fee. Also note the L.M.C.D. Boat Fee. See
information on back for senior citizen rates. All information pertaining to you must be
completed or the application will be denied.
APPLICANT'S NAME
MOUND STREET ADDRESS
I I RENEWAL: 1999 Dock Site ~
I I NEW APPLICATION: Indicate preferred area:
I
I,
HOME PHONE
WORK PHONE
I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE A DOCK WITH ANOTHER MOUND RESIDENT.
I Pe.--manent Resident (owm. er) I I *Summer Resident
· I Owner (paying fee for renter) I ,. t Renter
*SUMI4ER RESIDENT'SMAILINGADDRESS:
S
H
A
R
E
TO SHARE A DOCK THERE IS A $30.00 FEE FOR THE SHARED SPACE.
NAME OF PERSON SHARING DOCK:
MOUND STREET ADDRESS:
· HOME PHONE: WORK PHONE:
CHECK ONE: I__l Permanent Resident (Owner) I__1 Summer Resident
Renter
List ALL watercraft to be kept at this dock. Furnish M lq Watercraft License Number, make and
size of boat. (This includes the boats of a shared dock holder.) Add the L.M.C.D. Boat Fee
to the Permit Fee for all boats, based upon the formula below. NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED
WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION and a photocopy of all watercraft licenses:
BOAT OWNER' S NAME
1
2
3
4/jet
ski
L.M.C.D."BOAT FEES:
· Boats up to 20' long
over 20' and up to 24' long
over 24' and up to 32' long
MN LICENSE ~ MAKE OF BOAT LENGTH LMCD FEE
= $ 7.50
= $11.25
= $15.00
over 32' and up to 40' long = $18.75
over 40' and up to 48' long = $22.00
over 48' feet long = $30.00
Permits will not be issued to any non-resident of Mound. Proof of residency or proof of boat
ownership must be furnished if requested. Any false information given or violations of Dock
Ordinance 437 shall be reason for denial or revocation of permit.
~999 Dock License Application
This is an application only. No dock can be installed until a location is granted.
TYPE OF DOCK
Straight Dock or Multiple Slip Site ..........
L or T Dock ......................
U or H Dock (not available in all areas) ........
BASIC FEE
$150.00
$200.00
$235.00
straight dock 'L' Dock 'T' Dock
'U' or 'H' Dock
SENIOR CITIZENS (65 years or older at time of application) pay ¼ the base permit fee for the
type of dock they desire, i.e. $75.00, $100.00 or $117.50.
Senior citizens sharing a dock with a non-senior pay 1/4 the base permit fee for the ~YD_e of
dock they desire, i.e. $37.50, $50.00 or $58.75. The non-senior sharing a dock with a senior
pays 3/4 the base permit fee, i.e. $112.50, $150.00 or $176.25, plus $30.00 share fee.
SENIOR CITIZEN NAME
BIRTH DATE
BASIC FEE: 81-3260 $
SHARED DOCK $30.00:81-3260 $
L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES: 81-3200 $
LIGHT FEE: 81-3260 $
LATE PENALTIES:
81-3260 $
TOTAL DUE: $
(MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: CITY OF MOUND)
LIABILITY DISCLAIMER: I (We) acknowledge that the City of Mound is not responsible for any
injury occurring on this dock which is private property. According to the City of Mound Code
of Ordinances Sections 437 Subd. 5 and 437:05, Subd. 2 f., if this license is not renewed
expiration (February 28, 1999), the licensee must completely remove the licensed dock and
appurtenance from the water and public land. If the dock is not removed, 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. Also, if the City removes the dock, the
City is authorized ~o dispose of any materials or parts which are /eft on public lands or in
public waters and the applicant shall forfeit any righ~ or claim to the materials left on the
dock site. Also, City Code Section 437:05, Subd. 4 states, '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, unless otherwise approved by
staff."
DATE Signature
DATE Signature
(shared dock holder)
RETURN THIS APPLICATION WITH APPLICABLE FEE AND COPY OF MN LICENSE TO THE CITY OF MOUND BY FEBRUARY 28TH.
CITY OF MOUND DOCK PROGRAM INFORMATION
The City of Mound is licensed by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) to operate
approximately 400 multiple docks. To be eligible to lease one of these sites, you must be
a permanen~ or summer re$iden~ of Mound. Applications are available at City ~&[~ on the
first working day of the year for new applicants, and are mailed to licensee's from prior
year during December each year. See dock application for current fees. These fees are due
with the completed application by February 28th. The following priorities govern the
issuance of dock licenses per the Mound City Code.
First Prioritv. 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.
Second Priorit~ 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.
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 CiZy
which has dockable lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on
public lands.
Last Priority. Residents owning private lakeshore within the City which has dockabie
lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public lands.
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.
Ail applications received after February 28th shall be subject to a minimum late fee of
$20.00, and will be placed in a third priority category. There will be no late fee charged
to new residents who apply after February 28th of the calendar year in which the resident
moves to the City. Residents of the City of Mound, 65 years of age or older, shall pay 50%
of the required license fee for a dock.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(PORTION OF CITY CODE SECTION 437)
Subd. 1. Dock Location MaD 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 shore land under the control
of the City.
Subd. 2. Annual Review of MaD. Approved dock location maps shall be kept and maintained
by the Dock Inspector and shall be reviewed by the DCAC Commission at least once a year. The
Dock and Commons 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 January 15.' Maps shall contain all
approved dock locations as established by the Council upon the advice and recommendation of
the Dock Inspector and DCAC Commission. Final approval of the dock location map and the
number of dock licenses to be permitted shall be recommended by the Dock Inspector, reviewed
by the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission and Approved by the City Council.
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 Ere'orion and Maintenance. Licensed docks shall be erected and
maintained by the licensee at his~or her sole expense and liability for same.
Subd. 5. Suspension of EliGible Location. The City Council may suspend a dock location
where it appears that a location as established 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. 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
Doles, or on dock hardware of any dock on or abutting public shore land under the control of~[
· the City. (ORD. ~40-1990, 1-29-90) 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 confiquration be limited to a setback
of 10 feet from private Dr0Dert¥ 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 929.49 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 that 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 topographical 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)
Subd. 8. Insoections - 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 ar~t
such dock has not been constructed or the area surrounding the dock site is not being
maintained in accordance with the application or the license granted therefore, or with the
~'~lans or location approved b~ the Council, or shall it appear that such dock is in a
condition that no longer complies with the requirements of this ordinance or other ordinances
of the City, the City, by its City Manager or any other officer designated by him, shall
forthwith notify the owner thereof in writing specifying the way or ways in which said iock
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 tie
terms of the application and issuance of the license granted to said licensee. In the evenn
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.
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. Dock Storage. No person shall store, leave or abandon any dock, dock section,
dock poles or dock hardware on any public road, street, park or Commons except for winter
storage in approved areas.
Subd. 11. Removal Deadline. Ail 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
that November 1 of ~he license year unless it is a winter approved dock location as shown on
the master dock map.
Subd. 12. Dockin~ 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 in not permitted for a period in excess of 48 hours.
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 as required by this Section 437, or where any license has been
revoked as provided by this Section 437. Removal of unlicenced 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.
NOTE: The use of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides is not recommended on city property.
These chemicals drain into the lake and cause serious environmental problems.
1999 COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND, 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD, MOUND, MN 55364
PHONE: 472-0600
NAME OF APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
BUSINESS NAME:
BUSINESS ADDRESS:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT BLOCK ADDITION
PHONE:
PLEASE ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING WITH THIS APPLICATION:
1. A scaled drawing showing the size, shade, and tyDe of dock DroDosed, and
the location and tyDe of buoy(s) to be used.
2. A scaled drawing showing off-street Darking provided for each three rental
boat stalls, buoys or sliDs.
3. A statement outlining the manner, extent and degree of use contemplated
for the dock DroDosed.
4. Payraent of Dermit fee must be included with this aDDlication.
5. All aDplications received on or after February 28th shall be subject to a
late fee of $20.
NEW APPLICANT FEE .............. $200.00
BASIC RENEWAL FEE .............. $150.00
NUMBER OF SLIPS IN WATER__ X $5.00 =
NUMBER OF BOATS STORED ON LAND X $2.60 =
TOTAL ....................
BUSINESS NAME DATE
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE AND TITLE
1999 MOORING BUOY LICENSE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND, 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD, MOUND, MN 55364
DEAR MOUND RESIDENT: Please complete and return by February 28th.
Applications received after this date are subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00
and placed in the 3rd priority category. Renewals not received by April 1, NO
PERMIT will be issued for this year. All information pertaining to you must be
filled in or permit will be delayed.
APPLICANT'S NAME
MOUND STREET ADDRESS
1996 BUOY LICENSE ~
I ) Permanent Resident (owner)
I__t Owner (paying fee for renter)
*SUMMER RESIDENT'SMAILINGADDRESS:
HOME PHONE
WORK PHONE
*Summer Residen5
Renter
REQUIRED INFORMATION: List owner, watercraft license number, type of watercraft,
length of watercraft, and L.M.C.D. Boat Fee. No permit will be issued without
a photocopy of your DNR watercraft license.
OWNER'S NAME WATERCRAFT LICENSE % MAKE OF BOAT LENGTH LMCD FEE
L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES:
Boats up to 20' long
over 20' and up to 24' long
over 24' and up to 32' long
= $ 7.50
= $11.25
= $15.00
over 32' and up to 40' long = $18.75
over 40' and up to 47' long = $22.00
over 48' feet long = $30.00
1998 License Fee for a sailboat mooring buoy site will be $150.00 plus the
correct L.M.C.D. boat fee for the season. DESCRIBE LOCATION OF BUOY SITE
Any false information given or violations of Dock Ordinance, City Code Section
437, shall be reason for denial or revocation of permit. I understand if I allow
boats not registered to permit holder to be moored at my site, I violate City
Code Section 437. This is an application only. No buoy can be installed until
a location is granted by the Dock Inspector.
SIGNATURE FEE PAID $
DATE PENALTY $
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
June 17,1999
7. DISCUSS: TO THE YEAR 2000 DOCK FEES
Park Director Fackler stated that the dock fees Public Hearing will be held in July. If there
is any information the DCAC members would like to have prior to that hearing, staff would
like the requests soon.
Councilmember Hanus stated Mound may be charging to high dock fees now, as the fund
is quite high. However, there is a potential for this fund to be depleted soon.
Commissioner Ahrens asked if it would be possible to get revenue and expenditure
projections to assist in the discussion of future dock fees.
10:00 p.m. Motion made by Funk, seconded by Ahrens to extend the meeting
for 15 minutes. Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Hanus stated that he does not believe the City Council will not enter into
any agreement that will cause the dock fund to be depleted enough to cause any serious
cash flow problem or a reason to force the City to raise dock fees. However, nothing of
course, is 100% certain.
Park Director Fackler stated that staffwill bring a memo to the DCAC in July requesting no
change in dock fees for the 2000 season. A notice will be put in the paper advertising the
Public Hearing.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
October 15, 1999
Memorandum
TO: Mayor/City Council ~-~'/~-.~0'
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director
SUBJECT: Municipal Dock Rental Costs On Lake Minnetonka.
I called Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and
was given six other communities and one county that has
rental dock/sites on Lake Minnetonka. A basic look at their
fees are as follows:
Tonka Bay,
37 city Installed Docking Slips.
8 Slides (16' Boat Restriction)
6 Canoe Spaces.
$600.00 per Slip Resident.
$900.00 per Slip Non-Resident.
$100.00 per Slide Resident.
$200.00 per Slide Non-Resident.
$ 50.00 per Canoe Resident.
$ 75.00 per Canoe Non-Resident.
Greenwood,
22 City Installed Docking Slips.
$400.00 per Slip, 21' Boat length limitation.
Wayzata,
100 City Installed Docking Slips.
$615.00 per Inside Slip (50 slips)
$775.00 per Outer Slip (50 slips)
26' Length By 8.5' Beam Boat Limitation.
pr~nted on recycled paper
Excelsior,
26 Dock Sites For Renter To Install Own Dock (Will
be adding 40 new sites in 2000).
Renter Pays $39.00 per Lineal Foot The Average
Dock Site Cost in 1999 Was $725.00.
Slides and Buoys are also available, see
application.
Minnetonka Beach,
45 Dock Sites For Renter To Install Own Dock.
the 45 sites 86 boats are allowed.)
$85.00 per Boat
(At
Hennepin County,
24 Dock Sites With 65 Tie On Spot's. Renter Has To
Install Own Dock.
7 Commercial Dock Sites For Business to Install
$20.00 per Site.
Deephaven,
76 Dock Sites For Renter To Install Own Dock.
153 Buoys For Sailboats.
18 Shore Spaces For Renter To Install Own Dock.
125 Slides.
26 Canoe Rack Spaces.
$275.00 per Dock Site For Renter Installed Dock.
$185.00 per Buoy.
$ 14.00 per Lineal Foot For Shore Space.
$ 45.00 per Slide.
$ 40.00 per Canoe.
Mound,
383 Dock Sites For Renter To Install Own Dock,
(Includes 46 Dock Sites For Woodland Point.)
59 City Installed Dock Slips At Seven Sites.
4 Personal Watercraft Sites On City Installed
Dock. (Test at one site.)
1 Buoy, City Has Discontinued When Not Renewed.
$150.00 per City Installed Dock Slip Site.
$150.00 per Straight Dock, Renter Installed Dock.
$200.00 per L/T Dock, Renter Installed Dock.
$235.00 per U/H Dock, Renter Installed Dock.
$ 50.00 per Personal Watercraft.
$150.00 per Buoy
I have included materials from some of the other cities for
your review.
~0CT-15-1999 09:04 CITY OF EXCELSIOR 6124746300 P.01
CITY OF EXCELSIOR
;~9 THII~D ,.~TRECl'
EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 553~1
?ELE: 612--474.-5233
FACSIMILE COVER SI:fEET
(612) 474-6300
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET)
COMMENTS:
0CT-1S-1999
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
474.~233
Boat Owner's Name
09:04
CITY OF EXCELSIOR
MN Driver's License No.
APPLICATION FORM -DOCK/BUOY/SUDE RENTAL FOR 1999
Oate
Home Phone
6124746300
P, 02
Address
_ Business Phone
State of Minnesota Boat Registration Number
(A copy of your current MN Department of Natural Resources Watercraft License MUST be attached.).
SUBMIT your completed application form with the specified fee, verification of residency and copy of your MN Department of
Natural Resources Watercraft License to the City Office by Apdl 1st. All information must be submitted with fee. Payment will
not be acceded as security for docldbuo¥/slide rentals.
.NOTE: The City will assign all dock, buoy and slide spaces.
Assigned Locations are subject to change each year.
I ggg Dock/Buoy/Slide Fees
75% of Base
100% Base Sr. Citizen 200% of Base
Doc.___.~ Resident Resident Non-Resident
Dock $ 39 $ 29 $ 78
Buoy 438 329 876
Slide 195 105 390
Buoy & Slide 583 437 1166
NOTE: All rates are based on per lineal fee/with a 15 foot minimum base. Length of treats at doclcs is limited to 24'. The width
limited to r. The mazlmum length of boats at slides is 16'*with a maximum width of 76".
9OAT DIMENSIONS: Length Width
Motor Size HP Inboard Outboard
~ame of Insurance Company
Policy Number
Type of Dockage Requested: Dock
Buoy Slide Buoy & Slide Amount Due
Signature
Senior Citizens must complet~ ~e following information:
I am 62 years old, retired and reside in Excelsior.
MUST BE NOTARIZED
Signature
. being duly sworn, on his/her oath disposes and says that the matters and
facts set forth in the foregoing application are true and signs this affidavit as above named applicant.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this~ day of ,199.._.
Notary Public
Oc~'15-99 09:29A P.01
CITY OF TONKA BAY
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Jim Fackler, City of Mound
Fax: 472-0620
Clare T. Link, Administrative Assistant
October 15, 1999
City of Tonka Bay Dock Fees (1999)
Commercial Docks
Base fee $125.00
Yearly renewal 100.00
Per slip 4.00
Municipal Docks
Residents
Non-residents*
(21 foot maximum)
Bumper material
600.00
900.00
3,25 per foot, plus tax
Boat Slides
Residents 100.00
Non-res{dents 150,00
(16 foot maximum)
Canoe Rack**
Residents 50.00
Non-residents 75.00
'We have a waiting list of 65+ residents for municipal docks, so there is never an
opportunity for a non-resident to have a dock.
· 'Although we offer a canoe rack, there isn't much of a demand for it.
MEMO.
0¢T-15-99 FRI 09:21
DEEPHAVEN CITY HALL
FAX NO,
16124741274
01/04
This Fax Transmission is from thc CiD' of
GREENWOOD
Shared Municipal Office Building
20225 Cottagcwood Road, Deephaven MN 55331
Phonc: (612) 474-4755
Fax: (612) 474-I274
WOODLAND
Time: 9 g fi' ~) PM
TO: ~'- t -¥--~'~-
Number of pages being sent, including this cover sheet
SUBJECT:
Original Sent Via Mail I ] Yes
I No
00T-15-99 FRI 09:16 ~M DEEPH~VEN 0ITY H~LL FR× NO. 16124741274 P, 07
September 28, 1999
DFFPHAVEN
Questions - Call City Hall
474-4755
Dc~ Watercraft Space Holder,
Enclosed, is your waercraft space card(s) for the 2000 boating season. Only pcrsoas with assigned
watercraft space will receive a renewal card(s). Persons on the waiting lists will remain on the lists and will
no longer need to renew their position on the waiting lists every year.
PLEASE COMPLETE & RETURN THE ENCLOSED CARD(S) TO THE CITY HALL ON OR
BEFORE NOVEMBER 15, 1999
- ENCLOSE PAYMENT - Based on fees below - Make Check payable to City of Deephaven
- INCLUDE THE BOAT LICENSE # AND DESCRIPTION ON THE CARD!
LATE PENALTIES OF 50% ARE APPLIED AFTER NOVEMBER 1 5, 1999.
Deephaven
Mail To: City of Deephaven
20225 Cottagewood Road
MN 55331
2000 fee schedule
CLASS "A'; PERMITS
Docks
Buoys
Shorespace
~LASS "B" PERMITS
Slide~/Street end Slides
Canoe racks
275.00 - dock per season /~-~'/~ 7'
185.00 - buoy per season /6,'~..~1~ ~
14.00 -foot length of shoreline
45.00 - slide per season
40.00 - canoe rack per season
PERSONS WITH A BOAT SPACE 900.06 Subd. 2
In accordance with the code of Ordinances, Chapter 9, "City Watercraft Spaces", the City of
Deephaven notifies you that your permit for space will be renewed only if the required application
(card) and the permit fee(s) are received or post_marked on or before November_ 15, 1999, or on or
before November 20, 1999 if the applicant also pays a late fee equal to 50% of the normal fee.
Applications which are not received or postmarked on or before November 20, 1999 will not be
accepted.
If you have any questions, please call Shelley at 474-4755.
Cihy Offices; 20225 Co~agewood Road, Deephaven, Minnesota 5533~ (612) 474-4755
Public WorkdBuilding lnsp~ch'ons (612) ~74-4759
0CT-15-@@ FRI 00:14 fiH DEEPHfiVEN CITY HfiLL FfiX NO, 15124741274
APPLICATION FOR BOAT DOCKAGE PERMIT 1999
TO RENEW YOUR SPACE YOU MUST RETURN THIS APPLICATION & RENTAL FI:'E NO LATER
THAN MARC;II 15, '1999.
P, 02
Print full name of person to whom boat is registered and permit will be issued.
Address
Telephone Number
REQUIREMENTS: GREENWOOD ORDINANCE 425.t$
Be the owner of the boat - The applicant is identified as the sole owner of record on the title
card for the watercraft issued by the State of Minnesota, or the United States Coast Guard.
Submit a copy of Drivers License along with application.
Submit a copy of the watercraft title card for the watercraft with the application.
Submit proof of current watercraft liability insurance in the name of the applicant.
Provide a description of the watercraft.
MAKE MODEL
LENGTH BEAM YEAR
BOAT LICENSE NO. MN .Insurance Company_
,,YOUR .199'9 SPACE' ','
DOCK# _ _. SHORESPACE# LOCATION 'I
********************** ****************************************************
The undersigned hereby makes application for permit approval to dock the boat as described at the
Municipal Docks or other approved land site pursuant to City Ordinances.
Date Signature
The City of Greenwood Council has established a fee schedule for the 1999 season as follows:
Municipal Docks ..................... $400.00
Shore Space ........................... 200.00
RENEWALS: Return this application along with the fee no later than March 15,1999
425.10 FAILURE TO RETURN APPLICATION AND FEE BY MARCH 15, 1999 SHALL CAUSE APPLICANT TO
LOSE PRIORITY IN DOCK SLIP PERMIT ASSIGNMENT.
RETURN TO:
CITY OF GREENWOOD
20225 COTTAGEWOOD ROAD
DEEPHAVEN MN 55331
00T-15-@9 FRI 09:24 DEE?HAVEN 0ITY HALL r, u~/u~
NO, ]~]24741274
CITY OF D.R. EPRA.~N
WATERCRAFT SIZE RESTRICTIONS
900,07
Subd. 1, C. TiASS~'.S OF PERMITS The City will issue two classes of permits for City
Space: Class A permits for docks, buoys and shorespace, 'and Class B permits for slides,
canoe racks and other watercraft space. The permits will' authorize only the following
watercraft at the following City spaces:
· _ClaSS A PERMITS
(a) Buoys may be used only by sailboats at least 16 feet in length and not more than 25
feet in length.
(b)
Docks may be used only by powerboats at least 16 feet in length and not more than
24 feet in length which are no more than 8 feet, 6 inches in width. Sailboats, canoes
and watercraft without motors are not permitted at City docks.
(c)
Shore space may be used only by boats at least 16 feet in length and not more than
34 feet in length which are no wider than the width of the shore space and any dock
allow. No dock on a shore space may exceed 40 feet in length.
CI,ASS B PERMITg
(A)
(b)
Slides and street-end slides may be used only by boats of not more than 16 feet in
length with no motors other than outboard motors. No boat may be kept at a slide
unless it is of a size and weight that permits the owner to pull the boat from the
water manually.
Canoe racks may be used only for canoes, and for small boats such as rowing
shells, sailboards used for windsurfing and the so-called "sunfish" or "laser" boats
so long as the watercraft does not exceed the width of the rack and does not
interfere with the use of the rack for other permitted watercraft.
This Ordinance was adopted in April of 1992
The slides (pallets) along the shoreline are 16 feet wide. 3
Boats on the slides can not exceed 5 feet in width.
boats share each slide.
BI':ILEST
00T-15-9@ FRI 09:22 ati
DEEPHaVEN CITY HaLL
FaX NO,
16124741274
O4/04
Section 4~5:00
-' .ORDINANCE NO. 10g
~N ORDINANCK OF TT4E CITY_OF GR~F. NWOOD, MINNI~.SOTA
AM3:~NDINC, GRF~FNWOOD ORDINANCI::. CODI:~ SECFION 4?5:00
CITY WATE. RCRAIeI' SPACES
CITY COUNCIl. OF ~ CITY OF GREFNWOOII, MINNESOT~ DOES ORDAIN:
S~CTfON l. Greenwood Ordinance Code Section 425:00 et seq is hereby amended to read:
"Section 425:00. Purpose. The City of Greenwood maintains municipal docks on I~ke Min.uetonka
to provide for docking facilities, primarily for residents of the City of Greenwood who do not own
lakeshore properties.
Section 425:05.
Subd. 1.
Subd. 2.
Subd. 3.
Subd. 4.
Subd. 5.
Subd. 6.
r~esignated r)efinition~. The following definitions apply to this ordinance:
]59_a~g Season. "Boating Season" means the period from May 15 to October
15 of a given year in regard to all docks and shore spaces owned, operated, or
controlled by the City.
Wat~r~:raft Space Permit. A "Watercraft Space Permit" means a permit to
moor or dock one watercraft at thc Greenwood municipal docks or other
assigned location for one boating season.
Resident, A "Rcsiden/" is an individual who resides within the boundaries of
the City of Greenwood, Minnesota, and has declared it to be their residence to
the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety as evidenced by their
Minnesota Drivels License or Identification card.
Immediate Past Watercraft Space Permit Holder:. A "Immediate Past
Watercraft Space Permit Holder" means a watercraft owner who held a
watercraft space permit for the immediate preceding, boating season.
Watercraft. "Watercraft" means a boat at least 14 feet in length and not more
than 23 feet in length whose beam or width shall not exceed 8 feet 6 inches.
Immediate past watercraft space permit holders whose watercraft identified on
their 1997 watercraft space permit violates this subdivision shall not be denied
renewal of the permit for non-conformance of the same watercraft,
W~tercraft Space. A "Watercraft Space" means a dock or shore space located
at municipal property, the use of which requires a Watercraft Space Permit.
0CT-1~-99 FRI 09:1~ ~M
DEEPHRVEN OITY HaLL
FaX NO, 16124741274 P, 04
Section 425:00
Second Priority: Off-shore Greenwood residents non-immediate past
watercraft space permit holders.
Third ~iority: Lakeshore Greenwood residents immediate past watercraft
space watercraft space permit holders.
Fourth Priority: Lakcshore Greenwood residents non-immediate past
watercraft space permit holders.
Fifth Priority: Non-residents of thc City of Greenwood.
Sixth lh-iority: All persons whose application was not timely filed.
Subd. 3,
Watercraft Space Prefercn.ces:
Thc City shall not be obligated to assign or continue thc assignment of a
specific watercraft space nor grant requests for a specific watercraft space.
Permittees may, however, request relocation to a specific watercraft space and
thc City Clerk's office may grant the request, space permitting. In the event of
competing requests, the seniority of thc respective watercraft space permit
holders shall control.
Section 425:15. Application Requirements, An applicant for a watercraft space permit must:
(a) Complete the application form and pay in advance the requisite fee.
Establish residency by submitting their Minnesota driver's license or Minnesota state
identification card to the Greenwood City Clerk for inspection.
(c)
Submit a photocopy of the_w..a.t, erc. r.aft title card of the watercraft with the application,
provided that, in the event the applicant is destined for the waiting list and does not
own a watercraft at the time of application, thc applicant must have a watercraft titled
in their name within five (5) days of notice from the City Clerk that the applicant is
eligible for a watercraft space permit.
(d)
Provide a complete description of the watercraft including make, model, length, beam,
draft, horsepower, powertrain type, year of manufacture, and Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources License number.
¢)
Proof that thc applicant holds a current policy of third party watercraft liability
insurance in the name of applicant.
0CT-15-99 FRI 09:15 aM DEEPHAVEN CITY HALL FA× NO, 16124741274 P,
05
Scctio~ 425:00
Section 425:25. Expiration of Permit and Removal of Watercraft, All watercraft space permits
'shall .expire at thc end of thc boating ~ason. Watercraft shall be removed from watercraft space
pcrrnits on or before thc cnd of thc boating season. Subsequent to thc end of thc boating season, thc
City may impound all watercraft remaining in watercraft spaces. All impoundment and storage cost
incurred by thc City shall be payable by thc watercraft owner and/or pcrmittcc,
Section 425:30 Special Conditions and Provisions for l.~kc Access 1 ors.
Subd. 1.
Thc City of Greenwood holds interest in various public right-of-way and other
properties which abut public waters of Lake Minnetonka (apart from thc
municipal dock site). Thc subdivisions scl forth below state special conditions
and provisions related to thc identified lake access lots.
Subd. 2.
The usc of that certain public access lying westerly of Meadville Street located
between prope~y tax ID parcels 2611"/2332-0004 and 261172332-001l is
subject to thc following terms and conditions: the City may offer watercraft
permits hercat for up to two (2) watercraft. Thc City shall not bc responsible
for providing any docking facilities at this site. Boatlifts (to bc supplied by the
watercraft pcrmittcc) may be used under permit issued pu~uant to Section 425
et seq. Thc City may refuse permits for watercraft or boatlifts because of size
considerations. Any watercraft space permittce that desires to place a boatlift
at this assigned site shall request preapproval from the City Clark's office. Thc
watercraft permit fee for this site shall be one-half that scl for watercraft
permits at the municipal dock. Watercraft spaces hereat shall bc reserved to
sailboat, to a maximum length of 16 feet with flat bottom, mooring subject to
the fight of 1997 watercraft space permittecs, at this site, to renew their permits
for watercraft of similar size and type in subsequent boating seasons. All
renewal applications must be timely made pursuant to Section 425 ct seq.
Subd. 3. (Reserved.)
Section 425:35. Parking. It shall be unlawful to park any trailer or vehicle used in thc transportation
of boats upon any public parking space or adjacent to any public ground witltin thc City of
Greenwood, without obtaining written permission of the Greenwood Gouncil. Any vehicle used for
the transportation of boats or any boat dock, trailer or fish house which shall be parked, placed, kept,
or abandoned on, or which shall obstruct any public street, highway, or other public property, may be
seized and impounded by any authorized officer or employee of the City.
Section 425:40. I aunching. No person shall launch or remove from thc waters of lake Minnctonka
any watercraft requiring or utilizing a trailer of similar conveyance for thc transportation when such
launching or removal requires crossing over or through property owned by the City of Greenwood,
except as specifically authorized by the City of Greenwood, and then upon such fees as may be
established by the City Council from time to time.
0CT-15-@9 FRI 09:16 AH DEEPH~VEN CITY HALL IrA× NO, 16124741274
Section 425:00
Section 425:45. Swlmming. ~. No person shall swim, or water ski fi:om the Greenwood
municipal docks. Fishing is permitted, provided proper precautions are taken so as not to interfere
with thc normal operation of watercraft~ or otherwise damage water, aft moored or docked at the
municipal docks. No person shall swim or fish from or near the City dock, which is dangerous or
shall unduly disturb the health and welfare of other citizens of the City.
Section 425:50. T.ittering. No person shall deposit, th. row, or leave any refuse, cans, bottles, paper,
or other discarded material of whatsoever kind or nature on or near the municipal docks or the
public lands f. rom which the municipal docks emanate nor throw said materials into the waters of
Lake Minnetonka."
SF. CI"ION 7.
Rffective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication according to law.
ADOPTED by thc Greenwood City Council on q/0,~o,a~,~
paper of thc .l.akcshorc Weekly News on ¥..~v,~^~]l~ 15'
.19 ~, and published in the
,19_ill_.
ATrEST:
Alan M. Albrecht, Mayor
Sandra R. Langley, City~;le~Administrator
00T-15-99 FRI 09:17
DEEPHaVEN CITY HRLL
NO,
16124741274
P, 08
CHAPTER 9.
900
DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY WATERCRAFT SPACES
CITY WATERCIL&FT SPACES
900.01 Definitions
Sub& 1. Watercraft
Subd. 2. Public Shoreland
Subd. 3. Watercraft Space
Subd, 4,' Waiting List
Subd. 5. Boating Season
Subd. 6. Permittee
Subd. 7. Auxilia. ry Watercraft
Subd. 8. Owner of Watercraft or
Aircraft
Subd. 9 Property Owner
900.02 Construction of Docks, Etc.
900.03 Aircraft
900.04 Launching and Removal
900.05 Mooring of Watercraft
900.06 Permits
Subd. 1. Classes of Permits
Subd. 2. Requirements for Permit
Subd. 3. Waiting Lists
Subd, 4. Retaining Mooring Space
Use of Watercraft Space
Subd. 1. Rights not Assignable
Subd. 2. Use Required
Subd. 3. Use During Boating Season Only
Waiver of Permit
Revocation
Tags
900.07
900.08
900.09
900.10
00T-15-99 FR! 09:17 RH DEEPHRVEN OITY HRLL FRX NO, 16124741274 P, 09
CHAPTER 9. CITY WATERCRAFT SPACES
SECTION 900 CITY WATERCRAF'r SPACES
900.01 Definitions. For purposes of this Section, the following terms will have the
meanings ascribed to them in this Section:
Subd. 1. Watercraft. "Watercraft" means any motorboat, sailboat, rowboat,
canoe or other water conveyance of any type.
Subd. 2. Public Shoreland_. "Public shore, land" means any land abutting on
the shore of a lal~e or other water course, which land is owned, leased or
otherwise under the operation or proprietary control of the City.
Sub& 3. Watercraft Space. "Watercraft space" or "space" means any dock,
buoy, slide, canoe rack, shore space or other facility for watercraft, owned,
operated or controlled by the City.
Subd. 4..Waiting List. "Waiting list" means the list of applicants for permits
for watercraft space, as compiled by the City according to this Section.
Subd. 5. Boating Season. "Boating season" means the period from April 1 to
November 1 of a given year in regard to all docks, buoys and shore spaces
owned, operated or controlled by the City and the period from April 1 to
November 15 of a given year in regard to all slides and canoe racks owned,
operated or controlled by the City. The City's St. Louis Bay ramp will be
dosed during the period from June 1 through Labor Day because of its
proximity to a swimming beach.
Subd. 6. Permi_~ee. "Permittee" means the person to whom a permit has
been issued according to this Section.
Subd. 7. Auxiliary Watercraft. "Auxiliary watercraft" means a small
watercraft or dinghy used to travel between the lakeshore and a buoy at which
a larger watercraft is moored.
Subd. 8. Owner ol~ Watercraft or Aircraft. "Owner" as applied to watercraft
and aircraft, means a person who holds leg~ title to a watercraft or aircraft is
the subject of a lease or conditional sales contract with right of possession
vested in the lessee or conditional vendee, then the lessee or conditional
vendee will be deemed the owner.
900-1
OOT-15-@@ FRI 00:17 fiH DEEPHfiVEN CITY HfiLL Ffi× NO, 18124741274 P,
Subd. 9. Property Owner. "Property Owner" means the fee owner of land in the
City or the beneficial owner of land in the City whose interest is primarily one of
possession and enjoyment in contemplation of ultimate ownership. The term
includes purchasers under a contract for deed.
900.02 Construction of Docks. Etc. No person may construct, install or erect any wharf,
boathouse, dock, buoy, canoe rack or other facility for watercraft moorh~g or storage
upon any public shoreland, except with prior written consent of the City.
900.03 Aircraft. No person or agency -- except public safety related as approved by the
Deephaven Police Chief-- may keep, operate or park any aircraft within the City or on
any waters within the Ci£y or within the harbor limits of the City, except within a
private garage.
900.04 Launching and ~Remc~val. No person may launch a watercraft or remove it from
the water, over, across or upon public shoreland if the watercraft requires or utilizes a
trailer or simil~ conveyance for transportation over land, except at the times and places
designated by the Cotmdl and except upon payment of such fees as may be established
from time to time by the Coundl.
900.05 Mooring of Watercr. off. No person may moor, place or store any watercraft at
any City space or at any road, street or railroad bridge or abutment, without first
securing a permit as provided in this Section. A permit for the keeping of a watercraft at
a City buoy will authorize the permittee to moor an auxiliary watercraft to the buoy at
times when tt'~e primary watercraft is not moored to the buoy. All watercraft and
auxiliary watercraft kept at a City space must be licensed by the State ,'md must have tl-~e
State license number displayed on the watercraft as required by law.
900.06 Permits. Permits issued under this Section will authorize an owner of the
watercr,'ff-t to whom the pennit is issued to keep a specified watercraft at a specified
space for the specified boating season as provided in this Section. In addition, a permit
for a buoy will authorize the mooring of one auxiliary watercraft to the buoy at times
when the primary watercraft is not moored to the buoy.
Subd. 1. Classes of Permits. The City will issue two classes of permits for City
Space: Class A permits for docks, buoys and shore space, and Class B permits for
slides, canoe racks m~d other watercraft space. The permits will authorize only
the following watercraft at the fo]lowing City spaces:
Cla.~.~ A Permits.
(a)
Buoys may be used only by sailboats at least 16 feet in length and
not more thaa~ 25 feet in length.
900-2
00?-15-99 FR! 09:18 AM DEEPHAVEN O!TY HALL FA× NO. 16124741274 P. 11
CD)
Docks may be used only by power boats at least 16 feet in lenshh
and not more than 24 feet in lenghh which are no more than $
feet, 6 inches in width. Sailboats, canoes and watercraft without
motors are not permitted at City docks.
(c)
Shore space may be used only by boats at least 16 feet in length
and not more than 34 feet in length which are no wider than the
width of the shore space and any dock allow. No dock on a
shore space may exceed 40 feet in length.
Class B Permits.
(a)
Slides and street-end slides may be used only by boats of not
more than 16 l%et in length with no motors other than outboard
motors. No boat may be kept at a slide unless it is of a size and
weight that permits the owner to pull the boat from the water
manually.
Co)
Canoe racks may be used only for canoes, and for small boats
such as rowing shells, sailboards used for windsurfing and the
so-called "sunfish" or "laser" boats so long as the watercraft does
not exceed the width of the rack and does not interfere with the
use of the rack for other permitted watercraft.
Subd. 2. Requirements for Permit.
(a)
Property Owners, as defined in Section 900.01, Subd. 9, will have
first priority for permits issued under this Section. Persons who
are not property owners will be entitled to a permit for a type of
space only i.f a space is available after issuance of permits to all
property owners who have requested a permit for that type of
space. I/an owner of a residential dwelling unit rented to a
tenant has not applied for a permit, the tenant may apply for the
permit and may be treated as the property owner for purposes of
this Section. If more than one person owns a lot or parcel of
land in the City, the first property owner to apply for the permit
will be considered as the sole property owner for purposes of this
Section.
Co)
No person will be issued more than two permits for a boating
season, and no person will be issued more than one Class A
permit for a boating season. Not more than two permits, and
not more than one Class A permit, will be issued to persons
residing in any one residence.
900-3
00T-15-99 FRI 09:18
DEEPHRVEN CITY HALL
F~× NO, 16124741274
P, 12
(c)
(d)
(e)
Applications for a new permit or renewal of an existing permit
for a boating season must be received in writing by the City or
postmarked on or before November 15 of the preceding year, or
on or before November 20 ff the applicant also pays a late tee
equal to 50% of the normal fee. On or before October 1 of each
year, the City will give written notice to all persons issued
permits for that year that they may renew their permits for the
following year. The notice will state that the permit must be
renewed on or be£ore November 15, or on or before November
20 if a late fee is paid equal to 50% of the normal fee. A permit
will be issued or renewed only if the required information form
and the permit fee are received or postmarked on or before
November 15, or ff the information form, the permit fee and the
50% late fee are received or postmarked on or be£ore November
20. Applications which are not received or postmarked on or
be£ore November 20 will not be accepted. If the amount of a
dock fee cannot be determined before the required payment date,
a minimum deposit must be made on the basis of an estimated
normal fee of $75.00, plus any late fee.
A permit will be issued only to a person who is an owner of a
watercraft for the keeping of only that watercraft at a designated
space, except that a permit for a buoy will in addition authorize
the mooring of an auxiliary watercraft to the buoy at times when
the primary watercraft is not moored to the buoy.
The information to be filed with the City in connection with a
permit will be on a form provided by the City and will include
the name of the person to whom the permit will be issued, the
name of each owner of the watercraft, the address of land in the
City owned by each such person, the address of each such
person's residence, a description of the watercraft for which the
permit will be issued, including its dimensions and State
registration number, a description of the space requested, and
such additional information as the City may from time to time
require. If the description of the watercraft and its State
registration number are not known or available on the date the
permit is issued, such information will be filed with the City
before using the space. The information form also will include a
written statement by the person to whom the permit will be
issued that such person is a bona fide owner of the watercraft
and that the ownership was not acquired for the purpose of
900-4
00T-15-99 FRI 09:19 RH DEEPHRVEN CITY HRLL FRX NO, 16]24741274 P, 13
qualifying thc watercraft for use of the space as required by this
Section.
No new permit will be issued, and no existing permit will be
considered renewed, until the City has received payment of the
recluired fee as set forth in Section 405.05.
Subd. 3. Waiting Lists.
Applicants for permits will be added to the appropriate waiting
list or lists according to the order in wl'dch their written
applications are received by the City. The City will maintain
separate waiting lists for the following types of space: (1) buoys,
(2) docks, (3) shorespace, (4) slides, (5) canoe racks, and (6) other
watercraft space. A.person may apply for any or all of the
different types of watercraft space, but no person will be included
on any one waiting list more than once.
Subd. 4. Retainin_e Mooring Space
(a)
On or before October I of each year, the City will give written
notice to all persons with actual mooring space and unless they
confirm their desire to remain on the mooring space on or
before November 15 their name will be dropped from the list.
Each wafting Hst and the list of current holders of permits will be posted by
City Hall.
900.07 Use of Watercraft Space.
Subd. 1..Rights not Assignable. No person may keep a watercraft in a City
space without a valid permit issued under this Section. No person may keep
at such space a watercraft other than the one specified in the information
form filed with the City, except that an auxiliary watercraft may be kept at a
buoy as provided in this Section. No person may assign or sublet any rights
under a permit or allow his space to be used by any other watercraft space.
Subd. 2. Uso. Requir~.d.
(a)
If a watercraft space for which a permit has been issued is not
used 60 days or more for the keeping or mooring of a watercraft
as authorized by the permit, the City may refuse to renew the
permit. If a permit is not renewed because of the permittee's
failure to use the space to the extent required h'~ this paragraph,
the permittee may appeal to the Council for reconsideration of
the permit denial. Any such appeal must be filed in writing
900-5
T-!5-99 FRI 09:19DI:_EPH iVEI,] CITY Hi LL NO, 16124' 41274 P, 14
0:,)
(c)
with the Clerk witlxin 30 days after the refusal by the City to
renew the permit. The appeal, must specify arty reasons for
objecting to the City's decision and any mitigating circumstances
or other facts relating to the permittee's failure to use the space.
The Council will hear the appeal at a regular meeting and will
consider any written or oral information presented by the
perrrdttee and the City staff. After ~:onsideration of such
information, the Council will affirm or reverse the decision not
to renew the permit.
If a watercraft space for which a permit has been issued is not
used for the keeping of a watercraft in accordance with the
permit prior to June 15 of the boating season for which the
permit was issued, the City may revoke the permit, by mailed
written notice to the holder of the permit. The City may then
issue a permit for that watercraft space to the next person on the
waiting list entitled to the space upon payment of the full fee for
the permit. The holder of the permit revoked under this
paragraph may appeal to the Council for reconsideration of the
revocation. Any such appeal must be filed in writing with the
Clerk within 10 days after mailing of the City's notice of
revocation. The appeal must specify all reasons for objecting to
the revocation and any mitigating drcumstances or facts relating
'to the failure to use the space prior to June 15. The Council will
hear the appeal at a regular meeting and will consider any
written or oral information presented by the permittee and the
City staff. After consideration of such information, the Council
will affirm or reverse the revocation of the permit. If the permit
is revoked, the permit fee will be refunded in full. If the
revocation is reversed, the original permit will be reinstated and
the permit issued to the next person on the waiting list will be
null and void. Any permit fees paid by the next person on the
waiting list will be refunded if the revocation is reversed by the
Council.
At any time prior to expiration of the rights to appeal set forth in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subdivision, a person may apply for
a variance from the 60-day provision of paragraph (a) and/or the
June 15 provision of paragraph (b), by written application to the
Clerk stating the facts, circumstances and hardships which
would support the requested variance. If the Coundl
determines that there are circumstances which would create
undue hardships for the permittee if the 60-day and/or June 15
provisions are strictly enforced, the Council may grant an
900-6
OOT-15-@@ FRI 09:20 RM DEEPRRVEN OITY RRLL Fa× NO. ]812474]274 P. 15
appropriate variance to the permittee. The variance may be
limited to a specific watercraft and may be subject to time
limitations or other conditions as may be imposed by the
Council. If there is no time limit on the variance, it will apply
each boating season thereafter unless other conditions of the
variance are not met.
Subd. 3. Use D~zri. ng Boating Season Only. A space may be used only during
the boating season, as defined in Section 900.01, Subd. 5.
900.08 Waiver of Permit. A permit holder, or a person entitled to a new permit,
may waive the right to such permit for one boating season or any part thereof by
written notice to the City prior to Iune 15 of the boating season for which the permit
is to be issued or was issued. The City may then sublet the space to the person with
highest priority on the waiting list for that type of space for that boating season, or a
specified portion thereof. If such written notice is given prior to June 15 of the
boating season in question, the original permit holder will then be entitled to renew
the permit for the following year and the person who sublet the space will be
returned to the same priority on the waiting list. If written notice is not given by the
person entitled to the permit (or by the permit holder if the permit has been issued)
prior to June 15 of the boating season for which the permit is to be issued, or was
issued, then the person entitled to the permit, or to whom the permit was issued,
will lose all rights to the permit and all rights to any priority on the waiting list for
that type of space. No person will be allowed to waive the right to either a new
permit or renewal of an existing permit for two consecutive boating seasons.
900.09 Revocation. The City may revoke a permit for any violation of the
provisions of this Section or for failure of the permit holder to use a space during a
boating season. A permit also may be revoked for violation of the City's ordinances
establishing harbor limits and prohibiting nuisances in the harbor limits.
900.10 Tags. Whenever any watercraft or airplane without an operator is found in
violation of th~s Code, the police officer or other authoz~zed person finding it w/il
take its registration number and any other information which may identify the
permittee or owner and affix conspicuously to the watercraft or airplane a written
notice specifying the violation and the date, time and place of any required
appearance. The occupancy of any City space, or the operation or use of a watercraft
or airplane, in violation of this Section is prima facie evidence that the watercraft or
airplane was at the lime of the violation moored, controlled, operated and used by
the permittee for a watercraft for which a permit has been issued, or by the owner of
an airplane or watercraft for which a permit has not been issued.
900-7
PARK COMMISSION MEETING 8-8-91
ADD-ON:
AGENDA ITEM 5
Recap of Five-Year Plan
Dock Fees
(12-4-90)
YEAR STRAIGHT L or T U or H
1987 $ 85 $135 $160
, 1988 100 150 180
1989 120 170 205
1990 135 185 220
1991 150 200 235
1992 165 215 250
Memorandum
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
To: Mound City Council, Planning Commission and Staff
From: Loren Gordon, Assistant City Planner
Date: October 11, 1999
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Schedule
Fran, the end of the year is approaching for the submittal of the Comprehensive Plan to the
Metropolitan Council for review. Based on our discussions, I would like to suggest the following
schedule to meet the deadline:
October 25th PC meeting - Review Drat~ Comprehensive Plan including Surface Water
Management Plan
October 26th - 29th -- Submit Drat~ Plan to adjacent communities and school district for review
November 1't COW meeting (Monday) - Review of the Comprehensive Plan
November 8th PC meeting - Hold the Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing forwarding a
recommendation to City Council
November 9th CC meeting - Set Public Hearing to adopt Comprehensive Plan
November 23~ CC meeting - Hold Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing
December 29th or before - Receive review comments from adjacent community and school
district review
December 31= or before - Submit to Metropolitan Council before December 31, 1999 for
approvals.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838
Page 1 of 1
FLEISINGER
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
Ioren <lgordon(~hkgi.com>
Kris Linquist (E-mail) <MOUND5341(~!aol.com>; Fran Clark (E-mail) <fleisinger(~msn.com>; Jon
Sutherland (E-mail) <jbg2155(~aol.com>
Fdday, October 15, 1999 9:24 AM
ADOPTION.DOC
Comprehensive Plan schedule
I've attached a word file with the Comprehensive Plan schedule. Let me know
if there are any changes needed.
thanks,
Loren
10/15/1999
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
OCTOBER 28, 1999
Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Norman Domholt, Tom Casey, John
Beise, Christina Cooper. Also present was Park Director Jim Fackler. Absent and
excused was Leah Weycker.
Peter Meyer opened the special meeting at 7:30 pm.
1. Acquisition of the Rex Alwin Property
Peter Meyer reviewd the letter received from Leah Weycker and stated that
Commissioner Casey wrote up a draft resolution regarding the Rex Alwin Property.
Commissioner Casey stated he would like to move the resolution for discussion.
Motion made by Casey, seconded by Beise to discuss the proposed
resolution to amend the City of Mound Comprehensive Plan. Motion
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Casey stated that Mound is 91% developed and that there is a need to
require parks and open space. He stated that not much has been done since 1990.
Commissioner Domholt questioned if that includes undeveloped wetlands like Lost
Lake and if that is part of the 9% or is it 9% that can be developed that is not. He
stated he would like to know what is developable.
Commissioner Casey explained that there is not much open space left in Mound and
would like a inventory of the properties in Mound that are undeveloped.
Park Director Fackler stated that information might be available from City Planner,
Loren Gordon.
Chair Peter Meyer asked how is was determined that the the City of Mound is
presently 91% developed.
Commissioner Casey stated that the comprehensive plan from 1990 stated Mound is
presently 91% developed and ten years have passed. Casey stated that percentage
must have gone up due to the loss of Pelican Point and Teal Point. Casey asked if
an updated percentage of developed land could be determined.
Commissioner Casey addressed to the Commission stating that the house on the
property of Rex Alwin is patterned after a Slickly home and the architecture is outlined
in a book written in 1912. Casey then showed the Commissioners a copy of the
subdivision map received from Rex Alwin. There was discussion about the quality of
the 27 acre property.
Commissioner Casey addressed Rex Alwin concems with the lack of trust his has with
government and the property to be private and stated he feels the City of Mound has
not done a good job in the past with the city projects and he does not have great
confidence that the city can pull this off but stated the city is well meaning and
sincere and would like to see this property be preserved.
Commissioner Casey addressed the abstract title showing the history of land. The
first conveance can from the United States and sold lots off of government land in
1856.
Chair Peter Meyer pointed out that Leah Weycker in he~ absents is very supported in
trying to find a way for the city to acquire the property.
The following is a memo from Leah Weycker and a draft resolution to amend the City
of Mound Comprehensive Plan.
To: Parks and Open Space Commission
Jim Fackler
From: Leah Weycker
Re: Rex Alwin Property
Oct. 27, 1999
I am sorry that I can not attend the POSC special meeting on Oct. 28. I wanted
my feelings on the acquisition of the Rex Alwin property to be in the record.
I have been on the POSC for almost 3 years and I have heard about this property
since then. This is the last substantial piece of property left in our city which is 9 1%
developed. The fact that we are Iow on overall park land makes this a significant
parcel. The POSC has always looked for ways to offer Mr. Alwin information on land
conservation easements or other ways for him to retain his land without being taxed
out of it. Well, the time has come that he put the untouched land on the market and
we must act now or loose the opportunity to acquire this land forever. The historical
value of this property has not been researched but is clearly a property of immense
historical value. The "big woods" and architectural significance is worth immediate
research on the part of the city planners. That is my first recommendation.
My second recommendation - I believe that we need to talk to Mr. Alwin and the
realtor, as soon as possible, to let them know that the city is interested in the property
and wants more information. I understand that Mr. Alwin, himself, is a wealth of
historical information. Who built the house? Why has this old woods been preserved
for as long as it has? How did he acquire the property? There are many questions
about what he is willing to do by way of protecting the land. City planners, Loren or
Bruce, would have a better understanding of what we could offer him if we couldn't
afford to purchase the land now.
Thirdly, there needs to be a discussion about what this property is and can be
used for. If the historical value indicates that we should purchase the land, what
other agencies might be willing to contribute to the purchase of the property?. Does
this old woods and architecture tie in with the old Lost Lake channel we dredged?
(They are around the same time in history-1911/19067) Is there a tourist "destination"
right here in Mound? Could the Westonka Historical Society be operating out of the
house there? Could the Senior Center conduct tours of the land from the house or a
new meeting center/wedding hall on these beautiful, acres of nature?
2
I visit friends that live in Deer River, Minnesota and have been told of the "Big
Woods" north of their home. It is a tourist- attraction that draws many people. Some
day, I too will visit the 'Big Woods". Will it be so close to my home?
These are my recommendations and suggestions. This property is worth the
immediate attention of our community.
RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE
CITY Of MOUND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Mound is presently 91;/o developed, retaining only
small remnants of its original ecosystems;
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Section of the 1990
Comprehensive Plan states:
"... Mound is presently 91% developed." (Page 71)
"Natural park-hke areas" are the number 1 pdority for recreational
facilities. (Page 82)
"... more natural open space areas are needed." (Page 83).
"Mound should expand its existing ownership of nature areas and
open space." (Page 85)
WHEREAS, the City of Mound Park and Open Space Commission is
concerned about the loss of native habitat throughout the wodd and recognizes
that ethical consistency requires local efforts to protect and restore native
habitat;
WHEREAS, on January 22, 1990 the Mound City Council proclaimed the
1990's to be the "Decade of the Environment";
WHEREAS, the 27-acre property owned by Mr. Rex Alwin contains an
excellent example of the rare "Big Woods" (maple-- basswood) ecosystem, of
which less than 1% remains in Minnesota;
WHEREAS, the Rex Alwin property contains historical buildings and
landscap, es which provided inspiration for two paintings by Terry Redlin, one of
America s most popular painters; and
WHEREAS, the Rex Alwin property is presently listed with a real estate
broker for immediate sale;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the City of Mound Park and Open Space Advisory Commission
recommends that the Parks and Recreation Section of the 1999 City of
Mound Comprehensive Plan contain the following language:
"The Cityof Mound should immediately use its best efforts to acquire the
27-acreRex Alwin property for: (1) preservation of its natural features as
an exemplary Nature Conservation Area; and (2) preservation and '"
restoration of its historical buildings."
That a copy of this resolution be forwarded immediately to City Planner
and the City of Mound Planning Commission for inclusion in the 1999
Comprehensive Plan.
3
Motion made by Casey, seconded by Beise that the Park and Open
Space Advisory Commission approved the proposed resolution to
amend the City of Mound Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried
unanimously.
Discussion continued between Advisory Commissioners in regards to what use
the open space could be used for. Chair Peter Meyer asked Parks Director,
Jim Fackler to check with the City Planners on what we could offer Mr. Alwin if
the city could not afford to purchase the land at this time.
Commissioner Casey suggested writing a draft letter to Mr. Alwin stating the
Park & Open Space Advisory Commission thoughts on what could be done
with the property also inclose a copy of the minutes.
Motion made by Meyer, seconded by Cooper to adjourn the meeting
at 8:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
4
To: Parks and Open Space Commission Oct. 27, 1999
Jim Fackler
Leah Weycker
Rex Alwin Property
From:
Re:
I am sorry that I can not attend ~e POSC special meeting on Oct. 28. I wanted
my feelings on the acquisition of the Rex Alwin property to be in the record.
I have been on the POSC for almost 3 years and I have heard about this property
since then. This is the last substantial piece of property left in our city which is 91%
developed. The fact that we are low on overall park land makes this a significant parcel.
The POSC has always looked for ways to offer Mr. Alwin information on land
conservation easements or other ways for him to retain his land without being taxed out of
it. Well, the time has come that he put the untouched land on the market and we must act
now or loose the opportunity to acquire this land forever. The historical value of this
property has not been researched but is dearly a property of immense historical value. The
~big woods" and architectural significance .is worth immediate research on the part of the
city planners. That is my first recommendiltion.
My second recommendation - I believe that we need to talk to Mr. Alwin and the
realtor, as soon as possible, to let them know ti'mt the city is interested in the property and
wants more information. I understand that Mr. Alwin, himself, is a wealth of historical
information. Who built the house? Why has' this old woods been preserved for as long as it
has? How did he acquire the property? There.are many questions about what he is willing
to do by way of protecting the land. City planners, Loren or Bruce, would have a be=er
understanding of what we could offer him ifwe'couldn't afford to purchase the land now.
Thirdly, there needs to be a discuss'ion about what this property is and can be used
for. If the historical value indicates that we should purchase the land, what other agencies
might be willing to contribute to the purchase oFthe property? Does this old woods and
architecture tie in with the old Lost Lake channel we dredged? (They are around the same
time in history-1911/19067) Is there a totu:ist ~destination~ right here in Mound? Could
the Westonka Historical Society be operati.~g out of the house there? Could the Senior
Center conduct tours of the land from the house.'or a new meeting center/wedding hall on
these beautiful, acres of nature?
I visit friends that live in Deer Riv~} Minhesota and have been told of the ~Big
Woods'north of their home. It is a tourist attra~on that draws many people- Some day, I
too will visit the ~Big Woods~..W,ii it be so dose..to my home?
These are my recommendations and suggestions. This property is worth the
immediate attention of our community.
Draft #2
RESOLUTION TO AHEND THE
CITY 0F MOUND C~f~~IF~ PLAN
~HEREAS, the Parks ancl Recreation Section of the
1990 City of Mound Comprehensive Plan describes the 15-acre
"COn-unity center" site as approximately 1/2 of the =oral ~
inventory of "community playfields" within the city of Mound;
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Sec=ion of the
1990 city of Mound Comprehensive Plan states in part, "The
goal of this plan is to provide recreatiunal opportunities to
meet the needs of all Mound residents" (see page 71);
WHEREAS, the "community canter" site ia in the process
being sold to a private developer~
WHEREAS, the citizens of Mound have adequately
demonstrated at several recent public meetings that the
"community center" site is an invaluable public asset; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound is in the process of updating
the 1990 Comprehensive Plan to reflect the current needs o~
our citizens; and
WHeReAS, the "community center" site and o~her
government-owned parcels have zoning classifications that are
inconsistent wi~h their existing use;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
That the City of Mound Park and Open Space Advisory
Co~mission recommends that the Parks and Recreation
Section of 1999 City of Mound Comprehensive Plan contain
the following language:
"The 15-acre "community center" site should be
retained as public land for park and recreational
purposes. If necessary to protect ~he propez~y
from being developed by a private owner, the City
of Mound should use all available legal tools,
including the power of eminent domain. In the
event that the City of Mound does not have adequate
fund~ to purchase this property, the City of Mound
should hold a bond referendum at the earliest
possible date."
"The Mound City Council should amend the
Zoning Code to establish a zoning classification
and land use controls for open space areas owned by
government entities."
That a copy of this resolution be forwarded immedlately
to City Planner and the City of Mound Planning Commission
for inclusion in the 1999 Comprehensive Plan
recommendations.
Draft #1
10/23/99
RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE
CITY OF MOUND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Mound is presently 91% developed,
retaining only small remnants of its original ecosystems;
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Section of the
1990 Comprehensive Plan states:
1. "... Mound is presently 91% developed." (Page 71)
2. "Natural park-like areas" are the number i priority
for recreational facilities. (Page 82)
3. "... more natural open space areas are needed."
(Page 83).
4. "Mound should expand its existing ownership of nature
areas and open space." (Page 85)
WHEREAS, the City of Mound Park and Open Space
Commission is concerned about the loss of native habitat
throughout the world and recognizes that ethical consistency
requires local efforts to protect and restore native habitat;
WHEREAS, on January 22, 1990 the Mound City Council
proclaimed the 1990's to be the "Decade of the Environment";
WHEREAS, the 27-acre property owned by Mr. Rex Alwin
contains an excellent example of the rare "Big Woods" (maple-
basswood) ecosystem, of which less than 1% remains in
Minnesota;
WHEREAS, the Rex Alwin property contains historical
buildings and landscapes which provided inspiration for two
paintings by Terry Redlin, one of America's most popular
painters; and
WHEREAS, the Rex Alwin property is presently listed with
a real estate broker for immediate sale;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the City of Mound Park and Open Space Advisory
Commission recommends that the Parks and Recreation
Section of the 1999. City of Mound Comprehensive Plan
contain the following language:
"The city of Mound should immediately use its best
efforts to acquire the 27-acre Rex Alwin property
for: (1) preservation of its natural features as an
exemplary Natur9 Conservation Area; and (2)
preservation an~ restoration of its historical
buildings."
That a copy of this resolution be forwarded immediately
to City Planner and the City of Mound Planning Commission
for inclusion in the 1999 Comprehensive Plan.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
October 29, 1999
City Council and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SUGGESTED CHANGES TO CITY CODE
SECTION 320
Attached are the minutes and related information from staffs introduction to the advisory
commissions of the suggested changes to City Code 320.
Please note the suggested changes came about as a result of the negative citizen reactions to the
$75.00 fee in addition to the redundancy of the renewal process. An item that receives a permit
will generally outlast the duration of the permit (10+ years longevity vs 3-5 years permit cycle).
Essentially the proposal only streamlines and does not change what has historically been approved
by the council. Collectively the commissions comments were positive and supportive.
The Dock and Commons Commission's main concern is that the requirement or need for a four-
fifths vote should be reviewed by the council.
The Planning Commission thought "structural repair" should be clearly defined, that 320 should
be consistent with the use plan and procedure manual as once the ordinance was changed there
could be some stairways installed that were not really necessary (the proposed section states that
if you have a dock you automatically could get a stairway).
The Park Commission (who should be applauded for there request for me to attend more that one
meeting for discussion of the changes to which I resisted due to the fact that I needed to get further
direction from the council), comments began with a concern with plantings that may spread and
block access. Staff is not proposing any changes to 320:00 Subd.4.whigh regulates plantings.
If there are existing plantings or issues that inhibit public access they will be addressed on a case
by case basis and may be observed more readily by the proposed annual site inspection and report.
printed on recycled paper
Subd. 1: was discussed questioning to what lands would 320 apply? Generally it applies to a
dedicated commons and not for instance to a road fight of way. 320 could be clarified by the
attorney when it comes to this issue and I will be ready to explain examples at the COW meeting.
Subd.4: was the subject of some language modification to include shrubs or other vegetation.
Subd.5: language modification to encourage a shared stairway. This could also be incorporated
into the use plans for a specific area.
Subd.7,B: it was suggested to change commons to lands.
The issue of amortization language was suggested however this is an issue that staff has suggested
in the past that historically has not been utilized. The issue of tying encroachments to the property
owner was discussed and the attorney can assist in addressing this problem. A general discussion
of what has been our experience over time should be included. My experience tells me that tying
anything to the dock permit gets pro active attention from the person involved and also eliminates
the need to discuss the issue with the council. A followup letter was also received with regards
to amortization and the formal link between the encroachment and the perpetual property owner.
This is more information for the city attorney to advise and the council to discuss.
Please find the suggested ordinance amendment 320.05 and a copy of our current ordinance
section 320. I look forward to this discussion.
Enclosures
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 9, 1999
Park Commission
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
PROPOSED CHANGES TO CITY CODE SECTION 320
You have requested that I attend tonight's meeting in order to answer questions raised
relating to the suggested ordinance amendments to section 320 and commisioner Casey's
memo of July 9"'. I am not ready to bring anything back until myself and the City Planner
compile the initial information and comments from each commission and report back to
the City Council. We will also include the input of the City Attorney prior to going to the
council. The Ordinance will not be presented for any changes without your continued
input.
Essentially the proposed amendments were well received and staff did get some good
feedback that needs to be addressed. It is likely that we could report to the council and
get some direction by the end of October. Please call me directly if you have any
questions regarding our progress and I will try to keep this issue high on the priority list.
JS:
pr~nted on recycled papet'
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
August 12, 1999
4. REVIEW: ENCROACHMENT POLICY
Commissioner Meyer stated no new draft has been done yet.
Commissioner Casey presented the following memo, which was sent to Building Official
John Sutherland on July 9, 1999:
"Last evening the Mound Park and Open Space Advisory Commission discussed the
proposed revisions to Mound City Code Section 320.00, during which time we discussed
legislative changes to the city's power to "amortize" non-conforming uses. For your review,
I have enclosed Chapter 96 of the 1999 Minnesota Legislative Session Laws. In my
opinion, this new law does not affect the city's ability to remove or amortize encroachment
on its own property.
Unfortunately, the proposed ordinance provides little guidance about how to remove or
amodize encroaching structures. As we discussed at last evening's meeting, it is best to
draft ordinance language that specifies the criteria to consider when deciding to remove
a structure or other encroachment. What are your thoughts about this and could you
describe the criteria the city intends to use? Also, what is your latest advice on the city's
legal power to remove encroachments?
Finally, you mentioned that the city will formally "link' responsibilities for new
encroachments to adjoining property owners in a way that will bind future property owners.
Could you provide a sample legal document that reflects how this arrangement will be
made?
Thanks for your help."
Commissioner Casey stated no answer has been received as yet.
Councilmember Weycker asked if Building Official Sutherland should return to the POSC
with answers to these questions.
Commissioner Casey stated he would like to schedule Sutherland to attend the next
meeting.
Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey to include in the next agenda
a meeting with Building Official Jon Sutherland to hear answers to the
questions raised at the July 8, 1999 POSC meeting, and in the memo of July
9. Motion carried unanimously
July 9, 1999
TO: Jon Sutherland
FROM: Tom Casey
RE: Proposed Changes to Mound city Code Section 320.
(Private Structures and Private ConStruction Activities
on Public Lands.)
Last evening the Mound Park and Open Space Advisory
Commission discussed the proposed revisions to Mound city
Code Section 320.00, during which time we discussed
legislative changes to the city's power to "amortize" non-
conforming uses. For your review, I have enclosed Chapter
96 of the 1999 Minnesota Legislative Session Laws. In my
opinion, this new law does not affect the city's ability to
remove or amortize encroachments on its own property.
Unfortunately, the proposed ordinance provides little
guidance about how to remove or amortize encroaching
structures. As we discussed at last evening's meeting, it is
best to draft ordinance language that specifies the criteria
to consider when deciding to remove a structure or other
encroachment. What are your thoughts about this and could
you describe the criteria the city intends to use? Also,
what is your latest advice on the city's legal power to
remove encroachments?
Finally, you mentioned that the city will formally "link"
responsibilities for new encroachments to adjoining property
owners in a way that will bind future property owners. Could
you provide an sample legal document that reflects how this
arrangement will be made?
Thanks for your help.
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
July 8, 1999
4. DISCUSS: REVISION TO PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION
Building Official Sutherland presented suggested changes to Section 320 of the City Code,
and requested suggestions for changes from the POSC in order to present these
suggestions in conjunction with ones made by the other Commissions to the City Council.
When presenting these suggested changes to some citizens who were affected, the
response to the $15.00 annual fee was ve~j negative. Building Official Sutherland pointed
out which objections he agreed with, specifically and most often regarding fences which
were put on the commons.
Commissioner Casey pointed out that there is no language pertaining to bushes planted
by residents which spread and eventually inhibit public use or access of commons
property.
Park Director Fackler explained that the fee was arrived at by using the average dollar
amount the City spends on maintenance of encroachments per year, divided by a rough
estimate of how many encroachments exist.
Building Official Suthedand proceeded to address each change as presented in the
redlined copies of Section 320 distributed to the Commissioners. Some discussion
occurred, and the following additional changes and concerns were suggested:
Subd. 1:
Some question arose of what Public Land Section 320 would apply to.
Building Official Sutherland reported that the City Attorney's interpretation
was only for commons land. Park Director Fackler and Councilmember
Weycker disagreed with that interpretation, citing the very first sentence
which reads: "...on any public way, park or commons..."
Subd. 4:
Subd. 5:
Subd. 7,B:
Commissioner Casey suggested the following addition:"...shoreline,
drainage, grade, pitch, slope, trees, shrubs, or other vegetation, or which
require..."
Commissioner Casey suggested adding language to the effect that any time
it is possible to construct a shared stairway, this option would be encouraged
by the City.
Park Director Fackler suggested the following wording change, in order to be
more consistent with the first sentence of the section: "...inspection of each
Public Co~,,ons Lands, evaluate the permitted..."
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission July 8, 1999
Commissioner Casey suggested adding language for amortization of encroachments, as
right now this ordinance is set to allow the encroachments to stay.into infinity.
Building Official SUtherland stated that the subject ~ amortization has been discussed
no avail in the past. More discussion followed regarding amortization, as follows:
Chair Meyer tabled discussion at 10:00 p.m. Motion made by Casey, seconded by
Cooper to continue the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Councilmember Weycker questioned the definition of amortization as pertains to this
discussion.
Commissioner Casey and Building Official Sutherland provided explanation of amortizing
all encroachments to be off Public Lands in "X" amount of years.
Councilmember Weycker agreed that this should be addressed, as the ultimate goal is tc
have all encroachments off Public Lands in the long run.
Commissioner Boise questioned who owns an encroachment when a citizen sells a hcme
and moves on. If the encroachment is not tied to the property, or included in the closing
documents, the City ends up responsible for these items. Retaining walls are of the most
concern as it can cost the City a lot to repair or replace.
Building Official Sutherland stated that tying these items to the property clearty and
permanently is the answer to that question. This is how the new ordinance would address
this issue. This has not been done well in the past, and needs to be improved.
Councilmember Weycker restated her concern that there is no guideline on how to go
about having all encroachments removed over time.
Commissioner Casey questioned the time flame, and whether this discussion could be
tabled to the next meeting.
Building Official Sutherland stated the comments need to be entered into the minutes
tonight, and then reviewed and passed on to the Council. Also, additional written
comments could be submitted.
Chair Meyer tabled discussion at 10:30 p.m. Motion made by Domholt, seconded by
Casey to continue the meeting 5 additional minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mouncl Planning Commission Minutes
June 28, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orr Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hesse,
Michael Mueller, and Frank Weiland. Absent with notice: Commissioners Jerry Clapsaddle and
Bill Voss; Council Liaison: Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building
Official Jon Suthedand, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson.
DISCUSSION
Section 320:00 - verbal report from Sutherland. Sutherland reported that this regarded an
ordinance that regulates public land usage. Concern was raised that went to a task force and
out of the task force comes the modifications he is discussing. He wanted the Planning
Commission to have a chance to hear the changes and comment. Once enacted, he will be
asked to enforce the new ordinances.
Sutherland has met with over seventeen customers and with the Dock and Commons
Commission. Some of the Commons are for use by the general public and other Commons are
for specific neighborhoods. Permits will need to be issued for encroachments on these lands.
Any new regulations will require a City Council approval unless in the land use plans.
Mueller suggested that in Subd. 3, "structural repair" needs to be very clearly defined to avoid
confusion or issues at a later date.
Weiland indicated that Subd. 1 and Subd. 5 should be consistent in what vote is required from
the City Council for approval of changes/uses. Mueller also indicated that Subd. 5 needs to be
consistent with the Use Plan. He has a further concern that by adopting this prior to adopting
specific commons use plans could lead to other issues. He feels that the specific use plans
should be looked at first,.
Sutherland indicated that he would entertain comments from the Planning Commission to
recommend that staff consider the impact of adoption of this ordinance prior to the review and
update of specific use plans first since these plans need updating. The other option would be to
have a motion to prevent any new structures on the Commons until the Use Plan is reviewed
and modified as needed.
Weiland asked the following question: if he didn't have a boat and was located on lakeshore,
could he still have a stairway to get down to the lake.
Burma stated that perhaps a mor'atodum would be a good thing to avoid these types of issues.
Sutherland stated that the docks are approved only once a year. It was suggested that no
manipulation of the system should occur prior to the update of the Use Plans.
Further, it was suggested that the Use Plans and the Procedure Manual need updating and
perhaps could be accomplished with joint commission meetings.
Mueller suggested language changes to Subd. 7, Paragraph B that he felt would allow staff
act more effectively.
Sutherland indicated that this code embodies the zoning codes.
i~(~/.~- .... MOTION'by-w-eii~ndi"se..con~'ed by Muellerto adjourn the'Planning commission
meetinal at 8:44 p,.m;'~OTION CARRIED: 6-0. '
Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission May 20, 1999
Building Official Sutherland explained the proposed changes allow staff more freedom to
deal with many of the issues without having to come before the Commission and/or
Council.
Commissioner Ahrens asked if current boathouses on common space had to apply for
repair permits. Building Official Sutherland stated the permit was still needed but would
be handled at a staff level and only extreme cases with numerous concerns would be
brought before the Commission and/or Council.
Building Official Sutherland reviewed the one-time permit for Building Code issues as being
stairways and decks. He stated the Procedure Manual and Current Use Plan both need
updating with comments from the Planning Commission, Docks Commission, and Park
Commission.
Building Official Sutherland stated he would provide a status report to the Council every
year in June to advise them of any corrective action that would be needed. He stated an
update of the Procedure Manual and Use Plan would allow staff to be better prepared to
handle issues at a staff level.
Mayor Meisel stated that after reviewing the current Ordinance with Mr. Sutherland, she
was amazed at the paperwork and "hoops" that residents were having to go through. She
encouraged the Commission to allow staff to regulate these issues with the residents.
Mayor Meisel added she didn't want to see over regulation in this area due to the fact staff
can handle these situations.
Commissioner Ahrens stated the changes were ideal f~r these situations. He explained
the intentions were still the same within the Ordinance but the "hoops" were eliminated for
the residents.
Beth Anderson, 3001 Brighton Boulevard, stated a number of the encroaching structures
within the City were preexisting before the current owners moved into the area. She stated
she would tear down her encroached fence before paying the $15 fee because it would not
be worth it.
Robert Anderson, 3001 Brighton Boulevard, thanked Mr. Sutherland for his work on this
issue and for keeping the residents in mind when revising this policy.
Commissioner Goldberg applauded the efforts of staff and the Mayor on this Ordinance.
He stated common sense simplified the process for all involved.
Building Official Sutherland asked the Commission to allow him to bring this Ordinance to
the Planning Commission and Park Commission for their review, in addition to reviewing
the Procedure Manual and Use Plan.
Commissioner Hanus asked if a four-fifths vote was needed for public property repairs
versus a simple majority for private property. Commissioner Goldberg stated he
2
Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission May 20, 1999
understands the common space procedures and respects the extra protection.
Commissioner Hanus noted the four-fifths vote makes issues more difficult to approve.
Building Official Sutherland explained the four-fifths vote does not happen often. He stated
that birdhouse and retaining walls are much more prevalent and are allowed in the
commons.
CommissionerAhrens asked what other issues require the feur-fifths vote. Building Official
Sutherland stated a Zoning Code amendment is the only issue that requires a four-fifths
vote.
Commissioner Hanus stated the Planning Commission may have a concern with staff
. approved variances. Building Official Sutherland explained staff cannot grant variances
under the revised Ordinance and they would still have to be brought to the Planning
Commission and Council.
Commissioner Hanus asked why retainir~ walls were not included as a staff level issue.
Building Official Sutherland stated these'are complex issues due to the change in grade,
new plantings, and additional landscaping which needs Council approval.
Commissioner Goldberg asked if the flow chart was being incorporated into the new policy
at this time. Building Official Sutherland stated this was in the policy at this time but the
Commission will have time to review this Ordinance again at a later date.
Motion by Funk, seconded by Goldberg, to forward the revised encroachment
ordinance to City Council and other commissions, in addition to directing staff
to work with the City PlaClner to propose revisions to the Procedure Manual
which will be moved to the June meeting after review from staff.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Ahrens asked that the four-fifths vote from Council be changed to a simple
majority of the Council. Chair Funk stated he would be in favor of this amendment.
Substitute motion by Funk, seconded by Goldberg, to forward the revised
encroachment ordinance with a simple majority vote required, to City Council
and other commissions, in addition to directing staff to work with the City
Planner to propose revisions to the Procedure Manual which will be moved
to the June meeting after review from staff. The motion passed unanimously.
3
TO: Dock & Commons Commission 5-20-99 EXHIBIT A
Mound Ci~Code
Section 320 - Private Structures and Private
Construction Activities on Public Lands
Section 320:00
Section 320:00. Special Permits for Certain Structures on Public Land.
Subd. 1. Construction on Public Land Permit..Construction of any kind on any
public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way,
park, or commons, is unlawful unless a special construction on public land permit is
issued as provided in this section, by thc CiD· Council Any proposed construction, special
use or land alteration shall require the applicant to provide necessary drawings to scale,
specifications of materials to be used, proposed costs, and purpose for change. All special
permits shall require a survey by a registered land surveyor before a special permit will
be issued. Survey shall comply with the Mound Building Code survey requirements.
Copies of such surveys, drawings, specifications of materials, proposed costs and
statements of purpose shall be furnished to the City and kept on file in the City offices.
No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all the Council
members.
Subd. 2. Tvpes of Construction Requiring a Special Construction on Public Land
Permit. All stairways, retaining walls, fences, temporary structures, stone work,
concrete forming, or any type of construction shall require a special permit. No special
construction permit shall be issued for construction of boathouses or other buildings on
public land under Section 320 or any other ordinance of the City.
Subd. 3. Public Land Maintcnancc Repair Permits. No person shall conduct any
structural repair on ma~tain any boathouse or other structure on public lands without
first receiving thcrc for a special maiztcnancc repair permit from the City in accordance
with this subdivision. Staff recommendations for structural repair shall be consistent with
current applicable zoning regulations. Applications for maintaining repairing existing
boathouses or other structures may be obtained from the Building Inspector at the City
offices. All applications for special maintcnancc repair permits shall be reviewed by the
City Council. The Council shall determine if the maintcnancc repair permit shall be
granted or denied, and may order any structure to be removed. Spccial pcrmits arc
rcquircd for any maintcnancc such as maintaining rctaining walls, stoncwork, concrctc
or othcr typcs of to improvcmcnts on public lands. The Council shall have the right to
impose any reasonable conditions it may deem advisable to protect the public's use of the
public shoreline. All structurcs, rctaining walls, stoncwork, concrctc, or othcr
improvcmcnts on public lands arc rcquircd to havca public land maintcnancc pcrmit from
and aftcr April 1, 1976.
Subd. 4. Land Alteration. A special land alteration permit shall be required from the
City before any alterations are made on public lands which would result in any changes
to the following: shoreline, drainage, grade, pitch, slope, trees, or which require the
removal or placement of any fill, or which eliminates, adds or develops any access road
or land. This section specifically includes any alterations to uses which are nonconforming
on the date this ordinance becomes effective. No special permit shall be issued unless
approved by a four-fifths vote of all Council members.
Structures located on public lands which are ordered removed by the City Council or by
the City Building Official under any code or law may proceed under the supervision and
direction of the City Building Official without the necessity for obtaining removal permits
from the City Council. (ORD. #54-1991, 12-23-91)
Subd. 5. Exceptions to City Council Approval.
1) The installation of a stairway to provide access to an approved dock location is a
recognized need, and does not require the prior approv, al of the Council. The Building
Official may approve permits for the installation, replacement, and maintenance, of
stairways for individual dock site holders. All stairways shall be constructed according
to the Building Code as approved by the Building Official. A permit is required with a
fee to be charged according to the building permit fee schedule in effect at the time of the
permit application. All Permits shall be issued consistent with the Procedure Manual for
Public Lands, the current Use Plan for each area and the Zoning Ordinances as
applicable. General Public Access Stairways are not exempt and require full City Council
approval.
Subd.--5 6. Street Excavation Permit Required. Any permit issued under the
provisions of this Section 320 is in addition to and not in lieu of any street excavation
permit which may be required under the provisions of Section 605.
Subd. 7. Certain Encroachments to continue.
A) All encroachments (structures, buildings, boathouses, decks, sheds, retaining walls,
fences, flagpoles, birdhouses, and other miscellaneous items) existing on April 1, 1976
or that has received prior written Cit~, Council approval (approval consists ora permit or
recognition by City Council resolution or other written Cit~' approval), are hereby
recognized and allowed to continue subject to the following.
B) The Building Official shall conduct an annual inspection of each Public Commons,
evaluate the permitted encroachments for safen, and condition, and issue correction
notices as needed. The Buildine Official shall follow up with a complete status report to
the City Council to be completed each year by the end of June at which time the Council
may advise any corrective action. An,; action or staff recommendations shall be consistent
with The Procedure Manual for Public Lands. the current Use Plan for each area, and the
Zoning Ordinance as applicable.
Subd. 6-.8_ Public Lands Procedure Manual. The City Manager and designated staff
are authorized and directed to promulgate a Public Lands Procedural Manual and to
establish necessary forms and procedures to administer the program and permit
procedures set forth in this Section 320. The manual and procedures set forth in said
manual shall be revised according to these regulations and reviewed and approved by the
City Council by Resolution. The City Council may amend or change the Public Lands
Procedural Manual by Resolution. (ORD. #62-1993 - 4/19/93)
SectiOn 320.05
Continuation of Ccrtain Structurcs constructed on or bcforc April
1, 1976.
2 11-28-98
Subd. 1. Statcmcnt of Intcnt. Thc City finds and dctcrmincs that ccrtain structurca
which wcrc cithcr constructcd or placcd on lakcshorc public commons on or bcforc April
1, 1976, should bc pcrmittcd to rcmain subject to thc provisions contained or rcfcrcneed
in this Scction, Thc structurcs which arc covcrcd by this scction includc buildings
(including boathouscs) platforms, fcnccs, flagpolcs and birdhousc. (" Subjcct Structurc").
~¢ tC~ ;maintcnancc'as uscd in this Scction shall also mcan thc usc or kccping of any
Subject Structure.
Subd. 2. Spccial Pcrmit for Subjcct Structurcs. No pcrson shall eontinuc to
maintain any Subjcct Structurc on lakcshorc public commons without first rccciving a
special pcrmit from thc City Council. Pcrmit application's may bc obtaincd from thc city
building official.
Subd. 3. Critcria for Issuancc. Thc City Council shall issuc thc spccial pcrmit
~CSS it finds an5' of thc following conditions to bc prcscnt:
A. significant safcty problcms cxist which thc structurc's owncr is unablc or
unwilling to rcctif3' within a rcasonablc tirnc pcriod; or
B. safct)' hazards cxist for which thc cost of rcpair is cqual to 50 % or morc of
thc dcprcciatcd rcplaccmcnt valuc of thc Subjcct Structurc prior to rcpair; or
C. thc functional usc of thc Subject Structurc is impaircd such that rcstoration
to functionaliry would cost 50 % or morc of thc dcprcciated rcplaccmcnt valuc of
thc Subjcct Structurc bcforc rcpair;
D. acsthctic appcarancc of thc Subjcct Structurc has bccomc so dcficicnt that
a rcstoration to an acccptablc appcarancc would cost 50% or morc of thc
dcprcciatcd rcplaccmcnt valuc of thc Subjcct Structurc bcforc rcpair.
E. thc structurc significantly hindcrs thc usc of thc public commons by othcrs
and thc owncr is unwilling or unablc to allcviatc thc hindrancc within a rcasonablc
Mound CiD' Codc
Scction 320:05., Subd.
FMdings by thc City Council on thcsc mattcrs shall bc dccmcd conclusivc.
Subd..I. Pcrmit Duration and Fcc. Pcrmits shall bc for a fivc ycar pcriod
commcncing on January 1.of thc ycar of issuancc. Thc fcc shall bc in an amount as sct
by thc council in Scction 510,[$75.00] which is payablc in fivc cqual annual installmcnts
9( .~15-00 cach. Thc first annual installmcnt is duc at thc timc of application and
s3!. )s~equcnt installmcnts arc duc on or bcforc thc last day of Fcbruary of cach ycar during
~.,,tC~ of thc pcrmit. In imtanccs in which thc pcrmit holdcr is also thc holdcr of a city
dock Iiccmc, thc annual dock liccnsc will not bc issued until thc annual installmcnt has
becn paid unlcss thc Subjcct Structurc pcrmit holdcr prOvidcs thc City with a writtcn
statcmcnt rclinquishing all intcrcst in thc Subjcct Structurc and conscnting to its rcmoval
by thc City. Subjcct Structurc pcrmit fccs will bc placed in a scparatc account which will
11-28-98
b~:~edicated to cxpcnditurcs incurred in thc administration and cnforecmcnt of activitics
undcr this Section.
Subd. 5. Transfcr of Pcrmit. Pcrmits issued undcr this scction ma), bc transfcrred
by thc pcrmittec to third panics who bccomc thc owncr and occupant of thc propcrty
primarily bcncfitted by thc Subjcct Structurc. Such transfcr shall not eonfcr to thc
transfcrcc any furthcr rights than thosc hcld by thc transfcror at thc timc of U'amfcr.
Rcqucsts for transfcr shall bc madc in writing to thc City Building Official who shall
approvc thc transfcr in writing unlcss conditions cxist which would constitutc grounds for
action pursuant to subdivision 8 bclow.
Subd. 6. Conditions for Issuancc. Thc City Council may attach conditions to
pcrmits granted undcr this scction. Such conditions may includc, without limitation:
A. a writtcn a~ccmcnt, backed with sccurity dccmcd rcasonablc by thc City
Council, providing for thc rcmoval of thc Subjcct Structurc whcn it is no longcr
undcr pcrmit, and acknowledging thc structurc owncrs obligation to rcmovc thc
structurc and/or pay for thc cost of doing so.
B. A covenant, to bc recorded among thc County land rccords, cxccutcd by
thc applicant in form acccptablc to thc City indcmnifying, holding hannlcss and
agrecing to dcfcnd thc City against any claims bascd upon thc continued
maintcnancc of thc Subjcct Strucmrc.
Su~d, 7. RcPair, Modification and Altcration of Subject Structurc. Exccpt to thc
C~Cnt 'inconsistCnt with thc provisions of this Scction, unlcss provisions undcr SuM. 3
apply, rcpair, modification or altcration of thc Subject Structurc will bc trcated as if thc
Subjcct Strucmrc wcrc a non conforming structurc located on privatc propcrty in
accordancc with thc provisions of Scction 350:420, subdMsions 1 through 8.
~9~.u~...d City ~Codc
Scction 320:05., Subd. 8.
Subd. 8. Tcrmination of Pcrmit. Pcrmits issucd undcr this section may bc
tcrminated and thc transfcr may bc declincd upon a dctcrmination by thc City Council that
any of thc following conditions cxist:
fi.ny of thc critcria dcscribed in Subdivision 3 of this scction arc found to cxist;
B. Thc Subject Structurc has bccn abandoned.
C. Thc pcrmit fcc has not bccn paid.
4 11-28-98
~ Thcrc ~/bccn'~. ~iolation or lapsc 9~ any Condition kn osc'd on thc pc,-mif'
[~/~.~' .~.~'~ilb~[iSu~..~t~tion, thc City may cxcrcisc whatcvcr rcmedy is availablc
[O:,i~ ci,.th..' ~[.'bY ~ntrac~ or at law to securc thc rcmoval of thc Subjcct Structurc.
(ORD. #101-1998 - 11 28 98)
11-28-98
Mound City Code Section 320:00
Section 320 - Private Structures and Private
Construction Activities on Public Lands
Section 320:00. Special Permits for Certain Structures on Public Land.
Subd. 1. Construction on Public Land Permit. Construction of any kind on any
public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way,
park, or commons, is unlawful unless a special construction on public land permit is
issued by the City Council. Any proposed construction, special use or land alteration
shall require the applicant to provide necessary drawings to scale, specifications of
materials to be used, proposed costs, and purpose for change. All special permits shall
require a survey by a registered land surveyor before a special permit will be issued.
Survey shall comply with the Mound Building Code survey requirements. Copies of
such surveys, drawings, specifications of materials, proposed costs and statements of
purpose shall be furnished to the City and kept on file in the City offices. No special
permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all the Council members.
Subd. 2. Tvpes of Construction Requiring a Special Construction on Public
Land Permit. All stairways, retaining walls, fences, temporary structures, stone work,
concrete forming, or any type of construction shall require a special permit. No special
construction permit shall be issued for construction of boathouses or other buildings on
public land under Section 320 or any other ordinance of the City.
Subd. 3. Public Land Maintenance Permits. No person shall maintain any
boathouse or other structure on public lands without first receiving therefor a special
maintenance permit from the City in accordance with this subdivision. Applications for
maintaining existing boathouses or other structures may be obtained from the Building
Inspector at the City offices. All applications for special maintenance permits shall be
reviewed by the City Council. The Council shall determine if the maintenance permit
shall be granted or denied, and may order any structure to be removed. Special permits
are required for any maintenance such as maintaining retaining walls, stonework,
concrete or other types of improvements on public lands. The Council shall have the
right to impose any reasonable conditions it may deem advisable to protect the public's
use of the public shoreline. All structures, retaining walls, stonework, concrete, or other
improvements on public lands are required to have a public land maintenance permit
from and after April 1, 1976.
Subd. 4. Land Alteration. A special land alteration permit shall be required from the
City before any alterations are made on public lands which would result in any changes
to the following: shoreline, drainage, grade, pitch, slope, trees, or which require the
removal or placement of ahy fill, or which eliminates, adds or develops any access road
or land. This section specifically includes any alterations to uses which are
nonconforming on the date this ordinance becomes effective. No special permit shall be
issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all Council members.
Structures located on public lands which are ordered removed by the City Council or by
the City Building Official under any code or law may proceed under the supervision and
direction of the City Building Official without the necessity for obtaining removal permits
from the City Council. (ORD.//54-1991, 12-23-91)
11-28-98
Mound City Code Section 320:00, SuM. 5.
Subd. 5. Street Excavation Permit Required. Any permit issued under the provisions
of this Section 320 is in addition to and not in lieu of any street excavation permit which
may be required under the provisions of Section 605.
Subd. 6. Public Lands Procedure Manual. The City Manager and designated staff
are authorized and directed to promulgate a Public Lands Procedural Manual and to
establish necessary forms and procedures to administer the program and permit
procedures set forth in this Section 320. The manual and procedures set forth in said
manual shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council by Resolution. The City
Council may amend or change the Public Lands Procedural Manual by Resolution.
(ORD.//62-1993 - 4/19193)
Section 320.05
Continuation of Certain Structures constructed on or before
April 1. 1976.
Subd. 1. Statement of Intent. The City finds and determines that certain structures
which were either constructed or placed on lakeshore public commons on or before April
1, 1976, should be permitted to remain subject to the provisions contained or referenced
in this Section. The structures which are covered by this section include buildings
(including boathouses) platforms, fences, flagpoles and birdhouse. ('Subject Structure').
The term 'maintenance'as used in this Section shall also mean the use or keeping of any
Subject Structure.
Subd. 2. Special Permit for Subject Structures. No person shall continue to
maintain any Subject Structure on lakeshore public commons without first receiving a
special permit from the City Council. Permit applications may be obtained from the city
building official.
Subd. 3. Criteria for Issuance. The City Council shall issue the special permit
unless it finds any of the following conditions to be present:
A. significant safety problems exist which the structure's owner is unable or
unwilling to rectify within a reasonable time period; or
B. safety ha:,~rds exist for which the cost of repair is equal to 50 % or more
of the depreciated replacement value of the Subject Structure prior to repair; or
C. the functional use of the Subject Structure is impaired such that restoration
to functionality would cost 50 % or more of the depreciated replacement value of
the Subject Structure before repair;
D. aesthetic appearance of the Subject Structure has become so deficient that
a restoration to an acceptable appearance would cost 50% or more of the
depreciated replacement value of the Subject Structure before repair.
E. the structure significantly hinders the use of the public commons by others
and the owner is unwilling or unable to alleviate the hinderance within a
reasonable time.
2 11-28-98
Mound City Code Section 320:05., SuM. 4.
Findings by the City Council on these matters shall be deemed conclusive.
Subd. 4. Permit Duration and Fee. Permits shall be for a five year period
commencing on January 1 of the year of issuance. The fee shall be in an amount as set
by the council in Section 510.[$75.00] which is payable in five equal annual installments
of $15.00 each. The first annual installment is due at the time of application and
subsequent installments are due on or before the last day of February of each year during
the term of the permit. In instances in which the permit holder is also the holder of a city
dock license, the annual dock license will not be issued, until the annual installment has
been paid unless the Subject Structure permit holder provides the City with a written
statement relinquishing all interest in the Subject Structure and consenting to its removal
by the City. Subject Structure permit fees will be placed in a separate account which
will be dedicated to expenditures incurred in the administration and enforcement of
activities under this Section.
Subd. 5. Transfer of Permit. Permits issued under this section may be transferred
by the permittee to third parties who become the owner and occupant of the property
primarily benefited by the Subject Structure. Such transfer shall not confer to the
transferee any further rights than those held by the transferor at the time of transfer.
Requests for transfer shall be made in writing to the City Building Official who shall
approve the transfer in writing unless conditions exist which would constitute grounds
for action pursuant to subdivision 8 below.
Subd. 6. Conditions for Issuance. The City Council may attach conditions to
permits granted under this section. Such conditions may include, without limitation:
A. a written agreement, backed with security deemed reasonable by the City
Council, providing for the removal of the Subject Structure when it is no longer
under permit, and acknowledging the structure owners obligation to remove the
structure and/or pay for the cost of doing so.
B. A covenant, to be recorded amoung the County land records, executed
by the applicant in form acceptable to the City indemnifying, holding harmless
and agreeing to defend the City against any claims based upon the continued
maintenance of the Subject Structure.
Subd. 7. Repair, Modification and Alteration of Subject Structure. Except to the
extent inconsistent with the provisions of this Section, unless provisions under Subd. 3
apply, repair, modification or alteration of the Subject Structure will be treated as if the
Subject Structure were a non-conforming structure located on private property in
accordance with the provisions of Section 350:420, subdivisions 1 through 8.
3 11-28-98
Mound City Code Section 320:05., Subd. 8.
Subd. 8. Termination of Permit. Permits issued under this section may be
terminated and the transfer may be declined upon a determination by the City Council
that any of the following conditions exist:
A. Any of the criteria described in Subdivision 3 of this section are found to exist;
B. The Subject Structure has been abandoned.
C. The permit fee has not been paid.
D. There has been a violation or lapse of any condition imposed on the permit.
Following notice of such termination, the City may exercise whatever remedy is available
to it either by contract or at law to secure the removal of the Subject Structure.
(ORD. #101-1998 - 11-28-98)
4
11-28-98
DOCKS AND COMMONS COMMISSION
EXISTING ENCROACHMENT
POLICY RECO~NDATION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1997
0 L~8,~£Z L9
WHEREAS, C{ty ordinances approv{ng construction of'currently banned structures existed
as recently as 1973; and
¥¢I-IEREA$, the City holds and manages the lakeshore public commons in trust for the
benefit of all users; and
WHEREAS, such management does not exclude a recpgnition of the unique position of
abutting propen)- owners, especially in instances where those o~ers or their predecessors have
constructed and maintained structures upon tbe ]akeshore public commons in reliance of their
right to do so, and
WHER~tS, the City has the responsibility to mon/tor encroachments to confirm that they
do not hinder safe use o~' the Iakeshore public commons by the public; and
WI~A$, the dock and Commons Advisory Commission is charged with making
recommendations as to policy which the City Council may from time to time consider and adopt
regarding use of the public commons, including regulation of encroachments thereon.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mound Dock and Commons
Advisory Commission hereby recommends that the City Council consider for adoption and
implementation to following policy:
PUBLIC COMMONS ENCROACFIM£NT POLICY
Scope. The policy recommendations contained herein are intended to apply only to lakeshore
public commons and not to other public property in the city,. While a similar policy might be
applicable in those situations, it is bcyond the scope of these recommet~dations.
The policy recommendations also are intended to apply only to encroaching struc~.t'es
which were allowed at the time of construction but which could not be const~'ucted under th~
-city's current re~lations. Th{s would be analogous to nonconforming structures that are not
commons. Specifically this recommendation does not apply to those structures which were legal
at the time of construction and could be legally constructed under current regulations. This
would generally include stairs, erosion control smactures and safety structures such as lighting and
rails. The repair and maintenance of those structures is subject to other provisions of the City
Code.
The most recent summary of encroaching structures (January 1995) indicates that there
are approximately 10 buildings, 13 decks. 10 platforms, g }'ences and a small number (less than
10) of miscellaneous structures such as bird houses and flagpoles, which would be subject to the
policy recommendations contained herein.
POLICY- A.
Encroachinff structures should eventually be eventually
removed.
Existing encroaching structures which violate the use plan should eventually disappear
from the public commons.
The removal of encroaching structures should not be hastened, but
should be subject to the conditions ~ontained in Parat, raph C
The ci~ should not deny approval to maintain a structure on commons which would
otherwise be approved for nonconforming structures that are not on commons.
Ce
Only in special situations should the removal of a structure be
hastened.
Four situations which would allow for proactive steps to hasten removal are:
Significant safety problems exist that the structure's ov,~er is unable or unwilling
to rectify within a reasonable time period.
2. The life of the structure has come to an end.
The life of the structure will be deemed to have come to an end when an)- of the
following circumstances occur:
ao
safety hazards exists for which the cost of repair is equal to 50% or more
of the fair market value of the structure before repair.
the functional use of the structur~ is impaired such that restoration to
functionality would cost 50% or more of the fair market value of the
stmc~e befog repair.
aesthetic appearance of the structure becomes so deficient that the
restoration to an acceptable appearance would cost 50% or more of the fair
market value of the structure before repair.
The structure significantly hinders thc use of the commons by others and the
owner is unwilling or unable to alleviate the hinderance within a reasonable time.
Any of the above conditions exist and no one is willing to accept ownership of or
responsibility for thc structure.
~O/~O'd
2
De
The per_mit process for structures should be continued both as a
means of monitorln~ encroachments and as a source of revenue,
throu~,h permit fees. to underwrite enforcement efforts.
The permit period should be increased from three years to five years; and should b¢
transferable if thc abutting property changes hands providing the criteria for continuation of the
structure are present. A permit fee should be charged for each structure wlxich would be
collected in five annual installments of $t5 each.~ In instancei in which the permit holder also
receives a dock license from the city. the dock license would not be issued until both the annual
installment and the dock license fcc were paid (provided that ownership of the encroachment is
not in dispute). The structure fee would be carried in a separate fund in the dock fund and would
be used for enforcement and administration.
Maintenance and Repair requests should be reviewed and acted
.upon usin? the same criteria as that used for the repair and
maintenance of nonconformint, structures pursuant to Section
350:420 of the Code (assuming, that the structure would not.
v
following repair, come within any of the circumstances described
in para~,raph C above.
This policy l:nzrmits maintenancc and repair of non-structural elements of the structure
only, structural work would not be permitted.
Fe
The owners of encroachin? structures should be made legally
responsible for the structure throu~,h the use of legal
encumbrances and other means available to the City.
The decision flow chart as shown in Attachment A and the guidelines for writing staff
reports should be amended as shown in AttacbZn.e.n.tB so that both ,,'ill be consistent with these
recommendations.
Although beyond the scope of th,is recommendation, it is suggested that the fee be made
applicable to all encroachments on thc public commons.
FROPOSED R~VI$ION$ (AS IT AP?LIES TO LAKZSHORE
COMMONS TASK FORCE
11-7-96
DECISION FLOW CHART
A~c)pted ~, ~e~olu~oa J93-51, om ApL-l.1 27,
IMPLEMEntING T~E PROCESSING OF SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PRIVATE
STRUCTURES AND ~IVATE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON PUBLIC LANDS
(R~JLAT~D BY CITY CODE SECTION
LAND
NO"L~t A].i pex"m£=a granted s=l ~or a
limited t:Lmm, are transferable, and,
g=ldm.Llflea ~or raneva.L 0£ Pu~l.£c
land l?e~.L~'a {ExAL]01.~. J La the
Procadurm Nanua.LJ.
(;)
~ ~XZSTING
- CONSTE~CT~ON ON
PUBLIC LANDS (ney)
- LAND ALTEIL~TION
($radiflB, retaininB
wa.Lis, =rems, e~=.)
(3)
SF~ARATE
LEGAL REVIEW
IS REQUIRED.
(3.5)
- PUBLIC LAND .~AINTE-
N&NCE (rapatr exisC-
ln~ structure)
- CONTINUATION OF
5TRUCTUP,~ (CO remain
"aS is")
(5)
REQUEST. YES
(9)
Will the
RDen? .',,~r4 Request
.,{,.mpact Off
the ~am Plan?'
Grant ~rmkt up to
NO
DENY REQUEST.
DEVELOP PLAN
ACCORDING TO
PRIORITIES.
IS REQUEST FOR A ~OAT
HOUSE OR OTHER
iULLi3ING?
NO
WILL THE REQUEST
ENHANCE AND ~NCO~RACE
T~ USE OF THE PUBLIC
· LANDS BY TT~E GENERAL
PUBLIC AS DEFINED BY
THE USE PLAN?
YES
(tt)
ENOUtD TIiE CITY
BUILD OR MAINTAIN?
YES ~NO
'* (14)
GRANT PER.~IT UP TO
5 ~EARS AND RENE'JA~LE.
(13)
·
VILL THE REQUEST
ENHANCE AND ENCOURAGE
THE USE OF THE PUBLIC
LANDS BY THE GENERAL
PUBLIC AS UEFINED BY
THE USE PLAN?
NO
(8)
WILL THE REQUEST
RESULT IN A
NEGATIVE IMPACT
ON THE USE P~AN?
(tS)
GRANT PERMIT UP TO ~ ~_
~EARS AND ~ABLE,
P~N. )r~] oTmznc
negacLvm impact Off
the owne~ o~ r~moving
~e' (16)
CZ,,,.NT pE~tT uP TO ~ ~
YEARS, NOT REN~ABL£.
TO RK C~ECKED
ANNUALLY.
PROCEDURE MANUAL - Public Land Permits
Exhibit J
Page 1 of 3
Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports
for Public Land Permits
Staff reports shall be written according to applicable ordinances, regulations, and policies,
including:
Use Plan
Comprehensive Plan
Shoreland Management Ordinance (City Code Section 350:1200)
"Policy for Structures on Public Lands" adopted by Resolution No. 93-142 on October
26, 1993
Recommendations for permissible uses, according to the Decision Flow Chart, such as stairways,
retaining walls, land alterations, etc., will be based on the following:
ao
If a structure is in good condition and meets the building code, staff will recommend to
the City Council permit approval for 5 years.
b. & ¢.: Use a means of enforcement other than withoIding dock permits. Instead, use fines, liens,
special assessments, etc. (Abutters need to be made legally responsible for their encroachments).
If a structure is in good condition but does not meet building code, staff will recommend
approval and the structure must comply with code within the time specified by the City
Council and dock permit will not be issued until structure meets code. If structure is not
corrected or removed within time specified by City Council that dock site will be exempt
from dock license issuance. The permit holder for that structure must remove or correct
the structure at their expense, if not, the City will attempt to abate through legal
channels.
If a structure is in hazardous condition staff will recommend removal or correction
immediately. The Site Holder's Dock License will not be issued until structure meets
code. The dock site will be reserved for the that dock site holder until the structure is
corrected, however, the dock will not receive it's license.
o
Recommendations for uses inconsistent with the Decision Flow Chart and other applicable
regulations shall be reviewed on a case by case basis. R¢commcndations ,^'ill be for tcrmina:/on,
amorti~tion, rcmoval, and rcstoration to natural condition, ns applicablc in thc Usc Plan.
Buildings or other structure may require separate legal review, and the following information
should be assembled: pertinent facts, history, existing conditions, current photos, and a draft
report. This information should be submitted to the City Manager and City Attorney for review,
when necessary.
Rev. 1/27/94, Task Force Draft Revisions 11-26-96
PROCEDURE MANUAL - Public Land Permits
Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports
for Public Land Permits, cont.
Exhibit J
Page 2 of 3
4. Stairways:
ao
New Stairways. All new stairways shall be constructed according to the Uniform
Building Code standards for residential stairways.
bo
Existing Stairways. All stairways existing upon the date of the adoption of this
Procedure Manual (4.-27-93) and that are not deemed structurally unsafe or other~vise
unsafe by the Building Official are considered legal nonconforming uses. Legal
nonconforming uses may have their use continued according to the permit procedures,
provided such continued use is not dangerous to life.
Alterations or Repairs to Existing Stairways. Alterations or repairs may be made to any
stairway without requiring the whole stairway to comply with the building code, provided
the alteration or repair conforms to that required for a new stairway.
Maintenance of Stair'wavs and Other Structures. Ail stairways, both existing and new,
and all parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe condition. The person to which the
permit is issued is responsible for all maintenance. Minor maintenance of an)' currently
pcrmittod .~tairway, dock storage platform, or retaining ,,,,'all can and should bc done
without a permit, but must have prior approval at the discretion of thc homeowner or
upon the direction of thc Building Official. Thc Building Official shall inspect and
approve such rcpair.~. The City shall inspect and approve such repairs where a
/f%~ building permit is required.
~2~ ~I e. Minor Maintenance of Stiarwavs and Ohter Structures Minor maintenance of anv
~/kj~ ~ ~ ~,~/~ _currently permitted stiarwav, dock storage platform, or retaining wall can and
t ~ 0'~t'~sl~°uld be done at the discretion or the homeowner or upon the direction of the
~~./~~ Building Official. Parks Director or Dock Inspector.
/~ ei2_. Correction Orders. All stairways or parts thereof that are determined to be unsafe by
the Building Official shall be issued a correction order to be abated by repair or removal.
Electrical: All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a
qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical
Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan
must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land.
All power supply t-o from the abutting property must be disconnected by a qualified electrical
contractor until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify
disconnection with staff. Pre-existing electrical installations that do not meet code shall be
t, iven thirty (30) davs to be brought up to code.
Expiration Date for Permits: All permits, for each property, will be made to expire
concurrently.
-570-
Rev. ~/27/94, Task Force Draft Revisions 11-26-96
PROCEDURE MANUAL - Public Land Permits
Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports
for Public Lud Pemi~s, cont.
Exhibit J
Page 3 of 3
10.
11.
Minor Maintenance: Minor maintenance of any currently permitted encroachments exizting
ataim'ay, dock storagc platform, or rctaining wall can bc rcpaired without a pcrmit with approval
bg' can and should be made (without a public land permit) at the discretion of the permit
holder or upon the direction of the Building Official, Parks Director, or Dock Inspector. The
Dock Inspector currently writes correction orders for minor items such as loose treads,
handrails, or replacement of boards on docks. The Building Official is to be copied on all
correction orders regarding building code items.
Platforms: Platforms (one edge on-grade) for the use of dock storage, not exceeding 4' x 8',
consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance at 32 square feet, are allowable on Class
A and C Common areas only, due to steep slope and nontraversibility.
Riprap: Riprapping of the shoreline on Lake Minnetonka that is below the 1130 year floodplain
elevation of 931 is regulated by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and below the
Ordinary High Water Elevation of 929.5 is regulated by the Department of Natural Resources.
Permits are required from these agencies before a Public Lands Permit can be granted by the
City of Mound.
Seawalls: Basically the same as riprapping (above). Refer to the Shoreland Management
Ordinance for more regulations.
Vegetation Alterations and Trimming: Refer to the Shoreland Management Ordinance.
Rev. 1/27/94, Task Force Draft Revisions 11-26-96